Freud, Murder, and Fame: Lessons in Psychology’s Fascinating History

by Todd C. Riniolo

  She was a definitively abnormal individual, who, being closely associated with him in the tender and formative years of his development, produced a profound and unwholesome effect. … This governess set herself up as being superior to the patient’s parents in every way, and the patient accepted this idea. … She gave the patient a very abnormal and unhealthy introduction to sex topics, and he has never been able to secure a normal viewpoint on this subject since. Some of the things which she did to him have been forgotten or repressed, but the effects of such treatment still remain and still act as determinants for his behaving and thinking.

  When Leopold first entered school, he went to an all girls’ school. He subsequently attended a co-ed school, but did not adapt and returned to the girls’ school. He was shielded from other boys and had very few close friendships growing up, becoming a solitary individual. Leopold’s notebook drawings indicated his “subconscious mind had a much greater range than the average person’s and turned to subjects quite foreign to the thinking of normal people” (McKernan, 1924, p. 114). Leopold would tell the doctors that he actively worked to contain all emotional feelings in an attempt to develop cold-blooded, purely intellectual interests (Bowman & Hulbert, 1924a). Leopold ultimately came to believe that his mental superiority meant the normal societal rules did not apply to him, allowing him to indulge his active and abnormal phantasy life. He had no feelings of remorse about the crime, as there was a marked discrepancy between his intellectual and emotional development.

  Leopold, like Loeb, also developed an active phantasy life, which allowed him to escape from feelings of inferiority. His most pronounced phantasy was that of a king and slave, where he preferred to play the role of the slave who would serve his superior king (i.e., Richard Loeb). According to the medical report, the murder of Bobby Franks was an acting out of his phantasy life. The leaked Bowman and Hulbert medical reports were front page news on July 28, 1924. For example, the headline for The New York Times was “Loeb ‘Master Mind’ of Franks Slaying, Alienists Report” (as covered in Chapter 9, the full article is widely available in the New York Times Historical database), The Washington Post was “Loeb Master Mind, Leopold His Slave, Alienists Declare,” and The Atlanta Constitution was “Loeb is Branded as Master Mind in Franks Crime.”

  The Bowman and Hulbert reports were important for public opinion in several ways. First, it was generally assumed that Leopold was the driving force in the murder, and that Loeb had somehow been hoodwinked by his intellectual superior. After the report became public, most people concluded that Loeb bore the greater responsibility for the crime, as Leopold was viewed as being Loeb’s “mental slave” and simply serving the wishes of his “King.” Second, the focus of the newspaper reporting now shifted to a story line about the abnormal childhood experiences of the defendants, which is exactly what Clarence Darrow had hoped would happen. The message was clear: An abnormal childhood could result in serious consequences, making the story particularly relevant for parents across the nation. The early childhood experiences of both Leopold and Loeb would ultimately make great theater when the Freudian experts would take the stand and give Freudian interpretations of the underlying causes for the senseless crime (you can see Freud’s influence in the medical reports as well with such terms as “repression”). Whether or not individuals agreed with the Freudian explanations, there is little doubt that Freudian interpretation of the underlying causes for the senseless murder was fascinating to a wide spectrum of individuals (i.e., the general public). It is no wonder that the Freudian testimony during the trial would generate substantial public debate lasting for years (Higdon, 1999).

  The Dueling Alienists and Public Fascination

  After the prosecution rested its case, the first expert to testify about the abnormal mental condition for the defense took the stand (pictures of the expert witnesses are available at the Chicago History Museum’s website; http://www.chicagohistory.org/). Dr. William A. White, the most recognizable psychoanalyst in the country, would refer to Leopold as “Babe” and Loeb as “Dickie” throughout his testimony. The other defense alienists would follow this strategy. As soon as Dr. White began his testimony, prosecuting attorney Robert Crowe objected and the legal battle began over the question of whether or not mental abnormality short of insanity could be used to mitigate punishment. The judge would use the next several days to hold hearings on this specific issue. The prosecution’s position was as follows: “Our interpretation of this is, your Honor, that they are attempting to show degrees of responsibility. There is nothing in law known as degrees of responsibility. You are either entirely responsible for all the consequences of your act, or you are not responsible at all” (cited in McKernan, 1924, p. 79).

  The defense’s position was that they should be allowed to offer evidence of an abnormal mental condition to show that there are degrees of mental responsibility short of legal insanity. Judge Caverly ultimately decided that Illinois law required him to hear evidence of mitigation. This ruling not only allowed the alienists for the defense to testify, but allowed the Bowman and Hulbert medical reports to be offered into evidence. An additional joint defense report was prepared by Drs. White, Healy, Glueck, and Hamill. This report was never introduced into evidence, but is worthwhile to read because it concisely states the positions of the defense alienists as they would testify on the stand (see McKernan, 1924, p. 141-163).

