Materials used in leopoldandloeb.com include original works of authorship, works
for which copyright has expired, or works that we believe to fall within fair use
protection of copyright law. All original work is copyright M Rackliffe 2000-
Why did they do it?
Before entering into a discussion of the case at bar, I desire
to express to your honor our appreciation for the uniform courtesy
and patience with which you have treated myself and the
representatives of my office. Before going into a discussion of
the merits of the case, there is a matter that I would like to refer
to.
The distinguished gentleman whose profession it is to protect
murder in Cook county, and concerning whose health thieves
inquire before they go out to commit crime, has seen fit to abuse
the state's attorney% office, and particularly my assistants, Mr.
Marshall and Mr. Savage, for their conduct in this case. He
has even objected to the state's attorney referring to two self confessed
murderers, who have pleaded guilty to two capital
offenses, as criminals. And he says that Marshall has no heart
or if he has a heart that it must be a heart of stone; and that
Savage was probably selected on account of his name and not
on acount of his attainmlents. That they have dared to tell your
honor that this is a cold-
the 'finer sensibilities of this distinguished attorney whose profession
it is to protect murder in this community, by representing
this crime as a dastardly, cruel, premeditated crime.
It is their business, if they refer to this case at all; but Bachrach
in his closing argument said that I haven't any right after
a plea of guilty has been entered and the evidence presented-
I haven't any right to talk to your honor, that this case should
be taken under advisement by you. With merely the plea of
the defense the state's attorney ought to go back'to his office; he
has no business to argue on behalf of the people of the state of
Illinois at all. Their arguments must go uncontradicted and without
a relply.
8 9
We ought not to .refer t? these two young men, the poor
sons of multimillionaires, with any coarse language. Savage
and Marshall should have come up here and,tried them with
kindness and with consideration.
I can imagine, your honor, when this case was called for
trial and your honor began to warn these two defendants of the
consequences of their plea, and when you said we may im$pose
the death penalty, Savage and Marshall both rushing up and
saying, "Now, Judge, now, Judge, not so fast. We don't intend
to be cruel in this case. We don't intend to be harsh. We want
to try these boys, these kiddies, with kindness and consideration."
Your honor ought not to shock their ears by such a cruel reference
to the laws of this state, to the penalty of death. Why,
don't you know that one of them has to shave every day of the
week, and that is a bad sign? The (other one only has to shave
twice a week, and that is a bad sign. One is short and one is
tall, and it is equally a bad sign in both of the'm. When they
were children they played with Teddy bears. One of them has
three moles on his back. One is over-
other not quite so good.
My God, if one of them had a hare lip I suppose Darrow
would want me to apologize for having had them indicted.
Can you imagine Savage and Marshall making a plea of that
sort to your honor, and, saying, "Instead of sending these two
mad boys, who are wandering around in the dark, instead of
sending them for life to prison, parole them to us. Marshall will
take Dickie and Savage will take Babe. And we will try to get
them out of this fantasy life. We will try to wake them up, out
of their dreams?"
I know what your honor would have said if they had pursued
that line of conduct. You would have said, "Mr. Sheriff, search
these men, find out how mluch money they have in their pockets."
And if they had any money in their pockets your honor would
tell the sheriff to take them out to the psycopathic hospital and
you would send for me and say, "My God, Crowe, send up somebody
who has got some brains to prosecute a murder case in my
courtroom."
Tf we are cold-
Darrow for three months, and we have conspired to take the lives
of two little boys who are wandering around in dreamland. We
have been held up to the world as men who desire blood, who
have no kindly instincts within our hearts at all.
I do not believe that it is fair to Tom Marshall. Tom Marshall
has lived in this community for years. He is a kindly man
in private life ; he is a man of family, he enjoys the respect and
confidence of every person who has been fortunate enough to
9 0
know him. Joe Savage is a decent man, a clean living man, a
: man of kindly instincts. He is a man of family also, and he
I enjoys the confidence and respect of everybody in this community.
I do not believe that even Mr. Darrow, who has known me
for years, or any other person who knows me, would tell you
that Bob Crowe is a cruel, vicious, heartless monster. I am a
man of fiimily; I love my children, four of them, and I love my
wife, and I believe they love me. I have never been cruel or
vicious to any living person in my life.
I have never prosecuted any person for any wrong that he
did me perrlonally, and I have been grievously wronged in the
past. I have never sued any person for any debt he owed me,
although I have some debts now owing to me. I believe in Godand
that is a fault in this case, a fault not only to the two murderers,
but a fault to'the master pleader whose professilon it is
to protect murder in this county. I believe in the laws of this
state.
There is nothing personalain this prosecution with me. If I
were not a state's attorney or if I were not on the bench, I would
have absolutely no feeling in my heart against these tw~o as individuals.
When they were in my care and custody, where it
was a matter of man to man, I treated them with kindness and
consideration. That is the sworn testimony in this case, that
while .they were in my custody they were treated with kindness
and c.onsideration.
When I first got Leopold's name as a possible owner of these
glasses, when I got the name of a lady of this county of respectability
and refinement, when I got the name of a prominent lswyer,
who might have been the owner of these glasses, I treated
all three of them with kindness and consideration. I did not
bring them in to the state's attorney's office, so that their names
would be headlined across the newspapers, connected with this
terrible crime, where they would have their pictures taken by
every newspaper in the country.
I brought them over to the La Salle hotel so that if none of
them had any connection with this case no disgrace or no notorlety
would have attached to them. I think the state's attorney of
this county is just as kindly a man as the paid humanitarian, the
man who believes in doing his fellow citizens good-
done ihem good and plenty. But when I fastened this crime
upon these defendants, then I had a duty to perform, a sworn
duty to perform, the same as your honor has.
I have a right to forgive those who trespass against me, as I
do, in the hope that I in the hereafter will be forgiven my trespasses;
as a private citizen I have that right and as a private
citizen I live that religilon. But as a public official, elected by the
91
people, charged with the duty of enforcing the laws of my country,
I have no right to forgive those who violate their country's
laws. It is my duty to prosecute them.
Your honor has no right to fforgive those who trespass against
the state of Illinois. You have a right, and I know you do forgive
those who trespass against John R. Caverly, but sitting here as
the chief justice of this great court, you have no right to forgive
anybody who violates the law. You have got to deal with him
as the law prescribes.
And I want to say to you, your honor, in this case, with the
mass of evidence presented by the state, if a jury were sitting.
in that box and they returned a verdict and did not fix the punishment
at death, every person in this community, including your
honor and myself, would feel that that verdict was founded in
corruption.
And I will tell you why. I have taken quite a trip during the
last four or five weeks. I thought I was going to be kept in Chicago
all summer trying this case, and that most of my time would
be spent in the Criminal court building. And I find that I have
been mistaken. I did come up to your honor's courtroom five
weeks ago, and after I was there a little while Old Doc Yak-
that his name, the man from Washington? Oh, Dr. White-
White took me by the hand and led me into the nursery of two
poor, rich young boys, and he introduced me to a teddy bear.
Then he told me some bedtime stories, and after I got through
listening to them he took me into the kindergarten and he presented
to me little Dickie and Babe, and he wanted to know if I
had any objection to calling them that, and I said no, if he had
no purpose.
And after he had wandered between the nursery and the
kindergarten for quite a while, I was taken in hand by the Bach-
rach brothers and taken to a psychopathic laboratory, and there I
received quite a liberal education in mental diseases, and particularly
what certain doctors did not know about them.
The three wise men from the east, who came on to tell youri
honor about these little babes, and being three wise men brought
on from the east they wanted to make the picture a little more
perfect, and one of them was sacrilegious enough to say this
pervert, this murderer, this kidnaper thought that he was the
Christ child and that he thought that his mother was the Madonna,
without a syllable 'of evidence any place to support the
blasphemous and sacrilegious statement.
Who said that this young pervert ever thought he was the
Christ .child? He has proclaimed since he was eleven years of
age that there is no God. "The fool in his heart hath said there
is no God." I wonder now, Nathan, (addressing the defendant,
Nathan Leopold Jr.) whether you think there is a God or not. I
92
wonder whether you think it is pure accident that this disciple
of Nietzschian philosophy dropped his glasses or whether it was
an act of Divine Providence to visit upon your miserable carcasses
the wrath of God in the enforcement of the laws of the state of
Illinois.
Well, if your honor please, after the Bachrachs had completed
my education fn the psychopathic laboratories, then my good
friend, Clarence Darrow, took me (on a Chautauqua trip with
him, and visiting various towns, we would go to social. settlements,
such as the Hull house, and Clarence would expound his
peculiar philosophy of life, and we would meet with communists
and anarchists, and Clarence would regale them with his philosophy
of the law, which means there ought not to be any law and
there ought not to be any enforcement of the law.
And he even took me to Springfield, where he argued before
the legislature that you ought to abolish capital punishment in
the state of Illinois. I don't knlow whether the fact that he had
a couple of rich clients who were dangerously close to the gallows
prompted that trip or not. I know when he was a member of
the legislature he did not abolish it or introduce a bill $or that
purpose.
Yes, and he even on this tour criticized the state's attorney
of this county severely because he in a humane way wanted to
correct the law so that men of this sort could be dealt with before
somebody lay cold in death, and that the children of this
community might be protected.
If your honor please, when I occupied the position your honor
graces, I had an unfortunate man come before me. He was a
man of my own race, !of my own faith. I don't know whether his
pineal gland was calcified or ossified. I don't know whether he
had club feet or not, and I did not inspect his back to find out
whether he had a couple of moles on him. I don't know whether
he developed sexually at fourteen or sixteen. I knew under the
law he had committed a dastardly crime; he had taken a little
six-
and he outraged her and he took her into the basement and he
covered her over with coal. He did not even have the decency
or the heart to put a handkerchief over that little dead face as
he heaped the coal on it.
The law says in extreme cases death shall be the penalty. If
I were in the legislature I might vote against such a Iaw.
I don't know. But as a judge, I have no right to set aside
that law. I have no right to defeat the will of the people as expressed
by the legislature of Illinois. I have no right to be a judicial
anarchist, even if Clarence Darrow is an anarchistic advocate.
He says that hanging d~oes not stop murder. I think he is
mistaken. From the time Thomas Fitzgerald expiated his crime
upon the gallows I have not heard of any little tot in Chicago
who met a like fate to that which Janet Wilkinson met. He says
hanging does not stop murder. I will direct your honor's attention
to the year 1920, when Judge Kavanagh, Judge Brentano,
Judge Barrett and Judge Scanlan came. over here at my
request and from the fifth day of May until the first day of July
tried nothing but murder cases. i
In addition to the many men that they sent td the peniten-
tiary for manslaughter or a term of years for murder, in that 1 brief period of less than sixty days, fifteen men were sentenced J
to death in the Criminal court of Cook county. The records of i
the police department, the records of the Chicago Crime Com-
mission, show that as the result of that murder fell 51 per cent ;
in Cook county during the year of 1920.
We had a time here when every night in every newspaper
there was a column devoted to the number of automobiles stolen.
We established an automobile court and I presided in it and after
we had sent several hundred to penal institutions for stealing
automobiles, the Rolls Royce became just as safe as the fliwer
on the streets of Chicago.
We had a reign of terror inaugurated here f'or years by criminals
who dominated labor unions. They were above and beyond
the law. They laughed at it and spat in its face, just the same
as these two poor young sons of multimillionaires. Forty-
of them were convicted in the clourts of Cook county. The building
industry, that had been strangled for years, began to revive
and take on life and we have not heard anything more of the
Maders, or the Murphys, or the Walshs since. Punishment in
jail does not deter crinie? Why are there so few violations of
the laws of the United States? When a man files his income tax
schedule why does he hire an auditor to see that he makes no
mistake? And yet he1 goes over on his personal property before
the board of assessors and board of review and conceals millions.
Why? Because when you get into the United States court, your
hon'or, where having violated the laws of the United States, if you
are guilty, no plea of mercy, however eloquent or by whom delivered,
will cheat the law there.
You have heard a lot aboubEngland. Well, I was nevek very
enthusiastic about England myself. That is due to heredity in
me. I never had any liking or respect for her laws as they applied
to my ancestors and people in an adjoining isle ; but I have
learned to have a wholesome respect for the manner in which
they enforce the laws of England in England.
There murder is murder; it is not a fantasy. There, justice
is handed out swiftly and surely, and as a result there are fewer
murders in the entire kingdom of Great Britain yearly than there
are in the city of Chicago.
94
F
The police of England do not carry weapons. What would
happen to the Chicago police if, after giving notice, they all went
out one night without a weapon?
May it please the court, we have heard considerable about
split personalities in this case, and I was somewhat surprised to
learn that my old friend, the humanitarian, who has acted as
the kindly old nurse in this case for the two babes who are wandering
in dreamland, aiso possessed a split personality. I have
heard so much of the milk of human kindness that ran out in
streams from his large heart that I was somewhat surprised to
know that he had so much poison in his system also.
It is wrong, if your honor please, for the state's attorney and
his two assistants to refer to these two perverts, these two atheists,
these two murderers in language that they can understand.
We ought to treat them with kindness, we ought to treat them
with consideration. But it is all right for Mr. Darrow to take an
honorable physician, who has for years enjoyed the confidence of
the people of this community, who has enjoyed the confidence of
all the judges and the various state's attorneys in -
characterize him without a shred of evidence, without the
slightest foundation, as a peddler of perjury, and herald that
cruel charge broadcast over this land. Where is there anything
in this case that warrants Clarence Darrow in making such an
infamous charge against Dr. Krohn?
I would suggest that if they want mercy and charity they
practice a little bit of it. Treat them with kindness and consideration?
Call them babes, call them children? Why, from the
evidence in this case they are as much entitled to the sympathy
and mercy of this court as a couple of rattle snakes, flushed with
venom, coiled and ready to strike. They are entitled to as much
mercy at the hands of your honor as two mad dogs are entitled
to, from the evidence in this case.
They are no good to themselves. The only purpose that they
use themselves for is to debase themselves. They are a disgrace
to their honored families and they are a menace to this community.
The only useful thing that remains for them now in life
is to go out of life and go out of it as quickly as possible under
the law.
As I said, we had been traveling considerable since this trial
began. We have been through dreamland; we have been
through the nursery. When I came into this case I thought the
playthings of these two-
robes and gags, guns and acid.
And one of these wise men from the east told me I was mistaken,
that their play toys are Teddy bears, soldiers' uniforms,
policemen's uniforms and the toys that all healthy-
delight to play with.
9 5
We have been in psychopathic laboratories, we have been in
hospitals, we have been before the legislature, and we have been
addressing meetings of communists and expounding a doctrine I
consider as dangerous as the crime itself.
I think it is about time we got back to the Criminal court.
I think it is about time that we realize that we are before the
chief justice of this court, and that we are engaged not in experimenting,
not in philosophical discussions, but we are back
here trying the murder case of the age; a case the very details
of which not only astonish but fill you with horror.
