Specifically, the O. J. Simpson murder trial first exposed the general public to DNA evidence on a massive scale (i.e., unprecedented media coverage) in a context of an interested general public. Virtually everyone had a strong opinion about his guilt or innocence. Likewise, the Leopold and Loeb case first exposed the general public to Freudian theory because of unprecedented media coverage in a context that also fascinated virtually everyone (see Chapter 9). Yet, the power of Freud’s ideas theory ignores this O. J. Simpson type of media event that captivated the American public for weeks. Thus, the assumption discussed above is false. To exclude either murder trial when constructing a historical interpretation of exactly how did the popularization of DNA evidence or Sigmund Freud occur with the American public is problematic because it leaves out the most parsimonious explanation, which is typically the most likely.
In summary, there are some problems with the interpretation that the power of Freud’s ideas was the principal force that ultimately propelled him into public consciousness. The evidence is inconsistent with an increasing expansion of people who were becoming interested in his ideas (see Chapter 7). There was a massive media event of great public interest that occurred which introduced the American public to Freudian concepts and theories that immediately comes before when historians have identified as the time frame when Freud first achieved widespread popularity with the general public (see Chapters 9 & 10). Although just speculation, perhaps the power of Freud’s ideas belief as the mechanism that made him a household name has perpetuated because many who have written about Freud’s popularization have interpreted his ideas as truly groundbreaking and assumed that nothing could stop Freud’s ideas from capturing the public imagination as well. Thus, they did not look for potentially alternative explanations (see confirmation bias discussed in Chapter 3).
Finally, although not the focus of this book, exactly why Freud has endured as an icon is another interesting question to consider. Most who achieve widespread popularity at one time fade or diminish from public consciousness. As one example from Freud’s time, Jack Dempsey, world heavyweight boxing champion known as the “Manassas Mauler,” was arguably the most famous person not only in America but the world. Today, Dempsey’s name recognition is largely confined to individuals with specialized interests such as boxing and sports fans. This reduction of name recognition as the years pass by is typical, as most things that capture the public imagination do not endure. I believe one could make a much stronger and valid argument that Freud continues to interest us today because his ideas are inherently fascinating, even to those who ultimately disagree with Freudian interpretations. Yet, Freud needed his ideas presented to the American public via a large-scale media event in a context which was personally relevant to the general public in order to initially obtain icon status. The following two chapters will introduce the Leopold and Loeb case, which introduced the vast majority of the American public for the first time to Freudian theory in a highly interesting context.
Chapter 9: THE CRIME OF THE CENTURY: THE SENSELESS MURDER OF ROBERT FRANKS
The purpose of this chapter is to introduce and summarize the main points of the Leopold and Loeb case (i.e., the Crime of the Century). I will not be providing an exhaustive review of all the interesting and pertinent details surrounding the crime and subsequent trial. For those readers who are interested in learning more details let me suggest a few of the many resources that are available. Hal Higdon’s (1999) Leopold and Loeb: The Crime of the Century reviews not only the trial, but the preceding events, and the years afterward (first published in 1975 as The Crime of the Century: The Leopold and Loeb Case). John Theodore’s (2007) Evil Summer: Babe Leopold, Dickie Loeb, and the Kidnap-Murder of Bobby Franks also provides a nice overview of all aspects of the case. Gilbert Geis and Leigh Bienen (1998) provide a concise summary in Crimes of the Century: From Leopold and Loeb to O. J. Simpson. The most detailed account of the case was recently published by Simon Baatz (2008; For the Thrill of It: Leopold, Loeb, and the Murder that Shocked Chicago). Baatz’s book is meticulously referenced, and one area of emphasis is the psychiatric testimony. Finally, for those who would like a visual presentation, the History Channel’s “Born Killers: Leopold and Loeb” (In Search of History, 1998) is worthwhile to view.
