Jump to content

Talk:Leopold and Loeb/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

lies and more lies

you have many many inaccuracies in your story. go to leopoldandloeb.com and you will find the truths, instead of these half truths, and gossip that you are writing.....

young bobby franks was not found by rail road workers, but instead, by a young polish factory worker.........so much for your credibility...... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.143.250.81 (talk) 22:20, 1 December 2003 (UTC)

The majority of the story is wrong. For one thing, Richard Loeb was 18 at the time of the murder. If you can't even get the basics right... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.134.144.144 (talk) 18:21, 21 July 2004 (UTC)

12 hour speech?

The L&L article mentions Darrow's 12 hours speech but in the copies of the closing argument I found, his summation is just around 20,000 words. At a slow rate of 150 wpm, one should be able to complete that speech in just over 2 hours. Much of is must have been edited as a previous post suggests. --Filosofic 02:31, 1 July 2006 (UTC)DGS

As this site explains (if I read it correctly), the summation was the conclusion of the 12-hour speech, not the entire speech.[1] -Will Beback 03:16, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Public Reaction section

I can find nothing to support the statements in this section. We should remove it. Never been to spain 03:23, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Wrong Link?

I've never done this before, so I hope I'm doing it right, and I apologize if I'm screwing anything up. The speech on www.americanrhetoric.com refenced in the link titled "two-hour speech" does not actually contain any of the text of the citation directly after the link, ei. "this terrible crime was inherent in his organism..." Either Clarence Darrow did not utter those words, American Rhetoric omitted them, or the wrong speech was referenced, but I really couldn't say which. Just trying to point out a discrepency for correction. Also, the speech on American Rhetoric didn't seem like it would have taken an hour, so perhaps it is an abridged version? 64.32.176.130 17:58, 16 August 2005

I think the American Rhetoric version is the later, edited version which appeared in pamphlet form after the trial. I don't see how this would have taken two hours either, unless he spoke very slowly and took lots of pauses (which is possible). The link below is to a longer version of the speech, but the article states that the complete speech took TWELVE hours, and I can't see any way that this would have taken that long regardless of how slowly it was recited. Perhaps someone has access to another version? Or is the "twelve hour" description incorrect? http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/leoploeb/darrowclosing.html Canonblack 16:59, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
Yes, the link is wrong. I have removed it. The page at http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/cdarrowpleaformercy.htm does not contain the passage
"this terrible crime was inherent in his organism, and it came from some ancestor … Is any blame attached because somebody took Nietzsche’s philosophy seriously and fashioned his life upon it? … it is hardly fair to hang a 19-year-old boy for the philosophy that was taught him at the university."
A valid source is needed.
--Liberatus (talk) 09:44, 30 January 2008 (UTC)


About the name of the man who found the body: in the official record of the courtroom hearing, his name is recorded as "Minke"; I don't think you can get much more authoritative than that.

The killing of Richard Loeb in the shower: the only evidence we have that Loeb made sexual advances comes from statements from his killer. (The claim served its purpose since the killer went unpunished for the killing.) It is not clear even that Loeb was homosexual; the psychiatric reports on Loeb and Leopold indicate that Loeb had sex (reluctantly) with Leopold so that he (Loeb) would have a companion when he was carrying out his crimes. So the article wisely refrains from repeating the (unverifiable) assertion that Loeb was killed after making sexual advances.

The website leopoldandloeb.com is not at all as accurate as some contributors to this page seem to think. There are many errors and inaccuracies on that website -- probably because it relies too heavily on Nathan Leopold's self-serving autobiography, Life Plus 99 Years as well as Leopold's testimony before the parole board during the 1950s.

Otherwise, I was very impressed with the Wikipedia article. Virtually every account of the case manages to get something seriously wrong and yet this article is very accurate. Only a few things I would change: (1) Leopold was driving the car and Loeb suffocated the victim by stuffing a rag down his throat. So it's not strictly correct to write that "Leopold and Loeb then suffocated Franks." (2) Leopold poured acid on Franks's face but it was insufficient to do much damage and water from the culvert also washed away much of its effect. So the face was not actually "burned"; (although that was the killers' intent, of course). (3) Darrow's speech was probably the worst of his career -- but I'm in a minority of one as far as that is concerned. Almost no-one has read the actual speech. Darrow arranged with the authorities to take most of his speech out of the official record (it is missing) and later arranged for a heavily edited version to be reprinted in a pamphlet. This edited version has been reprinted endlessly in anthologies. The unedited speech can be found in the Chicago newspapers at the time -- but no-one bothers to read those versions of the speech; and so everyone continues to believe that Darrow gave a great speech. Bkm98 05:17, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Citation needed

I think the date of Leopold's death should be changed to 29 August 1971. According to an article in the Chicago Tribune dated 30 August 1971, "Nathan Leopold, 66 ... died yesterday in Puerto Rico". The title of the article is: "Nathan Leopold Dies at age 66".


