report

Salina20013

CJ210_LeopoldandLoeb.pdf

Home >Law homework help >Criminal homework help >report

Case Study #7: Homicide: The Leopold-Loeb Case

This case study complements Chapter 13: Homicide

A Mystery: The Leopold-Loeb Case … Chicago: 1924

Leopold and Loeb were young, bright college students with IQs of 160 and 210. Their parents were

wealthy. Petty fraternity house thefts launched their criminal careers, and before long they graduated to

more serious transgressions. Eventually, they felt the need to experience the ultimate thrill—to commit

the perfect crime. Dilettantes and students of the fine art of murder think “the perfect crime” means

circumventing the established hazards by concealing the motive, disguising the crime, and avoiding the

consequences. This pair would succeed only in concealing the motive. Though Leopold came into the

investigation early on, the demand for ransom and his family’s wealth were perceived as incompatible

elements in the case; therefore, he was eliminated as a potential suspect—at least the first time around.

Planning the Crime

The first step in planning the crime was to choose the place to dispose of the body. Capitalizing on

Leopold’s familiarity with the woods he roamed as an amateur ornithologist, Leopold and Loeb studied

the terrain while escorting a troop of boy scouts there a week or so before the planned crime. They found

the burial site, a culvert beneath hardly used railroad tracks. Should they be seen in this vicinity or leave

any traces behind, the scout trip would provide an alibi. To preclude a hitch when the time came, they

reserved a hotel room under an assumed name to establish credit; rented a car for a “dry run” (going so

far as to select the victim by observing children leaving school at the end of the day); and, after typing

the ransom notes and envelopes to be sent to the victim’s family on a portable Underwood typewriter,

discarded it in a park lagoon nearby. Next, they concocted an elaborate scheme for collecting the

ransom. It comprised a series of steps to be taken by the boy’s parents which could be monitored by the

kidnappers to determine if the police had been notified. The person paying the ransom was to throw the

ransom parcel from a moving train, acting on a signal from alongside the track.

Despite the best laid plans, the body, rather than remaining hidden in the culvert, was not only

discovered, but identified. The criminals instantly recognized the danger and the need for a more

detailed alibi, but they quarreled over when to use it: Loeb insisting it not be used at all unless they were

arrested within a few days, Leopold wanting to use it regardless of when they were picked up. Settling

Case Study #7: Homicide: The Leopold-Loeb Case

this point by agreeing not to invoke the alibi unless arrested within seven days of the time of the crime,

they failed to establish what was meant by “the time of the crime.” To Loeb it signified the time of the

murder (about 5:00 P.M. on Wednesday); to Leopold it meant the time of the last telephone call to the

victim’s family (about 3:30 P.M. on Thursday). Apprehended the following Thursday, and believing the

seven-day period was over, Loeb did not use the alibi. Contacted by detectives on the same day

(Thursday)—at 2:30 P.M., one hour before the deadline—Leopold did use it. This divergence

contributed significantly to their downfall. Only when a college newspaper reporter unwittingly served

as a conduit and brought Leopold’s message to Loeb was there congruence in their alibis.

The Crime

Except for one hitch, the crime was carried out as conceived. The problem was that the intended victim

did not leave school as usual. The perpetrators viewed this as a minor inconvenience leaving them with

two alternatives—abandon the plan for that day or select another victim. They chose the latter; the new

target was 14-year-old Bobby Franks. This meant the ransom envelopes had to be readdressed. Mr.

Franks’ name, street address, and (in lieu of Chicago) “City” were hand-printed because they had

already disposed of the typewriter. Believing that block lettering made identification by handwriting

experts impossible, they used it for the envelopes.

The victim they enticed into the rented car was killed almost immediately. The killers drove about, then

left the body in the car while they had dinner. Finally, they hid it in the preselected culvert after

throwing acid on the face and genitals to render it unrecognizable. The very next day, it was noticed by

railroad laborers working a handcar on the tracks above the culvert; from that vantage, the workers

realized what they had discovered. They climbed down to the immediate area, looked about, and noticed

a pair of horn-rimmed eyeglasses, which one man picked up, intending to keep them for reading. They

carried the body to a funeral home nearby and called the police. An officer arriving in due course asked

the usual questions about the circumstances surrounding the discovery. One question would prove to be

of critical importance: Had they seen or found anything at or near the crime scene? The man who had

the glasses replied in the affirmative and, overlooking the fact that they constituted physical evidence,

the officer placed them on the victim’s chest in the funeral home. On the evening of the kidnapping, the

Franks family had a telephone call—the message: “Your boy has been kidnapped. He is in safe custody.

