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 M Rackliffe 2000-
Court reconvened at 10 AM July 24.
State's Attorney Crowe called Andrew Russo. He was an electrician for the Pullman company in New York. Mr Russo found the relay left for Jacob Franks in the train.
The state then called Mr Barish again, to testify as to the phone number at his cigar stand.
Again there was no cross examination.
The state called Frank B Tuttle, hotel clerk at the Trenier Hotel. Mr Tuttle recieved the Identification card sent to Morton D Ballard.
The next witness was George Homer, the police officer who picked up the Ballard letter at the Trenier Hotel. Mr Homer also arrested Richard Loeb.
"Did you make any of the arrests in this case?"
"Which one of the defendants did you arrest?"
"And on what day was that?"
"June 24th, can't just recall it now."
"Well it was-
"When?" asked the Judge.
"Well, it was the day you brought him into the LaSalle hotel?"
"Whatever day that was?"
"Do you recollect what day that was?"
"Let me direct your attention to the fact that Friday was Decoration Day?"
"Well, it was Thursday then, the day before Decoration Day."
"The day before Decoration Day?"
The witness was excused.
Emil Deutsch was called, Nathan's eyedoctor. He perscribed reading glasses to Leopold on November 1st, 1923. There was no cross.
The next up was Thomas McWilliams, manager of the Morrison Hotel. He received the identification card from the Rent a Car people.
The next victim was the Leopold's Maid, Elizabeth Sattler.
"Will you sit down there, Madame.What s your name please?"
"What is it?"
"Elizabeth Sattler," she repeated, obviously nervous.
"Where do you live, Miss Sattler?"
"4754 Greenwood Avenue."
"4754 Greenwood Avenue?
"Is that correct? What is your occupation?"
"I don't understand."
"What is your occupation, what do you do, what is your business?"
"Maid for what family?"
"That is Mr Nathan Leopold?"
"And how long have you been there?"
"Over three years. The fourth year."
"More than three years. Now the Leopold family live at the address that you gave as your residence?"
"Do you know Nathan Leopold Jr?"
"Do you see him in the courtroom?"
"Yes sir," said Elizabeth, looking directly at Leopold.
"Will you indicate where he is?"
"There." She pointed at Nathan, standing. He looked chagrined and immediately sunk back in his chair.
"During the winter of this year did you see any typewriters in the Leopold home?"
"Will you describe them?"
"There was one big Hammond."
"One big Hammond machine?"
"And a small Underwood typewriter."
"A small Underwood typewriter?"
"When did you first see the Underwood typewriter in the Leopold home?"
"It was many months in the house."
"Well, when is the first time you saw it?"
"That was before Christmas time."
"Before Christmas 1923?"
"And when is the last time you saw it in the house?"
"It was about two weeks before I was asked about it."
"Two weeks before you were asked about it?"
"Asked about it where?"
"In the house, by Captain Shoemaker, he asked me about it."
"Captain Shoemaker asked you about it in the house, and you had seen it about two weeks before that time?"
"Do you remember when Shoemaker talked to you about it, do you remember the date?"
"Yes, it was about a week after the murder, on a Friday."
"It was the Friday forenoon following-
"That would be Decoration day? Now I will direct your attention to-
"On that Friday he was held."
"I will direct your attention to an Underwood portable typewriter and a box?"
"I will ask you to look at them and state whether or not that resembles the typewriter you saw in the house?"
"Yes, it does."
"It was in a little better condition at that time?" said Crowe.
Leopold and Loeb looked at each other and grinned. Leopold gave a mocking smirk. Loeb smiled outright, showing two rows of teeth.
"Yes," continued Elizabeth. "The case was black."
The case was marked and entered into evidence.
"Now, did you ever see Nathan Leopold Jr use this machine?"
"On what occasions and when?"
"Many times, sometimes alone and sometimes with friends."
"Sometimes alone and sometimes with friends?"
"Did you ever see any things that were written on this, any papers?"
"Yes, I saw them."
"What did you see?"
"I didn't look at the papers what was on it, but I saw many, he translated something and studied."
"Speak up so that the Judge can hear you, and the defendants and their counsel. He translated many things?"
"Yes and studied it."
Crowe then questioned her on the location of lap robes in the Leopold household. She identified the charred robe as belinging to Nathan. Mr Bachach handled the cross examination, consisting of Miss Sattler stating she'd answered the same questions before the grand jury.
Arnold Maremont was called. He was a fellow law student and friend of Nathan Leopold.
"During the winter of 1924, did you have any occasion to visit the home of Nathan Leopold Jr?"
"When and what was the occasion?"
"At various times. The occasions were mostly to study law."
"Well, do you know what "dope sheeting" is?"
"Will you tell the Court and the rest of us so that we may know what it is also?"
Clarence Darrow sidled up to the witness stand.
"Well, in studying law, in preparing for examination, in preparing for comprehensive
study, one must go over the lectures, after all the subject of law is taught primarily
by studying cases and collaborating-
"One moment. I would suggest that Mr Darrow listen to this."
"I thought it was about the races, Bob, I thought probably the Court needed to have it explained to him." The courtroom broke into laughter.
"All right," Crowe said. Even he was smiling. For a moment, the tension had lifted.
Darrow returned to his seat, smiling to himself.
