Can anyone here discuss examples of people being convicted of murder where the body was never found? Other countries count too. I seen a few cases in Italy. I think it's bullshit personally, because no matter how strong other evidence may be, there's still no body. There's still no proof that the person is even dead.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_murder_convictions_without_a_body#:~:text=A%20murder%20conviction%20without%20a,of%20which%20have%20been%20overturned.

Depends if there's witnesses. Then their testimony, corroborated by other independent witnesses, can be used as evidence in the absence of a body. The 3 Capos murders, I believe, was solved this way. Several Gemini Crew murders were solved this way with convictions, and the murder of Jimmy Hydell was solved and put on Casso.

I believe you're right, CNote. What you say makes sense.

Actually, the 3 capo murders wasn't solved until Massino flipped, right? Didn't he lead them to the bodies? I don’t know how many of the Gemini crew murders were solved without bodies, if any. I'm not sure about the Hydell murder either. Regardless, I don't care if a hundred witnesses say they knew what happened, there's no concrete proof that the missing person or persons were murdered, they could be hiding or even skipped the country. Even if we are 100% sure in our opinions, there's no proof that the person is dead without a body. I'll be looking more into those cases you mentioned, I'm curious now.

Yeah, you go do that Sherlock! Lol.

You didn't stipulate that the closing of the case had to be within a certain time frame but you're correct the 3 Capos was after Massino came forward. That is the case in the Hydell case as well as Gemini Crew where the testimony of DiNome, Arena and Montiglio were used to close the Scutaro murder and his friends murder as well.
Here's the link to Hydell
https://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/16/...ls-of-murders-for-mob-by-detectives.html

Although, admittedly, obtaining a murder conviction without the benefit of a corpse is rare as well as controversial, through the years it has happened.

In such cases, the use of witness testimony, circumstantial evidence, and forensics have been used to gain a conviction.

I remember this Forensic Files episode where a man disappeared in Texas and all they found was a blood stain in the man's bedroom. Tests concluded the blood belonged to a child of his parents but prosecutors refused to try it without a body until a scientist convinced them that blood should be considered a body part. Ultimately the case was brought to trial and the two suspects were convicted, the first murder case in Texas to be tried without a body but I'd guess there's been more similar cases since.

Okay I remember now, about the insurance policy. They never found him. The article does say how Burton Kaplan detailed the murder, and laid the blame on Anthony Casso, but not whether or not Casso was convicted as a result. I'm thinking Casso ratted himself out when he flipped and admitted to 36 murders.

If they find bloodstains, DNA or other evidence at the crime scene the body is not necessarily.

That can still sometimes be controversial, but DNA evidence is mush more the "smoking gun" prosecutors feel comfortable with.

Yes, I can still see how some really good defense lawyers could twist that DNA evidence around and claim that it's still not proof that a murder occurred.

It's also different in other countries in the US you have a jury, of ordinary people, in Italy or Holland the judges themselves decide about the evidence