The citation about the use of hydrochloric acid can be found at www.crimelibrary.com under the Leopold and Loeb article. I'd add it, but I don't know how and don't have the time right now to learn to. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.205.51.224 (talk • contribs) 08:56, March 7, 2007

I added this citation for hydrochloric acid now. Thanks --Cyfal (talk) 00:02, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I see no discussion here about the merge of the popular culture section. Please discuss it first. as far as I can see the material was not in fact merged, but was unreasonably abbreviated. That's removal of content, not merging. What I think that part of topic needs is expansion.I can think of two possibilities--expand it into a proper article, or move the rest of the material here..DGG (talk) 23:36, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

rehabilitated?

The wikipedia article currently says that both men showed signs of being rehabilitated during their stay in Prison. A couple of years ago the Toronto Globe and Mail did an article revisiting the case. While it presented Leopold, the follower, as someone who was rehabilitated, it presented Loeb as unredeemed. According to the Globe article he engaged in the very dangerous practice of making sexual overtures to other prisoners. And it said that he was stabbed in the Prison shower by a prisoner who wasn't happy with Loeb's suggestion.

Apparently Loeb had been studying English at the time of the murder. And when he was killed some cynical newspapermen chose the headline English Major ends Sentence with a Proposition. Geo Swan 23:52, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

But the purpose of prison is to rehabilitate someone from committing crimes, not to make them asexual. Making sexual overtures is not a crime, so there's nothing in what you've said that suggests Loeb was "unredeemed". Nice recycling of the dismissal of a murder with a quip, though. - Nunh-huh 22:19, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)


