Speaker 1: You're listening to History on Trial, a production of iHeart Podcasts.
Speaker 1: Listener Discretion advised. Jacob and Flora Franks didn't start to
Speaker 1: worry until Bobby missed dinner. Their youngest son was a
Speaker 1: responsible boy who usually called home if he was going
Speaker 1: to be late. May twenty first, nineteen twenty four, had
Speaker 1: been a beautiful spring day, the kind of day where
Speaker 1: you can lose track of time, especially if you're a
Speaker 1: fourteen year old boy playing baseball with your friends. That's
Speaker 1: what the Franks figured Bobby was doing. He and his
Speaker 1: classmates liked to get a game going after school. Bobby
Speaker 1: was small for his age, but he was a sports
Speaker 1: fanatic and always found a way to join in. He
Speaker 1: would be home soon, the Franks thought, But when the
Speaker 1: dinner plates were cleared with still no sign of Bobby,
Speaker 1: the couple became concerned. They called around to Bobby's friends,
Speaker 1: who confirmed that, yes, they had played baseball after school.
Speaker 1: Bobby had served as umpire, but the game had ended
Speaker 1: at five hours earlier. After Bobby had headed towards home,
Speaker 1: a journey of only a few blocks. No one had
Speaker 1: seen him since. Increasingly fearful, Jacob Franks enlisted a friend
Speaker 1: to help him search for Bobby. The men went to
Speaker 1: check if the boy had somehow gotten locked in his
Speaker 1: school building. Flora Franks stayed home. At about ten thirty PM,
Speaker 1: as Flora waited for news, the phone rang. The caller
Speaker 1: asked for her husband. When Flora said he was not
Speaker 1: at home, but that she was missus Franks, the caller said,
Speaker 1: your son has been kidnapped. He is all right. Further
Speaker 1: news in the morning. Who is it, Flora asked, horrified.
Speaker 1: George Johnson, the caller said, and hung up. When Jacob
Speaker 1: Franks got back, he was shocked by Flora's news. After
Speaker 1: several tense hours, he decided to report the kidnapping to
Speaker 1: the police, who agreed to investigate the matter quietly so
Speaker 1: as not to alert the kidnappers. At nine am the
Speaker 1: next day, the ransom note arrived in the morning mail.
Speaker 1: Dear sir, it began, as you no doubt know by
Speaker 1: this time your son has been kidnapped. Allow us to
Speaker 1: assure you that he is at present, well and safe.
Speaker 1: It continued on in this same formal, stilted language, commanding
Speaker 1: Jacob Franks to withdraw ten thousand dollars and then await
Speaker 1: further instructions. It warned Jacob that if he disobeyed the
Speaker 1: instructions in any way, Bobby's death will be the penalty.
Speaker 1: Jacob hurried to the bank to make the withdrawal, then
Speaker 1: came home to wait by the telephone. The kidnappers did
Speaker 1: not call until after three pm. Jacob Franks answered the phone,
Speaker 1: and a voice on the other end, once again calling himself,
Speaker 1: George Johnson, described how Jacob would take a taxi to
Speaker 1: a drug store where he would receive further directions. Jacob listened,
Speaker 1: but inside his heart was breaking because only minutes before
Speaker 1: he had received another phone call, one that changed everything.
Speaker 1: From it, he had learned that Bobby's body had been
Speaker 1: found earlier that morning. The body of a boy was
Speaker 1: found in a concrete culvert in the nature preserve surrounding
Speaker 1: Wolf Lake, some twenty miles southeast of the Franks house
Speaker 1: in Chicago. A pair of glasses had been found near
Speaker 1: the body, and the officer who arrived at the scene
Speaker 1: assumed they were the boys and placed them on his face.
Speaker 1: The Frank's family heard about the discovery but believed the
Speaker 1: boy couldn't be Bobby. Bobby didn't wear glasses, but as
Speaker 1: the day wore on. They thought it would be good
Speaker 1: to know for sure, and so Bobby's uncle traveled to
Speaker 1: view the body. When the uncle walked in, he removed
Speaker 1: the glasses from the boy's still cold face and gazed
Speaker 1: down at it. Then he looked at the boy's teeth.
Speaker 1: Bobby had marks on his teeth from a childhood illness,
Speaker 1: so did this boy. Bobby's uncle did not have to
Speaker 1: look any longer. He knew this was his nephew. He
Speaker 1: called home and told the Franks the news only minutes
Speaker 1: before the kidnapper called to give Jacob Franks his instructions.
Speaker 1: So Jacob had had to sit at the phone and
Speaker 1: listen as the kidnapper spoke of his son as if
Speaker 1: he was still alive. Jacob's plan now was to follow
Speaker 1: the ransom instructions and hope they led to the killer.
Speaker 1: But in his shock, Jacob did not retain the name
Speaker 1: of the drug store he was supposed to go to.
Speaker 1: The trail went cold for more than a week. The
Speaker 1: appalled public wondered who could have committed such a crime.
Speaker 1: Bobby had been beaten and suffocated, and then had acid
Speaker 1: poured on his face after death. It was a senseless
Speaker 1: awful killing. People could only speculate as to what kind
Speaker 1: of monster the killer must be. But when the police
Speaker 1: announced that they had obtained confessions for the crime, the
Speaker 1: culprits were not at all what the public had expected.
Speaker 1: The killers, for there were two of them, were the
Speaker 1: clean cut, brilliant teenage scions of prominent families. Their names
Speaker 1: were Nathan Leopold and Richard Loeb. Leopold and Loebe's names
Speaker 1: are infamous. The killing of Bobby Franks was called the
Speaker 1: crime of the century. As the twisted tale of the
Speaker 1: crime unfolded, people struggled to make sense of how the
Speaker 1: two young men could do what they had done. Everyone
Speaker 1: awaited the trial certain that the pair would be sentenced
Speaker 1: to death, But the killer's family had hired one of
Speaker 1: the most famous attorneys in American history, Clarence Darrow, and
Speaker 1: what happened in the courtroom in that hot summer of
Speaker 1: nineteen twenty four has to be heard to be believed,
Speaker 1: because the Leopold and Loeb trial, one of the most
Speaker 1: well known trials of all time, was not really a
Speaker 1: trial at all. Welcome to History on Trial. I'm your
Speaker 1: host Mira Hayward. This week, Illinois v. Naan Leopold and
Speaker 1: Richard Loeb. Leopold and Lobes lives ran like trains on
Speaker 1: parallel tracks until fatefully their paths converged. Both boys were
Speaker 1: born to wealthy families, Nathan Freudenthal Leopold Junior on November nineteenth,
Speaker 1: nineteen oh four, to Florence and Nathan Leopold, and Richard
Speaker 1: Albert lob On June eleventh, nineteen oh five, to Albert
Speaker 1: and Anna Loeb. Both boys had nicknames. Everyone called Nathan Babe,
Speaker 1: everyone called Richard Dickie. Both boys grew up in Kenwood,
Speaker 1: an affluent, predominantly Jewish neighborhood on Chicago's South Side. Both
Speaker 1: boys were precocious, skipping multiple grades and racing through their
Speaker 1: school years in record time, and both boys were impacted
Speaker 1: by disturbed nannies. Nathan was allegedly sexually abused by any
Speaker 1: while Richard was allegedly emotionally abused by his domineering and
Speaker 1: obsessive nanny. But the boys had differences too. They attended
Speaker 1: different schools, had different interests, and very different personalities. Nathan
Speaker 1: was aloof and egotistical. He had trouble connecting to his
Speaker 1: peers his classmates at the Harvard School for Boys, nicknamed
Speaker 1: him Flea because he was small and annoying. He was
Speaker 1: obsessed with birds. He shot and taxidermied thousands of the animals,
Speaker 1: placing them around the Leopold Home until it looked like
Speaker 1: a natural history museum. Richard, on the other hand, was
Speaker 1: popular and outgoing. He could easily fit into any social situation,
Speaker 1: charming classmates and adults alike, but he sometimes seemed to
Speaker 1: be playing a role, and when people tried to get
Speaker 1: close to him, he would not let them in. He
Speaker 1: moved on from friend ships quickly. No one quite had
Speaker 1: a grasp on who the real Richard was. His defining
Speaker 1: adolescent interest was not birds, but books, detective fiction to
Speaker 1: be specific, which he consumed voraciously. Since the two boys
Speaker 1: had grown up so close together and in such similar circles,
Speaker 1: they likely met once or twice in their childhood, but
Speaker 1: it would not be until nineteen twenty that they would
Speaker 1: truly connect. With deadly consequences that fall, Nathan enrolled at
Speaker 1: the University of Chicago, where Richard was beginning his sophomore year.
