For the Thrill of It: Leopold, Loeb, and the Murder That Shocked Jazz Age Chicago (58 page)

AUTHOR’S NOTE

Several years ago, on a wintry afternoon just a few weeks before Christmas, I found myself in London, in the part of the city known as King’s Cross, close by the railroad station of the same name. I had to return to Brighton, a town on the south coast, that evening. I had an afternoon to kill before my departure from London, but I had no thoughts of spending the remainder of my time in King’s Cross, then a notoriously seedy and dilapidated neighborhood. But, in the near distance, just ahead, I could see a large, ornate building, with rococo decoration, painted in red and green with touches of gold. The legendary Scala cinema! It was one of London’s few remaining repertory cinemas, first opened in 1920, a glorious behemoth of a building with more than 1,000 seats in its auditorium. The film that afternoon was
Rope
, one of Alfred Hitchcock’s classics, and on a whim I bought a ticket and entered. Two hours later I came away intrigued by Hitchcock’s portrayal of two young men who murder a friend for the thrill of the experience.

I had never previously heard of the Leopold-Loeb case; but as I began to learn more about the events in Chicago in 1924, I realized that no one had yet written a book that considered the episode in its complexity and intricacy. No one, moreover, had written about the science that was so prominent a part of the courtroom battle between Clarence Darrow and Robert Crowe. What did the defense hope to show through its scientific analysis of the defendants? How would the state’s attorney counter the scientific evidence? Would the scientific testimony of the psychiatrists and the endocrinologists convince its intended audience, the judge?

Much of this book reflects my education and training as a historian. It has been my great fortune to have studied and taught at many magnificent universities. My greatest intellectual debt has been to my teachers in the history of science at the University of Pennsylvania. As a student at Penn, I learned a proposition that now seems commonplace—that science is as much a cultural construct as it is a body of knowledge—but that then, in the 1980s, seemed radical and innovative. Penn possesses those resources for learning that one would expect of a member of the Ivy League—great teachers, outstanding libraries, and a supportive environment—and my studies at the university were both pleasant and productive.

I began this project during a three-year fellowship in the history of medicine at the National Institutes of Health (NIH) in Bethesda, Maryland. The research and writing continued during an appointment from 2004 to 2006 as a visiting associate professor of history at George Mason University, and the book has now come to its conclusion during my first year as an associate professor at John Jay College, City University of New York. At all three institutions—NIH, Mason, and John Jay—I have been blessed with stimulating colleagues, a welcoming environment, and access to great libraries, all of which have contributed greatly to the completion of this book.

My approach to writing this book reflects a contemporary concern of professional historians that their work should reach a wider audience. The history profession has never been in better shape. Undergraduate enrollment in history at the major colleges rises year by year; hundreds of excellent books on a dazzling variety of subjects pour from the presses; and employment opportunities for historians now exceed the number of doctorates in history awarded annually. Yet not infrequently, at meetings of such groups as the American Historical Association and the Organization of American Historians, one hears the jeremiad that historians, by writing too exclusively on narrowly focused topics, are isolating themselves from an American public that is, nevertheless, eager to read about its past.

I have attempted, therefore, to tell this story in a literary style. It is a narrative history that aims to recapture the drama of the events that it describes. Yet, at the same time, I have not avoided those complex issues that give the story its significance.

The courtroom provided the stage for two competing ideologies of crime and punishment. Do impersonal forces—economic, psychological, biological—compel individuals to act in certain ways? If so, then crime is a consequence of factors beyond conscious control and punishment is both futile and counterproductive. Or is criminal behavior a consequence of deliberate choice? Does the criminal freely decide to break the law? Is so, then punishment is both relevant and necessary. Clarence Darrow aimed to demonstrate a philosophy of behavior that left no space for free will; Robert Crowe set out to show that Nathan Leopold and Richard Loeb acted deliberately and knowingly.

Each actor in the courtroom drama sought to use the hearing as an opportunity to display his agenda. Clarence Darrow wished to demonstrate the viciousness of capital punishment and to argue for its abolition. Robert Crowe hoped that his success in the courtroom would translate into political approval at the polls and his election as Chicago’s next mayor. The defense psychiatrists expected that their participation in the hearing would elevate and expand the role of psychiatry in the American legal process.