That whole "ends sentence with a proposition" thing was supposed to be by Ed Lahey - but I did the research on it and it never appeared in the Chicago Daily News. In my research ([LOEB RESEARCH LINK:http://thedoctoratlantisshow.blogspot.com/2009/01/and-now-for-something-completely.html]) I include a link to the actual CDN articles and you can see that Lahey didn't quip that. It doesn't even make sense when you think about it, as "unnatural proposal" was about as close to actually discussing what Day claimed his motive to be as the newspapers would have allowed at the time. At any rate, the "joke" or "anecdote" is widely spread enough that it ought to be addressed in the article, but here we have an opportunity to clear up a common misconception, or Urban Legend. I'm not sure exactly "how" to best clear it up, but I think it could be done by replacing the current entry with something like this: Some claim that these circumstances led Ed Lahey to write in the Chicago Daily News, "Richard Loeb, despite his erudition, today ended his sentence with a proposition."[17] However, this story is apocryphal and no such sentence exists in Lahey's coverage of the Loeb's demise. [cite the CDN]Trevor Sinclair (talk) 06:29, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Can you explain how it is you came to know that the sentence was never written by Lahey? It is quoted in Lahey's NYT obit from July 18, 1969, though it says he started the sentence "Dickie Loeb..." not "Richard Loeb..." It never says that the sentence was printed, just that he "drafted" it- could it be that it was cut from the newspaper by the editors and we know about it because he told the story in a memoir or similar setting? How sure are we that this is a misconception or urban legend?   Will Beback  talk  06:51, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
I'm not saying he never wrote it - I'm saying he never wrote it in the Chicago Daily News at the time of Loeb's death as the "legend" says. And we know that it never appeared in the CDN because I went to the trouble of pulling the microfilm from the Chicago Public Library and looking at the paper(s). I scanned the leads for all the stories (regular and Extra) and it doesn't appear in them. It's entirely possible that he penned them in a memoir, or spoke them aloud, but what he didn't do - as far as I can determine - is actually print them contemporaneously with the event as is often claimed. Check my link (above) and you'll find the scans of the stories in a downloadable PDF at the end of the article.Trevor Sinclair (talk) 02:13, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
I appreciate your research, but "absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence". It's also possible that the line appeared in some kind of editorial elsewhere in the paper. See also a core policy, No original research, which says "Articles may not contain any new analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position not clearly advanced by the sources." So we'd need a source that says something like, "the famous sentence was never published in the CDN." This book has more on Lahey's sentence.[2]   Will Beback  talk  02:45, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I considered that which is why I didn't just go in and edit the entry. But consider what you're saying. You're saying that the anecdotal version (which I think you'll find quite difficult to produce) should STAY because someone cited a blog entry which says it is true. I'm saying that it should not be quoted as true unless the actual citation can be provided. And I'm also saying that the cited reference (Dr. Ink) does not really have a copy of this story in his drawer because it isn't in the paper. And I followed the link to the the book you cite. It provides yet another version of the quote:
...in writing about the murder, began with what many newspapermen consider the classic lead paragraph of all time: "Richard Loeb, a brilliant college student and master of the English language, today ended a sentence with a proposition."
Yet if this were true - wouldn't it be in the newspaper? The quote always says "today ended" which really strongly implies that the citation would be in one of the two editions that came out the day of the murder. Yeah - technically I "originally researched" this - but my point is that legend, especially one where it is much more amusing than reality, is still legend. And if anyone can produce the actual article from the CDN that shows this quote I'll be very happy. In the mean time, I'm saying that there is a serious doubt about the veracity of the thing. You can download that PDF and scan the articles yourself. The story was front-page news for much of the week. I agree that "absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence" - but that should mean citing primary sources. And in this case, the quip is so pervasive that people probably didn't feel a need to cite it. Yet it is not there, and if it is there it certainly isn't the lead. (Update: And I see that technically this becomes "verifiable" because you can find it quoted in a book. This is a shortcoming in Wikipedia that I never noticed before. The "no original research" part I understood, but the "verifiable" having greater weight than "truth" thing is new to me.)Trevor Sinclair (talk) 04:36, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
It's not just one blog. Among other sources, it's in the linked book and in the New York Times. The book, Leopold and Loeb by Hal Higdon, goes on to say:
  • The lead reportedly ran in only one edition before being changed.
Back in those days, newspapers put out multiple editions in a day. It's quite possible that it was in an edition that didn't make it onto the microfilm. Anyway, that book appears to use as its source The madhouse on Madison Street, by George Murray. Perhaps that's the next reference to check?
As for Wikipedia's policies, how can we know what is true if it's not verifiable?   Will Beback  talk  05:17, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
Oh I agree with the importance of "verified" just that the sources of such verification should be primary sources, else the place could fill up with self-published drivel being referenced by fans. Not the case here, but still it's a problem. I wrote Hal Higdon (author of the book you cited) to see what he has to say on the matter. As for multiple editions, the PDF includes multiple runs for the first day. I'll tell you another reason the story is fishy: The murderer Day didn't explain his motives (or come up with a defense) in the paper until the day after the murder. The first day it was very unclear why Day had done this. The second day down in the article Day says Loeb hounded him with "abnormal proposals" and told him that he needed to be "broad minded." That's about as explicit as these things get. The third day Lahey continues to cover the death - still on front page - but no deeper detail than that. And the tone is very serious. That being said, I'll check out your links and continue to try and source this - but if we use "debate" terminology, the assertion is that the quote was the LEAD in the CDN. It would normally be incumbent on the claimant to produce that piece of evidence - and it was in pursuit of same that I discovered that it wasn't there.
I went ahead and ordered that book, though from the brief Google Books snippet it looks to be further anecdotal evidence written long after the events. We'll see in a few days I guess... Anyway this is an interesting discussion, and I hope a satisfying conclusion can be found. (And perhaps the best would be for the story to turn out to be true.)Trevor Sinclair (talk) 05:48, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
I have access to the NYT and LAT archives, but so far as I can tell their first reports were on January 29, while Chicago papers may have reported it the day before. Both papers mention the "improper advances". (The NYT says its article was special to the NYT, while the LAT ran an AP story.) Both quote from Day's initial statement. The trial of Day and other related matters is a story in and of itself.   Will Beback  talk  06:09, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
OK - I got "The Madhouse on Madison Street" today - and boy howdy what a waste of time. I'm sure it is an entertaining book, but the bit on Loeb is ridiculous. First, instead of talking about James Day it calls him "The Negro." The account is lurid, inaccurate and ends with the longest variant on the supposed Lahey quote I've seen so far: "Richard Loeb, who graduated with honors from college at the age of fifteen and who was a master of the English language, today ended his sentence with a proposition." The book doesn't talk about dates or the testimony given at the trial - just an imagined version in which the white murderer James Day becomes "the Negro" victim of sexual assault. Again, there is EVERY evidence that this amusing story is - let's call it an "amusing anecdote", but not a verifiable fact. The verifiable fact is that people SAY Lahey wrote such an entry. But the fact of Lahey's actually writing it is NOT verifiable.--Trevor Sinclair (talk) 03:58, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for going to that trouble. What does it say about the circumstances of Lahey writing the purported line? Higdon says it ran in one edition - does Murray say the same thing?   Will Beback  talk  06:40, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
It moves straight from the colorful story of Loeb's murder to this sentence, followed by the aforementioned quote: "Ed Lahey covered the story and wrote a lead which has since been quoted in every gathering of newspapermen:" The whole entry appears to be heavily fictionalized to provide a lurid read - and I don't want to be nitpicky but James Day appears to be a white guy in every picture I've seen of him. The story reads like it's some conniving intellectual trying to man-rape a powerfully built yet frightened "Negro." There's just no facts in the story as printed in this book - except to provide a thin wire structure on which to hang a garish cloak of narrative.--Trevor Sinclair (talk) 13:10, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
For the reasons I mentioned above, I don't think we can say that it was never printed, or that it never happened. That'd be a WP:NOR violation. But we could attribute the assertion to its likely original source. Amazon has a lively review of the book, which says, "The late George Murray was an old time newspaper rewrite man employed by Hearst. As such, he never lets the truth get in the way of a good story."[3] So we might write something like, "According to one widely repeated account, Chicago newsman Ed Lahey penned the lead, 'Richard Loeb, ...with a proposition.'" That's less certain then what we have now. In effect, we'd be saying that someone said it but we're not sure it actually happened. Do you think that'd correctly summarize the situation?   Will Beback  talk  13:37, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
PS: Your succinct description of the death scene reminds me of different real-life dispute that played out on Wikiepdia. A 30-ish but still-husky former Marine made a well-publicized accusation that he'd been raped by a wispy young singer named Clay Aiken. Aside from sources one way or another, it was always a bit hard to give credence to such an unlikely event. (The Marine later admitted making the story up, but then retracted his retraction.) Perhaps the same skepticism should apply to the account of Loeb's murder.   Will Beback  talk  13:37, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
That's exactly the kind of thing I'm talking about. Yes - it would be wrong to delete it because the story is widely known. However, I think anyone that tries to directly find the "claim" - that Lahey wrote that lead in the paper - is going to run into a brick wall because it doesn't seem to be true. (For many reasons, not the least of which is that day's reasons for his "self-defense" plea didn't come out until the second day.) - but I like that "According to one widely repeated account" - it succinctly gives the story the correct framing and if we leave our discussion here then future researchers can continue the search. Mahap someone will find a stack of dusty yellow "EXTRA" copies of the CDN - but I think we're very safe with those framing words.--Trevor Sinclair (talk) 16:25, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
OK, I've changed the text to read:
  • According to one widely reported account, newsman Ed Lahey wrote this lead for the Chicago Daily News: "Richard Loeb, despite his erudition, today ended his sentence with a proposition."
And added the Murray book as a second source. If you have the page number that'd help. We're using the version of the text from the Poynter article. On the whole, that's probably more reliable than the Murray book, but since this a bit like a game of "telephone" that may be a distinction without a difference. Can that be improved?   Will Beback  talk  18:56, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
The Murray book citation is on pp 344. - and I concur, the shorter version is the more plausible, though being a skeptic I'd be happier seeing the actual newsprint. I may inquire over at "Straight Dope" and see if I can get "Cecil" in one of his many guises to investigate - it being a Newspaper story and all... --Trevor Sinclair (talk) 20:30, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for that. Yes, it'd be good to find out the "truth" about this. If Cecil Adams doesn't show an interest then maybe someone in the journalism field, like at Poynter or Editor & Publisher. This is so well known that it's not just a footnote.   Will Beback  talk  21:38, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

