If you’ve ever watched an episode of Forensic Files, you’d guess that there is probably more than enough evidence to tie him to the crime.
No; they would try to get a plea bargain. That’s going to be true in nearly every case where there is a confession, regardless of the evidence or the passage of time. There are not usually trials when there is a ready admission of guilt-- the few exceptions are when the prosecution wants the maximum penalty the state allows, which is something you cannot plea bargain for. And something that even a ready confessor may plead “Not guilty” to a charge for. Did I kill her? Yes, but it was manslaughter, and I’m being charged with murder, of which I am not guilty.
Or sometimes you do get ready confessors who plead self-defense, insanity, or some other form of diminished capacity.
So, even if the culpability of the guilty person may not be in question, the prosecutor is still going to have to come up with evidence for the particular charge.
If the crime scene was especially brutal, that may be the evidence for first degree murder, as opposed to some other charge. Or the chip for a plea bargain-- “Look, we can easily put you away for life. Save the state the cost of a trial, and take 15 to 25. It’s a gift.” /Jack McCoy.
On the other hand, if there is barely evidence for a crime, and the death was investigated as suspicious, but eventually ruled natural-- or ruled the probable work of a serial killer, who, when he was caught, was charged with only the two crimes for which the evidence was extremely good, but after conviction, the books were closed on 7 others cases.
Then this confession comes along. The police and prosecution believe the guy, but know there is no chance of a conviction on any charge. They don’t let on, though, and enter plea bargain negotiations for anything they can get.
I think I’d like to read that book, even after knowing a good portion of the plot.
That would imply that all you need to get away with murder would be a thorough destruction or hiding of the body. I find that hard to believe.
That’s because it’s incorrect.
It’s not. Etan Patz’ parents got a civil judgment against the person they thought killed their son, even though no body was ever found. They had had him declared legally dead after he had been gone many years-- he was 6 or 7 when he disappeared.
Then finally, someone confessed.
Someone else.
Still no body.
The guy who confessed was tried, and after a mistrial (hung jury) and a second trial, the confessor was sentenced to something like 25 years. The sentence is not as long as the guy was at liberty after committing the crime, but it’s probably effectively a life sentence.
Financial judgment against the other guy was dismissed; he was a suspect because he was a known child molester, and ended up in prison for molestation after the Patz case.
There was some kind of corroboration with the confession, though-- a family member came forward to say that yeah, he’d confessed to family members before.
I have no idea why family members had not gone to the police prior to the confession by the killer himself. Maybe they didn’t really believe him, or maybe it was some family thing. IIRC, the guy has a personality disorder, and a very low IQ.
So no, you don’t need a body, but I guess you do need SOME kind of corroboration, if not physical evidence, then a relative who says “Yeah, he confessed to me at the time, but I didn’t believe him. Wish I had.”
No. It says specifically that further evidence is needed to establish that a crime was committed. Thorough destruction of a body and all other evidence that exists would make a perfect crime.
So what was the phrase “in this case a body” doing in there?
Because the OP indicates the crime was known of 30 years ago, yet there was no other evidence. Without a body there was no known crime.
In the listed scenario, it sounds like the perp would be recanting, so with a confession that is contested, i would assume they would need to meet the level of reasonableness to go to trial with at least some additional evidence. It’s equally possible for the lawyer to argue the letter was written at a stressful time in lifewhen the accused was still processing his grief that had resurfaced and wanting to punish himself because he should have been there to protect his gf. In other words, prove he was crazy when he wrote the confession…
The Husband’s Secret by Liane Moriarty
Thanks!
The level of proof needed to get an indictment is probable cause. The same level there is for an arrest. Although not insignificant, probable cause is a much lower bar than beyond a reasonable doubt. Although prosecutors only need probable cause to prosecute, in the real world they will not bring to trial a case they don’t believe they can win. There is a lot of work that goes into every trial. They don’t have the time or resources to try a loser case.
Note: the equation may change if it’s a high profile case especially in district with an elected prosecutor. The burden for indictment is still probable cause but they might be more inclined to roll the dice on a case they might not win.
I assume that a confession, especially recanted, is not by itself probably cause? They need something more that points specifically to the suspect?
There has to be evidence that corroborates the confession but it doesn’t need to specifically point to the suspect. If I confess to robbing the bank on Main and Elm at 2 pm Monday, proving that the bank was in fact robbed will technically be enough for a conviction even if I was wearing a mask and gloves and no one can identify me and I left no fingerprints. And if it’s enough for a conviction it’s enough for probable cause. But as @Loach said, whether there is technically enough evidence isn’t the only thing that matters.
If someone confesses on the SDMB, or in a letter, even one mailed, but especially one that isn’t, or in any form that can somehow be construed as fiction, there’s room for an argument that this is what it is. Unless the lawyer is completely incompetent and unconvincing, I think you get reasonable doubt with no other evidence.