Speaker 1: Both boys were only fifteen years old. They each had
Speaker 1: different approaches to college. Richard went a little wild, drinking, gambling,
Speaker 1: and losing his virginity at a brothel. Nathan, by contrast,
Speaker 1: maintained his standoffish, superior attitude. Richard was stylish and handsome,
Speaker 1: Nathan gawky and awkward. Over the course of the winter,
Speaker 1: though the two began to get closer. They played cards
Speaker 1: and stayed up late drinking and talking. In February nineteen
Speaker 1: twenty one, Richard took Nathan on a trip to his
Speaker 1: family's estate in Charlevoi, Michigan. Albert Loebe had built an
Speaker 1: enormous working farm there, and the Lobes loved to escape
Speaker 1: Chicago for the peace of the lakeside retreat. Now, Richard
Speaker 1: invited his new friend to visit. The train trip from
Speaker 1: Chicago took twelve hours, and the pair shared a private
Speaker 1: train car. Over the course of the long journey, Richard
Speaker 1: and Nathan opened up to each other, sharing their feelings
Speaker 1: of loneliness their desire to fit in. They also shared secrets.
Speaker 1: Richard told Nathan about the thefts he'd committed inspired by
Speaker 1: his love of crime fiction. In return, Nathan told Richard
Speaker 1: that he was gay. Nathan had known he was gay
Speaker 1: since childhood. Richard's sexuality is more ambiguous. He had sex
Speaker 1: with women and like to maintain a playboy image. However,
Speaker 1: he would later tell psychiatrists quote, the actual sex act
Speaker 1: is rather unimportant to me, and I could get along
Speaker 1: easily without it. On that train ride, though, perhaps fueled
Speaker 1: by an intoxicating sense of closeness and shared vulnerability, Richard
Speaker 1: and Nathan began a sexual relationship. In many ways, this
Speaker 1: was a normal teenage fling. However, it had to be
Speaker 1: conducted in strict secrecy. Homosexuality was deeply stigmatized at the time.
Speaker 1: The secret nature of their relationship seems to have brought
Speaker 1: the pair even closer, as did their second secret. In
Speaker 1: the spring, shortly after their trip to Charlevoi, Richard and
Speaker 1: Nathan began committing crimes together. They stole cars and went
Speaker 1: for joy rides, tossed bricks through the windshields of parked cars,
Speaker 1: and vandalized businesses. The relationship seems to have fulfilled both
Speaker 1: Richard and Nathan's childhood fantasies. For Nathan, the handsome, suave
Speaker 1: Richard provided him social cachet and sexual gratification. For Richard,
Speaker 1: the brilliant, fearless Nathan was the perfect partner in crime.
Speaker 1: Both struggled to make genuine connections with others. With each other,
Speaker 1: it seemed they could finally be themselves and be accepted,
Speaker 1: but that summer things nearly fell apart. A fellow University
Speaker 1: of Chicago student, Hamlin Bouchman, was working at the Lobe
Speaker 1: farm at Charlevoi when Richard and Nathan came for a visit.
Speaker 1: The three spent the evening drinking together and then fell asleep.
Speaker 1: During the night, Buchman saw Richard go into Nathan's bed.
Speaker 1: Richard and Nathan, realizing that their secret was out, decided
Speaker 1: to take jurrass stick action. They attempted to kill Buchman.
Speaker 1: They took Buuchman out on a boat, and, believing that
Speaker 1: he could not swim, tipped the boat over. Buchman managed
Speaker 1: to make it out of the lake in shock. He
Speaker 1: immediately ran to Richard's brother, Allan and told him about
Speaker 1: Richard and Nathan's relationship. The Low family did not believe
Speaker 1: Buchman and fired him from the farm. Buchman traveled back
Speaker 1: to Chicago and immediately told classmates what he'd seen. When
Speaker 1: Richard and Nathan returned to campus, gossip about them raged
Speaker 1: like wildfire. That fall in part due to the rumors
Speaker 1: and in part due to a sense of restlessness. Richard
Speaker 1: decided to transfer to the University of Michigan. Nathan decided
Speaker 1: to transfer with him, but soon after the school year started,
Speaker 1: Nathan learned that his mother, Florence, was dying. He managed
Speaker 1: to make it home in time to be with her
Speaker 1: when she died on October seventeenth, nineteen twenty one. It
Speaker 1: was a devastating loss. When Nathan returned to Michigan, he
Speaker 1: found that Richard had made new friends. These friends, along
Speaker 1: with many other Michigan students, did not like Nathan. They
Speaker 1: thought he was cold and pretentious. Rumors about the two
Speaker 1: boys sexual relationship had also reached campus. Nathan and Richard
Speaker 1: decided to quash the rumors by spending less time together.
Speaker 1: At the end of the year, Nathan transferred back to
Speaker 1: the University of Chicago. Richard stayed on at Michigan, where
Speaker 1: he pledged a fraternity, drank, heavily, worked minimally, and read
Speaker 1: detective novels. At Chicago, Nathan favored the intellectual life, studying
Speaker 1: comparative language and becoming obsessed with the German philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche.
Speaker 1: Nathan loved Nietzsche's conception of the Ubermensch, which he interpreted
Speaker 1: to be quote a superman who, on account of certain
Speaker 1: superior qualities inherent in him, is exempted for from the
Speaker 1: ordinary laws which govern ordinary men. He is not liable
Speaker 1: for anything he may do. Philosophers might disagree with Nathan's
Speaker 1: definition of this concept, but it is an interpretation that
Speaker 1: reveals Nathan's desire to transcend conventional definitions of morality. Over
Speaker 1: the next year, Richard and Nathan did not keep in
Speaker 1: close touch. In the summer of nineteen twenty three, however,
Speaker 1: they found themselves reunited in Chicago. Both had graduated that
Speaker 1: spring at age eighteen, the youngest graduates in the history
Speaker 1: of their respective colleges. At loose ends, they reconnected and
Speaker 1: resumed their life of crime. They cheated at cards, planned
Speaker 1: break ins, and set fires. Nathan even managed to acquire guns,
Speaker 1: which they carried with them on their nighttime expeditions. However,
Speaker 1: the friendship was a fraught one. The pair argued constantly.
Speaker 1: Nathan was jealous of the time Richard spent with other friends.
Speaker 1: Richard was tired of Nathan's constant bragging about his intelligence.
Speaker 1: In October, they had a falling out and almost ended
Speaker 1: their relationship. Nathan confessed in a letter to Richard that
Speaker 1: he had thought about killing him. He also threatened to
Speaker 1: expose Richard, either for their sexual relationship or for their crimes.
Speaker 1: For some reason, even after all of this, the friendship continued.
Speaker 1: In November, while Richard and Nathan were both enrolled in
Speaker 1: graduate classes at the University of Chicago, they decided to
Speaker 1: commit their most daring crime yet. On Saturday the tenth,
Speaker 1: they drove up to Ann Arbor to rob Richard's old
Speaker 1: fraternity house. They brought guns, masks, flashlights, and a chisel
Speaker 1: with them. It wasn't a very complicated crime. Upon arrival,
Speaker 1: they walked through the unlocked front door and stole items
Speaker 1: they found lying around, loose change, a pen and pencil,
Speaker 1: a knife, and notably, a portable underwood typewriter. They had
Speaker 1: agreed earlier in the night to break into two fraternities,
Speaker 1: but after pulling off the first tist, Richard wanted to
Speaker 1: go home. Nathan demanded that they follow through on the plan.
Speaker 1: They went into another house and stole a camera, but
Speaker 1: when Richard heard someone snoring, he panicked and ran. On
Speaker 1: the drive home, Nathan was furious, he called Richard a
Speaker 1: coward and questioned their connection. The argument built and built,
Speaker 1: and the two nearly ended things right there, but ultimately
Speaker 1: they didn't. Instead, deciding to once again double down on
Speaker 1: their toxic bond, the pair created a pact. The terms
Speaker 1: of the pact, which they determined would last until Nathan
Speaker 1: left for Europe the following summer. Were this agreed to
Speaker 1: participate in any crime that Richard asked him to, unless
Speaker 1: he thought it would put him or his family in danger.
