The State’s Attorney, who would be the lead prosecutor, was the 45-year-old Robert Crowe (“Fighting” or “Battling” Bob). Crowe was a gifted speaker, but his office had a poor conviction rate, and an election was only months away. Solving the case and securing a guilty verdict would certainly help his reelection status in the fall for the State’s Attorney who had initially run in 1920 on the slogan: “To make life, children, and property safe in Cook County, vote for Judge Robert E. Crowe” (Higdon, 1999, p. 78). The judge who would hear the case was the honorable John R. Caverly, who was 64 years old at the time and had been a judge for 14 years. Caverly was a self-made man, as he paid for his education by working in the steel mills carrying water. Judge Caverly had previously been Chicago’s city attorney, and was rewarded with a judgeship when he prosecuted a group of personal-injury lawyers who had defrauded the taxpayers out of millions of dollars.
Public Interest: A New Storyline
Once the defendants’ identities became known, Leopold and Loeb seemed to be proud of the killing, as they filled in the authorities about their previous criminal activities and ultimately led investigators and reporters to the various important places in the transmission of the crime (e.g., the marsh where they left the body, the place where they rented the car). Leopold said that the murder was as easy to commit as sticking “a pin through the back of a beetle” (cited in Fass, 1993, p. 925). At this point, most people assumed that Nathan Leopold, because of his superior intellect must have been primarily responsible for the crime. Leopold was portrayed in the media and viewed by the public as an evil scientist who was devoid of feelings and/or compassion for others.
In contrast, the public opinion was that the charming Richard Loeb must have been led astray by his intellectual superior. This interpretation would change as subsequent information was released to the public. The media coverage at this point shifted to the story line of Leopold as an evil mastermind. As Fass (1993) points out, in order to keep the Robert Franks murder front page news, the storyline had to reflect modern life in some meaningful way. The central theme to accompany the Leopold and Loeb coverage now continued with the theme of childhood, except now the coverage shifted to “understand the motiveless crime and its relation to the dangers of modern childhood…” (Fass, 1993, pp. 926-7). The newspaper coverage now focused on the importance of proper parenting during childhood to keep children from growing up like Leopold and Loeb.
On July 17, 1924, just a few days before the beginning of the trial, the Chicago Daily Tribune asked its readers in a front page story if they wanted the trial to be broadcast on its new radio station—WGN (“World’s Greatest Newspaper”). Readers were instructed to send in ballots. As the Tribune would write (cited in Theodore, 2007, p. 120), “Millions of Americans, from New York to San Francisco, have read of the murder of the son of Millionaire Jacob Franks with more than a morbid fascination—with a curiosity that grows out of the fact that this murder touches closely more than one intimate phase of human experience.” The 10,000 plus ballots over five days had a majority who voted no, largely because of concerns over whether the content of the trial would be appropriate for all who may listen (particularly women and children), as there were concerns over scandalous details coming out during the trial.
The Alienists
Prior to the authorities letting Leopold and Loeb meet with their defense attorneys for the first time, Crowe (the State’s Attorney who would be the lead prosecutor) had requested that 3 of the leading alienists in Chicago meet with him. Alienist was the term used at the time to describe forensic experts that testified about mental status. Dr. Hugh Patrick (professor emeritus of nervous and mental diseases at Northwestern University Medical School and past president of the American Neurological Association), Dr. Archibald Church (department head of nervous and mental diseases at Northwestern and author of a widely read textbook on mental illness), and Dr. William Krohn (in private practice and an author) all agreed to testify for the prosecution before the defense lawyers had a chance to meet with them. The prosecution would later secure another prominent Chicago alienist, Dr. Harold Singer. Clarence Darrow, in his closing speech, said that Dr. Patrick and Dr. Church were “the two ablest alienists in Chicago” and “if my friend Crowe had not got to them first, I would have tried to get them” (cited in Sellers, 1926, p. 158). Darrow would instead ultimately wind up with Freudians to testify for the defense.
Clarence Darrow immediately hired two physicians to conduct a thorough examination of Leopold and Loeb. Dr. H. S. Hulbert from Oak Park, Illinois, and Dr. Karl Bowman of Boston, who was a specialist in glands and mental disorders. The examinations occurred from June 13 to June 30, 1924, in the Cook County Jail in Chicago, and they would create a medical report for each defendant that would later be offered as evidence in the case. Summary versions of the reports are widely available in McKernan (1924), but the originals they are well worth the read (see Bowman & Hulbert, 1924a, 1924b). For both defendants, Doctors Hulbert and Bowman note that the examination included a comprehensive psychiatric evaluation as well as physical, neurological, endocrine, x-ray, and clinical laboratory examinations. Also, the examination included abundant interviews from family members, friends, relatives, and acquaintances to attempt to gain an accurate history of the defendants. Interestingly, McKernan (1924, p. 82) refers to an “unprintable matter concerning the sex life of the defendants” that she does not include in her summary of the Bowman and Hulbert reports. Although this subject was largely kept out of the newspapers during the trial, the unprintable matter will be discussed in the next chapter.