The Loeb Mansion

Go here [4] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.12.194.210 (talk) 01:06, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

I.Q.

There is no evidence for the assertions that Nathan Leopold was tested with an I.Q. of 210 or that Richard Loeb had an I.Q. in the 160s. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.83.30.86 (talk) 23:34, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

I think there probably is: IQ testing was very common in those days (tests administered each year or something) and kids who were accelerated in their education would certainly have been tested as the basis for this acceleration. Moreover, Leopold discusses his own scores on standardized tests in Life + 99.--Jrm2007 (talk) 18:16, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Clearly this measurement was taken using the old Binet system, and is not comparable with modern scores - it might be a good idea to take it down anyway simply because it could confuse people. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Physicsisshiny (talk • contribs) 08:58, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

"Broken machines"

Re the sentence:

The outcome of this trial has had repercussions to this day, as Darrow popularized the notion that a defendant might not be guilty of his crime because of his inherited traits — to use Darrow's term, Leopold and Loeb were "broken machines."

I recently had occasion to research the provenance of the phrase "broken machines" and am doubtful that it is actually verbatim Darrow. The phrase does not appear in contemporary published accounts of Darrow's closing arguments, and the reference that supports the sentence in which this phrase appears is also nowhere to be found.

Darrow's first day's worth of closing argument was published in the Chicago Daily Tribune on August 23, 1925.

Lee, Robert M. (1924-08-23), "Darrow Urges Life Terms," Chicago Daily Tribune (ProQuest Historical Newspapers database).

The Leopold & Loeb trial transcript has been digitized and is available for download from the University of Minnesota Law Library Digital Archive (see http://darrow.law.umn.edu/trials.php?tid=1). Interestingly, and as noted in a comment above, the portion of the official transcript that featured Clarence Darrow's closing argument went missing from the court file after Darrow borrowed it and never returned it. The transcript (or a polished version of it, as the case may be) was, however, published in a paperback book issued shortly after trial, also available from the digital archive:

Darrow, Clarence, and Robert E. Crowe. "Attorney Clarence Darrow's Plea for Mercy and Prosecutor Robert E. Crowe's Demand for the Death Penalty in the Loeb-Leopold Case, the Crime of a Century." Chicago: Wilson Publishing, 1924. http://darrow.law.umn.edu/documents/Leopold_Loeb_Darrow_Crowe_arguments.pdf

Darrow's speech was anthologized for posterity the next year:

Darrow, Clarence S. “Closing Argument for the Defense in the Leopold-Loeb Murder Trial, Criminal Court of County, Chicago, Illinois, August 22, 23, and 25, 1924.” In Famous American Jury Speeches: Addresses Before Fact-finding Tribunals, ed. Frederick C. Hicks, 992-1089. St. Paul: West Publishing, 1925.

