Mark Bridger Trial

[Myriad2112]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-22353735

It was always my understanding that you couldn't have a murder trial without a body or has this law been changed?

[jackthehat]

No, you have been mistaken.

[Davethedog]

"The rule was finally abolished for practical purposes in the UK with the 1954 case of Michail Onufrejczyk"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_conviction_without_a_body

[Booldawg]

looking at the link they had enough forensic evidence for the case to go to trial.

[FredPuli43]

It never was the law that absence of body meant absence of murder charge. If a man with animosity towards the victim admits killing him, has the victim's blood on an axe in his house and on his clothes, and the victim is not seen again, that would be enough. Body, or no body, the case depends on what evidence there is. A corpse proves death but that may be established by circumstantial evidence.

This misconception may be based on misunderstanding, mistranslating, 'corpus delicti', without which no murder is proved. The acid bath murderer,Haigh,is said to have thought that corpus meant "the corpse" and so by dissolving it in acid he could not be convicted. Unfortunately for him "corpus delicti" means the evidence sufficient to prove the crime, the elements of it, much as we talk of the body of evidence proving the case.

[ToraToraTora]

Yes, myth, never been true, many precedents, John Haigh for example in the 40's. There has never been a law. There was a "rule" well not really a rule but more of a ruling, that a conviction was unlikely without a body but not impossible as haigh found out in 1949.

[dave50]

I don't understand in this particular case why a body has never been found if they have the guilty man in custody.

[friedgreentomato]

Well Dave either he is innocent or he is under the belief that he cannot be found guilty without a body!

[Quizmonster]

Basically, Dave, because - if the present accused is indeed guilty - telling the authorities where the body is would be a bit of a give-away and hardly to his advantage. It seems he claims that the child died in an accident in his car and, after that, he can't remember what happened!

[Barmaid]

Dave - he is innocent til proven guilty.

Secondly, the way the prosecution have opened the case seems to be that there is no body because he disposed of it. What the jury will need to decide is whether he murdered her or whether she was killed by accident (which is his case), and then in panic and fuelled by drink and drugs destroyed the body.

[jackthehat]

He claims that he is 'probably responsible for April's death' but denies murdering her.

I imagine his defence team will argue the 'intent' contained in a murder charge cannot be proven especially as there is no body to support this.

[FredPuli43]

The evidence, as opened,seems to be that the girl was last seen alive with him,that her blood was found in his house and on clothing, and that a bone fragment from a child's skull was there.His defence is that he ran her over by accident, when driving. In any case, where a defendant seeks to put an innocent explanation for his actions, or claims accident, the prosecution will counter by showing any tendency suggesting it wasn't, and here the jury have been told that the defendant has previous for related offences.

Hence, no body necessary.

[Canary42]

Evidence seems to suggest he destroyed the body by burning.