Clarence Darrow fought hard to have the alienists allowed to testify. Robert Crowe fought equally as hard to have them excluded. Crowe claimed: "Our interpretation of this is, your honor, is that they are attempting to show degrees of responsibility. There is nothing in law known as degrees of responsibility. You are either entirely responsible for all the consequences of your act, or you are not responsible at all.” Arguments were heard for three days and then Judge Caverly made his decision: "Under that section of the statute which gives the court the right, and says it is his duty to hear evidence in mitigation, as well as evidence in aggravation, the court is of the opinion that it is his duty to hear any evidence that the defense may present and it is not for the court to determine in advance what it may be. The court will hear it and give it such weight as he thinks it is entitled to." The alienists were now allowed to testify and both sides lined up their expert witnesses. The alienists for the defence testified to the emotional immaturity of both defendants despite their above average intelligence. Over strenuous objections from Crowe, they alluded to everything from Leopold and Loeb's abuse of alcohol to wild sex fantasies, glandular abnormalities and the pains of their overall insecurities. Leopold had told the alienists that he was looking forward to the trial. He said that it would be the "keenest intellectual enjoyment of his life”. Presumably, the murder itself was knocked down to #2 on the list. One of the defence's alienists said in his report:: "The opinion is inescapable that in Loeb we have an individual with a pathological mental life, who is driven in his actions by the compulsive force of his abnormally twisted life of fantasy or imagination and at this time expresses himself in his thinking and feeling and acting as a split personality, a type of condition not uncommonly met with among the insane. We therefore conclude that Richard Loeb is now mentally abnormal and was so abnormal on 5/21/24, and in so far as anyone can predict at this time, will continue perhaps with increasing gravity as time goes on." The state had their experts claim that the pair were normal with no basis in fact for mental abnormality. Four alienists testified for the prosecution that there was no evidence of mental disease. Sigmund Freud, the father of psychoanalysis, was asked to come and give expert testimony. Newspaper magnate William Randolph Hearst offered to charter a liner along with a large sum of cash just for him to come to the US. The Chicago Tribune also sent an offer to Freud if he would come to Chicago and write about the trial. Freud, who was 68 and suffering from cancer at the time of the trial, turned down all offers.
A month after the trial opened, the lawyers for both sides were ready to give their final closing statements. It would be their last chance to impress Judge Caverly with their case. Both men spoke eloquently. Robert Crowe pressed his case for the death penalty. What follows is an excerpt from Crowe’s closing statement. Crowe: "These two young law students of superior intelligence, with more intelligence than they have heart, decided that he must die."
"Leopold has proclaimed since he was 11 years of age that there is no God. The fool in his heart hath said there is no God. I wonder now Nathan, whether you think there is a God or not. I wonder whether or not you think that (when you dropped your glasses) it was an act of Divine Providence to visit upon your miserable carcasses the wrath of God in the enforcement of the laws of Illinois."
"I submit to your Honor please, if we can take the power of American manhood, take the boys at 18 years of age and send them to their death in the front-line trenches of France in defence of our laws (here Crowe is referencing World War I which ended six years before the murder), we have an equal right to take men of 19 years of age and take their lives for violation of those laws that these boys gave up their lives to defend. Many a boy 18 years of age lies beneath the poppies in Flanders Fields who died to defend the laws of this country. We had no compunction when we did that; why should we have any compunction when we take the lives of men 19 years of age who want to tear down and destroy the laws that these brave boys died to preserve."
"You have listened with a great deal of patience and kindness and consideration to the State and the defence. I am not going to trespass unduly upon Your Honor's time and I am going to close for the State. I believe that the facts and the circumstances proved in this case demonstrate that a crime has been committed by these two defendants and that no other punishment except the extreme penalty of the law will fit it; and I leave the case with you on behalf of the State of Illinois, and I ask your Honor in the language of Holy Writ to execute justice and righteousness in the land."
Next it was Clarence Darrow's turn. It would be a plea for the lives of Leopold and Loeb. What follows is an excerpt from Darrow’s closing statement.
Darrow: "I insist, Your Honor, that had this been the case of two boys of these defendants' age, unconnected with families of great wealth, there is not a state's attorney in Illinois who could not have consented at once to a plea of guilty and a punishment in the penitentiary for life. Not one. No lawyer could have justified any other attitude. No prosecution could have justified it. We are here with the lives of two boys imperiled, with the public aroused. For what? Because, unfortunately, the parents have money. Nothing else. I have heard in the last six weeks nothing but the cry for blood. I have heard from the office of the state's attorney only ugly hate. I have heard precedents quoted which would be a disgrace to a savage race. I have seen a court urged almost to the point of threats to hang two boys, in the face of science, in the face of philosophy, in the face of humanity, in the face of experience, in the face of all the better and more humane thought of the age."
"Why did they kill little Bobby Franks? Not for money, not for spite; not for hate. They killed him as they might kill a spider or a fly, for the experience. They killed him because they were made that way. Because somewhere in the infinite processes that go to the making up of the boy or the man something slipped, and those unfortunate lads sit here hated, despised, outcasts, with the community shouting for their blood. Mr. Savage, with the immaturity of youth and inexperience, says that if we hang them there will be no more killing. This world has been one long slaughterhouse from the beginning until today, and killing goes on and on and on, and will forever. Why not read something, why not study something, why not think instead of blindly shouting for death?"
"Kill them. Will that prevent other senseless boys or other vicious men or vicious women from killing? No! It will simply call upon every weak-minded person to do as they have done. I know how easy it is to I talk about mothers when you want to do something cruel. But I am thinking of the others, too. I know that any mother might be the mother of little Bobby Franks, who left his home and went to his school, and who never came back. I know that any mother might be the mother of Richard Loeb and Nathan Leopold, just the same. The trouble is this, that if she is the mother of a Nathan Leopold or of a Richard Loeb, she has to ask herself the question: "How come my children came to be what they are? From what ancestry did they get this strain? How far removed was the poison that destroyed their lives? Was I the bearer of the seed that brings them to death?" Any mother might be the mother of any of them. But these two are the victims."
"Now, I must say a word more and then I will leave this with you where I should have left it long ago. None of us are unmindful of the public; courts are not, and juries are not. We placed our fate in the hands of a trained court, thinking that he would be more mindful and considerate than a jury. I cannot say how people feel. I have stood here for three months as one might stand at the ocean trying to sweep back the tide. I hope the seas are subsiding and the wind is falling, and I believe they are, but I wish to make no false pretense to this court. The easy thing and the popular thing to do is to hang my clients. I know it. Men and women who do not think will applaud. The cruel and the thoughtless will approve. It will be easy today; but in Chicago, and reaching out over the length and breadth of the land, more and more fathers and mothers, the humane, the kind, and the hopeful, who are gaining an understanding and asking questions not only about these poo
r boys but about their own, these will join in no acclaim at the death of my clients. But, Your Honor, what they shall ask may not count. I know the easy way. I know Your Honor stands between the future and the past. I know the future is with me, and what I stand for here; not merely for the lives of these two unfortunate lads, but for all boys and all girls; for all of the young, and as far as possible, for all of the old. I am pleading for life, understanding, charity, kindness, and the infinite mercy that considers all. I am pleading that we overcome cruelty with kindness and hatred with love. I know the future is on my side. Your Honor stands between the past and the future. You may hang these boys; you may hang them, by the neck until they are dead. But in doing it you will turn your face toward the past. In doing it you are making it harder for every other boy who in ignorance and darkness must grope his way through the mazes which only childhood knows. In doing it you will make it harder for unborn children. You may save them and make it easier for every child that some time may stand where these boys stand. You will make it easier for every human being with an aspiration and a vision and a hope and a fate. I am pleading for the future; I am pleading for a time when hatred and cruelty will not control the hearts of men. When we can learn by, reason and judgment and understanding and faith that all life is worth saving, and that mercy is the highest attribute of man."
"I feel that I should apologize for the length of time I have taken. This case may not be as important as I think it is, and I am sure I do not need to tell this court, or to tell my friends, that I would fight just as hard for the poor as for the rich. If I should succeed in saving these boys' lives and do nothing for the progress of the law, I should feel sad, indeed. If I can succeed, my greatest reward and my greatest hope will be that I have done something for the tens of thousands of other boys, or the countless unfortunates who must tread the same road in blind childhood that these poor boys have trod, that I have done something to help human understanding, to temper justice with mercy, to overcome hate with love."
"I was reading last night of the aspiration of the old Persian poet, Omar Khayyam. It appealed to me as the highest that can vision. I wish it was in my heart, and I wish it was in the hearts of all:
So I be written in the Book of Love,
Do not care about that Book above.
Erase my name or write it as you will,
So I be written in the Book of Love."
Judge Caverly
With the end of the closing statements, it was now up to Judge Caverly to render a decision. The judge did not take the responsibility lightly and wrestled with the decision for 18 days before he was ready. On September 10, 1924 he announced that decision. Leopold and Loeb were sentenced to life in prison for the murder and an additional 99 years for the kidnapping. Judge Caverly: "It would have been the path of least resistance to impose the extreme penalty of the law. In choosing imprisonment instead of death, the court is moved chiefly by the consideration of the age of the defendants, boys of 18 and 19 years. The court feels that it is proper to add a final word concerning the effect of the parole law upon the punishment of these defendants. In the case of such atrocious crimes, it is entirely within the discretion of the Department of Public Welfare, never to admit these defendants to parole. To such a policy the court urges them strictly to adhere; if this course is persevered in the punishment of these defendants, it will both satisfy the ends of justice and safeguard the interests of society."