Speaker 1: In exchange, Richard agreed to have sex with Nathan three
Speaker 1: times every two months. Lastly, the two agreed to embark
Speaker 1: on a new project, one that they believed would strengthen
Speaker 1: their relationship. Leopold and Lobe decided to kidnap someone. Progress
Speaker 1: was slow on the kidnapping plan. In March nineteen twenty four,
Speaker 1: Nathan and Richard had another fight and renegotiated the pact.
Speaker 1: Now Richard agreed to have sex with Nathan every time
Speaker 1: they committed a crime. They also began planning the kidnapping
Speaker 1: in earnest. Richard had long been obsessed with committing the
Speaker 1: perfect crime. Nathan had long been obsessed. Without smarting others,
Speaker 1: their obsessions combined with tragic consequences. That spring, they were
Speaker 1: determined to execute a flawless kidnapping. They plotted out an
Speaker 1: elaborate ransom plan, which involved multiple stops, phone calls, and
Speaker 1: a money drop off of a moving train. They even
Speaker 1: rehearsed the money drop, throwing a bundle of newspapers from
Speaker 1: the train to see where it landed. The pair also
Speaker 1: decided that they would have to kill their victim to
Speaker 1: avoid being identified. They discussed different methods of murder and
Speaker 1: settled on either strangulation or drugging with ether. They chose
Speaker 1: a location to dump the body. Nathan suggested the area
Speaker 1: around Wolf Lake, where he often led birding trips. The
Speaker 1: only thing that the two could not decide on was
Speaker 1: a victim. They eventually decided that it would be best
Speaker 1: to take a young boy from a wealthy family who
Speaker 1: would pay the ransom. There were many such boys at
Speaker 1: the Harvard School for Boys, Nathan's alma mater. Richard and
Speaker 1: Nate and spent the month of May getting the final
Speaker 1: details in place. They constructed a fake identity, Morton Ballard,
Speaker 1: which they used to open a bank account and rent
Speaker 1: a car. They bought a chisel rope and hydrochloric acid.
Speaker 1: They typed up a ransom letter and scripts to use
Speaker 1: for their calls by May twenty first they were ready.
Speaker 1: That morning, they rented a dark blue car, ate lunch,
Speaker 1: and drove to the Harvard School. They lurked around the area,
Speaker 1: using a pair of Nathan's birding binoculars to spy on
Speaker 1: the boys for several hours. A little after five PM,
Speaker 1: they spotted Bobby Franks walking down Ellis Avenue. Bobby Franks
Speaker 1: was Richard Loebe's second cousin. Their families lived across the
Speaker 1: street from each other. Bobby had played tennis with Richard
Speaker 1: the day before. He had no reason to be suspicious
Speaker 1: when Nathan and Richard pulled up alongside him and offered
Speaker 1: him a ride home. Bobby declined, though his home was
Speaker 1: only two blocks away. Richard tried again, saying he wanted
Speaker 1: to ask Bobby about his tennis racket. Bobby agreed and
Speaker 1: hopped in the car. Within minutes, the attack began. Richard
Speaker 1: and Nathan never agreed on who had done the actual killing,
Speaker 1: each blaming the other. One of them, though, began to
Speaker 1: beat Bobby with the chisel, then shoved an ether soaked
Speaker 1: rag down his throat. Unconscious, Bobby lay bleeding on the
Speaker 1: floor of the car As it sped out of Chicago.
Speaker 1: Around six, Richard and Nathan stopped for dinner. They ate
Speaker 1: hot dogs and drank root beer at a picnic table
Speaker 1: while Bobby suffocated to death in the car. Once it
Speaker 1: got dark, they drove to wolf Lake and dumped Bobby's
Speaker 1: body in a culvert, first pouring acid on his face, genitals,
Speaker 1: and on a skin on his abdomen in an effort
Speaker 1: to prevent identification. On the drive home, Nathan stopped and
Speaker 1: called the Franks and told Flora that her son had
Speaker 1: been kidnapped. Nathan and Richard's so called perfect crime fell
Speaker 1: apart quickly. Bobby's body was discovered sooner than they had expected,
Speaker 1: and Jacob Franks could not remember the complicated ransom instructions. However,
Speaker 1: no one had any idea who had committed the crime.
Speaker 1: It was the talk of Chicago, and Richard himself couldn't
Speaker 1: help but bring up the subject. He even involved himself
Speaker 1: in the investigation, taking reporters on an expedition to discover
Speaker 1: which drug store Jacob Franks was supposed to have gone to.
Speaker 1: On this trip, the reporter asked Richard about Bobby, hoping
Speaker 1: to get family details for their story. Richard, to their horror,
Speaker 1: told them quote, if I were going to murder anyone,
Speaker 1: I would murder just such a cocky little son of
Speaker 1: a bitch as Bobby Frank's. On May twenty fifth, the
Speaker 1: Frank's family held Bobby's funeral at their home. A distraught
Speaker 1: Flora Franks, who refused to believe that her son was dead,
Speaker 1: ran her hands tenderly over the faces of his classmates.
Speaker 1: Jacob Franks told the Chicago Tribune, I'd try to put
Speaker 1: things out of my mind, but they come back. My
Speaker 1: wife keeps showing me pictures of him, and I lay
Speaker 1: awake until dawn thinking about it all, thinking about that baby. Meanwhile,
Speaker 1: Richard and Nathan continued their normal lives, attending dinners, taking
Speaker 1: girls out on dates, drinking and dancing the nights away,
Speaker 1: but unbeknownst to them, the police were circling. Ultimately, it
Speaker 1: was a pair of glasses that proved to be the killers.
Speaker 1: Undoing the glasses had been found by Bobby's body. The
Speaker 1: first officer on the scene had assumed they were the boys,
Speaker 1: but after learning they were not, investigators wondered if the
Speaker 1: killer had dropped them. They spent all week tracing the
Speaker 1: glasses and caught a huge break. The frames had a
Speaker 1: distinctive hinge, only manufactured by one company in Brooklyn and
Speaker 1: only sold by one optometrist in Chicago, Almer and Co.
Speaker 1: The company searched its records and discovered that it had
Speaker 1: sold three pairs of the glasses, one to a man
Speaker 1: who was now in Europe, one to a woman who
Speaker 1: still had her glasses, and one to Nathan Leopold. Nathan
Speaker 1: had in fact been brought in by the police already,
Speaker 1: but for unrelated reasons. A game warden at wolf Lake
Speaker 1: had identified him to police as someone who frequented the
Speaker 1: area for birding trips, and the police had questioned him
Speaker 1: on May twenty fifth, the day of Bobby's funeral. Nathan
Speaker 1: was not a suspect at this point. The police simply
Speaker 1: wanted to know when he was last in the area.
Speaker 1: Nathan said he had last been there the weekend before
Speaker 1: Bobby's murder, and the police released him. But with the
Speaker 1: glass's revelation, everything changed. Now the police focused their energy
Speaker 1: on Nathan. On May twenty ninth, States attorney Robert Crowe,
Speaker 1: who was leading the investigation and would soon lead the
Speaker 1: prosecution sent detectives to question Nathan. When Nathan could not
Speaker 1: produce his glasses, the detectives decided to bring him in
Speaker 1: for questioning. Under questioning, Nathan claimed that his glasses must
Speaker 1: have fallen out of his pocket while bird watching at
Speaker 1: Wolf Lake. However, when given his glasses and asked to
Speaker 1: recreate the fall, Nathan could not dislodge the glasses from
Speaker 1: his jacket pocket. He denied owning a portable typewriter, the
Speaker 1: kind of typewriter used to make the ransom note, and
Speaker 1: he claimed that on the day of the kidnapping, he
Speaker 1: had been out driving, drinking, and picking up girls with
Speaker 1: Richard Loeb. The detectives then searched his house again, uncovering
Speaker 1: bottles of poisons and drugs, including ether, and two unlicensed handguns.
Speaker 1: Detectives arrived at Richard's house the next day, Friday, May thirtieth.
