Testimony of Dr William Healy

Monday, August 4th, 1924 10:30 o'clock A.M. Court convened at 10:30 o'clock A.M. Monday, August 4th, 1924, pursuant to adjournment heretofore taken.  Present: Same as before. THE COURT: I must apologize for being late this morning, gentlemen, but I could not help it. I had an engagement downstairs to impanel a grand jury and I went down there. MR. DARROW: Shall we proceed, your Honor? THE COURT: Yes. MR. DARROW: Dr. Healy. DR. WILLIAM  HEALY, a witness called on behalf of the defendants, having been first duly sworn, testified as follows:

DIRECT EXAMINATION

BY MR. DARROW,

MR. CROWE: Your Honor, I assume the same questions will asked as to his qualifications and I merely

want to make a formal objection without argument.

MR. DARROW: Q Give us your name.

A William Healy.

Q Where do you live?

A Boston.

Q What is your profession?

A I am a physician and psyochologist.

Q How long have you been a physician and psychologist?

MR. CROWE: Now, if your Honor please, I desire to offer the same objection, based upon the same reasons we advanced to your honor when Dr. White was on the stand.

THE COURT: Same ruling.

MR. DARROW: Q How long have you been in that profession?

A Since 1900, most of that time.

Q Where did you graduate?

A I graduated first from Harvard University and then from Rush Medical College.

Q Rush Medical College in Chicago?

A Yes sir.

Q When did you graduate there?

A 1900.

Q Where did you first locate?

A First I had charge of the women's department of the Wisconsin State Hospital for mental diseases.

Q. How long were you there?

A One year. I was then five years in general practice in Chicago. Then I went abroad and studied for a year in Vienna, Berlin and London. Then I came back and settled in Chicago, and entered into the practice of neurology and psychiatry.

Q How long did you practice in Chicago?

A I became head of the Psychopathic Institute of

the Juvenile Court in 1909, and I was in the practice of neurology privately for about two years.

Q How long were you head of the Juvenile Court in psychiatry in Chicago?

A From 1909 to 1917. Then I became director of the Judge Baker Foundation in Boston, which is a foundation for the study of conduct problems, behavior problems, for the courts, particularly the Juvenile Court of Boston, and for social agencies

.Q Are you such director now?

A Yes sir.

Q What other professional activities have you?

A I am a lecturer at Harvard University and Boston University. This summer I am on the staff of Columbia.

Q How long have you been at Harvard?

A About the last two years.

Q In what line?

A In the Department of Social Ethics.

Q Have you any other position or work in connection with the courts of Boston?

A No, except cases from the juvenile court of Boston, and from some of the outlying courts, which come to our foundation for study.

Q And that has been ever since you have been with this foundation?

A That is what it was established for.

Q About how many such cases have you had for observation in Boston?

A Probably thirty-eight or thirty-nine hundred.

Q What societies if any are you connected with?

A Quite a number of scientific Societies. The American Neurological Association, the American Psychiatric Association, the American Psychological Association, the American Institute of Criminal Law and Crminology, the American Association of Ortho-Psychiatry, and a number of others.

Q Are you connected with any hospitals or institutions?

A Chairman of the Trustees, Boston Psychopathic Hospital.

Q What is their work?

A The studying of mental diseases.

Q How long have you been chairman?

A About four years.

Q Have you written any books on these subjects?

A I have written a large textbook, "The Individual Delinquent" and a book entitled "Pathological Lying, Accusation and Swindling"; a book entitled, "Mental Conflicts and Misconduct"; a book entitled "Honesty"; a small book on "Case Studies of Mentally and Morally Abnormal Types; and last year we got out a series of "Case Studies of Conduct Disorders", mostly.

Q Where were tho books published?

A They are published mostly in this country. They have some English editions too, some foreign editions.

Q During all of this time in your professional career what have you made your chief study? A The study of conduct disorders.

Q Had any special references to adolescents? A Yes, particular among adolescents. I have seen very little of adults, purposely. Neary all of them children and adolescents. Q What age do you count as adolescents?

A Adolescents, the definition of adolescents is from the time of puberty until twenty-one or twenty-two, according to the physiological development of the individual.

Q How is that as to boys, as to being a critical time with them? A I beg your pardon?

Q How in that age as being a critical time with boys?

A It is an exceedingly critical time on account of the many new impulses that come to the individual through his physical life and mental life.

Q Have you testified much in oourt?

A I have actually testified from either side very seldom indeed. I give reports directly to the Judge. Q In Boston? A Yes, and did here too.

Q And you did here?

A Sat with the Judge here for three years, Judge Pinckney and later Judge Arnold. Q You came here from Boston in this matter? A Yes. Q For what purpose? A To study these two boys, the cases of these two boys, Leopold and Loeb.

Q What have you done toward studying them?

A Well, I have studied the boys themselves and I have gone over a great deal of other material, seen a good deal of material in the way of letters and photographs, and I have seen acquaintances and relatives, studied the reports, particularly upon the physical side, of Doctors Bowman and Hulbert; gone into matters connected with the developmental history and family history, and have given a considerable range of psychological tests to each of the two boys; endeavored to get data on their emotional life, and on the alterations,

if any, of their personality.

Q How much time did you spend with them, about how much?

A You mean in actual days? Q Well, figure it any way you want to.

A I began on July 4th and I have seen them a considerable

number of times since. The last time I saw them was on July 27th, that is, in the jail. I have seen them the equivalent, certainly of a number of whole days.

Q And suitable facilities were provided for the study in the jail, were they not?

A They were very satisfactory indeed, very. We had a nice, quiet room there. I was generally alone. Two or three times my colleagues were with me for a little while. Mr Bachrach was present on all but one day, gave very good help in the matter. Very satisfactory conditions.

Q That is Mr. Walter Bachrach?

A Mr. Waltar Bachrach, yes.

Q You may state in your own way about what examination you made to ascertain their mental condition.

A What examination that I made?

A The examinations from which I have drawn any conclusions are concerned with the generial physical observations of the boys, especially with regard to any nervous disturbance.

As I said before, the giving of special mental tests of various sorts; observation of their personality; observation of their emotional life; studies of their correspondence and the correspondence of others to them; interviews with a number of other people concerning their experiences, their home life, and so on, and concerning the peculiarities of their associations. I am afraid that is a good deal of repetition.

Q In the course of those studies you learned the facts of this homicide, in a general way at least, did you not?

A I suppose I had all the facts from what I had seen in the newspapers and heard from Mr. Bachhrach and Mr. Hulbert in Chicago -- from Dr. Hulbert and Mr. Bachrach when they visited me in Boston.

Q You learned, then, before you saw the boys or at different times? You did learn them, anyway?

A Yes.

Q And you took that into consideration?

A Yes, and anything that came out at the interviews seemed to be entirely corroborative.

Q Did you have a certain letter that was written by Nathan Leopolds Jr. to Richard Loeb in reference to some misunderstanding between them and their future conduct that was introdued by the State?

A I read that in the newspapers in Boston. I think I read a copy of it -- yes, I am sure I read a copy of it in your office or at least glanced it over.

Q Did you have any other?

A I have had a tremendous grist of letters, yes.

Q Did you have any that especially throw light on this subject?

A There are some that I think throw a great deal of light.

Q Do you have any here now that have not been introduced in evidence?

A Yes, I have one.

Q This is a letter that you have considered and which you consider throws light on the mental condition? A Yes, throws light.

Q Have you it at hand?

A Wouldn't you rather that we brought that in at its proper place in the study of the case?

Q Yes, I just did not want to overlook it, is all.

A Yes.

Q Perhaps the beet way Dr. Healy would be for you to state in your own way what means you took and what findings you made as to each of them. You can begin with either one of then, whichever is most convenient for you.

MR. CROWE: If your Honor please, before the doctor starts, I do not like to be interrupting him while he is talking but I would like to say that up to date all the statements have been generalities. We have a right to know exactly what the doctor did; what the conversations were; what the acts were, and everything, so that we may know whether he in drawing a correct conclusion from those facts. So I would like to have the doctor be specific in his statements.

THE COURT: Yes.

MR. DARROW: That is what we expect him to be, your Honor.

THE COURT: Yes, we expect his to go right on in

logical form and detail everything he did and said so you can be fully advised upon what he bases his conclusion and upon which you may then want to cross examine, and you may cross examine at such length as you desire.

MR. DARROW: He may refer to his notes made at the time I suppose?

THE COURT: Yes, there is no objection to his referring to his notes.

MR. CROWE: None whatever,

THE COURT: You may proceed, doctor; start in at the beginning of the examination of these boys and tell us what you did, what conclusions you arrived at and how you came to arrive at those conclusions.

THE WITNESS: First, let us start with the association between the two boys as a matter of study.

MR. CROWE: Just a moment; by the two boys you mean the two defendants?

THE WITNESS: Yes, I mean Leopold and Loeb.

There is such a mass of material that if my memory fails me on just exactly where I got all my information from, you must pardon me, but I shall endeavor to be very explicit.

As far as I can find out from the account given by the boys themselves and from their relatives, their association began at fifteen years of age. They just barley knew each other earlier, but that is the time they first came together. It is very clear from the study of the boys separately that each came with peculiarities in their mental life which I shall dwell on later; each arrived at these peculiarities by different routes; each supplemented the other's already constituted abnormal needs in a most unique way.

And, in regard to the association I think that I ought to say perhaps at this point that from the accounts that I have received of it, that the crime in its commission and in its background has features that are quite beyond anything in my experience or knowledge of the literature. There seems to have been so little normal motivation, the matter was so long planned, so unfeelingly carried out, that it represents nothing that I have ever seen or heard of before. As judged by their conversation and by their correspondence, their compacts, their quarrels, their deeds, all tend to show a most strange and pathological relationship.

According to the stories of each the idea of their coming together for crime purposes began in a very definite way with their planning of extensive cheating at bridge, which, however, they were not very successful at and they did not continue so they say.

MR. CROWE: Now, just a minute. You are still going into nothing but generalities and opinions. Cheating at bridge. Tell us what they told you about it so that we may krow whether it is as strage as you think it is.

MR. DARROW: Go ahead.

THE WITNESS: I have just stated that they told as their crime began with their cheatings at bridge and their planning to do so. Isn't that the specific sort of statement that you want, Mr. Crowe?

MR. CROWE: Go ahead.

THE WITNESS: Although Loeb had been in delinquencies earlier, according to his very extensive account of these delinquencies, this was the first time --

MR. CROWE: Now wait a minute. I insist that we

find out what thse delinquencies are.

THE COURT: He is going right on to tell you what they are.

THE WITNESS: I will be very glad to tell you, sir.

THE COURT: Go right on and tell us.

THE WITNESS: That this was the first time, evidently, with anyoue else he carried out a serious delinquency and it was an evently action for him as well as for Leopold. Then each of them gave me the account; --

MR. CROWE: Just a moment. What are the delinquencies that they told you?

THE WITNESS: Let me tell it in order. I will come to all that later.

MR. CROWE: The thing that I am objecting to is that this is apparently a speech. I think he ought to testify like the ordinary witness does, your Honor. I can cross examine him on some of the things in his speech, but that is unsatisfactory.

THE COURT: The doctor has prepared himself, I should judge, from the way he is starting out, for this testimony, and he has it in his mind in a certain order, and he is now leading up. Tell us what they said to you, doctor, what Loeb said and what Leopold said.

Instead of saying, "The boys said," state what each one said. Tell us as near as you can what Loeb said and what Leopold said about the crime and then you can give your conclusion later.

