In the absence of a body, what kind of evidence allows you to be so sure that a missing person is indeed dead (short of the most grusomely obvious) that you are able to charge someone with their murder?

The question assumes of course that to charge someone with murder, you really do have to be very sure that the crime has even been committed, so I am assuming that circumstantial evidence, for example, lack of contact with the missing person, isn’t enough.

Perhaps leave such discussion concerning Grace Millan on a public forum for a bit out of respect for her.

Bad taste IMO – my thoughts are with here family rather than an evidential study.

It’s possible he admitted to it given they had an idea of where to search.

It’s possible he admitted to it given they had an idea of where to search.

Good point; the obvious answer is sometimes the least apparent.

Bad taste IMO

That’s a bit harsh mate.

Fairly relevant question considering the headlines for the last couple of days.

That’s a bit harsh mate.

Well since it’s possible to ask the question without referencing said individual, I edited the post to reflect better taste.

I was wondering the same.  In the end I had to assume that he had admitted to it as I couldn’t see how else they could be sure

I think yes someone can be charged if motive can be established, general examples; argument/feud prior or standing to financially benefit.

In terms of forensic evidence I’d have thought that finding a significant quantity of blood/fluids in the accuseds dwelling/vehicle or on the accused clothing or if the accused had the missing persons possessions and no alibi?

In many cases the police don’t tell the public everything for obvious reasons. That should probably cover the gaps in the public or press version of events.

In terms of forensic evidence I’d have thought that finding a significant quantity of blood/fluids in the accuseds dwelling/vehicle or on the accused clothing or if the accused had the missing persons possessions and no alibi?

I thought the same thing, but then, you can lose a lot of blood and survive. It would have to be a huge amount of blood loss (hence the comment about the ‘grusomely obvious’).

In many cases the police don’t tell the public everything for obvious reasons. That should probably cover the gaps in the public or press version of events.

Yes; what was odd though is that the police were already sure she was dead even before they arrested a suspect. Again, while morbid, I was interested to know how they could be so sure in the absence of a body or otherwise vital body part.

There have been “no body” cases in Scotland. One where a husband reported his wife missing. Evidence there was complete lack of contact from wife with anyone, no bank or phone activity, and the clincher , a fragment of her skull found in the door seal of the washing machine.
A previous gangster killing around 1990 relied on disappearance of victim along with a confession/cooperation from one of several suspects involved.

https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/uk-world-news/how-inailed-the-spanish-hitmanbut-moors-992221

Could also be (though doesn’t sound like it in this case) that someone witnessed the murder and reported it.

you would need significant circumstantial evidence to show the person had been in contact with the accused with other evidence to suggest they hadn’t been seen after.

Things like belongings, DNA, CCTV proving the victim was in the accused home or car. The statement from the accused could also provide circumstantial evidence if their story doesn’t make sense.

Guy I knew quite well at uni was convicted of murdering his ex. Body was never found. He denied it as well.

Not much to link to as it was in 1996, but a search for “Peter Turner murder” turns up a couple of links.

https://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-111427577.html