To write a book is no simple matter. One begins without any guarantee of success, without any assurance that it will find a publisher, and without knowing if the story has sufficient importance to command an audience. It demands patience and endurance, and perhaps most important of all, it requires the advice and support of colleagues and friends. I have been fortunate to have had invaluable help in writing this book. Nancy Unger took time from her own research and teaching to read successive drafts of each chapter and to provide corrections and suggestions—her generosity has made this a better book. Joe Berman also read the manuscript with an infectious enthusiasm that reassured me that I was indeed on the right track. Nancy Gist provided wonderful support from the beginning and carefully read each chapter as I wrote it. Three members of the George Mason faculty—Jack Censer, Marion Deshmukh, and Mack Holt—extended crucial help at an opportune time. Over the past six years, Scott Bradwell, Julie Brown, John Burnham, Roger Cooter, Hamilton Cravens, Walter Hickel, Jennifer Karsen, Olaf Kula, Carol Ann Langwith, Russell Maylone, Laura McGough, John Russick, Rosa Salguero, Yumi Yamamori, and Joelle Ziemian each helped in one way or another to make my task less arduous. Emily Forland, my agent at the Wendy Weil Agency, secured the acceptance of the book proposal at HarperCollins, and both Emily and my editor at HarperCollins, Hugh Van Dusen, provided helpful feedback at every stage. I presented versions of this book to audiences at the History of Science Society, the Society for the History of Children and Youth, the American Association for the History of Medicine, the Institute for the History of Psychiatry at Weill Medical College of Cornell University, and the National Museum of American History, Smithsonian Institution. Each forum was the occasion of spirited discussion and debate and helped shape the book in different ways.

SOURCES

Although the Leopold-Loeb case was one of the most infamous murders of the twentieth century, historians have largely ignored it. This seems counterintuitive. Everyone knows about the two brilliant college boys who killed a child for the thrill of the experience—and so, because the murder is so familiar, the reasoning goes, there must be several books, at least, about the killing of Bobby Franks. Crime and punishment, the random selection of the victim, the absence of remorse, the wealth and intelligence of the two killers, Clarence Darrow as the defense attorney, Chicago in the 1920s as a backdrop—how could there not be a barrel of books about the case? The abundance of source material should have attracted historians like bees to honey, yet until now only a single book, written more than thirty years ago, and a handful of articles in scholarly journals have been published.
¹
The wealth of the source material—courtroom transcripts, records of the state’s attorney’s office, psychiatric reports—has allowed me to give this story immediacy and vividness and has enabled me to reconstruct it in detail. Here, I have listed the principal sources used in writing this book. I have indicated in
boldface
the abbreviated form used in the endnotes.

MANUSCRIPT SOURCES

I.

People of the State of Illinois vs. Nathan Leopold and Richard Loeb
, Stenographic Transcript, Boxes 19–22, Leopold-Loeb Collection, Series LXXXV, Special Collections, Northwestern University Library, Northwestern University (abbreviated as
Trial Transcript
).

Original stenographic transcriptions of courtroom proceedings do not normally survive. Verbatim transcriptions are usually destroyed immediately after the disposition of a case. Fortunately, the stenographic transcript of the Leopold-Loeb hearing still exists. Elmer Gertz, who represented Nathan Leopold in his parole application, donated his copy, along with much other material on Leopold, to Northwestern University.

Because Robert Crowe insisted on presenting almost 100 witnesses in order to persuade the judge to hand down the death penalty and because those witnesses provided abundant detail from different perspectives, the transcript of the courtroom hearing is an invaluable source in reconstructing the murder. The to-and-fro between the defense and prosecution, the arguments between the state’s attorney and the judge on the admissibility of evidence, and the testimony of both sets of psychiatric experts—all this is contained in great detail in the courtroom transcript.

One section of the transcript is missing. At the conclusion of the hearing, Darrow borrowed the section that contains his closing speech. He rewrote his speech, cutting out long passages, correcting his syntax, and streamlining his argument, and then published the amended version as a pamphlet. Darrow’s speech in the courtroom was ponderous, disorganized, prolix, and often tedious; but subsequent commentators, unaware that the published version is not the speech that Darrow gave in court, have praised Darrow’s summation as a masterpiece. Fortunately several newspapers transcribed Darrow’s original speech and, in writing this book, I have used the transcription provided by the
Chicago Herald and Examiner
. (Darrow never did return the borrowed section of the transcript, and it remains missing.)
²

II.

Statements of Nathan F. Leopold and Richard Albert Loeb, Made in the Office of the State’s Attorney of Cook County
, Folder 3, Box 2, Harold S. Hulbert Papers, Series 55/23, University Archives, Northwestern University.

The state’s attorney questioned Nathan Leopold and Richard Loeb from Thursday 29 May until Monday 2 June. That weekend Leopold and Loeb talked and talked and talked…and then talked some more. Stenographers took it all down. The transcripts of the prisoners’ confessions are preserved at Northwestern University and, as one might expect, they reveal a stunningly candid picture of the crime. In a series of statements, both Leopold and Loeb discussed the murder in detail, described its planning and execution, and talked also of their thoughts, expectations, fears, desires, and motivation.

Friday, 30 May 1924

Statement of Nathan F. Leopold Jr., Made in the Office of the State’s Attorney of Cook County…on Friday, May 30, 1924, at 1:35 a.m. (abbreviated as
Leopold Statement
).