THE WITNESS: I will get to that. Both Leopold and Loeb told me that starting with this action and continuing, drinking was also considerable of a bond between them. The criminalistic activities of Loeb previously, according to his own account, began with his stealing in the neighborhood. There was a matter of his getting in at a window, and taking a vase when he was about nine years of age. Prior to that time there was a digging up of some money from the yard next door, that he knew a little boy had hidden.

MR. DARROW: Q This is Loeb you are referring to now?

A Yes. There was quite a little stealing from shops about the city here, pencils, dental floos, all sorts of small articles that he took, so he says, for the purpose of getting the thrill of taking them. For the moment I don't remember anything else that occurred until the time when they joined activities. There may have been something else that will come out later. In

the matter of the association, I have the boys story told separately about an incrediably absurb childish compact that bound them, which bears out in Leopold's case particularly the thread and idea of his fantasy life. For Loeb, he says, the association gave him the opportunity of getting someone to carry out his criminalistic imaginings and conscious ideas. In the case of Leopold, the direct cause of his entering into criminalistic acts was this particularly childish compact.

MR. CROWE: You are talking about a compact that you characterize as childish. Kindly tell us what that compact was.

A I am perfectly willing to tell it in chambers but it is not a matter that I think sbould be told here.

MR. CROWE. I insist that we know what that compact is, so that we can form some opinion about It.

MR. DARROW: I suggest it be in Chambers.

THE COURT: All right.

MR. CROWE: Tell it in oourt. The trial must be public, your Honor. I am not insisting that he talk loud enough for everybody to hear, but it ought to be told in the same way that we put the other evidence in.

THE COURT: It would be public, if there was only one outsider in here. If it Is something that is unfit for publication --

MR. CROWE: There is no desire on my part to bring out something unfit for publication --

MR. BACHRACH: It ought not to be given to the newspapers by this reporter, your Honor.

THE COURT: Oh no. This is not for the papers at all. This will not be given to the newspapers, Mr. Reporter.

The witness then made the following statement to court, counsel and court reporters:

THE WITNESS: This compact, as was told to me separately by each of the boys on different occasions, and verified over and over, consisted in an agreement between them that Leopold, who has very definite homosexual tendencies, which have been a part of his makeup

for many years, was to have the privilege of -- do you want be to be very specific?

MR. CROWE: Absolutely, because this is important.

THE WITNESS: (Continuing) -- was to have the privilege of inserting his penis between Loeb's legs at special rates; at one time it was to be three times in two months, if they continued their criminalistic activities together, and then they had some of their quarrels, and then it was once for each criminalistic deed. Now their others so-called perverse tendencies seemed to amount to very little. They only engaged in anything else, so far as I can ascertain, very seldom, but this particular thing was very definite and explicit.

MR. BACHRACH: So that it need not be repeated, make it clear what the compact was.

MR. DARROW: I do not suppose this should be taken in the presence of newspapermen, your Honor.

THE COURT: Gentlemen, will you go and sit down, you newspaperman. Take your seats. This should not be published. d.

MR. CROWE: Q What other acts, if any, did they tell you about? You say that there are other acts that they did rarely or seldom?

A Oh, they were just experimenting once or twice with each other.

Q Tell what it was.

A They experimented with mouth perversions, but they did not keep it up at all. They did not got anything out of it.

Q And Leopold was --

A Leopold has had many years -- shall I go into this whole subject while we are here now?

THE COURT: Yes

THE WITNESS: Leopold has had for many years a great deal of phantasy life surrounding sex activity. That is part of the whole story and has been for many years. He has phantasies of being with a man, and usually with Loeb himself, even when he has connection with girls and the whole thing is an absurd situation because there is nothing but just putting his penis between this fellow's legs and getting that sort of a thrill. He says he gets a thrill out of anticipating it. Loeb would pretend to be drunk, then this follow would undress him and he would almost rape him and would be furiously passionate at the time, whereas with women he does not get that same thrill and passion.

MR. CROWE: That is what he tells you?

A Surely.

MR. DARROW: That is all I believe of that.

THE WITNESS: That is what he tells me. And of the other part, of course, Loeb tells me himself. That is exactly what they did, and how he feigns sometimes to be drunk, in order that be should have his aid in carrying out his criminalistic ideas. That is what Leopold gets out of it, and that is what Loeb gets out of it.

MR. BACHRACH: Q When in connection with the compact in point of time did they start, with reference to the compact?

A Their criminalistic ideas began on the same day, when they began their cheating at bridge. It was on the day when they first made it out. It was the first time in a berth, and it was when Leopold had this first experience with his penis between Loeb's legs, and then he found it gave him more pleasure than anything else he had ever done. To go on further with this, even in jail here, a look at Loeb's body or his touch upon his shoulder thrills him so, he says, immeasurably. Is that enough?

MR. CROWE: I think that is all.

THE COURT: The press has all of this. They have a copy of it and they know what it contains. There is no necessity of taking it down.

MR. DARROW: Q This letter that was written and introduced in evidence --

MR. CROWE: I didn't hear that.

MR. DARROW: Q This letter that was written and has been introducd in evidence from Leopold to Loeb you consider has more or lose bearing upon this matter you have just been relating?

A You mean the one that has already been published?

Q The one that has been published.

A Yes, I do. Only not specifically, of course, not in detail.

Q No, but bearing on it.

A Not specifically, but it gives a very unfair statement of the situation, and in regard to the association I would say that Dick Loeb insisted to me on a number of occasions that he has never found anything in himself that would lead to his deterrence; he would do it over again; nothing in him to deter.

The Court here held a short conference with the attorneys, out of the hearing of the reporters.

THE COURT: All right, doctor, go ahead.

THE WITNESS: And - on the part of Leopold I have the statement from him that well, yes, he would continue also in this sort of affair, and this sort of association, however, more from an intellectual standpoint. He would get satisfaction of his desires, his own personal gratification, and that would be

enough. Now, if I may, I will go to a discussion of my findings as to Leopold himself.

One sees Leopold exhibiting pretty definite signs of nervous instability, frequently shows greatly exaggerated use of the muscles of the face, exhibiting many nervous gestures, ready flushings and pallor. I also see signs in him of great nervous energy, and I may say at this point that I should agree with the Bowman and Hulbert report which I presume will be gone into later, that their results show evidences of some pathology of the glands, the internal secretion, probably of the sympathetic nervous systen.

Concerning Leopold's mentality I find conclusive evidences by a giving of a considerable number of mental tests that he possesses very high intelligence.

MR. CROWE: Q Now, will you give us those tests, doctor.

A Would you like them in detail?

Q Absolutely?

A I gave the general age level intelligence test, the so-called Stanford-Binet test, and as expected that showed very little, because Leopold could pass all the tests without trouble, and the scale does not go high enough to test such ability as he has. He passed all except one test for visualization.

In the course of this test I went into the matter of his auditory memory span, and found he had nothing very phenomenal in this way.

I gave him a so-called silent reading test, in which one is asked to read a number of paragraphs, and to give answers concerning them in order to show the rapidity of understanding and comprehension and the ability to react quickly to the matter presented. On this he gets a score that is much --

MR. CROWE: Doctor, I asked, would you kindly give what the tests were.

THE WITNESS: You don't want the results on them?

MR. CROWE: I want the tests first.

THE WITNESS: You want the tests first?

MR. CROWE: Yes.

THE WITNESS: I gave the Stanford-Binet set of tests, I gave the Monroe Silent Reading Test. I gave the test known as --

MR. CROWE: I know, but what are they?

THE WITNESS: What I am telling you.

MR. CROWE: All that is Greek to me.

THE WITNESS: I just told you this other test was a test for comprehension, by reading.

MR. CROWE: Describe the test.

THE WITNESS: That is what it is.

MR. CROWE: No, you say, "I gave him a number of tests," I don't know what they were. I don't know whether he had to stand on his head or not.

THE WITNESS: He had to read. I told him what to read and I gave him passages to read. 

MR. CROWE: Tell us what you gave him to read, and tell us what happened after he read them.

THE WITNESS: I don't know of any better way than the way I am doing.

MR. DARROW: I suppose the tests are very well known tests?

THE WITNESS: Very well-known.

MR. DARROW: That is all.

MR. CROWE: I don't know what the the Monroe Test is. I never heard of it.

THE COURT: Tell us what the Monroe test is. Give us all the facts.

THE WITNESS: The Monroe test is a test that emanated from the Kansas State Teachers College, and one that is used, as I say, for the study of individual ability to comprehend written language.

MR. BACHRACH: Suppose you be more explicit, doctor, and tell us so that we can all know what it know what it means. I am in the same boat that Mr. Crowe is on that.

THE WITNESS: One reads certain passages or paragraphs and answers them with pencil.

MR. CROWE: Q What did he read? And what answer did he make? That is what I want.

A That is what I am attempting to tell. He read then. He gave a score on them.

Q But tell us what he read and what his score was?

A Would you like me to read all of these tests?

Q Certainly.

A It to an awfully long job.

MR. DARROW: Can't you do it on the cross examination?

MR. CROWE: No, no. We are entitled to it on direct examination.

MR. DARROW: I think you are not.

THE COURT: Let the doctor go on and tell, and then you can cross examine him at length when you come to the cross. If you will explain, doctor, when you apply such a system or test, that it means reading a paragraph from Homer or whatever it is, have a little paragraph read from it, and then give his answer thereto; that would be sufficient, and later if they want to go into it further they can do it.

THE WITNESS: It is an awfully long job to read these tests.

THE COURT: I know, but we don't care how long it takes, doctor, if it takes three weeks, if it is going to be of any enlightenment to us in this case. Time cuts no figure.

THE WITNESS: The whole test shows his tremendously high ability on the whole thing right through. I can summarise it right now at the start, and you won't know know any more at the end. I will be very glad to go into it, but that is all it shows.

MR. CROWE: I appreciate you are very anxious to give your conclusions, but I want to know what they are based on.

MR. DARROW: I object to that statement. The doctor is perfectly candid with you.

THE WITNESS: I am perfectly willing to read these off.

THE COURT: All right, doctor, go ahead and read these off.

THE WITNESS: In the Monroe Silent Reading Test, No.1 is: "The Chinese believe that whatever their ancestry did, they must do. Since their fathers had no railways, telegraphs or telephones, they must have none. They dislike new things. Will you expect to find the civilization of China modern or ancient?"

"Ancient" he answered.

MR. CROWE: He answered "Ancient".

A The answer is "ancient" which is correct.

No. 2 is: "The tighter a wire is stretched the higher the tone produced when the wire is struck. Two wires are stretched, ones with a fourteen-pound weight pulling on it, and another with a ten-pound weight pulling on it. Which wire will produce the higher tone, the former or the latter".

He answers: "The former."

No.3 is: "The battle of Holenlinden occurred December 3, 1800, during one of Napoleon's campaigns. The battle was fought between the French under Moreau on the one side and the Austrians under Archduke John on the other side. In this battle,, Archduke John led the army of what couutry?

His answer to that was "Austrian".

No. 4: Ocean currents are caused by the wind. North of the equator the currents of the Indian Ocean move generally eastward during the summer and westward during the winter. Ceylond is in the Indian Ocean, north of the equator. Underline the word below which tells in what direction the wind normally blows there in December."

His answer is "West"

THE COURT: I don't think you need to take every question and answer. You have got enough now of what questions were put to him and how he came to answer them, and you say his answers were what?

THE WITNESS: his answers to the whole set of questions were not only correct, but they were done in the most rapid time of anybody I have ever known to take the test.

THE COURT: No need of going any further along that line, is there, on that particular test?

MR. CROWE: Not on that test.