Speaker 1: Richard claimed not to remember what he had done on
Speaker 1: the day of the murder, but later, after receiving a
Speaker 1: message from Nathan that he should quote remember what happened,
Speaker 1: he told the police the same story about driving around
Speaker 1: in Nathan's car. Robert Crowe and the police were convinced
Speaker 1: that they had their men, and two events on Friday
Speaker 1: solidified their case. First, a typewriter expert matched the type
Speaker 1: in Nathan's study group notes to the type in the
Speaker 1: ransom note. Though Nathan had denied having a portable typewriter,
Speaker 1: Robert Crowe brought in members of his study group, who
Speaker 1: all stated that he had once used a portable typewriter.
Speaker 1: It would later emerge that the typewriter used was the
Speaker 1: Underwood portable typewriter that Nathan and Richard had stolen from
Speaker 1: the Michigan fraternity. The final nail in the coffin came
Speaker 1: from the Leopold family chauffeur Spen England. England had believed
Speaker 1: that his information would help exonerate Nathan. According to his statement,
Speaker 1: England had been working on the brakes on Nathan's car
Speaker 1: on May twenty first, so Nathan could not have used
Speaker 1: his car to kidnap anyone. But England didn't know that
Speaker 1: Nathan claimed to have driven around in his car that day. Inadvertently,
Speaker 1: England had broken Nathan's alibi. England also told police that
Speaker 1: he saw Nathan and Richard cleaning stains out of a
Speaker 1: dark colored car on the twenty second, Bobby Franks was
Speaker 1: last seen in the vicinity of a dark colored car,
Speaker 1: and a dark colored car had been spotted near wolf
Speaker 1: Lake around the time the killers had dumped Bobby's body.
Speaker 1: With these four pieces of evidence, the broken alibi, the
Speaker 1: matching glasses, the matching typewriter, and Leopold and Loebe's possession
Speaker 1: of a dark colored car, Robert Crowe believed he had
Speaker 1: enough to get a confession. He decided to confront Richard first.
Speaker 1: When Crowe told Richard about England's evidence, Richard responded that
Speaker 1: the man must be lying or mistaken. But then Assistant
Speaker 1: States Attorney Joseph Sparbaro confronted Richard with all the evidence.
Speaker 1: My god, my god, Richard cried, this is terrible. He
Speaker 1: burst into tears, then he started to talk. He gave
Speaker 1: Crow and Sparbarro a detailed confession of the kidnapping and
Speaker 1: murder of Bobby Franks. With one confession obtained, Crow turned
Speaker 1: his attention to Nathan. Even after hours of questioning, Nathan
Speaker 1: was self assured when Crow walked into his room that evening.
Speaker 1: Nathan wanted to ask the attorney what he called a
Speaker 1: hypothetical question quote supposing John Doe had committed this murder,
Speaker 1: and John Doe's family was as wealthy and influential as
Speaker 1: mine is, and could hire able lawyers and get a
Speaker 1: friendly judge and bribe the jury. Don't you think he
Speaker 1: could beat it well, Nathan, said Crow. I will let
Speaker 1: you try to find out. What do you mean, asked Nathan,
Speaker 1: I'm going to charge you with murder. Nathan was incredulous.
Speaker 1: Even when Crow told him that Richard had confessed. Nathan
Speaker 1: did not believe it until Crow began to recite details
Speaker 1: of the crime that only Richard could have known. For
Speaker 1: a moment, Nathan paused. Then he lit a cigarette and
Speaker 1: said to Crow, well, if Lobe is talking, I will
Speaker 1: tell you the real truth over the ni The next
Speaker 1: two days, Crow took Nathan and Richard on an evidence
Speaker 1: gathering tour, stopping at the businesses they had used to
Speaker 1: prepare for their crime. They visited the car rental agency,
Speaker 1: the hardware store where they'd bought the rope, the drug
Speaker 1: store where they'd bought the hydrochloric acid. Everywhere they went,
Speaker 1: shopkeepers identified them so much for committing a perfect crime. Still,
Speaker 1: the peril of their situation seemed not to have sunk in.
Speaker 1: Nathan joked with reporters and repeatedly stated that he had
Speaker 1: no remorse for the crime. Richard told a reporter that
Speaker 1: a few years in jail would be good for him, quote,
Speaker 1: I'll be released and come out to a new life.
Speaker 1: I'll go to work and I'll work hard, and I'll
Speaker 1: amount to something, have a career. A nearby police captain, astonished,
Speaker 1: told Richard, you have taken a life. You've killed a boy.
Speaker 1: The best you could possibly expect would be a life
Speaker 1: sentence to an en inane asylum. Richard was stunned. Robert
Speaker 1: Crowe was determined to make sure that Leopold and Loeb
Speaker 1: did not go to an insane asylum. He brought in
Speaker 1: a number of psychiatrists to examine the pair, all of
Speaker 1: whom concluded that they were not legally insane. They had
Speaker 1: both understood that their actions were wrong. On June first,
Speaker 1: Robert Crowe held a press conference. He had already announced
Speaker 1: the identity and confessions of the killers. Now Crow declared
Speaker 1: his intentions. I have he told reporters a hanging case.
Speaker 1: Most people agreed, but Crow had not reckoned with the
Speaker 1: wealth and desperation of the Leopold and Loeb families. They
Speaker 1: were about to throw an unexpected factor into the trial.
Speaker 1: The most famous defense attorney in America enter Clarence Darrow.
Speaker 1: Clarence Darrow made a name for himself as a labor
Speaker 1: lawyer representing unions and political activists. Darrow had honed a folksy,
Speaker 1: effective style. Journalist Ben Hecht once described to Darrow in court,
Speaker 1: quote the great barrister, artfully gotten up in baggy pants,
Speaker 1: frayed linen and string tie, and playing dumb for the jury,
Speaker 1: as if he were no lawyer at all, but a
Speaker 1: cracker barrel philosopher groping for a bit of human truth.
Speaker 1: Darrow was sixty seven in nineteen twenty four and was
Speaker 1: tired and often unwell when Jacob Lobe, Richard's uncle, came
Speaker 1: to his Chicago apartment on the night of May thirty, first,
Speaker 1: begging Darrow to take on his nephew's defense. The lawyer hesitated.
Speaker 1: Jacob Lobe pleaded with Darrow, quote, save their lives. Get
Speaker 1: them a life sentence instead of a death sentence. That's
Speaker 1: all we ask of you. Moneis no object, will pay
Speaker 1: you anything you ask. Only for God's sake, Don't let
Speaker 1: them be hung Jacob Loebes plea resonated with Darrow for
Speaker 1: two reasons. The first was one of principle. Darrow was
Speaker 1: strongly opposed to the death penalty. The second was more prosaic.
Speaker 1: He really needed the money. He told Jacob Loebe he
Speaker 1: would take the case. Darrow would be joined in the
Speaker 1: defense by two Chicago lawyers, brothers named Benjamin and Walter Backrack,
Speaker 1: who the Leopold family hired. The Backracks also happened to
Speaker 1: be Richard Loeb's cousins. The defense was certainly facing an
Speaker 1: uphill battle. This was before the advent of the Miranda warning,
Speaker 1: and both Richard and Nathan had freely confessed to the
Speaker 1: police and had even helped them gather evidence. The case
Speaker 1: against the pair was watertight. Public sentiment was also against
Speaker 1: the killers. People were horrified by their callous attitudes, as
Speaker 1: exemplified by Nathan, who described the crime to a reporter
Speaker 1: as quote an experiment and an exemplary and commendable thing.
Speaker 1: People were also angry at Darrow for taking the case.
Speaker 1: Darrow had made his reputation defending the poor and depressed.
Speaker 1: Now he was defending the privileged. People worried that the
Speaker 1: wealth of the families would allow the killers to escape punishment.
Speaker 1: The Leopold and Lobe families responded publicly to this claim,
Speaker 1: saying in a statement, quote, in no event will the
Speaker 1: families of the accused boys use money in any attempt
Speaker 1: to defeat justice. On July eleventh, Richard and Nathan were arraigned.