The transcript can also be found in HTML format at http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/leoploeb/darrowclosing.html.

The phrase "broken machines" appears nowhere in the Chicago Tribune report, the Wilson Publishing paperback, the version in Famous American Jury Speeches, or the UMKC website. Neither can the phrase be found in Darrow's opening statement, which was brief (see http://darrow.law.umn.edu/documents/Leopold_Loeb_Transcript_July23_July_25_pp_1_508.pdf).

The following are the two instances from Darrow's closing argument in which he referred to his clients' psyches as "machines":

"Is he ["Dickie" Loeb] to be blamed for what he did not have and never had? Is he to blame that his machine is imperfect?"
"He ["Babe" Leopold] was just a half boy, an intellect, an intellectual machine going without balance and without a governor, seeking to find out everything there was in life intellectually; seeking to solve every philosophy, but using his intellect only."

The assertion that "broken machines" was "Darrow's term" was inserted into the Wikipedia page on December 30, 2009 (see http://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Leopold_and_Loeb&action=historysubmit&diff=335033209&oldid=333632343), supported by this citation:

Gaither, Richard K. From Darwin to Darrow. Cleveland: Simon & Shuster, 1984, p. 227.

The only online references to a book entitled "From Darwin to Darrow" appear on Wikipedia, its many mirrors, and one blog post that appears to rely on Wikipedia (http://creationliberty.com/articles/evolution5th.php).

"From Darwin to Darrow" isn't indexed on Google Books, and doesn't appear in WorldCat, a comprehensive catalog of materials in libraries worldwide. The Library of Congress catalog has only three entries for a title keyword search of "Darwin" and "Darrow," none of them the right one (see http://catalog.loc.gov/cgi-bin/Pwebrecon.cgi?DB=local&Search_Arg=darwin+darrow&Search_Code=TKEY^*&CNT=100&hist=1&type=quick). The Library of Congress catalog has only three entries for an author named Richard Gaither, none of them the Darrow book (see http://catalog.loc.gov/cgi-bin/Pwebrecon.cgi?hd=1,1&Search_Arg=richard%20gaither&Search_Code=NAME%40&CNT=100&type=quick&PID=BDOEIX7DblZgm-v0KEsDqei&HIST=0&SEQ=20110821160756&SID=1).

Every online reference to the phrase "broken machines" as verbatim Darrow appears to have been published after it was incorporated into the Wikipedia article; e.g.:

http://newpaltz.uber.matchbin.net/view/full_story/14702113/article--Decisions-we-will-never-understand-?instance=secondary_stories_left_column
http://cases.laws.com/leopold-and-loeb
http://www.classicalsource.com/db_control/db_concert_review.php?id=9264
http://www.thevitalvoice.com/lifestyle/57-lifestyle/327-qthrill-meq--max-and-louis-productions
http://justabovesunset.wordpress.com/2011/01/16/doing-the-funky-nietzsche/
http://www.americansocietyrio.org/amsoc/newscontent.asp?id=1313

According to Simon Baatz's book, "For the Thrill of It: Leopold, Loeb, and the Murder That Shocked Jazz Age Chicago,"

"Each individual was akin to a machine, Darrow believed; consciousness has a strictly materialist basis, and human action was entirely a consequence of external stimuli acting on the organism to produce predictable results."

Baatz, however, does not refer to the phrase "broken machines" anywhere in his book (see http://books.google.com/books?id=jAMBw9peSl4C&q=machine).

So, after a few hours' digging, I am convinced that while "broken machines" may accurately characterize one aspect of Darrow's argument, it's unlikely that Darrow himself used the phrase. Also, not only is the alleged quote likely to be spurious; Darrow did not argue that the defendants were "not guilty" by virtue of being "broken machines," "imperfect machines," or anything else; he argued that although they were guilty, they should not be put to death for their crime. Hence my reason for deleting the sentence entirely. KathleenSeidel (talk) 14:20, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Nietzsche, eh?

I didn't know about the Nietzschean aspect of this case. What's even worse is how their actions had nothing at all to do with Nietzsche's philosophy, and Darrow's words which seem to imply otherwise-- but then again, that was closely pre-WWII, which is the prime moment in history for misinterpretation of Nietzsche. So meh. Chicopac (talk) 05:29, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

It definitely had something to do with Nietzsche, regardless of how they chose to interpret him. And yes, this was pre-WWII, while another madman in Europe was enamored with Nietzsche's philosophy, Adolph Hitler.--Sanya3 (talk) 22:17, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Homosexual relationship

I think it should be mentioned that Leopold and Loeb were homosexual partners, which helps explain the trust that they had in each other to plan this crime. An interesting vignette to be added to this article would also reflect on the homosexual attitudes at the time, in which women were escorted out of the courtroom when the pair's sexual relationship was brought up.