Because Crowe had already hired the leading alienists from Chicago, Clarence Darrow believed the defense should obtain their alienists from out of town to obtain experts with a higher profile. Darrow subsequently sent Walter Bachrach, one of the other defense attorneys, to the American Psychiatric Association’s 18th Annual Meeting. Darrow had written a book where he stated his belief that criminal behavior is the direct result of the individual’s genetic makeup and endocrine system. Darrow was initially inclined to obtain alienists that would focus upon this type of testimony. However, Walter Bachrach, who had a keen interest in Freudian theory, ultimately convinced Darrow that Freudian psychoanalysts should testify for the defense.
Walter would subsequently secure three of the leading psychoanalysts in the country. Dr. William A. White, who had appeared with Freud and others in the Everybody’s magazine article written by Max Eastman in 1915 (see Chapter 7), was the Superintendent of St. Elizabeth’s Hospital for the Insane (Washington, D.C.), president of the American Psychiatric Association, and the author of many books on mental abnormalities. At the time of the trial, Dr. White was the most well-known psychoanalyst in America. William Healy was formerly Director of the Juvenile Psychopathic Institute (Chicago) and currently the Director of the Judge Baker Foundation (Boston), and had written extensively on mental disturbances in adolescence, juvenile delinquency and crime. Bernard Glueck, a former Director of the Psychiatric Clinic, Sing Sing Prison, who had also worked as an alienist for New York State, was considered one of the leading alienists in the country. Ralph C. Hamill, a Neuropsychiatrist from Chicago would also be hired for the defense, but would not testify in court.
Also, White, Healy, Glueck, and Hamill would author a joint medical report about Leopold and Loeb, which was not offered into evidence, but provides the position of the defense alienists. The report was published by McKernan (1924, pp. 141-163) and the editors of the Journal of the American Institute of Criminal Law and Criminology (1924, Vol. 15). As McKernan (1924, pp. 81-82) summarizes, “Probably never in the history of criminal trials has there ever been before such a painstaking, elaborate and detailed examination of any person charged with a crime, by such a distinguished corps of scientists as was made of Nathan F. Leopold, Jr., and Richard Loeb, in this case.”
Summary
In summary, because of the unique aspects of the murder of Robert Franks, the public quickly became
fascinated in the case. The media supplemented the coverage with personally relevant storylines that kept the story in the news. Even before this case officially made it to trial, the psychological make-up of the defendants was already a topic of widespread interest to the general public. During the trial itself, as will be discussed in the next chapter, Freudian psychoanalysts took take center stage and were accompanied by front page news stories. You did not need to be a psychologist, a medical doctor, an intellectual, or interested in the latest mind cure to have an interest in the Freudian testimony that was about to take place in a Chicago courtroom during the summer of 1924. This trial provided the general public in America, and perhaps the rest of the Western World, with a crash course in Freudian themes and terms.
Chapter 10: THE LEOPOLD AND LOEB TRIAL
The trial of the People v. Richard A. Loeb and Nathan F. Leopold began on July 21, 1924, in Cook County, Illinois. The local public interest around the trial was incredible as each day approximately 3000 people tried to get into the courthouse that would only hold 300. The public fascination with the trial outside of Chicago was equally captivating, as people around the nation waited for newspaper reports of what would unfold in the courtroom. The defendants were each charged with one count of murder and one count of kidnapping. Both charges carried a minimum jail sentence of 14 years and a maximum punishment of death.
Guilty Plea: Evidence for Mitigation of the Crime
At the beginning of the trial, Clarence Darrow stunned the court. Everyone was expecting an insanity defense, but Darrow instead said the following to Judge John R. Caverly (cited in Sellers, 1926, p. 11):
Your Honor, we have determined to withdraw our pleas of not guilty and enter pleas of guilty. We dislike to throw this burden upon this court or any court. We know its seriousness and its gravity. And while we wish it could be otherwise we feel that it must be as we have chosen.
The statute provides, your Honor, that evidence may be offered in mitigation of the punishment, and we shall ask at such time as the court may direct that we be permitted to offer evidence as to the mental condition of these young men, to show the degree of responsibility they had, and also to offer evidence as to the youth of these defendants, and the fact of a plea of guilty as a further mitigation of the penalty in this case. With that we throw ourselves upon the mercy of this court and this court alone.
Darrow’s guilty plea had a dual purpose. First, it would allow him to avoid a jury trial, as the case could now be argued solely before the judge. Public sentiment at the time the trial began was clear: Leopold and Loeb should hang. Nothing short of a death sentence would do as proper punishment for the heinous crime. Darrow believed the only chance he had to avoid the death penalty for his clients was to keep away from a jury. Second, Darrow planned a new strategy of defense, testimony by alienists for mitigation of the crime. He was going to attempt to reduce the sentence, specifically avoid the death penalty, by using what would in today’s terminology be described as a “diminished capacity” defense. In other words, Leopold and Loeb were not wholly responsible for the crime, and it would be the Freudian psychoanalysts who would take center stage for the defense team to explain why there were mitigating circumstances that should be considered when determining punishment.
