Saima 1

Leopold and Loeb: The Crime That Shook the 1920s

Fourteen year old Bobby Franks was a good boy. He came home on time and did not

worry his parents. He always notified them if he was held up at school or at a friend’s home.

Therefore, it was very worrisome for the Franks family when on May 21, 1924 Bobby did not

arrive home by 6:00 p.m. Bobby, highly intelligent part of the school debate team and against

capital punishment, was Flora Frank’s favorite (Baatz 4, 5). “She loved his assertiveness, his

independent spirit, his ambition” (5), and therefore could not bear the thought of any kind of

harm afflicted on her “precious” (5) child. Mrs. Franks hoping to hear something about Bobby

received a call from a man who identified himself as Mr. Johnson and revealed to her that Bobby

had been kidnapped. “Your boy has been kidnapped. We have him and you need not worry: he

is safe . . . We are kidnappers and we mean business. If you refuse us what we want or try to

report us to the police, we will kill the boy” (7). This was the start of a heinous crime that

continues to fascinate because of its amoral horror and its perpetrators’ mysterious psychological

state.

The following morning the Franks’ received a special delivery of the ransom letter from

the kidnappers with clear instructions on how Bobby could be recovered. “Dear Sir,” (Higdon

41, 42) it read,

As you no doubt know by this time, your son has been kidnapped. Allow us to

assure you that he is at present well and safe. . . . Secure before noon today

$10,000. This money must be composed entirely of old bills. . . . [S]hould you

carefully follow out our instructions to the letter, we can assure you that your son

will be safely returned to you within six hours of our receipt of the money. (41,

42)
 Saima 2

The writer of the letter, George Johnson, whoever he was, at least gave hope to the family that

Bobby was alive and would be back home if the Franks’ paid the kidnappers the ransom money.

Samuel Ettelson, Mr. Frank’s lawyer and the person who would be involved in the whole case,

was convinced after reading the letter that it was a professional kidnapping and Bobby was safe

with no danger of being killed (Baatz 10).

Several miles away, Tony Minke, a recent immigrant found a body of a young boy in a

culvert under a railroad crossing. Minke was walking home from work when he looked under a

drainage pipe and was shocked to see a body of a child lying face down and naked (10, 11). He

looked around and was relieved to see four railroad workers traveling in his direction; he

signaled them to stop and showed them the body of the boy. The workers moved the body,

hoping that the boy was still alive but were greatly disappointed. Paul Kroff, supervisor of the

railroad workers called the police and looked around to see if the boy’s clothes were nearby; he

found nothing except for a pair of glasses. He put them in his pocket’s believing that they

belonged to the boy (12).

Back at the Franks’ residence, Jacob Franks was anxiously waiting for the kidnappers’

call. He had already gone to the bank in the morning to collect the ransom money and now

waited to get Bobby back home safely. Ettelson learned that the news of Bobby’s kidnapping

had somehow got to the press and now reporters were pressing him for information. James

Mulroy, a reporter from the Chicago Daily News, informed Ettelson of a boy’s body being

discovered near the culvert and insisted on him having a look. Ettelson doubted that the boy was

Bobby; however, just for the ease of the mind, Ettelson sent Edwin Greshan, Flora’s brother and

Bobby’s uncle, to the morgue to confirm it was not Bobby. “And if, by some chance, Ettelson

[said], it was Bobby at the undertaker’s, he should say only one word — ‘Yes’—over the phone,
 Saima 3

and nothing more. . . .Thirty minutes later, the phone rang. Ettelson picked up the receiver. He

recognized Greshan’s voice. Only one word now mattered—‘Yes’” (13). Bobby was dead; no

matter what Ettelson thought before, there was now no way to save Bobby.

The investigation into the murder of Bobby Franks began at once. The investigators had

suspects; however all suspects had alibis. The detectives had many motives; however without

any proof these were only theories. The detectives’ only hope were the eyeglasses found near

the body. It did not belong to Bobby as he did not wear glasses so it must belong to the killer.

The prescription of the glasses was very common, but the frames were very unique, and “the

oculist who sold them… stated that he never sold but two pairs just like that—one of these

purchasers was now in Europe, so obviously he could not have been in any way connected with

the crime; the other customer was a young man named Nathan Leopold” (Darrow 202). Leopold

and his family lived in the Franks’ neighborhood and knew the Franks.

Nathan Leopold was a highly intelligent boy. He was only fifteen years old when he

started his freshmen year at the University of Chicago, in the summer of 1920. Nathan knew he

was different; he was much smarter than his classmates and had no interest in sports like other

young boys did. He was raised by his governess, Mathilda Wantz, as his mother was always

sick and the rest of the family was not around much. Mathilda was a strong, independent woman

who filled the role of the absent mother for the two younger boys, Nathan and his older brother

Samuel. “Soon it became common knowledge among the household staff that Mathilda was

having sex with seventeen-year-old Samuel; even more scandalously, she had become sexually

intimate with twelve year-old Nathan” (Baatz 31). Leopold was being sexually abused and no

one was there to protect him, but he welcomed the attention in the absence of his mother.