Some mention of the homosexuality should be mentioned. Though at the time of the trial, it appeared that Loeb was not homosexual per say, but went along with Leopold because he needed a partner in his petty thefts. Leopold traded sexual favors for an "agreement" to participate in Loebs petty crimes. Somewhere this became somewhat of a sexual relationship but it's never clear what it was. Clearly Leopold was much more attracted to Loeb, who seemed somewhat indifferent. Loeb seemed to motivated by some misguided idea that because he was a "superior" person like Leopold the two should stick together.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.127.210.40 (talk • contribs) 00:24, 28 July 2005

Since it is conceded that Leopold and Loeb were homosexual lovers, and since the body of Bobby Franks was found naked, the possibility of pedophilia should be considered. Leopold, in his book, "Life Plus 99 Years," claims that Franks was naked so that it would make the body harder to identify. That, of course, is nonsense. What makes more sense is that two perverts, 18 and 19, found a 14-year old kid to rape, and then killed him so that he would not be able to talk. This aspect of the story should be investigated. John Paul Parks (talk) 14:52, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

So far, we only know that you obviously want them to be pedophiles. Not that this wish would be atypical for our sensationalist western society. Fulcher (talk) 13:25, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
The case is covered in several reliable sources, so if this is significant it's probably in one or another book.   Will Beback  talk  19:59, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
The article is in category LGBT, which would not be an appropriate category as their homosexuality is not mentioned in the article. 173.3.112.55 (talk) 16:42, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

By the way, why isn't their homosexuality mentioned in this article? It was a big part of the trial and public opinion and is a famous element in the story. It is downright weird that this is omitted. Gingermint (talk) 21:29, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Can you add something?   Will Beback  talk  06:26, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

The article contains the statement, "Contrary to rumors that Franks had been sexually assaulted, the trial judge would later state that conclusive evidence convinced him that no such abuse had been committed." The cited source, however, is a book written by Leopold himself, who is hardly a neutral observer. The comment attributed to the judge is hearsay, and would be worthy of belief only if we have judge's own comment, and not something that Leopold alleges the judge said. Another reason the statement is dubious: how do you conclusively establish that sexual abuse did not occur? Did they, for example, examine the victim's mouth and rectum for traces of semen? Franks was a minor, and it would not even be necessary to prove penetration to establish a claim of abuse. In the 1920's, homosexuality was an absolutely taboo subject, even without the aspect of homosexual rape, so it would not be surprising to find the subject addressed by euphemism, if at all. Leopold, in his book, "Life Plus 99 Years," tells us about his girlfriend. Do you suppose she ever existed? Wealthy family with flaming homosexual son who commits murder to cover up evidence of his perversion? Oh, well, we can at least prevent him from being hanged, but not much else.John Paul Parks (talk) 14:30, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Homosexuality revisited

Hello.

First, I know next to nothing about this subject, having come here to learn a bit after watching "Compulsion". While googling, I also found "Swoon" and a couple of other references to a romantic or sexual relationship between Leopold and Loeb.

I'm not suggesting that it's directly relevant that they were (allegedly?) gay, but if they were in a relationship, that seems something worth mentioning. We obviously include Bonnie and Clyde's involvement, and I think we should include the relationship between Leopold and Loeb -- provided that it can be well-sourced.

So, is this regarded as a generally accepted claim? Or is it merely a rumor that cannot be reliably confirmed or refuted? If it is the former, should it be mentioned in the article?

Just a few questions. As I said, I know little about the topic and I'm willing to defer to others. Phiwum (talk) 01:20, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Federal Government Had Nothing to Do With This Case

I removed the categories "Prisoners sentenced to life imprisonment by the United States federal government" and "People convicted of murder by the United States federal government" as Leopold & Lobe were tried by the State of Illinois and imprisoned in the Prairie State's own prisons, not some federal hoosegow. Shemp Howard, Jr. (talk) 17:55, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Strange Article

"Psychiatrists at the trial, impressed by Leopold's intelligence, agreed that Loeb had struck the fatal blow." What?! You have to be smart to murder someone? Here and there there are these weird little statements in this article. Gingermint (talk) 21:26, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Robert Crowe, I presume, was let out of the article due to some editing: he is only mentioned in this @Alienists@ section, and without any introduction. Maybe some competent person can reinstate him in place and role? Igor Makhankov (talk) 16:05, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Who drove?

The article currently reads:

With Franks in the vehicle, Loeb drove and Leopold sat in the back armed with the taped chisel. This was a weapon commonly chosen by Loeb.