THE COURT: That is all, doctor, on that.

MR. CROWE: I would like to know what those other tests are.

THE COURT: Now, if there are any other tests that were employed, give them.

THE WITNESS: the next test was a test for language ability. The exercise data of the Kelly-Trabus scale is published at Columbia University. This is a test in which certain words are left out of sentences and to have to fill in the sentences.

THE COURT: Now, will you give us a sample of two or three questions put along that line, doctor.

THE WITNESS: Yes, we will take some of the later ones on that.

THE COURT: Any one.

THE WITNESS: Take, for instance, Question 36. It says, "To friends is always the it takes". And then they fill in the words and so makes the sentence, "To make friends is always worth the trouble it takes."

"The lest difficult, are by no, always the most, are the tasks the most disagreeable."

MR CROWE: He answered those correctly, didn't he?

A He fills in.

MR. CROWE: Q He filled those in correctly?

A He fills in those words.

THE COURT: And did it all?

A Did it all extremely well.

THE COURT: Now, if there are any other tests, you may give them.

A I gave him the so-called equivalent proverbs test.

Q Give us an example of that, doctor.

A An example of that is as follows:

You are given on this some twenty proverbs, and then you are given these on one side with the numbers on them, and on the other side twenty other proverbs, and you are told to tell which one of the first set of proverbs the second one is similar to. For instance, "Bend the willow while it is young." Is it like "Ill nature needs no tutor," or "An old dog will learn no tricks" or "Sail when the wind blows" and he answered all of these twenty questions perfectly.

THE COURT: We will take a short recess at this time.

Whereupon Court and Counsel here took a short recess.

Court convened pursuant to short recess heretofore taken.

Present: Same as before.

DR. WILLIAM HEALY,

resumed that stand for further direct examination by Dr. Darrow, as follows:

MR.CROWE: May I interrupt? Will you give me the name of the last test?

THE WITNESS: That is the Trabue test -- or I beg your pardon, I think we were talking about the Proverbs test, weren't we?

MR. CROWE: Yes.

THE WITNESS: That is this one here.

MR. CROWE: Thank you.

MR. DARROW: Q State what other tests you made.

A I think in stating the matter with regard to that Monroe Silent Reading test that the time allowed on that test is five minutes and during that time very few individuals--in fact, I do not think I have ever seen a single one answer all the questions correctly, whereas

Leopold answered them all correctly in three minutes and 15 seconds.

Another test I gave him for reasoning ability, known as the syllogism test, Thurston's syllogism test and the language of that test is, "Silver is heavier than iron copper is lighter than Silver, therefore copper is heavier than iron."

Or another one: "All the members of the City Club are members of the University Club. Smith is a member of the University Club, therefore he is a member of the City Club."

There are twenty such tests in syllogistic reasoning, and he did them all --

MR. CROWE: Will you give is one more sample there, doctor?

THE WITNESS: I beg your pardon?

MR CROWE: Will you give us one more sample?

THE WITNESS: "Henry's father George has a brother William who has a son James. Therefore George is James' nephew."

These questions are to be answered, whether they are right or wrong, and he answered them all correctly but slowly and with more difficulty with this sort of thing than he did with the other tests given. I tested him also for his motor control, in a certain sample tapping test in which he is asked to tap one square after another on a sheet of paper. There he showed his control was very good indeed, making a record of 106 squares tapped without any errors, which is above any medium norm which we have. I gave him some tests that are included in a list of tests which are the only ones that I know of that deal particularly with this type of mentality, known as Roback mentality tests for superior adults. I did not take the time to give him all of these, because they are exceedingly long, but I will tell you which ones I did give him. Here is a so-called "difficult directions" test in which you say these symbols above here. If the square is smaller than the circle and the triangle put together, do not put a cross here, but if the diamond is below the square, make a dash in the figure to the left of the circle. If the star in the diagram has no more than seven points, write no here, etc. They are tests to see whether a person gets confused, or whether he can follow those well. He did these all correctly and very speedily. Another test is the so-called judgment test for which you are allowed fifteen minutes. You are asked to put opposite the given sentence -- and there are some thirty sentences -- an "s" if it is a striking or significant statement, a "c", if it is a commonplace statement, an "a" if it is an absurd statement, a "t" if it is a tautological statement, and a "j" if it is a joke. They are such sentences as these:

"The secret of genius is to suffer no fiction to exist for us, and to realize all that we know."

"Other men are lenses through which we read our own minds."

"Make the necessities of life too expensive for the poor to reach them, and they will save their money, so that in time, provided this practice is rigorously carried out, there will be no paupers."

"What has not been accomplished in the present cannot be reproduced in the past."

MR. CROWE: Q How did he answer those?

A He answered them all very well and correctly, -- let me rescind my statement. He answered them in

seven minutes, but he made three or four mistakes.

Q How many were there altogether?

A Thirty.

Q Read three or four that he made mistakes in?

A I don't believe that I could, because since I gave them to Loeb, I erased his answers on the first ones. He did a so-called cryptogram test in which he is allowed fifteen minutes, for deciphering a sentence that is written in symbols in which you have to draw deductions concerning what letters these symbols represent. He did this correctly in five minutes, whereas fifteen minutes is the time allowed.

"The following symbols constitute a sentence of nine words. The symbols" -- then it gives a certain symbol -- "stands for "m", and then certain other symbols represent the word "with". "Try to decipher the code and do not give up the problem until time is called."

I gave him another test of these series, called the problem test, and the time allowed was twenty-five minutes. The directions are:

"Answer the following questions concisely but convincingly. Three minutes on the average for question should be ample time." The result of

this was quite interesting to me, because he wrote at such tremendous length in the endeavor to express hos own conception of things, and insisted on running over into thirty-three minutes. The first question is:

"If raising the marks of one student will give him a higher standing in class, why not raise the marks of all in the class, so that they can have a better understanding?"

His answer was:

"This is a perfectly absurd statement. Raising the marks of one student raises his standing in the class only by comparison with the other students. His marks are high or low only relatively to those of others, and therefore, should the marks of all students be correspondingly raised, no one of all would have a higher standing than before. If an object measured in terms of another, or other objects, be increased at the same time that the other object or objects are raised, and in the same ratio, the relation between them remains unaltered."

The next one is, "If two negatives make an affirmative, why not say that two wrongs make a right?" His answer to that is, "The force of one negative is to show that the statement just made is not true. When another word of negation is added, it does not deny the original statement, but that statement in its negative form namely, the statement plus the negation thereof, to negative a negation, amounts to an opposite of the affirmative, but this cannot be carried to the case of right and wrong. Here while a wrong may be called a negative right, the addition of another wrong does not act to negate or deny the first, but creates a new negative right, and cannot be applied to the first situation. The two are totally independent and do not act one upon the other." The interest in this, of course, is in the fact that this boy suddenly proceeds to write in this prolix fashion, wanting more time, page after page, in answering these questions as you have seen, with a good deal of overstatement, and not concisely at all, as the directions call for. Now did you want the detail on that Binet test? He passed all except one. The only failure that he made was in the so-called paper cutting test, in which one takes a sheet of paper and folds it over and then makes a cut-out;

and the person is asked to think of this paper as being opened up in his own mind, and it would look with these piece cut out. He had difficulty with this, although when I carried that scheme further, he developed a logical method of reasoning it out, even though he could not visualize it apparently, and did extremely well with it. That was also true in another test that I gave him, which we have always considered an extremely difficult one, known as the McAlly cube test. You are told to see in your own mind a cube that is three inches in all directions, in all measurements, and that is painted on all sides. Suppose that cube is composed of one inch cubes. How many of those cubes will be painted on three sides, two sides, one side, and no sides at all. His answer in one minute was entirely correct.

MR. CROWE: Q How many cubes are there?

A 27. The answer in one minute was entirely correct, which of course is an astonishing result, because many of us are not able to answer that in 5 or 10 minutes.

Q And some of us not at all? A A lot of us. I would find a great deal of difficulty with it myself.

Then I gave him the so-called Kent-Rosanoff association test that has been used a good deal by psychiatrists in order to see his reaction times and the quality of his mental reactions. With a stop watch in hand you are asked to respond as rapidly as possible with a word directly after a so-called stimulus word that is given. For instance, with a stop watch I say to the person "table", and the person answers, for instance, "chair, room, music, books," or anything that comes into their mind, and the point is in how rapidly can they get out a word and what is the nature of the word.

Now Leopold got these answers in a most remarkable short time, vert frequently being under one second, four-fifths of a second, for instance, and I thought I caught some in even three-fifths of a second but the interesting part that developed in this test is the fact that his mind is so rapid in his reactions that at times he found difficulty in saying a word because several others seemed to come into his mind almost simultaneously, and I caught him once when he had checked off saying the first syllable, and I asked him what he wanted to say and instantly he reeled off five or six other words that he might have said. A very remarkable exhibition.

Now, this test is also used to determine whether an individual has emotional reactions. I used it to no great extent in this fashion, that is, I did not introduce words as they are sometimes introduced to see whether there would be emotional reactions to those special words, with one exception. I did introduce in his case the word "chisel" and I also did in the case of Loeb, and got no special reaction, that is in the way of a lengthening of a reaction time.

But during the course of this I was very much struck by the fact that while he was so exceedingly rapid in his general reactions, when I said the word "trouble" he did not answer for six seconds, and then said the word "plus" and the next word that came along was "soldier", which he responded to by the word "general" in 2-4/5 seconds, and I asked him then what the trouble was and he said, "I am all upset now", which I think is the first evidence I have seen of his having any emotion under the surface at all, or anywhere.

MR. CROWE: You are now talking about Leopold?

THE WITNESS: Well, I have not quite finished --

MR. DARROW: These are all Leopold.

MR. CROWE: These are all Leopold's tests.

THE WITNESS: What?

MR. CROWE: These are Leopold's tests?

THE WITNESS: Yes, I am speaking about Leopold's tests now.

MR. CROWE: Yes.

MR. DARROW: Yes.

THE WITNESS: Yes, that was Leopold. Then I also gave him a test known as the picture completion test too, which is a set of ten pictures in which there are cutouts, and the person is asked to select from among sixty squares the particular picture which would best fit the meaning of the picture. They are specifically made with the idea that some of the cutouts may pretty nearly answer the meaning correctly but not do it thoroughly and well.

This test is, as we call it, a test for apperceptions or practical judgment. On this he did very poorly indeed, much to my surprise. He made a score of 56.5 out of a possible 100, and that is just the average for twelve years; or stated in another way, twenty-five percent of the ten year old boys do better than that.

MR. CROWE: Can you give us one or two illustrations there if you have got them?

THE WITNESS: I could bring them at another session and show them to you much better.

MR. CROWE: Do that this afternoon.

THE WITNESS: Because it would take a long time to explain that. You can see it instantly.

MR. CROWE: All right. Do that this afternoon.

THE WITNESS: Now I think that exhuats the group of tests that I made, with one exception I remember now. Leopold has developed logical methods of so-called mnemonic devices, memory devices by which he can remember things in most remarkable fashion. You can make out a list of twenty words and he will read them over and then he can tell the order of those words or if you tell him any one of the words he can tell which word came after it and which word came before it and so on.

Not only did he exhibit his ability to do that but he exhibited his ability to do it on the day fater, when we had no intention of asking him, in twenty-four hours.

He gave a very interesing account of how he did that trick. He took one word, or rather he took all the rooms in his house and then he placed, as I remember it, one word in each room and associated that word with that particular room, and its contents, and then he could recall very readily the words by the relationshipo of the rooms in his house.

