How England came to adopt the "no body, no murder" rule

tay

Hall of Fame Member
May 20, 2012
11,548
1
36
In 1660, a British man went missing. Three suspects were hanged for murder, despite the lack of a body. The man arrived 2 years later, claiming to have been abducted by pirates. This judicial mistake led England to adopt the "no body, no murder" rule, which lasted up until 1954.





In August 1660, William Harrison, estate manager to Baptist Hicks, set off on foot for Charingworth in order to collect rent owed to his master. However, as he had not returned by dusk, Harrison's wife, becoming worried for his safety, despatched Harrison's man servant, John Perry to look for him.

By daybreak, however, neither Harrison or his servant had returned. Getting increasingly distressed, Harrison's wife sent out her son, Edward Harrison, in the direction of Charingworth to enquire about his father's movements the previous night. On the way to Charingworth, Edward met John Perry, coming in the opposite direction. When questioned, John Perry told Edward that his master, William Harrison, was not there. So, together they went to the nearby village of Ebrington. At Ebrington, they were told by one of the tenants that Mr Harrison had called at his house the previous evening on his way back from Charingworth. Edward Harrison and Perry then proceeded to Paxford, where they were unable to find out any news about Mr Harrison. At that point, they then headed back towards Chipping Campden.

On their way back, they came to hear that a hat, shirt, collar and comb had been found on the main road between Ebrington and Campden, near a large bank of gorse. Finding the hat and comb slashed and the shirt collar covered in blood, they immediately started to search the area, assuming that Mr Harrison had been killed.

On returning to Campden, the news of this discovery caused great alarm; so much so, that the men, women and children of the town took it upon themselves to search for the body. Meanwhile, back at the Harrison's home, his already distressed wife now feared heavily for her husband's safety.

As Mr Harrison had been sent to collect rent money, many townsfolk started to suspect that John Perry had killed his master and stolen the money. Perry was brought before a Justice of the Peace, who questioned him about his master and why he had stayed out all night when sent to find him. Perry's version of events were that after his mistress had sent him to meet Mr Harrison, he headed towards Charingworth, where he met a man called William Reed. Reed asked him where he was going, to which he replied that he was going to Charingworth to find his master; but as it was now getting dark he was afraid to go on and was going to return to Campden and fetch a horse belonging to his master's son, Edward. He walked with Reed back to Campden, where Reed then left him at his master's gate.

From that point, Perry said that he entered his master's hen roost and had stopped there until the church clock had struck twelve o'clock. He then left the hen roost and walked back towards Charingworth, getting lost on the way due to heavy mist and ending up spending the rest of the night sleeping under a hedge.

The next morning, he proceeded onto Charingworth, where one of the tenants told him that Mr Harrison had been with him the previous afternoon collecting his rent, but did not stop long. Perry said that on leaving Charingworth, he then met his master's son, Edward, and had gone back to Ebrington and Paxford.

Perry was questioned further and then remanded in custody in Campden. Whilst in custody, Perry finally indicated that if he were taken before the Justice of the Peace again, he would disclose some new and vital information regarding his master's killer. On further interrogation, Perry stated that his master had been killed not by him, but by his brother and mother, who had robbed Harrison for the rent money. Perry's only involvement was to provide his mother and brother with the time and date that his master would be making his journey to Charingworth to collect the money.

Perry's mother and brother were also questioned, and then the three of them were tried and found guilty of killing William Harrison to obtain the rent money. A few days later, John, Richard and Joan Perry were taken to the top of Broadway Hill, which overlooks Chipping Campden, and hung for their supposed crimes.

The first person to be hung was Joan Perry as she was thought to be a witch and had placed a spell over her sons. Next to be hung was Richard Perry, who begged his brother John to tell the truth about the disappearance of William Harrison. But, John Perry stuck by his story and they were both duly hung.


William Harrison did return to Chipping Campden around two years later, claiming that he had been abducted by three men dressed in white on horseback. He was then taken to Deal, in Kent, and put on a ship to Turkey; where he was kept for nearly two years, until escaping with a silver bowl that had been given to him. Using this silver bowl, he was able to secure his passage back to England.


http://www.thecampdenwonder.com/the_story.html
 

Blackleaf

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 9, 2004
50,026
1,916
113
I don't know why we don't still have that law. It must be difficult to prove somebody has been murdered if you don't have their body.
 

Sal

Hall of Fame Member
Sep 29, 2007
17,135
33
48
I don't know why we don't still have that law. It must be difficult to prove somebody has been murdered if you don't have their body.
because it means that if I can hide your body well enough, I didn't murder you.
 

Blackleaf

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 9, 2004
50,026
1,916
113
yes and difficult to prove how? There can be lots of evidence that would prove someone is dead without a body such as bleed out.


Proving somebody is dead and proving that you murdered them are two completely different things.
 

Blackleaf

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 9, 2004
50,026
1,916
113
absolutely

And it's incredibly difficult to prove that a person murdered somebody when that somebody's body is nowhere to be found. It does happen from time to time, but is incredibly rare.