"Oh," but Mr. Darrow says, "these poor little sons of multimillionaires;
it is thein wealth that is their misfortune; if it.was
not for their wealth there would be no interest in this case."
And yet, fifty years ago, Charlie Ross was kidnaped, not the
-
of Charlie Ross. There is something in the nature of the crime
itself that arrests the attention of every person in the land.
A child is stolen. The heart of every father, the heart of
every mother, the heart of every man who has a heart, goes out
to the parents of the child.
Bobby Franks was kidnaped, and when we had not the slightest
notion of who was guilty of the dastardly crime, the papers
were full of it. It was the only topic of conversation. It remained
the only topic of conversation for a week before the state's attorney
of this county called in Nathan Leopold, Jr. Their wealth,
in my judgment, has not anything to do with this, except it permits
a defense here seldom given to men in the Criminal court.
Take away the millions of the Loebs and the Leopolds, and
C1arenc.e Darrow's tongue is as silent as the tomb of Julius Caesar.
Take away their millions, and the "wise men from the east"
would not be here, to tell you about fantasies, and Teddy bears
and bold, bad boys, who have their pictures taken in cowboy uniforms.
Take away their money, and what happens? The same
thing that has happened to all the other men who have been
tried in this building, who had no money. A plea of guilty, a
police officer sworn, a coroner's physician sworn, the parents
of the murdered boy sworn and a sentence.
I used to wonder what the poet re$ meant when he talked
ab(out the simple mantles of the poor. Clarence Darrow once said
that a poor man on trial here was disposed of in fifteen minutes,
but if he was rich and committed the same crime and he got a
good lawyer his trial would last twenty-
got three lawyers and it has lasted just a little bit longer, in
addition to the three wise men from the east.
What are we trying here, if your honor please, a murder
case? And what is the evidence presented by the state upon
9 6
which they seek a verdict? A murder as the result of a d&unken
brawl; a murder committed in hot blood to avenge some injury
either real or fancied? A man shooting down another because
he debauched his wife and destroyed his home? A murder, the
result of impulse or passion?
No. One of the most carefully planned murder cases that
your honor or I in all our long experience have ever heard
about. A murder committed by some young gamin of the Streets
whose father was a drunkard and his mother loose; who was
denied every opportunity; brought up in the slums; never had
a decent example set before him? No. But a murder committed
by two super-
most respected families in Chicago. Every advantage that love,
money and wealth and position could give them was theirs.
A man's conduct, I believe, your honor, depends upon his
phil~osophy of life. Those who want to grow up to be respectable
citizens in the community, to be useful citizens, they have got a
correct philosophy of life. Those who want to excel in crime,
those who want to tear down instead of build up, they select the
wrong philosophy in life. That is all there is to this.
They had the power of choice and they deliberately choose
to adopt the wrong philosophy and to make their conduct correspond
with it.
Way last November, after these two defendants had had a
quarrel and made it up-
quarrel; there is a lot of evidence in this case that has not come
out and I do not intend to repeat it, to shock any person who
may be listening. ,
These two defendants were perverts. L,oeb the victim and
Leopold the aggressor, and they quarreled. Then they entered
into a childish compact-
compact between these two so that these unnatural crimes might
continue, Dr. Healy says that that is a childish compact. I say
if Dr. Healy is not ashamed of himself he ought to be. My God,
I was a grown man before I knew of such depravity. They talk
about what lawyers will do for money, but my God, I am glad
that I do not know of any lawyer who would get on the witness
stand and under oath characterize an unnatural agreement between
these two as a childish compact. Darrow and Bachrach
say that is an evidence of insanity. The statutes of Illinois say
that crimes against nature are punishable by imprisonment in
the penitentiary. It is not a defense to a murder charge.
Mitigation! Mitigation! I have heard so many big words
and foreign words in this case that I sometimes thought that
perhaps we were letting error creep into the record, so many
strange, foreign words were being used here, and the constitution
provides that these trials must be conducted in the English
language; I do not know; maybe I have got aggravation and mitigation
mixed up.
97
It is a mitigating circumstance, if your honor please, that
Leopold when they were outlining the plan of this conspiracy and
murder wanted to take a lfttle girl, a daughter of the rich, and
first attack her and then murder her and then collect the ransom.
If that evidence had been put in by the state I would have
thought it was an aggravation. These three wise men, with their j
distorted theories, hired by the defense, they put that evidence
in, and Clarence Darrow calls it a mitigating circumstance. I
Why, when they murder a boy they ought to be treated with
kindness and consideration. If they had taken a little tot, a little
girl, debauched and attacked her, I suppose we ought to have 1 given each a medal and told them to go their way. My God, "
what are we coming to in this community?
I want to tell your honor, bearing in mind the testimony that
was whispered into your ear, one of the motives in this case was
a desire to satisfy unnatural lust. They first wanted a little girl
so that Leopold could rape her and then they decided on a little
boy. What happened? Immediately upon killing him they took
his trousers off. How do you undress a child? First the little
coat, the collar, the tie, the shirt, and the last thing is his
trousers.
Yet, immediately after killing this poor little boy, his trousers
alone came off, and for three hours that little dead boy, without
his trousers but with a11 his other clothes on him, remained in
that car, and they did not take the balance of the clothes off until
they pushed the body into the culvert.
You have before you the coroner's report.
MR. DARROW-
MR. B. BACI-
that statement. The coroner's report said there was no sign of
recent dilation.
MR. CROWLYour honor has the report.
NR. B. BACHRACH-
MR. CROWE-
the fact that this little naked body lay in the water all night long
with running water going over it, and that is why there wasn't
any other evidence.
Away back in November, if your honlor please, when this,
crime first began to take form, a kidnaping for ransom, it was
necessary to write some letters. These two little boys wandering
around in dreamland knew what very few men know except
those engaged in work such as we are engaged in, that it is possible
to take a typewritten document and tell what kind of a
machine it was written on. I
98
So they go to Ann Arbor and they steal a typewriter, a portable
typewriter, for the purpose of writing these letters on it, and
in order to divert suspicion from themselves or any other student,
because if nothing but a typewriter was stolen the belief would
be prevalent that it was the work of some student, some member
of the fraternity, they stole watches and jewelry and other things
to divert suspicion.
They go along working out the details of this crime. Mr.
Darrow says that there is no motive ; that it is a senseless crime;
that the $10,000 had absolutely nothing to do with it.
I will undertake to prove, not by argument, but by sworn
testimony, that the $10,000 had everything to do with it. I will
show that this was not the crime of diseased minds, but this was
the crime planned in all its minuteness by more than ordinary intellects.
Dr. Healy on his cross examination testified as follows:
&.-
&.-
A.-
&.-
intellect and not a fantasy? A.-
&.-
of them is. The other is not.
&.-
average.
&.-
other case planned and carried o.ut every detail of this murder?
A . 1 think so.
&.-
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.-
not, or whether it was all very largely an intellectual process.
&.-
in evidence that the first thing the defendants did was
to sell a typewriter so that it would be difficult 'for the authorities
to trace the letters written, would you consider that a part
of childish fantasy or would you consider that a result of their
intellectual attainments? A.-
attainments in my opinion.
&.-
block of paper, plain paper, that it would be difficult or impossible
to trace, and wrote the letters on that, would that be the
fantasy working, or was it their normal intellect working? A.-
I think it was their good intellects working.
99
Q.-
the remaining sheets of Paper b~ burning them and attempted
to destroy or Lose the typewriter, by throwing it into the
lake, after removing the keys and throwing them in a different
part of the lake, was that boyish fantasy in operation, or was it
their intellect working. I don't know about the horse sense, but
their desire and plans to commit a perfect crime.
&.-
intellect.
&.-
that in order to rent a car they would have to give references,
one a Chicago reference, have to give an address whereto an
identification card could be mailed, to have a bank reference, was
it fantasy or intellect? Now, intellect is sometimes commonly
referred to as good horse sense, is it not? A.-
their intellect working. I don't know about the horse sense, but
it is their intellect.
&.-
showing much good common sense at all in committing the
crime at all you see. But having started on it they used their
intellects.
&.-
from the Rent-
caused . . . A.-
MR. CROWE-
testimony that was bought and paid for at the rate of $250 per
day. I have wondered, when I heard these doctors say that you
could not make a complete and adequate examination in less
than twenty or thirty days, whether the fact that they were working
on la per diem of $250 a day did not enter into the matter.
If they were paid by the job instead of by the day I think they
could have answered all the questions here i s the three or four
hours that our alienists employed from 2:00 in the afternoon
until 61:30 in the evening. What opportunity, if your honor
please, have the state alienists in the ordinary murder case to
make an examination at all?
The state's attorney generally don't know what the defense
is going to be until the case is four or five months old and is
brought to trial. By that time the defendant has had a lawyer
and he has been advised that the only way to save his neck is to
appear insane, and if the state's attorney sends a doctor over
to believe that after I had gotten their confessions, and corrobowhile
he is there.
The state was peculiarly fortunate in this case that we took
time by the forelock. Mr. Eachrach, Jr., was guileless enough
to believe that after I had gotten their confessions, and corrobo-
100
rated them in every detail, that I. had a suspicion in my mind that
these two young perverts and murderers were insane. Mr. Darnow
knows me a little longer and he is not quite as guileless as the
younger Bachrach, and he guessed that maybe after I knew they
had no defense on the facts; I knew how much money they had;
that I might have thought that they were going to put in some
kind of a fancy insanity defense.
And that is the reason why I sent for the four best alienists
in the city of Chicago while I still had these young egotistical
smart alecks-
are not men of superior intelligence; they are just a couple of
spoiled smart alecks, spoiled by the pampering and the petting
of their folks and by the people who fawn upon them on account
of their wealth. They repeat parrot-
remembered and assume the solemn expression of an owl and
pass for supermen.
In one breath one of these wise men from the east will tell you
that they still believe in Santa Claus and then in the next breath
Mr. Darrow will tell you that they do not even believe in God.
What better opportunity, in God's world, has the state ever
had in an examination than they had in this? From 2:30 until
6 :30, when these two young smart alecks were telling their story
and boasting of their depravity; before they had been advised to
invent fantasies; before they had been advised to answer certain
questions in certain ways and before they had been advised to
withhold even from the wise men from the east certain information
that might be detrimental to the defense in this case.
Yes, as Dr. Krohn said, their souls were bared; they were
telling everything they knew, with no effort made to hide, no
effort made to lie; and every incident that they told me about, I
put a witness on the stand to prove. ,
Every detail of their confession has been corroborated by
sworn testimony and by exhibits offered in evidence. And our
alienists examined them.
Now, if your honor please, I do not think that there are a lot
of things that we have to have alienists for. I do not think it I
1 is necessary in a majority of cases for you or for me or for men I
experienced in the practice of criminal law, to call in an alienist I
to find out whether John Jones, the author of this handwriting,
also wrote that. In a great many cases we can tell by looking
at it whether it was written by the same person or not.
I am not the physician.that the younger Bachrach is, nor the
philosopher that the senior counsel is, but I think that if I talk
tc a man for four hours consecutively, and he is insane, I am goicg
to have a pretty good suspicion of it.
And I think if your honor watches a man for thirty days, day
in and day out, and he is a lunatic, you are going to have a welldefined
suspicion of it. 101
If he is insane, we may not know the cause of that insanity,
we may not know the extent of it, or we may not know the name
of it, and we will have to call in a doctor to advise us on those
matters. But if he is insane, we know it, and if he is sane, we 8 know it. 1
And after these learned doctors had talked to these men from 1
half past two in the afternoon until 6:30 that night, I find that I they made an examination. i
I have sometimes thought that we were dreaming here, when
the learned doctors got on the stand who had been employed
to find out just how crazy these two fellows were.
Just make them crazy enough so that they won't hang, and
don't make them crazy enough to make it necessary to put this
up to twelve men, because twelve men are not going to be fooled /
by your twaddle. I . ( Just make them insane enough so that it will make a mitigating
circumstance that we can submit to the court.
One of these wise men got up on the stand, and he had been
employed to examine into the mental condition of Leopold. He
is asked:
&.-
deal upon the subject of ornithology, that he is one of the authorit
~ e usp on that subject in the United States, that he has lectured
before the students of Harvard University upon that subject?
A.-
&.-
&,-
Q-
A-
Q-
&-
condition by reading the things he wrote, the product of
his brain, than you could by examining that?
-
report and the physician's report, because we claim there
is absolutely a direct finding on this matter and absolutely contradictory
of the argument.
MR. CROWE-
tomorrow.
MR. DARROW-
I would like to have it.
MR. CROWE-
I BENJ. EACHRACH-
1 to Mr. Crowe about this matter is that this is the first time it has
E been charged in this case that the committing of an immoral act
: was the purpose of this crime on the part of this boy. Now, if
that is not cleared up at this time, if it goes out to the newspaper,
it will do us no good unless it is cleared up at this time, and
it is not a fair inference from that report.
MR. CEOWE-
case and I think all my arguments are based on facts and not
on dreams 'or fantasies.
MR. DARRow-
shows.
THE COURT-
when you get it.
MR. CROJVE-
of the four state alienists, concededly the four best alienists
in Chicago, and the reason why the state's attorney in his
effort to enforce the law intelligently and effectively called
them in on Sunday, before the defendants were taken out of
his custody and turned over to their lawyers and the sheriff.
For the same reason, and to prevent a perjured defense by
their friends and associates and servants I called in every person
that I understood knew either one of these boys at once
and placed them under oath and asked them what they knew
about the mental condition of the two defendants.
If I had not, the defense in this case would have been insanity
and not a mental disease that goes all around insanity in order
to avoid a jury tria.1.
Instead of having one witness perjure himself, as Miss Nathan
did, we would have had a flo'ck of them called in to perjure
themselves.
Supposing the state's attorney had not talked to Miss Nathan
and did not have her statements that Loeb was a perfectly normal,
rational boy, one of the manliest boys she had ever met, a
perfect gentleman at all times? How could I have destroyed
her on the stand if I did not have that statement?
I do not wonder that the senior counsel, with all his wisdom,
gained through many years of practice, made the proposition to
the state when he found out what the state had done in the way
of preparation, "Don't you call any of your lay witnesses, and
I won't call any of mine."
103
And I told him, "Bring on your lay witnesses; the law is fortified."
And after he got through with Miss Nathan, he was
through with all the rest that he had subpoenaed.
Do not lose sight of the fact, if your honor please, that all
of the findings in that famous Bowman-
testified to before your honor by Dr. Hulbert. I suppose he
thought that the state's attorney would not read it.
Well, in the discharge of my duty, and in an effort to protect
the people of Cook county, I have to do a lot of disagreeable
things, so I decided I would read his report.
It has gotten to be quite a famous report; I do not know but
what it rivals in fame the jokebook of Joe Miller, that we heard
about when I was a boy.
Why did not the state call more lay witnesses? Why did I
not call the brothers of the defendants? Why did I not call
Loeb's valet, whose statement I got down in the state's attorney's
office ?