Speaker 1: Thousands of people showed up, and so many of them
Speaker 1: tried to push into the courtroom that they tore the
Speaker 1: doors off their hinges. Richard and Nathan both pled not
Speaker 1: guilty to the charges of murder and kidnapping. The trial
Speaker 1: date was set for August fourth. The defense team began
Speaker 1: to prepare for trial. They had decided to pursue an
Speaker 1: insanity defense. Walter Backrach went to the American Psychiatric Association's
Speaker 1: annual convention to recruit experts to testify for the defense.
Speaker 1: He found four doctors willing to do so. These doctors
Speaker 1: all spoke to Nathan and Richard personally, but also relied
Speaker 1: on a comprehensive report prepared by two additional doctors, Carl
Speaker 1: Bowman and Harold Hulbert. Bowman and Hulbert spent a week
Speaker 1: interviewing the defendants. Based on these interviews, Hulbert and Bowman
Speaker 1: compiled a large report focusing on all aspects of the
Speaker 1: defendant's upbringing, moral views, and mental and physical health. Robert
Speaker 1: Crowe heard the rumors about the defense's plan, but was unconcerned.
Speaker 1: He had had his own team of psychiatrists examined Richard
Speaker 1: and Nathan, and all these experts were prepared to testify
Speaker 1: that the defendants were not legally insane. The state of
Speaker 1: Illinois used the McNaughton rule to determine insanity. The mcnoton
Speaker 1: rule is covered in more detail in our episode on
Speaker 1: Charles Guittou, but the basics are this. A defendant can
Speaker 1: only be found not guilty by reason of insanity if
Speaker 1: they both did not understand the nature of their crime
Speaker 1: and also could not distinguish right from wrong at the
Speaker 1: time they committed the crime. Crowe was confident he could
Speaker 1: beat Darrow in an insanity trial, but Darrow was about
Speaker 1: to change the game. On July twenty first, the lawyer's
Speaker 1: defendants and hundreds of spectators assembled in Judge John Caverly's
Speaker 1: courtroom at the Criminal Courts Building. No one expected anything dramatic.
Speaker 1: This was simply the first day that either side could
Speaker 1: present motions to the judge. But then Clarence Darrow stood
Speaker 1: and began to speak. Quote, after long reflection and thorough discussion,
Speaker 1: we have determined to make a motion in this court
Speaker 1: to withdraw a plea of not guilty and enter a
Speaker 1: plea of guilty. A stunned silence filled the courtroom. Darrow's
Speaker 1: change of tactics came as a complete surprise, which was
Speaker 1: just how he wanted it. He had made the decision
Speaker 1: to plead the defendants guilty weeks earlier, but had kept
Speaker 1: his intentions secret from almost everyone, including Richard and Nathan,
Speaker 1: who only learned of the plan on the morning of
Speaker 1: the twenty first. Darrow believed that a guilty plea was
Speaker 1: his only chance to save the defendants' lives. He did
Speaker 1: not believe that a jury would buy an insanity plea.
Speaker 1: By pleading guilty, the trial would become a sentencing hearing,
Speaker 1: and Darrow would only have to convince one man, the judge,
Speaker 1: that his clients did not deserve death. He believed that
Speaker 1: he could so convince Judge Caverley, who had never before
Speaker 1: condemned anyone to death. In his motion to change the plea,
Speaker 1: Darrow also asked that the defense be allowed to offer
Speaker 1: information to mitigate punishment, in other words, to provide information
Speaker 1: that might contextualize the defendant's actions. He specifically asked to
Speaker 1: be allowed to introduce evidence on the defendant's mental conditions.
Speaker 1: Robert Crowe objected. He argued that allowing the defense to
Speaker 1: introduce such evidence was subverting the law. If they wanted
Speaker 1: to introduce this evidence, he said, they should have pled
Speaker 1: not guilty by reason of insanity. Judge Cavalley wanted time
Speaker 1: to decide. He told Darrow that he was shocked by
Speaker 1: the guilty plea, saying, you have unloaded a big responsibility
Speaker 1: upon me. It was totally unexpected. Then declared that the
Speaker 1: sentencing hearing would begin two days, hence on Wednesday, July
Speaker 1: twenty third. July twenty third was a hot day. All
Speaker 1: of the days of the sentencing hearing would be turning
Speaker 1: the courtroom into a steam room. At ten am, the
Speaker 1: hearing began. Although this was no longer a trial per se,
Speaker 1: both the prosecution and defense intended to present full cases,
Speaker 1: including opening statements. Robert Crowe began he did not pull
Speaker 1: his punches. The state will show. He said that these
Speaker 1: men are guilty of the most cruel, cowardly, dastardly murder
Speaker 1: ever committed in the annals of American jurisprudence. The state
Speaker 1: will demonstrate their guilt here so conclusively that there is
Speaker 1: not an avenue for them to escape. We are going
Speaker 1: to demand the death penalty for both of these cold,
Speaker 1: blowe udded, cruel and vicious murderers. Darrow pushed back on
Speaker 1: Crowe's characterization, saying that this was not the worst crime
Speaker 1: ever committed. When Crowe objected to this, Darrow reframed, arguing
Speaker 1: instead that quote terrible as this is, terrible as any
Speaker 1: killing is, it would be without precedent if two boys
Speaker 1: of this age should be hanged by the neck until dead,
Speaker 1: and it would in no way bring back Robert Franks
Speaker 1: or add to the peace and security of this community.
Speaker 1: He emphasized the defendant's youth, describing them as boys, a
Speaker 1: term he and the defense lawyers and experts would use
Speaker 1: throughout the trial. At the time of the crime, Nathan
Speaker 1: had been nineteen and Richard eighteen. Robert Crowe now presented
Speaker 1: his case. As Nina Barrett notes in her book The
Speaker 1: Leopold and Lobe Files, Judge Cavalley had a quote liberal
Speaker 1: attitude toward hearing any and all evidence that might help
Speaker 1: him weigh the terms of justice in his own mind,
Speaker 1: and Crowe was determined to paint a comprehensive picture of
Speaker 1: both the killer's guilt and of their lack of remorse.
Speaker 1: Over the course of the next week, he would present
Speaker 1: eighty one witnesses. He introduced Bobby's parents, Jacob and Flora,
Speaker 1: whose grief seemed to overwhelm them. He brought on coroner
Speaker 1: doctor Joseph Springer, who described Bobby's injuries and how he
Speaker 1: had slowly suffocated on the ether soaked rag. He brought
Speaker 1: on the various shopkeepers who had all identified Nathan and Richard.
Speaker 1: At this point, Darrow objected to Crowe's case, saying that
Speaker 1: given the guilty plea, such a recitation of evidence was unnecessary.
Speaker 1: Crow responded that he wanted to demonstrate that the defendants
Speaker 1: had only confessed because of the quote mountain of evidence
Speaker 1: against them, not out of any sense of remorse. Judge
Speaker 1: Caverly told Crow to proceed. Crow next called the experts
Speaker 1: and investigators who had helped gather the evidence against the pair.
Speaker 1: The typewriter expert who had matched the ransom note to
Speaker 1: Nathan's study notes, the optometrist who had prescribed Nathan's glasses,
Speaker 1: the doctor who had found bloodstains on the pair's clothes
Speaker 1: and in their rental car. Throughout this presentation, Nathan and
Speaker 1: Richard's behavior shocked observers. They whispered to one another, laughed,
Speaker 1: made faces, fidgeted in their chairs. They did not seem
Speaker 1: to be taking anything seriously, and they certainly showed no
Speaker 1: respect for the victim's family nor remorse for their crimes.
Speaker 1: When a reporter asked Richard to explain his behavior, he responded,
Speaker 1: what do they want me to do? I sit in
Speaker 1: the courtroom and watch the play as its On July thirtieth,
Speaker 1: after the defendant's police interviews and confessions were read into
Speaker 1: the record, Robert Crowe concluded his case. It was now
Speaker 1: time for the defense to begin. The first defense witness
Speaker 1: was doctor William White, president of the American Psychiatric Association.
Speaker 1: Crowe objected to this testimony, using the same argument he'd
Speaker 1: made on July twenty first. The defense he believed should
Speaker 1: not be allowed to introduce evidence of insanity since they
Speaker 1: had pled guilty. The arguments over this issue continued for
Speaker 1: three days. Finally, Judge Caverley decided to allow the evidence,
Speaker 1: but added that if any of the defense witnesses made
Speaker 1: a claim about insanity as opposed to providing context for
Speaker 1: the defendant's mental health, he would call a jury and
Speaker 1: begin a jury trial. With this matter resolved, doctor White
Speaker 1: began his testimony. He delved into the psychology of the defendants.
