For The Thrill Of It Part 15

"I insist that we know what that compact is," Crowe replied, "so that we can form some opinion about it.... Tell it in court. The trial must be public, your Honor. I am not insisting that he talk loud enough for everybody to hear, but it ought to be told in the same way that we put the other evidence in."

John Caverly motioned to the attorneys, from each side, to approach the bench. He called the stenographers to join the small group gathered in front of him. William Healy would testify sotto voce, he directed, so that no one outside the small semicircle could hear. These matters were to remain private, Caverly warned; the attorneys and stenographers were not to break the confidence of the court. The public should never learn the words that Healy was about to divulge.

Healy lowered his voice, almost to a whisper. "This compact," he murmured, "as was told to me separately by each of the boys...consisted in an agreement between them that Leopold, who has very definite h.o.m.os.e.xual tendencies...was to have the privilege of-," Healy paused, and turned, hesitating, toward Caverly: "Do you want me to be very specific?"

"Absolutely," Crowe interrupted, with whispered urgency, "because this is important."

"-was to have," Healy continued, "the privilege of inserting his p.e.n.i.s between Loeb's legs at special rates; at one time it was to be three times in two months, if they continued their criminalistic activities together...then they had some of their quarrels, and then it was once for each criminalistic deed."

Caverly glanced toward the back of the courtroom. The crowd sat still, unable to distinguish the words that Healy was speaking to the attorneys, waiting impatiently for the testimony to be resumed in open court.

"I do not suppose," Darrow reminded the judge, indicating some reporters who had crept closer in an attempt to overhear the testimony, "this should be taken in the presence of newspapermen, your Honor."

"Gentlemen," Caverly shouted, "will you go and sit down, you newspapermen! Take your seats. This should not be published."

"What other acts, if any," Crowe asked, "did they tell you about? You say that there are other acts that they did rarely or seldom?"

"Oh, they were just experimenting once or twice with each other," Healy replied diffidently.

"Tell what it was," Darrow prompted.

"They experimented with mouth perversions.... Leopold has had for many years a great deal of phantasy life surrounding s.e.x activity.... He has phantasies of being with a man, and usually with Loeb himself.... He says he gets a thrill out of antic.i.p.ating it.... Loeb would pretend to be drunk, then this fellow would undress him and he would almost rape him and would be furiously pa.s.sionate.... With women he does not get that same thrill and pa.s.sion."

"That is what he tells you?" Crowe asked doubtfully, glancing over his shoulder at Nathan and Richard sitting next to their guards behind the defense table.

"Surely.... That is what he tells me," Healy replied. "Loeb tells me himself...how he feigns sometimes to be drunk, in order that he should have his aid in carrying out his criminalistic ideas. That is what Leopold gets out of it, and that is what Loeb gets out of it.... When Leopold had this first experience with his p.e.n.i.s between Loeb's legs...he found it gave him more pleasure than anything else he had ever done.... Even in jail here, a look at Loeb's body or his touch upon his shoulder thrills him so, he says, immeasurably."

Healy sat back in his chair, relieved that he had broken the taboo in private, trusting that his revelations would never reach the public eye.

Caverly looked at the attorneys, inviting them to ask the witness further questions, but both Crowe and Darrow indicated that they had heard enough.

"I think," Crowe muttered, "that is all."

Caverly sent the stenographers to their places, on the far side of the courtroom, but held Crowe and Darrow back, indicating that he had some more words to say to them alone. He spoke rapidly and-it seemed to the crowd, watching the three men whisper together at the front of the courtroom-with urgency. He was perhaps seeking their agreement to some proposal, and requesting their acquiescence, and eventually both Crowe and Darrow-tight-lipped and solemn-returned to their seats.25 Although Healy remained on the witness stand one more day, there was never anything as controversial in the remainder of his testimony as his revelations about the defendants' s.e.xual relations.h.i.+p. He took up the charts on the doc.u.ments table to explain the results of the intelligence tests and explained how they revealed Nathan Leopold's exceptional ability ("He answered them all very well and correctly") and Richard Loeb's competence ("I found him to be a fellow of certainly not more than average intelligence"). The tests also demonstrated, according to Healy, the gulf between the boys' emotional capacity and their intellectual ability. Both Nathan and Richard were emotionally infantile.26

