Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris T
And on balancing that against the chances of successfully hiding the body so as to avoid the inevitable charge of murder that would follow ... does it really stack up?
Sorry counsel, but that's not admissable. Very, very few murders have no motive at all. The jury has a right to expect you to offer a reason *why*.
Further to both (1) and (2) - where is the evidence? Suspicion and speculation is not evidence, neither will it become evidence merely by constant repetition.
---------- Post added at 12:05 ---------- Previous post was at 12:03 ----------
In which case, are the family actively being investigated, and what can that tell us about what the police belive is likely or unlikely to have happened here?
|
The whole point of performing an investigation is to collect evidence to lead towards a conviction. So until there is no evidence pertaining to a paticular thread of enquiry it remains an active lead.
Motive remans to be discovered, it;s the evidence that leads to motive in most cases.
The family have been investigated to a degree already, one of the press conferences was used to forensically psyschoanalyse the behavior of the parents. Actively advertising the fact that you know who your suspect is not the best route of action to take.