Why did I not call the employes of both families, and all their ?
fraternity brothers, in addition to those that I did call? 1
Well, I would expect Walter Bachrach, who is not as ex-
perienced in the trial of criminal cases as Clarence Darrow is, i
to ask that question. Clarence Darrow knows why I didn't call ,
them, because if I put them on the stand, if I would put Miss Nathan
on the stand I was bound by her perjury. They are my
witnesses. I vouch for their truthfulness when I put them on,
and I knew they had all been up in Clarence Darrow's office, as
Miss Nathan had. I knew that he would not call them, because
I could destroy them. Your honor could not call them, because
under the law, the only witness you can call as a court's witness
is a person who has seen the crime committed, an eyewitness.
That is why I didn't ask your honor to call them, because
under the law you could not.
But why, if these men have disordered and diseased minds, if
they have indulged in fantasies, why wasn't the old nurse put on
the stand to tell about it? She came all the way from Boston
to help Dick, because she loved him. I will read you some of
the things she told Dr. Hulbert that he didn't tell you, and after
she got through talking to them and they knew that she would
not stand for an insanity defense-
Loeb family, and she is over in Europe right now . . .
BENJ. BACHRACB-
please; there is no such evidence in this case, and that is not so.
MR. CROWE-
MR. BACHRACH-
3 04
MR. CROWE-
say the least, in the report of Dr. Hulbert, and I will read it to you.
MR. BACHRACH-
MR. CROWE-
is filled with lies.
MR. BACHRACH-
MR. CROWE-
defeating justice and saving these two mad dogs from the fate
they so richly deserve.
Don't overlook the fact that every one of the state's alienists
says in addition to all the matters and things that they learned,
they took into consideration every bit of Dr. Hulbert's report,
just the same as the three wise men from the east did. Not
only that, they took into consideration all the testimony of these
three wise men. They did not overlook a word. They did not
overlook the fact that one shaved every day and the other only
shaved twice a week. They even considered little Teddy and the
cowboy suit.
The only explanation I can give of the testimony of Dr.
White is that he is in his second childhood. I would hate to
think that a man of his attainments would prostitute his profession
and prostitute his learning to tell the story that he told
your honor.
One of the very significant and distinguishing things, the
eminent doctor says, was the fact that little Dickie had his picture
taken in a cowboy's uniform when he was four years of
age, and that is a distinguishing thing and stamps him as a
man of diseased mind and with homicidal tendency.
I saw a shudder go through every woman in the courtroom
that has a kid four or five years of age and I began to think of
my poor kids. The other doctors-
worry-
have fallen off at least a hundred thousand since that doctor testified.
The other doctors saw how ridiculous and silly it all was,
and they szid they paid no attention to it, and one by one each
doctor discarded all this silly bosh.
MR. DARROW-
of that.
MR. CROWE-
MR. DARROW-
MR. CROWE-
MR. D'ARROW-
MR. CROWE-
courtroom every day. Dr. Hickson examined them and he was
in the courtroom frequently. Dr. Neymann examined them,
105
and he was in the courtroom. I don't know whether Sanger-
Brown examined them or not. But every alienist in Chicago,
except our four, was called in, and not a one of them would
take the stand, and, for money, perjure his soul and swear to
a lot of silly rot.
MR. DARROW-
MR. CROWE (continuing) -
MR. DARROW-
sort and it is not . . .
MR. CROWE-
MR. DARROW-
one of them would do it for money.
MR. CROWE-
they had them here, if they could have used them they would.
MR. DARROW-
clear.
MR. CROWE-
MR. DARROW-
out of the record.
MR. CROWE-
MR. DARROW-
we would call four.
MR. CR0WE.-
MR. DARROW-
comment on that. I don't object to that, if he thinks it belongs
there.
MR. CROWE-
would justify a suspicion of insanity or a suspocion of disease,
they put on Dr. Hulbert, to testify about certain glands, ductless
and otherwise. Finally, the grand old man of the defense,
Clarence Darrow, seeing how absolutely absurd it all was, discarded
all their testimony and substituted as a defense in this
case his peculiar philosophy of life, of which we will talk more
at length later on.
Having taken into consideration everything that the doctors
for the defense had testified to, having taken into consideration
everything contained in the Hulbert report, Dr. Church, Dr.
Patrick, Dr. Singer and Dr. Krohn said that there was absolutely
nothing to indicate mental disease in either one of these
defendants.
Your honor heard an eminent authority upon that subject, Dr.
Woodyatt, and he says therea is so little known about the pineal
gland and about these other matters and things that this doctor
106
testified to so glibly-
knows what effect they would have upon the mind of a person;
that a calcified gland existed in a sane, sound mind the s,ame
as it did in a diseased mind. And all of the testimony of Hulbert
upon that proposition was as illuminating, and should be given
the same serious consideration as Old Doc Yak's teddy bears
and Buffalo Bill suits.
If these men are insane, I ask your honor why they were
instructed not to let our alienists examine further.
MR. DARROW-
such evidence, or any evidence that you ever asked for it. You
had a chance to ask for it.
MR. CROWE-
when they were in my office Monday, and Dr. Singer was there,
they replied to all questions: "On advice of counsel we decline
to answer." My God, if the defense was a heavy cancer, why
should they not bare their breasts and let every doctor and layman
look on and see? If there is a diseased mind, why tell
Dr. Singer "Upon advice of counsel we respectfully decline to
answer."? ,
MR. DARROW-
MR. CROWE-
MR. DARROW-
is all.
MR. CROWE-
the court?
MR. DARROW-
is not a word of evidence that Dr. Singer ever asked any questions,
or that they ever asked for an examination by Dr. Singer,
or by any other alienists, which they did not.
THE COURT-
made that the defendants refused to testify . . .
MR. CROWE-
be very explicit on this point. I have made no allusion . . .
THE COURT-
not in the record. But I do not want to interrupt you. Go ahead.
Did Mr. Savage get back with Dr. Springer's report? You might
make that statement now about the condition of the body of the
boy. Counsel for the defense says there is nothing to the statement,
and Mr. Crowe says there is. In order that it may be
clearedup fully we will have the entire statement read into the
record, so that the newspapers will get it.
MR. CROWE-
THE COURT (continuing)-
would ,ask the ladies, if there are any here who do not want to
6107
hear testimony that might be embarrassing to them, to kindly
step out.
We will adjourn promptly after reading this part of the testimony,
that you may prefer not to hear. We will suspend now
for five minutes, in order that the ladies may retire for the after-
noon. You may come back tomorrow as usual.
(A recess was then taken to allow the women present to
retire. During the recess discussion occurred which is unprintable.)
THE COURT-
I want you to leave. If you do not, I will have the bailiffs escort
you into the hallway. There is nothing left here now but a lot of
rot that is not fit for you to hear. There will be nothing else to
read. Why do you persist in listening. Step out into the hallway.
Now then, you might read it, Mr. Crowe or Mr. Savage. I don't
care which.
MR. CROWE-
this because it contains a number of these strange, foreign words.
THE COURT-
we will have the record straight. I don't know myself what it
contains because I haven't read it yet. It will be part of my duty
after this case is over, to read all this, some twelve hundred pages
of stuff. I don't know who is right in the matter. We will have
it read into the record, and be sure about it.
MR. DARROW-
(The report of Coroner's Physician A. F. Benson made on the
body of Robert Franks on May 22 was then read by Mr. Bachrach.)
WALTER BACHRACH-
MR. CROWE-
MR. DARROW-
MR. CROWE-
have your theory and I have mine.
MR. DARROW-
MR. CROWE-
BENJAMIN BACHRACH-
please, is that the charge comes in the closing argument. There
was no hint at all that such a claim would be made, and now all
our opportunity to reply is gone.
MR. CROWE-
Darrow has just finished his talk, Mr. Walter Bachrach made his
argument and you have made your statement. You have had
three opportunities to answer it.
10s 6
MR. DARROW-
After further discussion by the attorneys the court ruled:
This is the evidenee of the coroner and certainly conclusive and
we will let it rest with what the coroner says.
THE COURT-
than that?
MR. SAVAGE-
to the same effect.
THE COURT-
we read it, what the coroner says. There is nothing further
here.
MR. CROWE-
THE COURT-
morning at 10 :30 o'clock.
State's Attorney Crowe's argument in closing the prosecution a
of Nathan Leopold, Jr., ,and Richard Loeb, from the point of resumption
on the morning of August 27, follows in part:
May it please your honor, when I left off last night I was talking
about the state alienists and the three wise men from the east
who came on here to testify that the little "Babe" or the little
babes, r,ather, were suffering from a diseased mind.
Now, when the body is sick, the ordinary practitioner can generally
tell you what kind of a disease you have, and I do not
think there is any man who pretends to be a specialist who will
admit that he cannot tell you what is the matter with you after
he examines you. He niay guess wrong, but he is going to make
some kind of a guess. He may tell you you have one kind of a
Xever when in reality you have another, but he is going to give it
some kind of a name. You know, the doctors have it on us lawyers.
When we make mistakes they are discovered. When a doctor
makes a mistake he is safe, because dead men tell no tales.
If these two defendants are suffering from a mental disease what
is the name of it? No one has gone on the stand that has been
able to give this mental disease a name. And yet every one who
got on for the defense pretended to know all that there was in the
books and a great deal that never got into the books.
I was surprised that old Doc White wasn't able to name the
peculiar mental disease he says exists here, because he in the past
has been able to invent names for diseases which didn't exist.
If your honor will recollect, I questioned him as to whether
or not he was the same William A. White who testified in the case
of Gonzales vs. the United States, and he said he was. There he
was trying to save a man from death . . .
BENJAMIN BACHRACH-
any argument based upon the Gonzales case upon the ground that
your honor specifically refused to let us go in and show our side of
109
1
the Gonzales case, ,and your honor stated at the time that you ,
did not care what occurred in the Gonzales case, you were not
interested in the Gonzales case at that time and it did not come
out on the examination of Dr. White that the man Gonzales mas
ia his care. We wanted to show you about it, we could have shown
you very interesting things about it, but your honor declined to
hear them and it would be unfair to go into that case now.
MR. CROWE-
philosophy, I do not know why I cannot quote law.
MR. DARROW-
MR. CROWE-
the doctor as having testified in it, and in their argument they
could have (argued anything they wanted about it. They have argued
about every other case that was tried in the Criminal court
of Cook county. They have told your honor the facts where men
were sentenced upon plea, they have told your honor the facts
where men were sentenced upon verdicts. Why can't I tell your
honor something about the Gonzales case if we can discuss all
these other cases?
MR. BACHRACH-
quickly.
MR. CROWE-
MR. BACHRACH-
please.
MR. CROWE-
please, and Dr. White was trying to save him from the gallows,
and he said he had a prison psychosis. That is, he was afraid, he
was scared stiff that he was going to hang. And the United
States court says that the opinion is expressed that the prisoner
is suffering from prison psychosis, a newly discovered type of mental
disease or insanity.
Newly discovered by Dr. White, just as the mental disease here
is another newly discovered mental disease discovered by Dr.
White, which is described as essentially a reaction to the situation
in which he finds himself from its realization.
Just imagine! This eminent alienist says it is a newly discovered
disease, prison psychosis, which is essentially a reaction
to the situation in which he finds himself, from its realization.
The diagnosis, it is admitted, is not consistent with defendant's
efforts at malingering, with which those who have previously
examined him were impressed. In the second or more elaborate
comment on the case it is said, "The whole reaction is an extremely
shallow one; that the defendant's knowledge of the
crime of which he is convicted and his realization of the situation
in which he is, lie only a little bit beneath the surface,
and at times it forces itself upon his attention in spite of his
110
defensive efforts. And so we see in some of the later notes of
his case his plots to escape, and expressioils which show a very
complete realization of the trouble he is in.
This merely means that his defenses are weak and that from
time to time they break down. That is the diagnosis. The court
says the majority of the hospital staff with whom the superintendent
conferred expressed the opinion that the case was one of
malingering, but the superintendent-
a man's brain and tell whether he is lying with the same certainty
as a physician can look into a man's body-
hospital staff with whom he conferred expressed the opinion that
the case is one of malingering, but the superintendent, who said
he had no doubt that he malingered to a certain extent, notwithstanding
he thinks the theory of malingering does not explain the
situation.
He also says that a previous attack of mental disturbance let
up very shortly after he had been ,sent to Dannemora. This evidently
refers to a former conviction in some other jurisdiction,
after which he had been committed to an insane asylum. In his
first case, the court was imposed upon and instead of sending him
to the penitentiary he was sent to an insane asylum, and after
he got' there this mental disease disappeared just as suddenly and
as mysteriously as it came on. And he adds (quoting Dr. White) :
"In all probability' this present disturbance would all disappear
very rapidly if the causes for its existence were removed."
In all probability the present mental disease of these two defendants
would disappear very rapidly if the causes for its existence
were removed. If the glasses had never been found, if
the state's ,attorney had not fastened the crime upon these two
defendants, Nathan Leopold would be over in Paris, or some other
of the gay capitals of Europe, indulging his unqatural lust with the
$5,000 he had wrung from Jacob Franks.
If they were to be discharged today, through some technicality
in the law, this present disturbance would all disappear very rapidly
if the causes for its existence were removed. I used to wonder
why they got Doc White . . .
MR. BACHRACH-
MR. CROWE (continuing) -
MR. BACHRACH-
to that and ask the court to rule that it is improper to
make this argument on Dr. White, because of what I have stated.
The doctor testified on the witness stand that the man was in his
custody at the time of the testifying twelve years later. We expected
to show and can show that the sentence was commuted at
the request of the president.
THE COURT-
The defense did not have an opportunity to comment on it, and
111
the state should not. But this court is not going to pay any attention
to argument that is outside of the record. 1
MR. CROWE-
without a thread of evidence of any sort, that Dr. Krohn was a :
peddler of perjury. Haven't I got a right to comment on Dr.
White ?
THE COURT-
MR. CROWE-
have said about him?
THE COURT-
MR. CROWE-
this defense and see whether it is an honest defense or not, to
see whether these mental disturbances came on as suddenly as
they would disappear if the causes of them were removed.
Your honor will recollect that while doctors employed by the
defense were sitting in the coprtroom witnesses were put on to
testify to fainting spells. Now what was the purpose of that?
The purpose of that was to lay a foundation, in my judgment, for
some doctor to later take the stand and testify that Loeb was
suffering from epilepsy and it would be argued that, having epilepsy,
his mind was diseased. Dr. Hulbert in his report, as I
wfll show you later, says that there were not any evidences of
fainting in Loeb, except one fainting spell that he had during
initiation, and yet witness after witness was put on and they
testified that he fainted, that he was rigid, that his eyes were
glassy and that he frothed at the mouth.
But cross-
was not rigid, but he was stiff, his frothing at the mouth was a
drunken symptom, and after he got through he wanted to lick
a couple of waiters.
