Freud, Murder, and Fame: Lessons in Psychology’s Fascinating History

by Todd C. Riniolo

  The trial spurred a variety of opinion pieces in both magazines and newspapers in the months and years following the case on a variety of issues. Some used the trial to put forth their opinions about the death penalty (e.g., see The New Republic, “The Leopold-Loeb Decision,” September 24, 1924, pp. 88-89). Opinion pieces were offered as to whether the New Psychology should be used regularly in criminal proceedings (for contrasting examples, see The New York Times, “Deterrent and Cure,” September 12, 1924, p. 20; George Kirchwey, The Survey, “Old Law and New Understanding: The Leopold-Loeb Case: a Fingerpost in Criminology,” October 1, 1924, pp. 7-8, 64). More importantly, public interest in the case, and in the New Psychology, would continue well after Leopold and Loeb were sentenced for the murder of Robert Franks (Hidgon, 1999).

  A New Context: An American Public Interested in Freudian Themes

  Remember the “LOEB CASE INTRODUCES NEW PSYCHOLOGY” headline previously mentioned in the September 7, 1924, New York Times? In the same Sunday issue of the Times there is an article titled “Freud’s Imagination Flooding Wide and Obscure Areas: In Two Small Volumes He Tracks Through a Maze of Biology and Psychology,” which includes the classic photograph of Freud holding the cigar (see http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Sigmund_Freud_LIFE.jpg). The article, written by Mary Keyt Isham (pp. 14, 16), is a book review of the English translations of Beyond the Pleasure-Principle and Group Psychology and the Analysis of the Ego. Of importance is how articles like this would differ when read by the average American before and after the Leopold and Loeb trial. Before the trial, there is no evidence that the general public was widely interested in psychoanalysis because of a lack of personal relevance. Thus, most readers would likely have either flipped the page, or if the story was read, quickly forgotten (see Chapter 8). Now, during and after the Leopold and Loeb case, in which the public had been given a crash course in psychoanalysis in a fascinating context, there is a much different level of interest. In this new context of an interested public, readers were more likely to pay attention to related media coverage and to ultimately remember Freud’s name.

  What Would Freud Think?

  A question worth examining is: What would Freud think of the use of psychoanalytic testimony in the Leopold and Loeb trial? Prior to the trial beginning, the Chicago papers (Chicago Daily Tribune, Chicago Herald and Examiner), who were fiercely competitive, had both attempted to get Freud to come to Chicago to psychoanalyze the defendants. The Hearst Press in particular (Chicago Herald and Examiner) offered to charter an ocean liner to bring Freud to the United States, and would pay him virtually any price he would name. William Randolph Hearst was apparently willing to go as high as a half a million dollars (Fass, 1993), an astounding amount of money at the time. Freud officially declined because of health reasons as he had been diagnosed with cancer at this point. One also wonders about whether or not Freud also refused because of his views on the appropriateness of psychoanalytic testimony to explain criminal responsibility, and his views that popularization would ultimately distort the true intent of Freudian theory.

  While there is limited evidence on this specific topic of what Freud thought of the use of psychoanalysis in the courtroom, overall Freud was skeptical about the use of psychoanalytic testimony to determine criminal responsibility (Diamond, 1994). For example, in 1922, Freud became directly involved in a criminal case that involved the son of a previous servant of his. Specifically, the son shot and wounded his father while the father was raping his half-sister. Freud was asked to testify on the son’s behalf, but refused. Instead, Freud hired and paid for one of Vienna’s leading forensic psychiatrists, Dr. Valentin Teirich, to help defend the son in court. Freud wrote to Dr. Teirich giving his opinion that probing for deeper meaning (i.e., some sort of Oedipal interpretation) would confuse the facts of the case, and Dr. Teirich should limit his testimony to the issue of sanity. The defendant was ultimately acquitted by reason of temporary insanity.

  Later, Freud was asked to comment about the psychoanalytic testimony given in 1931 during the Halsmann murder trial. Halsmann was a young man who killed his father, and the Innsbruck (Austria) medical faculty had provided expert psychoanalytic opinion about the case for the jury. This expert opinion apparently had little or no impact as Halsmann was found guilty. After the conviction, one of the Innsbruck faculty members started a campaign to have the case retried. In order to increase the chances of a retrial, Freud was asked for his judgment about the expert psychoanalytic opinion given by the Innsbruck faculty at trial. Freud viewed it in the following manner (cited in Diamond, 1994, p. 9):

  Precisely because it is always present, the Oedipus complex is not suited to provide a decision on the question of guilt. The situation envisaged in a well-known anecdote might easily be brought about. There was a burglary. A man who had a jemmy in his possession was found guilty of the crime. After the verdict had been given and he had been asked if he had anything to say, he begged to be sentenced for adultery at the same time—since he was carrying the tools for that on him as well.

  Although there is limited evidence to draw upon, what is available indicates that Freud was very cautious about the use of psychoanalytic testimony in the courtroom. I can only speculate that he would not have looked fondly upon Dr. White and the others who testified as expert witnesses for the defense in this case.

