[wimpycat]

Could the blood itself satisfy the need for a "corpus"? I seem to remember a bone fragment has, before.

If they found blood in large enough quantities, that could be enough to convince me that she's dead, at least. I've seen several different cases on the "New Detectives" (Discovery Channel) where blood was found (thanks to good old Luminol) in large enough quantities that experts were convinced that no one could have survived losing that much blood.

If I were a juror, and the evidence shows he was in her bedroom, and there were large quantities of blood found in his camper, it wouldn't take much for me to convict him of murder, without a body. The threshold is "beyond a reasonable doubt". Barring a house fire, a middle-aged neighbor breaking into a 7-year old girl's bedroom is up to no good. No reasonable person would argue with that.

[pepsionice]

For those who don't get the legal part of this whole case. If you have no body, its difficult to get a conviction, particuliary in California. The parents want the body of the little girl back and I am sure that the DA will make a deal....confession and a location on the body and we give you a 30 year sentence...with parole in 18 years likely. Thats the standard California way of doing it.