I don't get justice and laws sometimes.

[Plaidman]

Like this story.

http://www.aolnews.com/crime/article...bered/19719499

Young girl that has survived enough hardships in her life is kidnapped, dismembered.

Step mother has been found guilty and admits to faking a ransom letter before for her kidnapping. She even lead police to all locations of her body parts.

However both she and the father who was also found lying, are not being charged with anything. At all. In fact deny knowing anything. Cept you know, location of their dismembered and dead daughter. Obviously had nothing to do with that at all.

So why. Why are they letting these two get away with basically murder. They've all but admited to it.

[Lace Neil Singer]

Cuz they have to have enough evidence of murder to charge them with murder. Otherwise, in court, the case would fall apart. Sucks, but there it is; proof of unlawful killing has to exist to prevent miscarriages of justice. I expect that the autopsy did not show evidence of how death occurred and that's why a murder charge wouldn't stick. These people could say that they found the girl dead and dismembered and buried her corpse in a panic.

I'm sure tho that the police can charge them with abuse of a corpse or unlawful burial, perhaps. I'm sure I've read of similar charges happening in cases where there isn't enough evidence for a full charge of murder.

[Ghel]

It may be that they are still putting together the evidence (literally) and charges may follow in the days or weeks to come.

[Andara Bledin]

If they don't have enough evidence to make the charges stick, they won't levy them at all.

Because we have laws against double jeopardy, they won't bring any charges until they are as certain as possible to get a conviction because if the defendants are found not guilty, then unless substantial new evidence is found, they cannot be tried again.

^-.-^

[lordlundar]

If they don't have enough evidence to make the charges stick, they won't levy them at all.

Because we have laws against double jeopardy, they won't bring any charges until they are as certain as possible to get a conviction because if the defendants are found not guilty, then unless substantial new evidence is found, they cannot be tried again.

^-.-^

^this.

There is a positive note for this though. There is no statute of limitations when a life taken. The police can knock on their door and slap the cuffs on them 10 years later when they get enough evidence. And if you think that doesn't happen, guess again. Those are called "cold cases" and are never ignored.

[Lace Neil Singer]

Or even thirty years.

It's not always possible to tell if a person was murdered or not after the event. Some methods, such as suffocation or smothering, leave no signs that can be detected after a corpse has been buried some time. Therefore, if a cause of death can't be determined, a murder charge can't be brought.

However, charges of another kind can be brought in the meantime. This ensures that the accused can later on be charged with murder if enough evidence is found later on. The case will remain open, as lordlunder said, just in case.

http://business.timesonline.co.uk/to...cle1138193.ece

At the beginning of 1937 everyone believed that Frederick Nodder had killed Mona Tinsley. He claimed that he had put the child on a bus for Sheffield and, because there was no body, he was prosecuted only for her abduction. He was sentenced to seven years’ imprisonment and it was another six months before her body was found. Now charged with her murder, Nodder pleaded autrefois acquit, something that was swiftly rejected, and he was hanged on December 30, 1937.

In this particular case, the police were sure that Nodder had killed Mona. But since there was no body, and no evidence of murder, they were unable to charge him. However, they brought a charge of abduction against him instead.

I expect that in this case, they can bring other charges like abuse of a corpse.