There were several books published shortly after the trial that are also important resources for the individual wanting to learn more about the case. Maureen McKernan, who was a reporter for the Chicago Herald and Examiner, published The Amazing Crime and Trial of Leopold and Loeb in 1924, and her book has been republished several times. McKernan’s book provides an excellent overview that relies heavily upon the official record. Also, it contains the psychiatric reports of Leopold and Loeb either as a summary (the Bowman and Hulbert reports) or in full (by White, Healy, Glueck, and Hamill). In addition, her book contains the lead attorneys’ closing arguments for both the prosecution and the defense. Maurice Urstein (1924), Leopold and Loeb: A Psychiatric-Psychological Study, discusses the case from a mental health perspective. Alvin Sellers (1926), The Loeb-Leopold Case, provides some quotations from the trial transcripts that are not available in other sources, and provides the other lawyers’ closing arguments in addition to the lead attorneys’. His book is available on-line (http://www.archive.org/details/loebleopoldcasew00loeb) at the Internet Archive website (http://www.archive.org/).
Nathan Leopold’s autobiography published in 1958, Life Plus Ninety-Nine Years, was of enough interest to the American public 30+ years after the trial that it made the New York Times bestseller list (Justice, 1998). Leopold’s autobiography was written in an attempt to gain parole (so I would suggest not taking the book at face-value), which he ultimately did achieve. Despite the self-serving nature of the book, it is a must read for those who are truly interested in the case. Loeb was killed in prison in 1936, and Time magazine would write a short story about it (“Last of Loeb”; February 10, 1936, p. 15).
There were several journal articles published after the trial that will interest those who are fascinated about the psychological aspects of murder. First, the editors of the Journal of the American Institute of Criminal Law and Criminology (1924, Vol. 15, pp. 347-405) published “The Loeb-Leopold Murder of Franks in Chicago, May 21, 1924,” because this probably was “the first instance of the offer of elaborate psychiatric analyses as the basis for remitting the law’s penalty for a calculated, cold-blooded murder, committed by persons not claimed to be insane or defective in any degree recognized by the law as making them not legally responsible” (p. 347). Likewise, an editorial (“The Crime and Trial of Loeb and Leopold”) appeared in the Journal of Abnormal Psychology and Social Psychology in 1924 (Vol. 29, pp. 223-229) and Glueck’s (1925) “Some Implications of the Leopold and Loeb Hearing in Mitigation” published in Mental Hygiene should also be of interest.
Historian Paula Fass (1993) published “Making and Remaking an Event: The Leopold and Loeb Case in American Culture” in The Journal of American History. Her article is a detailed summary of how the case not only initially captured the public’s imagination, but how the telling of the story in the media changed over time, and continued to fascinate the public years after the trial had ended. Her article also sheds light on the question of how the trial becomes personally relevant for the general public. While Dr. Fass relies primarily upon media coverage in the Chicago papers (e.g., Chicago Daily Tribune, Chicago Herald and Examiner), the coverage blanketed the nation. Catherine L. Covert’s 1975 dissertation in American History (“Freud on the Front Page: Transmission of Freudian Ideas in the American Newspaper of the 1920’s”) provides some newspaper coverage outside of Chicago not available from other sources (largely East Coast newspapers). To my knowledge, Dr. Covert did not turn her dissertation into a book or a peer-reviewed journal article, which is a shame. Her dissertation would have been of interest to many, but typically dissertations are not the proper vehicle to transmit the information to a larger audience.
At the time
of this writing, the internet also has a wide selection of information (e.g., details related to the crime) and resources (e.g., pictures, documents) that are worth exploring. Specifically, the Northwestern University Library Archives (Digital Collections and Exhibits) has holdings on the webpage titled “Leopold and Loeb in the University Archives” (http://www.library.northwestern.edu/libraries-collections/evanston-campus/university-archives/digital-collections-and-exhibits/leopold). Northwestern’s Archives include the entire psychiatric reports from Drs. Bowman and Hulbert (almost 300 pages total; available as downloads), which are described in Chapter 10. In addition, posted are Leopold and Loeb’s confessions/statements to the prosecution which provide greater details about the crime than I will discuss below.
