I just don't get this;
http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/queensland/odempsey-found-guilty-of-1974-mcculkin-murders-20170526-gwdtfz.html

How on earth can one be charged with murder when there are no bodies. I mean, surely there have been cases where people, who were thought to have been dead, pop up agian in some far away land.

How can this guy really be charged with murder?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_conviction_without_a_body

I am just pleased the police collared the offenders and the jury did its job well. Thanks to all.

Offenders conceal the location of remains to protect themselves and to have lasting power over the family and friends.

I can only wish the offenders long and forgotten lives in prison.

I fervently hope that no fool of a woman comes forward to 'love' either of them, as so often happens. How to explain that?

Or that meddling prisoner 'rights' get involved to throw their weight around and annoy correctional staff and authorities.

A bullet though deserved, is too good for either of them.

This happens a lot...the 2 cases that sprang to my mind immediately were the Samantha Knight case, which I remember very well because of the huge publicity back in the day. http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/nsw/samantha-knight-30-years-on-little-girls-death-at-the-hands-of-michael-guider-haunted-sydney/news-story/351f609bd8074a448a033954e4dabc2f

The other huge case was Peter Falconis....https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Falconio

There have been others, but for some reason those two stand out in my head.

There was this case though..an insurance rort by complete idiots. His wife dobbed him in when she found out he had a new wife in NZ, when he was supposed to be lying low till she could join him after the insurance company paid out. They could have got away with that if he'd behaved himself and no body would have been found.
http://www.theage.com.au/news/National/Man-who-faked-own-death-faces-court/2005/12/22/1135032124801.html

moonshine,

Good catch, It is easy to forget other cases even though the media does return to them on slow news days.

Absolutely i think proper investigation should be care out before a person is black mail with the case of murder because some times we do discover that such case are not genuine.

Butch has a point: there would have to be very strong evidence to convict without a body, surely. But if a crime scene is spattered with blood, if a suspect has it all over his clothes and in his car boot, if people heard screaming and/or shots then silence, if he bragged to a 'friend' what he had done, if he knew details that only the police should know - each case would be different, but all the circumstantial evidence may mount up enough to point conclusively to someone's guilt.

Not to mention the non-appearance over decades of the probably-deceased, no use of credit cards, bank accounts or any hospital records.

Clearly, in such cases, circumstantial evidence would have to be overwhelming, with no loop-holes. I'm still a bit sceptical about Falconio's death though: if the killer had a dog, why weren't any dog prints found in the scrub, or even on the side of the road ? Why no killer's footprints on the side of the road ? Why no pool of blood ? Even the DNA evidence is a bit dodgy. And, less conclusive but still relevant, why ?

I'm still looking forward, though, to the first forensic examination of a suspected Aboriginal massacre site. Surely, there must be many ?

Joe