The evidence further showed that these other fainting spells
were due to the fact that, in one case, seven or eight large boys
jumped on him, and he fainted as a result of injuries inflicted
upon him. He fainted ,again in the hospital after he had been
in an automobile accident, and the doctor who waited upon him
said that the fainting spells were due entirely, in his judgment, to
the accident. Then the doctor who had been employed to take
the stand and testify to epilepsy was dismissed. If these lay
witnesses had stood up, and had not broken down under cross-
that doctor would have testified to epilepsy.
I submit that this defense is not an honest defense. This is a
defense built up to suit the needs of the case. If the state only
had half of the evidence that it did have, or a quarter of the evidence
that it had, we would have had a jury in the box, and a plea
of not guilty. But trapped like a couple of rats, with no place to
112
escape except through an insanity defense, they proce
it up. A weird, uncanny crime? The crime is not ha
or uncanny as the defense that is put in here.
Let us see what Dr. Hulbert said in his report. That is in
evidence, introduced by the defense ; so I do not suppose there will
be any objection to my reading from that. I am glad th,at the defendants'
lawyers conceded me some few rights in this courtroom,
although they argue that I ought to be down in the office after a
plea of guilty, and that I have no business up here ,at all.
"Personal history, Richard Loeb. Mother's health-
birth she was not very ill. Her fever was not remarkable, although
there was some ' sickness."
The doctor did not testify to that on direct examination, your
honor. He did not think this report would ever get into the
hands of the state's attorney, and he said he did not.
He created the impression by his direct examination that there
was something wrong at the time of this boy's birth.
What does he say in his report? He was a perfect baby. Oh!
He developed a little late sexually and at the ,age of 15 Dr. Hulbert
in his report said he had a social disease. On page 9, "There is no
history of fainting attacks, except that once during an initiation
ceremony ,at school he fainted."
In other words, after considering the teddy bears and the
Buffalo Bill suits, and all this other trash that was testified to by
these wise men from the east, counsel or somebody decided that
tkiey had to add something more to it to make it stand even as
a mitigating circumstance, and while their report said that there
was no history of fainting attacks, except once, they tried to prove
a dozen in order to build a foundation for epilepsy.
And your honor recollects that on cross-
of them either developed into being knocked unconscious by accident
or else it was a drunken stupor brought on by debauchery.
Then this nurse; the nurse, who, according to the testimony
of the defense, knew more about Richard Loeb up until the time
he was fourteen years of age than any living person. They tried
to create the impression that she was insane and that Dick caught
his insanity from her, the same as one boy catches measles from
another. They had her here in Chicago and she is not produced
as ,a witness. A letter was read to indicate that she was insane,
and if I ever read a letter that more clearly demonstrated sanity
than the letter written by that nurse I don't remember it. It was
a kindly, loving letter, sent by a woman to a boy she loved, filled
with motherly advice, ,advice that it develops is so sadly needed in
this case by these two young perverts.
A picture of her was introduced to show that she was some
terribly hideous creature.
113
4
Let us see what Dr. Hulbert says about her. She is supposed
to have given information in reference to Dick because these
people would think he had a diseased mind when he was a child.
She returned to Chicago after the arrest of young Richard, to
help him in any way she could, and through the attorneys, arrangements
were made for an interview. She is very reserved,
quiet and strict; her memory is good. She is a woman of attractive
appearance, modestly and carefully dressed. She denied
any imperfections in herself while she was a nurse, and she denied
any imperfections with the boy during her stay with the
family. She said that he was quite all right at fifteen years
of age, at the time she left the house.
She said he was a lazy boy, but a bright student. He was lazy
until he got along in several grades of school where he found
that he could graduate in one year's less time than he expected, if
he would study, and so he began to study hard.
She would not say-
or any disorders in his sleep, and if anybody would know about the
day dreams or the night dreams of Richard Loeb, I submit that
this woman would know about it; and we are told about the
weird, uncanny dreams he had, both waking and asleep.
She denied that he ever had fears or any disorder in his
sleep. She would not say anything which might reflect' on the
boy, even though she was plainly told that a complete understanding
of this boy was essential for an accurate diagnosis.
She came on here, as Dr. Hulbert says, to do anything within
her power to help the boy, short of perjury, and, although she was
told that a complete understanding of the boy was essential for a
correct diagnosis, which means, for a defense in this case, she
would not say anything that might reflect upon him, because she
intended to tell the truth, and that is why she was sworn as a
witness before these alienists, but was not brought into court and
sworn before your honor.
Her general viewpoint is a conventional one. She was quite
unaw,are of the fact that he had become a petty thief and played
detective. A woman that they claim, until he was fifteen years of
age, never let him out of her sight by day or by night.
A woman that they claim, until he was fifteen years of age,
never let him out of her sight day or night, was quite unaware
that he was a petty thief or played detective. If she did not know
it, who in God's name would know it? If she says he wasn't a
petty thief and he didn't play detective, will you take her word
for it, or will you take Dr. Hulbert's word?
What information has he got? He talked to Richard Loeb and
he talked to the nurse, the one they claim was with him every hour
of the day, and because he was constantly tied to her apronstrings
he is now here charged with murder, and she gives the lie to this.
114
It has been argued here that because Richard Loeb told the
doctors that he had no ambition in life, that he hadn't selected
or thought of any profession, that is an indication he is mentally
unbalanced, and because the other defendant had a definite ambition
in life, he is also mentally unbalanced.
A happy philosophy of medicine, especially when you are testifying
in a guilty case, and trying to cheat the gallows. It is
too bad that they have two defendants here. It would be so much
easier to prove one insaqe, because anything you found in him
could be a bad sign. But when you have two, and they are not
exactly alike, when one has broken arches and the other has a high
arch, why, then it has got to be a bad sign in one and a bad sign
in the other. And if one has to shave every day, that is a bad
sign, and if the other has to shave but twice a week, that is a
bad sign.
It was a bad sign that Richard Loeb did not have any definite
aim or purpose in life, and it was also a bad sign because Leopold
wanted to study law and ornithology. Well, let us see what Dr.
Hulbert says about this.
"When the patient7'-
to make of his education, and what wera his ambitions,
he stated he expeicted to study law the next year. He said he had
always intended to study law." And yet when they were putting
on their defense, everybody was testifying that he had no ambition
ia life. He was just wandering around like a ship without
a rudder, and did not know what port he was going to put into.
. "When the p,atient was asked what use he expected to make of
his education, and what were his ambitions, he stated he expected
to study law the next year. He said he had always intended to
study law. At one time he had thought of teaching history, but he
felt that he w,as not of the scholarly type. Asked why, he replied
that he was always lazy, and that he could never sit down and a]>-
ply himself. As a boy he poisoned his mind by reading detective
stories." Well, there are a whole lot of us in the same fur. I
remember crawling under the bed to read Nick Carter. After I
got through reading Nick Carter I began to read Gaboriau's
French detective stories, and when I was a student at Yaie I paid
more attention to Raffles than I did to real property."
I think that is the experience of most normal, healthy-
people. Let us see what the doctor says about it:
"It was observed that he read good books-
but" not the Alger books, though he did rea,d 'Little Lord
Fauntleroy.' He spent all his time in day dreams." Now, that is
what your honor has been told-
detective stories. What does the doctor say about it? "He was
rarely observed day dreaming." That is the information he got
from the nurse, because I read what the nurse said. "He was never
haunted by fears or dreams," is what she said. And Doctors
115
Hdbert and Bowman, under another heading, in another chapter,
giving information that they got from other people, say he was
rarely observed day dreaming.
And here Hulbert and Bowman, under another heading. in
another chapter, giving information that they got from other
people, say he was rarely observed day dreaming, night dreams
were very rare. Sometimes he would talk or laugh in his sleep,
but not often; he slept soundly and was hard to waken.
Oh, the only reason that Dickie committed this slight delinquency
of murdering little Bobby Franks was that he desired the
thrill, all his life he craved for thrills.
What do Bowman and Hulbert say about it? "He never appeared
to crave a thrill or excitement, but was rather quiet in
his conduct. After Miss Struthers left that home he seemed
to be much the same as before, quiet, rather affectionate, extremely
polite and respectful."
That is what the friends and members of the family must have
told the doctor. Here is what the patient told the doctor himself:
"The patient's estimate of himself. While also at times he had
a tremendous output of energy and physical ability, he tired
easily. He is rather inclined to be a leader in athletics and games
which he enjoys."
Why, the whole trouble with him is that he never led the
natural life boys lead. He was always kept in the house with
his nose buried in some serious, solemn volume.
That is what we were told. And the only time he had any
boys was when Doc White could put some interpretation upoh
those boys which would lead to the conclusion of a diseased mind.
That is why we heard about the teddy bears and these various
suits of his.
He never went out and played as boys play baseball, marbles
and other things, and yet when he is talking to the doctor and
the doctor reports to "the three wise men from the east," he says
he is inclined to be a leader in athletics and games, which he
enjoys. He makes friends very easily and feels quite at ease with
strangers. He is inclined to be a leader and likes to dominate
his environment.
Well, isn't that natural in a healthy-
desires to strive, to succeed and to lead. But the doctor
adds: "But can fit himself easily into any sort of situation, so that
he does not become bothered or upset if someone else happens to
be dominating the particular situation and he is compelled to assume
a minor role." And as a boy who did not have judgment
enough to plan, a boy who had no-
he tells the doctor, "While the patient often acts without reflection
and is quite impulsive, he nevertheless plans a great
deal and works out consistent schemes for the future."
116
"He plans a great deal and works out consistent schemes for
the future," in this mad brain of this mad boy.
"He is open and frank with others as long as he feels there
is nothing he wants to conceal."
Dr. White said he couldn't lie to him. "Nobody can lie to me.
1 can read their minds just the same as, or look into them just the
same as a doctor can look into the human body with an X-
Well, I don't suppose he thinks he knows more than the Lord does,
but I don't believe that he will concede that the Lord knew any
more than he did when the Lord was his age.
"But if he feels that it is to his interest to hold anything back
he does so. He therefore gives an appearance of great frankness,
which is not true. The patient says that he will tell a lie with no
compunction whatever and that he is completely dishonest."
Let us see whether he lied to these doctors ,and withheld information,
the same as they lied to your honor and withheld information.
Here again the doctor says, talking about his being tied
to the apronstrings of an old nurse and never being allowed to
play as other boys played, page 41: "He has always been fond of
athletics and outdoor sports, such as tennis, swimming, hockey,
skating, and so forth, always being fond of bridge. While he
plays some other card games, he has not been particularly interested
in them. He is considered an extremely good bridge player
and has passed a great deal of time playing it. He is fond of
dancing and mixed society. He has used alcohol considerably since
he was fifteen and gotten drunk a number of times."
(There was ,a brief recess.)
MR. CROWE-
talking about the poor little rich boy, who had been brought up
in a golden cage, who never had a chance to use his wings as other
boys did. Never permitted to play with other boys, never allowed
the recreations that other boys had, and yet Dr. Hulbert says on
page 42: "In 1912, at the age of seven, he and Jack Mengel built a
five-
playhouse. A year or so later the boys formed ,a guinea pig company
and used the playhouse for the office of the company. In
1916, Richard Loeb, with five or six other boys, published two issues
of a small 3 x 5-
Magazine. His contribution was that of being editor, manager
and author. His writings showed quite advanced thinking
for a boy of his own age, and reflected well the humanitarian environment
of his home."
Reflected the humanitarian environment of his home, and yet
Mr. Darrow, in a vain effort to save their worthless lives, has said 1
that they committed this murder on account of their families.
Oh, another interesting thing that leads these wise men to
think that they are demented and stark mad is that over in jail,
117
while he is preparing his defense, he wants to wear an old ragged
coat. He has always been careful of his personal appearance and
neat and clean about his person and has liked to appear well
dressed." I have never seen him any other way. "He has always
had a pleasant consciousness of his own body." And again I find
in Dr. Hulbert's'report : "He has always been interested in camping,
motor-
been linked with any intellectual pursuit, such as botany, zoology
or the like." Tennis, swimming, hockey, skating, bridge, dancing,
-
in, but a great many of which we were not able to indulge in,
because we happened to be the rich boys of poor parents and not
the poor boys of multimillionaires.
They didn't lie when questioned by their alienists. It would not
have done them any good to lie to Doc White anyhow, but they
did not lie to any of them; and they all testified that if they had
lied, an impossible thing, and the'things that they had told them
were false and they had held back certain things that were material
and did not tell them, that would have changed their opinion.
Oh undoubtedly, if the facts were not as they were, we would come
to a different conclusion. But these boys were collaborating with
us while we were planning this weird and uncanny defense for
them. They didn't lie and they didn't withhold anything.
Well, let's see what Dr. Hulbert says and Dr. Bowman said.
In this report Dr. Hulbert says, "I never expected that to
fall into your hands, Mr. Crowe." During the examination on page
66: "During the examination and his recitation of his criminal
career, he was not quite frank. Without any indication facially
or otherwise he would lie or repress certain instances, unless he
imagined that the doctor was previously aware of those instances."
When questioned about this later he said he had failed to mention
certain things because he thought it advisable not to mention
them or because he had been advised not to mention them.
After some guileless attorney, studied in the medicine and
grounded in it, probably more than he is in the practice of the
criminal law, some doctor or some member of the family had
gotten these two smart Alecks and had trained and prepared them
and told them what to tell the doctors and what not to tell them,
then they brought on these doctors and said:
"Now, go in and listen to that story, and if after you listen
to the story they tell you you don't think they are crazy, then you
must be crazy."
He failed to mention certain things because he either thought
it advisable not to mention them, he himself, or because he h d
been advised not to mention them. 60, obviously, there are gaps
in his history of the development of crime.. "His oldest brother,
A1lan;does not know of these untold stories, but the patient says
he will not tell them unless Allan advises him to do so." What are
these untold stories?
118
The case is closed and we have not heard a word of it. They
were not going to lie in order to fool the doctors, so that the
doctors could fool your honor. No. They were perfectly frank.
As Dr. White said, "They didn't lie to me, and they wouldn't lie
to a man as smart as I am." They had not thought when they were
talking to the doctors as to their defense in this case, none whatever.
They might as a result of a childish fantasy murder little
Bobby Franks as they wandered along in the dark, but, God forbid,
that they should attempt to fool your honor in an effort to save
their worthless lives.
But let us continue from the Hulbert-
other hand, there is a certain legal advantage.'? This is not a care-
'fully prep,ared examination for the purpose of putting in a crooked
and silly defense, in an effort to fool your honor, according to the
the witnesses when they are under oath on the stand. But when
they are making a report for the lawyers and a report for "the
wise men from the east" to base an opinion on, Drs. Hulbert and
Bowman say, "On the other hand, there is a certain legal advantage
in minimizing the broadcasting of his episodes, even keeping
them secret from the attorneys, examiners or relatives."