You will hear from us in the morning.” On the following day, the father received a letter; it read: “. . .

this is an extremely commercial proposition. . . . your son will be safely returned to you within six hours

Case Study #7: Homicide: The Leopold-Loeb Case

of our receipt of the money.” The $10,000 ransom demand stipulated old 20 and 50 dollar bills. When

Jacob Franks was informed by the police of the discovery of an unidentified boy’s body, he refused to

view it.

Sustained by the kidnapper’s assurances that the boy would not be harmed and the fact that his son did

not wear eyeglasses, Franks remained hopeful that his son was still alive. Only to be certain was an

uncle sent forth; as it turned out, to make the identification of his nephew. Shortly thereafter, when a

paper boy’s hawking of a special edition carried the news to them, the killers realized the urgent need

for an alibi for the preceding day.

The Investigation

At this point in the investigation, the police had a young, unclothed, male homicide victim on which an

attempt had been made to render identification impossible or at least difficult; a pair of eyeglasses; a

typewritten letter in a block-printed envelope; and no suspects. A typewriter expert was sent for and

soon identified the kind of typewriter (a portable Underwood) used for the ransom note. Teachers of the

victim believed to be homosexual were asked to block print the name and address of the victim’s father.

The eyeglasses were traced. The forester employed in the woods where the body was found was asked

for the names of those he knew to frequent the area. Although Leopold’s name appeared on this list, he

was not considered a suspect; after all, his father’s secretary was authorized to write checks up to $2,500

upon his son’s request—at a time when such an amount exceeded the average yearly family income in

America. Yet Leopold’s name was indeed on the list. For that reason and because of a lull in the

investigation, reporters assigned to the story surmised that he constituted a lead worth pursuing. Since

the victim’s family lived in the Hyde Park area, home of the University of Chicago where Leopold

studied law, two news reporters took advantage of the slack period to interview his student friends. They

learned he was one of a small group that met weekly to study, type “dope sheets,” and prepare for

examinations. The reporters sought out group members in order to obtain typewriting specimens from

the machine in the Leopold house; in one effort, they acquired typed notes that seemed different. They

were examined and compared with the ransom notes by a typewriter expert, who found three letters—m,

t, and i—to be defective both in the exemplars (the study group notes typed earlier on Leopold’s

machine) and in the questioned (ransom) documents. His conclusion: both were from the same machine.

Case Study #7: Homicide: The Leopold-Loeb Case

Leopold (now a suspect) denied owning a portable Underwood, and despite painstaking searches, it was

not to be found in the house. Eventually, a diver located it at the bottom of a nearby marina where the

perpetrators had dropped the incriminating evidence. During this time, diligent efforts were ongoing to

find the owner of the eyeglasses. They led investigators to a Chicago optical firm that identified its

product and provided a list of purchasers. This list could be pared down, since the glasses found near the

body had unique hinges, a new type supplied to but three customers. When Leopold—the only one

unable to produce his glasses—was questioned specifically about this, he equivocated by claiming that

he must have lost them while bird watching.

Police learned that Leopold was a close friend of Loeb, so Loeb too was brought in for questioning. The

young men were questioned separately; each presented a different version of his activities on the day of

the murder (Loeb calculating that it was now outside the seven days agreed upon). Investigators

intensified their efforts to learn what other people recalled. Upon being interviewed, the family

chauffeur unwittingly contradicted the suspects’ version of events, which essentially claimed that

Leopold and Loeb picked up two girls in Loeb’s car on the day of the murder, went to a park, had a few

drinks, and fooled around; failing to reach an “understanding” with the girls, the group broke up and all

went home. The chauffeur, on the other hand, recalled that brake repairs had kept the car in the garage

all that day. Asked if he was certain about the date, the man remembered interrupting his work to have

his child’s prescription filled. On the medicine bottle was the date of the murder. Confronted with this

evidence, Loeb cracked and unfolded details of the plan and crime to the state’s attorney. Leopold was

then confronted with facts known only to the perpetrators; informed of Loeb’s confession, he too

confessed.

Questions

1. What sources of information were used to solve the Leopold and Loeb case?

2. Outline the investigative activities that were carried out by Chicago investigators in the Leopold and Loeb case.

3. One type of an apparently motiveless homicide is the “stranger killing stranger” case. Upon investigation, what type of motives were uncovered in the case of Leopold and Loeb?