The conviction doesn't hinge upon finding DNA. With AK, the conviction hinges upon the accused having the intent to commit the crime.
And, it matters because if they misapply the law at any stage, from arrest to trial, an appeals court will overturn the conviction.
As it is, according to the arrest warrant affidavit, the only thing they rely upon to work to 20.04 (a)(4) is a different girl thought he came on to her, not CM. Therefore, if this thing goes to trial as an AK, you are caught in SB says he came onto me, EA denies it.
I think with a murder charge, he's got no wiggle room. I think with a murder charge, you have, "Well, her blood DNA is in your car and she's nowhere to be found after all this time."
Overarching that, I can't find anywhere, in any state, a conviction for Aggravated Kidnapping with no witness or body. Murder without a body, those do exist.
And, again, I think hanging murder over his head, in that state - Texas - gives him more impetus to give up the name of possible third party involvement.
As it stands now, what has he got to gain by talking? If he says nothing, he's got a pretty good dice roll at trial and on appeal on an AK with no body.
I think the difference here is I'm looking way down the line; others are looking for just convicting him at trial. Trial, I believe, will be difficult enough if they are going AK. Appeal would be certain.
It's fine. I take no offense at people disagreeing with me over what the charge should be. I just think they should be going to murder. The AK charge doesn't seem to move the needle for him as far as talking. And, he's the only one, or one of only two, who knows where she is, so you want him to talk. And, I think saving his own hide from the death penalty would really get his needle moving!
uke: