Materials used in leopoldandloeb.com include original works of authorship, works
for which copyright has expired, or works that we believe to fall within fair use
protection of copyright law. All original work is copyright M Rackliffe 2000-
Why did they do it?
And he prefaced it by "In re Dr. White's remarks about identification with alter
ego, Dick; see poem I quoted to you." That line comes in this stanza,-
"Long past the pulse and pain of passion;
Long left the limit of all love'
I crave some nearer fuller fashion,
Some unknown way, beyond, above;
Some infinitely inner fashion,
As water with water, flame with fire.
Let me dream once that dear delusion
That I am you, O heart's desire."
MR. CROWE: Q Who is the poet that wrote that?
A Lawrence Hope, he tells me. I am not familiar with it. I am informed by one of
my confreres, however, that that is the fact. In his phantasy there was a ready changeabout
of himself with Loeb and he fitted into Loeb's suggestion about their criminal activity
because he could work out his double-
Bearing upon this whole problem of his phantasy life and upon his delusional tendencies, his ideas of superiority, and a fact that seems to be very well substantiated from his relatives, is that for many years he showed an abnormal and intense energy. Many witnessed that. He is never idle a minute. He has no ordinary fatigue. He would remain up all night when he was going to undertake some special task or investigation next morning often, because he thought he could do it better if he remained up.
As we know by his actual productions, he has been continually reaching out for new subjects to study,a and a developed formidable list. In his room he has an ornithology collection, which I have seen, which is really very remarkable. I do not know the exact number of birds in it, but a lot of very rare specimens; but I think they stated there were something like three thousand specimens in the collection.
He has been continually seeking new life experiences, and ideas and sensations' a great talker and arguer throughout, showing an intense physical and mental attitude for years, and determining it through the period of his examination.
THE COURT: We will now adjourn until two o'clock this afternoon.
Whereupon an adjournment was here taken by Court and Counsel to 2:00 o'clock P.M. August 4th, 1924.
Monday, Aug. 4, 1924.
2:00 o'clock P.M.
Court convened at 2:00 o'clock P.M.
Monday August 4th, 1924 pursuant to adjournment heretofore taken.
Present: Same as before.
DR. WILLIAM J. HEALY
resumed the stand, and being further examined, testified as follows:
DIRECT EXAMINATION
(continued)
BY MR. DARROW
THE WITNESS: Shall I go back and show this test that was asked for this morning? Here is a set of pictures representing the activities of a boy during one day in his life. The person who is to be tested is informed of that fact, and is asked to select something that fills in the spaces there, that makes the meaning correct. Of course, anybody would observe that this boy is getting up, and he has one shoe on and one shoe off. So he selects a shoe. Now, he might select a bedroom slipper, or a low shoe, but he has a high shoe on, so he naturally selects that to fill in. You pass this to the person who is being examined, and say, "Fill in each one of these as you go along with the correct message."
So you go through with these things. I have seen many shrewd country boy make a pretty nearly perfect record on this, while this particular lad, with his fine mentality, only did as I have stated. There is nothing but common sense judgment required in this rather than any specific type of learning.
Finishing the points concerning Leopold's inner mental life I would like to say at this time that I, with the rest of them, was impressed with the validity of his recital and his imaginative life, because it fits in so well with his life trends and activities and then because also this sort of phantasy life is very similar in its qualities and the way it came out to the so called autistic thinking, that is, reveries, that is done by patients who have mental disorders. This came out spontaneously with the first investigators, Drs. Bowman and Hulbert, and were elaborated more or less to each one of us.
In connection with the boy's inner mental life we find a great deal of pathological admixture of inferior and superior concepts, ideas and strivings, not only in his diseased imagination, but also in his behavior reactions in real life. There is nothing more impressive in this respect than the fact that here was a boy who already showed such tremendous good powers and had such widely good chances for developing in the line of his especial abilities, but at the same time was willing to go on with these thoroughly pernicious activities. It appears to me to reflect a profound disorder of judgment, this contradictory existence of impulses and ideas which were living side by side. It indicates a spontaneously abnormal rift or tremendous contradiction between his intellectual precocity and his judgement and his emotional condition. There was no normal and consistent personality developed.
Then if I may, I want next to speak of his early peculiar tendencies which have already been spoken of to some extent.
His being at five or six years of age so much interested in the religions and different religions; interested in going yo different churches; interested in the ideas of the Crucifixion and the Madonna and early questioning why there were so many different ideas about God. About that same time he began a desire which he has he has had all his life, of wanting to complete everything, to do a good job out of everything, to go to all churches; to know all the words in the different languages for the equivalent of "yes".
He tells us he asked his nurse to be awakened at night at odd hours. He remembers distinctly wanting to visit 100th Street simply because it had the number 100. He wanted to be taken to see a certain Madonna picture.
His interest in churches we have been told about also by his family, and at the same time there began this very intense mental activity; he began his collections with a great deal of zeal in the study of insects of insects and birds and then later other collections.
He tells us that at four years of age he had begun to catalogue the minor saints and to learn something about their lives from the nurse that he had.
His development of his peculiar personality tendency that amounted to practically a delusional form, is, to my mind, very interesting. Of course, he showed early very extraordinary intellectual superiority and it was recognized by his mother and certain teachers; he was soon set apart and superior.
I asked him what hardships he ever had to meet in the world. He never had any. He says he never had any disappointments; he was not allowed to have any.
As a young child he placed his mother and favorite aunt, as you have heard, on the level with the Madonna as most wonderful persons, and in conversation apparently retains this sort of ideal, although he thinks that women are quite inferior. To the psychiatrist this, of course, has considerable interest, because it relates to his own origin. He thinks of himself as coming somehow from very wonderful people.
And then we have his superior accomplishments and the ideas which he early developed of doing very off things which would set his apart. He was very tense about doing well those studies, about making wonderful collections, about showing that he had an abnormal resistance on a very peculiar resistance to fatigue. He says he strove for perfection; he thought in the fourth dimension; he hoped to find the universal language.
And then next what is even more interesting it seems that he very early thought oh himself as possibly a completely intelligent individual who might experiment with ideas of right and wrong and conscience and God.
You will remember he is reported to have told the authorities when he was in custody that a conscience was drilled into him until he was eight years of age and then after that he proceeded to drill it out.
And so he began as a child to deliberately overthrow the idea of God and of conscience and of sympathy and of social responsibility as unnecessary and unworthy.
The following are two or three of his expressions:
"I have reveled in the fact that I have had no qualms of conscience". Speaking of family loyalties, "I was trying to break down any feeling that I had for my family. I have tried to kill affection for years."
He says that he at first, from the intellectual standpoint, doubted the existence of a conscience; that is something that tradition has handed to us or we learned at our mother's knee, and then by the result of experiment he found that he could completely down it.
Only gradually he seems to have developed the superman idea, and at this point I should like, if I may, to cite a letter dated last October, in which he dwells on that.
MR. DARROW: We will show by another witness the genuineness of the letter.
THE WITNESS: This is a letter that I myself picked out from a large batch of letters which were brought to me by the members of his family. The whole letter has a very great deal of interest on account of its verbosity and the peculiar playing with ideas, that is so characteristics of individuals of his type of mentality. It is a very long letter.
MR. DARROW: Q Does the envelope bear a post office stamp and date?
A It bears the stamp of the post office, Toledo, Ohio, October 10, 1923, addressed to Mr. Richard A. Loeb, 5107
Ellis Avenue, Chicago, a special delivery letter.
MR. CROWE: Read all of it.
A "October 10, 20th Century Limited, 1:45 P.M.
"Dear Dick: I want to thank you first of all for your kindness in granting my request of yesterday. I was highly gratified to hear from you for two reasons, the first sentimental and the second practical. The first of these is that your prompt reply conclusively proved my previous idea that the whole matter really did mean something to you, and that you respected my wishes, even though we were not very friendly. This is a great satisfaction, but the second is even greater, in that I imply from the general tenor of your letter that there is a good chance of a reconciliation between us, which I ardently desire, and this belief will give me a peace of mind on which I based my request.
"But I fear, Dick, that your letter has failed to settle the controversy itself,
as two points are still left open. These I will now attack. As I wrote you yesterday,
the decision of our relations was in your hands, because it depended entirely on
how you wished to treat my refusal to admit that I acted wrongly. This request you
did not answer. You imply merely that because of my statement that, `I regret the
whole matter' I am in part at least admitting what you desire. I thought twice before
putting that phrase in my letter, for fear you might misconstrue it, as in fact you
have done. First, you will note that that I said that `I regret the whole matter'
(not any single part of it). By this I meant that I regretted the crime you originally
committed (your mistake in judgment) from which the whole consequences flow. But
I did not mean and do not wish to understood as meaning that once this act had been
done, I regret anything subsequent. I do not in fact regret it, because I feel sure,
as I felt from the beginning, that should we agin become friends, it will be on a
basis of better mutual understanding as a result of these unpleasant consequences
which I deliberately planned and precipitated. Furtherm even if I did not regret
those consequences, it would not follow at all that I consider myself to have acted
wrongly. I may regret that it is necessary to go downtown to the dentist, and still
not feel that I am acting wrongly in so doing. Quite the contrary. So if you insist
on my stating that I acted wrongly, as a prerequidite to our renewal of friendship,
I feel it duty bound to point out to you that this is not the meaning of what I wrote.
In this do no think that I am trying to avoid a renewal of these relations. You know
how much I desire a renewal but I still feel that I must point this out to yu, as
I could not consider re-
The whole question must be divided into two, namely, treachery in act and treachery in intention. On your suggestion, the first was to be settled by phoning Dick, as I did, I apologizing verbally on condition that you were right, and implying the same apology from you in case you were wrong."
MR. CROWE: Q The Dick referred to there is Dick Rubel.
A I couldn't tell you.
MR. DARROW: Yes.
MR. CROWE: Q Have you made any effort to ascertain that?
A I do not know that I have read this part of the letter before, -
"You were proved wrong, and I am sure you are a good enough sport to stick by your
statement, unless you question whether I did all you suggested in good faith. Hence,
you remove any previous charge of treachery in act. If there was such. But the second
is not so simple. I stated, and still hold, that if you still held me to have acted
treacherously in intent, our friendship must cease. You circumvent that by saying
you never could have held this opinion because you believe me to have acted hastily,
etc. I did my best in stating I was wholly responsible for all I said and did, since
I had planned it all, and if there were malice at all it would be malice afterthought.
You refuse to believe me. Now, that is not my fault. I have done my best to tell
you the true facts, (since they were in my disadvantage) and hence have discharged
my obligation. I still insist that I have planned all I did. You can believe this
or not as you like or come to your own decision, or whether you still stink I acted
treacherously. If you say you do not, then I shall infer either that you never thought
so (although you accuse me of it) or that you have changed your mind (and imply these
as an apology for ever thinking so) and continue to be your friend. All I want from
you then is a statement; that you do not now think me to have acted treacherously
in intent, which I will construe as above. Then it is up to you whether you will
forego my statement of wrong action or will on your part break up our friendship.
Please wire me at my expense to the Biltmore Hotel, New York, immediately on receipt,
stating, one, whether you wish to "break our friendship or to forego my statement,
or, two, whether or not you still think me to have acted treacherously. If you want
further discussion on either point merely wire me that you must see me to discuss
it before you decide. Now, that is all that is in point to our controversy but I
am going to ass a little more in an effort to explain my system of a Neitzschien
philosophy with regard to you. It may have occurred to you why a mere mistake in
judgment on your part should be treated as a crime, when on the part of another it
should not be so considered. Here are the reasons. In formulating a superman, he
is, on account of certain superior qualities inherent in him exempted from the ordinary
laws which govern ordinary men. He is not liable for anything he may do. Whereas
others would be, except for the crime that it is possible for him to commit-
"Now, Dick, just one more word to sum up. Supposing you fulfill both conditions necessary for reconciliation. One, waive claim to my statement, and, two, state yourself that you no longer think me to have acted treacherously. We are going to be as good or better friends as before.
"I wanted that to come about very much, but not at the expense of your thinking that I have backed down in any way from my stand, as I am sure of that in my mind and want you to be.
"Well, Dick, the best of luck if I do not see you again and thanks in advance for the wire, I am sure you will be good enough to send. Hoping you will be able to decide in the way I obviously want,
I am
Babe."
P.S. Excuse scrawl. Train is moving. Your spelling, young man, is abominable, and
I for one should advocate that Tomeie-
MR. DARROW: You want to mark that? Will you mark it for us?
MR. CROWE: All right.
MR. DARROW: Defendants' Exhibit 2 of this date. Mark it inside and outside. Would you like to look at it now?
MR. CROWE: Let me look at it. There is no objection?
MR. DARROW: No.
THE WITNESS: And much to this same point is the fact, as I understand, Mr. Darrow, by one of the teachers in the University of Chicago, that during the last term Leopold got up in a class on torts and insisted that laws might be applicable to ordinary people but not to supermen.
With us, Leopold ridicules our type of work, as far as psychiatry is concerned. He insists that there is nothing in the way of mental disease or lack of balance on his part. He is a different individual, but the difference is only one of superiority.
My opinion about all this is that this group of delusional tendencies shows no consistency or normality. His ideas about himself as a superior person are so widely different from the sort of life that he enters into. With all of his sort his love he does not show a normal self regard. He proves intrinsically his defective judgment in this. He has not taken an ordinary attitude toward himself, a normal attitude. He has not been consistently headed toward the development of his alleged superiority.
MR. CROWE: Pardon me. There is no objection to my keeping this letter over night, is there?
MR. DARROW: No.
THE COURT: You may have it.
THE WITNESS: We are naturally, of course, much interested in the development of Leopold's emotional life. It seems clear that with his very deliberate subordination of his feelings that he has had all the more energy to give to his intellectual pursuits. His feverish mental activities have been made all the more possible because he has not, as he himself indicates, wasted any time on emotion.
We have some clue as to how this has developed on his part. There was the fact of his early small size and his being very specially taken care of by nurses, of his being taunted as he tells us, by being sent to a girls' school for a couple of years, and then, through with that, being accompanied to a public school by the nurse.
His reaction to this was that he could down his sensitiveness, down his feelings, by thinking of himself as being a superior type of an individual, and he has been, he says, surprised at his own success.
He expatiates nowadays on his own coldness as being desirable. It has led him to the position where he is now, as an intellectual who can keenly observe things. He can enjoy what he sees in jail,his own notes on the trial. He tells us that he has had considerable interest in observing hoimself as a murder and says that before the murder was committed that before the murder was committed that he had some thought of the possibility of observing his own actions in such a situation.
Asked about his own feelings or emotions, especially as related to any question of sympathy for anybody who was attacked or murdered or kidnaped, he said to me, "making up my mind to commit murder was paractically the same as making up my mind whether or nor I should eat pie for supper, whether it would give me pleasure of not."
Now, conclusiomns concerning Leopold's mentality. Inb my opinion on account of -
MR. CROWE: Just a moment, doctor.
THE WITNESS: Yes.
MR. CROWE: Before you get into your conclusions, hadn't you better now go into details as to the various things which were said or done that caused you yo come to those conclusions.
THE WITNESS: All this I have been recounting is simply the source.
MR. CROWE: This morning when you said he was eccentric, you said later on you would give the various things that caused you to think he was eccentric and egotistic. You said you would give these later on.
THE WITNESS: Yes, I am going to give those now. That is what I am going to do now.
On account of his abnormal phantasy life developed as abnormal material in childhood and continued in abnormal ways during an abnormal extension of years.
On account of his chronically developed delusional notions about himself, particularly as being a superman.
On account of his subordinated emotional life to the extent that it is now pathologically out of accord with his intellectual life.
On account of his defective or deteriorated judgment which has not permitted him to see the pathological absurdity of mixing phantasy and real life, and the effect of displacing emotional life.
On account of his abnormal urge toward mental activity and his diminished sense of fatigue.
On account of his disintegrated personality so that e fails to really care for his much beloved ego and enters into a thoroughly childish and absurd compact which endangers him.
On account of all this, in my opinion, he is thoroughly unbalanced in his mental life, or to use another term, mentally diseased.
MR. CROWE: When you use the other term, do you mean the same?
THE WITNESS: Yes.
MR. CROWE: You think he is insane, then?
THE WITNESS: I don't think anything about it.
MR. CROWE: He isn't insane, he is sane?
THE WITNESS: I didn't use the word "sane" or "insane" I have not thought about that matter.
MR. CROWE: Go ahead.
THE WITNESS: He has a paranoid personality. His conversational powers and his scholastic
ability lead him to be unrecognized. His maniacal tendency, his over-
MR. DARROW: Q What effect will that have on -
A This crime in particular?
Q Yes, this crime.
A To my mind this crime is the result of diseased motivation; that is, its planning and commission.
Q Yes.
A It is possible only because he had these abnormal mental trends with the typical feelings and ideas of a paranoid personality. He nedded these feelings and ideas supplemented by what Loeb could give him. There is no reason why he should not commit the crime with his diseased notion. Anything he wanted to do was right, even kidnapping and murder.
There is nothing in the feelings of sympathy which would prevent him, because of his disintegrated personality, there was no place for sympathy and feeling to paly any normal part. In other words, he had an established pathological personality before he met Loeb, but probably his activities would have taken other directions except for this chance association.
Q Now, will you take up Loeb next, and then consider the two together.
Mr. Crowe: Doctor, have you finished on the specific acts and facts upon which your conclusion is based as to Loeb?
THE WITNESS: Yes.
THE COURT: Counsel have requested that we have a five-
Whereupon a short recess was here taken by Court and Counsel.
Court convened pursuant to short recess heretofore taken.
Present: Same as before.
D R . W I L L I A M H E A L Y,
resumed the stand for further direct examination by Mr. Darrow, as follows:
MR. DARROW: Q Turn to the Loeb part, and state what you did, the investigations you made, and what you found with reference to Richard Loeb.
THE WITNESS: I should like to add one point, if I may. You had a little conference, and interrupted me, and in answer to your question, was that all from which I drew my conclusion. I should say it was, with the single exception of those matters that we took up together.
MR. CROWE: Yes.
MR. DARROW: He meant to include that. I don't know whether I called your attention especially to the letter introduced by the State's Attorney. You said that was included in your consideration?
A Yes.
MR. CROWE: Q It is on the same subject matter as the other letter.
A Yes, but giving a very different aspect to it, from which one draws inferences to my mind that are unwarranted.
MR. DARROW: Will you proceed.
A In the case of Richard Loeb, I see nothing particularly from the physical side
by a general examination, that is of significance. He is a well-
Inquiry from the family makes it plain that this condition has developed during the last two years. He stammers very slightly indeed.
Concerning mental tests, and if you care I will go through the same sort -
THE COURT: Go ahead.
THE WITNESS: Not as many mental tests quite were given to him; for certain special
reasons they did not seem necessary. He also as a college graduate and a young man
of considerable education rates too high to be fairly tested. On the ordinary test
Stanford-
MR. CROWE: Just give us a sample or two of the tests you applied to him.
THE WITNESS: Of what these tests are, and so on?
MR. CROWE: Yes, as you did in the case of Leopold.
THE WITNESS: Yes, I have not given this before. These form a set of tests year after year and are of considerable value for children, but when it comes to adolescence of good education, they are not of nearly so much value.
For the 18-
MR. CROWE: Yes.
THE WITNESS: Do you want them?
MR. CROWE: Yes.
THE WITNESS: Such words as artless, depredation.
MR. CROWE: What did he say artless means?
THE WITNESS: I do not know. He did not give it a satisfactory definition, that is all. Gravel, harpy, declivity, fen, incrustation, sapient, retroactive, and so on.
MR. CROWE: There are some of those we would muff on, aren't there?
THE WITNESS: Those are all standard for testing individuals 18 years of age, so it is no test as to what we will do,
Now other tests of this same series. One of them I have mentioned before is this
so-
The next test is to be able to repeat eight digits after they are said to you in this fashion. Reading them slowly to him and he is allowed to say them back just as fast as he pleases. He is given three trials on this and he only has to do it once. Seven, two, five, three, four, eight, nine, six. He passed that without any trouble.
Another one of the 18 year old tests is to repeat the thought of a passage which is read to him. Shall I read that passage?
MR. CROWE: If you please.
THE WITNESS: "Tests such as we are now making are of value both for the advancement of science and for the information of the person who is tested. It is important for science to lean how people differ and on what factors these differences depend. If we can separate the influence of heredity from the influence of environment we may be able to apply our knowledge so as to guide human development. We may thus in some cases correct defects and develop abilities which we might otherwise neglect."
That test is simply to give the idea of the passage. They are not asked to remember it at all.
The fifth test of that series is to repeat seven digits backwards, taking all the time that you please.
The sixth test of the series is the old ingenuity test perhaps some of your or many
of you have heard; the mother sent her boy to the river to get seven pints of water.
She gave him a three-
He is allowed five minutes to do that. These are samples of the test. This is the standard intelligence test that is used almost everywhere nowadays.
MR. CROWE: Did you tell how he came out on those?
THE WITNESS: He came out all right. He showed normal motor control in the tapping test we spoke of in the case of Leopold this morning.
On the same Monroe Silent Reading test for which we have pretty well established norms, he failed on quite a number of them and gained a score
which was the equivalent of twelfth grade. That is the last year of high school. I don't think it is necessary to read that again, is it?
MR. CROWE: No, but give one or two examples of where he failed.
THE WITNESS: Of where he failed?
MR. CROWE: Yes.
THE WITNESS: Well, this is test No. 6 of this series:
"The wall enclosing the whole island and the waters, each built for a double purpose of bulwark against the river and defense against the mob was said to have rendered the palace unfit for constant occupancy, insomuch that legates abandoned it and moved to another residence."
"Underline the word that tells us what it was that rendered the palace unfit for occupancy."
He underlined the word "river."
MR. CROWE: What word should he underlined?
THE WITNESS: Wall.
MR. CROWE: Wall?
THE WITNESS: Yes. Another one he failed on. "When the air is heavy the liquid in a barometer rises and when the air is light the liquid falls. Suppose the barometer registers ten degrees lower at twelve o'clock than it did at eight o'clock. At which time was the air heavier?"
He says twelve o'clock. That gives him, as I say, a score equivalent to the ordinary four year high school.
On the syllogism test, the reasoning test that I spoke of this morning, the so-
MR. CROWE: What was that failure?
THE WITNESS: What was it?
MR. CROWE: Yes.
THE WITNESS: I couldn't say. I would have to go all over it now. I haven't it in mind.
In the equivalent proverbs test where he has some twenty Proverbs to reason about, generalize about, he gets sixteen correct and four errors.
MR. CROWE: What is his answer on the two negatives;
The two wrongs making a right; read that.
THE WITNESS: I didn't give it to him.
A standard test that correlates with the general intelligence is again this language
test by which you fill out certain words. On this he makes a good many errors, and
gets a total score again that is only equivalent to a fourth-
MR. CROWE: Well, give us just one or two, as examples.
A Well, he says, "One should not as a rule direct attention to uninteresting things." He leaves blank one that says, "To eat one is a (blank) person." It seems easy enough.
MR. CROWE: That first one, will you read that again?
A "One should not as a rule direct attention to uninteresting things." It is incorrect to say "One should not."
He says -
"The least difficult things are by no means always the most important. Many are the important tasks found the most disagreeable." A pretty incoherent sentence, no meaning to it.
On that judgment test I gave, that we spoke of this morning, in which you asked to say whether a sentence is striking or it is commonplace or it is absurd, and so on, he gets only twenty out of thirty correct.
MR. DARROW: That is a judgment test?
A Yes. Judgment of the sense of these different sentences.
MR. CROWE: Give us an example of each.
THE WITNESS: I beg pardon.
MR. CROWE: Will you give us an example of some of these that he passed.
THE WITNESS: I do not know whether I have got the scoring left or not. I am a little
afraid that the rubbing out that I did in order to use it with the other fellow interferes
with the statement. But I have the record, and I could work it out at length. He
got 20/30ths or two-
I also gave him this Association Test, the Kent-
MR. CROWE: Q What is the usual time?
A You are allowed fifteen minutes. The result of this simply is, I fond him to be
a fellow of certainly not more than average intelligence, which of course is tremendously
surprised at, on account of his remarkably precocious record, having entered college
at fourteen years and three months, and graduated when he was just eighteen. His
language ability is not good; he does not express himself well, either in any tests
given or in his ordinary conversation. I have read a great many of his letters, and
most of them are expressed in very simple terms, and not always very coherently.
Considering his practical judgement, I have talked to some people who have known
him over many years, outside of his own family, and i was much surprised to learn
that in spite of this academic accomplishment, he has been regarded as very much
of a kid in practical judgement -
Q Give some instances of that.
A I am merely giving now what others have told me in that regard.
MR. DARROW: We will furnish you some.
MR. CROWE: Q You cannot cite any instances?
A No.
MR. CROWE: Then I move that his statement be stricken out as clearly hearsay.
THE WITNESS: Certainly, but it helps me to form an opinion, that is all.
THE COURT: He has told you that part of his conclusions are based on the examinations he made, and what was told him by the parents.
MR. CROWE: But he cannot give me specific instances.
THE COURT: Mr. Darrow said he would.
MR. Darrow; If we donot furnish you some instances, we will consent to its being stricken out.
THE COURT: Q Would your conclusions have been different if you had not gotten those statements from others?
A I think I should have arrived at exactly the same conclusion, but I attempted to be sure, to corroborate and confirm as much as possible, an i have taken a great deal of pains to do that. His life history and his conduct I should have relied on that for that. He is not at all interested in mental tasks. He forces himself to, and can work with fair attention and persistence, but it is a good deal of grind for him. Concerning his personality, it came up very clearly from observing him, talking to him, and hearing about him, that he is in general rather a lazy individual, but he can on occasion energize himself very well indeed, though most remarkably lacking in ambitious and normal interests, which seems very strange in the light of his training and his tutoring.
MR. CROWE: Q Will you give some specific instance on which you base those conclusions?
A I asked him to think of any interest that he has ever had in his life, any ambitions, and he can think of nothing except his early inner idea of being a criminal. I have asked the same question of his parents and friends, and they can think of nothing that he ever really cared thoroughly to do. One of his friends whom I saw last night, who has known him for many years very well, said that he was a boy that never finished anything, who never had any deep interests. One finds, then, that this secret abnormal mental life that he has been carrying on unbeknown to his governess, tutor and to his family over these many years, has in a most curious way swallowed up his ambition.
He has apparently had, judging from his own straightforward account of himself, a great love of excitement and adventure.
He describes his heartbeats and excitements and physical sensations under various conditions, beginning with, for instance, the stealing, which he says he did for nine years. He had a tremendous thrill from doing it in the dusk and carrying it out, and from carrying out these criminalistic practices of shadowing people, and so on, that he tells about, and that others have said something on.
But he also appears to have been pretty strong in an emergency, and on one occasion
where he went out into pretty rough water over at Charlevoix and brought back some
members of his family, and as evidenced by his most cold-
One notes that he is very friendly, pleasant, well mannered; in the jail takes especial pains, to see that first of all we order what we want for lunch before he considers ordering for himself, having charming qualities, which I have heard much about from other people, including this man whom I saw last night, a very charming boy, having many nice qualities on one side, and nobody who reads the small volumes from his old governess or from his girlfriends can doubt it, and yet on the other hand, having carried out for many years a dual personality, having been an extensive liar and a most unscrupulous individual, in a manner and to an extent that is quite beyond any in my experience. A curious desire of sympathy in pathological ways, and evidently this dates back to his early imaginative life, a most curious and abnormal affair. A tremendous contrast between his very well evidenced desire to get along socially and to have some nice girl friends and to have boy friends, contrasted with the fact that he is most remarkably, according to even his own account and according of course again to his life history, most remarkably unscrupulous, untruthful, unfair, ungrateful and disloyal in many social relationships, disloyal even to his comrade when he cheated him, in buying liquor, and to his fraternity when he robbed them.
MR. CROWE: Doctor, are you going to give some illustrations of the matters you have just been describing?
THE WITNESS: I have just given some.
MR. CROWE: Not merely the last, about robbing the fraternity, but the disloyalty to his friends, and his tremendous lying, and this and that and other things.
A Disloyalty to his friends, of course, in the first place to his governess, to whom he was writing, with whom he was in closest contact, atthe same time that he was carrying on these criminalistic practices, by himself most generally, and occasionally with others. His unfairness in that whole situation, of course, the same way. His disloyalty to his girl friends, who thought he was leading one kind of life when he was leading another.
But he expresses on the other hand, some loyalties in certain and narrow spheres, to family life in certain ways, and he has some well expressed and decent ideas about girls.
All of that, of course, shows a disparity and a contradiction that to my thinking is certainly abnormal. the ability to carry on for many years, as a child, this tremendously contradictory dual life is certainly pathological.
He appears to have been an even tempered boy, with occasional depressions, which
he can, however, readily dispel, according to his story, by making good social contacts.
He tells us -
So we have those very curious quips and displacements in his emotional life, his desire for sympathy in childish ways.
MR. CROWE: Give us an illustration of that.
THE WITNESS: An illustration of that would be the fact that while he has been in
jail I happen to know that he has sent out a letter to a girl, to ask her to station
herself on Dearborn Street,where she could look through a certain window, which he
gave in a diagram -
He tells us he has a distinct feeling and desire for sympathy; that while Leopold, for instance, is inclined, unless he can give his ideas, to retreat from reporters, he is apt to stand up near to the bars, and when around people he would take a particular satisfaction, which has some particular interest to us, in his being looked at there. In a most curious and wistful fashion, he seems to have these emotions one way, and yet on the other hand, of course, we have only to look at his deeds to realize the extreme lack of feeling and sympathy which he has shown in the most desperate human situations, making a mixture that is very strange.
Naturally, we are interested in the standpoint from his mental development in whether or not he has shown alterations in personality. About this I do not feel at all sure. He feels that when he was younger he was brighter. He thinks that perhaps he has dulled his mind somewhat by drinking. But I am not at all positive that we have any light to throw on that, because the boy was so extensively tutored between the time he was four and fourteen years of age by this most ardent governess, that it is quite possible that it is possible that she managed to instill in him a great deal of knowledge that helped him through his examinations, when he really had very little intelligence.
Concerning alterations from the standpoint of his emotions and feelings, all I can say there is that I have frequently talked to him about it, and he feels, in the first place, that he never had anything in his life to call forth any emotions or feelings, had no necessity for it, especially for him to show any sympathies or to do anything for anyone else, and he believes he never did have any of it. The only instance that he can give of it was once when his governess had an entrhm infection and he felt rather badly for her. Outside of that he thinks he has always been rather dull in his feelings, he says.
One of the first times one finds out in conversation with him is that, indirectly, he wonders at his own callousness. He says the/reason he has gone on in his career is because he has found nothing inside of himself to deter him from going on, and in the last few years he has been able to face his criminal imaginings and tendencies with equanimity.
He thinks he may have been somewhat hardened as things have gone on, but on the whole, as he looks at his own nature, he never did have, he says, much sympathy, emotion, or deep affection for anyone.
Dick Loeb's inner mental life, as in the case of the other boy, of course, has a great deal of interest for us. We can only learn of that through his own statements, again with such checking up in its bearings on his life career and criminalities and the fact that he has told it consistently from one person to another. It is not the sort of thing that anybody would imagine, I am inclined to believe, when he began, certainly before he was nine years of age, with very curious, abnormal criminalistic ideas, picturing himself as someone in a jailyard, naked, abused, whipped, and all of the comforts he gets out of it is that the people looking through a jailyard fence sympathize with him. There is a wonderful criminal, great criminal, and people sympathize with him. Asked who sympathized with him, he says at first it was people in general and then later on it was mostly young girls who sympathized with him. To use his own expression, "I was abused". It was a very pleasant thought. Punishment inflicted in jail was pleasant. "I enjoyed being looked at through the bars, because I was a famour criminal."
I am not sure whether it was a matter of very great import, but I was much interested
to go into this question of where he could have gotten any pictures at all in his
mind of a jail yard, and it suggested to my mind at once the jail yard and the fence
around the house of correction as it was years ago -
Well, he tells me that after he had had these phantasies for some time, of actually being a suffering criminal, he began the idea of the phantasy life of being a criminal himself, and there is much elaboration of this with ideas derived from many sources, as some of his own experiences, as in stealing at nine years old, and so on, in reading detective stories, but he insists that that was not the beginning of it, that he already had his inner life of this kind before he actually read anything, and he goes on and develops his imaginings with respect to his becoming this master criminal, about which much has been spoken already in this trial, always deriving great pleasure from the idea that he was the leader of confederates, or of one confederate, or especially as being the one who knew how the thing was done.
Later on he used to say to himself, after he had done things, "Gee whis, if our friends only knew we had done this." and then grew up the idea of being such a clever criminal that he could plan a crime and escape detection from the very cleverest of detectives, and he tells us that he was long working at the idea of a great crime, which would stir all the country and never be solved.
It was all for the sake of being somebody in his imaginative life. Nobody else, except perhaps his confederate, had known he had played any great part in it, but still it would be done and people would marvel at the skill of the person who had done it. He claims to have had these phantasies early in life, with very great vividness, so that he remembers them as well as he does the affairs in his daily life and his actual life, and that he has continued these imaginings right through the years.
You have already heard something about his other phantasies, of being a frontiersman, and this photograph which we found, with this tremendously intense expression. It is not the fact that he has got a photograph taken in cowboy clothes, or anything of the sort. It is the expression on his face, with the changed expression on his face, which seems to me to be very obvious in this matter.
MR. CROWE: Have you got that photograph, Doctor?
THE WITNESS: I have not.
MR. CROWE: Have you?
MR. WALTER BACHRACH: We can reproduce it for you, yes.
MR. CROWE: Have you got it here?
MR. WALTER BACHRACH: I have not got it here. We can have it for you tomorrow morning, if you like.
THE WITNESS: I would also like to speak of this matter of the formula of the teddy
bear affair because he told that first to me in jail, and of course it is ridiculous
to bring in such a matter except the fact that this boy in jail says, "I caught myself"
-
MR. CROWE: Doctor -
THE WITNESS: -
MR. CROWE: I think you just said provided he started with the formula, "Now, you know Teddy", he could make up any kind of story, is that correct?
THE WITNESS: That is his explanation of it.
MR. CROWE: Do you think he started his conversation with/Dr. White/with that formula?
THE WITNESS: I beg pardon?
MR. CROWE: Do you think he started his conversation with Dr. White with that formula?
MR. DARROW: I object to that question.
MR. CROWE: All right, let it go.
THE COURT: Very well, withdrawn.
THE WITNESS: To contrast these and to supplement them and correlate them with his
own known acts. With as I say of now actually playing without any doubt a double
life over many years, very completely from the time he was nine years old of so,
evidently first with secret association with a delinquent boy, and then his secret
reading, and then had companions of both sexes and his criminalistic practices, all
of these quite unknown to his governess, to his parents and to his friends. His mixing
up of phantasy with real life evidently begins with this early shadowing of people,
playing criminal and detective. Directing this burglary or burglar play which even
his friends thought was childish, this burglary play having been kept up even in
the last year or so, Leopold tells me. And of course he was caught shadowing and
using a mask by some members of his own family. He remembers his sense of exhilaration
and power in his early episodes of stealing, at nine years of age. He has indulged
in a great deal of stealing, evidently, from field's and from other shops, as well
as from this fraternity house; I should judge a great deal of it, as i saw quite
a batch of pocketbooks the other day among his letters. The gray trousers he has
on in jail here he tells me were taken from the country club. He just takes these
things in the carrying out of his criminalistic ideas, and in a most eccentric and
childish way. He always most the fact that knows more about the details of the event
than anyone else. to use his own statement "It just seems that I wanted to be a criminal",
and that he has stated, very openly for the last two or three years. This idea of
his, of course, is very remarkably carried out by his -
MR. CROWE: Q What do you say that indicates?
A I will tell you my conclusions later. Then I have information from his family of the affair at the dinner table the night after the murder, in his own house, at which a guest was present, where Dick Loeb expatiated at great length about the crime itself, and told the familythe ways in which it must have been done, as if he were a very wise fellow, and could draw conclusions and inferences from what had been published in the newspapers. This appears to me also to be bearing directly on the matter of his phantasied desire for knowing more about it than anyone else.
Q Tell the details of what he told the family that night?
A I couldn't tell you, because I don't remember them all; they but -
He seems to feel at hom e there. He says that he had a pleasant feeling when he first came in and got a jail outfit;, that he was a little glad of the jail clothes, of being in jail. His own self pity entered into the matter.
Q In other words, he makes an argument for a life sentence?
A "They gave me a ragged coat, and offered me a better one" -
Q Did they tell you that?
A Both of them told me that.
Q Did they tell you whom they were going to kidnap?
A They didn't tell me who; they said they spoke of it, contemplated it. That is the expression I used. Comparing these features of his emotional life with his evidently normal intelligence and particularly with his scholastic achievements, it appears clearly that there is a tremendous and abnormal imparity between his development along these two lines. We have the spectacle of a boy capable of entering college at fourteen years and three months, with almost no normal feelings or emotions concerning the most serious of all human behavior. When I asked him about this case, he thinks it had already begun by the time he was ten years old, when he began his dual life, his persistent lying, his governess thinking that he was a model boy, when he knew very well that he was not. His notorious unfeeling behavior that we see here in the court room or in the jail, or as he discusses his present situation, seems to be ample illustration of the depth of his emotional displacement or defect.
"I never had remorse enough to make me want not to do it", he says of himself.
"What about the idea of sympathy?"
"It never entered into my head."
Q He is just a hardened criminal?
MR. DARROW: What Mr. Crowe calls a hardened criminal is anybody who has no emotions. That is a legal definition, and yours is a scientific one.
THE WITNESS: (Continuing) Absence all along of normal remorse, revulsion, disgust, depression,fear, or even apprehension in planning discussing or carrying out the gruesome details. I said to him, "Would you murder Walter Bachrach here, if that is the way you feel about such things and you have no response in your own breast for such things?" Well, if there was anything in it, such as enjoyment of the planning, enjoyment of the publicity, he thought he might be able to do it., because there was nothing in him to prevent it. As far as his own feelings were concerned, he would repeat such an affair. There is nothing that Loeb spoke of with any more confidence than the fact that he found nothing in his own nature that would prevent his doing such things again. In discussing it he professes astonishment at his lack of feeling, the fact that he has felt nothing like ordinary sympathy, and he says that he would have supposed that he in the courtroom here would have cried at the testimony of the mother of the boy who was murdered, but he was astonished at himself, because he didn't feel anything. "I did not have any feeling. I "did not have not have much of any feeling about all this matter from the first. that is why I could do these things. There is nothing inside me to stop me. Of course, I am sorry about my folks but not as much as I ought to be."
Even now he tells me with -
As evidence of this point too, we have his own account of his behavior directly after this murder, when for the next few evenings he went out in very normal fashion with girls to dances, and that he evidently felt just as usual; nobody discovered anything about him that seemed peculiar.
In attempting to explain the conditioning factors of his pathological mental development, one finds that the base , or one of the bases at least for his dual life, was this extensive tutoring of him as an average boy put through his paces in scholastic ways under the domination and guidance of a woman who writes tremendously nice letters to him, even after she had left him; but she has the most curious lack of understanding of a boy's real needs, and who evidently kept him from many free and healthy contacts.
MR. CROWE: Now, doctor, are you characterizing the letter that was read here?
THE WITNESS: No, I have read a great many other letters.
MR. CROWE: I say are you characterizing the one that was read here yesterday, the one that Dr. White referred to?
THE WITNESS: Am I characterizing it?
MR. CROWE: Yes.
THE WITNESS: I think that is a heartfelt letter too. I think she had very deep feelings for him.
MR. CROWE: *it did not indicate that she was insane, did it?
THE WITNESS: That she was insane?
MR. CROWE: Yes.
THE WITNESS: I don't know anything about her insanity.
MR. CROWE: That sounded like a nice motherly letter, didn't it?
THE WITNESS: It sounded like a letter with a tremendous lack of understanding of the human individual.
MR. CROWE: Well, go ahead.
THE WITNESS: Plus motherless, yes.Her scholastic ambitions for him were tremendously out of tune with his real abilities, and with the fact that he had no real ambition. I read a letter yesterday from her in which she endeavors to have him enter a career and study to be a constitutional lawyer; particularly wants him to take up constitutional law.
MR. CROWE: Doctor, may I interrupt again, please? You have not examined this woman?
THE WITNESS: I beg pardon?
MR. CROWE: You have not examined this nurse?
THE WITNESS: This woman, this governess?
MR. CROWE: Yes.
THE WITNESS: I have never seen her.
MR. CROWE: So you don't know whether she is insane or not.
THE WITNESS: I don't know anything about her except her letters. The letters as one reads them through are simply pathetic on account of her desire for his getting along well, but with the most absurd misunderstanding as I say of a boy's nature, of a boy's needs, and his special lack of real abilities and ambition.
It appears somewhat explanatory of why this boy might well have fallen back for real satisfactions upon the abnormal features of his inner mental life.
And then we have the matter of this secret reading; one has gone into that with him at some length, and asked him what books in particular influenced him, and we have the number of detective stories, the one of Anthony Trent, and one name of which he cannot remember; and he particularly and vividly remembers such affairs as the breaking out of jail in the Count of Monte Cristo. Things of that sort had a very great fascination for him.
All through it seems that his nature has very little outlet for what he really, in an abnormal fashion, craved, that is, a life of excitement and adventure. And we have the fact that he got apparently very real satisfaction from his physical sensations, his heart beatings, his feelings of excitement, which he felt particularly in his criminalistic acts.
THE COURT: We will suspend now until tomorrow morning at 10:30 o'clock
Whereupon an adjournment was here taken to 10:30 o'clock A.M. Tuesday August 5th, 1924.
Tuesday, August 5th, 1924
10:30 o'clock
Court convened at 10:30 o'clock A.M. Tuesday, August 5th, 1924, pursuant to adjournment heretofore taken.
Present: Same as before.
D R. W I L L I A M J. H E A L Y,
resumed the stand for further direct examination by Dr. Darrow, and testified as follows:
MR. DARROW: Q Let me ask you, Doctor, what was Dick's attitude toward that compact?
MR. CROWE: Wait. By Dick do you mean the defendant Richard Loeb?
MR. DARROW: Yes. That ought to be plain by this time, whether I call him Dickie or Dick.
MR. CROWE: And about the Teddies and Babes too.
MR. DARROW: No. Babe would not be the defendant Richard Loeb, whom you are desirous of having big enough and old enough to hang. If it is necessary to have a stipulation that Dickie or Dick means the defendant Richard Loeb, whom the state is going to hang, and that Babe means the defendant Nathan Leopold, Jr., toward whom the state has the same attitude, I am willing to have it stipulated.
MR. CROWE: And as to the kiddies also?
MR. DARROW: The only kiddie I have heard of was the one you said toddled along the sidewalk, who was fourteen years old and who was killed. I suppose you want these boys to toddle up onthe scaffold.
THE WITNESS: A This childish and absurd compact of theirs was entered into apparently for the sake of carrying out some of the childish notions which each had, and was unwillingly apparently acceded to in both instance, to a certain degree anyhow. I think it is fair to say that at far as this compact is concerned, I have no doubt that those who heard us talk about it in secret think it is a great deal worse than it really is.
MR. DARROW: For the time being, we will leave it as it is.
MR. DArrow: Q I suppose that you are familiar with such things, anyhow, as a psychiatrist?
A I beg your pardon?
Q You are familiar with all such things as a psychiatrist?
A Yes sir.
Q With all sorts of people?
A Yes.
Q All right. Now, do you remember where you were last night?
A Yes.
Q Well, just proceed from there.
A I was speaking of the conditioning features or factors of Loeb's pathological mental development. The next point in that is the fact that he began to drink at fifteen years of age, a feature of his life which I think has had considerable bearing upon it.
Then the next fact, that has already been brought out, namely, that at fourteen years
and three months he went to college and within a few months began to associate with
a very fast crowd of young men who were a good many years older than he was himself.
He was in a peculiar position then, because he had been so carefully looked after.during
his previous years, and had had so few chances for self-
and did not attempt to protect himself or react as many a normal boy would.
Then, when he got into college life, of course, he had been pushed ahead very fast, and he found himself not doing very well, really not getting very good marks, and he began to lie about them, in order to keep up his reputation as being a very advanced student for his age. He was in a situation then that was decidedly unfortunate for him.
Now, if you please, I should like to come to conclusions regarding him, Loeb's, mentality.
Q All right, doctor, just proceed with those.
A I would state in the first place that on account of Loeb's abnormal inner mental life, particularly on account of his twisted emotions, twisted placing of his emotions, as evidenced by his pathological desire for sympathy, which is demonstrated for years, and particularly as this seems to be related to his early phantasy life, all in abnormal contrast to his great lack of sympathy for others, and then his pathological absence of ordinary feeling about his own misconduct and even about his own peculiar situation in that misconduct, and at the present time; and by his
pathological pleasure in the planning and the commission of crime even with all its terrible details; and then on account of his abnormal inner mental life as regards his phantasies evidencing the pathological peculiarities even from the early days of childhood and on account of these being carried over into the everyday life and action more and more as he grew up; on account of his pathological split personality showing a fairly normal intelligence, although if we may judge by his general conduct he seems to have demonstrated defective judgement as over against the twisted emotional life; so that while he shows adaptability and good manners and great desires for friendship and sympathy, he has a pathological conduct which is diametrically the opposite and by every common sense calculation likely to utterly destroy all the wonderful chances that life held out for him; his personality seemed so split that he seems to have had no conception of making his life conduct of normal pattern, no desire to make his life follow normal lines so that he could even conceive the idea of settling down in normal family life and continuing as a criminal; and on account of the fact that it is unthinkable that aboy with lovable qualities that endeared him to fine people of both sexes both inside and outside his family circle could have so carefully planned and executed such a monstrous deed unless he were mentally abnormal, abnormal in the imaginings and ideas that led up to the planning and abnormal as to the better feelings which would naturally have prevented such ideas even if they had been entertained from being carried into action. On account of all these I am forced to conclude that Richard Loeb has a thoroughly diseased mental life. In my opinion, he is a case of abnormal split personality with obsessive thought and life and his acts can be seen to be directly dependent on and to be made possible by the diseased elements of his mental life, namely, by his abnormal thought and life and abnormal displaced emotional life.
MR. DARROW: Q (Continuing) I just want to interject this: have you observed the defendants in the courtroom, their actions and conduct?
A Many times.
Q Does that have any effect either to change or to confirm your opinion?
A Confirms it.
Q You are very familiar with court rooms in Boston, and here, and the observation of boys and men placed on trial?
A Yes.
Q I do not recall whether you had gone into the combination of these two -
A I had, but I should like to reinforce the statement in regard to the association of these two boys, by merely a word, that again it seems a most remarkable affair, because of those two strangely constituted human individuals coming together. the development of their ideas of criminality, the planning and carrying out of their deeds, seems to be only possible because each of them had already abnormal characteristics, and they came together in this chance fashion, and carried out for what their station in life were abnormal crimes. I think I omitted one topic, the relation of Loeb's mental life to the crime itself.
To my mind the crime itself is the direct result of diseased motivation in Loeb's mental life. The planning and commission was only possible because he was abnormal mentally, with a pathological split personality. It was a direct outcome of his twisted emotional life, his phantasylife continued in pathological fashion over many years, the abnormal lack of integration of his personality, and finally, the coincidence of his coming together with another abnormal personality.
Q You have been employed to make an examination, and to testify if we decided to have you, and you have been paid or expect to be paid in full?
A Yes.
Q State the terms of employment?
A I had a specific understanding with Mr. Walter Bachrach when he came down to Boston
with Dr. Hulbert, in the first place, that we should make a study of this case with
the co-
Q Did you try to do that?
A I did. After I came here we had a conference, Dr. White, Dr. Glueck, Dr. Hamill and myself, on a couple of occasions, and we made an approach to you and you said you were willing to have us make the attempt.
Q But nothing has come of that?
A The approach was made. I think Dr. White went to see Dr. Singer, and Dr. Hamill and I went to see Dr. Patrick, and offered them all of our material.
Q Did you make any arrangements to testify before you made your examination?
A No. it was distinctly understood that I should not have to testify unless it was necessary to bring out the facts. I had hoped not to do so.
Q And what compensation was agreed upon for your making the investigation?
A $250.00 a day.
Q And any further compensation in case of testimony?
A None whatever.
Q Has there any amount been fixed as to per diem or otherwise in case of testimony?
A No.
Q Is there any arrangement beyond the $250.00 a day?
A No, that is all.
Q And do you expect any more or would you take any more?
A No. The distinct understanding is that nobody is to receive any more than that for any part of the work.
Q And that applies to you people who are from out of town, doesn't it?
A Yes.
MR. DARROW: That is all.
MR. CROWE: No, doctor -
MR. DARROW: Will you excuse me just a minute?
(Mr. Darrow then left the inner rail to confer with Jacob Loeb).
MR. DARROW: All right.
CROSS EXAMINATION
BY MR. CROWE
MR. CROWE: Q Now, Doctor, as I understand, you want it understood that when Mr. Bachrach wanted to employ you in this case that you insisted very emphatically that you should not be overpaid, is that correct?
A No.
Q Well, if they insisted on paying you more than $250.00 a day, you would not have taken the employment, would you?
A No, not if the others did not get it.
Q Well, the other gentlemen were in the same frame of mind that you were, as you understand it, that is, they insisted that none of you should be overpaid?
A I think that was so.
Q And the lawyers are in the same frame of mind, aren't they?
A I don't know anything about them.
Q Doctor, you talk about a childish pact, that is the pact that you related to the court yesterday so the audience generally could not hear it. In that pact these boys agreed to practice forms of perversion, didn't they?
A A childish form, yes, but not what as generally the public would understand, I think by that.
Q Doctor, do you know any children who make those agreements and enter into those pacts that are not criminals and perverts?
A Yes, I have known of them.
Q You have?
A Yes.
Q so you regard perversion not as a crime but as a childish act?
A That is not, you know -
Q Now, doctor, wait a minute.
MR. DARROW: I insist on letting him finish his answers.
MR. CROWE: All right.
MR. DARROW: Go ahead and finish your answer, doctor.
A Many children who have been very nice children and grown up in very nice ways have at one time done things like that.
MR. CROWE: Q How many different forms of perversion did you state yesterday that Leopold practiced on Loeb?
MR. BACHRACH: If the court please, if there is any purpose in having the thing done quietly in the court room, the effect is altogether lost if the prosecutor can cross examine openly about the thing and give those things to the public.
MR. CROWE: Oh no. No, your Honor. I have no desire to bring this out and give it to the public, but when/a doctor says that boys who agree to practice forms of perversion are merely doing childish things, I disagree with him.
MR. DARROW: Well, he spoke about different forms of perversion, as you know.
THE COURT: The cross examination of this doctor along that line will take the same form as his direct. It will be done quietly and without any heralding to the world.
MR. CROWE: All right.
THE COURT: No good can come from it.
(Whereupon the following examination was continued out of the hearing of the public generally):
MR. CROWE: Q Didn't you testify yesterday that Leopold -
A No, that is not the term at all. You have got the wrong term. Did you mean malpractice?
Q Malpractice?
A I said that according to both of their stories they experimented with it, but did not practice it. They gave it up after once experimenting with it, once or twice.
Q Didn't you testify yesterday that on several occasions at least Leopold -
A Yes.
Q And you think that that is a childish pact?
A No, no, hundreds of children have done it.
Q Aren't you ashamed of yourself, doctor, to testify on that matter?
A No, I should say not. I have known of very nice children of very nice families who have gotten through with things of that sort.
(Whereupon the following examination was continued in open court):
Q Now, doctor, did you talk to the defendant, Leopold, about the details of this murder?
A I don't think I did.
Q Do you know of any reason for your not doing so?
A No, I supposed that I knew enough ofthe details.
Q Do you know of anybody who could have given you better information as to how this crime was committed and executed than the two boys?
A No sir.
Q And in making up your mind as to a mental condition you were anxious to get the best information available?
A Yes.
MR. BACHRACH: Speak a little louder. We don't hear you.
MR. CROWE: Q You had ample opportunity to talk to these boys?
A Yes.
Q And they were willing to answer all your questions?
A I think so.
Q Don't you think/that the most important matter in their life from your viewpoint is the crime itself?
A It was not the most important thing for me to know.
Q It was not?
A No, because I thought I knew it already.
Q From hearsay and from newspaper accounts?
A I think -
Q That is hearsay, isn't it?
MR. DARROW: We object to that. It is the statement of the boys themselves, which we will offer.
MR. CROWE: A statement purporting to be made by the boys themselves to somebody else who made it to you, and you regard that as hearsay, don't you doctor?
MR. DARROW: We object to how he regards it. Oh, I don't care. I withdraw the objection.
MR. CROWE: Q You did not avail yourself of the best opportunity of getting possession of the facts concerning the murder.
MR. DARROW: To that i object. He has said he did not talk to the boys about it and whether it is the best opportunity is a conclusion.
MR. CROWE: Q Don't you think that the manner in which they would relate the details of this murder might have helped you?
A I heard them relate enough of such things to thoroughly make up my mind as to how
they felt about such things and that is what -
Q Answer the question, don't you think the manner in which they would relate to you the details of this murder might have helped you in arriving at a conclusion as to their mental condition?
A It might have done somewhat but I thought I had enough already.
Q Do you know who actually killed the Franks boy ?
A I don't know it, no.
Q Do you know in whose mind the crime originated of your own knowledge?
A I am afraid without looking at my notes I don't know who of the boys stated he had actually planned it. I think Loeb did.
Q Did either one of the boys state to you who actually planned it?
A I would have to go over my notes to see that.
Q Will you do so?
A It will take me half an hour to do that.
MR. CROWE: All right, do so.
Mr. Bachrach: I suggest we take a few minutes recess.
THE COURT: Could you not go on with something else and then take the recess and let the doctor look over his notes?
MR. BACHRACH: Suppose we take the recess now?
MR. CROWE: I would like to have you look at the same time and find out if either one of them have told you who actually committed the murder.
THE COURT: We will take a few minutes recess.
Whereupon a short recess was here taken by court and counsel.
Court convened pursuant to recess heretofore taken.
D R. W I L L I A M J. H E A L Y,
resumed the stand for further cross examination by Mr. Crowe, and testified as follows:
MR. CROWE: Q Have you your notes showing where either one of the defendants told you in whose brain this crime originated?
A No, not originated. They both spoke of having been interested in planning it.
Q Did you ask either one of these defendants who originated the crime?
A No.
Q Have you any notes showing that you asked that question?
A No.
Q Did you not ask either one of them who actually murdered the Franks Boy?
A No, apparently not.
Q Were you told by anyperson prior to talking to the defendants that each defendant insisted that the other originated the crime and committed the murder and not to go into those matters?
A Indeed I was not.
Q It might be a mitigating circumstance for one if the other had originated the crime and actually committed the murder, might it not?
A I don't know.
MR. DARROW: Objection. There is no division here as to who committed the murder. If he wants to say who struck the blow, I shall not object.
MR. CROWE: Q Well, who struck the blow?
MR. WALTER BACHRACH: I object to the mitigating circumstances. That is for the Court.
THE COURT: Answer the question.
A I don't know.
MR. CROWE: Q Nobody told you to stay away from those two questions, did they?
A They did not.
Q Do you know whether any of the other alienists asked either of the defendants those two questions?
A I do not. Mr. Crowe, I might say that it was all very well known and i did not need to go into it but took up my time with other matters.
Q Had you read their confessions?
[1570]
A Yes, in the newspapers.
Q And isn't it a fact that in the Leopold confession he says that the blows on the head were struck by /loeb and /loeb says that the blows were struck by Leopold in his confession?
A I don't remember.
Q Where did you see the statements?
A It must have been in the Boston newspapers.
Q They are not as reliable as the Chicago newspapers?
MR. DARROW: What?
MR. CROWE: Q Before you came to Chicago did you know the details of this crime as well as you know them now?
A Yes. I got them from the interview with Dr. Bowman when he returned and from his report.
Q You had been engaged in court work for many years?
A Yes, but not from the standpoint of either side.
Q But you have engaged in court work many years?
A Yes.
Q And you have heard a great many criminal cases?
A Well, I would call most of them delinquent cases since I am connected with the juvenile court.
Q Criminal cases, boys brought in for violating the criminal law. You have heard a good many of those?
A Yes.
Q Supposing after knowing the details of the murder as you do that you had found that the perpetrators were two young men of excellent habits, morally decent and religious and had never committed any childish crime you would have been surprised, would you not?
A I should.
Q And wouldn't you come to the conclusion if a moral decent clean living man had committed a crime of this sort, would you not be of the opinion that he had suddenly gone insane?
A I should not be of the opinion at all but I should think it would be worth while going into.
Q Wouldn't you expect to find that something suddenly snapped to cause him to do something so thoroughly out of line with his previous conduct?
A I should certainly look for that.
Q And if you found that the person who had committed this murder, or the persons who had committed it had prior to that time been cheats at cards, fire bugs, thiefs and perverts you would not be surprised, would you?
A Yes.
Q In what respect would you be surprised?
A Because I think it is such a much more remarkable crime than any/of the foregoing.
Q Crime is progressive, is it not?
A Not always.
Q Well, generally.
A Not generally.
Q What do you mean by an habitual criminal?
A I mean an individual who goes on committing crime.
Q And his crimes become more violent and aggravated as he goes along don't they?
A No.
Q Isn't that generally the case?
A No.
Q They do not start with murder, do they, and end up with petty larceny?
A I don't know of any connection between the two.
Q How is that?
A I don't know of any connection between the two. I never saw a case like that.
Q Do youknow of a case where a study of a man's history showed he started out as a murderer and ended up as a petty thief?
A No.
Q You do know of a great many cases where a man started out committing petty larceny and ended up with murder?
A I don't think that I know of a great many cases of that kind.
Q Well, you know of some?
A Yes.
Q Now, does the fact that I said "petty larceny" cause you to say that you don't know of a great many of those cases?
A The only point is this. When you speak of habitual criminals, it is a fact that habitual criminals are very apt to keep along in their career/of the same type of criminality over many years.
Q You expected to find the person or persons who committed this crime to hardened in a life of crime, didn't you?
A I didn't expect anything.
Q Well, you were not surprised when you found that this was not the first crime but it culminated a number of crimes, were you?
A No.
Q You don't attach much importance to the Teddy Bear episode, do you, the fact that one of these defendants as a boy had a teddy bear and took it to bed occasionally and talked to it?
A Partly.
Q You don't attach much importance to it, do 'you?
A To that, as a child taking it to bed?
Q Yes.
A I did not know that anybody did. That is not the point that we brought out.
Q You don't attach much importance to the fact that as a child his parents bought him a cowboy suit and had his picture taken in it because he looked so cute, you don't attach much importance to that, do you?
A No, and that is not the point we brought out at all.
Q Have you got that picture?
A Have I? No.
MR. CROWE: Have you got that picture? (Addressing counsel for the defense).
MR. WALTER BACHRACH: Yes (handing photograph to Mr. Crowe).
MR. CROWE: Have you got the original?
MR. WALTER BACHRACH: No.
MR. CROWE: Can you get the original?
(The response, if made, was inaudible to the reporter)
MR. CROWE: Q That is not an original photograph (handing photograph to the witness), is it?
A It does not look like it, no.
Q Did you see the original?
A Yes.
Q And this one is enlarged many times?
A I don't know, two or three times, perhaps.
Q Now, the thing that impressed you there is that he has got a stern look on his face?
A A very intense expression.
Q Artists touch up pictures, don't they?
A Not like that, I think.
Q I know, but they do touch up pictures, isn't that true?
A They do touch up pictures, yes.
Q What is there in that that alarms you?
A Nothing. I didn't pay attention to that.
Q That was taken at the same time, is that correct?
A I don't know.
Q Now, if a boy had a comical uniform on, and was dressed up as a clown, you would expect him to have a whimsical or humorous expression on his face, would you not?
A He might have.
Q Don't you think the photographer would tell him to laugh or smile?
A He might or he might not.
Q And if he were taking the part of a bold, bad man, he would be told to assume a serious expression or frown, is that not true?
A I don't know whether he would or not. I didn't assume that at all.
Q Then you have not had any experience with photographers?
A In the first place, I don't know whether it was taken by a professional photographer.
Q Are you of the opinion that both of these defendants are insane?
MR. BENJAMIN C. BACHRACH: Objection. That is no part of this inquiry.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. CROWE: Q What is insanity?
MR. BACHRACH: Objection.
THE COURT: He may answer.
A Insanity is legal irresponsibility according to our modern use of the term.
MR. CROWE: Q Let me read you this definition and see what you think of it.
MR. WALTER BACHRACH: I object to reading from any authorities on the ground that they cannot be used in cross examination.
MR. CROWE: I want to test this man's qualifications.
THE COURT: You may read.
MR. CROWE: Q "Insanity is a disorder of the mind, due to disease of the brain, manifesting itself by a more or less prolonged departure from the individual's usual manner of thinking, feeling, and acting." Is that a good definition of insanity?
A Not in modern terms, no. If you will allow me to explain, I think we can get this matter straight.
No, I asked you if that is a good definition?
A Not in modern terms.
Q Do you know whose definition of insanity that is?
A It looks as if it might be from Dr. White's book.
Q And the fact that Dr. White swore under oath he did not define insanity, and did not use the term insanity, has no effect on you when you say you think that is Dr. White's definition?
MR. B. C. BACHRACH: Objected to as argumentative.
THE COURT: Let him answer.
A Within the past few years we have been endeavoring to make -
MR. CROWE: Q No. Dr. White testified he never defined insanity. You say that is his definition. I will show you the book and ask you if it is not his definition?
A In 1909.
MR. CROWE: I move to strike that out.
MR. DARROW: I object and ask that the witness be permitted to finish his answer. Do you claim that a definition in 1909 is good today?
THE COURT: The best evidence of Dr. White's definition is the book itself, aside from Dr. Healy's opinion. If you have Dr. White's bookthere, and that is the definition in the book, then the book itself is the best evidence.
(At the request of State's Attorney Crowe, Dr. White's book, "Outline of Insanity" was marked People's Exhibit 1, of August 5th, for identification.)
MR. CROWE: Q Does the condition that you found the minds of these two defendants in, come within the definition just read to you?
MR. B. C. BACHRACH: Objection.
THE COURT: Sustained. We do not care about Dr. Healy's comparison, but his opinion and conclusion may be examined into.
MR. CROWE: Q I will ask you whether or not you would consider this a good definition: It is now generally conceded that insanity is a disease of the brain, of that mass of matter through and by which that mysterious power, the mind, acts. There the mind is supposed to be enthroned, acting through separate and distinct organs. These organs may become diseased, one or more or all, and in the degree and to the extent of such disease is insanity measured. A disease of all the organs causes total insanity, while one or more partial insanity only. There is, it seems, a general intellectual mania, a partial intellectual mania, and a moral mania which is also divided into general and partial."
Do you consider that a good definition of insanity?
A No.
Q How would you correct that to make it a good definition?
A Strikeit all out.
(At this retort of the witness the court room burst into laughter).
MR. CROWE: Q You say you consider as vital or as important in this case the fact that the defendants can subordinate their emotions to their intellects?
A I consider that important to the understanding of the crime.
Q And that is one of the factors that you consider in arriving at your conclusion?
A That they are not mentally normal.
Q Do you consider it peculiar that a banker subordinates his emotions to his intellect, in his desire to accommodate friends by loaning them money on insufficient security?
A Peculiar?
Q Or abnormal?
A I think from a moral standpoint that is peculiar, yes.
Q Do you think it peculiar that a judge on the bench, who is naturally tenderhearted and sympathetic, in the discharge of his duty, subordinates his emotions and let his intellect and sense of right govern, in condemning culprits to penal institutions?
A No, indeed.
Q You do not consider that abnormal?
A No.
Q But you do consider it abnormal in a banker to repress his emotions and let his intellect run his business?
A I don't know he is letting his intellect. Thatis your judgement, not mine. I should say he is not showing very good sense.
Q Now, doctor, did you take into consideration in arriving at your conclusion in this case the fact that after having carefully planned the crime, every precaution was taken to avoid detection, is that abnormal?
A I don't think thatis a sign of abnormality, no.
Q That is what you would expect from any criminal?
A I would not say that.
Q But generally you would expect to find that?
A With the so-
Q Or an habitual criminal?
A No, I would not say that of an habitual criminal, either.
Q What is the difference between the professional criminal and an habitual criminal?
A Habitual criminals sometimes commit crimes from mere impulse, and take very little precaution in regard to covering up there tracks.
Q which is the more abnormal, the crime by the professional or habitual criminal?
A I could not tell you until I studied the criminal himself.
Q Now, doctor, if in the inception of this crime it appeared in evidence that the first thing that the defendants did was to steal a typewriter so that it would be difficult for the authorities to trace the letters written, would you consider that a part of childish phantasy? Or would you consider that as a result of their intellectual attainments?
A It is the result of their intellectual attainments, in my opinion.
Q And after having procured the typewriter they bought a block of paper, plain paper, that it would be difficult or impossible to trace, and wrote the letters upon that , would that be the phantasy working or was it their normal intellect working?
A I think it was their good intellects working.
Q And after having written the letters the defendants destroyed the remaining sheets of paper by burning them and attempted to destroy or lose the typewriter by throwing it in the lake after removing the keys and throwing them in a different part of the lake, was that boyish phantasy in operation or was it their good intellects?
A I think it was all part and parcel of their plan to commit the perfect crime.
Q Is it phantasy or intellect that is operating?
A It is intellect.
Q And after learning from the Rent-
A I think itis their intellect working. I don't know about the horse sense, but it is their intellect.
Q Well, good common sense.
A I don't think they were showing much good common sense in committing the crime at all, you see, but having started on it they used their intellects.
Q Having found out they had to answer these requirements from the Rent-
A Intellect.
Q Wait a minute, doctor. (Continuing) -
A Undoubtedly their intellects worked.
Q After having given the name of Morton D. Ballard, the address at the Morrison Hotel,
and the name of Louis Mason as a Chicago reference, was/it child-
A Undoubtedly intellect.
Q Was it intellect working when they opened a bank account at the Hyde Park State Bank under the name of Morton D. Ballard and gave that as their bank reference?
A I think it was.
Q And not childish phantasy?
A No.
Q Was it intellect or childish fancy working when they took the bloody robe that they had wrapped the body in and saturated it with gasoline and took it to the laketo burn?
A I think it was their intellect.
Q Was it intellect or fancy working when they attempted to rub the blood stains from the rented car?
A Intellect, I believe.
Q In other words, every detail of this crime is a crime of intellect and not of phantasy?
A I think so.
Q and they are above the average in intellect?
A One of them is, the other is not.
Q The other is about even?
A I think he is just about average.
Q So super-
A I think so.
Q And the phantasy is something like the teddy bear, merely an alibi to escape the just consequences of that act, is that true?
A Of course I don't believe its true.
Q Was it intellect or phantasy which caused Leopold when he was questioned by Captain wolf the Sunday following the murder to lie to him and withhold information concerning the crime?
A It was their intellect, or his intellect, rather.
Q Was it intellect or childish phantasy that caused Leopold to try to divert suspicion prior to his arrest to other persons?
A It was his intellect at work.
Q Was it intellect or phantasy that caused Leopold to lie for two days to theState's Attorney of this County when first brought in?
A Intellect.
Q Was it intellect or phantasy that caused Loeb when brought in by the State's Attorney to lie to him for a considerable period of time?
A I think it was his intellect.
Q Now, was there any other emotion acting in conjunction with the intellect when they attempted to cover up this crime by the various things they did and by the various lies they told?
A It would be hard for me to say whether there was or was not, or whether it was all very largely an intellectual process.
Q Doctor, don't you think that fear entered largely into it?
A After having observed the boys, I am not quite sure about that.
Q Assume for the purpose of this question the evidence has or will show that Loeb
-
A He is the fellow that had that/idea in his head for many years.
Q And he was the fellow that was going to be the greatest criminal of his age and was quite proud of his crime?
A Yes.
Q Assume for the purpose of the question, when in the custody of the State's Attorney,
the State's Attorney told him, in response to a question as to why he was being held,
"Because Leopold is the owner of those glasses" he should exclaim, "my God, is that
possible" exhibit fear, blanch, almost faint and call for a glass of water -
A Assuming those facts, that he did actually blanch and almost faint, I should say then that he did.
Q Assuming that later on, when he had been in custody a matter of thirty hours more,
he again asked the State's Attorney why he was being held, that "You have no evidence
on me; you don't even ask me questions in reference to this crime; why are you holding
me", and the State's Attorney answered him"because you said you were with Leopold
all day on the day ofthe murder; we have been directing our energy in fastening the
crime on Leopold; we now have, in addition to his glasses, the fact that you have
both lied about being out in Lincoln Park, having the red car with you; we know that
the chisel was thrown from your red car; we know that you had a portable typewriter",
and he fainted, and while he either conscious, before he fainted or recovery, he
cried and said, "My God, my God, give me a glass of water; this is terrible; I will
tell you all" -
A Assuming that to be as you stated, I shouldjudge that fear did show then.
Q And should it further appear, doctor, or assume it has appeared that while they were endeavoring to get the Ten Thousand Dollars and telephoning to the drug store to see whether Franks had gone over there with the Ten Thousand Dollars as directed in the ransom letter and after making two attempts to get Franks at the drug store and failing, they saw on the news stand at the corner a headline, "Body found", and Loeb said to Leopold, "We had better quit, the jig is up", or words to that effect, did that indicate childish phantasy or a combination of fear and caution?
A The latter, to me.
Q and if Leopold acted upon that advice would that indicate childish phantasy or a combination of fear and caution?
A The latter, in my opinion.
Q So, doctor, all the facts concerning the commission of the crime itself, the minute, careful, premeditated manner in which this murder was planned, the cautious, cunning, methods adopted by both of the defendants to protect their liberty, all of those were guided entirely by either fear and caution or intellect, were they not?
A Yes.
Q And these are the details that you did not attempt to get first hand from the defendants?
A They were not new to me. I assumed every one in the first place to be true as you state them.
Q But I gave you some here that you said you had not heard about?
A All on the same point.
Q Exhibiting fear and caution?
A Yes.
Q And intellect?
A Yes.
Q Doctor, in the planning of the crime itself and the steps taken to protect themselves from detection, the only method in which they differ in this particular case from the average case of a criminal is that these men showed a little higher grade of intellect, than the average criminal shows?
A No.
Q Isn't there anything in their acts here which exhibits a higher grade of intellect than you would ordinarily find in criminals?
A Yes.
Q and what is it?
A Their ability to plan.
Q Isn't that the question that I just asked you? I asked you as to the planning of this crime, and the manner in which it was planned, the manner in which they planned to cover up after committing it, doesn't that differ from the way in which the ordinary criminal acts, inasmuch as it shows more intellect?
A You mean in the planning of it? In thatway, yes, but there are other elements.
Q And the covering up afterwards?
A That is caution, that shows more intellect.
Q And shows about the same degree of fear and caution that the average criminal shows?
A I don't know about the average criminal. I think it showed a great deal of caution.
Q Haven't you a great deal of experience with the average criminal?
A With the adult criminal, no, but with boys, yes.
Q In other words, you don't examine as a rule persons over what age?
A I try not to see boys over eighteen or nineteen.
Q Are not the details of this crime, that is, the method of planning it and the covering up, the fear and caution exhibited, about the same as you find in other boys of eighteen who commit crimes except that thereis a higher degree of intellect here?
A Yes, and so much so that I have never heard of anything likeit at all.
Q You do not get in your court very many college graduates whose parents are millionaires, do you?
A We certaindly do not.
Q And that would account for the fact that this is an unusual type to you?
A Yes.
MR. DARROW: What has millionaires got to do with it?
MR. CROWE: Mr. Darrow has suggested to ask you what the millionaire has to do with it. That accounts for the environment, does it not, tutors and the schools they went to, and the method of raising them?
A Not at all, in my opinion.
Q The fact that these defendants at an early age began to lie, is that uncommon in the criminals under eighteen that you have examined?
A In the first place, I don't think it is fair to call them criminals, because they don't come under that head in the criminal law.
Q Now wait a minute. That they do not come under that head is due to the fact that they are not responsible under the law, they are insane?
A No, it is the juvenile court procedure.
Q You are not testifying in a juvenile court. You understand that this is the criminal court of Cook County?
A Certainly, you are speaking about those whom I see.
Q Hasn't it been your experience that people with criminal tendencies, do you not find that at an early age they begin to lie?
A That is pretty difficult for me to say. I don't know that that is always true by any manner of means.
Q Are not criminals as you find them liars or are they truthful persons?
A I have seen many of them very truthful.
Q What is the general rule?
A I would not like to answer that.
Q Did you ever hear it said that any person who will lie will steal or any person who will steal will lie?
A I have heard many things that are not true.
Q You never heard that?
A No.
Q And you don't think that is true?
A I am sure it is not.
Q That a person who will steal will lie?
A I am sure it is not true.
MR. DARROW: If you say it the other way that anybody who will lie will steal there are a lot of thieves.
MR. CROWE: Q Now, doctor, as a practical proposition -
A The vast majority/of them that come to our notice tell the truth.
Q I am talking about the criminal court?
A I don't know.
Q Have you an opinion as to why the vast majority of the children who come to your court tell the truth?
A They come to our office and they come to our court because of the attitude taken
by the judge of the juvenile court and in our office when we see the individuals
with their parents and try to help them to go through the situation -
Q The purpose of your court is to help and not to punish? A Punishment is a help. Helping does not preclude punishment.
Q But the practical purpose of your court is to help young fellows back to the right road?
A Exactly.
Q You and your associates let that be understood to the boy and the parents when they come in?
A Yes.
Q So that the element of fear, or fear of punishment, does not enter into your work?
A Very slightly.
Q The purpose of this court is somewhat different, is it not?
A I don't know.
Don't you think one of the purposes of this court is to protect society against murder and crimes of violence?
A so is the purpose of the juvenile court, to protect society.
Q You would not suggest that we parole murderers on their promise of being good boys thereafter?
MR. DARROW: Objection. That is not the purpose of the criminal court any more than it is the juvenile court.
MR. CROWE: I am asking the doctor what his opinion is.
A No, of course not.
Q You expect, when murderers get in here, that they are guilty and sane, that they be punished, do you not?
A Yes.
Q And that is true of robbers, burglars and others who get in here, is it not?
A I suppose that some of them are put on probation, aren't they?
Q The majority are punished, especially if it is their second attempt. You would not expect a large percentage of truthful murderers and burglars to walk through the court here, would you?
A I don't know whether I would or not. It depends on the attitude you take toward them.
Q The fact that these boys lied, cheated at cards, stole and built bonfires with other people's property; those are the elements you principally take into consideration in arriving at your conclusion that they are not normal?
A No.
Q They are some of them?
A They do enter in.
Q The others that you take into consideration are the fact that they have been very highly educated, the fact that they have gone to good schools, and have come from sheltered homes where all their wants were supplied; those are two other elements?
A Two among many.
Q What influence has their education, and the ease with which they have lived, or the indulgence of their wealthy parents, had, or how much does that enter into your conclusion?
A Very little.
Q If they were boys coming from the Valley, where the last eighteen year old boy that we hanged came from, of poor parents, it would not make any difference?
MR. DARROW: Objected to, first, as something he knows nothing about; and, second, because there was never any eighteen year old boy hanged. He could not make a comparison. It would not show the boy deserved it, anyhow.
MR. CROWE: Q What if anything does it indicate to you that when Loeb found that Leopold was being trapped and his guilt uncovered, he confessed?
A I don't believe I can answer that.
Q You assume I am asking these questions for the purpose of having you answer them, do you not?
A I don't know what it means.
Q It has no significance to you whatever?
A I am not sure of its significance. I never thought of it before. I should have to consider it at considerable length to know what the motives were back of it.
Q Has it any significance to you as to his mental condition?
A You mean, as to whether he was confused, and so forth?
Q Mental condition, whatever that means to you.
MR. DARROW: I object. If he means mental condition at this time, that is one thing.
MR. CROWE: At the time
A I am totally unable to answer that unless I know the circumstances, and could analyze them, just the same as I attempted to analyze other phenomena.
MR. CROWE: Q Why did you not inquire of Loeb, when you were making this examination, as to how he happened to confess?
A I didn't think it of any importance. I would have been perfectly willing.
Q for the same reason, you did not think it would be important to know if the crime had originated in his brain or in Leopold's?
A They both so assured me that they were engaged in the planning of it together, but I thought it made very little difference whether they did it both together or not. Leopold told me, I find among the notes I looked up this morning, that he enjoyed a great deal the elements of planning that Loeb did.
Q Would the add
| Leopold |
| Loeb |
| Together |
| Together (2) |
| Alibi |
| False Identity |
| Interrogations |
| Confession |
| Confession (2) |
| Grand Jury |