THE PSYCHIATRISTS HAD REPEATEDLY EMPHASIZED the significance of the disparity between emotion and intellect, Crowe asked on cross-examination; but just how credible was this claim that Nathan and Richard were emotionally infantile, and what did it have to do with the murder? The defendants had demonstrated remarkable foresight and preparation in the commission of the crime, qualities difficult to reconcile with the claim that they were infantile. They had meticulously planned the killing six months in advance, making elaborate plans to kidnap a victim, to obtain a ransom, and to dispose of the body. The a.s.sertion that Nathan and Richard were emotionally infantile was spurious, Crowe a.s.serted, and in any case had little or nothing to do with the killing. the significance of the disparity between emotion and intellect, Crowe asked on cross-examination; but just how credible was this claim that Nathan and Richard were emotionally infantile, and what did it have to do with the murder? The defendants had demonstrated remarkable foresight and preparation in the commission of the crime, qualities difficult to reconcile with the claim that they were infantile. They had meticulously planned the killing six months in advance, making elaborate plans to kidnap a victim, to obtain a ransom, and to dispose of the body. The a.s.sertion that Nathan and Richard were emotionally infantile was spurious, Crowe a.s.serted, and in any case had little or nothing to do with the killing.

"When Leopold began to plan with Loeb this murder," Crowe asked, "...what was acting then, his intellect or his emotions?"

"His intellect," Healy replied, "but always accompanied by some emotional life, as it always is..."

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

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

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

"Yes."

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

"Yes, sir."

There was nothing, Crowe concluded, about this murder that revealed the actions of two children. It was a preposterous defense-without any merit-designed solely to bamboozle the court.

CROWE'S SKEPTICISM WAS ECHOED OUTSIDE the courtroom. The murder of a child for a thrill by two wealthy, college-educated teenage lovers seemed to signal the moral collapse of Western civilization or, at the very least, the corruption and degeneracy of the modern age. The evangelical preacher Billy Sunday, pa.s.sing through Chicago on his way to Minnesota, warned that the killing could be "traced to the moral miasma which contaminates some of our 'young intellectuals.' It is now considered fas.h.i.+onable for higher education to scoff at G.o.d. The world is headed for Hades so fast no speed limit can stop it. Precocious brains, salacious books, infidel minds-all these helped to produce this murder." the courtroom. The murder of a child for a thrill by two wealthy, college-educated teenage lovers seemed to signal the moral collapse of Western civilization or, at the very least, the corruption and degeneracy of the modern age. The evangelical preacher Billy Sunday, pa.s.sing through Chicago on his way to Minnesota, warned that the killing could be "traced to the moral miasma which contaminates some of our 'young intellectuals.' It is now considered fas.h.i.+onable for higher education to scoff at G.o.d. The world is headed for Hades so fast no speed limit can stop it. Precocious brains, salacious books, infidel minds-all these helped to produce this murder."27 Arthur Kaub, pastor of Winslow Park Evangelical Lutheran Church in Chicago, deplored the sentimentality that denied the murderers' responsibility for their actions. Christian beliefs were fully congruent with the death penalty, he a.s.serted, and the killers of Bobby Franks should not escape their just deserts.