  Small World: An Interesting Side Note

  As covered in Chapter 7, Freud’s nephew (Edward Bernays) had attempted to help generate some much needed money for his uncle by using his expertise in public relations. Bernays decided that he would celebrate his uncle’s 75th birthday by holding a banquet at the Ritz-Carlton Hotel, and invited a notable group of individuals to attend on May 14, 1931. The group would send Freud the following cable (Bernays, 1965, p. 276):

  Men and women recruited from the ranks of psychoanalysis, medicine, and sociology are assembling in New York to honor themselves by honoring, on his 75th birthday, the intrepid explorer who discovered the submerged continents of the ego and gave a new orientation to science and life.

  The two notable individuals who attended that are important for this book were Dr. William A. White, who gave the principle speech at the banquet. Likewise, Clarence Darrow, lead defense attorney for Leopold and Loeb, was also in attendance to honor Sigmund Freud.

  Chapter 11: THE IMPORTANCE OF THE LEOPOLD AND LOEB TRIAL FOR THE HISTORY OF PSYCHOLOGY

  When you initially read my interpretation in the introduction of the importance of the Leopold and Loeb trial in making the American public interested in psychoanalysis (and Freud subsequently becoming a household name), it was without the supporting evidence that I have provided in this book. If I have done my job adequately and relied upon the data fragments of history, my historical interpretation below should be supported by the available evidence. As I stated in the introduction, I am providing a reminder that historical interpretations on such issues as this should not be confused with historical facts (see Chapter 2), and interpretations can be wrong (see Chapter 3). Thus, I encourage an active evaluate my interpretations based upon the strength of the evidence I presented in this book.

  Freud’s Fame: A Historical Interpretation

  Freud becoming famous with the American public was not inevitable but strongly influenced by several important events. Prior to 1909, Freud was virtually unheard of in America, and had limited name recognition among psychologists and the medical community. As a result of Freud’s first and only trip to the United States in 1909, in which he was invited to speak at Clark University’s 20th Anniversary celebration (see Chapter 6), he and psychoanalysis gained name recognition with certain specialized segments of American society (e.g., academic psychologists, the medical community). Freud’s recognition ultimately spread to the intellectual community starting somewhere around 1915, when American intellectuals became very interested in Freudian theory because it became personally relevant to them at the time (see Chapter 7). People are more likely to pay attention,
seek out additional information, and remember specifics when the subject material either is personally relevant or presented in a context that has personal relevance (see Chapter 8).

  In America, into the early 1920s, Freud had achieved instant name recognition primarily among intellectuals, the medical community, academics, and some interested readers of popular magazines (see Chapter 7). Thus, he was famous among specific groups. However, Freud was not known among the majority of the general public because of a variety of factors (see Chapters 7 & 8). To name a few, (a) Freud was not yet personally relevant to the typical man or woman living in America in the early 20th century, (b) psychoanalysis did not stand out to the general public because it was one of many “mind cures” on a crowded landscape, and (c) infrequent media exposure. As pointed out in Chapter 7, the years leading up to the summer of 1924 saw a stagnation of interest in psychoanalysis (i.e., interest was not widening to more groups and individuals), and Freud’s attempt at a public relations campaign to increase his popularity failed.

  How then, did Freud make the leap forward to instant name recognition with the majority of the American public, which occurred sometime around his first appearance on the cover of Time magazine (October 27, 1924)? Freudian psychoanalysts testified for the defense in one of the most famous murder cases of the 20th century: the Leopold and Loeb trial. The media attention surrounding the case was front page news on a daily bases across the United States (see Chapters 9 & 10). The Crime of the Century introduced the nation to Freudian terms (e.g., ego, repression), and started a national discussion of Freudian theory (e.g., the importance of early childhood experiences, unconscious motivations). Everyone had an opinion about the trial and the expert opinion of the alienists. The general public became engrossed in psychoanalysis during the summer of 1924 because it was presented in a context in which everyone was interested (i.e., why did the murder of the Franks boy happen?). Also of importance, this historical event immediately precedes the time frame that has been previously identified by historians as when Freud first became known by the general public.

  Although Freud’s name was not typically part of the media coverage of the trial, it would not take long for Freud to become a household name in this new context of a general public that was interested in learning more about psychoanalysis, or the “New Psychology.” Just as the intellectual community in America quickly came to know Freud once psychoanalysis became personally relevant to them (see Chapter 7), the same pattern now exists for the general public because the Leopold and Loeb case made psychoanalysis relevant. It also helped that there existed those specific subgroups (e.g., intellectuals, readers of popular magazines) that were already familiar with Freud and psychoanalysis prior to the trial, as they could help spread the word to the now interested general public.