He also demonstated to my mind his very great attainments in the sceince of language. You heard Dr. White speak of the different dialects he has learned, but Leopold also does this sort of thing; he writes the Franch and Greek letters; or German in Sanscrit character, and things of that sort, playing with philological ideas, enjoying the whole performance most remendously he enjoys nothing the whole performance most tremendously he enjoys nothing evidently quite so much as his great activity.

His conversational powers are extremely good and he is, all through, very argumentative.

Now concerning his personality which is the next thing I would like to take up in my notes, one finds him very definitely by observation and by an account of him, extremely energetic both physically and mentally, showing as I say this great pleasure in mental activity; he does not want to stop after a half day of these arduous tests but would like to go on. It seems there is a great deal of what psychiatrists call pressure to mental activity, very little fatigue, and great desire to go on elaborating his thoughts. He is very enthusiastic and forceful about anything he initiates, throws himself into it with a very great deal of zest, making many gestures, being very talkative, having very many ideas on the subject to get out, about almost anything you speak of.

He throughout the examination showed himself to be self-centered and egotistic beyond any normal limit. From all accounts of him given by his family, particularly by his father, he has been for years very rebellious against obligations, social obligations, religious obligations and various sorts of conformities.

MR. CROWE: Doctor, pardon me.

THE WITNESS: Yes.

MR. CROWE: Go back a little where you said he was self-centered and egotistic and he showed it during this examination. Will you at this point tell me how he showed it?

THE WITNESS: By his constant inconsistencies--

MR. DARROW: I think the doctor ought to tell his story and then you can cross examine.

THE WITNESS: Nearly all of this will be cleared up later when we go into the matter in detail.

MR. CROWE: The only thing is, we may forget it and if we can get it as we go along we are entitled to it.

MR. DARROW: Doesn't it go along in chronological order, doctor?

THE WITNESS: I am trying to prevent it in chronological order because there is such a mass of it.

THE COURT: All right. Go ahead, doctor.

THE WITNESS: In a very curious way he is very punctilious about keeping his appointments, for instance. We have some evidence from a Dr. Bernheim, I think it is --

MR. DARROW: Bernheimer.

THE WITNESS: He says that Leopold became very annoyed when the doctor was not there exactly on time. He is very careful about finishing his mental tasks for us. If he has not finished them the time before he comes next time with a slip of paper and says, "This is what I forgot," or "I did not do this," and he is, judging by some of the letters I have or had seen just as punctilious in keeping his appointments with his classes in ornithology, in bird life, getting other fellows to take charge of them a day of two within a few days after the crime was committed.

He appears with us altogether and not unfriendly, but he is extremely critical of other people and decidedly supercilious about his own mental attainments. Very stubborn in his opinions. He is right; the world is wrong. His father says that years ago Leopold has argued repeatedly with him about the nonsense of ethical ideas, about the nonsense of having a conscience and doing as other people do in regard to right and wrong.

As far as I can judge from my numerous interviews, he has extremely little sympathy or feelings or conceptions of gratitude except in some very narrow fields, with regard to his family life in particular, and it is particularly clear that he is melodramatic about the whole situation; he enjoys immensely playing a part.

He himself said to me that it is very much like a drama, and that he thought the best way to play the whole thing out in the same way; he would enjoy it best that way whatever the ending was.

Now the next thing I should like to discuss would be in regard to his emotions or moves and there judging from his own story of himself particularly, there has been a tremendous subordination of many normal feelings and emotions to this excessively developed conception of himself as a superior individual; and he has reacted thus and is reacting all the time in a most abnormal way in regard to this and particularly in regard to the whole crime. I am immensely struck --

MR. CROWE: Doctor, just a minute. Are you going to give illustrations of that later on?

THE WITNESS: Yes sir. I am immensely struck too by the fact that notwithstanding his opportunities in life for culture and comfort and ease, that he shows so little disgust at jail surroundings. His main concern seems to be and he himself says is whether or not the reporters say the right thing about him; and one observes a very distinct exhilaration, even as we saw him in jail whenever there was opportunity for him discussing himself or displaying hos own powers.

And again I might state that considering his emotions I saw no evidence whatever of what one might expect to be normal emotional life in jail, or as related to discussions of the crime. The only evidence of it was in this test, whatever that may be worth.

The main thing, of course, we are interested in, is whether there would have been alterations in personality, and my judgment is that there seems to be some steady impairment of his own judgment considering himself particularly, and his relationship to the realities of life, inasmuch as he has been willing to throw away his remarkably fine chances in his environment and as an individual who has such remarkable abilities, throwing away these chances for such petty awards in relation to a most heinous crime.

This conception of himself as a superior being, really superior to laws and social regulations, is very apparently then destructive of his own self interests. He might have been a distinguished scholar; he was already quite an eminent investigator of bird life, having published really very commendable contributions on this field, and an individual with normal judgment would have naturally developed his real superiority and not taken such extraordinary chances of ending his career.

There is another contradiction there that comes out in his life attitude and in his behavior, a contradiction between his notion of his being a superior being and his behavior on such extremely low personal and social levels.

And concerning his inner mental life, which of course is the main concern of the psychiatrist, we find in the first place he has gradually evolved quite delusional ideas concerning himself, and if you will permit me I will go into those a little later.

But in important spheres of life he seems to feel and think and act as if he were a superior being with desires and his own will as gudies to conduct. He says he is a superman on the basis of the philosophy of Nietzsche.

In jail, even though he may be despised, he is Napoleon on St. Helena.

He says that there is one thing that he is afraid that he has not "gotten across to us scientists," and that was his final remark the other day, and that is, that the most important thing, much more important even than preserving his life, is the preservation of his dignity.

Dr. White gave you the account of the ten world riddles that he wants to put into a vault and try to answer after death.

He also wants to write an autobiography if he can, showing how his nineteen years have been packed full of the most interesting and pleasurable and valuable experiences. He wants to make a last speech, if he has to make a last speech, showing that he has had a consistent life career. Ever since he was a little boy he says consistency has been a cart of god to him.

And then we come to the matter of his day dreaming, which again is a very important thing, not because we are not all subject to day dreaming as children and in our later life, but because his ear;y day dreaming was so abnormal in its extent and has been carried along so abnormally and carried over into everyday life.

He began, so he says, with dwelling mentally on the pictures of suffering and causing others to suffer,. which would seem to be a proof of something going wrong already in his emotional life as a little child. There was the crucifixion, which he has dwelt upon, which made, he says, an abnormal appeal to him, and the idea of somebody being tied or he tying someone.

And he went on and told me, at great length, and elaborated freely upon the theme that he had first developed with Doctors Bowman and Hulbert, namely, the theme of the king-slave phantasy, which he began, evidently very early in life, and which has some very strange components of a childhood and abnormal nature, of which I have spoken in this, because that was not open to the public. The slave would be a person that would be made to suffer, but he would be a good looking, strong man in some ways. Saving the life of the king he would be offered liberty, but he would refuse his liberty. Sometimes he himself would be the slave, and sometimes he would be the king.

As time went on, he belonged to a caste of slaves, a class of slaves; he himself was bound to his king by a golden chain, which he could easily have broken. He explains this by saying it was a vestigial remnant; his slave was as really as good as any kind. At other times he has phantasies about a boy being captured and beaten, and the king saves his life; or himself as a slave being stolen by gypsies, and brought up subject to punishment; or a boy who is captured in war time, and beaten, but saved by a nice young girl; all through there are these continual croppings up of suffering of causing to suffer in these phantasies. This imaginary life was developed very early, and had all along this abnormal material, and it kept up even last year. He has told us about this himself, and his aunt tells me that notwithstanding his tremendous activity and vigor, she had noted that sometimes during the last year he came in and went and lay down on the couch, and she supposed he was taking a nap, but these were the periods when he says he voluntarily went into periods of day dreaming. These phantasies apparently have had an immense influence upon his life. They have come up again and again, and have had relationship to his relations to Loeb, and to other boys earlier. Normal phantasies, of course, are carried out with all of us in our ambitions, and in our interests in general. This boy carried his abnormal phantasies vert early over into real life. He distinctly remembers, he tells us, even at twelve years of age, identifying a camp counsellor as a slave, and putting him into this position of slave-knighthood. Other boys are gradually drawn into this slave idea; any boy who would appeal to him as good looking was eligible for playing the part of his phantasy life; and he tells us of elaborating a scheme of capturing these, and even of branding them; he had a special sort of imaginary and complicated brand, which he applied in his phantasy to the inner calf of the leg. Most significant, according to his own account of his life, is the fact that three or more years ago, soon after their first acquaintance, Leob began to be woven into his phantasy life. Loeb would figure sometimes as the king, and sometimes as the slave, but it was a transfigured Loeb. Loeb would be an ideal man, wonderfully good looking, an athletic star, a brilliant scholar, a fellow who got the highest marks in college. Now he knew none of these things to be true, but he forcibly transformed Loeb; he tried to make himself believe these things, and he himself says that he told many others about his admiration for and belief in Loeb; and from one of the boys' acquaintances I have confirmation of that fact. It seems to have been really a rather extorious [?] fact, that Loeb himself object to, that he was so continually praising Loeb and putting him on a pedestal. Dr. White told you about his stating that he made a chart of the perfect man, in which Loeb ranged much higher than himself. But it is also interesting to note that Leopold himself speaks of having made a complete identification of himself with Dick. Now, to this point we have the fact that Leopold is able to recite poetry at great length, and that in itself is an interesting thing, it seems so incongruous. All at once he is able in prison to declaim poetry, some three or four pages, which he dictated to me as fast as I could get it down.

The other day in the court room he passed me a little memorandum, and said this was the part of the poem that he had in mind particularly, one of Lawrence Hope's poems that he recited to me, and which I will give you a large excerpt from it you want it. This is what he wrote the other day, in court, and passed on to me:

"Let me dream once that dear delusion

that I am you,

O heart's desire."

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,--it is hardly worth reading the whole poem: This is what he quoted with a good deal of apparent feeling, to me:

"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-faced scheme, the phantasy scheme of being either a king or a slave.

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-entering these relations when you were under the misapprehensions that I had conceded to what you demanded. On the basis of this construction of my words, then, Dick, should you base your decision. Next comes the other point of issue, namely, whether I wish to be a party to a reconciliation, supposing that you wish on the basis of the previous statements to do so. Here the decisions rests, not with you, but with me. Now, as I wrote you yesterday, you obviated my first reason for a refusal by telling me what I wanted to know, but another arose, the question of treachery, and that is not quite settled in my mind. For the purpose of this discussion, I shall not use the short term "treachery" as you suggested in your letter, to cover whatever you want to call it. I have no desire to quibble over terms, and am sure we both mean the same thing as treachery. Very well.

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, -- (reading):

"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--to make a mistake. Now, obviously any code which conferred upon an individual or upon a group extraordinary privileges without also putting on him extraordinary responsibility would be unfair and bad. Therefore, an ubermensch is held to have committed a crime every time he errs in judgment, a mistake excusable in others. But you may say that you have previously made mistakes which I do not treat as crimes. This is true. To cite an example, the other night you expressed the opinion and insisted tat Marcus Aurelius Antonius was, "practically the founder of stoicism", and in so doing you committed a crime. But it was a slight crime and I choose to forgive it. Similarly I have and had before this matter reached--I don;t know what the next word is--forgiven the crime which you committed in committing the error in judgement which caused the whole train of events. I did not and do not wish to charge you with a crime, but I feel justified in using any of the consequences of your crime for which you were held responsible to my advantage. This and only this I did, so you see how careful you must be.

"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-boy be taken away from your instruction in the subject."