"When notorious criminals," Kaub preached to his congregation, "are found guilty of atrocious crimes deserving the death penalty, a host of sympathetic people intercede for them, urging pardon or a lesser sentence.... We must not s.h.i.+rk responsibility.... Neither must we condone sin because of sympathy with the parents or the criminal. We must have the law upheld, justice meted out and proper punishment executed upon the evildoer."28 Certainly, it was difficult for the majority of Chicagoans to understand why, since the murderers had admitted their guilt, there should be such a protracted and elaborate hearing. The proceedings would cost the state alone almost $100,000, and if the defense appealed the verdict, the expense might exceed $500,000. Why should the taxpayer have to bear such a burden for two murderers who had yet to express any remorse for their actions?29 Edward Gore, a former president of the Chicago a.s.sociation of Commerce, speaking to a meeting of the Central Lions Club on 5 August, criticized the hearing as "an example of the slowness of our judicial procedure" and appealed for a quick resolution-"Why are two confessed murderers permitted to take up the time of our criminal courts?"-in order to demonstrate the resolve of the Chicago courts to end crime. Thomas R. Marshall, a former vice president of the United States who had served in Woodrow Wilson's cabinet for eight years, added his voice to the chorus of criticism, complaining that "high-minded men have been pouring into the ears of the public the idea that in reality there is no such a thing as crime. It is just disease, they have been arguing, and ought to be treated as such."30 The less one knew about the case, it seemed, the more likely one was to criticize the hearing as a waste of time and money. Harry McDevitt, a judge on the Common Pleas Court of Philadelphia, knew only what he had read in the Philadelphia newspapers yet he confidently a.s.serted of the defendants that "their alleged 'split mentality' and their much talked-about superior intellect had little to do with the crime.... They are the personification of conceit, vanity, and asininity. They manifested no respect for the law of G.o.d or man and have a contempt for the conventions of reality.... Were the case being tried in Philadelphia, I am confident a jury would return a verdict of murder in the first degree. It wouldn't take long to reach a conclusion."31 Such comments indicated that the murder of Bobby Franks seemed sui generis in its depravity. It appeared unique, set apart from crimes of pa.s.sion and anger, and elevated above other killings by its deliberate character. Yet when viewed as symbolic of the times, it seemed to reveal much about the United States in the 1920s that many white Protestant Americans found deeply troubling. Sometime within the past few years-perhaps immediately after the war-the country had experienced a sudden s.h.i.+ft in public morality that had entirely overthrown Victorian conventions. Women now bobbed their hair, smoked cigarettes, drank gin, and wore short skirts; s.e.xuality was everywhere and young people were eagerly taking advantage of their new freedoms; a flood of new consumer goods poured onto the market while advertisers beckoned and cajoled with subversive messages; and the predictable failure of Prohibition had transformed formerly respectable Americans into habitual lawbreakers. The traditional morality, centered on work, discipline, and self-denial, had evaporated and in its place there was a culture of self-indulgence. There were no longer any social restraints; each individual now sought self-fulfillment and self-realization in an unceasing pursuit of pleasure. The United States, prosperous throughout the 1920s, was now a society that valued a species of hedonistic self-absorption.32 What single event could better ill.u.s.trate the dangers of such a transformation than the heinous murder of Bobby Franks? The two killers had cheerfully confessed their motive: the killing had been done solely for the experience, for the sensation, for the thrill of murder. Neither Leopold nor Loeb had yet uttered a single word of remorse; neither had expressed contrition. The wors.h.i.+p of youth, the rejection of morality, the obsession with s.e.x and s.e.xuality-all eloquently described in the novels and short stories of Scott Fitzgerald-had found their ultimate expression in this perverted act by Nathan Leopold and Richard Loeb. Fitzgerald, in his books and in his personal life, had discarded traditional morality and had consequently found himself trumpeted as the spokesman of the Jazz Age, but the abolition of restraint had now produced a callous and cynical murder that far surpa.s.sed anything in fiction.

NO ORGANIZATION WAS MORE HOSTILE to the licentiousness of the 1920s than the Ku Klux Klan. The abrupt revival of the Klan in the early 1920s, after several decades of quiescence, centered less on white supremacy and more on Protestant fundamentalism. The Klan was still violently opposed to blacks, of course, but now other groups in the Klan's worldview also threatened traditional morality: Catholics, Jews, and immigrants. to the licentiousness of the 1920s than the Ku Klux Klan. The abrupt revival of the Klan in the early 1920s, after several decades of quiescence, centered less on white supremacy and more on Protestant fundamentalism. The Klan was still violently opposed to blacks, of course, but now other groups in the Klan's worldview also threatened traditional morality: Catholics, Jews, and immigrants.

