'No-body murder cases' can't be won -- or can they?

The Star Tribune has an interesting story by reporter Chao Xiong at the top of the front page today, with the headline, "No-body murder cases can be won." Goes on to say that, "as rare as such cases are, nationwide statistics show that most end in conviction despite the hurdles that prosecutors face."

According to the story:

Data gathered by former federal prosecutor Thomas DiBiase on his website, www.nobodycases.com, show that from 1843 to March 1, 2013, 380 murder cases nationwide have been brought to trial without a body. The conviction rate was 89 percent. Half of Minnesota’s no-body murder trials have resulted in conviction.

“Let me dispense of this myth that it’s almost impossible to convict someone without a body,” said defense attorney J. Anthony Torres, who successfully defended a suspect in a no-body case in Dakota County. “Does it complicate matters? Yes. Is it impossible? No.”

Interesting, and maybe counter-intuitive. But it's certainly different from the story the Strib published March 1, by reporters Xiong and Joy Powell, which said this:

Charging someone with murder without a corpse is highly unusual. Typically, prosecutors lose such cases once they get before juries.

So, which is it? Assuming today's story is accurate (and personally, I'm interested in knowing more about DiBiase's website, the accuracy or relevance of trial records going back to 1843, whether prosecutors involved in the case pushed the Strib for more, etc.), I would guess today's story is a correction, at the top of A1.

 

 

Comments

[Tad DiBiase]

rayschmitz is right: there have not been a lot of no body murder trials when one considers the number of murder trials in the U.S. over the last 150 years. But the Strib is wrong: 89% of the cases I have found result in convictions. Jay: Please check out my website. I think you'll find it detailed and accurate. Tad DiBiase, The No Body Guy

[rayschmitz]

Lets face it 380 cases in 150 yrs is not a big sample. WE never had a case here but those I am familiar with are totally dependent on the evidence that is available, a simple missing person is not likely even to be charged no matter how strong the suspicion; a house and car full of blood with efforts hide the evidence and no report of missing person etc. That sounds as if a jury would be convinced