If the method of death is “stabbing” (for example), that would be pretty good evidence that a murder has occurred.
I have zero experience with trials at the federal level. This is from my experience at the state level. Anecdotally I’ve heard that the FBI won’t even bring a case to the AUSA until it’s wrapped up with a bow. When I hear someone being charged federally I figure they are toast.
Trials take time and resources. Even apparently simple trials take much longer than you think when you take into account all the pre-trial stuff. The docket has only so many openings. There are a finite number of judges to hear cases. That’s why every attempt to get a plea is made. Many cases are downgraded to a lower court with lesser charges. It’s a simple logistical problem. There just isn’t time to bring cases with iffy outcomes to trial.
I work in a very busy county so someone who works in a sleepy jurisdiction may have different experience. Covid certainly did not help. Zoom trials slowed things down even further.
I’ve heard the same from a friend, now a lawyer, who is a former FBI special agent. In his time in Chicago he was frustrated by AUSAs who would practically insist on a signed confession before they would even deign to present a case to the grand jury.
IANADanishL, but the prosecution’s case here seems very strong to me. Most prosecutors I know would, if handed a similar case, have very little hesitation in presenting it to a grand jury.
Wouldn’t you have to show that the stabs occurred pre-mortem and caused the death? It’s possible that he could come up with a plausible story where those wounds were caused post-mortem during the attempt to dismember the body.
You don’t have to have hands-down definitive physical evidence to prove it. You are allowed to infer a lot from the evidence.
I’m pretty sure a pathologist can tell if a wound is pre-mortem or post-mortem.
what are the AUSAs so afraid of, though? Do they lose out on a promotion opportunity if they lose too many cases?
As I understand it, this was not possible at least at the point where only the torso was recovered. And the pathologist thought it likely/possible the wounds were part of the disposal of the body. Though even assuming that is true, I can’t believe an American DA wouldn’t be happy to put that in front of a jury and ask for a murder conviction. I mean, he goddamned cut up the body and stabbed it.
This reminds me of the Scott Peterson murder trial in California where basically there was no physical proof he murdered his pregnant wife but there was MOUNTAINS of circumstantial evidence and the jury gave him the death penalty (now just life in prison).
One thing is that they held him in jail on the first charge, and they didn’t have to upgrade the charges until either he was being released from jail (eg the court was finding the evidence didn’t match the charge. ) or facing trial. That would be the same in the USA …
Murderers have been convicted on less evidence before, but they’ve also gone free on more evidence. I read that statement from the Danish DA as meaning that he’s pretty sure he’d get a conviction, but that he’s not completely sure, and so he’d like to get more evidence if possible (with the understanding that, if the evidence didn’t come out in a reasonable time, he’d still go ahead with what he had).
Perhaps, or perhaps they simply have the impression that they might. They tend to be, as a group, overcautious and risk-averse. If they’re going to try a case, which doesn’t happen very often (the vast majority of criminal cases plead out), they want it to be as strong as possible. If they crash and burn, it’s almost certain to get media play.
OK but that means the AUSAs are willing to indict (and get people to plea,) they are just more gun-shy about going to trial itself.
So indicting is not something they are risk-averse about.
No, as I understand it from my friend the former FBI special agent, they’re risk-averse about that, too. Any case which is indicted might have to be tried. They want to make sure all the cases indicted are very, very strong.
Don’t watch a lot of true crime drama, eh? 
Yes, with that jury.