"By attempting to take the meeting points and the basis of law upon which the cases were decided, and then after going through a complete number of cases, on any particular subject, one simply has to take the points of law out of each case and collect them, and he has more or less a fair idea of what the case amounts to, and dope sheeting is simply picking out these major points, in any particular course, contracts or torts, and studying them to get an idea upon what ground that subject of law is decided."
"Now during the winter of 1924 did you do any "dope sheeting" at the home of Nathan Leopold, Jr, the defendant in this case?"
"Who else was present on any of these occasions with you?"
"Howard Oberndorf, Lester Abelson, Maurice Shamburg, and later on, not in the winter or the Spring, a fellow by the name of Nathan Kaplan."
"Now did you notice at that time any typewriter in the home of Nathan Leopold Jr?"
"At which time?"
"At any of these times that you were "Dope sheeting" there during the winter of 1924?"
"What month was this in?"
"The first time I noticed a typewriter?"
"It was in November."
"In November 1923?"
"About how many times were you in his home from November, 1923 until April, 1924?"
"Do you mean to "dope sheet?"
"Oh, perhaps half a dozen."
"Were you there at any time during January?"
"How many times during February about?"
"Did you see a typewriter at that time?"
"What kind of a typewriter?"
"I couldn't tell you."
"Well, describe it."
"It was a sort of portable typewriter."
"That is the same one you saw in November?"
"What one did you see in November?"
"And the one you saw in february was a portable typewriter?"
Crowe turned to Mr Savage. "Will you open that, Joe?"
Addressing Arnold Maremont again, Crowe said, "I will direct your attention to a typewriter here and ask yo to look at it and state whether or not you have ever seen that before? It has a tag with the number "17" on it."
"I recall seeing a typewriter similar to that."
"Similar to that?"
"Similar to that. Of the same make."
"That is the one you saw in the fall of 1923, in the Leopold home?"
Crowe asked Savage to open the other typewriter.
"I will direct your attention to an Underwood typewriter, somewhat the worse for wear, and I will ask you to state whether or not you ever saw a machjine similar to that in the Leopold home?"
"I couldn't tell you."
"Will you describe the portable machine you saw there?"
"I actually couldn't describe it in any way, except to attempt to recall the incident of why I remember it was a portable. As you see, looking at the Hammond, it is a very distinctive typewriter, the circular form of letters distinguishes it completely from any other type of typewriter that I had ever seen, and on that particular occasion in February, the early part of February, instead of working in the attic, Nathan Leopold's study, where we usually worked, we worked in the library on the main floor of the home, and the Hammond was always upstairs, and on that occasion there was some sort of a typewriter sitting on the desk near the window in one corner where we came in, and when we came in Nathan took the typewriter and put it on the card table that we were working at, and having never seen a typewriter of that particular kind before, in fact the only kind of portable I ever had occasion to see was a Corona, and I remarked that it was a different typewriter than I had ever seen. What sort of typewriter it was or the name of it I couldn't say, because when I was first called in to testify I thought it was a Remington, and not being paricularly interested in typewriters I didn't take occasion to recall the name."
"I will show you three yellow sheets here, which are apparently carbon copies, and ask you to look them over?
"Those are mine."
"And I will ask you to state whether you ever saw them before?"
"Where did you see them?"
"This is a carbon copy of a typical dope sheet that was prepared by us on that occasion in February that you are talking about."
"And who prepared it, I mean who typed it?"
"It was typed mainly by Nathan Leopold. I think I typed about two lines of it."
"Here are four more sheets, what are those?"
"That is my carbon copy of the same thing."
"Of the same thing?"
"In other words, a carbon copy of this dope sheet would be made for each of you boys?"
"And the last one I hand you here consists of four sheets, is the carbon copy that you got at that time?"
"I will ask to have these four sheets fastoned together, and let them be marked as one exhibit and introduce them in evidence ."
"No objection," said Mr Bachrach.
"What are the first three sheets I showed you," asked Crowe.
"That is four also."
"That is four also, that is another carbon copy?"
"Made at that time?"
"Mark that also. What is the last exhibit?"
"Three," answered Mr Savage.
"Mark one exhibit 4 and the other exhibit 5. I will intorduce them in evidence your Honor."
"They may go in," said the judge.
"Now these documents were made on the portable machine you have heretofre described?"
"Directing your attention to Decoration day of this year, Friday, along in the evening, did you see Nathan Leopold Jr., the defendant in this case?"
"Where did you see him?"
"At the State's Attorney's office."
"Did you have a talk with him or did he talk with you with reference to the portable typewriter?"
"Will you state what was said and by whom, or the substance of it?"
"Well, I was asked some questions by one of the State's Attorneys, Assistant State's Attoeneys, at the time, in the presence of Nathan Leopold, following which he asked to have the permission of the State's Attorney to ask me a few questions.His questions, when permission was granted, his first question, if I recall accurately was, "Where was the typewriter when I came into the house that evening", and I think I answered that the typewriter was sitting on a desk in the corner of the library. I think then he asked me whether I ws sure it was there, and I said yes. Then I think he asked me was he in the room, and I said I didn't think he was, I thought he came down after I came in the house, he was upstairs phoning or doing something. I think that was all that he asked me at the time."
"Did he at that time discuss the ownership of the typewriter with you or with anybody else in the room?"
"There was no discussion about the ownership of the typewriter at that time?"
"Not at that particular instant. During the evening there was a discussion."
"Well, all right. Later on or before that?"
