Darcyline
New Member
- Joined
- Dec 17, 2010
- Messages
- 1,300
- Reaction score
- 8
My issue with proving whether a crime has been committed or not is the fact that it is much harder to prosecute if there is no proof of a crime. I don't mean proof as in "we really strongly feel a crime was committed"-REAL evidence that can be presented to courts. If not a body, then blood, a struggle, or other stuff. Their case becomes exponentially more difficult if no one can prove that she is even dead or not voluntarily missing. And yes, ridiculous to think she would be voluntarily missing, but all it takes is a shadow of doubt in a court case. It frustrates and upsets me that we may not have any actual, concrete evidence that a crime has occurred. It just makes proving that crime happened a lot more difficult, if not impossible. There have been murder trials with no bodies, of course, but there is usually compelling evidence otherwise (blood, confession, other outstanding circumstances).