In fact, convicting somebody of murder when there is no body can lead to a miscarriage of justice, as happened in the case in the OP.

Ever since the William Harrison case, prosecutors have since been wary of charging a suspect with murder without finding a dead body.
 

Cannuck

Time Out
Feb 2, 2006
30,245
99
48
Alberta
And it's incredibly difficult to prove that a person murdered somebody when there is no body.

Not at all. Given today's forensics, it's becoming increasingly easier, at least on this side of the pond. If fact, we just went through this type of thing in Medicine Hat.

http://www.cbc.ca/m/news/canada/cal...ears-in-death-of-medicine-hat-woman-1.2744722

He eventually pled guilty to manslaughter but obviously there was enough to convict him or he wouldn't have plea bargained.
 

Sal

Hall of Fame Member
Sep 29, 2007
17,135
33
48
And it's incredibly difficult to prove that a person murdered somebody when that somebody's body is nowhere to be found. It does happen from time to time, but is incredibly rare.

In fact, convicting somebody of murder when there is no body can lead to a miscarriage of justice, as happened in the case in the OP.

Ever since the William Harrison case, prosecutors have since been wary of charging a suspect with murder without finding a dead body.
it can indeed lead to a miscarriage of justice and part of the reason for that is the adveserial nature of the justice system, it isn't about truth it's about numbers: prosecution numbers, defense numbers, money...truth seeking seems low on the list

The reason I used the bleed out example was because quite recently we had a couple and their grandchild disappear. They know who "likely" did it and he was arrested. No bodies have ever been found...at least I haven't seen an update to the case in the news anyway. They know from the blood found in the grandparents home that at least one person was dead for sure. The suspect is charged with murder but they have searched everywhere and they can not locate the bodies.
 

Tecumsehsbones

Hall of Fame Member
Mar 18, 2013
60,914
9,795
113
Washington DC
Not at all. Given today's forensics, it's becoming increasingly easier, at least on this side of the pond. If fact, we just went through this type of thing in Medicine Hat.

http://www.cbc.ca/m/news/canada/cal...ears-in-death-of-medicine-hat-woman-1.2744722

He eventually pled guilty to manslaughter but obviously there was enough to convict him or he wouldn't have plea bargained.

That's fine for Canada, but forensic science (or any other kind of science) ain't gonna be real advanced in a country that still believes in divine right monarchy.
 

tay

Hall of Fame Member
May 20, 2012
11,548
1
36
Cases such as this made any conviction without a body a potential miscarriage of justice minefield. And it was not until 1954 that the "no body, no murder" rule was effectively overturned.


Michael Onufrejczyk, a Polish ex-serviceman from World War II, bought Cefn Hendre farm in Llandeilo, Carmarthenshire, after the war and in 1953 went into partnership with fellow Pole Stanislaw Sykut.


Police carrying out routine foreigner checks came to the farm in December 1953 to find Sykut gone. Onufrejczyk told them Sykut had sold him his half of the farm and returned to Poland.


But investigations showed Sykut had left £450 (around £10,500 in today's money) in a bank account and none of his friends knew he had gone. He had also made legal inquiries about dissolving the partnership.


Sykut had previously complained of violent behaviour by his partner. Police arrested Onufrejczyk and charged him with murder.


They were convinced he had chopped Sykut's body up and fed it to the farm pigs.


At the trial, the jury heard evidence of over 2,000 tiny human bloodstains found in the farmhouse kitchen. They did not believe his claim that the marks were rabbits' blood, caused when he skinned them.


He was convicted of murder and sentenced to death, later commuted to life imprisonment.


Just last year, married infrastructure manager David Gilroy was convicted at Edinburgh High Court of killing his lover Suzanne Pilley after she tried to end their relationship.


Ms Pilley went missing on her way to work in Edinburgh in May 2010.


After analysing in detail both of their movements on CCTV and building up a picture of phone calls and texts sent by Gilroy, police arrested him and charged him with her murder a month later.


Despite a lack of direct forensic evidence from the site, police believe he lured her to the basement garage at their shared place of work, killed her and hid her body in a stairwell before transferring it to his car and dumping it somewhere in western Scotland. It has not been found.




Dr Fiona Brookman, reader in criminology and deputy director of Glamorgan University's Centre for Criminology, said although no central statistics on the number of these trials were collated, research by the CPS suggested there were about two each year in England and Wales.


She said changes in technology meant people left behind a trail which ceased rapidly when they were killed.


"Detectives have a patchwork of evidence that they can put together," she explained.


April was seen by her friend getting into Mark Bridger's Land Rover


The body is a central piece of evidence but not critical.


"The body is helpful if you want to learn exactly how they were killed and if you want to find evidence from the killer on the body.


"Sometimes the body is not that important in an investigation, particularly if it's a domestic crime. There's always a lot of cross-contamination if the people are connected."




BBC News - April Jones: Murder trials without a body