Part 8 (2/2)
But how could one determine that a defendant was incapable of distinguis.h.i.+ng right from wrong? Insanity was often not self-evident or obvious; only a psychiatrist with specialized medical knowledge could make that determination satisfactorily.
The defense attorneys would, no doubt, bring psychiatrists into court to testify that the defendants were insane. Crowe, therefore, needed to rebut the defense testimony through expert witnesses who would demonstrate that the defendants could distinguish right from wrong.
All the better, of course, if Nathan and Richard would confess their legal responsibility for the murder in the presence of the state's psychiatrists and the other witnesses. The psychiatrists' task would be facilitated if Nathan and Richard admitted that they were able to distinguish right from wrong and hence that they were legally sane. How could the defense lawyers enter a plea of not guilty by reason of insanity if Leopold and Loeb admitted their legal responsibility?
AT HALF PAST THREE, Archibald Church, the third psychiatrist, finally arrived. Archibald Church, the third psychiatrist, finally arrived.35 Church, fifty-three years old, cut an impressive figure. He took great pride in his appearance and was always meticulously dressed. He habitually had a rather melancholy expression; his large green eyes gazed out from a slightly bulbous face. He was courteous to a fault; indeed, his colleagues at Northwestern University Medical School found Church slightly pompous and aloof.
Church had received his medical degree from the College of Physicians and Surgeons in Chicago in 1884, and after four years' service as the a.s.sistant superintendent at the Illinois Northern Hospital for the Insane at Elgin, he had joined the medical faculty at Northwestern. He remained at Northwestern throughout his career as a professor of mental diseases and medical jurisprudence and held joint appointments as professor of neurology at the Chicago Policlinic and consulting neurologist at Michael Reese Hospital. Church was a leader of his profession, with a national reputation for his research in neurology. He had served as vice president of the American Neurological a.s.sociation and as the section chair on mental and nervous diseases for the American Medical a.s.sociation. He was the author of many articles and books, most notably the standard textbook in the field, Nervous and Mental Diseases Nervous and Mental Diseases, cowritten with Frederick Peterson of Columbia University.36 Church nodded a greeting to Hugh Patrick and William Krohn; he sat down with them in the center of the room, a few feet from Robert Crowe's desk. The office was beginning to fill up as more people arrived. Crowe's a.s.sistants-John Sbarbaro, Joseph Savage, and Milton Smith-talked quietly among themselves in one corner of the room. Michael Hughes and William Shoemacher sat to one side, waiting. The stenographer was there: Elbert Allen was still transcribing the informal conversations between Nathan and the psychiatrists. George Murray, a detective with the Illinois Central Railroad, had found a chair near the door; John Wesner, a physician, sat by his side, reading some notes from his briefcase; and Thomas O'Malley, the chief of staff a.s.signed to Crowe's office, walked in and out of the room, checking that everything was in order.
Robert Crowe had followed Church into the room. The state's attorney had brought Richard Loeb with him. Now that the psychiatrists had arrived, Crowe prepared to start the examination.
Robert Crowe turned to Richard Loeb first.
”Go ahead and tell the story in your own way. Begin at the beginning.”
”Well, I don't remember just exactly when it was.” Richard paused to look at Nathan. ”Leopold here says it was in November...that he first talked to me about this; and I don't remember just how it came about, we had been discussing crimes, and so forth.” Richard hesitated again; he was aware that everyone in the room was watching him closely. ”We talked it over, and about the possibilities of it.... The crime, if it was to be committed plausibly...could not be done unless there was some way of getting the money.”37 Richard began to relax; soon he was speaking more coherently, telling how they had planned the kidnapping, carried out the murder, and disposed of the evidence. Richard claimed that Nathan had struck Bobby Franks; Nathan vehemently denied the accusation, but in all other respects he agreed with Richard's account.
Crowe waited patiently for Richard to finish speaking.
”Let me,” Crowe began, ”first ask one or two questions. Then we will hear from the other boy. The motive of this, you say, was what?”
”I don't know,” Loeb replied hesitantly.
”You had money in the bank?”
”Yes,” Loeb replied. ”It was a seeking of adventure; money entered into it some, in a way, but I think the main thing was the adventure of the thing, and the-” Richard paused and shook his head indecisively.
”Oh, G.o.d, I don't know, when I come to think about it.”
William Krohn broke in: ”Had you made arrangements that you were to divide the money, at all?”
”Yes, the money was to be split up.”