It is still unknown exactly who struck Franks, but it is commonly believed that it was Loeb. While Leopold drove down the road, Loeb struck Franks several times in the head with the chisel before dragging him into the back-seat of the car.

What is the significance of saying "Loeb drove" and then "Leopold drove"? Did they switch seats at some point? Should this simply say "Loeb and Leopold took turns driving" or noting that "Loeb drove at first" and then later "At some point, they switched seats. While Leopold drove..."? Not acknowledging the change gives a sense that this might be an error. —sroc 💬 11:02, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

For now, I have amended this to read:

With Franks in the vehicle, either Loeb or Leopold drove (it is uncertain which) while the other sat in the back armed with the taped chisel. This was a weapon commonly chosen by Loeb.

It is still unknown exactly who struck Franks, but it is commonly believed that it was Loeb, striking Franks several times in the head with the chisel before dragging him into the back-seat of the car, while Leopold drove.

—sroc 💬 11:44, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Boys or men?

The last sentence in the section Murder of Robert Franks states that "Leopold was 19 and Loeb was 18" ... and the last paragraph in Darrow's speech states that " ... being under 21, Leopold and Loeb were legal minors".

In the Motive section they're referred to as young men (" ... the young men's families ... "), as also in the Trial section (" ... defend the young men ... "), and in The psychologists they're "men" (twice in the third sentence) - but in the third sentence under Motive they're "boys"!

Clearly Darrow was intent on emphasising Leopold and Loeb's youthfulness; therefore he refers to " ... a 19-year-old boy" and "the boys" several times in the excerpt from his address. However, everywhere else should they be "young men" or "men"?

The third sentence in Trial begins "Fearing that their child would receive a death sentence ... ". Perhaps this would be better as "Fearing that their son would receive a death sentence ... "?

BTW, in The psychologists is "Crowe's psychologists argued ... " - there seems to be no previous reference to Crowe; presumably he was the DA? Perhaps this could be added, along with his first name (since we know that Darrow's first name was Clarence)?

Prisoner of Zenda (talk) 05:46, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Ratione autem liberamur

This Latin phrase is said (seventh paragraph, Loeb's death) to be an anagram of "Richard Albert Loeb". It isn't; firstly because there are 21 letters in the phrase, and only 17 in Loeb's full name; secondly because Loeb's full name can't be made from the 21 letters of the phrase.

Prisoner of Zenda (talk) 05:58, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Graduating Phi Beta Kappa

What does this sentence mean? I'm fully aware of the concept of graduating, and can see that Phi Beta Kappa is some sort of student club, but the two together don't make a lot of sense? Markb (talk) 13:59, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

LGBT Jews category

I've removed this category. I'm not really seeing a lot to support it (meaning citations to reliable sources). What little IS out there seems to be little more than gossip and speculation and therefore isn't useful for an encyclopedic article. Kindzmarauli (talk) 17:37, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Jewish

I took out the word Jewish because Richard Leob's mother was NOT Jewish. But their own definition of what is a Jew, it runs through the mother. His mother was Catholic and his father was Jewish. Also Bobby Franks the murdered boy was Jewish by birth but the entire family had left Judaism and joined the Christian Science movement. By voluntary leaving their own faith, by the definition of the Jews this means they cease to be a Jews. All parties lived in a then heavily Jewish section. 4.142.45.213 (talk) 17:46, 6 April 2008 (UTC)eric

"Leopold and Loeb did not see each other again until the Jewish New year, which the Jewish prisoners were allowed to celebrate. Ten days later they would see each other again for Yom Kippur." Loeb and Leopold met at the Jewish holidays. from:http://www.leopoldandloeb.com/prison.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chocklitchica (talk • contribs) 23:13, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
Is this a reliable source?--Anewpester (talk) 05:38, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
Being an ethnic Jews vs. a religious Jew is not the same thing. While Orthodox Judaism defines Jewishness by the mother's line, other branches will accept one whose father is Jewish. There are many famous atheist Jews, who had very little belief in the God of Abraham, and yet are considered Jewish for all intents and purposes.--Sanya3 (talk) 22:21, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

A comment made by Armand Deutsch to the effect that it was fortunate in the antisemitic climate of that time and place that both the perps and the victim were jewish I think is relevant -- it means that many (including Deutsch who was the grandson of a prominent jew) considered Leopold&Loeb (and Franks) to be jews. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jrm2007 (talk • contribs) 04:26, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Is there any serious editorial reason for why all references to their Jewish background were removed from the article, while they are available in other languages? I was only able to tell they were Jewish by their names.--Sanya3 (talk) 22:19, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