Speaker 1: That Richard, who he and all the other defense experts
Speaker 1: referred to by his nickname of Dickie, had a fantasy
Speaker 1: of being a master criminal, a fantasy so compelling that
Speaker 1: it prevented him from understanding the real world. About Nathan,
Speaker 1: who he again using his nickname, called Babe, Doctor White
Speaker 1: said that he had developed a hardened shell of superiority
Speaker 1: and coldness as a way of protecting himself. He discussed
Speaker 1: the troubled childhoods of both defendants, the abuses of their nannies,
Speaker 1: and the unexpected costs of privilege. He described the defendants
Speaker 1: as emotionally disturbed young men, who, while say, did not
Speaker 1: have the same capacity for understanding right and wrong that
Speaker 1: a normal person would. On cross examination, Crowe tried to
Speaker 1: trigger a jury trial. He asked White to show his
Speaker 1: initial psychiatric report to crow. It seemed suspicious that White
Speaker 1: would diagnose the defendants with so many psychological issues without
Speaker 1: also labeling them insane. Under discovery rules, Crowe was entitled
Speaker 1: to see White's original report, but the defense objected. After
Speaker 1: some back and forth, Judge Caverlely asked White to produce
Speaker 1: his report. White responded that he had given his report
Speaker 1: to defense lawyer Walter Backrack and no longer had it. Backrack,
Speaker 1: in turn refused to produce it. Crow pushed, saying, if
Speaker 1: I can prove that this man has changed his conclusions,
Speaker 1: that at one time he was willing to swear for
Speaker 1: pay to one thing, and on another occasion he is
Speaker 1: willing to swear to a different set of facts for pay,
Speaker 1: I think I have destroyed the value of his testimony.
Speaker 1: But then, for some reason he gave up, saying that
Speaker 1: if the defense would not produce the report, he would
Speaker 1: let the issue rest. Crow had come very near to
Speaker 1: exploding Clarence Darrow's plan. In July twenty seventeen, Northwestern University
Speaker 1: managed to obtain the initial psychiatric reports made by the
Speaker 1: defense experts and found that three of them, including that
Speaker 1: of doctor White, had indeed initially declared the defendants insane,
Speaker 1: they had changed their testimony. When the defendants changed their plea,
Speaker 1: Darrow suppressed these reports in order to ensure that the
Speaker 1: doctor's testimony would not trigger a jury trial. This had
Speaker 1: long been rumored, but the discovery of the reports confirmed
Speaker 1: it and revealed the extremely ethically dubious actions of Darrow
Speaker 1: and these experts. But back in nineteen twenty one, the
Speaker 1: defense proceeded with its case. The next witness, doctor William Healey,
Speaker 1: also discussed the defendant's mental instability. The most important part
Speaker 1: of his testimony was his discussion of the pact between
Speaker 1: Nathan and Richard, including the fact that the terms included sex.
Speaker 1: Nathan and Richard's homosexual relationship had been rumored and hinted at,
Speaker 1: but Healey's testimony confirmed it. After Healey, the defense called
Speaker 1: two more psychiatrists, doctor Bernard Gluck and doctor Harold Hulbert.
Speaker 1: Then they presented a series of character witnesses, classmates and friends,
Speaker 1: who discussed Richard's immaturity and Nathan's obsession with Nietzsche. With that,
Speaker 1: the defense concluded their case. For his rebuttal case, Robert
Speaker 1: Crowe presented his own series of psychiatrists, all of whom
Speaker 1: believed that Nathan and Richard were not mentally ill. None
Speaker 1: of the psychological evidence on either side was particularly compelling,
Speaker 1: but the defense experts did provide the public with a
Speaker 1: new picture of the defendants. Instead of being monstrous murderers,
Speaker 1: they were traumatized children lashing out at a world that
Speaker 1: had hurt them. After the testimony concluded, the closing arguments began,
Speaker 1: Assistant States Attorney Thomas Marshall kicked things off, saying that
Speaker 1: the precedent in cases like this was to give the
Speaker 1: murderers the death penalty. ASA Joseph Savage continued the prosecution's
Speaker 1: argument in a moving, powerful speech. Savage detailed the crime
Speaker 1: and pushed back on how Darrow had constantly described Richard
Speaker 1: and Nathan as boys, saying, Darrow asks your honor for mercy,
Speaker 1: and he tells your honor that they are both youths. Boys.
Speaker 1: What mercy did they show that boy? Savage's closing brought
Speaker 1: the courtroom to tears. Even Nathan was affected in his
Speaker 1: own way, asking his brother, my God, do you think
Speaker 1: we'll swing? After that, it was now the defense's turn.
Speaker 1: Walter Backrach gave a brief speech. He recapped the testimony
Speaker 1: of their psychiatric experts, and returned to the theme of
Speaker 1: the defendant's youth, saying, quote, your honor stands in relationship
Speaker 1: of a father to these defendants. Once Backrack concluded on
Speaker 1: the afternoon of August twenty second, Clarence Darrow rose he
Speaker 1: would deliver a defense for the Ages, an eight hour
Speaker 1: tour de force that is one of the most famous
Speaker 1: closing arguments in legal history. He discussed the lack of
Speaker 1: legal precedent for a death sentence in such a case,
Speaker 1: noting that only three people had ever been hanged after
Speaker 1: pleading guilty. He described the evolution of the application of
Speaker 1: the death penalty, stating that it had been used more
Speaker 1: and more selectively over the years, and called for judicial progressiveness.
Speaker 1: He also focused on moral objections to the death penalty,
Speaker 1: saying do you think you can cure the hatreds and
Speaker 1: the maladjustments of the world by hanging them? You may,
Speaker 1: here and there cure hatred with love and understanding, but
Speaker 1: you can only add fuel to the flames by hating.
Speaker 1: In return, he made the stakes of Judge Caverley's decisions stark,
Speaker 1: saying of the concept of justice, quote, who knows what
Speaker 1: it is does Crow know, Do I know? Does your
Speaker 1: honor know? Is there any human machinery for finding it?
