True and valid.

Still, the prosecutor has to convince the jury — or keep the defending attorney from convincing the jury to doubt:
a) The police or prosecutors were not trying to frame an innocent man.
b) There absolutely wasn’t someone else who could have done it; no wandering serial killer who happened to show up since they DO show up for somebody every now and then; no “I gotta start a new life, so I am just leaving.”
c) The witness statements were accurate, accurately recorded, (For instance, no sarcasm treated as if it were actual agreement, not just a “How stupid do you think I am?” kind of response.)
d) That the physical evidence which proves the defendant was lying actually made it possible and even likely the lie was because of the presumed murder rather than some other crime the defendant was committing at the time.
(Like, “I couldn’t have murdered Alpha because I was busy murdering Beta.”)
e) The bits and pieces actually came from the victim — the DNA matches with some known sample, for example.
f) That changes in banking not only prove the person is likely dead but tie the death to actual murder, preferably by the accused — not just, “He was dead so I decided he didn’t need those credit cards anymore.” Despicable, but not murder.

It CAN be done and juries CAN be convinced to convict as is pointed out.

It definitely takes some work, though. Don’t forget there was a case where the bodies of two victims were found, the defendant’s footprints were left in the blood, and traces of their blood was found in his Bronco, yet the jury acquitted because they were made to doubt the police were not trying to frame him.

David for dotting the i’s. crossing the t’s

It is possible for authorities to charge/indict someone with a homicide where the body of the murder victim is not available at the time of the arrest. The following circumstances will help understand how the process works:

(a) The police have very strong, overwhelming and convincing evidence that the victim is dead, not just a “missing person”.

(b) The police have strong evidence that the alleged offender is the only person that could have committed the murder.

(c) The police check and confront witness statements to prove and/or eliminate the accused person’s statements.

(d) Physical evidence that either proves or disproves the offender’s version.

(e) Physical evidence like blood, hair, teeth, bone fragments, skin at the scene that indicate that the person is definitely dead.

(f) Activities of the deceased person (ie: bank accounts, credit card use, social activities, their personal lives with family/friends, cell phone use, etc show that the person must be presumed dead.

(g) A body is available if the deceased person ever committed a “suicide”.

There doesn’t have to be an existing body to prove a person was once alive and is no longer alive. Otherwise, you could kill someone of Fifth Avenue in front of thousands of witnesses but take the body with you and destroy or hide it by various means. (I’m not going to help by telling what those are.)

That having been said, it is harder to convince a jury if nobody admits seeing it happen. A great uncle of mine had a hung jury several times even though witnesses had seen him dragging someone down the road. Some years after the government had given up on prosecuting him, the fellow showed up. Uncle Dick told him, “I told them I didn’t kill YOU”
(They never charged him with the murder he actually DID commit.)

David for better people