Using psychological testimony to reduce punishment was a new strategy. Today, it is almost expected in cases in which the defendant is clearly not insane or is not attempting to use a defense of temporary insanity, the defense will call expert witnesses to testify that the defendant committed the crime because of some underlying psychological issues such as post-traumatic stress disorder, severe childhood neglect, sexual abuse in childhood, dissociative disorder, and so forth (likewise, the prosecution will have experts to rebut the defense experts’ testimony).
At the time of the Leopold and Loeb trial, alienist testimony about the psychological makeup of the defendant was limited to determine sanity. If the court ruled the defendant was sane (i.e., capable of exercising fee will), they would stand trial. In contrast, if the court found the defendant insane, they were not held responsible for their actions but sent to an insane asylum. There was simply no middle ground. The strategy that Clarence Darrow implemented was groundbreaking, and would thrust the psychological testimony about Leopold and Loeb center stage. He would argue that there was a continuum between normal and abnormal mental conditions, not just a clear “sane” or “insane.”[7]
Despite the guilty plea, the law required the State to nonetheless prove the crime. During this time, the State produced approximately eighty witnesses to document the details of the crime. The testimony produced no controversy in the courtroom and there was very little cross-examination by the attorneys for the defendants. The state rested its case on July 30, and the defense was now allowed the opportunity to begin its case. Because there will be a variety of names and dates forthcoming, I have provided a timeline that includes the important names and dates relevant for the psychological testimony in Appendix A that can be referred to as needed.
Shifting Public Interest: The Bowman and Hulbert Medical Report
While the prosecution rested its case on Wednesday, July 30, an event occurred over the weekend that made the prosecution livid. Lead defense attorney Clarence Darrow said that someone had stolen portions of the medical reports made by Dr. Bowman and Dr. Hulbert (see Chapter 9). Darrow was well aware of the importance of public opinion and media reports in high profile cases. Darrow likely leaked the report to the press to shift the focus of the media reporting away from the details of the crime to the mitigation portion of the trial. Darrow subsequently sent the “stolen” report to other newspapers so that they would not get scooped by the other papers that already possessed the document. This was the beginning of the next phase of public interest, the underlying causes as to why Leopold and Loeb had committed what appeared to be a senseless murder. This phase of the trial would change America for the foreseeable future into becoming interested in Freudian theory.
The Bowman and Hulbert (1924a, 1924b) reports for both defendants included a thorough medical examination (physical, neurological, endocrine, X-ray) as well as the family and academic histories of the defendants. The most interesting portions of the report for the public were the abnormal childhoods of Leopold and Loeb, and the subsequent development of their active phantasy lives (I am using the spelling of “fantasy” that occurred in 1924 for consistency with later quotations). According to the medical reports (see Bowman & Hulbert, 1924a, 1924b), Loeb was said to have felt inferior from an early age as he believed he did not receive enough parental attention. He also had a strict Governess, Miss Struthers, who was employed when he was 4 ½ years old, and she pushed him academically beyond what would be considered normal for a young boy. Although they were attached to each other, Loeb quickly realized he could avoid punishment by lying to Miss Struthers (Bowman & Hulbert, 1924b).
The report also stated that Loeb was physically inferior during early childhood (until about the age of nine), so he was not allowed to play outdoors with other boys. Loeb never developed normal feelings of guilt and remorse. He had an inability to show normal emotional responses, and was suffering from depressive episodes. Loeb, who read a large number of detective books as a child, is also said to have developed and spent a great deal of time in an active phantasy life by the age of 10 or 11, and these phantasies centered on being a “Master Criminal.” As Bowman and Hulbert (1924b, p. 70) report, in all of Loeb’s “criminal phantasies the thing that gave him pleasure would be the prestige to himself as the “Master Mind” directing the criminal operations which no detective could solve.”
Nathan Leopold had a series of different governesses growing up, but Mathilda Wantz (Sweetie) had a tremendous influence over Leopold when he was a child. Sweetie was “homely, suspicious, had a violent temper and was continually getting into scraps with other people” (Bowman & Hulbert, 1924a, p. 18). She was also extremely jealous (i.e., she encouraged Leopold to love her more
than his own mother) and did not teach Leopold what would be considered a normal view of right and wrong. For example, when Leopold was just 7 years old he had borrowed a neighbor boy’s stamp collection which contained several duplicate stamps that he desired. Sweetie would help Leopold steal the objects he wanted, but the stamps were ultimately returned when his parents eventually found out. The report would note that the psychiatric importance of Sweetie, who was described as having a “very peculiar mentality” (p. 22), was that Leopold would come to take “her abnormal ideas as normal” (p.18).
Furthermore, Leopold was from an early age encouraged and permitted to inspect his governess “from head to foot in her undressing closet” (Bowman & Hulbert, 1924a, p. 19). Moreover, his earliest sexual experiences would be with his bizarre governess. As McKernan (1924, p. 136) summarizes, Leopold’s sex life had an “abnormal start due to the abnormal introduction to sex life that he had acquired from his insane governess when he was a boy of tender years.” The Bowman and Hulbert (1924a, p. 151) report of Leopold would summarize the influence of his governess (i.e., “Sweetie”) in the following way:
Freud, Murder, and Fame: Lessons in Psychology’s Fascinating History Page 15