Leopold was also a narcissist who in every chance directed attention to himself. He believed he
 Saima 4

was superior to others, using Friedrich Nietzsche’s philosophy of the Superman to guide him

with that. “Leopold had been impressed with German philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche’s

Superman theories, the idea of an Übermensch not bound by the rules that govern ordinary

people” (Higdon 210), including evidently having sex with his nanny. The idea of an

extraordinary human being not constrained by morality and rules that control people impressed

Leopold so much that he became obsessed with this idea. “He would talk endlessly about the

mythical superman who, because he was a superman, stood outside the law. . . . Even murder,

Nathan claimed, was an acceptable act for a superman to commit” (Baatz 52). To Leopold, as

superman he could break any law, any moral code and not be punished for it. Leopold used this

as a reason when he was out breaking law with Richard Loeb, another young man for whom he

would do anything.

Loeb came from a very wealthy and influential family. His father Albert was the vice

president of Sears, Roebuck and his mother Anna was an important member of the Chicago

Women’s club (34). Loeb was always the intellectual of the family and his governess Emily

Struthers supported this idea. “Emily, an attractive women in her thirties, had a strong sense of

duty. . . . She was determined to raise Richard in the best way she knew. She was neither harsh

nor cruel…but she expected to be obeyed” (38). She made Loeb take extra courses, and when he

was thirteen years of age, his governess decided that he should graduate from high school. The

teachers thought that this was absurd, “Richard was a bright boy but not as exceptional as his

governess seemed to believe” (40). In reaction to Emily’s never ending demands, Loeb learned

to be rebellious and lead a secret life.

Hiding from Emily, Loeb developed a passion for mystery and detective novels, like

Sherlock Homes and Jules Verne’s. He especially was fond of Frank Packard’s stories. He
 Saima 5

“would spend hours reading Packard’s stories about a famous criminal who could extricate

himself from the most complex and dangerous situations” (35). He became fascinated with the

idea of a mastermind criminal who could commit any kind of crime without getting caught,

eventually believing himself to be the same.

The relationship of Leopold and Loeb was a very strange one. What each saw in the

other to make them such close friends was not clear. They were both from wealthy Jewish

families, and both started their college life at the University of Chicago when they were only

fifteen; however the similarities ended there. Loeb was an outgoing person who made friends

easily. He was never interested in academics and was only fulfilling his governess’s ambitions

(42). On the other hand, Leopold was a very shy person who was not socially active. There

were no shared interests; therefore what attracted one to the other? For Leopold the answer was

easy. In For the Thrill of It, the author Simon Baatz argues that Leopold fell in love with Loeb.

Leopold always had a hard time making friends; therefore when Loeb approached him, Leopold

could not refuse his friendship. “There was so much to admire about him! His good looks, his

gregarious attitude, his apparent sophistication, his worldly knowledge” (43), and before Leopold

knew it, he was devoted to Loeb.

Loeb needed a companion to carry out his fantasy— the fantasy of being the perfect

criminal— and that companion was Leopold. Leopold and Loeb together began to cheat on

cards, smash the windshields of parked cars, and once when Loeb found that his mother’s car

keys could open up other same kind of cars, he and Leopold started to steal cars parked on the

street. “Richard loved to play a dangerous game—the more dangerous the better—and he always

sought to raise the stakes” (43) just as the heroes in the detective novels he so dearly loved did.
 Saima 6

He believed himself to be a master criminal, but needed an audience to admire his brilliance, and

who could do this better than Nathan Leopold.

Leopold however, did not share the same fantasy as Loeb. He did not feel the same thrill

as Loeb felt when they were vandalizing and committing petty crimes. However, he did have his

own “fantasy life” (45) which started when he was eight years old and was still strong as ever.

He imagined himself as a slave, handsome, intelligent, and strong, the strongest

man in the world who had earned the gratitude of the king by saving his life. The

king had offered Nathan his freedom, but Nathan preferred to remain in servitude,

protecting the king and saving him from his enemies. When the king chose a

slave to fight on his behalf, Nathan was always his choice, and in his battles

Nathan was the victor, effortlessly vanquishing hundreds of fighters determined to

kill him. (45)

Leopold, in this fantasy was the strong handsome slave, who for the king, Loeb, would do

anything. Leopold followed his king’s every command and when Loeb decided to rob a

fraternity house, Zeta Beta Tau, at the University of Michigan, Leopold was right behind him.

“There they stole many items, including a portable Underwood typewrite” (Proper 73).

However, this to them was a small-time crime. Their goal was to commit the perfect crime that

would involve kidnapping, ransom, and murder, after which they would end “their criminal

careers” (74). They did end their careers, but only because they were caught.