Leigh Bienen’s (School of Law at Northwestern University) “Homicide in Chicago 1870-1930” website (http://homicide.northwestern.edu/; click on “Crimes of the Century”) and the “Famous Trials” website by Douglas O. Linder (University of Missouri-Kansas City School of Law; http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/ftrials.htm) are also excellent resources.
Finally, the Chicago History Museum (http://www.chicagohistory.org/; click on “Research” and then “Online Resources”) has the largest collection of photographs related to the trial that I am aware of. While many internet sites have pictures of the people, places, and evidence related to the case, the Chicago History Museum has some materials that others do not possess.
For those readers that enjoy the mixing of fact and fiction, Meyer Levin’s (1956) New York Times bestselling novel Compulsion is recommended. The book was made into a Hollywood film in 1959 starring Orson Wells. Levin at the time of the trial was a University of Chicago student who worked for the Chicago Daily News as a campus correspondent and was assigned to the arraignment hearing. Levin wrote an article about Leopold’s father, which impressed his editor. It appeared that Levin would be assigned to cover the trial on a regular basis, which would be a great opportunity for a young reporter. However, Levin had already made plans to travel to Europe with friends that summer, and was concerned that the trial would be delayed as the defense lawyers were already asking the court for more time to prepare their case. As Higdon (1999, p. 166) notes from an interview, “Over in Paris, France, Meyer Levin would read that the court had decided to hear the case immediately and curse himself for not having remained at home. He would spend the rest of the summer reading in European newspapers what was happening in a Chicago case he could have been covering himself. Frustrated by this missed opportunity, he nevertheless would have an opportunity later to write about Leopold and Loeb.”
Media Coverage
Another reason for taking the time to discuss Meyer Levin above is to transition and provide an overview of the enormous media coverage that surrounded the case. The Leopold and Loeb trial was not just an event that received local attention, and perhaps a small blurb in a national publication, like Freud’s American visit. The case received media coverage that blanketed not only America, but the entire Western world. During the trial, all of the major newspapers around the country had special correspondents that attended. As the famous lead attorney for the defense, Clarence Darrow, would write in his autobiography, The Story of My Life (1932, p. 226), “Few cases, if any, ever attracted such wide discussion and publicity; not only in America, but anywhere in the world.” In an article published shortly after the trial in The Living Age (“Murder as a Diversion: Europe Philosophizes on Chicago Criminals;” November, 1924, Vol. 323, pp. 277-283), Otto Kaus in a translation originally published in Arbeiter Zeitung (Viennese Socialist Daily), notes that the trial “raised a commotion throughout the whole world” (p. 281).
Judge Caverly, who ultimately ruled on the case, started his decision with the following statement, “In view of the profound and unusual interest that this case has aroused not only in this community but in the entire country and even beyond its boundaries, the court feels it his duty to state the reasons which have led him to the determination he has reached” (cited in McKernan, 1924, pp. 376-377). Historian Paula Fass (1993, p. 919), who examined the influence of the Leopold and Loeb case on American culture, wrote, “From the instant it broke on public awareness in 1924, the Leopold and Loeb case was enveloped by the mass media.” The media coverage the trial received throughout the summer of 1924 was front page news on a daily basis.
In the late 1990s I first became interested in the Leopold and Loeb case when working on an article about the Scopes Monkey trial (Clarence Darrow was the leading defense attorney in both cases). I became curious about the newspaper coverage of the trial. Everyone that I am aware of who had written about this case at this point in time had noted that it was front page news across the country. Yet, I wanted to see for myself because most of what has been written about the media coverage of the trial has relied primarily upon the Chicago newspapers. Was the trial front page news outside of Chicago, and if so, what was it like?