If both murderers were Jewish, as the above discussion would seem to suggest, why is there no "Religion: Jewish" line in the inset box for Loeb, when that line does appear in Leopold's box? Shouldn't that line be in the inset for both killers?
Or, if their religion is not an important factor in the killings, why would religion be given for either?
Some consistency is needed here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.206.183.141 (talk) 04:06, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Leopold was ethnically Jewish, his family were German Jews who had immigrated to America. Loeb's father was Jewish but his mother was a Catholic. Frank's father, Jacob Franks, was also Jewish but practiced the Catholic faith. (Hal Higdon, Leopold and Loeb: The Crime of the Century, 1999, pp. 18, 33)--Dixie Cotton (talk) 11:59, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Jewish

The article states Loeb had a Jewish father and his mother was Catholic, why include this but not the fact Leopold was Jewish? The latter's family were German Jewish immigrants. Also, the victim's father was also Jewish but practiced the Christian faith.--Dixie Cotton (talk) 02:25, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Frankly, I fail to see how any of their religions and/or ethnicities are relevant, in the context of the crime. Please explain why they shouldn't all be removed. DoctorJoeE review transgressions/talk to me! 01:29, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
Note, Dixie Cotton has been blocked as the latest sock of English Patriot Man. Kierzek (talk) 17:23, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
Aha! Appreciate the head-up. I'll walk the article back from those edits, if not already done. DoctorJoeE review transgressions/talk to me! 19:56, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

I'd like to make the counter-argument. This murder occurred at the peak of established anti-Semitism in the United States. You had the Leo Frank Lynching, many municipalities limiting Jewish employment and federal limitations on immigration from eastern Europe. Henry Ford published "The International Jew" and perceptions of Jews were becoming heavily unfavorable. A particular kind of Jew was in the crosshairs of this anti-Semitic fervor -- the educated, cosmopolitan, and financially successful Jewish families. The exact kinds of families that both Leopold and Loeb came from. That they were both Jewish was very much relevant to the community leaders who were concerned with public perception and the sensationalism around the murder. I would argue that their wealth, their religion and the rumors of their sexuality all contributed to why the story was so salacious at the time. Reve (talk) 18:30, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Leopold and Loeb were mentioned by Woody Allen's character Alvy in Annie Hall

Woody Allen's character has just had sex with a blind date reporter played by Shelly Duvall. They are lying in bed and he makes some statement about orgasms. She asks who said that and he says "I don't know, maybe Leopold and Loeb" because she is a pseudo intellectual and this statement just goes over her head. She has no idea who he is talking about. Just one of the mocking things he says to her on their date. Very dark humor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:348E:DC00:F5A9:F7C6:1321:8041 (talk) 09:07, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on Leopold and Loeb. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:46, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Leopold and Loeb. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:33, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Tony Manke or Tony Minke?

The article gives the name of the man who discovered the body as "Tony Manke". This was introduced by 141.154.182.6 (talk · contributions) in [02:35, 23 Jan 2005 http://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Leopold_and_Loeb&diff=9572810&oldid=9572798]. Some other sources give his name as Tony Minke. Someone recently changed to Minke and was reverted.

The split goes like this on Google.

Tony Manke:

Tony Minke:

I make no judgement on the reliability of the sources, but since there does seem to be independent support for the name "Tony Minke" I'm inclined to leave it like that until it can be properly verified and changed if necessary. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 17:55, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Honestly, it's Tony Minke. I know about this case somewhat and yes, to clarify, Minke, not Manke. Psoettd (talk) 21:49, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

First source broken?

It appears that the first source doesn't link to anywhere relevant to the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Craigsundaram (talk • contribs) 06:21, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

comment from cleanup

The following was posted on WP:CU. I've removed the article, since listing it there doesn't seem warranted, but the issue should be dealt with. research ambiguity re Meyer Levin's description of Jewish reaction (directly in 1920s or via fiction in 1950s), and qualify or position accordingly in article. Rvollmert 12:19, 28 August 2004 (UTC)

Prison Razor Fight

The historical record, including information here Leopoldandloeb.com, seems to indicate that Loeb initiate the prison razor fight as a consequence of a rejected sexual advance. Of course, the history may be skewed by possible self-serving comments made by the other participant in that fight. Even so, it still appears that our current version regarding this, does not accurately reflect the historical record. I am planning on changing that, but will wait here for 5 days for comments from others first. 216.153.214.94 17:34, 6 April 2005 (UTC)

The Chicago Tribune reported that Loeb (as well as Leopold) had their wealthy families "BUY" them many conveniences in jail and they were "comfortable," compared to other prisoners. While the two were seperated for their own good, they eventually were allowed to associate with each other again. It was the families ablity to buy the two "comforts" that made the pair somewhat unpopular in prison. Loeb always the "cockier" of the bunch was not as discrete as Leopold with flaunting his inside prison wealth and this lead to Loebs killing."

The Chicago Tribune also reported that while it seemed rather likely the attack was planned and not self-defence, the public at the time considered the two got off way too easy and no one was particulary upset that Loeb was killed calling it "justice at last." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.40.152.238 (talk) 04:08, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Inpopcult source?

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Leopold_and_Loeb/Archive_1&oldid=1185328514"