Here are doctors who want to make your honor believe that
their only interest is in finding out what the truth is, and telling
it to you regardless, and they give their reason for not insisting
on all of the f,acts in the following language: "On the other hand,
there is a certain legal advantage in minimizing the broadcasting
of the episodes, even keeping them secret from his attorneys, examiners
or relatives. Consequently no great effort should be
made to bring forth details which he willfully suppresses. This
is Dr. Bowman and Dr. Hulbert ,advising Dr. White, Dr. Glueck
and Dr. Healy that there is a certain legal advantage not to bring
these matters out, and no effort should be made by them to bring
forth details which he willfully suppresses. -
I quite agree with Dr. Hulbert, that when he wrote this report
he never thought it was going to be read by the state's attorney,
or the contents of it would ever be told to your honor.
His fantasies lusually occur between the time of retiring and
the time sleep comes over him. He estimates that this period was *
on an average of half an hour's duration.
Not wandering around all day, Mr. D.arrow, in a day dream
and indulging in fantasies, walking up and down the street, snapping
fingers, pointing out buildings, waving the gang here and
there; not a fantasy that became a part of his life. Dr. Hulbert
and Dr. Bowman said that the fantasies usually occur a half-
before he goes to sleep. That is the time, your honor, when I and
everybody else fantasy. When we get into bed we dream dreams
of what we are going to accomplish and we scheme and plan and
that is exactly what Dickie Loeb did.
119
And all this other stuff that we have been regaled with is
perjury, pure and simple ; perjury for a purpose-
Drunk to Philip Sober, from the lying alienists on the stand to
a report made by the alienists that they did not think would come
to light.
Continuing on page 93: "He denied being implicated in the socalled
gland robbery of Mr. ,Ream."
Well, it would be unfortunate with all these old gland doctors
and all this piffle about glands that Dickie beat the doctors to it
and experimented on glands prior to this time.
"He denied being in Geneva in the case of the ragged stranger
who was found dead with his hands cut off and his face mutilated.
He denied having participated in any other delinquencies."
And mark you this, your honor: "But later referred to four
episodes, for which the letters A, B, C and D were suggested."
He referred to four episodes. Four crimes, if your honor
please, that they merely designated as A, B, C, and D. And then
the two doctors, whose only interest is to tell the truth as they
find it, add in their own language: "It was found forensically-
what does "forensically" mean? That it was found from a legal
standpoint, so the doctor says, "forensically inadvisable to question
him about these." And the case closes and we are just as much in
the dark as ever as to what these four crimes were, because the
doctors concluded that legally, forensically, it was inadvisable to
question him about it. And then I ask you, when Darrow talks
about tricks, who are the tricksters in this case?
What strange hold did this man Leopold have upon Loeb? Why
did he submit himself to the unnatural practices of Leopold? I
will tell you, your honor, and I think I will demonstrate it beyond
the peradventure of a doubt that these four episodes, that these
four crimes, were known to Leopold, a& he blackmailed Loeb, he
threatened Loeb with exposure, and Loeb had to go along with
Leopold. And Leopold was willing to go along with Loeb for vile
reasons. And I will prove that, and I will prove it by the testimony
of the defense, beyond a reasonable doubt.
"On their way back from Ann Arbor," on page 98, "the plan
of kidnaping a boy coupled with the idea of ransom was first
broached by the patient."
That is, that is the first time that Loeb talked to Leopold about
kidnaping for a ransom. Not a thrill, but ransom. And I will demonstrate
that money was the motive here. I will demonstrate that
they gambled and they played for such high stakes that even thei;
millionaire companions could not play with them. I will demonstrate
that they had money that they cannot account for, unless it
is the proceeds of either A, B, C, or D.
"The patient had a definite boy in mind at that time; the patient
did not like this boy or his f,amily.::
A crime by mad boys, without a purpose, without any thought
of revenge, without any thought of money? Let's see. The first
boy they contemplated killing was a boy he did not like. Hatred,
revenge, was the motive in his mind at that time; but their desire
for money overcame that.
"The patient did not like this boy no' his family"-
of which were not brought out. Why not? Because the details
might show that the hate and the anger were strong enough to
impel him to kill him; but he does tell you that the first boy was
one he did not like, and he did not like his family.
"He was the patient's own age, rather large for his age. Patient's
idea was to get hold of this boy when he was coming back
from a party and lure him into an automobile. He could not figure
any safe way of getting the money, and because he could not figure
any safe way of getting the money, he brushed aside his hate ,and
his desire for revenge upon his enemy."
Money is the motive in this case, and I will prove it repeatedly
by their own evidence. He could not figure any safe way of getting
the money. "The patient and his companion discussed this
idea quite frequently. Neither of them, however, could think of
any simple and certain method of securing the money." All
through this case it is money, money, money-
them, however, could think of any simple and certain method of
securing the money. They continued to discuss the matter, weighing
the pros and cons, suggesting methods only to pick flaws in
them. In March, 1924, the patient conceived the idea of securing"
-
of securing the money by having it thrown off of a moving train.
This idea was discussed in great detail, and gradually developed
into a carefully systematized plan."
But Mr. Darrow disagrees with the doctor. This was not
carefully discussed and gone into in great detail, and gradually developed
into a carefully systematized plan. This was just the mad
act of mad boys, wandering around in the dar,k, looking for ,a teddy
bear.
It was figured out first that the money should be thrown off of
a moving train when it was dark, somewhere in the country. He
and his companion spent many uncomfortable afternoons-
sympathize with you, dear little boys, for all of the discomfort
you suffered on those afternoons. I really sympathize with you,
dear little boys. It is too bad that in this weird, uncanny scheme
of yours, of murder, you had to spend many uncomfortable
a afternoons-
suitable locations. Finally his companion-
your honor-
factory on the left side of the track as a landmark. There was
121
considerable discussion as to what car to use. Both the patient
and his companion felt taat it was not safe to use either of their
own cars.
Mad boys in the dark and dreamland, doing a mad act without
any thought of the consequences of it, and least of all not considering
their personal safety at all? Too crazy to know that it was
all wrong, and too crazy to care whether they were caught?
"They both felt that it was not safe to use either of their
own cars. The patient developed an intense interest in the plan,
and found also that it gave him ,a very pleasant topic of conversation
when he and his companion were together, drinking or driving
about."
When he and his companion were drinking they'would gloat
over the perfection bf their plan to murder, and murder for money.
I used to think that the most impelling motive in life was passlon.
But in this case passion and a desire for revenge are swept
aside for money. Money is the controlling motive in this case. If
they merely wanted to kill for a thrill, if they merely wanted to
kill to satisfy his anger and hate toward this companion of his,
he would have been the victim; but they could not figure out how
they could safely get the money.
"P,atient's companion suggested that they rent a car, so they
went to the Morrison hotel and registered under the name of
Ballard. An elaboratev-
of mad boys without any purpose, without any thought either in
its planning or its execution, according to Mr. Darrow, but the doctor
says, "an elaborate plan for building up an identification was
worked out. Letters were sent to Mr. Ballard at the hotel, and a
bank account was opened in his name."
Here is a man who has no emotion ; all intellect and no emotion.
His nurse says he was kind and affectionate, obedient and respectful.
Isn't that emotion? Isn't love one of the greatest
emotions that surges through your heart? Kind and affectionate,
loving.
What does the doctor say? "The bank account was opened in
his name," and then the doctor adds in parenthesis, "When the
patient came to this point in the narrative he looked decidedly interested,
drew up his chair, talked almost in a dramatic whisper
with considerable tension, his eyes constantly roaming the room."
In fact, he showed what? Lack of emotion? Showed that he
was devoid of emotion? No, in fact, he showed intense emotional
reaction. "Herein the repetition of that which he said had been
very thrilling to him."
Who are you going to believe? The doctor, after he has been
coached, taking the stand and saying he has not any emotion, or the
doctor in the first instance when he is making a report, that he does
122
not expect you or me to see, and he stated on the stand that he
did not, and he says, in fact, he showed intense emotional reactions.
"On May 9 patient's companion went to the Rent-
and said he wished to rent a car." Well, I will pass that.
Your honor knows it.
"Mitigation," and this document is offered in mitigation of
this crime. As I said yesterday, probably I have been confused
by the use of ,all these learned terns in a strange, foreign language
that I did not understand or learn. But if this is mitigation,
my God, I would like to know what is aggravation.
"The patient's companion"-
that they get a girl."
THE COURT-
can serve no good purpose to repeat that.
MR. CROWE-
honor, for the reason . . .
THE COURT-
but don't repeat.
MR. CROWE-
THE COURT-
is no necessity of repeating that phrase with these ladies present.
You have already gone over it once, and the court is fully awake
of it.
MR. CROWE-
attention to it. Yesterday it was an argument, and today I am
reading from the report of the doctor.
THE COURT-
it ag,ain.
MR. CROWE-
THE COURT-
MR. CROWE-
one of them would do: "That they were physically small enough
to be easily handled." That is the first reason. "They didn't
want to take a boy that might put up a fight and get the best
of it." That was one reason why they discarded the first boy,
who was bigger than they were, and the second reason was the
difficulty of getting the money, "One who was physically small
enough to be easily handled, and their parents were extremely
wealthy and who would have no difficulty or disinclination to pay
ransom money."
What is the motive? All the way through the report, all the
way through the confession-
123
boys' identities were not sought other times, when the doctors
are not anxious to get all of the facts.
Now, continuing on page 102: "Since they planned to kidnap
a boy who was known to them, because it would be easy to lure
him into their automobile, they felt that it was necessary to kill
him at once."
Why? For the thrill? For the excitement? The only reason
that Mr. Darrow can assign for this mad act of mad boys,
that they did it for thrill or excitement? Oh, no. This is what
they told the doctor.
"A boy who was known to them," etc., "they felt it was necessary
to kill him at once, to avoid any possible identification of
themselves by the victim, should he escape, or their plans go
awry." That is the motive here. The kidnaping was planned
for ransom. They wanted the money first, ,and they were going
to kidnap a boy to get the money. Then to make sure they were
picking the right fellow, whose folks were wealthy, and who
could pay the ransom, they had to pick a boy they knew and who
knew them.
Then the motive for the murder was their own self-
You do not have to take my word for it. Take the word
of the doctors hired by the ,alienists, who say the boys told them
that themselves.
It was necessary to kill him at once, to avoid any possible identification
by the victim should he escape, or their plans go awry.
Was this killing done as we have been led to believe by the defense,
merely for the thrill, your honor, or the excitement? What
does the doctor further say on that?
"The p,atientW-
with any pleasure."
It was not for the thrill or the excitement. The original crime
was the kidnaping for money. The killing was an afterthought,
to prevent their identification, and their subsequent apprehension
and punishment. He said he did not anticipate the ltilling with
,any pleasure. It was merely necessary in order to get the
money. Motive? "The killing apparently has no other significance"-
now, this is not my argument, your honor, but in their
own report, their own evidence . . .
"The killing apparently has no other significance than being
an inevitable part of a perfect crime in covering one possible trace
of identification."
Drs. Hulbert ,and Bowman were told by these defendants, as
I told your honor, that the killing had no significance here except
to prevent their being apprehended and convicted if the victim
escaped. That is the motive for the murder, self-
the same as a thief in the night in your house, when suddenly
124
surprised, shoots to kill. Why? He did not go into your house
to kill; he went in to rob. The killing had no significance, except
he did not want to be apprehended; the desire, the urge of selfpreservation.
And that is the only significance that the murder
in this case has. -
Not the thrill, as we have been told, not a desire for excitement,
but they killed for exactly the same reason that the burglar
caught at night kills for, exactly the same reason that Krauser
killed when he was robbing the Atlantic & Pacific Tea Store.
He did not go into the A. & P. store with murddr in his heart.
He went in with greed, just as they went into this kidnaping.
He killed because he did not want to be apprehended.
See whether they took delight .and pleasure in this killing foy
the mere wantonness of killing. See whether the mere wantonness
of killing gave them the thrill that they tried to make you
believe. "They anticipated a few unpleasant minutes." Not
pleasant minutes; not the thrill and the delight and the fast beatin&
heart that they tell you Dickie Loeb has, if he has got a heart
at ,all. "They anticipated a few unpleasant minutes in strangling
him." And I might tell you at this point, your honor, and will develon
later, that the original plan of Loeb was not to kill him with
the chisel, but they were to strangle him to death with the ropes
that they procured. He was to pull one end and Leopold the
other; and the reason he wanted that done was, as I will demonstrate
as we go on, Leopold had something on him.
Leopold knew about the crimes A, B, C and D, and in this
murder he was going to make Leopold pull the rope so he would
have something equal on Leopold.
"They anticipated a few unpleasant minutes in strangling
him." And then the doctor says in parenthesis: "The patient's
face registered the expression of disgust." No emotions.. No,
his emotions were split off from his intellect. And again the
doctor says he showed emotion; he showed disgust at the plot
to strangle that boy.
And they planned for each of them, namely, the patient and
his associate, to have hold of one end of the strangling rope and
they would pull at the same time so that both would be equally
guilty of murder. They did not seem to thing that this would give
them a closer tie in their friendship."
No thrill. No delight. It was the sharing of culpability.
"It was not anticipated that the blow on the back of the head
with the taped chisel would be fatal. "The patient stated that
he thinks that during the last week preceding the crime he
had less pleasure in his anticipation."
He didn't take the same pleasure in thinking of getting $10,000
by kidnaping the last week, because the murder end began to
worry him, and he was going to make Leopold share the guilt
125
equally of the murder. This man, who does not believe in God,
and certainly does not believe in the laws of the state of Illinois,
who has no eniotions or no heart, might be surprised to know that
it was liis own conscience bothering him the last week.
"He did not want to back out because of their extensive plans,
because of the time spent, because of the trouble they had gone to
and because of his associaate being in it with him, and he was
afrajd of what the associate would think-
They decided to get any young boy they knew."
Any young boy they knew! Is that all? "They decided to get
any young boy they knew to be of wealthy family." Money don't
enter into it.
"They had also perfected the plan for securingw-
thrill. The excitement? No. "They had also perfected the plan
for securing the money. The victim's father was to be told to
put the money in a cigar box, etc." I won't go on with that because
your honor is familiar with the details.
Again, and this is three times in the report as 'to this boy
who had no emotions and on account of lack of emotions in a
mad frenzy and in a dream committed this unthinkable crime,
on page 107 the doctors say, continuing with Loeb:
"We got the boy and disposed of him as planned on Wednesday,"
then I will skip some. "So we made our escape without
waiting for the train." What I skipped is merely the details
about sending the cab, and so on.
"We returned the car to the agency at 4:30," and the doctor's
remark in parenthesis, "At this point he choked up." His emotions
overcame him. "He choked up and he wiped his nose with
his fingers.'' He wiped away the tears.
The other fellow hasn't any emotions either, your honor, none
at all. He drove them all out when he was seven or eight or nine
or ten years of age, at the same time he passed God out of his
heart. Well, let's see what Dickie says about it.
"I had quite a time quieting down my associate." This is during
the murder, if your honor please.