”Split even, fifty-fifty?”
”Yes.”
”Had you planned how you were to use the money in any way?”
”We arranged that [the] money was not to be used in the city of Chicago or in this country for a year. Leopold had intended to go to Europe, and it was arranged he could spend the money in Europe if he wanted to.”38 Richard Loeb admitted that the ransom money was not a sufficient motive for the murder. The ransom had added a element of complexity to the affair, but otherwise it was not important. The murder seemed inexplicable to him now; he had no satisfactory answer as to the motive.
”I feel so sorry. I have asked myself that question a million times. How did I possibly go into that thing?”
Hugh Patrick looked across at Nathan. ”You cannot trace the original nucleus of it, can you, Mr. Leopold?”
”Yes, sir, I think I can,” Nathan replied, decisively. ”I am sure, as sure as I can be of anything, that is, as sure as you can read any other man's state of mind, the thing that prompted d.i.c.k to want to do this thing and prompted me to want to do this thing was a sort of pure love of excitement, or the imaginary love of thrills, doing something different; possibly...the satisfaction and the ego of putting something over.... The money consideration only came in afterwards, and never was important. The getting of the money was a part of our objective, as was also the commission of the crime; but that was not the exact motive.”39
IF R ROBERT C CROWE WAS TO win a hanging verdict, he would have to convince the jury that the murder was a rational act. But what possible motive could there be for such a senseless murder? Neither Leopold nor Loeb had any especial reason to kill Bobby Franks. Richard Loeb had disliked his cousin, certainly, but not to any serious extent; Nathan Leopold had not even previously known Bobby. win a hanging verdict, he would have to convince the jury that the murder was a rational act. But what possible motive could there be for such a senseless murder? Neither Leopold nor Loeb had any especial reason to kill Bobby Franks. Richard Loeb had disliked his cousin, certainly, but not to any serious extent; Nathan Leopold had not even previously known Bobby.
In any case, both boys had claimed that they had selected Bobby by chance. He happened to be walking south on Ellis Avenue as they had driven by in the w.i.l.l.ys-Knight. The victim might have been any one of a dozen boys in the vicinity of the Harvard School.
Could money be the motive for the killing? This, too, seemed implausible. Both Leopold and Loeb received generous monthly allowances. They did not lack money-why would they commit such a grievous crime for a relatively minor sum?
Could the desire for a thrill be the motive for the killing? Was it, as Nathan had stated to the reporters, akin to a scientific experiment whereby they could experience the sensation of killing another human being? But Crowe knew he could not claim that the murderers were sane and, at the same time, ask a jury to believe that they had killed a fourteen-year-old boy solely for the thrill of the experience.
It was, Crowe realized, a serious difficulty for the prosecution. The boys were rational and coherent-they displayed no signs of mental illness-yet they had committed an apparently irrational act. Indeed, the murder seemed to pa.s.s so far beyond the expected course of events as to force the conclusion that the perpetrators were insane. No matter how hard one looked, it was impossible to discover a rational motive for the killing of Bobby Franks.
NEITHER L LEOPOLD NOR L LOEB COULD adequately explain the murder; yet both willingly admitted their responsibility. There was no equivocation or ambiguity in this regard, at least: both had known, when they killed Bobby, that murder was wrong and both admitted that they could distinguish right from wrong. adequately explain the murder; yet both willingly admitted their responsibility. There was no equivocation or ambiguity in this regard, at least: both had known, when they killed Bobby, that murder was wrong and both admitted that they could distinguish right from wrong.
Archibald Church had said little so far; now he turned to Nathan to ask him about his sense of criminal responsibility for the killing.
”Mr. Leopold, when you made this plan to do the killing, you understood perfectly your responsibilities in the matter?”
”My answer is, yes, sir.”
”The criminal act for which certain penalties were provided, and all that?”
”Yes, sir.”
Church returned briefly to the question of motive. Perhaps, he suggested, they had wanted to demonstrate their superiority over the Chicago police.
”Were you actuated by a motive to put over some such thing as this without being detected, as it were, to put one over on the detective forces?”
”That I am sure was a large part of Mr. Loeb's att.i.tude, and I think it was a small part of mine. Sort of egotism.”40 Robert Crowe brought the questioning back to the boys' sense of responsibility; he turned, this time, to Richard Loeb.
”Mr. Loeb, do you know the difference between right and wrong?”
”Yes, sir.”
”You think you did the right thing in this particular matter?”
”In the Franks case?”
<script>