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-excitedness and over-energy have been interpreted as evidence of vleverness, and it is typical of such cases that they remain frequently in the world unrecognized.

MR. DARROW: Q What effect will that have on -- well, strike that out. To what extent were those repsonsible for his acts?

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-minute recess now on account of the air and the hunidity in the room, and they have something to talk about outside, so we will have a five-minute recess.

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-built, active fellow, but though apparently calm and pleasant in his demeanor, he does show signs of some nervous disturbance in the muscular twitching of his face, and in the asymmetrical use of his mouth, which is very pronounced, one side frequently being drawn up in peculiar fashion.

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-Binet test he gets a very good rating and passes them all with one exception which is known as the code test in the sixteen visualization series. A test that calls for some visualizing powers but is a matter of no great importance.

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 18-0 series, for instance, the first test and that is a test also for several years previously, is the so-called vocabulary test. Here we have 100 words and the individual examined is asked to give the meanings of those words. Now you have to pass seventy-five words to get the 18 year old series, and he only gave 78 words, which for a  graduate from college is a pretty poor record, as an ordinary 18 year old individual is merely a high school graduate. I do not think it is worth while giving you the words he failed on.

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-called paper cutting test in which yo u are asked to visualize a sheet of paper after it has been cut. He passed that correctly.

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-pint vessel. Show me how the boy can measure out exactly seven pints without guessing at the amount, beginning by filling the five pint vessel.

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-called Thurston syllogism test, he works hard at it, takes seven minutes to do it, and gets it correctly except for one failure.

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-grade high school. Not at all equivalent to a college grade. You do not care for the errors here, I don't suppose do you?

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 -- and this is poor language again -- "The sum is so bright that one cannot read in it directly without causing great discomfort to the eyes."

"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-thirds of them right. In this test he does better than Leopold somewhat, and he gets about the medium, fourteen years, showing again not nearly so much shrewdness in judgment as one would expect to find from a fellow of his years and probable education.

I also gave him this Association Test, the Kent-Rosinoff Test, without any marked result. This performance is just about an average one, without any very definite evidence of any emotional disturbance -- none at all, in fact -- and no particular results in the length of reaction time, but just about an average performance. That is about the extent of the tests I gave. He was very much interested in that cryptogram test that I spoke of, and said that he found it a lot of fun, and worked very hard indeed. That ius the sort of thing that challenges him, because it has a sort of hidden meaning, something that might be used as a code, and he worked very hard, indeed on that, and got it all right in six minutes and thirty seconds.

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 -- that is the expression they used -- and some of them have said, "without any evidence of practical sense."

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-blooded handling of the situation in his criminal adventures.

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 -- and that is the only evidence -- he tells uw that he has frequently contemplated suicide.

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 -- I saw the letter -- which he gave in a diagram, and look up there at him. Not that she could see him at all.

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 -- it may be still, for all I know -- and found that he as a young child had been driven past that occasionally with his father on the way to his father's place of business.

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" -- that is the pathetic part of the situation, and the remarkable part of it from a pathological point of view. Tells me voluntarily "I caught myself last night saying 'you know Teddy'. That is the formula by which he would introduce to himself this phantasy life because it was unnecessary for the narrator of his own phantasy to explain things, to be explicit or to make it consistent and logical. He could go ahead and make it any old thing provided he began with that formula, which he had from early boyhood days, and to my mind --

MR. CROWE: Doctor --

THE WITNESS: -- again, of course, this illustrates -- just a moment please, until I finish -- this illustrates how much of a child he really is still, although he is capable of such tremendously hard and vicious behavior.

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 -- in most dangerous fashion, taking the reporters, which i believe has already come out in evidence, who he saw on the campus of the university of Chicago, down 63rd Street, or somewhere, and when theyintended to back out, insisting on their going, and going from drug store to drug store, as if he did not knowthe place, until he struck the drug store to which the telephone message had been sent.

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 -- they told me that he gave the details of the affair, the events of the crime, that is all I know, as if he had read them from the newspapers, and knew what sort of things were done. That is all I know. I got it in a very general way, and I was satisfied with that . then we have this insistence on his part that he is very comfortable in jail.

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" -- giving an argument in favor of his phantasy in youth being pretty true, I should say. He refused to take the better coat. He was living out being subjected to worse conditions than other prisoners were. He said, "I feel comfortable here. I am living out what I used to picture as a child." So it is of a good deal of interest to the student of abnormal psychology, the fact that under the influence of this inner mental life, this boy has been steadily going along the path of wrecking himself, as people with abnormal phantasies frequently do, people who are mentally diseased. It seems as if he is himself following out fate, the hand of fate, in these early imaginings of his own self-suffering. If I may come now to the whole matter of his emotional life; we find the extraordinary spectacle of this tremendous lack of sympathy for other people growing upon him. He seems incapable of viewing his criminal acts with anything like a natural feeling. If we may judge by the accounts given us separately by both Leopold and Loeb, they were contemplating kidnapping members of their own families. They even spoke of kidnapping the little brother.

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 -- I don't know whether it is exactly amusement or in wonderment, that he said in his own family after the murder, "Just think of our own Tommy running around and things like that happening."

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-development. So he went into a new situation, and took up very readily with the worst features of it,

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-operation of the family; that we should try to get all of the facts and make a report in the same fashion that we do regularly for the court; and that the study should be an attempt to get particularly at the educational and psychological values that must be inherent in such a situation like this. another stipulation was that there were to be no extraordinary fees paidin the fashion that has become notorious in certain other cases. That applies to all of us who were on this side. In the next place I suggested, although it was not a direct stipulation, that since the state had announced its psychiatrists, who were men we very much respected, after we had obtained the facts, we should try to give them directly to those men and attempt to get a joint report.

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 -- as I said, it is a childish form of perversion. There are different kinds of perversion. But, as far as that goes, there are many children, very innocent children of fine people who get into many things of that sort.

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 -- I don't know the exact expression he used -- but indulged in some form of cunnilingualism?

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 -- and when you say "malpractice" you mean that Leopold had Loeb's penis in his mouth, and after once or twice he did not find the same satisfaction in that as he did in the other forms of perversion?

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 -- It is, I think in the Bowman-Hulbert report

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-called professional criminal, yes.

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-Car people that in order to get a car they would have to give references, one a Chicago reference, have to give an address where an identification card could be mailed, have to give a bank reference, was it  phantasy or intellect -- now, intellect is sometimes referred to as good horse sense, isn't it?

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-Car people, was intellect or phantasy that caused --

A Intellect.

Q Wait a minute, doctor. (Continuing) -- was it intellect or phantasy that caused them to assume the name of Morton D. Ballard and rent a room in the Morrison hotel under that name?

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-like phantasy that caused Loeb to remain at the telephone booth on Wabash avenue, the number of which Leopold had given to the Rent-a-Car people to wait for a call for Louis Mason -- was that child-like phantasy or was it intellect working?

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-intellect is one case and normal intellect is another case planned and carried out every detail of this murder.

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 -- Loeb is the master criminal here, isn't he?

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 -- assuming those facts, would you say that fear operated with the intellect in this matter?

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" -- was that fear operating in connection with this master intellect or what was it; or a childish phantasy?

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 -- just forget for the moment if you can that you are a learned alienist and let us talk in terms of our common experience as men -- do you think that any considerable percentage of the thieves who are brought into our court plead guilty and tell all the truth about the transaction or do you think a large majority of them lie as long as they can about it?

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 added fact, after Loeb made up his mind to confess, that he insisted very strenuously, that the crime originated in Leopold, and that Leopold was the person who struck the boy, stuck the gag in the mouth and did the other things that caused death, have any significance to you?

A I think not, under those circumstances, as drawing a conclusion about the essential elements that led up to the crime.

Q Does not that indicate to you that he was trying to avoid some of the graver consequences that might follow?

A Under the impulse of the moment, I presume he was.

Q And if he persisted in that from one o'clock Saturday morning until ten o'clock the following morning, when he fell into the hands of his lawyers, that would not be under the impulse of the moment, would it?

A Under the impulse of the situation.

Q Is there a difference between them?

A Or we might say, under the compulsion of the situation. i think a man under those circumstances is in a pretty difficult position.

Q Does it not indicate, seeing that the crime already had been uncovered, that he was trying to make it as easy for himself as possible?

A At that time, but he certainly has not with us since then in that or in other matters.

Q well, of course, as a matter of law it does not make any difference as to who actually did the killing, and it does not make any difference, as a matter of law, as to who originated the crime?

A That is what I suppose.

Q So if they had been so informed that would account for his change in attitude, wouldn't it?

A I don't know. It might have done.

Q It might?

A It might have done, yes.

Q Well, don't you think that is the reason they changed their attitude?

A I don't know even whether he was acquainted with that fact before or not. I should think he naturally should have been .

THE COURT: It is close to adjourning time now. We will suspend now until two o'clock.

Whereupon a recess was here

taken to 2 o'clock P.M. same

day, August 5th, 1924.

Tuesday, August 5, 1924.

2:00 o'clock P.M.

Court convened at 2:00 o'clock P.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 cross examination by Mr. Crowe as follows:

MR. CROWE: Q Now, doctor, in talking about the defendant Loeb you gave three or four examples of acts which showed his criminalistic tendencies. I believe that the first act was that some little boy next door buried some money and Loeb found it, dug it up and made off with it?

A Yes.

Q How old was he when that happened?

A He states he was about 9 years old.

Q And what did the other boy bury?

A Money.

Q How much?

A I don't know that he remembers exactly, but my recollectionis that it was a dollar or two.

Q In a boy of nine is that unusual or abnormal?

A I think it is rather unusual.

Q Is it abnormal?

A Not necessarily. Proof of abnormal mentality. you mean?

Q Yes.

A No, not necessarily.

Q So that standing by itself would not mean anything?

A No.

Q Now the next one was that he had a bonfire.

A No, there were other things.

Q Or he burnt something?

A No.

Q What was next.

A The next things was that he told me about was entering a window and getting some sort of vase.

Q Did he tell whose house he burglarized?

A A neighbor's house.

Q Did he tell you whose? A No.

Q Did he tell you when?

A Soon afterwards, as he remembers it.

Q When he was about --

A Nine or ten.

Q (Continuing) -- nine or ten?

A Yes.

Q Well, outside of indicating that he was inclined to be a burglar, what else did that indicate to you?

MR. DARROW: I object to that question. It does not follow that it indicates that, if it does.

MR. CROWE:

Q What did it indicate in itself, that act?

A That he was already following out some of the trends of his ideas, prompted by his imaginations that he has told me about.

Q That he had started on a criminal career?

A Yes.

Q That is not an unusual thing in a man who eventually commits murder, is it?

A I could not say that it was usual or unusual. Many people who commit murders have never done another act but of the way previously.

Q you are referring to crimes of passion?

A yes.

Q Where people have been decent citizens, and their

passions are inflamed by something, and in real hot blood they kill?

A Yes.

Q You do not regard this as a crime of passion?

A No.

Q It is a cold-blooded proposition, premeditated and planned?

A Yes.

Q So for the purpose of comparison is the inception of his criminal career any different than you would expect to find in other criminals?

A Entirely different.

Q Those two acts?

A Which two acts?

Q The one about the pot of gold, and burglarizing the neighbor's houses? You would expect to find acts of that sort in a great many criminals when they were young would they not?

A I don't have any great expectations of any kind with regard to criminals. They are so totally different, I find, as I examine them, that I have ceased to have any expectations about them whatever.

Q You are really not surprised at finding anything in the makeup of criminals, are you, you find so many different things?

A We find so many things of normality and abnormality.

