Body not needed for conviction (Ed Treleven, Wisconsin State Journal)
The jury last week was unable to reach a verdict for Eugene Zapata. He was accused of killing his wife 30 years ago, but there are no traces of her body. Dane County prosecutors are undecided as to retry after having the latest mistrial.In the past when it comes to bodyless murder cases, 1989 Homberg from Stoughton was charged with the murder or his wife after just 5 hours of jury deliberation. Also,2001 Dan Kutz was accused of murder of his wife with no body as evidence. All the cases in the Dane County area were the killing of wives in difficult marriages. Debora Denno has found that these types of cases are not always marriages. For example the Manson case, in which a ranch hand was killed. The court said "the government need only prove a crime has been committed." The main problem with bodyless cases is that the jury has to come to a total agreement and in the Zapata case there were 10 guilty, 1 not guilty and 1 undecided.
In these types of cases its very hard to know exactly who killed the missing person. Its more likely when there are divorces or promotions and so on involved but how do you really know how the person was killed and by whom. It's sad that all the court needs it to prove it yet, how can you prove someone is even dead without seeing the body? It's also surprising that there are even six cases that were bodyless murder convitions in Wisconsin. I think that the court should be able to convict these people on these three facts. First, If the missing person was a spouse and there was a divorce. Second, if the missing person didnt take any belongings with them and absolutely no one has heard from them. And third, if there are people that can testify that the person on trial and the missing person had a terrible relationship and that he/she had a reason for killing the missing person. In conclusion it's possible but I think its very hard to convict a murderer if you don't have the body.
3 comments:
I think it is entirely possible to convict someone of murder without a body. If it can be proven that the victim did not just run away and that the defendant had a motive to kill, they should be able to be convicted. As stated in the article these points can be proven by looking into driver’s license records, passport records, credit cards, bank accounts, Social Security activity, mental health history and family relationships. In the Zapata case, the victim, Jeanette Zapata was becoming financially independent, had plans for divorce, and was also seeking custody of her children. With things in her favor it is very unlikely she would have just left. This said, I think Eugene Zapata did kill his wife. There are other solid points that can be proven without a body; points that are capable of conviction. I think Zapata should be retried and found guilty for the murder of his wife… even if there is no body.
It seems wrong that someone could be convicted of murder when there is no proof that the victim had died and no evidence to prove guilt. At the same time, that would let a lot of murderers off the hook when they kill and dispose of the body to make sure no body can be found. In body less murder cases, the other evidence in the case is obviously what should be examined more closely. For example in the Zapata case, Jeanette Zapata was successful with an increasing income and going to file for divorce. That could be enough of a motive for Eugene Zapata to kill, but I don’t think that alone should be enough to convict Zapata. Other concrete evidence needs to be proven before suspected murderers are convicted only because of the fact that they didn’t have a very good relationship with the victim. Because of this it is, unfortunately, very hard to convict a suspected murderer without a body as evidence.
I believe that in today's courts, with all the forensic information out there that it is possible to prove a murder without a body. You do not necessarily need to show a body to prove that someone is dead Like this most recent case in the article, the lady has been missing for 30 years. People don't just go missing for 30 years, with no trace or being identified by someone. In cases that are clear the missing person was murdered someone has to take the responsibility for it. The courts can use things like breaking alabies, having witnesses to relationships, and finding a motive. I believe that the hardest part of convicting someone without having a body is proving that they were murdered and not just missing dead somewhere.
Post a Comment