"Before that, and what was the discussion about the ownership of the typewriter , earlier in the evening?"
"This was not in his presence. He was in the State's Attorney's office, in a different room."
"Then if he was not present, don't state it. You may cross examine."
"No cross examination," said Mr Bachrach.
The next witness was another member of Leopold's study group, Howard Obendorf, a tall, slim boy who was rather nervous on the stand.
Obendorf gave similar, although shorter testimony than did Maremont. He never looked at the defendants.
"My Savage asked me questions similar to those that I have been asked now, and the answers were practically the same as I have given now, namely, that I didn't know exactly what kind of machine it was. Nathan Leopold asked a few questions on that occasion, first, where was the machine when I enterred the room, and to the best of my knowledge it was on the table or desk by the window. The second question was in reference to when Maremont asked a question regarding the machine, saying he hadn't noticed it before, and Nathan wanted to know whether that was made when he was in the room or not, and I said I wasn't sure, it was probably made on one of the two occasions, when we came in in the beginning, or when Arnold took the machine to use it for writing a few lines while Nathan went to the telephone, and I wasn't sure of these two facts, if the statement was made or the question was asked."
"Was there any question about the ownership of the machine at that time?"
"There was not."
"There had been a discussion prior to that between you and Mr Savage?"
There was no cross and Obendorf was excused. He brushed past Leopold and Loeb without a single glance in their direction.
The next witness, another member of the study group, was Maurice Shamberg. He testified of a similar nature as the previous, but altered when testimony reached the bit about being questioned in the State's Attorney's office.
"Well, I was confronted with the qestion that Nathan Leopold said that was my typewriter,
and of course I denied that statement. Then I believe Nathan Leopold asked me these
questions, one, whether I knew whether there was a portable typewriter in his house
prior to the time we had used it the first time, and the answer was no. The second
question was, when was the first time we used it-
"Now what else, if anything, was said at that time?"
"That was all."
There was no cross examination.
Lester Abelson was called.
He gave a very brief testimony and then the judge called a ten minute recess.
During the recess, half the courtroom cleared out. The other half remained looking serious and grave. Leopold and Loeb's brothers went up to them and spoke. Nathan and Dick laughed and chatted.
After the ten minute recess, Crowe called Lucille Smith. On the evening of May 21st, Lucille Smith and her daughter Jeanette went to a movie. On the way home, along a dirt road that leads across the prairie, they passed a large black touring car at approximately 9 PM. The car had the side curtains on.
Mrs Smith's daughter gave similar testimony, stating the car was coming from the culvert, and that the distance where they passed the car to the culvert where the body was found was about eleven blocks.
The next witness was Bernard Hunt, a night watchman. In the early morning of May 22nd, at approx 1:30 AM, he saw a maroon car with red disc wheels on Greenwood Avenue.
"Well, the only thing that happened was before they threw the chisel out, they slowed
"And did they stop or keep going then?"
"No, they never came to a stop.They slowed down so a man could easily step out of
the car without any trouble, and after they threw the chisel out they started up
again and I was on 49th Street at the time, and I-
"What did you do?"
"I stayed there until they passed me by on 49th."
"Then what did you do?"
"It was on my road to where the chisel lay, I was on my road to the Greenbaum House-
"Talk so everybody can hear you."
"I walked down and seen the chisel laying on the sidewalk, went over and picked it up and examined it."
"Describe the chisel."
"The chisel was a cold chisel."
"Wrapped with tape and blood was on the chisel at the time, fresh, or it was dried."
"I will show you a chisel bound with tape and with a paper on here, and statewhether you ever saw that chisel before?" Crowe handed the chisel to Hunt, who held it in large gruff hands.
"Yes, sir, I saw that chisel before, that is the chisel I picked up."
"Is that the one that was thrown out of the car?"
"That is the one that was thrown from the car."
Richard Loeb looked at the chisel that Hunt held. His lip curled. He ran a finger down inside the front of his collar.
Hunt was not cross examined.
Leon Mandel II was called.
"What us your name please?"
"Leon Mandel II."
"And where do you live, Mr Mandell?"
"Lake Shore Country Club, Glencoe Illinois."
"What is your occupation?"
"And your place of business is on State and Madison?"
"Do you know the defendant Nathan Leopold?"
"Do you know the defendant, Richard Loeb?"
"How long have you known these two defendants?"
"I have known their names for as long as I can remember. I have known them personally since November, 1923."
"At any time in the fall or early winter of this year, did you and Nathan Leopold, Jr.contemplate the translation of any works?"
"Will you state to the court what it was that you and he intended to translate?"
"The work of an Italian satirist by the name of Aretino."
"And had you made a study of Aretino's works?"
"No, sir. I came across references to him in the study of English literature, and translation made from the Italian into German of his works while studying at the University, and became interested."
"Had your study-
"The ragion Anenti, or Dialogues."
"Had you read that?"
"And do you know whether Nathan Leopold, Jr., had made any study of Aretino's works or this particular book?"
"Why, he had not, no sir."
"He had not."
"You were better informed on it in your judgement than he was?"
"Now, was there anything done towards this translation, did you do any work, either he or you, any typewritten work?"
"Yes, sir, the first few pages were translated. He did the typewriting."
"And where and when did he do the typewriting?"
"At his home sometime in the winter."
"Some time this last winter?"
"What kind of machine, if you know, did he work on?"
"I don't know, sir."