  To summarize, without the unfortunate murder of an innocent victim, the general public would not have been exposed to Freudian theory on such a large scale in such a fascinating context. Freud becoming a household name was not inevitable, but strongly influenced by the tragic events that unfolded during the summer of 1924. Freud at one point in time not being instantly recognizable may be hard for us to fathom today because he is currently an iconic figure in American culture. However, there is no guarantee that Freud would have ever crossed over from being famous among specialized groups (e.g., academics, intellectuals) to achieving truly widespread fame. The Stock Market Crash in October, 1929, and the Great Depression were just around the corner, which drastically reduced media coverage on such topics like Freud and psychoanalysis (Hart, 1933).

  Although just speculation, I believe that without an event like the Leopold and Loeb trial that provided widespread media coverage and presented psychoanalysis in an interesting context, Freud’s name recognition today would have largely been confined to specific subgroups (just like other giants within the history of psychology such as Wilhelm Wundt and William James). What is not speculation is that during the summer of 1924, America became a psychoanalytic nation and shortly afterwards Freud became famous. This historical evidence cannot be ignored when attempting to make an interpretation related to answering the question of how Freud first obtained widespread popularity with the American public.

  Additional Issues

  The purpose of the remaining portion of this chapter is threefold. First, I will discuss why I believe that the history of psychology has largely overlooked the importance of the Leopold and Loeb trial in popularizing Freud with the American public. Second, I will discuss how the information presented in this book helps to fill in some of the missing information about Freud’s popularity with the general public. Third, I will comment on the few previous individuals who have written about the Leopold and Loeb trial as it pertains to Freud’s popularity to contrast with my interpretation.

  Why has the Leopold and Loeb Trial Been Overlooked by the History of Psychology?

  Open any history of psychology textbook, and if the topic of Freud’s popularization in America is included, you will not find any mention of the Leopold and Loeb case. It’s as though the Crime of the Century had never occurred. An interesting question to speculate on is why has the trial been largely overlooked? As I have documented in earlier chapters, it was not beyond Freud himself and some of Freud’s ardent supporters to rewrite history in a way that put Freud in a better light (e.g., minimizing Freud’s use of cocaine). Certainly Freud obtaining iconic status largely because of the power of his ideas is a much more rose-colored interpretation than being helped by the massive publicity generated because of the public’s fascination surrounding the murder of a young boy. Could this be another example of an attempt to distort history?

  Although this may surprise the reader, I believe the answer to that question is no. There currently exist both “pro-Freudian” historians as well as “anti-Freudian” historians. Those who would be classified as anti-Freudians have been no more likely to point to the important role of the Leopold and Loeb trial in helping to popularize Freud than pro-Freudians. I believe there are several less conspiratorial explanations that have contributed to the Leopold and Loeb case not receiving the proper attention that it deserves in helping to explain Freud’s popularity with the general public.

  While the Leopold and Loeb case was known by virtually everyone in the 1920s, over time the case has moved from widespread recognition to being known today by mostly specialized groups, which typically occurs as time marches on. Even among historians, who are often times very specialized in their research; there is no guarantee that they will have familiarity with the case. For example, historian Simon Baatz in his recent book (2008) about the case notes that he was unaware of the Leopold and Loeb trial until just a few years ago when he had a few hours to kill in London. He decided to catch a movie to pass some time, which just by chance happened to be Alfred Hitchcock’s Rope, which is a fictional account of the case. Today, the importance of the Leopold and Loeb trial has been largely compartmentalized for its importance in the history of criminology (people who study film also are likely to be aware of the case because of Rope). Those who have specialization in criminology or related issues, which is the group most likely to be aware of the trial today, would have no reason to recognize or focus on the importance of the trial as it relates to the history of psychology and Freud’s popularization with the general public.

  Also, many individuals who focus on Freud or the history of psychology in general are unaware of the trial itself, or the specific events of the case. I personally was unaware of the Leopold and Loeb case until I stumbled into it by accident. When working on a manuscript about the Scopes Monkey Trial (see Riniolo & Torrez, 2000), I had come across testimony in the trial transcripts referring to the Leopold and Loeb case, as Clarence Darrow was the lead defense attorney for John Scopes. After digging up information, one thing led to another, and I quickly became engrossed in the case. Yet, this was simply by accident. Another potential reason why the Leopold and Loeb case has not received proper attention i
n regards to the popularization of psychoanalysis with the American public may be because those who specialize in the history of psychology would largely be unaware of the massive amount of media exposure that the Leopold and Loeb trial generated and ultimately exposed the American public to Freudian themes and terms during the summer of 1924. Once again, I do not believe that a cover-up is the appropriate explanation. However, this does not exclude the possibility that an individual historian ignored the trial because it provides evidence inconsistent with a preconceived view of how Freud became an iconic figure (see discussion of biases in Chapter 3).

  Another potential contributing factor was that the newspaper coverage during the trial may have helped to inadvertently cover-up the historical evidence. As previously discussed, the Freudian psychoanalysts who testified for the defense during the case were typically referred to as alienists on the front pages, as were all of the individuals who testified about the mental status of the defendants. The historian with no expertise in criminology searching for newspaper coverage relevant to Freud’s popularization may have overlooked the trial because of the unfamiliar term that did not specifically say Freudian psychoanalyst (or something similar).