Ok, this is going to be a long one. I would really like to hear from someone who really knows the legal system well. This question particularly pertains to the Calvin Harris case in NY. Supposedly what wsa said happened was he killed his wife the day of the terrorists attacks, if you want to know more details, try this link: Cal Harris Back in Court | WBNG-TV | Local Top Stories (http://www.wbng.com/news/local/2295026.html)

Anyway, what I was wondering is, how could they say he is guilty when they didn't find her body, or even a murder weapon? I thought there had to be at least one of those things to claim someone being guilty of murder. How does that go? Does it seem like a conflict of interest? So many people in that area know of his tempers, so they automatically say guilty?

No, this is a misconception that you have to have solid evidence. There are a lot of people in jail for just very minor evidence.

To arrest someone there only first has to be a suspiscon of guilt and/or enough evidence for a grand jury. After that if you use a jury, anything can happen, emotions not evidence play a lot. If they used the 911 deaths, some person using it for their own good,

In the perfect world, this would not be enough, but in the real world, on a jury trial, it only takes people not liking the person on trial, or feeling too sory for the victimm.

A prosecutor has to prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt. There is no rule that says they need any specific evidence, just that the evidence needs to meet the rules of evidence.

Generally, its hard to prove a murder case if there is no body because there would be reasonable doubt that the victim was dead. But its up to the prosecutor to decide whether the evidence can convince a jury.