"Do you know whether it was a stationary or a portable machine?"
"Why, it was a portable machine."
"The make of it you don't know?"
"You knew these defendants socially, did you?"
"Did you ever gamble with them?"
"Probably five or six times."
"And what would you play?"
"What stakes would Leopold and Mandel Play for, if you know? Leopold and Loeb, what stakes would they play for, if you know?"
"Their stakes varied."
"Well, what was the highest and the lowest?"
"I should say between five and ten cents a point."
"A point, in bridge?"
"That is equivelent to what limit in poker, do you know?"
Darrow broke out laughing.
"What is that?"
"No, sir. I don't know."
"Don't you know?" asked Darrow. The spectators snickered along.
"I asked that question for your comfort and mine also, Mr Darrow," said Crowe.
Addressing Mandel again he asked, "Well, did you consider that a high stake to play for?"
"I object to that," said Darrow.
"I did not play for that stake."
"What is the highest stake you played for?"
Darrow objected again.
"With them?" Crowe added.
Darrow again objected.
"Oh yes, " said Judge Caverly, "I don't think he ought to be required to say that, what he has done. He said they played for five and ten cents a point, bridge."
"I don't know whether your honor knows whether that is a high stake or not."
"All right. You may cross examine."
Mr Bachrach stood. "Mr Mandel, how often did you play at the rate of five and ten cents a point with these two defendants?"
"I did not play with them for that stake."
"Why not? I beg your pardon," Crowe asked.
"You did not play with them you say?" asked Bachrach. The defense continued to take advantage of Crowe's ignorance of Bridge.
"I played in the game with them but did not play for the same stake."
"Did they have any big losses when you played with them at all?"
"Yes sir. I think the largest was about ninety dollars, I believe."
"That is the largest loss?"
"Yes sir. That is the largest I saw."
"And who won it?"
"I really don't know. They would play against each other."
"If one lost that, the other won?"
"They were playing a little higher than the rest in the game?"
"Did either of them win that much other times?"
"I don't know, because that was the only way we played with them."
"Yes, and how often did you play with them?"
"About five or six times, sir, possibly."
"And how much money changed hands during that five or six times, altogether?"
"I am unable to state that, sir."
"Give an outside figure."
"Altogether in the game, you mean, between all the four or five players?"
"Three or four hundred dollars, I presume."
"Somebody was out three or four hundred dollars altogether on all those games?"
"No, sir, you see they were playing against each other which would mean if one won, the other would lose that amount."
"The other players in the game might only lose five or ten dollars, so it is hard to estimate the entire amount won or lost."
"That is all."
"You say they were playing against each other and their limit was five or ten cents?"
"And what was the other players' limit?"
"Between one and three cents."
"Now, did you ever loan a portable typewriter to Nathan Leopold?"
"Or give him one?"
"That is all. Just one further question. You have just returned from Europe recently?"
"That is all."
H.C Stromberg was called. He was a stationer who sold the envelopes and paper on which Leopold and Loeb wrote the ransom letters. He sold Nathan Leopold a tablet of white satin finish paper, a package of envelopes, and some chocolate candy in the middle of May. Nathan came into the shop, picked out the paper, and said "that will do." The paper cost 5 cents. The envelope cost ten. Mr Stromberg identified the ransom letters and envelopes as being on the same paper he sold Nathan Leopold in the middle of May. There was no cross examination.
Albert Hubinger was called to the stand.
Mr Hubinger was a hardware clerk at a hardware store on 4236 Cottage Grove Ave. Mr Hubinger identified Richard Loeb as having purchased a cold chisel and between 25 and 50 feet of rope in May.
There was no cross examination.
Aaron Adler was called. Mr Adler ran the drugstore at which Nathan Leopold purchased a pint of CP, or "chemically pure" hydrochloric acid. Mr Adler had not sold a bottle of CP hydrochloric previous to Nathan's purchase, for three or four years. The witness was excused.
Sven Englund took the stand.
"What is your name?"
"And where do you live?"
"4754 Greenwood Avenue."
"You are a chauffeur for Nathan Leopold, Sr.?"
""You are still employed there?"
"Yes sir, still working there."
"And have you been a chauffeur for how long a time?"
"Oh, I have been working for him altogether 1906 and 08."
"How many cars are there?"
"There is four cars."
"Describe the various cars that the Leopolds have?"
"There is a Packard twin six, a Lincoln first serial, a Lincoln of the second serial,
"Will you describe the Willys Knight car?"
"The Willys Knight is-
"Whose car was that?"
"Nathan Leopold Jr., used to drive that. That was his car."
"Directing your attention, Mr Englund, to the 21st day of May, 1924, I will ask you
what if anything you did with reference to the Willys-
"I took it out between seven thirty and seven forty five in the morning, and left it at the side door on the drive."
"That was your custom?"
"Yes sir, that was the standing order."
"When did you next see the car that day, May 21st?"
"About one o' clock."
"Describe who brought it in and the circumstances?"
"I was up in the room, upstairs in the garage, and I saw the car coming toward the garage on the driveway and I went down to meet them and Nathan was driving in toward the garage, and he said he had some stuff in the car he wanted to put into Dick's car."
"Now who was Dick?"
"That was Richard Loeb."
"Was Dick Loeb there at the time?"
"No, he was about fifteen seconds behind, about fifteen seconds back of him."
"What did he have?"
"He had another car. I didn't take much notice of the car."
