Chasing convictions

[Simon_Jester]

Well. The evidence for vandalism is pretty ironclad: "clearly on camera destroying the victim's property outside his home."

The evidence on the question of burglary is undefined, but assuming there's a solid, logical case, it makes sense to charge him- say, there's evidence that he intruded on the home, and the home has been (partly) ransacked. Even if he wasn't caught with stolen goods in his hands, it's still very plausible that he broke into the house to commit burglary. Much depends on whether the evidence of vandalism also includes evidence that the man is guilty of the crime of breaking and entering; if he can be convicted of breaking and entering, a burglary charge is probably called for if there's any evidence one was attempted.

The murder charge, on the other hand, is a whole different question. When there is only enough evidence to lead to "suspicion," and there are perfectly likely explanations for the victim's death that have nothing to do with the man you've arrested, you just flat out Do Not throw in a murder charge.

If the evidence that this person was responsible for the burglary or the vandalism was equally circumstantial, I'd be equally inclined not to charge him with those crimes.