It was predictable, therefore, that the Klan would add its condemnation to the critical comments of the politicians and clergymen who remarked so freely on the courtroom proceedings. The Klan had experienced remarkable growth in Chicago in the early 1920s. In 1922, for example, it had enrolled more new members in Chicago than in any other comparable urban center in the United States, and the City Council, fearful of the Klan's rapidly growing influence, had voted not to hire known Klan members as munic.i.p.al employees. The Klan, never reluctant to blame marginal groups as the cause of all social problems, portrayed itself as the guardian of public morals and, in that role, was eager to see two Jewish h.o.m.os.e.xuals sent to the scaffold for the murder of a child. "I can tell you," an official of the Klan confided to a reporter from the Chicago Evening Post Chicago Evening Post on 5 August, "that members of the organization are in the court every day. They are determined to see that justice is done." on 5 August, "that members of the organization are in the court every day. They are determined to see that justice is done."33 Members of the Klan not only attended the court sessions but also sent threatening letters to the judge and occasionally telephoned him in the middle of the night to demand that he hang Leopold and Loeb. The Klan persisted in its campaign of intimidation throughout the hearing, earning the organization welcome publicity in the newspapers. In July the Klan burned a fiery cross, fourteen feet high, on a vacant lot not far from the Loeb family home. On another occasion, toward the conclusion of the hearing, Klan members left a human skull and bones near the Loeb house along with a note that promised a lynching of the two defendants.34 The threats of the Klan, along with the comments of the clergymen and politicians, viewed as attempts to influence the judge, were in contempt of court. Public sentiment might demand the death penalty for Leopold and Loeb, but Caverly was resolute, nevertheless, in his determination to give the defendants their const.i.tutional rights. "This sort of thing," he announced, "is wholly out of order, whether it is a bloodthirsty demand, purporting to come from the Ku Klux Klan, or a plea for mercy from a clergyman. In either case, the writer not only displays poor taste but is actually violating the law.... The fact of the matter is, I have not yet made up my mind as to what is to be done with these boys. I am still listening to the evidence." Yet Caverly's statement was not enough to quiet the complaints of Clarence Darrow that the comments of influential politicians, businessmen, and religious leaders were harming his clients' opportunity for an unprejudiced hearing and might influence the judge to truncate the proceedings prematurely and hand down the death penalty. "If the boys hang," Darrow fumed, "the United States might well vote murder indictments against the unjudicial agencies, many of them far removed from Chief Justice John R. Caverly's courtroom, who are trying to 'fix' public opinion." There was only one reason, Darrow explained, for the intense public interest in the case; it was the wealth of the defendants' families that caused the mob to shout for the death penalty. If the defendants had been poor, unknown, of humble origin, no one would have paid the slightest attention to the case.35

THERE WAS NOT A GREAT deal in Bernard Glueck's testimony, either on his first day in the witness box-Tuesday, 5 August-or on the next, that had not already been said by the two other psychiatrists. Glueck, also, remarked that he had found Richard's emotional detachment unusual. Indeed Richard Loeb lacked any emotional or affective response to the killing. deal in Bernard Glueck's testimony, either on his first day in the witness box-Tuesday, 5 August-or on the next, that had not already been said by the two other psychiatrists. Glueck, also, remarked that he had found Richard's emotional detachment unusual. Indeed Richard Loeb lacked any emotional or affective response to the killing.

"I then took up with Loeb the Franks crime," Glueck responded, in answer to a question from Benjamin Bachrach, "and asked him to tell me about it. He recited to me in a most matter of fact way all the gruesome details of the planning and execution of this crime, of the disfiguring and the disposal of the body, how he and Leopold stopped with the body in the car to get something to eat on the way. He spoke to me in a most matter of fact way about his doings and movements immediately following this act. As his recital proceeded, I was amazed at the absolute absence of any signs of normal feeling, such as one would expect under the circ.u.mstances. He showed no remorse, no regret, no compa.s.sion for the people involved in this situation, and as he kept on talking...there became evident the absolute lack of normal human emotional response that would fit these situations, and the whole thing became incomprehensible to me except on the basis of a disordered personality.... In the course of my conversation with him he told me how his little brother...pa.s.sed in review before him as a possible victim of the kidnapping and killing. Even in connection with this statement, he showed the same lack of adequate emotional response to the situation."

"In the conversation with Richard Loeb," Bachrach asked, "did he say anything about who it was that struck the blow on the head of Robert Franks with the chisel?"