"I had quite a time quieting down my associate. I cooled him
down in five minutes, after we got him into the back seat, thinking
he was alive. I got calmer, while quieting my ,associate. He was
hit on the head several times (referring to Franks). My associate
says, 'This is terrible, this is terrible.' "
Emotion or totally devoid of emotion? When he saw Loeb
knocking out the life of this boy it took Loeb five minutes to quiet
him down. He said, "This is terrible, this is terrible."
I will tell your honor, if you don't think they have got emotions,
of another instance. Some of us didn't think that Harvey Church
126
had. He told his story with the air of a braggadocio, and he
gloated apparently while he was telling the authorities how tough
a fellow he was. But when he was told to begin his march to
the gallows they carried him there in a stupor.
And if it is the fate of these two perverts that they must pay
the penalty of this crime upon the gallows, when they realize
it, you will find that they have got emotion and you will find
they have got fear, and you will find these cowardly perverts will
have to be carried to the gallows.
" 'This is terrible, this is terrible.' I told him it was all right,
and talked and laughed to calm him."
To calm him? No. "I told him it was all right, and joked
and laughed, possibly to calm myself, too." Cold-
did they put this poor little Franks boy's body into the culvert?
Unfortunately, the body was not kicked far enough into this
hole. There is that little dead body, naked, and after they shoved
it in, they kicked i t in; and the unfortunate part of it was, according
to Loeb, unfortunately the body was not kicked far enough
into this hole because a foot remained protruding, visible to a
passerby. That was the only unfortunate thing about this, that a
foot stuck out, and the body was found the next day; and they
are sitting before your honor on a plea of guilty to this murder.
He did not have any emotions. He first told the doctor, in accordance
with his own ideas or his training, that he got a kick
out of the whole thing; and then he began to get a little more
truthful to the doctor.
"He first stated that he got more of a kick in discussing it
with his own family, but later changed his statement, and said
that he felt he got a little less kick because he had some slight remorse.
His mother said that whoever did it should be tarred
and feathered."
What does that mean? A mob ought to take him. We have
heard Mr. Darrow talk repeatedly of the hoarse cry of the angry
mob. There is no danger or no fear of us hearing the hoarse
cry of the angry mob if the extreme penalty is visited here. I am
not so sure otherwise.
"On the other hand the patient was a little worried." Well,
what is worry? Worry is an emotion the same as fear, the same
as love. "Worried by the attitude of his father." I would like to
direct your honor's attention to what I have got marked there
(handing the Bowman-
particularly the word "decent," showing the attitude of mind of
some of these defense alienists when they refer to childish pacts,
and so on. I will skip that. Do you want to look at it?
Now let us find out how he has acted in jail, your honor: "He
has shown nothing unusual in his behavior in jail" Acts just like a
127
normal, sane person. "He has shown nothing ur~usual in his behavior
in jail."
Of course after this report had been given to the lawyers
and the doctors from the East they had to add to it ,a little bit,
just as they did about the epilepsy, and Doc White brought in
a lot of things that are not in this report, and someone else
brought the unusual conduct of the defendant while he was in jail,
wearing an old coat and so on.
But these two doctors, when the defense was young and had
not matured, say he showed nothing unusual in his behavior in
jail; his life was quiet and well ordered.
He eats and sleeps well; even going to sleep while his associate
w,as being examined in the same room.
Dr. Krohn has been criticized for saying that these defendants
were correctly oriented in all three manners. Let us see what
these three doctors say. "He is correctly oriented in the three
spheres." He knows his name, he knows where he is, he knows
what is going on.
"He takes a lively interest in the jail routine, and in the ,affairs
of other prisoners, speaki.ng of their crimes and their prospects
in the usual jail phraseology, such as 'I think so-
'rope' or I think so-
Is there anything in his conduct in the jail that these doctors
discovered, to indicate a mad boy who wants to do a ma& act?
Or is it just the conduct of normal people, people who are responsible
to the law for theiqviolations of it?
I do not intend to take up any more time than I deem necessary.
Your honor has been extremely patient with the state
and with the defense in this case, but I think that your honor realizes,
,as most everybody realizes, the tremendous importance of
this case, and the fact that it should be tried in an orderly manner,
according to the laws of the state; and where human lives or
the enforcement of the law is concerned, time is of little moment.
I just want to call your attention to one or two little 'things
which show th,at this was not a purposeless crime of mad boys
traveling around in a dream. In the Rulbert-
doctors say :
"The boys arranged to have their rented car, with a back cloth
over the license plate, backed up to the tracks at the place where
the box would be thrown. They had timed the train, they had
arranged that if the train was late, it probably meant that there
had been some flaw in their plans, and that the father had sought
aid, whereupon they would drive away in the car and not wait
for the train."
Planning, deliberating, working out the moat minute details,
they were perfectly assured that their plans were so perIect that
they themselves would never be suspected, and of course would
nkver be apprehended.
And nothing in my judgment but an act of God, an act of
Providence, was responsible for the unraveling of this terrible
crime. I think that when the glasses that Leopold had not worn
for three months, glasses that he no longer needed, dropped from
his pocket at night, the hand of God was at work in this case.
He may not believe in God, but if he has listened and paid attention
and thought as the evidence was unfolded, he must begin
to believe there is a God now.
No thought of money, a mad act committed by mad boys in a
dream; money did not enter into it, and yet they tell the doctor
and he tells us: "They planned to divide the $10,000 equally";
and I believe one of our alienists expressed it-
it fifty-
I have repeatedly referred to the fact that they tried to create
an impression when the doctors were examining them that they
were perfectly frank; they co-
not distort; they did not hold back any evidence; and that is the
sworn testimony of the three doctors from the East.
Let as find out whether thkt is true or not. I suspected and I
tried to get them to admit on cross-
education and intellect, boys who could plan a crime of this
sort stretching over a period of six months and attend to every
minute detail, boys who showed such an abandoned and malignant
he,art, as the facts in this case show that they possessed, might
possibly, when caught like rats, lie just a little bit to friendly
doctors who were trying to build up a defense for them to save
their worthless lives.
Oh, no, that is impossible. Everything they told us was true.
They withheld nothing. They distorted nothing. They suppressed
nothing.
Well let's see what they say about it in the report that was
intended to be a secret report and was not to fall into your hands
or into mine:
"The boy is apparently frank, but is not absolutely so, sometimes
distorting his statements, but without anything to indicate
it, and sometimes suppresses much data."
I wonder, is it possible they did fool Old Doc Yak from Washington,
and I wonder whether it was necessary to fool him. I
wonder whether he was not willing to try to fool the court? Back
to motive again, on page 116: "He had no hatred toward the boy.
As the hate of his first planned victim disappeared, the excitement
of planning grew, and money developed as an afterthought.
129
Neither he nor his associate would have done it without the money.
That extra $5,000 would have been his security."
Have they any interest in the money? "We anticipated especially
the money," in the language of Loeb, and then the doctor
adds in parenthesis, "Facial expression of interest." "We thought
we had it all so cleverly worked out, and we felt certain at not
being caught. We felt certain of not being caught or we would
not have gone into it."
Is that the mad talk of a mad boy; or it that the cold-
reasoning of a man who is a criminal, with a criminal heart and
a superior intelligence and education?
And again, if your honor please, the doctor says: "I asked
him if he would go through this plan again if he felt certain that
he would not be discovered. He replied, 'I believe I would.' "
Why? Darrow says $10,000 is not the motive, but take it
from his own lips, "I believe I would if I could get the money."
The patient's attention was called to a newspaper account of
an interview with Mrs. Franks, the mother of the victim, in which
she stated she had no desire to see the boys hanged, but would like
to talk to them to know whether the boy suffered in his last moments.
The patient was asked whether it would upset him at all to
talk with Mrs. Franks. He repliedhe thought it would upset him
a little and make him feel sad. He said when he read this interview
in the paper, "My first feeling was joy."
There has been some talk here, in order to make him appear
to be mad, that he even contemplated killing his little brother,
Tommy, or killing his father. The evidence in this case shows that
that is just thrown in for good measure, that it has no foundation
in fact at all. It is another piece of perjury, manufactured in order
to build a foundation for a perjured inssanity defense.
Now, I told your honor about A, B, C, and D, that these doctors
decided that it was forensically inadvisable to go into, that it
might hurt the defense if it was gone into, and for that reason
they did not go into it.
I told you at that time I would prove by this report that Loeb
had committed major crimes, four of them, that he would not even
tell his lawyers about, that he would not tell the doctors about, and
they concluded it was a bad thing to make inquiry about; that Leopold
knew about these and that Loeb was afraid of Leopold; that
he contemplated killing him so that he would not be in his power.
I told your honor, and I have no desire to repeat it, the use that
Leopold made of that information and the method in which he
blackmailed Loeb. Now, let us see what the evidence is on that:
"The patient and his associate were on very intimate terms,
but the patient stated that his associate often stated that he would
130
never entirely trust the patient, since the time the associate had
found that the patient was taking unfair financial advantage of
him." Or in other words that he did not have the honor that is
supposed to exist among thieves. Loeb was robbing Leopold.
"In a way, I have always been sort of afraid of him. He intimidated
me by threatening to expose me and I could not stand it."
And on page 123: "Of late the patient, Loeb, had often thought
of the possibility of shooting his associate." He was afraid of
Leopold; he was afraid that Leopold might tell of A, B, C and D.
"I could not stand it. I had often thought of the possibility of
shooting him."
And again, your honor: "He often contemplated shooting his
associate when they were out together and had the associate's
revolvers along. He thought of pointing the revolver at his associate
and shooting him. He denied ever having thought of hit:
ting him over the head with a chisel.
"The ide,a of murdering a fellow, especially alone-
think I could have done it. If I could have snapped my fingers, and
make him pass away in a heart attack, I would have done it."
Now, we can understand why the doctors in their testimony
suppressed this part of the testimony. Now we can understand
what A, B, C and D are.
"One reason why he never murdered Leopo1d"-
says "associate"-
and there was no very safe way of doing it."
And one reason why he did not kill Leopold w.as that he knew
of no safe way of doing it and he might have been suspected.
Well, it might have been a good thing if he could have planned
as safe a way to kill Leopold as he did to kill Bobby Franks and
then have stopped there.
He might have carried it a little further and committed suicide,
and I think the community-
but I do not think their grief would have lasted long.
"In connection with this he had often contemplated murdering
his associate and securing a new pal." Somebody who would have
nothing on him.
"He states that he had often contemplated hitting his associate
over the head with a pistol, later shooting him, breaking the crystal
of his watch, robbing him, leaving things in a way to create
the impression that his associate had been robbed, that there had
been a struggle, and he had been killed during the struggle."
I direct your honor's attention to this :
"He contemplated escape from jail, but he does not want to do
this, for it would distress his family to have him disappear and be
131
1
known either as a criminal or an insane person. Before he de-
Allan, He thinks an escape could be managed by spending a few 1 thousand dollars, by bribing the guards at the jail and by someone 1 giving him a gun. I
"He says this withaut any sw,agger, as though it was only a j
matter of careful detailed planning, which his mind can do. He i
has made no plans as to where he would go should he escape." 4
I
Then the doctors add: "It must be borne in mind that Tommy
O'Connor, one of the most desperate and one of the most intelligent 1
criminals Chicago has ever known, did make a successful jail de-
What a feelini of comfort and security the mothers and fath-
ers of this town would have, with their children going back and :
forth upon the streets of Chicago to school, and these two mad dogs
at large.
Let us find out about this superman stuff: "He often discussed
morals with his associates, who insisted to him that the only
wrong he, the patient, can do is to make a mistake, that anything
that gives him pleasure is right for him to do."
Let's find out what judgment and credence Loeb paid to that
statement. Quoting him literally, he says: "I took this statement
with a great big dose of salt. Smile."
Well, he knew Leopold, and he knew when Leopold was joking,
and he knew when he was in earnest,and when he talked about
the superman theory he says, "I took it with a great big dose of
salt. Smiles." But the doctors swallowed it as if it was sugar.
"He says he is not sorry for his present predicament." There
isn't anybody in town that feels as bad as Loeb does about his
present predicament. "He says that he is sorry for his present
predicament for his family's sake. He doesn't know what should
be done to him. He felt that the law should take its course, unless
he could avoid it in some other way."
Now that is probably by escape, by bribing guards, and as he
says, that is not out of the question Tomniy O'Connor got out and
he is out yet. ,
Talk about life imprisonment in the penitentiary.
He would repeat maybe if he knew he would not be discovered.
Is that mitigation, your honor? All the way through this report
runs the statement, "I would kill again if I thought I could get .
away with it," and they offer that in mitigation for the murder.
"When he and his associate quarreled in March the ,patient
considered securing another friend for his criminal operations.
He stated that he had considered crimes similar to that of
~toretz, who had put through a gigantic stock swindle. If Mr.
Darrow had read this I think he would have blamed Koretz for
this murder.
132
On page 131: "The patient's high intellectual functions are intact;
he is obviously of high intelligence. The examination was
extensive, but did not show any pathology except the low basal'
metabolism."
That was the only thing that this extensive examination showed,
and not a sign of pathology at all. "He is correctly oriented,
and in excellent contact with his surroundings. He denies any
hallucinatory experiences, and there is no evidence of their presence.
He has no feeling that people are against him or that he
is being treated unfairly at the present time. Patient is intensely
selfish and wrapped up in his own thoughts and feelings."
Heredity, finally Mr. Darrow says: the family, 'or some ancestor
away back, planted the seed here. Hereditary influence.
Well, let us see what the doctors say: "There is nothing about
the patient's condition to show any evidence of a hereditary nature,
and there is not the slightest reason to suppose that a condition
of this kind will be transmitted to future generations by
any of his relatives.
"This condition is acquired within the life history of the individual,
and dies out when he dies.
"There is nothing elicited from a most careful and painstaking
history from all possible sources to suggest that the family,
either by omission or commission, contributed toward his delinquencies
in the way they trained this boy."
Is your honor going to be more influenced by an argument
of Mr. Darrow that Dickie is not responsible for this, that his
family is; that it is due to heredity and training, or are you going
to be more influenced by the statement of their doctors?
Continuing with the Bowman-
person talking is Leopold and not Loeb.
"The reason why they agreed to strangle the victim with
a rope, to their mind, was that that would make them equally
guilty of the crime."
In other words, all this king and slave fantasy is a mere figment
of the 'imagination. The real tie that binds in this case is
that one was a criminal ; the other had something on him.
He was afraid of exposure ; he contemplated murdering him,
and the other one blackmailed him in the manner that I have
already indicated. Loeb wanted to shut the mouth of Leopold
and then break with him. Leopold had enough on him, on A,
B, C, and D, and that is why he wanted Leopold to help him
choke the life out of little Bobby Franks.
No emotion in the superman Leopold? No, he killed all his
emotions before he came into court, on the advice of counsel and
the advice of doctors.