"What was the car, light or dark?"
"It was kind of a dark green."
"And Dick Loeb was in that car and Nathan was driving the-
"He was driving his own car."
"What else did you see?"
"Nathan said he had some stuff he wanted to put into Dick's car and he took the stuff
and folded it up so I did not see what he had. I saw him put it into Dick's car,
in the back of the car, and then he asked me if I could not do anything for the squeeky
brakes, and I told him I read in the motor magazine I could oil the brake bands and
stop the squeeking I believed, and for him to be careful and use his emergency brake
so he wouldn't run into something and break his neck. So, I oiled the break bands
and I said I would do it right away, and I went and pulled the Packard car, I pulled
that in the garage, and then I took the Willys-
"You worked on the Willys Knight car that belonged to Nathan Leopold, Jr. commencing what time that afternoon?"
"About ten minutes to two."
"And it was in the garage from ten minutes to two until what time?"
"I went out driving at ten minutes to two and when I got back at half past five it was in the garage."
"And was it taken out of the garage at any time after that, do you know?"
"Not up to nine thirty. I was up to nine thirty and the car was in the garage when I went to bed at nine thirty."
"Was it taken out after that?"
"My wife says it was taken out-
"No, no. Not what your wife says-
"No, I did not see it taken out."
"You did not see it?"
"Now, the next day, did you see Dick Loeb and Nathan Leopold?"
"Yes, they come in, Richard with another car, that was not Nathan's car."
"Was it the same car Dick Loeb had the day before?"
"Yes, as near as I can tell. I did not take such an aweful close look at it, but-
"And what if anything did these defendants do? That is, with this car they brought in on the 22nd?"
"I heard somebody downstairs. And then I was looking out through the window and the car was in the driveway and I went down to see what they was doing. Dick Loeb had a pail of water and a cake of Bon Ami and a scrubbing brush and he was standing and rubbing the scrubbing brush against the Bon Ami, and he had water on the brush, so there was kind of a soap lather, and was putting it on the outside of the car, on the paint on the rear door, between the rear and the front door, on the outside of the car."
"Well, what else happened? What was said?"
"And then he said, Dick Loeb said they had some wine and they spilled some in the car and he did not want his folks to know it."
"Did he tell you the color of the wine?"
"No, he did not say the color of the wine."
"Now, did you say anything to them?"
"Now, did you offer to clean the car?"
"I don't remember if I really did the offer,but they did not want me. Dick Loeb said it was all right, he was just about through he said."
"Now, was the door of the car open?"
"About four to six inches, and was open from the back toward the front, and I was standing at the right front of the car."
"Did you look into the car or did they do anything in reference to the open door while you were there?"
"No, I could not see through the open door. He had the door open about four to six inches and I was standing in the opposite direction."
"Now had you ever seen Richard Loeb or Nathan Leopold clean an automobile around your place before?"
"No, they had never cleaned one there."
"Was there anything the matter with your young daughter that day?"
"Yes, she was ailing, she was sick, had a cold, and my wife took her to a doctor."
"She went to what doctor?"
"To Doctor Wright, in the Mallers Building."
"And that was on the 21st-
"21st of May."
"How many robes did the Leopold family have for their automobiles?"
"Oh, there is quite a number of robes there, maybe six or eight or something."
"And where were those robes kept, that is, as a general rule?"
"I had one in the packard and that was kept in the car steady. All the spare robes were kept in what we call the telephone room at the outside drive."
"I will ask you to look at pieces of a green robe that was partially burnt-
"That looks like one of the robes, the robe ws a little dark on one side and a little bit green on the other."
"That resembles one of the robes Leopolds have?"
"Has that robe been missing?"
"I have not seen the robe since May 21st."
"You have not seen the robe since May 21st at the Leopold house?"
"The remainder of the robe we are now showing the witness are those pieces that were identified this morning, and have a pin in them and have been marked Peopole's exhibit 3 for identification of this date. You may cross examine."
Benjamin Bachrash stood. "You were down in the state's Attorney's office on Decoration Day?"
"Yes sir, I was."
"And the State's attorney asked you about the car in the garage?"
"Yes sir, he asked me about the car in the garage, yes."
"And about all of these questions?"
"Yes, about the same."
"And you were also before the grand jury?"
"Your wife too?"
"You are still employed by the Leopolds and the Leopold home?"
"Still employed by Leopolds, yes."
"That is all."
"That is all," said Crowe. "Send your wife in now."
Alma Englund took the stand. She testified as to taking her daughter to the doctor on May 21st, and also to hearing someone take a car from the garage at around 10PM on May 21st. There was no cross examination.
Court suspended until 2PM. Leopold and Loeb stood and stretched and laughed as they were led out of the courtroom.
When court resumed at 2PM, J.T Seass took the stand.
Judge Caverly lashed out at the news reporters. "I want to warn you, you camera men, that I will send a man to prison who attempts to use one. The first thing you know, all of you will go out if you don't behave yourselves. Proceed, Mr Crowe."
Mr Seass testified that he would organize and look after groups of boys after school hours at the Harvard School.
"Did you see Robert Franks at the Harvard School on May 21st, 1924?"
"What is the last time you saw him on that day, what hour?"
"Well, it was shortly after 2 o' clock."
"Do you know the defendant Richard Loeb?"
"Did you see Richard Loeb on May 21st, 1924, in the Harvard School?"