"He told me all the details of the crime, including the fact that he struck the blow...."

"If you have reached any conclusion with reference to his mental condition, you may now state it."

[image]

23. CLARENCE DARROW. CLARENCE DARROW.

"My impression is very definite that this boy is suffering from a disordered personality, that the nature of this disorder is primarily in a profound pathological discord between his intellectual and emotional life."36 "Now then, doctor, are you ready to begin with your examination of the defendant Nathan F. Leopold, Jr.?"

"Yes."

"You may proceed...."37 "I started out with him by asking him to tell me about the Franks murder.... He argued with me that for many years he has cultivated and adhered to a purely hedonistic philosophy that all action is justified if it gives pleasure; that it was his ambition and has been for many years to become a perfect Nietzschean and to follow Nietzsche's philosophy all the way through.... He told me of his att.i.tude toward Loeb and of how completely he had put himself in the role of slave in connection with him. He said, 'I can ill.u.s.trate it to you by saying that I felt myself less than the dust beneath his feet.'...He told me of his abject devotion to Loeb, saying that he was jealous of the food and drink that Loeb took, because he could not come as close to him as did the food and drink.... Nathan F. Leopold, in my estimation, is a definitely paranoid personality, perhaps developing a definite paranoid psychosis. I have not seen a definite psychosis of this sort in as young a person as he is. His aberration is characterized primarily by this abnormal pathological transformation of his personality and by the delusional way of thinking."38 Throughout the hearing, Robert Crowe had repeatedly asked how two boys, supposedly suffering from mental illness, could have planned and prepared a murder so meticulously; their attention to detail, their intelligence and perspicacity, could not, Crowe had a.s.serted, be reconciled with mental disease.

Benjamin Bachrach now prompted Glueck to respond to Crowe's a.s.sertion. Could such qualities a.s.sociated with the preparation and planning of a crime coexist with mental illness?

"Doctor," Bachrach asked, "from your experience in dealing with persons of disordered mind, state whether or not it is common and ordinary to find in such persons a high degree of intelligence existing at the same time as the abnormality or diseased condition?"

"If I should give an answer to this question in a general way," Glueck replied, "I should say that it is quite characteristic of paranoid individuals to have along with their disordered mental state a highly developed intelligence...."

"Have you observed among other such persons under your care the ability to plan like ordinary intelligent people without abnormality?"

"I have observed the most ingenious and great capacity to plan among paranoid patients.... Patients suffering from mental disorder-and 90 percent of my patients in private practice do suffer from mental disorder-carry on their activities while they are under treatment for their mental disorder."

Benjamin Bachrach indicated that he had completed his questioning. "You may take the witness," he told Robert Crowe.

THE CROSS-EXAMINATION WAS BRIEF. Crowe, once again, poured scorn on the notion that Nathan and Richard were emotionally stunted and, once again, demanded to know what, in any case, that might have to do with the murder. But the state's attorney seemed temporarily to have run out of steam; he spared Glueck the inquisition that he had meted out to William White and William Healy, and by half past two, just two hours after he had begun, he had ended his cross-examination of the witness. Crowe, once again, poured scorn on the notion that Nathan and Richard were emotionally stunted and, once again, demanded to know what, in any case, that might have to do with the murder. But the state's attorney seemed temporarily to have run out of steam; he spared Glueck the inquisition that he had meted out to William White and William Healy, and by half past two, just two hours after he had begun, he had ended his cross-examination of the witness.39 Glueck lingered in Chicago, before taking the train back to New York City, just long enough to sit for an interview with Maurine Watkins, a reporter for the Chicago Daily Tribune Chicago Daily Tribune. Watkins had asked Glueck, as an expert on juvenile delinquency, to give advice to the parents of Chicago's children, and Glueck was only too happy for the opportunity to impart progressive, modern ideas on bringing up children. His philosophy was one of tolerance and understanding; parents should encourage their children to talk out problems and concerns; they should eschew discipline, especially over trivial matters; and they should talk frankly on s.e.xual matters. "This tragedy," Glueck said, referring to the murder of Bobby Franks, "may do great good: if it makes parents know that contact with their children must be psychological as well as physical, and that children can't be kept to their own devices."40 Glueck's statement was intended as the antidote to those critics who claimed that the murder defied explanation. Glueck identified himself with the child guidance movement, a coalition of experts on the proper upbringing of children that explained deviant behavior as a consequence of dysfunctional relations.h.i.+ps between parent and child. Child psychiatrists a.s.serted that all behavior was a product of its environment and that delinquent behavior in the child could best be avoided, therefore, by providing affection, love, education, recreation, and wholesome advice. There was, according to the child guidance experts, no divide separating normal and abnormal behavior-everything could be explained in terms of familial relations.h.i.+ps.41 That a.n.a.lysis seemed plausible, perhaps even unexceptional, except that it demonstrably failed to account for the murderous behavior of Nathan Leopold and Richard Loeb. There seemed to have been nothing dysfunctional about either the Loeb family or the Leopold family. On the contrary, both sets of parents had provided their sons with a familial environment that, in appearance at least, had lacked for nothing. Glueck's philosophy of child guidance might account for deviancy in some cases, perhaps-but its precepts could not be applied to Richard Loeb and Nathan Leopold. The question still remained: why had two highly educated, wealthy, intelligent young men sought out a random victim for murder?