Statement of Nathan F. Leopold Jr., Made in the Office of the State’s Attorney of Cook County…on Friday, May 30, 1924, at 6:30 p.m. (abbreviated as
Leopold Statement
).

Statement of Nathan F. Leopold Jr., Made in the Office of the State’s Attorney of Cook County…on Friday, May 30, 1924, at 9:15 p.m.

Statement of Nathan F. Leopold Jr., Made in the Office of the State’s Attorney of Cook County…on Friday, May 30, 1924, at 10:30 p.m. (abbreviated as
Leopold Statement
).

Additional Statement of Nathan F. Leopold Jr., Made in the Office of the State’s Attorney…Friday, May 30, 1924, at 11:45 p.m. (abbreviated as
Additional Leopold Statement
).

Saturday, 31 May 1924

Additional Statement of Richard A. Loeb, Made in the Office of the State’s Attorney…on Saturday, May 31, 1924, at 1:00 a.m. (abbreviated as
Additional Loeb Statement
).

Statement of Richard Albert Loeb, Made in the Office of the State’s Attorney of Cook County…on Saturday, May 31, 1924, at 4:00 a.m. (abbreviated as
Loeb Statement
).

Statement of Nathan F. Leopold Jr., Made in the Office of the State’s Attorney of Cook County…on Saturday, May 31, 1924, at 4:20 a.m. (abbreviated as
Leopold Statement
).

Sunday, 1 June 1924

Statement of Nathan F. Leopold Jr. and Richard Albert Loeb, Made in the Office of the State’s Attorney of Cook County, Criminal Court Building, Chicago, Illinois, June 1, 1924, at 2:50 p.m. (abbreviated as
Leopold Loeb Statement
).

Statement of Nathan Leopold and Richard Loeb…on Sunday, June 1, 1924, at 6:30 p.m. in the Courtyard of the Cook County Jail, While Viewing Willys-Knight Automobile, Property of Rent-A-Car Company.

Statement of Nathan Leopold and Richard Loeb…on Sunday, June 1, 1924, at 8:20 p.m. in the Office of the State’s Attorney of Cook County (abbreviated as
Leopold Loeb Statement
).

Statement of Nathan Leopold and Richard Loeb and Others Taken on Trip to South Side, June 1, 1924,…in Custody of Three Police Officers, with Assistant State’s Attorney John Sbarbaro and F. A. Sheeder, Shorthand Reporter (abbreviated as
Leopold Loeb Statement on Trip to South Side
).

Statement of Nathan Leopold and Richard Loeb and Others, Made in the Office of the State’s Attorney…on Sunday, June 1, 1924, at 11:30 p.m.

Monday, 2 June 1924

Statement of Nathan F. Leopold Jr., Made in the Office of the State’s Attorney of Cook County…on Monday, June 2, 1924, at 12:01 a.m. (abbreviated as
Leopold Statement
).

Statement of Aaron B. Adler, Made in the Office of the State’s Attorney of Cook County, Criminal Court Building, Chicago, Illinois, on Monday, 2 June 1924, at 12:40 a.m. (abbreviated as
Adler Statement
).

III.

Karl M. Bowman and Harold S. Hulbert,
Report of Preliminary Neuro-Psychiatric Examination (Richard Loeb)
, Box 2, Folder 1, Harold S. Hulbert Papers, Series 55/23, University Archives, Northwestern University [abbreviated as
Bowman-Hulbert Report (Loeb)
].

Karl M. Bowman and Harold S. Hulbert,
Report of Preliminary Neuro-Psychiatric Examination (Nathan Leopold Jr.)
, Box 2, Folder 2, Harold S. Hulbert Papers, Series 55/23, University Archives, Northwestern University [abbreviated as
Bowman-Hulbert Report (Leopold)
].

Several psychiatrists examined Nathan Leopold and Richard Loeb. Karl Bowman and Harold Hulbert submitted their report at the end of June 1924. The Bowman-Hulbert report contains detailed accounts of each defendant’s childhood, education, upbringing, and adolescence; it also includes Loeb’s fantasy life as a master criminal and Leopold’s desire to be a powerful slave. Each defendant also recounted his version of the murder and its immediate aftermath. Archivists at Northwestern University uncovered the reports (along with the statements of Leopold and Loeb) in a vault in the basement of the university’s law school. Harold Hulbert had collected materials connected with the case and these materials had been stored—forgotten and unnoticed—until their discovery in 1987.

IV.

Notes Relating to the Leopold-Loeb Court Case [1924], (Richard Loeb)
, Folder E37, Box 1, Records of Superintendent William Alanson White, Records of St. Elizabeths Hospital (Record Group 418.3.3), National Archives [abbreviated as
William Alanson White Notes (Loeb)
].