Q What is "normal"?

A You are speaking, now, in the mental life?

Q Yes.

A According to the general rules of understanding of such things, I should think it would be pretty self evident.

Q You tell me.

A A person who does not show any signs of mental disease.

Q In other words, it is what you find in a majority of the people?

A yes.

Q Is not everybody somewhat abnormal?

A Are you asking that as a question? I refuse to answer yes, I don't know whether they are or not.

Q Generally speaking.

A I don't know.

Q The way that you arrive at a definition of what is normal is what you expect the majority of people to do, isn't it?

A yes.

Q What is normal in china is not normal in chicago outside of Chinatown, is it?

A In some ways it is not, but I think mental disease runs pretty much the same sort of course and there are as many of the same symptoms among the Chinese as amongst Americans.

Q Is there any actual normal man?

A I suppose there is.

Q Is there?

A I think so.

Q Have you ever met one?

A I think so.

Q Whom?

A A great many people.

Q Who is actually normal in every respect and that you can use as a standard by which to judge other people's actions as to whether they are normal?

MR. DARROW: We object. that is a purely theoretical question as to who is normal.

MR. CROWE: We have listened to so much theory the last three or four days that you have brought in that I would not expect you to object. Now I have been dealing with facts.

MR. DARROW: Suppose he said he had --

MR. CROWE: Well, let us find out.

THE COURT: Answer it if you can, doctor.

A That is a pretty difficult question to answer. I thought you were alleging just now that the majority of people were normal.

MR. CROWE: Q Is there any one man whose actions are to be taken as a standard in every respect by which to judge others?

A I think a great many men are.

Q In every respect?

A Yes, in every respect, as exhibiting normal mentality.

Q A person's personality has a great deal to do with his actions, has it not?

A Yes.

Q A perfectly normal man under one set of circumstances might get very indignant and angry and another person would pass it off with a laugh?

A Yes.

Q And they are both normal?

A Yes.

Q So that normal people do not act in the same way under the same circumstances?

A Not always.

Q Is there any one person whose acts you could use as a standard in every set of circumstances?

A Yes.

Q You say that normal people do not act in the same way under the same given set of circumstances?

A Yes.

Q One man may get very angry at a thing and another man be totally indifferent?

A Yes.

Q And another man would be amused by it?

A Yes.

Q Is there any one person who you can use as a standard to judge how normal people ought to act under a given set of circumstances?

A How every other person would act?

Q Yes.

A I thought we decided that all people act differently or may act differently under different circumstances.

Q Then, in other words, there is not any one standard by which you can judge a normal person?

A You mean in regard to mental disease?

Q I don't know, doctor. You are a doctor, I am not.

A You are speaking about personality, the reaction of personality. You are now invading the field of mental disease and that is a totally different thing.

Q Is a normal person mentally diseased or mentally sane?

A A normal person is mentally sane.

Q What is the next act indicating a criminal tendency on the part of Loeb?

A I think, as I remember, I would not be quite sure of it, was stealing from shops about town.

Q That is in line with his desire to become a burglar?

A No, this is just stealing from shops, that is not burglary.

Q You make a distinction between stealing and burglary?

A Yes, indeed, naturally.

Q what did he steal?

A He named quite a number of different articles that he took from field's and scott's and other places about town. Just what those were, I don't believe I can remember off hand.

Q You were in the juvenile court in Chicago, were you not, about that time?

A Which time?

Q About the time in which he was doing these petty stealings?

A No, I don't know. Yes, approximately. I left here seven years ago.

Q Supposing he had been brought in each time he was caught stealing, how many times would he have to be brought into court before he would have been sent to St. Charles?

A I could not say. I noticed that a good many of them were brought in a good many times.

Q They are eventually sent out to St. Charles when it is apparent they are confirmed thieves, aren't they?

A A good many of them, not all of them.

Q Well, those that are not sent to St. Charles are sent to an insane asylum?

A No.

Q Or they are sent to some institution?

A No.

Q What is done with them? Turned loose on the street again?

A Most of them are worked with under probation, I believe, or used to be.

Q That is, when they come in the first three or four times, is it not?

A Yes, a good many times.

Q Well, you don't --

A Looking over the juvenile court records I find a good many of them have been six or seven times.

Q And placed on probation?

A Yes, frequently, when there is some well known cause of environment, so that the judge can feel that the condition might be altered, and frequently they do do better after that length of time.

Q How many times would Loeb have to be brought into the criminal courtbefore you would send him, if you were the judge, to st. Charles or some other institution?

A That I cannot answer.

Q As to whether or not --

A That I could not answer. That is a poser to me. I don't know what I should have done.

Q You know more about themmentally, you say, than anybody else?

A Beg pardon?

Q You know more about them mentally than we do?

A I didn't say so.

Q Well, do you think you do?

A I don't know what you know about him mentally, so I cannot say.

Q When did he have the bonfire?

A You mean burning up the shacks and so on?

Q Yes.

A That I could not tell you, exactly when.

Q Did you ask him?

A Well, it is since his association with Leopold, certainly.

Q When did that begin?

A That began about four years ago.

Q whose shacks did they burn up?

A I do not know.

Q What time of day and time of the year was it?

A I don't know anything about it.

Q If it happened on Halloween night, would it make as deep an impression on you as if it happened at some other time?

A No. If they were bruning up people's barns, actually committing deliberate arson for the enjoyment of it, I should say yes.

Q How many did they tell you they burned up?

A they didn't tell me how many.

Q So your last answer does not clear the situation up even in your own mind, if they were burning up people's shacks? As a matter of fact, they only told you about burning one shack, is that not true?

A No.

Q How many did they say they burned up?

A They said buildings or barns or something of that sort.

Q No, can you tell?

A How many?

Q Yes.

A Exactly, no.

Q Can you tell me exactly what they said, whether it is outhouses, shacks or buildings?

A No.

Q And you did not inquire?

A No.

Q If they had burned one shack up on a Halloween night or on election night, it would not mean anything to you except that they were perfectly normal boys, busting out with boyish --

A No, I have already answered that, that if they deliberately committed arson, and then as they told me they did, sent afterwards and mingled with the crowd in order to enjoy the talk as to how it was committed, my idea about it would be totally different, and it is.

Q You have not any suspicion that when they were telling you these things, that they were trying to fool you, have you?

A I don't see why they should feel in such matters.

Q When they were talking to the state's Attorney, before they had seen any lawyer, they were maintaining their innocence?

A Well, naturally.

Q You believe that they have sufficient intellect to understand that they were in a pretty bad hole by the time you got them, talked to them; they were in a pretty tight hole?

A Yes, of course they have.

Q and they have sufficient mentality to want to get out, like other people who get caught violatingthe law, haven't they?

A yes.

Q They would like to beat this case if they could, wouldn't they?

A I don't know. I am not sure about that. I think in a way they would, but --

Q Do you think they want to hand?

A Beg pardon?

Q Do you think they want to hang?

A I don't really know whether they do or don't.

Q Well, does the fact that when Loeb found that the authorities had sufficient evidence against Leopold to charge him with the murder, the fact that he confessed and blamed the crime itself and the originating of the crime upon Leopold, throw any light on that subject to/you as to whether he wants to hand or whether he wanted to unload on his former king and pal, Leopold?

A I think that under these circumstances there would come to the front the natural instinct of self-preservation.

Q And that is further confirmed by the proposition that before they confessed and when they were being questioned by the State's Attorney, they built up an alibi and denied all connection with and participation in the crime?

A That is what I should expect them to do, certainly. It would be part ofthe picture of one of their perfect crimes, as well as a part the idea that they would naturally like to preserve themselves as much as possible under the situation.

Q Then when they found out that they were not quite the master criminals that they thought, and the law had them in a firm grasp, you would naturally expect them to react and begin to build up a defense would you not?

A I should think they might.

Q And in order to build up that defense, these two men, who you and Doctor White say have lied to everybody in the world, even the king lying to the slave and the slave lying to the king, and both lying to the officers of the law, -- do you not think that they were liable to lie to you?

A I should think they would lie in the manner that they did, making themselves out to be a great deal worse that anyone suspected that they were before. I wouldn't expect them to, no.

Q What possible defense is there in this case, to prevent a hanging, unless by what they told you they would create a doubt in his honor's mind as to whether their minds were sound?

MR. DARROW: That is objected to because it does not follow that there is no other defense to prevent a hanging. Everybody is not so bloodthirsty.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. CROWE: Q What defense have these boys, except the story told by the alienists based on what they told you?

A I don't know anything about it.

Q A minute ago you were teaching me law, and showing me the difference between burglary and larceny. You have been in court a long while, have you not?

A Yes.

Q When it is going to hurt your defendants, you know nothing about it.

MR. DARROW: I object.

THE COURT: Strike it out.

MR. CROWE: Q Do you understand what defense is being put in here?

A Mitigation, is that it?

Q Do you think that if these boys had not told you about a phantasy life, a teddy bear, a desire to steal, burn, cheat at cards and lie, but had told you that they had lived the life of normal healthy boys, that you would be on the stand now?

A I should be perfectly willing to be.

Q do you think that Mr. Darrow or Mr. Bachrach would call you as a witness?

A No, but as I said before, we endeavored to get across to you every fact that we had, and not to go on the stand.

Q You would not expect to be a witness if they had told you they had lived a perfectly normal life, would you?

MR. DARROW: Objection.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. CROWE: Q Don't you think that in order to prepare the defense that is now being put in, they might have been educated by some other alienist or some lawyer so that they could give you a ground work on which you could base your conclusion?

A No, indeed.

Q Do you think that they would refrain from doing that because it was morally wrong to lie to a doctor?

A I don't think that they would.

Q What would cause them to hesitate to lie to you?

A I don't think they did lie. I think they started out and told their life story in an endeavor, for one thing, particularly for Leopold, and partly for Loeb, to really understand themselves.

Q They were not sitting in preparing a defense, then, but they were sitting in a clinic, to find out really what was the matter with them.

A We endeavored to make it exactly that. I told you before we endeavored to make it exactly the same conditions as obtain when we are studying cases for the juvenile court.

Q When Leopold began to plan with loeb this murder, and they stole the typewriter, what was acting then, his intellect or his emotions?

A His intellect, but always accompanied by some emotional life, as it always is.

Q What was the emotion that operated with his intellect?

A The desire to act this part of a superior individual, to fall in line with each other, to get from each other what each wanted, -- very natural desires and feelings in the matter.

Q This morning you said it was the intellect that acted.

A I am telling you now that intellect is always accompanied by emotion. It is intellect but also emotion.

Q You did not say that this morning.

A I am willing to put it in now.

Q You want to supplement it now by saying, also the emotions?

A Always emotion is working, with every bit of the intellect.

Q Which was in control, the intellect or the emotions at the time they planned to steal the typewriter, so that they could write letters that could not be traced back to them?

A I think the intellect was the predominating thing there probably.

Q And when they rented the room in the Morrison Hotel, intellect was still walking in front?

A Yes.

Q And so on through all the details of this murder?

A Yes sir.

Q And it was not the intellect or a boy of eight or nine, it was the intellect in one case of a superman and the other of an average college man?

A In some ways it was the intellect of a very young boy in regard to matters of judgement about the whole thing.

Q Give me one specific example of what they did that would show the judgement of a very small boy?

A the fact that they did any of it at all.

Q Can you tell me of some young boy that you know under nine or ten years of age that can plan a murder of this sort with its wealth of detail and then plan in so many ways to cover it?

A Oh, no, I said in regard to his judgment about doing it at all. --

Q In other words --

A (Continuing) -- under their life conditions with all that life had to offer to them, I should think it is evidence of pretty weak judgment on their part to have engaged in it at all.