After finding Leopold’s glasses where the body was discovered, the police officers

questioned Leopold about his whereabouts that night. “Leopold answered everything that was

asked saying that on that night he and Loeb were automobiling in the parks and the country

around Chicago, driving Leopold’s car” (Darrow 203). Later Loeb was also questioned about
 Saima 7

that night in response to which he said “he did not remember where he was, but thought that he

and Leopold went driving” (203). However their story fell apart when Leopold’s chauffeur

revealed that Leopold’s car was sent for repairs that night, and could not have been used (203).

Leopold and Loeb were questioned severely, and after a day or two they confessed to

renting a room and a car under a pretend name; they confessed to writing a ransom letter

addressed “Dear Sir” (204) and they even confessed to picking up Robert Franks from his school

and then murdering him in the rental car.

He [Robert Franks] was invited into the car for a ride; he got into the front seat

with Leopold, who was driving and within ten minutes he was hit on the head by

a chisel in the hands of Loeb, was stunned by the blow, and soon bled to death.

All this happen in the thickly populated section of Chicago and close to the homes

of all three of the boys. (205)

According to Clarence Darrow, the boys’ defense attorney, Loeb had committed the actual

murder of Bobby which had been his idea in the first place. After murdering Bobby they drove

to Wolf Lake in Indiana where they discarded the clothes that would not burn and then as

planned took Bobby’s body to the “culvert underneath the railroad tracks…stripped him of the

rest of his clothes, and pour hydrochloric acid on his face, body and genitals to prevent

identification” (Proper 76). Leopold did not notice, however, that he left his glasses behind.

The murderers were apprehended and now the Franks’ family only wanted justice for

young Bobby. Robert Crowe was the prosecuting attorney and for the defense it was Clarence

Darrow. Due to the overwhelming evidence of their guilt, Darrow knew it would be a challenge

to defend the boys if they pled not guilty; therefore in order to save the lives of two young men

“Darrow had Leopold and Loeb plead guilty to the kidnap and murder” (84), convincing the
 Saima 8

judge to conduct a sentence hearing not a trial, to determine if the boys lived or died (84).

Darrow, famous for the Scopes trial was highly against the death penalty and this was his chance

to “convince the nation of the evils of capital punishment” (86). Darrow’s main defense was the

psychiatric state of Leopold and Loeb that influenced them to murder Bobby. In his closing

argument Darrow argued that Leopold and Loeb killed Bobby Franks, “Not for money, not for

spite, not for hate…they killed him because they were made that way. Because somewhere in

the infinite processes that go to the making up of the boy or the man, something slipped”

(Behrens 12). Darrow’s heartfelt closing argument against capital punishment, using a

psychiatric state as a defense, was a first and the reason that Leopold and Loeb were sentenced to

life imprisonment and not death.

Fictional adaptations as well as firsthand accounts of this case have been published ever

since because of the heinous nature of Bobby Franks’ murder which continues to fascinate, much

as Leopold and Loeb were fascinated with their own fantasies. “Nathan Leopold imagined

himself as a Nietzschean superman whose intellect made him unaccountable to the laws and

mores of normal men. Richard Loeb fantasized about being a criminal mastermind, an arch

villain like the ones he read about in the pulps, who planned brilliant crimes and used his wits to

elude capture” (Gullfolle 4). However, Leopold was not a superman; he was not someone who

was above the law. He was like every other human being, an ordinary man. Loeb was also not a

criminal mastermind like the ones he read about in his detective novels, he was someone who

committed a crime and got caught and now would be punished for it as would Leopold. In the

end, they were not extraordinary young men, but “incompetent philosophers and lazy, burgling

criminals (4) who committed an evil and senseless act, all without remorse.

Works Cited
 Saima 9

Baatz, Simon. For the Thrill of It: Leopold, Loeb, and the Murder That Shocked Chicago. New

York: HarperCollins, 2008. Print.

Behrens, Web. "82 Years Later, Leopold & Leopold Case Still a 'Thrill'" Chicago Tribune 27

Aug. 2006, Arts & Entertainment sec.: 12, 13. Print.

Darrow, Clarence. “The Loeb-Leopold Tragedy.” Chicago Stories: Tales of the City. John Miller,

ed. San Fransisco: Chronicle Books, 1993. 201-207. Print.

Gullfolle, Kevin. "No Easy Answers." Chicago Tribune 9 Aug. 2008, sec. 5: 4. Print.

Higdon, Hal. Leopold and Loeb: The Crime of the Century. Illini Books ed. Urbana, Ill.: U of

Illinois, 1999. Print.

Proper, Diana. “The Incomprehensible Crime of Leopold and Loeb: ‘Just an Experiment.”

Crimes and Trials of the Century. Steven M. Chermark. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press,

2007. Print.