I think what I'm saying is that if they couldn't prove the cause of death, you really can't build a manslaughter case. The prosecution has to prove the cause of death and then you have to prove intent in any type of homicide trial. Unfortunately, I don't even think these idiots could prove that. Did she drown? Was she killed? What killed her? if you can't prove that, a manslaughter case is pretty weak as well.
Cleat, I'm not singling you out here, but you make the point others are making that I disagree with vehemently, so I'm responding to your post.
I'm no lawyer, but where is it written you have to PROVE the cause of death. Let me throw out an extreme example....
Husband is heard arguing with his wife.
Neighbors hear yelling and things breaking.
Husband leaves house late at night.
Husband owns boat and is seen "in the vicinity" of the marina late that night.
Husband arrives home in morning, smell of salt water air in his car.
Wife never shows up again.
Isn't it reasonable to assume he killed her and dumped her out with Bin Laden?
Body is never found. Squid food.
Obviously you cannot prove a death here, much less a cause of death. Is this then the "perfect" murder?
What I hear as the cause of such a poor case is that she was missing for so long, that a lot of evidence couldn't be recovered due to the decay of it.
There is something inherently wrong with them benefitting from a lack of evidence particularly when they themselves greatly contributed to that lack of evidence.