Notes Relating to the Leopold-Loeb Court Case [1924], (Nathan Leopold)
, Folder E37, Box 1, Records of Superintendent William Alanson White, Records of St. Elizabeths Hospital (Record Group 418.3.3), National Archives [abbreviated as
William Alanson White Notes (Leopold)
].

William White interviewed Nathan Leopold and Richard Loeb during the first week in July. White kept his handwritten notes from his interviews; these notes are preserved in a collection of White’s papers at the National Archives in Washington, D.C.

V.

Psychiatric Reports re: Leopold and Loeb “Trial,”
Adolf Meyer Papers, Alan Mason Chesney Medical Archives, Johns Hopkins Medical Institutions (abbreviated as
Psychiatric Reports
).

The expert witnesses for the defense each prepared summaries of their reports on Nathan Leopold and Richard Loeb. These summaries, often only a few pages in length, provide succinct analytical statements on the medical and psychiatric condition of the defendants.

NEWSPAPERS

The fierce competition between Chicago’s six daily newspapers and the public’s insatiable fascination with Nathan Leopold and Richard Loeb produced an avalanche of newspaper coverage. The Chicago newspapers alone printed hundreds of articles on the case during 1924, and if one were to include the coverage by out-of-town newspapers, the total might easily exceed several thousand. Each Chicago newspaper employed several journalists to cover the case. As a consequence, Chicagoans in 1924 could learn all they wanted to know—and a great deal that they did not care to know—about the murder. The attorneys for each side cultivated the reporters, assiduously feeding them information that would tilt public opinion one way or the other. The reporters had unlimited access to the defendants, often spending hours chatting with them outside their cells in the Cook County jail.

I had imagined, in the early stages of my research, that reading the articles in a single newspaper would provide a comprehensive account of the case, but just as soon as I looked at a second newspaper, I realized my error. I discovered that there were details in the
Chicago Daily Journal
, for example, that had gone unmentioned in the reports of the
Chicago Daily Tribune
(and vice versa). Clearly, it would be foolish to base my account on only one or two newspapers; and so, in the early stages of my research, I resolved to read through all six of the city’s daily newspapers. Because these newspapers have frequently altered their titles, usually on account of a merger with some other paper, or, alternatively, in an effort to abbreviate, I have been careful to cite the exact title of a newspaper as it appeared at the time.

The
Chicago Daily Tribune
and its sister paper, the
Chicago Sunday Tribune
, first appeared in 1847. In the 1920s the
Tribune
, a morning newspaper, saw itself as the mouthpiece of Chicago’s leading businessmen and, in this capacity, was fiercely opposed to the gangsterism that was harming the city’s general prosperity. The
Tribune
, while generally supporting the Republican cause, consistently opposed the Republican mayor, William Hale Thompson, who, according to the
Tribune
at least, was responsible for the corruption of politics in Chicago. The
Tribune
was the mouthpiece of the reform movement and briefly supported Robert Crowe in the early 1920s in his opposition to the City Hall machine.
³

William Randolph Hearst owned both the
Chicago Herald and Examiner
, a morning newspaper that first appeared in 1918; and the
Chicago American
, an afternoon newspaper founded in 1900. Hearst’s reputation for sensationalism and yellow journalism derives from his ownership of the
New York Evening Journal,
which advocated overseas expansionism and militarism during the Spanish-American War. Neither the
Chicago Herald and Examiner
nor the
Chicago American
, however, was especially sensationalist. The
Chicago American
had a tabloid style in the 1920s, but its coverage of the Leopold-Loeb hearing was generally reliable and responsible. The
Chicago Herald and Examiner
was the superior of the two Hearst newspapers in the extent of its coverage of the case. Hearst consolidated the two newspapers in 1939 as the
Chicago Herald-American
. In 1953 it became again the
Chicago American.
After a change of ownership and several other name changes, the newspaper finally expired in September 1974.
⁴

The
Chicago Daily News
, an afternoon paper that first appeared in 1875, never let its rivals forget that it had scooped them in the early stages of the police investigation. James Mulroy and Alvin Goldstein, two recent graduates of the University of Chicago, were cub reporters for the
Chicago Daily News
in 1924. Mulroy and Goldstein won the Pulitzer Prize in 1925 for their inspired guess that the typewriter used by Nathan Leopold to type his law notes might also have been used for the ransom letter. The
Chicago Daily News
was distinctive among Chicago newspapers for the clarity of its writing, but its coverage of important events was never as comprehensive or as detailed as the coverage provided, say, by the
Chicago Daily Journal
. The publisher of the
News
, Victor Lawson, disliked Robert Crowe and consistently denounced the state’s attorney as a demagogue who used the resources of his office to crush opposition to his electoral machine. Lawson’s animus toward Crowe never became an issue, however, in his paper’s coverage of the Leopold-Loeb hearing.