The rest of the Leopold and Loeb story did not quite play out as Judge Caverly had intended. They were separated and housed in different areas of the penitentiary in Joliet, Illinois. They were allowed to see each other during the Jewish New Year and Yom Kippur which the Jewish prisoners were allowed to celebrate. A long separation followed with Leopold being transferred to the new Stateville Prison while Loeb remained at Joliet. In 1931, having now been in prison for seven years, the pair was reunited. Together at Stateville the prisoners came up with a new plan. Thankfully, this one did not include murder. Leopold and Loeb now set about to reform the prison school system. At the time prisoners could only take themselves through the eighth grade. Also, if a prisoner was attending school in prison, he was forced to give up his job inside the prison....and any privileges connected with the job.
Both Leopold and Loeb had taken correspondence courses before the murder and now were able to create an "in house" correspondence school. The two men, now 25 and 26 years old, were a contradiction. Together they had shown that they were capable of the worst kind of behavior imaginable...the murder of Bobby Franks. In prison, they showed that they were also capable of helping their fellow man. The pair also spent three years collaborating on a parole prediction project. Loeb also rewrote the English A curriculum for the prison's school. Then one day in 1936 the collaborations between Leopold and Loeb came to a sudden end.
On the morning of January 28, 1936 Leopold and Loeb had breakfast in Richard's cell as they had done almost every morning. They passed the time correcting inmate's lessons and talking about a new algebra course that they were helping to set up for the prison school. That morning Richard complained to Nathan that nothing exciting ever happened. He wouldn't have to worry about that for much longer. At about 11:30am Richard picked up a towel and clean underwear telling Nathan that he was going to take a shower. Less than an hour later, Leopold heard that Loeb was seriously injured and had been taken to the prison hospital. Nathan reached the hospital to find Richard laying there unconscious on a table. He was bleeding from a number of razor cuts all over his body. He died a short time later. When the doctors left, Leopold and a nurse stitched up some of the cuts and covered Loeb with a sheet. Leopold said, "but after a moment I folded the sheet back from his face and sat down on a stool by the table where he lay. I wanted a long, last look at him. I felt like half of me was dead." Richard Loeb was cremated and his ashes given to his family.
Nathan Leopold continued to teach other prisoners as well as learning more than 20 languages on his own. In 1945 he volunteered for a project directed by the University of Chicago. Along with other volunteers, Leopold was injected with malaria and treated with experimental drugs. Due to that research, SN-13276 turned into pentaquine which became a safe drug to use in the treatment of malaria. Leopold devoted long hours to the project and was one of the very first to be cured of the disease by a safe drug. In 1958 Nathan Leopold was paroled after having served 33 years in prison. He settled in Puerto Rico. In 1960 he wrote a book Life Plus Ninety-nine Years, an autobiography. He wrote about the murder, the trial and life in prison. A year later he married a widow and in 1963 he seemed to come to terms with his life. He said, "I came to the conclusion that on September 15, 1963, I reached the point where it all became worthwhile that the joy of being a free man again equaled the grief of those 33 years."
Nathan Leopold is released
In 1971 Nathan Leopold died of a heart attack brought on by diabetes in San Juan, Puerto Rico. He donated his body to the University of Puerto Rico for research. He was 66 years old.
The Murder of Anita Cobby
New South Wales, Australia 1986: In February, 1986 Anita was living with her parents after the breakup of her marriage with John Cobby. Anita and John had remained close and still spoke often. Anita was a beautiful young woman who was also a former beauty pageant winner. She could easily have found work as a professional model but she shunned the spotlight and chose to train as a nurse instead. She was working in the highly specialized field of microsurgery at the Sydney Hospital.
Anita was dedicated to her work and if she was asked to stay late she always did. If she was going to be late she would always call her father for a ride. No one knows why Anita did not make that call on Sunday night February 2, 1986. This much we do know however. After her shift ended in the early evening, Anita and two of her friends went out to dinner at a Lebanese restaurant.. Elaine Bray and Lyn Bradshaw had been two of Anita’s closest friends for years and the three had taken their nursing training together. After dinn
er both Lyn and Elaine offered to put Anita up for the night but she decline their hospitality. They dropped Anita off at the Central Railway Station so that she could catch the train home. It was to be the last time that anyone would se Anita alive…that is except for her murderers. When Anita failed to show up for work the next day the hospital called her father who, in turn, called all of Anita’s friends. When that failed to turn up his daughter’s whereabouts he called the police to file a missing persons report. The search was on.
Anita Cobby
The next day, Tuesday February 4, the police received a call from John Reen. Reen was a farmer who made a grisly find when checking his cows that morning. The police arrived quickly and found the battered body of a female that fit the description of the missing Anita Cobby. Her father did what no father should ever have to do and identified the remains of his daughter. The autopsy revealed that Anita had been dragged through a barb-wired fence and had been severely beaten and also savagely raped by more than one person. Her throat had been cut and the medical examiner believed that it had taken place while Anita was still conscious. What Anita had endured during her final hours was horrific. The hunt was now on for the person or persons responsible.
Scene of the Crime Page 8
