In Cold Blood: Clutter Case Investigation and Legal Analysis

Introduction

The In Cold Blood case is deeply chilling and has been depicted by Truman Capote personally, as well as by others, in ways that are largely similar or at least slightly different in emphasis. Beyond the Clutter case itself, a major question remains: whether the two assailants in the Clutter murders also committed the Walker murders. While there is no smoking gun linking the two Clutter killers to the Walker case, there are several common threads that are highly intriguing.

This paper covers those common threads, the steps an investigator would undertake in such a case, and the steps a prosecutor would take at trial — including which witnesses would be called. There is also a discussion of interrogation techniques, whether a search warrant was needed to obtain the shotgun and knife from the Hickok home, and whether a search warrant was needed for the post office box found in the car at the time of the suspects' arrest. While building a case against killers of this kind during that era was certainly more difficult than it would be today, doing so remains achievable given the right amount and types of police work.

Linking the Clutter and Walker Murders

While public pressure on a prosecutor or district attorney can be overwhelming in the wake of gruesome and senseless crimes, these public servants cannot allow that pressure to justify rash or unlawful decisions when pursuing a case. The Duke Lacrosse rape case stands as a clear example of what happens when a prosecutor prioritizes reelection over deciding whether to prosecute based solely on the merits and existing evidence.

Al Dewey's concerns in In Cold Blood are answered by a fairly straightforward response. There were two major links between the two crimes: the nature and method of the killings, and a Chevrolet Bel Air spotted at both crime scenes. Both the Clutter and Walker cases were characterized by extreme brutality. The presence of a Bel Air at both scenes is intriguing, but those vehicles were far from rare at the time, making that particular link quite thin.

Moreover, the actions at the Walker crime scene differed from those at the Clutter scene in some noticeable ways. While both scenes reflected a "leave no witnesses" mentality, a rape occurred at the Walker scene. At the Clutter scene, robbery and eliminating witnesses were the clear objectives. Rape was not a factor, and the perpetrators even hesitated before carrying out the killings. The drowning of a two-year-old child at the Walker scene was also markedly different from anything at the Clutter scene. In the Clutter case, all victims were shot except for one, whose throat was cut.

That said, several details do implicate the Clutter killers in the Walker murders. First, they were provably near a convenience store close to the Walker home. Second, the Walker family had reportedly been looking to purchase a Bel Air — the very type of car the killers were driving. Third, one of the Clutter killers reportedly had scratches on his face, which would be consistent with defensive wounds inflicted during a rape or during resistance from a victim. It would have been significant if DNA obtained from the exhumation of the killers' bodies had matched evidence from the Walker scene, but no such DNA link could be proven or disproven.

While the commonalities are notable, the evidence is almost entirely circumstantial. The killers being near the Walker home, or driving a Bel Air, does not conclusively place them at the crime scene. The methods of killing showed notable variations, and robbery was clearly the motive in the Clutter case, whereas the Walker case appeared to involve a rape that escalated into the killing of witnesses. Even so, Capote asserts in his book that Hickok had to be restrained from raping one of the Clutter daughters, Nancy (Capote, 1995).

Evidence Collection and Trial Strategy

Regarding the evidence that would be collected, each individual body and the overall scene would be evaluated to determine who was killed, in what order, and what the possible motives might have been. Investigators would also interview anyone who witnessed anything in or around the house, as well as friends and family of the Clutters, in order to reconstruct the events of the day — including what the family did that day, what seemed out of place, whether strangers were seen in the area, and what vehicles were passing through.

It would have been prudent to interview the cell mates of the two ex-convicts had investigators known of that connection earlier. However, that became unnecessary because Floyd Wells came forward with a tip, which eventually identified the suspects and led to their capture. In the absence of such a tip, standard procedure would call for extensive interviews with friends and family, since most crimes involve someone from one or both of those circles. In modern investigations, suspects can also be identified through DNA, fingerprints, shoe prints, video surveillance, and other forensic techniques (Capote, 1995).

Evidence presented at trial would include a reconstruction of the crime scene — detailing who was killed, in what order, and why. The prosecutor would walk the jury through the timeline: the source of the convicts' information, the plot they formulated, statements made to witnesses before capture, and statements made to authorities after capture. In the modern era, blood spatter analysis, footprint evidence, DNA, and camera footage would also be available. It should be noted that the two defendants did not deny committing the murders; rather, they claimed temporary insanity. As a result, the prosecutor's main task would be to demonstrate the deliberate planning that preceded the crime, since premeditation is fundamentally inconsistent with an insanity defense. Showing that the men were motivated by greed and were fully lucid — rather than detached or deranged — would not have been difficult. Witnesses would include Wells (despite some embellishment in his account), members of Hickok's family in connection with the return of the shotgun to the family home, and anyone who encountered the two men before, during, or after the murders (Capote, 1995).

Conclusion

The American justice system has improved and evolved in many ways, but there are still some gaping flaws that need to be addressed and solved. Whether it be corrupt law enforcement officers, politically motivated prosecutors, or defense strategies aimed at excluding evidence against defendants who are known to be guilty, serious problems remain. It often appears that prosecutors and police are held to a rigorous standard while others are given considerably more latitude by comparison. The Clutter case, as documented by Capote, illustrates both the strengths and the limitations of the criminal justice process — and serves as a reminder of how much investigative outcomes can depend on the era in which a crime occurs.