ON F FRIDAY, 8 AUGUST, Walter Bachrach called Harold Hulbert to the witness stand. Hulbert seemed impossibly young-he looked more like a graduate student than a learned expert-and the air of innocence that he conveyed reinforced the general impression that he had somehow blundered his way into the witness box by error. He carried a thick loose-leaf binder of typewritten notes under his right arm; as he settled himself into the chair, Hulbert opened it gingerly-taking care not to allow some loose sheets of paper to fall to the floor-and placed the binder on his lap. Walter Bachrach called Harold Hulbert to the witness stand. Hulbert seemed impossibly young-he looked more like a graduate student than a learned expert-and the air of innocence that he conveyed reinforced the general impression that he had somehow blundered his way into the witness box by error. He carried a thick loose-leaf binder of typewritten notes under his right arm; as he settled himself into the chair, Hulbert opened it gingerly-taking care not to allow some loose sheets of paper to fall to the floor-and placed the binder on his lap.42 Harold Hulbert was an important witness. His evidence, Darrow believed, would be unimpeachable. Hulbert's testimony-a summation of the endocrinological examinations-rested on the hard objectivity of rational science and relied for its persuasive power on quantification and measurement. White, Healy, and Bernard Glueck had presented the psychoa.n.a.lysis of Leopold and Loeb, but such evidence, by its nature, was open to question and liable to dispute. Hulbert would present the endocrinological evidence, evidence obtained through physical examination and expressed mathematically-how could Robert Crowe dispute such objective testimony?

In preparation for his appearance on the witness stand, the defense attorneys had spent considerable time coaching Hulbert. Crowe would attempt to discredit the endocrinological results by questioning the reliability of the evidence. The defense attorneys had no way to know just how or where Crowe would attack; yet, for all that, they were confident that Hulbert would be a capable witness.

Walter Bachrach began by asking Hulbert to list the physical tests that the scientists had employed in their examination of Richard and Nathan. What were the specific results? Bachrach asked Hulbert to begin with Richard Loeb.

"As I understand you, you say you took his blood pressure?"

"Yes."

"Tell us the result of that test."

"Systolic, 100; diastolic, 65. Blood pressure, 35. Pulse rate, 88 to 92...."

"Did the result of that test in any way indicate a deviation from the normal, as far as blood pressure is concerned?"

"It is below normal," Hulbert replied.43 "You said you took a basal metabolism test. State what that is and its purpose."

"The basal metabolism test is a chemical test to determine the rate at which the body tissues oxidize the food which the body has ingested, and gives us an indication of the vital forces of the body. The test is done in a technical way by having the patient appear without any breakfast and lie quietly for an hour in loose clothing, breathing into an apparatus which has been clamped to the mouth, the nose having been shut tight, to measure the carbon dioxide of the breath."