Speaker 1: Can your honor appraise these two young men and say
Speaker 1: what they deserve? It means that you must appraise every
Speaker 1: influence that moves them, the civilization where they live, they're living,
Speaker 1: their society, all society which enters into the making of
Speaker 1: a child. If your honor can do it, If you
Speaker 1: can do it, you are wise. And with wisdom goes
Speaker 1: mercy for all its eloquence and humanity. Darrow's closing could
Speaker 1: also be callous and inaccurate. He said that quote poor
Speaker 1: little Bobby Franks suffered very little and died quickly, which
Speaker 1: was not true. He said that perhaps it was Bobby's
Speaker 1: fate to die young, and replied that he might not
Speaker 1: have done anything with his life. Quote perhaps the boy
Speaker 1: who died at fourteen did as much as if he
Speaker 1: had died at seventy. He said of Richard and Nathan,
Speaker 1: these two are the victims. But Darrow ended on a
Speaker 1: powerful note, saying, I am pleading for life, understanding, charity
Speaker 1: and kindness and the infinite mercy that forgives all. I
Speaker 1: am pleading that we overcome cruelty with kindness and hatred
Speaker 1: with love. I am pleading for the future. I am
Speaker 1: pleading for a time when hatred and cruelty will not
Speaker 1: control the hearts of men. At the end of his closing,
Speaker 1: as at the end of Savages, many in the courtroom
Speaker 1: wherein tears, defense attorney Benjamin Backrack now gave a brief
Speaker 1: statement in which he again outlied the evidence of the
Speaker 1: defendant's mental instability. Robert Crowe would have the final word
Speaker 1: in the trial. Crow was angry, frustrated by Darrow's characterization
Speaker 1: of the defendants as boys who could not control their actions,
Speaker 1: upset by the defense's attempt to make the crime seem
Speaker 1: less brutal than it had been, and his fury showed
Speaker 1: in his closing arguments. He spoke loudly and shook his
Speaker 1: fists and stamped his feet for emphasis. He also introduced
Speaker 1: a new theory, the idea that Bobby Franks was molested
Speaker 1: before he was murdered. The defense objected, but cavally allowed
Speaker 1: the evidence, although he ordered all women to leave the
Speaker 1: courtroom first. There was not conclusive evidence one way or
Speaker 1: another about this claim. The medical evidence was ambiguous. The
Speaker 1: next day, Crow continued his argument. He attacked the defense psychiatrists,
Speaker 1: the defense attorneys, and the defendants. We ought to treat
Speaker 1: them with kindness and consideration, he asked, incredulously, why from
Speaker 1: the evidence in this case, they are as much entitled
Speaker 1: to the sympathy and mercy of this court as a
Speaker 1: couple of rattlesnakes. They are a disgrace to their honored families,
Speaker 1: and they are a menace to this community. The only
Speaker 1: useful thing that remains for them now in life is
Speaker 1: to go out of life, and go out of it
Speaker 1: as quickly as possible under the law. Crow's forceful words
Speaker 1: seem to be effective in undermining Darrow's arguments, but then
Speaker 1: the prosecutor made a misstep. He brought up Nathan Leopold's
Speaker 1: statement during interrogation that quote, a friendly judge would let
Speaker 1: them off. Crow had meant to illustrate the defendants smugness
Speaker 1: and lack of remorse, but Judge Caverley interpreted this as
Speaker 1: an attack on his integrity, Believing that Crow was implying
Speaker 1: that he had been bribed. He rebuked Crow and ordered
Speaker 1: that the words be stricken from the record, as they
Speaker 1: were a quote cowardly and dastardly assault upon the integrity
Speaker 1: of this court uncomfortable. Crow tried to explain that that
Speaker 1: had not been his intent, but Caverlely was furious on
Speaker 1: this awkward note. On the afternoon of August twenty eighth,
Speaker 1: the sentencing hearing ended after thirty two days. Judge Cavalley
Speaker 1: stated that he would announce his decision on September tenth,
Speaker 1: and said that anyone who bothered him during his deliberations
Speaker 1: would be quote sent to jail instantly. Despite this, morning,
Speaker 1: Judge Caverley and his wife received multiple death threats, and
Speaker 1: someone threatened to bomb the courthouse if he did not
Speaker 1: sentence Nathan and Richard to death. At nine thirty a m.
Speaker 1: On Wednesday, September tenth, Judge Cavalley called the court to order.
Speaker 1: He said that given the interest the country had in
Speaker 1: the case, he wished to explain his decision. He said
Speaker 1: that the psychiatric testimony did not impact his decision because
Speaker 1: he believed that quote similar analyzes made of other persons
Speaker 1: accused of crime will probably reveal similar or different abnormalities
Speaker 1: and thus were not necessarily mitigating factors. He described the
Speaker 1: crime as having been premeditated and planned and executed with
Speaker 1: quote callousness and cruelty, but he said he could not
Speaker 1: ignore the youth of the defendants given their age and quote.
Speaker 1: In accordance with the progress of criminal law, with the
Speaker 1: dictates of enlightened humanity, and the precedents hitherto observed in
Speaker 1: this state, he would be sentencing Nathan Leepold and Richard
Speaker 1: Lob to life in prison. The decision to sentence Leopold
Speaker 1: and Lobe to prison, specifically a life sentence for the
Speaker 1: murder plus a ninety nine year sentence for the kidnapping,
Speaker 1: came as a surprise to many, but people also seemed
Speaker 1: to understand and accept the sentence. This public reaction to
Speaker 1: the sentence reflected evolving perceptions of the crime itself. When
Speaker 1: the identities of the killers had first been announced, and
Speaker 1: when Nathan Leopold and Richard Loeb gave shocking interviews in
Speaker 1: which they could not explain their motives and expressed no remorse,
Speaker 1: the crime had seemed beyond understanding to many people, but
Speaker 1: the trial, or more specifically, the press coverage of the trial,
Speaker 1: had changed that view. As the historian PAULA Fast says
Speaker 1: in her article Making and Remaking an Event, the Leopold
Speaker 1: and Lobe case in American culture. Quote, the killers became
Speaker 1: anything the Nietzschean superman whom they claimed to be and
Speaker 1: whose self sufficiency initially alarmed the public. Instead, they became children,
Speaker 1: precocious and wounded, certainly, but children who could provide lessons
Speaker 1: about how to normalize childhood. This last point was an
Speaker 1: especially important one. People wanted to find a lesson from
Speaker 1: the crime, and they found several lessons about how society
Speaker 1: should change. For example, what had initially been understood as
Speaker 1: an unfathomable thrill killing was now seen as a representation
Speaker 1: of the era's troubles. People saw Leopold and Lobe as
Speaker 1: the culmination of all of the trends of the twenties.
Speaker 1: Were they jaded by the jazz life of ginnin girls
Speaker 1: so that they needed so terrible a thing as murder
Speaker 1: to give them new thrills? Asked the Chicago Daily Tribune.
Speaker 1: The same article asked, quote, were they bored by life
Speaker 1: which left them nothing to be desired, no obstacles to overcome,
Speaker 1: no goal to attain? The idea that the pair's wealth
Speaker 1: had negatively influenced them had been a key part of
Speaker 1: the defense's case. There were echoes in this defense and
Speaker 1: in the public discussion of the trial of the twenty
Speaker 1: sixteen case of Ethan Couch, a sixteen year old who
Speaker 1: killed four people while drunk driving. Like Leopold and Lobe,
Speaker 1: Couch pleaded guilty. At his sentencing hearing, defense psychologist Gary
Speaker 1: Miller stated quote, he never learned that sometimes you don't
Speaker 1: get your way. He had the cars, and he had
Speaker 1: the money. He had freedoms that no young man would
Speaker 1: be able to handle. Though prosecutors had asked for a
Speaker 1: twenty year prison sentence, Couch was instead handed ten years
Speaker 1: of probation. Speaking about the sentence, Eric Boyles, whose wife
Speaker 1: and daughter had been killed by Couch, said, had he
Speaker 1: not had money to have the defense there, to also
Speaker 1: have the experts testify, and also offered to pay for
Speaker 1: the treatment, I think the results would have been different.
Speaker 1: Whether or not you buy the so called affluenza defense.
Speaker 1: It's hard to deny the influence on both Couch and
Speaker 1: Leopold and Loeb's case. The Leopold and Loeb family's wealth
Speaker 1: allowed them to pay a top defense lawyer, and Darrow's
Speaker 1: shrewd work on the case, particularly his closing argument, certainly
Speaker 1: influenced the verdict, as the Chicago Daily Tribune recorded, quote,
Speaker 1: it was the opinion in legal circles that mister Crow's
Speaker 1: mountain high evidence had been displaced by Clarence S. Darrow's
Speaker 1: sage philosophizing. Had Leopold and Lob not been able to
Speaker 1: afford talented defense attorneys, their outcome would likely have been different.
Speaker 1: The Frank's family responded to the verdict with grace. Flora
Speaker 1: Franks told newspapers that she had not wanted the death penalty,
Speaker 1: in large part because of Bobby's view on the subject.
Speaker 1: In a school debate several weeks before his murder, Bobby
Speaker 1: had spoken against the death penalty, saying punishment should be reformative,
Speaker 1: never vindictive. Jacob Frank said he was just happy that
Speaker 1: it was over. Quote. There can be no more torture
Speaker 1: of seeing this thing spread over the front pages of newspapers.
Speaker 1: It will be easier for missus Franks and for me
Speaker 1: to be relieved of the terrible strain of all this publicity.
Speaker 1: The publicity had indeed been relentless for the Frank's family
Speaker 1: during the trial. Thousands of curious people had flocked the
Speaker 1: Frank's home in Kenwood, looking through their windows and invading
Speaker 1: their privacy. In late September, Jacob Franks decided to sell
Speaker 1: the family home and move to a different part of Chicago.