"Did you talk to him?"
"About what time of day was it when you saw Richard Loeb in the Harvard School?"
"About two thirty in the afternoon."
"What conversation, if any, did you have with him?"
"Very short, I don't remember what it was."
"Just passed the time of day?"
"And shook hands with him."
Crowe inquired about Johnny Levinson. Saess said they played baseball on a lot, then LEvinson headed home. There was no cross.
Carl Ulvigh was called.
"And what was your occupation on May 21st, 1924?"
"I was a chauffeur."
"Do you know the defendant in this case, Richard Loeb?"
"How long have you known Richard Loeb?"
"I know him since he was a little boy."
"Do you know the defendant Nathan Leopold Jr?"
"How long have you known him?"
"About three or four years."
"I will ask you whether or not you saw Richard Loeb on the afternoon of May 21st, 1924?"
"Where did you see him?"
"On Ellis Avenue."
"Near what other street?"
"And what was he doing at the time?"
"He was driving a car going south."
"What kind of car was he in?"
"I don't know. It was a dark colored car."
"What was the color of it?"
"It was a dark color, a real dark blue, or dark green. I don't know what it was, but it was a dark color."
"A dark colored car, and what was it, a touring car or a limousine or what?"
"It was a touring car."
"And what about the curtains?"
"There were curtains all around it."
"Was there anybody with Richard Loeb at that time?"
"Who was with him?"
"I don't know."
"Wjere was Richard Loeb sitting in the car?"
"He was sitting behind the wheel."
"And where was the other man?"
"On the side of him."
"About what time of day was this?"
"Four thirty, it was near four thirty."
"Where were you going at that time?"
"I was going down to the Michael Reese hospital."
"To call for whom?"
"And you had been in the habit of going there Wednesdays at that hour, four thirty?"
"Yes, I came from school as Wednesday is my school day for the last two years for two families, we take the car to school, and my day happened to be Wednesday."
"Well, were you able to see the features of the other man?"
"No, I could not."
"Did you speak to Loeb or did he speak to you at this time?"
"I mean by speaking,did you salute one another?"
"I waved at him."
"And did he wave back at you?"
"Yes, he lifter his hand."
Mr Bachrach began the cross. "When was your attention first called to seeing Richard Loeb driving that car on that day?"
"I think it was on a Monday morning when I took Arthur Spiegel to school."
"I think it was on a Monday morning after the boys confessed the murder I took Arthur Spiegel to school."
"Well those confessions were reported in the newspaper on the day after Decoration?"
"I think that is right."
"That is correct, isn't it?"
"Decoration Day was on Friday, the 30th of May, and this was the next day, the 31st of May?"
"This year? Is that correct?"
"And the time you saw Loeb driving ws on the 21st day of May?"
"Ys sir, on a Wednesday."
"That would be ten days before?"
"Ten days before your attention was first called to it?"
"Is that corect?"
"Between those dates your attention had not been called to it?"
"And who called your attention to it on the 31st of May?"
"He called your attention to it?"
"In a conversation with you?"
"He came out that morning all excited and I asked him what he was so excited about-
"Well, I haven't asked you that. But he called your attention to it in a conversation with himself, did he?"
"Now then at the time you saw Loeb on the 21st of May, did you look at your watch at the time you saw him?"
"No, I didn't."
"You did not."
"Did you make any note of the time at which you saw him on that day?"
"No, I did not."
"Did you regard it, on the 21st day of May, 1924, as though that matter was one of importance?"
"And ten days later when your attention was called to it by someone you then remembered seeing Loeb drive a car? And you say you didn't notice who was seated along side of him?"
"I did not."
"Did you observe very closely who was seated alongside of him?"
"Now then, do you remember where you were ar 2 o' clock on May 21st, 1924?"
"Where were you?"
"At the school?"
"At 59th and Kenwood."
"And did you leave the school shortly after that?"
"I think it was somewhere near a quarter to three we left the school."
"You remained at the school from 2 o' clock until about a quarter of three?"
"Were you waiting for your charges to take them home?"
"I was waiting for the children, to take them home, yes sir."
"And at a quarter of three did you take them home?"
"How long did it take you to get home?"
"Oh it took me about twenty minutes. I had five different places to go."
"Then you got home about five minutes after three?"
"Where did you go then?"
"I went home, to my own home."
"How long did it take you to get there?"
"It took me another five minutes to get home."
"And then where did you go?"
"I went over to 47th street and done some shopping."
"Then where did you go?"
"I went over to Mrs Spiegel's house again."
"And what time did you get there?"
"Around about twenty minutes after four."
"And how long after that was it you saw Dick Loeb the defendant, driving a car on Ellis Avenue?"
"About four thirty."
"About four thirty. Was it before four thirty?"
"No, I don't think so, it was about four thirty when I left the house."
"And where was he when you saw him driving?"
"He was just north of Ellis Avenue."
"North of 49th street on Ellis Avenue."
"Going in which direction?"
"That is all."
Crowe redirected. "Now this place that you saw Dick Loeb-
"Mr Bachrach asked who called your attention to this first, and you said the talk you had with Mr Spiegal. Will you state what that conversation was?"
"I object, if theCourt please. I didn't go into it."
"Well, I understand," said Crowe, "but you asked for it, and when you thought it was going to hurt you you dropped it. You having brought it out I am proviledged, when you are afraid of it, to bring it to the Court's attention."