It was a routine test, Hulbert explained, commonly used to search for glandular disease; it served as a reliable method to pinpoint endocrinological disorders. "This has all been carefully tabulated in thousands of cases.... We are able to contrast the results obtained in any one patient with what would be normal for that patient considering his age, weight, etc. The metabolism test, in the case of Richard Loeb on June 14th, taken under ideal circ.u.mstances, was minus seventeen percent, which is abnormally low."

"What," Bachrach prompted, "does such an abnormally low basal metabolism result signify...?"

"A disorder of the endocrine glands and the sympathic nervous system," Hulbert replied. "It is one phase of medical evidence to indicate that there is such a disease of the endocrines and sympathetic nervous system."44 Hulbert continued to read off the results of his tests on Richard Loeb, occasionally consulting the loose-leaf binder spread across his knees. The Wa.s.sermann test for syphilis had been negative; the sugar tolerance test had been slightly high; the blood physics test had shown Loeb to be slightly anemic; the blood chemistry test had revealed a slight excess of nonprotein nitrogen in the blood; and the urine examination had been normal-the urine showed "clear transparency and amber color," Hulbert replied, "no alb.u.min, no sugar, no indican...but there was mucus present, and a few epithelial cells...."

"That," Crowe interrupted sarcastically, grinning at his quip, "throws considerable light on this murder, does it not?..."

"I object," Bachrach shouted angrily, "to counsel interrupting!"45 Bachrach turned back to the witness.

"Did you make an X-ray examination of Richard Loeb?"

"We did," Hulbert replied, indicating several X-ray photographs, along with charts and diagrams, lying on the doc.u.ments table in front of the bench. Hulbert explained that the scientists had taken X-ray photographs of the skull, face, wrists, and thorax. There was no pathology, he concluded; the X-rays revealed extensive dental work, but in all other respects Richard Loeb was normal.46

THE SCIENTISTS HAD EXAMINED N NATHAN Leopold also, Hulbert continued. Measurement of Nathan's metabolism had produced a result of minus five percent, well within the normal range; the Wa.s.sermann test for syphilis had been negative; and the blood physics test had shown that Nathan was only slightly anemic. His blood pressure reading had been low; the sugar tolerance test had revealed that Nathan did not metabolize sugar properly; and a chemical a.n.a.lysis of his blood had revealed premonitory signs of kidney disease. Leopold also, Hulbert continued. Measurement of Nathan's metabolism had produced a result of minus five percent, well within the normal range; the Wa.s.sermann test for syphilis had been negative; and the blood physics test had shown that Nathan was only slightly anemic. His blood pressure reading had been low; the sugar tolerance test had revealed that Nathan did not metabolize sugar properly; and a chemical a.n.a.lysis of his blood had revealed premonitory signs of kidney disease.47 Hulbert continued to read from his notes. He had a flat, emotionless voice and his matter-of-fact recitation of the tests scarcely hinted at their significance. Crowe no longer bothered to interrupt the witness with objections or sarcasm, and even the reporters seemed to have lost interest. One by one, the stenotypes stopped clicking. The reporters merely listened, without bothering to record the testimony for their readers, until eventually only a solitary Caligraph machine, recognizable by its enormous keyboard, remained in operation, quietly clacking away as an accompaniment to Hulbert's voice.48 Walter Bachrach pointed to the X-ray photographs lying on the doc.u.ments table. Had the X-rays revealed anything unusual, he asked, with respect to Nathan Leopold?

The clerk of the court, Ferdinand Scherer, stepped across to the doc.u.ments table to hand the X-rays to the witness. Hulbert had stopped speaking; he was now looking through the photographs, holding each to the light in order to make his choice.

"The X-ray of the skull," he began, "revealed the most pathology. The tables of the skull, the bony tables of the skull, are of normal thickness, but the union between the various bones of the skull has become firm and ossified at the age of 19."

"What in normal life," Bachrach asked, "is the time at which such ossification takes place?"

"It varies, but usually at full maturity or when a man is in his prime."

"In terms of years when does that usually take place?"

"I would say from thirty to thirty-five."49 As John Caverly leaned across to look at the photograph, Hulbert rose slightly from his chair, holding the X-ray in his right hand, and pointed to a slight shadow at the base of the skull. The photograph showed that the pineal gland had calcified prematurely, he explained, as Caverly looked on; in a normal individual, the pineal gland did not calcify until thirty years of age.50 "The pineal gland," Hulbert explained, "in this x-ray throws a definite shadow, typical of a calcified pineal gland."