Speaker 1: They auctioned off everything in their home, and twelve hundred
Speaker 1: people showed up just to see Bobby Franks's room. Jacob
Speaker 1: Frank died in nineteen twenty eight. A newspaper article announcing
Speaker 1: his death said he was quote never able to recover
Speaker 1: from his grief. Flora died in nineteen thirty seven. Within
Speaker 1: five years of the trial, Richard's father, Albert, and Nathan's father,
Speaker 1: Nathan Senior, were also dead, and then on January twenty eighth,
Speaker 1: nineteen thirty six, Richard Loeb was stabbed to death in
Speaker 1: prison by another inmate. That left only Nathan Leopold, and
Speaker 1: he was determined that he would not spend the rest
Speaker 1: of his life in prison. Though his first years in
Speaker 1: prison had been defined by rule breaking and trouble making,
Speaker 1: he began to settle down and volunteered around the jail.
Speaker 1: In nineteen fifty three, he had his first parole hearing.
Speaker 1: When asked about the motives for his crime, Nathan refused
Speaker 1: to answer, saying only I don't know why I did it.
Speaker 1: I'm a different man now. I was a smart Alec kid.
Speaker 1: Being a smart Alec kid did not impress the parole
Speaker 1: board as justification for murder. Nathan's lack of remorse also
Speaker 1: troubled the board, they denied his parole request. Over the
Speaker 1: next five years, Nathan promoted his reformed image, heavily participating
Speaker 1: in interviews that promoted his volunteer work and distanced him
Speaker 1: from the crime. In a Saturday Evening Post profile, Nathan
Speaker 1: described the murder as something he'd only quote been present at.
Speaker 1: He also insisted that he was no longer gay. In
Speaker 1: nineteen fifty seven, he published a memoir called Life plus
Speaker 1: ninety nine Years, in which Nathan portrayed himself as deeply remorseful,
Speaker 1: while also claiming that he only did the crime because
Speaker 1: Richard Loeb forced him to. In February nineteen fifty eight,
Speaker 1: Nathan had another parole Board hearing. He continued his denial
Speaker 1: of responsibility, repeating the claim that he was forced into
Speaker 1: the crime by Richard Loeb and said I had no
Speaker 1: wish to do this dreadful thing. However, he also said
Speaker 1: he was overwhelmed by remorse and said it is not
Speaker 1: easy to live with murder on your conscience, The fact
Speaker 1: that you didn't do the actual killing yourself does not
Speaker 1: make it any easier. Despite this shifting of blame, the
Speaker 1: parole board was more receptive to Nathan this time around,
Speaker 1: and granted him parole on February twentieth. He moved to
Speaker 1: Puerto Rico, where he took a job in a hospital
Speaker 1: and married a woman. In nineteen seventy one, he visited
Speaker 1: Chicago and went on a trip to the area around
Speaker 1: Wolf Lake where he had dumped Bobby Franks's body nearly
Speaker 1: fifty years earlier. The area, once a wild land, had
Speaker 1: been built over. In a letter to his attorney, Nathan
Speaker 1: described the area only as quote where I used to
Speaker 1: go birding. Soon after this trip, Nathan, already in poor health,
Speaker 1: fell ill. On August twenty ninth, nineteen seventy one, Nathan
Speaker 1: Leopold died. The Leopold and Loeb case has achieved mythical
Speaker 1: status in the annals of true crime. It seems to
Speaker 1: have all the elements of a fictional story. The remorseless,
Speaker 1: eccentric killers, the impassioned defense attorney, the debates over society
Speaker 1: and morals and justice. It can be hard to remember
Speaker 1: that at the heart of this story is a fourteen
Speaker 1: year old boy who thought he was stepping into a
Speaker 1: relative's car to talk about tennis rackets and then was
Speaker 1: brutally killed. There is a human reality to this case.
Speaker 1: For all its drama. It is a sad, sordid tale.
Speaker 1: But as one of Nathan's parole board members said, quote,
Speaker 1: the story is already a legend. That's the story of
Speaker 1: Illinois v. Nathan Leopold and Richard Loeb. Stay with me
Speaker 1: after the break to learn about the presses prizing role
Speaker 1: in the case. Like many so called crimes of the century,
Speaker 1: the press were all over the Leopold and Loeb case,
Speaker 1: but the press played an unusual role in this story.
Speaker 1: Two reporters, James Mulroy and Alvin Goldstein, were instrumental to
Speaker 1: solving the crime. On May twenty second, Mulroy, a reporter
Speaker 1: for the Chicago Daily News, received a tip that Bobby
Speaker 1: Franks had been kidnapped. He got in touch with the
Speaker 1: Frank's family friend, Samuel Edelson, who confirmed the story in
Speaker 1: exchange for Mulroy promising not to publish anything yet. Mulroy
Speaker 1: agreed and traveled over to the Frank's house to see
Speaker 1: what more he could learn. Meanwhile, Mulroy's colleague Alvin Goldstein
Speaker 1: had been sent to write up the discovery of a
Speaker 1: boy's body in Indiana. When Mulroy's editor told him about
Speaker 1: the body, Mulroy connected the dots and suggested that it
Speaker 1: might be Bobby Franks. Infrom was the reason the Frank
Speaker 1: sent Bobby's uncle to look at the body and ultimately
Speaker 1: identify it. On May twenty third, Mulroy and Goldstein stopped
Speaker 1: for lunch at the Zeta Beta Tau fraternity house at
Speaker 1: the University of Chicago. Richard Loebe happened to be there
Speaker 1: chatting with another reporter named Howard Mayer about the Franks case.
Speaker 1: Loebe suggested to the reporters that they could find out
Speaker 1: which drug store Jacob Franks was supposed to have gone
Speaker 1: to for the ransom. The four men traveled to sixty
Speaker 1: third Street and were able to discover the drug store,
Speaker 1: which the journalists then reported to the police. Mulroy and
Speaker 1: Goldstein had their biggest break on May thirty. First. They
Speaker 1: had been talking to Nathan's classmates and discovered that Nathan
Speaker 1: was the note taker for his study group. One student
Speaker 1: told the reporters that while Nathan usually used a Hammond typewriter,
Speaker 1: he had once seen Nathan use a portable typewriter instead.
Speaker 1: The student gave mulroy and Goldstein copies of the group notes,
Speaker 1: which they took to the typewriter expert who had examined
Speaker 1: the ransom note for the police. Upon examining the study notes,
Speaker 1: the expert was sure that one set of them, the
Speaker 1: set that differed from all the rest, was typed by
Speaker 1: the same typewriter that had produced the ransom note. Mulroy
Speaker 1: and Goldstein took this information to Robert Crowe, who proceeded
Speaker 1: to call in the study group members and question them.
Speaker 1: This would be one of the final pieces of evidence
Speaker 1: that sealed the case against Leopold and Loeb for their
Speaker 1: dogged reporting and four quote their service towards the solution
Speaker 1: of the murder of Robert Franks in Chicago on May
Speaker 1: twenty first, nineteen twenty four, and the bringing to justice
Speaker 1: of Nathan F. Leopold and Richard Loeb. James Mulroy and
Speaker 1: Alvin Goldstein were awarded the nineteen twenty five Pulitzer Prize
Speaker 1: in Reporting. Thank you for listening to History on Trial.
Speaker 1: My main sources for this episode were Nina Barrett's book
Speaker 1: The Leopold and Low Files, An intimate look at one
Speaker 1: of America's most infamous crimes, Eric Rabaine's website Lobe and
Speaker 1: Leopold dot Com, Greg King and Penny Wilson's book Nothing
Speaker 1: But the Night Leopold and Loeb and The Truth Behind
Speaker 1: the Murder that rocked nineteen twenties America, and Paula Fass's
Speaker 1: article Making and Remaking an event, the Leopold and Loeb
Speaker 1: Case in American Culture. For a full bibliography, as well
Speaker 1: as a transcript of this episode with citations, please visit
Speaker 1: our website History on Trial podcast dot com. History on
Speaker 1: Trial is written and hosted by me Mira Hayward. The
Speaker 1: show is edited and produced by Jesse Funk, with supervising
Speaker 1: producer Trevor Jung and executive producers Dana Schwartz, Alexander Williams,
Speaker 1: Matt Frederick, and Mira Hayward. Learn more about the show
Speaker 1: at History on Trial podcast dot com and follow us
Speaker 1: on Instagram at History on Trial and on Twitter at
Speaker 1: Underscore History on Trial. Find more podcasts from iHeartRadio by
Speaker 1: visiting the iHeartRadio app Apple Podcasts or wherever you listen
Speaker 1: to your favorite shows,