Did the law officers really need a confession? Sure, a confession or two would strengthen their case, but they already had Dick and Perry with their incriminating shoes/boots, which matched the footprints left in Mr. Clutter's blood. They also had the indirect testimony of Floyd Wells. Wouldn't that have been sufficient?
shareNo, it wouldn´t.
I´m sure these two weren´t nearly the only ones to be in possession of that kinda boots and the "indirect destimony" of Wells was exactly that - indirect and not even close to sufficient to convict them. Getting the confession was absolutely crucial, otherwise they would have walked.
Read the book....it goes into detail as to why a confession was crucial. A previous reply was correct. The Cats Paw boots could've been owned and worn by any number of people.
shareAt the time they said they needed a confession they did not have the boots, and the Floyd Wells testimony would have been unreliable.
shareBeing a retired cop who actually had a case hinge on footprints (for a rape, not a murder) the confession was crucial. Shoes are massed produced and unless there is a very unique feature on the shoe that was transposed into the bloody shoe print(such as a individual wear pattern produced by the owner or damage to the sole that is unique to that shoe) you would need more than the shoe and shoe print. It sounded as if they had Mr. Clutter's blood on the shoe, but my hearing isn't so good any more so I'm not sure. Anyway, this is as chilling today as it was over 40 years ago when I first saw it.
shareThe evidence the police had would not have been enough to prove guilt beyond any reasonable doubt. As previous posters stated, the bootprints could have been worn by someone else. (Today, they might have been able to do DNA testing on any trace evidence found on the boots, but not back then). As well, just because Floyd Wells told Hickok the story didn't prove Hickok killed them.
shareAll evidence is the target of what is called a "motion to suppress". And if one piece of evidence is suppressed (excluded), all evidence that came to the government as a result of the excluded evidence is, itself, excluded. (The "fruit of the poisonous tree".) So, you put all the arrows you can in your quiver - especially for a major case like this one.
shareIt's amazing, if they had been caught in Kansas at the toll booth, there's a good chance they would have got off the hook! Because the boot prints were the biggest piece of evidence and the boots got collected at a post office in Las Vegas right before they were arrested!
shareNo living eye-witnesses except each other.
shareI disagree with most posters: the confession was certainly useful but not crucial.
Most murderers are in fact convicted on circumstantial evidence. It's comparatively rare when a murder is committed in front of witnesses or with ironclad "proof".
Yes, the boots were mass produced, but the police found two sets of boot prints, from the two different pairs worn by Dick and Perry. They had those boots in their possession when they were arrested in Vegas. Conclusive? In itself, no. But how many duos of ex-cons each owned a pair of those exact same boots? Add to this the testimony of Floyd Wells, who had told Dick all about the Clutters, and this is very strong circumstantial evidence.
Remember also that their alibis were exposed as false, further incriminating them. They were found with the Clutter son's radio as well. And the lack of an eyewitness is not only usual in murder cases, but eyewitness testimony is often easily challenged.
As to the poster who said evidence can be challenged and thrown out, yes, this is certainly possible. But you have to have legal grounds to suppress such evidence. What grounds were there to exclude the boots? Perry and Dick had been arrested on a perfectly legitimate warrant, with the boots among their belongings when picked up. Not even unreasonable search and seizure enters into this case. In real life their lawyers made no effort to exclude any of the evidence, whose discovery was absolutely legitimate.
And confessions can be challenged and thrown out too. In fact, they can usually be suppressed more easily than hard evidence. A lawyer could argue that the means used to exact a confession from the two men violated their constitutional rights, and might well have had some solid grounds for such an argument. It's foolish to rely on a confession or assume that it's somehow legally unassailable. And if I recall correctly (I may be mistaken), Perry did in fact try to renounce his confession after his arrest.
Finally, I think everyone has to remember when and where this crime took place. Many of the constitutional guarantees we have today did not exist, or weren't as far-reaching, in 1959 as they are today. (No Miranda warnings, for example, and the right to have a lawyer during questioning was not guaranteed.) Also, it seems pretty elementary for Perry and Dick's attorneys to have asked for a change of venue, since Garden City is a small town and the Clutters were known to everyone, including the prosecution, judge and jurors -- there was no way the two killers could get a fair trial in that community. And the defense attorneys were also locals who had two deeply hated clients whom they themselves obviously believed guilty, and whom they clearly felt uneasy about defending given their circumstances. Probably Dick and Perry's best bet, not for acquittal but for a fairer trial or a retrial, was on these grounds.
Anyway, bottom line is the confession was nice, but it wasn't what convicted them.
The confession sealed their doom!
shareMaybe, maybe not. There's no indication which evidence most swayed the jury. But it's true, the confession was obviously a strong piece of evidence...especially when the defense made no serious attempt to refute or exclude it. Had it been challenged and excluded, it would have been useless.
shareIf those boots had further distinguishing, and individualizing features (like a certain tear or scuff marks) that might have iced things.
Many of you say a confession was crucial, and you very well may be correct. Still, an angry jury, faced with circumstancial evidence (the boot marks without further features, Floyd Wells testimony) and realizing that acquittal meant no double jepoardy might have still voted to convict. Particularly if the maker of those boots could show there were few versions sold - remember those "ugly ass shoes" OJ wore? Of course, OJ was acquitted, but then even DNA fingerprinting couldn't win over that dippy jury.