"What is the pineal gland?" Bachrach asked. "What is the function of the pineal gland so far as it is known to science?"

The pineal gland had two functions, Hulbert replied. It acted as a brake on s.e.xual desire, serving to inhibit the libido, and it stimulated mental development.51 Nathan displayed other indications of glandular pathology. His thick, dry skin and his coa.r.s.e hair; the early appearance of his primary and secondary s.e.xual characteristics; his low blood pressure, low body temperature, and slight anemia-these were signs that Nathan had previously suffered from an abnormal thyroid gland.52 Nathan's medical history during childhood and early adolescence-his lack of resistance to disease, including such skin infections as urticaria-indicated a disorder of the adrenal medulla.53 X-rays of Nathan's skull had shown that the sella turcica sella turcica, the bony cradle at the base of the skull enclosing the pituitary gland, was smaller than one might have expected, and its small size would have the effect of congesting and crowding the pituitary gland. Other indications of hyperpituitarism, according to Hulbert, included Nathan's s.e.xual development and activity, his inability to metabolize sugar at a normal rate, and his coa.r.s.e, heavy hair.54 Finally, Hulbert concluded, Nathan's s.e.x glands were undoubtedly diseased. Nathan possessed an abnormally high s.e.x drive and both his primary and his secondary s.e.xual characteristics had appeared prematurely.55 Nathan, sitting immediately behind Clarence Darrow, whispered an occasional remark to the attorney, while listening to the witness. Hulbert paused in his testimony and Nathan turned slightly in his seat to see Richard Loeb, sitting to his left, grinning mischievously. As Nathan turned toward him, Richard murmured in his ear that it looked as if he, Nathan, were in a bad way-and both boys laughed quietly at the joke.56 Walter Bachrach sought to lead his witness to the conclusion toward which he had been heading. That Nathan suffered from glandular disease, there was no doubt; but how was this relevant to the murder of Bobby Franks?

"What relation," Bachrach asked, "is there between the abnormal functioning of his endocrine glands and his mental condition?"

"The effect of the endocrine glands on the mental condition is definitely established in the minds of medical men in certain points and is still a matter of dispute in others.... I would say that his endocrine disorder is responsible for the following mental findings. His precocious mental development, his rapid advance through school, his ease of learning, are of endocrine origins.... The early development and strength of his s.e.x urge is obviously of endocrine origin. His shallow mood and his good bearing are of endocrine origin and particularly his mental activity and early mental development are of endocrine origin...."

"What would be the effect of that upon him, where there was not a corresponding maturity of his emotional life and judgment?"

"The effect of the intellectual drive of endocrine origin...and [his] emotional shallowness is that he now has mentally a decided degree of discrepancy, a diseased discrepancy, between his judgment and emotions on the one hand and his intellect on the other hand...."57 "What, if any, effect," Bachrach asked, "did the diseased mental condition of Leopold on May 21st, 1924, have in connection with the Franks kidnaping and homicide?"

"A very great deal.... His mental condition or disease at that time would not primarily have caused him alone to have carried out any such kidnaping or homicide. It caused him to ignore the ordinary restraint which individuals impose upon themselves because of their consciousness of their duties they owe to society; it caused him to react in the non-emotional way he did at that time and subsequently; caused him to justify his own actions to himself, so that he is uncritical of them; and his mental condition at that time is one of the predominating factors in this homicide and kidnaping."

[image]

24. A JOKE IN COURT. A JOKE IN COURT. Testimony on the witness stand gives the defendants cause to smile. From left: Nathan Leopold, Richard Loeb, and Nathan Leopold Sr. Testimony on the witness stand gives the defendants cause to smile. From left: Nathan Leopold, Richard Loeb, and Nathan Leopold Sr.

"Would Leopold on May 21st, 1924, have been able to commit the Franks kidnaping and homicide but for the presence of such mental disease?"

"He could not have done it."

"State whether the diseased mental condition of Richard Loeb on May 21st, 1924, entered into the Franks homicide and kidnaping?"

"It did."