"There isn't any use of saying I am afraid of it."
"Well, you dropped it."
"When you say I brought it out, I brought it out and didn't care to go into it, and I said to him, "was it in conversation with you," and when he said yes, I didn't care to go into it any further."
"Well, that opened the door."
"You are mistaken when you say that I was afraid of it."
"Has it any bearing on this case?" asked Judge Caverly.
"It has a bearing on his testimony as to how the matter was brought to his attention and to how he fixes the time."
"The conversation itself," asked the Judge, "has that any bearing on the case?"
"It will have on the fact. It shows how this man fixes the time and the date and the occurence
"Very well, he said he had a conversation . Unless the conversation has some bearing on this case, we don't need to hear it. If it has any bearing, we can hear it."
"Well, will you state what you said to Mr Spiegel or what he said to you in reference to this matter?"
"Oh, let him tell it," said the Judge.
"Go ahead," said Crowe.
"Do you remember what the conversation was?" asked the Judge.
"Yes sir," said the witness.
"Tell it," said the Judge.
"Arthur Spiegel came out excited that morning and I asked him what is the trouble, and he said, "did you read the newspaper," and I said "no," and he sad, "did you see that Dick Loeb confesses to the murder," and I said, "I don't believe that. I saw Dick Loeb driving a car that Wednesday, but it ws no Winton. " I said, "I think it is all bunk." That is all I had to say."
"What kind of a car did the newspapers say he had at that time?"
"All right, that is all."
The witness was excused.
George C Fry was called. Mr Fry was a ticket seller for Central Station. Mr Fry sold the ticked Richard Loeb purchased when he placed the letter on the train. Mr Fry did not know Loeb nor did he recall to whom he sold the ticket.
John F Ball was called. he confirmed the ticket as well. He had given a copy of the ticket to Mr Savage.
Tony Minke was called.
"I don't believe this man speaks English. What language do you speak?"
"Can you speak English at all?"
"I speak a little bit."
"A little bit?" asked Judge Caverly.
"Well, maybe we can get along."
"Yes," said the Judge.
"We have an interpretor here, however."
"Stand up. Raise your right hand and be sworn. See how far you can go with him," said the Judge.
"What is your name?" asked Crowe.
"Where do you live, Mr Minke?"
"I live at Robey Indiana."
"What is your business?"
"I work in the American Maize Company."
"American Maize Company."
"On May 22nd, 1924, were you at the culvert near the Panhandle Railroad, at 118th Street?"
"I can't understand."
"How?" said the Judge.
"I can't understand,"repeated Mr Minke.
"I think probably we will get along faster if we interperet it."
"All right. Is there somebody here who can interpret?" asked the Judge.
"Yes. Will you swear the interpretor to interpret from English to Polish and the answers of the witness from Polish to English?"
The interpretor, Frank Manzak, was sworn.
"On May 22nd, 1924," Crowe asked through the interpretor, were you near the culvert located near the Panhandle Railroad and 118th street in Chicago, Cook County, Illinois?"
"At the time I was just passing by there, I was on my way to Hegwich to a watchmaker where I had my watch for repairs. I have the watch with me now."
"Now, what time of day was this?"
"About nine o' clock in the morning."
"Did you see a dead body any place at that time?"
"Yes, I did. I saw a boy's body in this pipe."
"Now go ahead and tell all about it?"
"I am going to give you this in sections," said the interpretor.
"As I saw the boy's body in this pipe I then bent down this way, as I have indicated-
At this point Leopold laughed and whispered to Loeb.
"And what else?"
"And then these men came over to the place where this body was lying and they picked up this body and they took it over onto another handcar, there were two handcars at this place."
"Now will you tell the court how the body was laying, whether it was on it's face or back when you first saw it in the pipe?"
"The body was was face to the grouns with its body to the ground."
"Was there water in that pipe where the body was laying?"
"Yes there was, about a foot of water."
"When you pulled the body out, describe the body as to whether it was a boy, a girl, or a man or what?"
"It was a boy, his body."
"About how old?"
"Well, I don't know the exact age."
"Well, about how old?"
"Oh, probably twelve years of age."
"About how big, how heavy was the boy?"
"Oh I don't know the weight, but as to the height, I think the body was very near the same height as myself."
"And how tall are you?"
"I am about five feet, over."
"Now what did you notice about the body in the way of-
"The witness doesn;t answer the question," said the interpretor.
"Did the body have any clothes on?"
"The body was naked, was it?"
"It was naked."
"Now were there any clothes around the culvert, the drainpipe there?"
"No, there was no clothing there. Me and the other men made a search near the body there and we found no clothing of any kind, except a pair of glasses, but I didn't see them myself."
"You didn't see the glasses?"
"I saw the glasses later on when the police had it in the patrol wagon."
"I will show you a pair of glasses now and ask you whether they resemble the glasses that the other fellow gave to the police?"
"Yes, about the same kind of glasses the police officers had there."
"Now what did you do with the body after you got it out, where was the body taken?"
"The body was taken to the Lake Shore Depot."
"And where was it taken from there, do you know?"
"I waited there until the patrol wagon came up and then they took the body, and they also took my name and the names of the other men who were there at the time."
"well, the body was turned over to the police?"
"Did you find out afterwards whose body this was?"
"Yes I did, after the police had notified me and they brought some kind of a paperover to the office."
"Well, whose body was it?"