I enlisted the help of three undergraduate students (Myriah Koledin, Gregory Drakulic, & Robin Payne) during an honors seminar at my first full-time job as a college professor at Adams State College (Alamosa, CO) to try and track down a more varied sample of newspaper coverage (the internet is of much greater use today). What we decided to do was to try and obtain microfilm and microfiche from newspapers in various parts of the country outside of the Midwest. Thus, we were attempting to obtain, via interlibrary loan, newspapers from the Northeast, South, Northwest, and Western portions of the United States during the trial. Our sample was limited because most libraries would not ship their archived newspapers, but some did. What we found was that it did not matter if it was The New York Times, The Pittsburg-Post Gazette, The Pensacola Journal (Florida), The Florida Times-Union (Jacksonville, FL), The Los Angeles Daily Times, or The Seattle Times, this trial was front-page news. We even found some coverage of the trial in much smaller newspapers such as the Rogue River Courier (Grants Pass, Josephine County, Oregon), and the San Luis Valley News (Colorado). More recently, historical newspaper databases (see next paragraph) confirmed that this trial received extensive coverage throughout the United States in the major newspapers.
For the reader interested in regional coverage, your local public or University library may have microfilm or microfiche of your hometown newspaper dating back to the summer of 1924. It’s interesting to browse through to see not only the coverage of the trial, but what other events were going on in the country and in your local community at the time. Furthermore, ProQuest (www.proquest.com) has begun a Historical Newspapers program, which allows the user to quickly search for older newspaper articles in a variety of publications (The Atlanta Constitution, Detroit Free Press, San Francisco Chronicle, The Wall Street Journal, to name just a few). What used to take months searching through microfilm and microfiche, can now take minutes if you have access to the databases.
Currently, the most widely available of the historic databases in the United States is the New York Times Historical, to which many public and most university libraries subscribe. Since the front page stories about the trial were pretty consistent across the country (there are some variations discussed below), this database is an excellent resource to easily read through the newspaper coverage that the typical American would have read back in the summer of 1924. Also, ProQuest’s Historical Newspapers program has extended to include newspapers from around the globe so that the reader who would like to examine the coverage of the trial from other countries can now do so. For example, for the reader interested in how the trial was covered in Canada, The Globe and Mail (“Canada’s Heritage from 1884”) and the Toronto Star (“Pages of the Past”) are available. Other international newspapers include The Guardian, The Observer, The Irish Times, and The Scotsman.
The front page newspaper coverage in America outside of Chicago was largely from the wire services, primarily from the Associated Press (AP), but newspapers picked up reports from other wire services as well (e.g., United Press, United News,
World News Service). The coverage typically not only reported on what was occurring inside the courtroom, but provided the reader with extensive courtroom testimony directly quoting the judge, the lawyers, and the witnesses that testified. People across the country would be reading the highlights of what was spoken in the courtroom. Also, much of the country would be reading the same coverage in the front page stories; although there were some differences in the AP stories on the East and West Coast. The East Coast printed the AP stories the following day, while some of the West Coast stories were printed the same day as written in the late edition of newspapers. The primary difference in coverage across the country was what was written in the editorial pages, opinion pieces relevant to the case, or the various wire stories that individual papers chose to include.
Also, every now and again a newspaper would print a report from an independent writer (e.g., “Special to the New York Times”). The various newspapers differed in their front page headlines, while typically containing the same AP story. For example, on August 2, 1924, The Florida Times-Union’s front page headline was “Loeb Considered Crime as to Franks Boy “Intellectual Feat” Declares Dr. White” while The Pittsburg Post-Gazette’s front page headline was “Dual Leopold and Loeb Mind ‘Devilish,’ is Alienist Plea” to accompany the same coverage, which in this instance was the testimony of the defense Freudian psychoanalyst Dr. William A. White. Alienist was the term used back in 1924 to describe an individual who was testifying about the mental state of a defendant. Independent of the specific newspaper, the testimony of Dr. White was a front page story across the country, and you can read the article using the New York Times Historic database.
Freud, Murder, and Fame: Lessons in Psychology’s Fascinating History Page 13