* 133
But when he is talking he says: "It was necessary to hit the
victim several times over the head and he bled some. This
upset the patient a great deal. He said to his companion, 'My
God, this is awful.'
"He experienced a sinking feeling in the pit of his stomach;
his hands trembled, he lost some of his self control. His companion,
however, laughed and joked and helped the patient to
get back his self control."
When they got to the culvert they found the boy had already
died and they could not carry out their original scheme of strangling
him with the ropes.
Again: "Asked whether he would commit another such crime
if he were certain that he could escape detection, he replied, 'I
would not commit another such crime because I realize that no
one can ever be sure of escaping detection.' "
H'e feels that this would be the only reason that would keep
him from another such attempt. That there would be no question
of remorse or guilt entering into it.
The desire to save their own worthless hides is the only
thing that enters into their thoughts.
1
When he is not posing to prepare a defense based on the
fact that he has no emotion, when he is not posing, these doctors
say he shows a great deal of emotion. Why, your honor,
it really would be too bad if these two young fellows imposed
on Old Doc Yak, lied to him. I showed to you what Loeb said
he would do. I showed to you in this report what he has done.
He has lied repeatedly to the doctors. He has lied under advice
of counsel and family. He has suppressed and distorted.
Money was always uppermost in their minds when they
talk about this kidnaping, and the murder, as I have explained,
is an afterthought, in order to protect themselves. Psychiatric
observations. We live and learn. "Patient's intellectual functions
are intact"-
of high intelligence. He is correctly oriented, and in
excellent contact with his surroundings."
Let's see what Leopold said he would do:
He seems to be reasonably frank during the examinations,
particularly with regard to his own feelings and emotions and
his estimate of himself. On the other hand, he undoubtedly
omits certain data regarding some of his past experiences. He
lied rather plausibly at times.
"Later, when he realized that it was known he was lying, 1
he appeared perfectly unconcerned. A number of times he inquired
whether his story agreed with his companion's and seemed
to show a great deal of concern about this matter.
"In fact, he did this so crudely it was apparent that he was
concerned lest there be some failure of their stories to coincide."
In other words, both of them are lying, both of them have
lied, both have suppressed things and hid them from their doctors,
and they had to do it in order to give a basis of that insanity
defense here.
Both of them had been schooled and trained and instructed
as to what to tell these doctors and what not to tell them, and
when he is telling his story he is concerned lest there be some
failure of their stories to coincide, lest one of them might forget
or the other might forget.
The same argument was made by Mr. Darrow with reference
to Leopold as was made to Loeb: First he began to blame the
old German philosopher Nietzsche, although every student in
every university for the last twenty-
And then I guess he thought that would not do because if
reading his philosophy would be an excuse for this crime, how
about the countless thousands who have gone before and who
are still reading this philosophy who lead decent, honorable
lives?
He did not have a poor old nurse in this case to blame, and
he was not quite satisfied in blaming some remote ancestor,'so
he blames their parents, respectable, decent, law abiding citizens.
The only unfortunate thing that ever ca'me into their life
was to have a snake like Leopold in that decent family. Casting
blame where blame was not due, but where sympathy should
go out, as it does from the heart of every person in this community,
to the respected families of these men.
But Mr. Darrow says, "No. Save your sympathy for the boys.
Do not place the blame on the boys. Place it on their families.
This is the result of heredity."
May I be permitted, if your honor please, for a few moments
to read you some prose?
"The White House, Washington, D. C., Aug. 8, 1904.-
application for commutation of sentence of John W. Burley is
denied. This man committed the most heinous crime known to
our laws. Twice before he has committed crimes of a similar
but less terrible character. In my judgment there is no judgment
whatever for paying heed to the allegation that he is not of sound
mind-
this case.
No person in all this broad land who knew these two defendants
ever suspected that they were mentally diseased until
after Bachrach and Darrow were retain4 to defend them in
136
a case where they had no escape on the facts, If I had taken
them into custody on the 20th day of May and attempted to
have them committed to an insane asylum Mr. Darrow would
have been here, their families would have been here, and all the
.doctors they co~lld hire; and there would be only one crazy man
in the courtroom, and that would be the state's attorney.
"Nobody would pretend that there has ever been any such
degree of mental unsoundness shown as would make people
even consider sending him to an asylum if he had not committed
this crime. Under such circumstances, he should certainly be
esteemed sane enough to suffer the penalty for his monstrous
deed." And the penalty in this case was hanging.
I have scant sympathy with the plea of insanity advanced
to save a man from the consequences of crime .when, unless
that crime had been committed, it would have been impossible
to persuade any reasonable authority to commit him to an
asylum as insane.
Would it be possible in this case, if this crime had not been
committed, to persuade any reasonable authority to commit
either to an asylum as insane?
Among the most dangerous criminals, and especially among
those prone to commit this particular kind of offense, there are
plenty of a temper so fiendish or brutal as to be incompatible
with any other than a brutish order of intelligence; but these
men are nevertheless responsible for their acts; and nothing
more tends to encourage crime among such men than the belief
that through the plea of insanity or any other method it is possible
for them to escape paying the just penalty of their crimes.
The crime in question is one to the existence of which we largely
owe the existence of that spirit of lawlessness which takes form
in lynching. It is a crime so revolting that the criminal is not
entitled to one particle of sympathy from any human being.
And I submit, if your honor please, the crime at bar is so
revolting that the criminals are not entitled to one particle of
sympathy from any human being. I continue the reading:
"It is essential that punishment for it should be not only as
certain but as swift as possible. The jury in this case did their
duty by recommending the infliction of the death penalty. It is
to be regretted that we do not have special provision for more
summary dealing with this type of cases."
What is to be regretted in this case, if your honor please,
that under the laws as you have found them we have no more
summary manner of dealing with the case at bar. But this is
a community of law, and this community will survive or fall as
we enforce our laws and respect them. I continue the reading:
1
"Theemore we do what in us lies to secure a certain and
swift justice in dealing with these cases, the more-
do we work against the growth of that lynching spirit which is
so full of evil omen for this people, because it seeks to avenge
one infamous crime by the commission of another of equal
infamy.
"The application is denied, and the sentence will be carried
into effect."
I submit, if your honor please, that it is safer to follow the
reasoning of this state document than it is to follow the sophistries
of Clarence Darrow. I submit that it is safer to' follow
the philosophy of Theodore Roosevelt as he laid it down in this
great state paper when he was President of the United States,
and was only concerned with the enforcement of the law, than
it is to follow the weird and uncanny philosophy of the paid
advocate of the defense, whose business it is to make murder
safe in Cook county;
Now, if your honor please, the other day Mr. Darrow argued
that the state advanced the silly argument that these boys
were gamblers, and they gambled for high stakes.
He said the only evidence we had to predicate such a charge
on was theitestimony of Leon Mandel, who had played one
game of bridge with them, and who said that in that game
they played for 5 cents or 10 cents a point.
The trouble with Mr. Darrow is that he does not know all
the facts in this case. He does not know all the evidence.
I thank God that I am not a great pleader, because I think
that sometimes when men are obsessed with the idea that when
they open their mouth words of wisdom rush out, that all that
is necessary in the trial of a case is to make a wonderful
argument, that that is why a great many of them fail, in my judgment,
because they rely too much upon their oratory.
They pay no attention whatever to the facts in the case,
and, after all, I believe that courts and juries are influenced
not by oratory, but by hard facts sworn to by witnesses.
Now let us see whether there is any other evidence in thiq
case. Among the letters introduced in evidence we find ths
following, Allan M. Loeb, 2465 Utah av., Seattle, Wash. Allan
Loeb is the generalissimo of the defense.
He is the one who is advising young Loeb whether or not
he ought to tell the doctors this or whether he ought to tell the
lawyers that.
This letter was mailed May 19, 1924, and probably mas received
by Richard Loeb the day of the murder. Marked "Personal."
"Dear Dick-
would be no possible chance of dad seeing it. Glad to hear
about Sammy Schmaltz, but could that amount have been possibly
reversed. . . " 137
In other words, as I read this letter, and as your honor will
read it after I get all through, he was glad to hear he had won
some money, but could that amount have been possibly reversed,
could he have lost it instead of winning it?
"If so, you are all wrong, in your gambling, and even so"
-
be shooting a little too high. Did you get cash?" Or did
he pay on an I. 0. U., I suppose. "Best love, Allen."
Another letter from one of his companions:
"Robert L. Leopold, 530 Thompson st., Ann Arbor, Mich.
Dear Dick-
to you for help. I have an exam in history, 17, and know nothing
about it.
"Furthermore, my notes are no good. You said last semester
that you would let me take your notes in the course. Please
send them to me right away if you can. My exam is next Friday
and I must study. Please drop me a line and let me know,
so I know whether to plan on them or not.
"I am damn sorry that we couldn't see each other while I was
home, but you are always so -
home.
"But I always feel as though I am intruding when you guys
are gambling, because I don't gamble that high. At any rate,
better luck next time when home. Thanks in advance for your
trouble. "Sincerely, Bobby."
It is in evidence in this case, if your honor please, that both of
these defendants had a bank account. We put a witness on the
stand, an employe of Sears-
to time she gave checks to the defendant Loeb here. She told
about two checks for $250.
His allowance was $250 a month, so they say. The Charlevoix
bank statement shows that on March 15, 1923, he deposited $141.-
55 ; March 25, $125 ; May 16, $345 ; May 31, $300-
1923-
July 21, $50; August 27, $155; August 28, $175; September 8, i
d
$300; September 19, $302.75. Where did he get it? These are not
checks for $250 from Sears-
at the Hyde Park State Bank.
It shows as follows on deposits: October 1, 1923, $485; October
-
$100; November 19, $730; November 28, $175. Business was good
that month. December 24, $420; January 14, $400; February 6
(that is, in this year), $425; February 14, $230; March 14, $137;
April 16, $350; April 25, $100; May 15 (the week before the
murder) $536.51. And where did he get it?
138
April 16, 1924, $350; April 25, $100. That is, 1924. Where
did he get it?
MR. DARROW-
MR. CROWE-
MR. DARROW-
THE COURT-
10 :30 o'clock.
1 On the morning of August 28 Mr. Crowe spoke as follows:
May it please your honor, before resuming my argument in
this case, and not that it has anything to do particularly with the
case at bar, I might report as state's attorney of this county to
the chief justice of the Criminal court that last night Antone Valania,
age nineteen, and young Lydon, sixteen, confessed to the state's
attorney of Cook county that they murdered a woman for $60.
One of them went to the severfth grade in the grammar school;
a sister at the age of seventeen was a prostitute and shoplifter.
When I left off last night, your honor, I had called attention to
the fact that the defendant Loeb had in the Hyde Park State Bank
and the bank of Charlevoix a sum somewhat over $3,000. I read
off the deposits, showing that in some months he deposited as
high as $700, $800 or $900, and the testimony on behalf of the
defense is here that he had an allowance of $250 a month. That
can be construed as evidence either in support of the contention
of the state that these men gambled for high stakes, higher than
their millionaire friends could afford to gamble for, or it may be
considered in support of the contention of the state that A, B, C
and D were crimes committed by the defendant Loeb.
, There has been testimony here that he had bonds, Liberty
bonds, and had not clipped the coupons from them for two or
three years. Well, if they were the proceeds of a robbery, that
was an act of wisdom and discretion.
Now, if your honor please, in support of our contention that
the motive in this case was, first, money; that the original crime
planned was the crime of kidnaping; that murder was later decided
upon in order to protect them from arrest and punishment,
I do not intend to take up your honor's time by reviewing all the
evidence independent of the statements made by these defendants
to their doctors that I read to you yesterday from the Eoman-
Hulbert report; but I will direct your honor's attention to the
uncomforable afternoons that they spent along the Illinois Central
tracks, the number of times they threw a pad of paper from the
car to see where the money would light. I will direct your attention
again to the ransom letter: "Secure before noon today $10,-
000. This money must be composed entirely of old bills."
If they merely wanted to get the money and did not want to
use it, what difference whether the bills were old; what difference
whkther they were marked or unmarked if they did not intend
to spend them?
AS a final word of warning, "this is a strictly commerciql
proposition." All the way through, if your honor please, all the
way through this most unusual crime runs money, money, money. ,
And when it is not money it is blood. I think that we have
clearly established the real motive in this case. Mr. Darrow relies
upon the facts. First, he says there was no motive; second, upon
the youth of the defendants and third upon their mental condition.
I strongly suspect that the real defense in this case is not any
of those at all. The real defense in this case is Clarence Darrow
and his peculiar philosophy of life.
I quite agree with the senior Bachrach when he was clos-
ing, that they brought in a man who was an expert on punishment
to instruct your honor just what punishment you should mete out
in this case. In other words, the real defense in this case is
Clarence Darrow, and those things which he has urged upon your
honor as a defense I would like to take up in detail. As I say,
I think I have covered completely and have demonstrated beyond
the peradventure of a doubt that the only active, controlling motive
in this case was money, $10,000, and as much more as they could '
get afterward.
Now how about their health? The only thing pathologically
about Leopold is that he has calcified pineal gland. Our doctors,
Dr. Woodyat, said that did not mean anything, nobody knows, and
nobody has testified on behalf of the defense that it did mean anything.
Glands, they tell us, do not generally calcify until you are
about thirty years of age. Now some people develop earlier,in
life than others. I believe in Africa women are matured at nine
years of age and bear children at nine or ten years of age.
Leopold has developed a little earlier than the average man.
He has developed physically and mentally and if it means anything
at all it means that he has the intellect and brain and mind of
a man thirty years of age and that is all. I read to you last night
the report of Drs. Hulbert and Bowman that there was not anything
pathological about Loeb except the minus seventeen of his
basal metabolism.
And every doctor who took the stand said that that was within
the range of normality, that is the only thing that is abnormal,
that is the only thing that is diseased, according to their evidence.
And every expert who took the stand testified that that is normal,
assuming it is true.
Why, your honor can look at them. You have looked at them.
You have observed them. There is nothing the matter with them
physically. There is nothing the matter with them mentally. The
only fault is the trouble with their moral sense, and that i s not a
defense in a criminal case.
140
There is Connors, twenty-
w a sentenced July 31 for a crime of murder on a plea of guilty
by Judge Hartwell, whom your honor undoubtedly knows, because
he has sat in Cook county courts and was the former partner of
Judge Duncan of the Supreme court.
MR. DARROW-
is again?
MR. CROWE-
, of age, sentenced on a plea of guilty in the state of Illinois, July
31 of this year.
MR. DARROW-
MR. CROWE-
I submit, if your honor please, if we can take the power of
American manhood, take boys at eighteen years of age and send
them to their death in the front-
of our laws, we have an equal right to take men nineteen years of
age and take' their lives for violating those laws that these boys
gave up their lives to defend.
Ah many a boy eighteen years of age lies beneath the poppi,es in
Flanders fields who died to defend the laws of this country. We
had po compunction when he did that; why should he have any
compunction when we take the lives of men nineteen years of age
who want to tear down and destroy the laws that these brave
boys died to preserve?