"Well, I don't know of my own knowledge to whom the body belonged,but only from hearsay."
"Ask him the direct question," said Darrow.
"Well, was it Robert Franks body?"
"Now I would like to have those glasses that I exhibited to the witness a moment ago,marked in some manner for identification and later on we will introduce them in evidence. Will you mark them according to the letter that we wee using today?"
The glasses were marked People's Exhibit E.
"Now when you pulled the body out of the drain, at nine o' clock in the morning, was there any life in it or was the body dead?"
"It was dead."
There was no cross examination.
Paul Korff was called.
Paul Korff, a repairman,found the glasses on the ground near the culvert. He gave the glasses to three police officers; Anton Shapino, John Kaleczka, and Alvis Myers. He testified that the body was dead when they puled it out of the culvert, naked, with a scarred blueish face. It was pushed in head first,with the feet about twelve inches from the edge of the pipe.There was no cross.
Anton Shapino was called, followed by the undertaker and John Kaleczka. Over and over Crowe dragged out the details, of the discovery of the body.
Finally, Darrow spoke up. "Don't you think that has been sufficiently prooved?" he asked, after the fourth recitation by a witness of the discovery of the body.
"Well, all right," Crowe relented.
"It seems so to me," said Darrow.
There was no cross.
Crowe asked for a recess to prepare some exhibits.
After the recess, William McNally was called, chemist to the coroner. His testimony was of no interest to Dick and Nathan. They paid no attention to the dry testimony. Mr Crowe asked the Doctor's qualifications.
"There is no request on our part as to the Doctor's competency, " objected Darrow. "You don't need to go into that fully unless you want to."
"Well, you might put it in the record. It will only take a minute," said Crowe.
The doctor completed his list of qualifications.
McNally examinied the organs of Robert Franks. He never saw the body. His determination was that death was the result of suffocation. There was no evidence of drowning in the lung. There were hemorages throughout the lung. From the examination of the stomach, the doctor concluded that death occured five or six hours after a meal. He determined there was no poison present.
"On June 3rd, Lieutenant Loftis of the State's Attorney's office submitted to a group
of experts of which I was one, three pieces of board from an automobile, a charred
robe, trousers said to belong to Richard Loeb, a coat, vest and trousers, said to
belong to Nathan Leopold, and on the 5th I received from Mr Savage a chisel from
which I cut a small piece of tape which had a red stain. I examined a pair of hib
boots said to belong to Nathan Leopold, also removed from a Willys-
"Now just a moment, Doctor. In you examination was there any other doctors or chemists present?"
Dr Wesner, Webster and Hectone were named by the Doctor.
"We will admit they will testify the same way, all of them," said Darrow.
Crowe continued and now presented the chisel.
The Doctor began to describe the tests he performed on a sample of tape from the chisel.
"You need not go through the process here," objected Darrow.
"I prefer to get it into the record, if your Honor please," said Crowe.
"I object," said Darrow.
"Oh let him tell it. Go ahead," ruled Caverly.
The doctor testified, in minute detail, the steps taken for the tests that prooved it was human blood on the chisel, also the robe, Leopold's boots, the seat covers of the rented car, the carpeting of the rented car.
Each piece of evidence Crowe handed the Doctor, he would preceed by stating similarly to the following, which he stated when introducint Loeb's trousers;
"I show you a pair of trousers which the state will later prove to be the pair of
trousers worn by Richard Loeb on the night of May 21st, 1924, when he and his co-
When Crowe came to Leopold's trousers, he said ,"when he and his co-
"What?" said Caverly.
"I say I object to the form of the question. He can identify the marks and so forth."
"I will withdraw it from now on, and withdraw the Doctor and put on the witnesses to prove that these were the trousers of Nathan Leopold."
"I don't object to that, but I do to you assuming something."
"It is the form of the question," said the Judge to Crowe, "saying each time they
"Well, they wore them on the night of May 21st 1924, when they had the Franks boy's body with them."
"Well, all of that is unneccesary," said Darrow, "and we will object to it."
"Go ahead," said the Judge."
"All right," said Crowe.
The questioning continued. Both Leopold and Loeb's clothing had blood of human origin on it. Next up, the floorboards. Bobby Franks blood had stained the front seat of the car, the carpet, and had soaked through to the floor boards.There was blood on the left rear door. Bobby Franks stocking was examined, as were his shoes.
"Well, but you found no blood on them?"
"Grossly, there was no appearance of blood."
The next two doctors gave brief but similar testimony.
There was no cross. At last, the day was at an end.
"We made pretty fair progress today," said Crowe.
"Yes you did," agreed Judge Caverly.
Court suspended until 10 AM July 25.
Back in the Cook county jail, the reporters hovered like vultures around the two boys.
"Gee whiz Babe, but it's hot in that court," exclaimed Loeb. He was pulling off his light blue silk shirt in his cell.
"You tell 'em, Dick," sang out Leopold.
He plunged his face into a bowl of cold water. "What do you think of it now?"
"Can't say, you know. Say, six fourteen, pass over that paper and let's see what they say about us."
Loeb ran his eyes down the page of headlines and photos.
"Got anything to say?" asked a reporter.
"Not much," said Loeb. "But I was thinking it was funny to see that girl from the
|July 23 (cont)|
|July 25 (cont)|
|Aug 1 (cont)|
|Aug 4 (cont)|
|Aug 4 (3)|
|Defense Closing Arguments|