Q In other words, when they decided to commit a murder, at that very momemt they had the intellect of a little child?

A I think in regard to judgement and detail the intellect works in different departments.

Q Were they little boys when they decided to commit murder?

A Absolutely.

Q Andthe little boy was sent out to play and the superman, the super-intellect came in as all the details were worked out?

A That is not very far from being the truth, it seems to me.

Q It was pretty convenient for these boys to have so many personalities?

A I think we all have, no different from the rest of us.

Q And they can call one into action at one time and chase him away and call the superman in the next moment --

A I am afraid we frequently do that sort of thing.

Q And then call in Mr. Emotion, how old is he in this case? Have you estimated the age of the emotion here?

A I think the emotion in the case of these boys, particularly of Loeb in a questionnot so much of being on any particular level but as being misplaced. That is what I endeavored to give at great length previously.

Q Now, we originally had a personality -- a split -- what was that expression?

A Split personality.

Q And as I understand it, there are two in this combination, emotion and intellect, is that right?

A Yes.

Q Dr. White estimated the junior member at four or five years of age and the senior member, the superman -- you wont place any estimate on the junior member of this firm, will you?

A No.

Q And you bring into the firm a third member, that is, the intellect, the junior five years of age working in connection with the big brother of nineteen or twenty?

A Oh, no, I don't. I did not say anything of that sort.

Q What connection or influence in this firm of the manyper sonalities did this boy Richard Rubel have?

MR. DARROW: I object to the question in that form.

THE COURT: Mr. Darrow objects to the form "firm". Leave that out.

MR. CROWE: Q Did you know that these two boys had another very close friend that they chummed with constantly?

A I don't think they chummed with him constantly. I heard they went with him occasionally.

Q They had a habit of each week dining three days a week at least with one another, first at one house and then at another and then at a third, they went to dances together, played bridge together, went with the same boys and girls and Rubel was a party to the quarrel concerning which the letter that was shown to you was written. That makes them chums, doesn't it, pals, makes him a pal?

A I guess he was, superficially.

Q Now, these two boys here with their split personalities and working in conjunction together, led each other into a crime, what connection do you think Rubel had with them?

A I have not the slightest idea that he had any whatever.

Q Do you think we ought to have him examined to see whether he is a dangerous criminal or a boy nursing a harmless phantasy?

A I know if he were my son i should certainly want to see under what influence he had been and what effect upon his mind if any association with these boys had had.

Q Doctor, you have frequently used the word "abnormal" in speaking of the mental condition of Leopold and Loeb. What do you mean by "abnormal" as applied to their mental condition?

A Not normal.

Q Describe it a little more?

A I think the term is pretty obvious. You mean in these specific cases, these two boys?

Q Yes, these are the only two cases I am interested in?

A You are interested in the boys?

Q What do you mean by abnormal as applied to their mental condition?

A Shall I refer to my notes and go all over the same subject again?

Q Will it take you that long to answer it?

A Because I have outlined the different points.

Q Can you give me a definition of abnormal that would cover this case?

A Yes, I think I should [so] take it up point by point as I did previously. I think it is abnormal for them, or for Leopold, it is abnormal for him to have developed such a notion of his superiority as that he thinks of himself as being a man or a boy who has the right to live above all law and order.

Q Now, what is tremendously abnormal, as you used it, what do you mean by the expression "tremendously abnormal"?

A What anybody means by tremendously, very greatly.

Q What do you mean by it?

A Very greatly.

Q Is a person with tremendously abnormal inner mental life sane?

A As I said before, the question of sanity is one of legal definition, according to what we have been working for in recent years, and I am unable to answer that question, it is a question for a judge and a jury, he might or might not be.

Q You know what the word "sane" means?

MR. BACHRACH: I object.

THE WITNESS: I thought we had been all over that. I know what the word "sane" means.

MR. CROWE: Q You say you know what the word "sane" means. What does it mean?

A Legal responsibility.

Q Would you call a person with a tremendously abnormal inner mental life sane?

A No.

MR. BACHRACH: I object, if the court please.

MR. CROWE: Well, he has answered the question.

THE WITNESS: No, it is not answered.

THE COURT: The objection is sustained.

MR. CROWE: Just a moment, your honor. I insist that the witness has already answered the question, and his answer is that a person who is tremendously abnormally -- let us get the expression here -- who has a tremendously abnormal mental inner life is not sane. He defined a person who was sane as one who was legally responsible. We have now got to the point in this hearing where it appears to the court if the defense here is insanity there is only one thing to do under the law and that is to call a jury.

MR. BENJAMIN BACHRACH: Every little while we get to that place.

MR. CROWE: Certainly.

THE COURT: The motion is denied. This court does not care what definition Dr. White gives of insanity, What Dr. Healy gives of insanity, what any other doctor may give of insanity. There is only one definition that the court will follow and that is the definition that the supreme court of this State has said what is legal insanity. This court will follow that and pay no attention to what the alienists say about insanity. This court is only dealing with the legal insanity and I will follow the rule that our supreme court has laid down for me.

The motion is denied. Proceed.

MR. CROWE: Q Doctor, is Nathan Leopold, Jr. able to distinguish right from wrong?

MR. B.C.Bachrach: I object, if the court please, on the ground that it is not germane to this issue at all.

THE COURT: Oh, he may answer.

A Indirectly, I think he is. He can tell you what is right and what is wrong.

MR. CROWE: Q Has he the power of choice?

A I don't think he has the complete and normal power of choice.

Q Has he any power of choice?

A Yes, I think that people who are mentally diseased, even so they have been declared insane, frequently have some power of choice left.

Q what do you mean by the word "insane"?

MR. B.C. BACHRACH: I object.

MR. CROWE: He just used it.

THE COURT: The court has ruled it does not make any

difference what the doctor thinks about insanity, what he declares to be insanity. This court will be guided by the rule laid down by the supreme court. They have told me what legal insanity is.

MR. CROWE: Q Doctor, on May 21, 1924, did Nathan Leopold, Jr. know that the things he did in connection with the murder of young Franks were wrong?

A Oh, he could have told you very well that it was wrong, according to the ordinary definitions.

Q On that date, knowing that the murder of Robert Franks was wrong, did Nathan Leopold have the power of choosing between doing it and not doing it.

A I think he had some power of choice, but not complete.

Q. No, did he have sufficient power to refrain from committing that murder?

MR. B.C.BACHRACH: I object, if the court please, on the ground that it comes within the legal definition of sanity, and that has no place at this hearing.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. CROWE: I did not get the ruling, your Honor.

THE COURT: Sustained. This is not an inquiry as to the insanity of these boys. These boys are presumed to be sane. They have pleaded guilty. They have assumed the responsibility for that which they did and the only reason for this hearing is to see whether or not there is anything in mitigation of punishment. We are not going to inquire into the sanity of those boys. That is not in question. Those boys are sane as far as this court is concerned now.

MR. CROWE: I am at a loss, your honor, to understand all this expert testimony from alienists, if that is not the defense here.

THE COURT: I cannot help that.

MR. CROWE: They have been testifying --

THE COURT: The Supreme Court has said that it is not discretionary with me but it is mandatory upon me to hear anything that the defense may introduce in the way of mitigation of punishment. There is no question about that. The court has ruled that three or four times and I am not going to change my ruling now, and that is the only thing we are here for now, is to determine whether or not the defense will introduce anything here that the court may think is in mitigation of punishment. It is my duty to hear it, then give it such weight as the court thinks it is entitled to, and after that to pass judgement.

MR. CROWE: If the court please, it is very warm, especially down in the hole here --

THE COURT: All right. We will take a little recess. A few minutes recess, gentlemen.

Whereupon a short recess was here taken by Court and Counsel.

Court convened pursuant to short

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 You did not ask Leopole how he came to confess, did you?

A No.

Q Do you know under what circumstances he made his confession?

A No.

Q Assume for the purpose of the question that after he had been in custody from Thursday at three o'clock or thereabouts during which at odd times he was questioned, up until Friday evening, during which time he constantly denied his guilt and offered an alibi; that Friday evening the ownership of the Underwood typewriter was fastened on him, and the fact he had not used his red car from one o'clock the day of the murder until ten thirty that night, that it was in his garage, and that at ten thirty it was taken out, and about one o'clock the bloody chisel was thrown from it; that after these facts were made plain to him, he still persisted for half an hour or so in maintaining his innocence; that he then sent for the State's Attorney and asked him whether he could put a hypothetical question to him; that he then addressed a hypothetical question to the State's Attorney, the substance of it was, assuming that a person whose family were as rich and influential as his had committed this crime, did the State's Attorney think he could beat the case? That the State's Attorney then told him that he was going to give him an opportunity to try it out; that he then asked the State's Attorney what he meant by that expression, and the State's Attorney told him that he meant that he intended to place a charge of murder against him; that he then with a smile stated, "While you have some few circumstances that point to me, you haven't a sufficient evidence to bring me into court, and you won't"; that the State's Attorney then told him that Richard Loeb was confessing; that he then registered sur-

[1638]

prise, and said he didn't believe it; thatthe State's Attorney then called his attention to several facts in connection with the crim,e and asked him where else he could have gotten them if Loeb had not given him the information; that he then said, "Well, I am surprised that Dick is talking; I thought he would stand till hell froze over", or some equivalent expression, "but Dick is talking I will tell you the truth about the matter." That he then stated that the crime had originated in Loeb, that Loeb had struck the blows and used the gag that caused the death. Later, in the presence of Loeb, he reiterated that, and argued at length to demonstrate that his story was true, and that Loeb was lying when he blamed Leopold; that as a result they became very angry with each other, and refused to eat with one another, and maintained that attitude until the following Monday, when they were turned over to their lawyers and to the sheriff. What was working then in Leopold, intellect or emotion?

A Certain kinds of emotion.

Q Intellect at all?

A Possibly as long as he was talking at all.

Q Caution?

A Fear and Caution, yes.

Q And a desire to escape some of the consequences of this murder?

A Working out the instincts of self preservation, certainly.

Q Does that make any difference in the conclusions you have stated?

A Not the slightest.

Q What do you mean by the word psychosis?

A Mental disease.

Q Do you follow the classification of mental disease used by the American Psychiatric Association?

A More or less.

Q Do you remember the change that was made in the last revision of that classification?

A I could not repeat it, but I have read it.

Q Was not psychosis used in place of insanity which was eliminated?

A I think very likely it was because that is the sort of thing I am drawing attention to all the time. I think it was.

Q So now that the old or ancient term, as Mr. Darrow terms it, of insanity is now termed psychosis? Is that right?

A In medical parlance it is, with a new meaning given to insanity.

Q You made a report of your examination of these defendants, shortly after you finished the examination and you gave it to the lawyers?

A The first examinationI made two reports, and the first report was an individual report. I made this first report on each individual shortly after the first examination, and then we all entered into a joint report.

Q In your first or second report did you state as one of your conclusions that these defendants were suffering from psychosis?

A I should have to look it up to see. Very likely I did since it is equivalent to mental disease I might have done so.

Q Will you look it up now, doctor?

A Yes. These are the individual reports, the joint report I have not a copy of, the lawyers have it. Yes, I said of Leopold that he was suffering from psychosis and Loeb -- you wish to know about Loeb?

MR. CROWE: No.

Q Now, yesterday or sometime in your direct examination didn't you state in reference to Leopold that he could and did distinguish between what was phantasy and reality?

A I don't know that I did say that, no, Idon't remember saying that, did I?