We might direct your honor's attention to what is going on
over this land right at this time while this case is on trial. Alexander
Bujec, nineteen, must die in the electric chair October 17 for
the murder of his thirteen-
sentenced Aug. 20.
Mr. Darrow has referred in the case to hanging. Mr. Darrow
is a student of criminology; he has written a book on it and he says
the criminal age, the time when crimes are committed, is between
the age of seventeen and twenty-
know that the average criminal age is twenty-
If we are going to punish crime and by the punishment stop
it and the criminal age is between seventeen and twenty-
can we punish it if the age is a defense?
Mr. ~ a & o w criticized Mr. Marshall for his quotations from
Blackstone and seemed to be under the impression that we were
trying to try this case under the ancient British law.
We are trying this case, if your honor please, under the statutes
of the state of Illinois in the year 1924. They say that a boy
between ten and fourteen may have sufficient capacity to commit
a crime and be answerable for it, but it is the duty of the state to
prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he has sufficient capacity.
141
The statute which your honor is bound to enforce in this case . and the statute under which we are trying these defendants further
provides that from fourteen-
that he has the capacity to comm~at crime and is entirely and thoroughly
responsible for it.
Let us see at what age some of these men have been hanged.
Buff Higgins was hanged at the age of twenty-
was twenty-
twenty-
McCarthy, twenty-
Murray, twenty-
thirty. Louis P. Pesant, sentenced on a plea of guilty, April
15, 1904, by Judge Kersten, was twenty-
r . . .
MR. DARROW-
MR. CROWE-
"April 15,1904. Peter Neidermeyer, twenty-
twenty-
sons of multimillionaires; these were the sons of poor men-
who had no advantage in life, men who had no education, men
who had been brought up in the gutter and the slums, men who did
not develop intellectually at the early age that these men have developed
at. Richard Ivens, twenty-
two ; Thomas Jennings, twenty-
Frank Shiblewski, twenty-
same day; Ewald, twenty-
twenty-
; Albert Johnson, twenty-
O'Brien, twenty-
Zander, twenty-
who was syphilitic, who was hit in the service of his country in
the head by a chain weighing 1,000 pounds, and who was discharged
from further service physically unfit, was hanged in Cook
county at the age of twenty-
Viani, seventeen.
Brislane, twenty-
Davit, a colored man, who thought that the Lord had appointed
him to lead his race back to Africa, twenty-
twenty-
; Carl Wanderer, twenty-
Church, twenty-
your honor,a colored boy, without any of the advantages that these
men had, whose ancestors were slaves, only two or three generations
removed from savagery in Africa, and yet he paid the penalty
for the violation of the laws; Walter Krauser, sitting in the
county jail, marking off the days between now and the. day he
hangs, twenty-
waiting for October 17, when he will pay the penalty upon the
gallom.
142
d
Oh, but Mr. Darro; says, there are only six men who have
been hanged on pleas in Cook county. Now, your honor and I are
familiar enough with the practice over here not to be fooled by
that. What happens when a man gets a guilty client, and there is
no defense? He generally goes to the state's attorney, and he says,
"If you will waive the death penalty I will plead guilty." If there
is in the nature of the case any mitigating circumstances the
state's attorney says, "Yes, we will waive the death penalty.
Let's go upatairs and plead him guilty, and I will recommend
life."
But if the case is of such a nature that the state's attorney cannot
in conscience and in law waive the extreme penalty, he says,
"No, that man has got to go to a jury." And then sometimes they
do as Walter Stanton did this summer. He went before the state's
attorney and asked him would he waive the death penalty? The
state's attorney said, "No, this is a hanging case." Walter Stanton
then went in and stated the facts to Judge Steffen, and Judge
Steffen said, "If you plead him guilty I am going to hang him."
Walter Stanton then went before another judge, and there apparently
was some misunderstanding, because he pleaded the man
guilty, and when he got through the judge indicated he was going
to sentence him to hang, and then Walter Stanton nearly collapsed
and begged the court for God's sake to let him go to a jury.
The reason that courts do not hang any oftener than they do,
is because hanging cases aIways go to juries. Where the attorney
cannot make an .agreement in advance, he says, "Well, then, I am
going to take a chance with twelve men. They can't do any worse
than the court can do on a plea, and I am going to give my client
a run for his money."
Now, your honor and I know that that is the case, and Mr.
Darrow knows it is the case, and everybody who is familiar with
procedure in the Criminal court knows it is the case. It is not because
there is one law for the judge and another law for the
jury. It is not because juries must execute the law to the uttermost,
and the court has a right to sit as a friendly father. It is
a matter of fact known to everybody, that when they cannot
make an agreement with either the court or the state's attorney,
they go to juries. That is why we only have six hanged on
pleas and so many hanged on verdicts.
MR. DARROW-
that you said was before Judge Kersten?
MR. CROWE-
MR. DARROW-
look for it now, if it is too much trouble.
MR. CROWE-
MR. DARROW-
MR. CROWE-
MR. DARROW-
143
MR. CROWE-
the criminal world, and Mr. Ilarrow says the criminal world is between
seventeen and twenty-
the age at which murderr, arc committed, crimes of violence
are committed? Are we going to tell them that the new law introduced
into the statutes of Illinois by Clarence Darrow and approved
by the chief justice of the Criminal court makes it perfectly
safe for them to murder, or are we going to tell them that the
law will be vigorously enforced? 1
The law, if your honor please, is made to protect the innocent,
and it is made to protect the innocent by punishing the guilty, and
in no other way can we protect innocence or protect society.
I think, if your honor please; I have now covered the three defenses
set forth by Mr. Darrow, their age, lack of motive, and physical
and mental condition. When we get all through, Mr. Darrow
says that your honor ought to be merciful; and finally, that is his
concluding defense, he appeals to your heart and to your sympathy
and not to your mind or your conscience.
When I was listening to Mr. Darrow plead for sympathy for
these two men who showed no sympathy, it reminded me of the
story of Abraham Lincoln, about a young boy about their age
whose parents were wealthy and he murdered both of them. He
w,as an only child and he did it so that he might inherit their
money. His crime was discovered the same as this crime has been
discovered, and the court asked him for any reason he might have
why sentence of death should not be passed upon him and he
promptly replied he hoped the court would be lenient to a poor
orphan.
Robert Franks had a right to live. He had a right to the society
of his family and his friends and they had a right to his society.
These two young law students of superior intelligence, with
more intelligence than they have heart, decided that he must die.
He was only fourteen. These two law students knew under the
law if you had a right to take a life you had a right to take i t at
fourteen, and they thought they had a right to take his life, and
they proceeded to take it.
I don't know whether I gave the age of Bernard Grant, who is
sentenced to die on Oct. 17 of this year by your confrere, Judge
Hebel. Bernard Grant is nineteen years of age.
Mr. Darrow quoted considerable poetry to you and I would like
again to be indulged while I read a little bit of prose.
"Crime and criminals. If I looked at jails and crime and prisoners
in the way the ordinary person does, I should not speak on
this subject to you."
This is an address delivered to the prisoners in the county
jail, if your honor please:
"The reason I talk to you on the question of crime, its cause and
cure, is because I really do not believe the least in crime. There
is no such thing as a crime, as the word is generally understood.
I do not believe that there is any sort of distinction between the
real moral condition in and out of jail. One is just as good as the
other. The people here can no more help being here than the
people outside ean avoid being outside. I do not believe that people
are in jail because they deserve to be. They are in jail simply
because they cannot avoid it, on ,account of circumstances which
are entirely beyond their control and for which they are in no
way responsible.
"I suppose a great many people 'on the outside would say I was
doing you harm if they should hear what I have to say to you this
afternoon, but you cannot be heard a great deal, anyway, so it will
not matter. The good people outside would say that I was really
teaching you things that were calculated to injure society, but it
is worth while now and then to hear something different from what
you ordinarily get from preachers and the like. They will tell
you that you should be good and then you will be rich and be.
happy. Of course, we know that people don't get rich by being
good, and that is the reason why so many of you people try to get
rich some other way, only you don't understand how to do it quite
as well as the fellow outside.
"There are some people who think that everything in this
world is an accident, but re,ally there is no such thing as an accident.
A great many persons feel that many of the people in
jail ought not to be there and many of those outside ought to be
in. I think none of them ought to be here. There ought to be
no jails, and if it were not for the fact that the peopIe on the
outside are so grasping and heartless in their dealing with the
people on the inside, there would be no such institutions as jails.
"When I ride on the street cars I am held up. I pay five cents
a ride for what is worth two and a half cents, simply because
a body of men have been bribed-
and the legislature so that all the rest of us have to pay tribute
to them. If I didn't want to fall into the clutches of the gas trust
and chose to burn oil instead of gas, then good Mr. Rockefeller
holds me up.
"Letme see whether there is any connection between this crime
of the respectable classes in your presence and the jail. Many
of you I believe are in jail because you have really committed
burglary; .many of you because you have stolen something within
the meaning of the law; you have taken some other person's
property. Some of you may have entered a store and carried
off a pair of shoes because you did not have the price. Possibly
some of you have committed murder. I cannot tell what all of
you did. There are a great many people here who have done
some of these things who really don't know themselves why they
did them. I thlnk I know why you did them, every one of YOU.
You did these things because you were bound to do them.' It
looked to you at the time as if you had a chance to do them or not,
as you saw fit, but still after all you had no choice. There are
many people who had some money in their pocket and still went
out and got some more money in a way society forbids."
~ u s tth e same as these two defendants, while they had some
money in the bank, they went out to get more money in a manner
that society forbids.
"Now, you may not yourself see exactly why it was you did
this, but if you look at the question deeply enough and carefully
enough you will see that there were circumstances that drove
you to do exactly the thing which you did.
"You could not help it any more than we outside can help
take the position we will take. The reformers will tell you to
be good 'and you will be happy and people who have property to
protect think the only way to do is to build jails and lock you
up on week days and pray for you on Sundays.
"I think all this has nothing whatever to do with right conduct.
Some so-
handy; it means nothing to me, I speak of the criminal who gets
caught as distinguished from the criminal who catches themsome
of these so-
but nine-
lawyer, and, of course, you did not have a good lawyer because
you did not have enough money to pay a good lawyer. There is
no very great danger of a rich man going to jail.
"There is a bill before the legislature of this state to punish
kidnaping of children with death. We have wise members of
the legislature. They know the gas trust when they see it, and
they always see it. They can furnish light enough to be seen.
And this legislature thinks it is going to stop kidnaping of children
by making a law punishing kidnapers of children with
death."
MR. DARROW-
this. It is not in evidence. It was an address delivered twentyfive
years ago.
MR. CROWE-
is evidence?
MR. DARROW-
MR. CROWE-
MR. DARROW-
expressed my views freely in a book which Judge Crowe is fairly
familiar with and has quoted here. This is simply a talk twentyfive
years ago. It hasn't anything to do with this case.
THE COTJRT-
has no bearing on this case particularly, except what he has said
146
or done during this trial. The court will not give great consideration
to any readings or lectures in any way in determining what
should be done with these two young men, who have pleaded
guilty of this murder.
MR. CROWE-
his philosophy of life, something has been accomplished in this
trial.
"I believe that progress is purely a question of the p]easurable
units that we get out of life. The pleasure-
is the only correct theory of morality and the only way of judgz
ing life."
That is the doctrine of Leopold. That is the doctrine expounded
last Sunday in the press of Chicago by Clarence
Darrow.
I want to tell you the real defense in this case, your honor.
It is Clarence Darrow's dangerous philosophy of life. He said
to your honor that he was not pleading alone for these two younq
men. He said he was looking to the future, that he was thinking
of the 10,000 young boys that in the future would fill the chairs
his clients fill, and he wants to soften the law. He wants them -
treated not with the severity that the law of this state prescribes,
but he wants them treated with kindness and consideration.
I want to tell your honor that it would be much better if God
had not caused this crime to be disclosed. It would have been
much better if it went unsolved and these men went unwhipped
of justice. It would not have done near the harm to this community
as will be done if your honor, as Chief Justice of this
great court, puts your official seal upon the doctrines of anarchy
preached by Clarence Darrow as a defense in this case.
Society can endure, the law can endure and criminals escape,
but if a court such as this should say that he believes in the doetrine
of Darrow, that you ought not to hang when the law says
you should, a greater blow has been struck at our institutions
than a hundred, yes, a thousand murders.
Mr. Darrow has preached in this case that one of the ha$dicaps
the defendants are under is that they are rich, the sons of
multimillionaires. I have already stated to your honor that if
it was not for their wealth Darrow would not be here and the
Bachrachs would not be here. If it was not for their wealth
we would not have been regaled by all this tommyrot by the three
wise men from the east.
I don't want to refer to this any more than Mr. Darrow did,
but he referred to it and it is in evidence, and he tried to make
your honor believe that somebody lied, that Gortland lied when
he talked about a friendly judge.
On June 10, 1924, in the Chicago Herald and Examinerthat
W s before this case had been assigned to anybody; that
141
/
I
was when Darrow was announcing and he did announce in this
same article, that they were going to plead not guilty-
was an article written by Mr. Slattery, sitting back there, on
June 10 :
"The friendly judge resort suggested for the defense will
be of no avail. It was mentioned as a possibility that a plea of
guilty might be entered on the understanding it would result
in life sentence. If this becomes an absolute probability, Crowe
announced that he will nolle prosse the case and re-
slayers."
Did Gortland lie? He gave the name of witness after witness
that he told the same story to, as he told it to Slattery, before
the case was even assigned.
He says that was told to him by Leopold. I don't know
whether your honor . . .
MR. DARROW-
MR. CROWE-
was told him by Leopold. I don't know whether your honor believes
that officer or not, but I want to tell you, if you have observed
the conduct of their attorneys and their families with one honorable
exception, and that is the old man who sits in sackcloth
and ashes and who is entitled to the sympathy of everybody,
old Mr. Leopold, with that one honorable exception, everybody
connected with the case has laughed and sneered and jeered,
and if the defendant, Leopold, did not say that he would plead
guilty before a friendly judge, his actions demonstrated that
he thinks he has got one.
MR DARROW-
It has not any place in a court of justice-
MR. CROWE-
am replying to it.
MR. DARROW-
MR. CROWE-
'THE COURT-
have that statement written up.
MR. CROWE-
and kindness and consideration to the state and the defense.
I am going not going to unduly trespass upon your honor's
time, and I am going to close for the state.
I believe that the facts and circumstances proven in this case
demonstate that a crime has been committed by thesse two defendants
and that no other punishment except the extreme pen-
alty of the law will fit, and I leave the case with you on behalf of
the state of Illinois, and I ask your honor in the language of the
Holy Writ to "execute justice and righteousness in the land."
| Leopold |
| Loeb |
| Together |
| Together (2) |
| Alibi |
| False Identity |
| Interrogations |
| Confession |
| Confession (2) |
| Grand Jury |