Q Well, Loeb. Probably I am mistaken, when he was lying on the couch, was that Loeb?

A Leopold who during the last year had the appearance of voluntarily going into dreamland.

Q Then it is Leopold, I am correct in that?

A Yes.

Q Who used to lie on the couch last year or so and indulge in his phantasy?

A Yes.

Q You stated at the time that he could and did distinguish between the phantasy and the reality?

A I don't remember making any such comment.

Q Well, could he?

A I think he could.

Q Now, as a matter of fact, an insane person cannot distinguish between what is reality and what is phantasy , can he?

A I thought we were not discussing insane people.

Q Well, I am asking you now.

MR. BACHRACH: I object.

THE COURT: Objection sustained.

MR. CROWE: Q Well, a person who has psychosis -- it is merely a difference in words, in some places they call it insanity and in some psychosis, over on the west side we say he is bughouse and some places they say he is nutty, use any term you want to cover that condition, that kind of person cannot distinguish between phantasy and reality, can he?

A There are very many different kinds of mental disease or psychosis.

Q Can you answer that question?

A If you will wait, please, I will answer it. In some they can and in some they undoubtedly cannot, and where to draw the line is an extremely difficult matter.

Q What other doctors have you consulted with in this matter that have been employed by the defense?

A Dr. white, Dr. Glueck, Dr. Hamill, Dr. Hall.

Q Dr. Hickson?

A No.

Q Dr. Hulbert?

A I have not consulted with him. I have read his report merely.

Q Dr. Bowman?

A I have consulted with him, he came back to Boston and spent most of a day with me.

Q Dr. Neyman?

A No.

Dr. Sanger Brown?

A No.

Q Now, doctor, you testified that Leopold told you for twelve years he had made an extensive study of birds, ornithology, and he had a very wonderful collection of exhibits, something over three thousand, and had made valuable contributions to the literature of ornithology and delivered an interesting as well as instructive lecture to the students at Cambridge?

A I did not say that.

Q Well, he did as a matter of fact deliver one down there? Now, that shows a persistency of purpose,does it not?

A Yes, indeed.

Q Intellect is working all the time on that?

A Yes, and also his emotional life giving him a tremendous drive in that way.

Q and that is not a phantasy?

A No, indeed. It might add reality to his phantasy of being superior.

Q Were there any birds in his kingdom that he told you about, his phantasy?

MR. BACHRACH: We object to the question because he does not really expect to have an answer, seriously.

MR. CROWE: I insist that when I ask a question I do expect to have it answered as seriously as any of the questions that counsel for the defense have asked in the last two or three days.

MR. BACHRACH: I insist, if the court please --

MR. CROWE: I don't think any of it is very serious.

MR. BACHRACH: That is what I thought. It did not appear that there was any kingdom.

THE COURT: If you can answer it, doctor, go ahead and save time.

THE WITNESS: Please say it again, Mr. Crowe. Do you mean in his phantasy life?

MR. CROWE: Yes.

THE WITNESS: I did not hear of any.

Q Do you believe that the study of ornithology and the teaching and writing books, all that was reality?

A Yes sir.

Q An every day honest-to-God work?

A Yes.

Q He showed a deep interest in showing pictures and specimens of rare birds, didn't he?

A I don't know about the pictures; I have seen the birds.

Q Well, about the specimens?

A Yes.

Q That is an indication of intense interest, is it not?

A Yes, indeed.

Q And it has been abiding and continuous for twelve years?

A Yes, it is one of his characteristics, is his persistency.

Q Is that the interest you expect in a child of four or five, as Dr. white described the emotional Mr. Leopold?

A Well, I am not discussing Dr. White's opinion in that matter, but it is exactly the type of mental effort that would affect a person of his paranoidal tendencies.

Q But you would not expect the interest that he exhibited in ornithology in any child of five years of age, would you, doctor?

A He already exhibited it, by the way, at five years of age.

Q Then it is perfectly natural and normal in a child that young?

A To start collecting anything?

Q Yes.

A Yes, indeed, surely.

Q What is your understanding or definition of the word "responsibility" as you have used it?

A As I have used it?

Q Yes.

A Where?

Q Haven't you used it in your testimony, "responsibility"?

A I don't remember using it at all.

Q Well, what do you understand by the word "responsibility"? What does it mean?

A "Responsibility" is too much for me to answer, what is responsibility and what is not. It is a matter that i have pondered on for many years; and how to define responsibility and how to adjudge anybody responsible is something that is beyond me to do. I think it would take the Creator himself to be able to do it.

Q You don't use the word "responsibility"?

A I don't ever recall doing it. I certainly never do in court work.

Q Have you used the words "legal responsibility"?

A Yes.

Q What does that mean?

A My understanding of that is that it is what a judge or a jury have pronounced upon the individual, whether he should be under the law held to his deeds one way or the other.

Q Do you agree with your colleague, Dr. White, that it is a fiction?

MR. BENJAMIN BACHRACH: I object.

A Is it a fiction?

MR. BENJAMIN BACHRACH: And ask that the answer be stricken out, if it has been answered before my objection.

MR. CROWE: Q What is it?

THE COURT: What is the question?

(Question read)

THE COURT: Oh, yes, objection sustained.

MR. CROWE: That is all.

MR. DARROW: Just a few more questions, doctor.

REDIRECT EXAMINATION

BY MR. DARROW.

MR. DARROW: Q You were shown this book of Dr. White, Outlines of Psychiatry, published in 1909? Has there been a good deal done in psychiatry since 1909?

A An immense deal.

Q And in definitions?

A Particularly in classifications and definitions, both from the standpoint of law and of medicine.

Q I want to show you the parts that counsel calls your attention to, which they have marked as the definition of insanity, on page 10 and 13, and then I want to call your attention to the summing up on the page I have marked, at the end of it. In summing up on the chapter that the State read, does he not say, "As I have intimated all along, a perfect definition of insanity is impossible, because our knowledge of the subject to be defined is not complete."

A That is what I read in there.

Q Do you see any difference in his statement in this book and the later books?

A His later books? He has later editions of this.

Q He has?

A Yes.

Q How many?

A I could not tell you.

MR. DARROW: (Addressing Dr. Krohn) I presume you could not find a later one?

DR. KROHN: I bought one. That is enough.

MR. DARROW: Q Is the idea of planning in any way inconsistent with a diseased mentality?

A No, indeed.

Q Is the idea of planning for a defense after an act is committed in any way inconsistent with a diseased mentality?

A No.

Q Is planning common to people committed to insane institutions?

A planning of any sort?

Q yes.

MR. CROWE: Are you talking about legal or mental insanity ?

MR. DARROW: Neither. I am talking about patients committed to insane asylums.

MR. CROWE: Diseased minds?

MR. DARROW: Yes.

MR. CROWE: Insane asylum commitments are a legal process.

MR. DARROW: That does not mean that they have legal insanity or mental insanity.

Q Is it frequently encountered in patients?

A In patients with mental disease, in hospitals for mental disease?

Q Yes.

A One sees very many illustrations of it, but I do not know that all patients have it.

Q Have you seen it?

A Yes.

Q Is it unusual with people who have paranoiac tendencies?

A No, very common.

Q Is emotion for self-defense, the preservation of life, common to people suffering from/mental diseases?

A yes, indeed.

Q It is common to everyone, is it not?

A There are some exceptions in mental disease, where there is a tremendous suicidal impulse.

Q But outside of suicide?

A Yes.

Q How did the intellect a nd the emotion act together, state it briefly, in the conception and carrying out of the Franks homicide?

MR. CROWE: I object. The doctor said he did not ask anything about the inception of the crime.

MR. DARROW: Well, he understood the crime; it had been stated to him, and he knew the details of it, and he did not think it was necessary to think about it.

THE COURT: He may answer if he can.

MR. DARROW: Q State briefly the connection between the emotional and the intellectual part of it, if you can separate them, in both the conception and the planning and the carrying out of it?

A It seems of course very clear in the first place -- or, I might say in general that there must be emotional life connected with the whole situation, as there is with all intellectual life; the ideas themselves as ideas in general carry always an emotional context. Though I donot know in whose brain in the first place or in whose mind, the conception of the Franks case really first developed -- and I think that is the answer I gave Mr. Crowe -- still it is very clear that the carrying out of it, the development of the idea and the carrying out of it, were accompanied by a considerable amount of emotional life. The boys have insisted to me, both of them, that they had a very great deal of pleasure in going over the details, of thinking how fine they would feel when they did something that nobody could find out, when they alone knew about it.

Q Which is the driving part of human conduct, the emotional or the intellectual?

A Undoubtedly the emotional is the main driver of human conduct.

Q What part did it have as to Loeb and Leopold equally, if you can state, in the conception and carrying out of this?

A Equally?

Q I do not mean equally, but take them separately if you wish.

A What part did it have?

Q Yes, the emotional and the intellectual.

A I think it was a tremendous driving force in Loeb's mind, because of his continued imaginings of the master criminal phantasies; that he had developed this for so many years, until it had a hold of him that made it difficult to get away from it; and in connection with that he obtained a great deal of pleasure either in the planning, or strangely enough in the commission of the crime itself. In fact, he very definitely states that. In the case of Leopold, also, he obtained, he states, a good deal of emotional pleasure, a good deal of pleasure from the actual planning, from the joining in with his comrade, being one in association with him in the commission of this crime. Now, on the contrary, it is evident that he did not get any direct pleasure from the commission of it.

Q Given the emotional drive to action, as you have stated it, and to action in this case, is there anything inconsistent in the details being carried on by the mental side?

A No, indeed. The mental side goes on working, sometimes with a great deal more fervor, and with a great deal more detail, when there is a good deal of emotion connected with it.

RECROSS EXAMINATION

BY STATE'S ATTORNEY CROWE

MR. CROWE: Q when there was danger of detection, emotion was urging him to go on. You referred to it as a drive. Is that not correct?

A emotional drive is the phrase we used.

Q And that was urging them on?

A Yes.

MR. DARROW: Did the doctor finish his answer?

THE WITNESS: Yes.

MR. CROWE: Q Well, have you finished, doctor?

A Yes.

Q You say it was emotion that was driving him on, an emotional drive making him commit this crime, is that right?

A Part of it. That is part of the reason for his committing the crime.

Q what else?

A There were the intellectual components also.

Q The intellect is the thing that stopped them when there was danger of being caught, isn't it?

A I should think there is a great deal of emotion there, a tremendous amount of it, namely, fear.

Q Well, in other words, emotion and intellect are so mixed up here you cannot separate them.

A Oh, no, of course you can't.

Q That is right, is it not?

A Yes.

(Mr. Darrow here had the question and

answer repeated to him.)

MR. DARROW: Q That is correct is it, doctor?

A Yes.

MR. DARROW: All right.

MR. CROWE: Q Well, in order to excuse the crime emotion drives him on, and the emotion is only that of a five year old child, and when you try to take the other end then intellect steps in, the superman, and he is so mixed up with emotion that you cannot separate them, is that so, doctor?

A When you want to excuse the crime?

Q Yes.

A I am not attempting to excuse the crime.

Q I am sorry, doctor, that I misunderstood the purpose of all your testimony. There have been times when I thought you were testifying in aggravation and not in mitigation, and I am glad that you agree with me.

MR. DARROW: That is, you mean in doing something worse than hanging when you speak of aggravation?

A I am not arguing for anything. I am trying to get the facts before the court.

MR. CROWE: That is all, doctor.

(the witness was then excused.)

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 © Marianne Rackliffe 2000-2005. This is an educational, non-commercial site. Original work may not be reprinted without permission, except as falls under "fair use".