  The battle that was about to take place in the courtroom was between the defense and prosecution alienists. The defense alienists would argue that Leopold and Loeb were mentally diseased while the prosecution would argue the opposite. As McKernan notes (1924, p. 167), “The trial became a contest in psychology and for days the air was thick with terms—“split personalities,” “phantasies,” “subconscious influence,” “basal metabolism”—which the alienists and neurologists of the two sides of the case hurled back and forth before the judge.” What would ultimately happen by the end of this process was that the “newspapers helped introduce Americans to the new psychology and to new concepts of the normal and the abnormal” (Fass, 1993, p. 929). Here, the new psychology would be Freud’s psychology. As Catherine Covert (1975, p. vi) would write in her dissertation, “Newspaper coverage of that case for the first time brought to American readers extended coverage of Freudian thought, presented by psychoanalysts on the witness stand testifying for the accused.” I would recommend using the New York Times Historical database (see Chapter 9) as the quickest way to read firsthand what was reported in most newspapers across the country via the wire services, which not only reported about the trial, but typically provided substantial quotations from the courtroom.

  At the time of the trial, most people were not pleased with Darrow’s strategy of using alienists to mitigate punishment in this murder case. Editorials from around the globe had harsh words. For example, The Daily Mail of London editorialized the following (August 1, 1924): “The monstrous depravity of Leopold and Loeb is causing their trial to be followed with horror-struck and unparalleled interest. The Mail criticizes the “mobilization of a procession of psycho-analysts” endeavoring to save the accused from the proper penalty on the convenient plea of insanity. The danger to the public in this dubious science here is clearly shown” (cited in Theodore, 2007, p. 145). Likewise, letters to the editor in newspapers around the country, while certainly not a representative sample, were also typically harsh about the testimony from the defense alienists.

  The American public would be fascinated during the alienist testimony reviewed below, as everyone was interested in the psychological explanations of why the killing of Bobby Franks occurred. However, most Americans did not accept the Freudian explanations as the alienists for the defense were viewed as being on the side of cold-blooded and calculated murderers. As Hale (1995, p. 93) writes, “In this trial, psychoanalysis became identified with a radical view of crime which seemed to suggest leniency for murder.” Independent of whether the individual reading the newspaper coverage of the
trial was sympathetic or outraged by the use of psychological testimony to mitigate punishment, “the newspapers, in edition after edition, brought this new psychology into people’s homes. Dickie Loeb and Babe Leopold, two pampered sons of millionaires who lived upholstered lives, didn’t kill just for a thrill, the papers reported. It was abnormal childhoods that led them to the crime. The public now saw the boys as object lessons for raising children” (Theodore, 2007, p. 148).

  If there was a single moment in time that introduced the New Psychology of Freud to the American public, it was during this portion of the trial, as the Leopold and Loeb case “familiarized Americans with a wide range of terms, concepts, and values drawn from psychiatry” (Fass, 1993, p. 939). The newspaper coverage, while using the psychological testimony to further its storylines about the importance of early childhood events, also sought to “knock psychiatrists off their scientific perch as so much inflated (and overpaid) ego” (Fass, 1993, p. 937). In the same edition of a newspaper you could have a detailed explanation of the underlying causes of murder in Freudian terms, while the editorial pages would simultaneously harshly criticize the use of Freudian testimony by the defense (Covert, 1975).

  After Judge Caverly had ruled he would hear the defense testimony for mitigation purposes (see The Seattle Times, “State Loses Fight to Ban Alienists,” August 1, 1924, p. 1), the prominent psychoanalyst Dr. William A. White retook the witness stand to testify for the defense starting on Friday, August 1. His testimony would conclude on Saturday, August 2. Dr. White, like the other defense alienists to follow, wanted to show the court that Leopold and Loeb’s abnormal childhoods ultimately contributed to the murder of Robert Franks. Dr. White was at the time of the trial a seasoned lecturer who was able to modify his speaking to his audience. While on the witness stand, he would cut out the technical jargon and attempt to explain what he believed were the important issues in language accessible for the non-expert. He was the perfect spokesman to introduce Freudian theory to the general public in understandable terms (Baatz, 2008). For more information about the defense alienists testimony than provided below, consult the previously mentioned Joint Medical Report by Drs. White, Healy, Glueck, and Hamill (who did not testify), which provided the basis of their testimony.

  Dr. White would tell the court in a story-like manner about the active phantasy life that Loeb developed because of his abnormal childhood, and that his phantasy life ultimately centered on committing the perfect crime (see The Hartford Courant, “Dual Personality Plotted Murder, Alienist Testifies,” August 2, 1924, p. 1; The Washington Post, “Dual Personality Caused Kidnaping, Dr. White Asserts,” August 2, 1924, p. 1). As Dr. White would testify, “He is the master criminal mind and wanted to do a great job, wanted to commit a crime that would be perfect, that would be thoroughly and completely planned in all details, that would baffle the police, that would be an object of great concern in the immediate community, that would leave no clues, that would be an intellectual feat to accomplish” (cited in Theodore, 2007, p. 140). In further describing Loeb, Dr. White would say, “He was the host of an infantile emotional make-up which was a long way from the possibility of functioning harmoniously with his developed intelligence. He was going in the direction of a split personality, because of this inner, unresolved conflict” (cited in Sellers, 1926, p. 16).

  Dr. White’s testimony about Nathan Leopold (i.e., Babe) centered on his abnormal childhood (e.g., the role of his governess, his feelings of inferiority, his extraordinary intelligence) that resulted in his development of an active phantasy life, particularly the king-slave phantasy, in which Babe would play the role of the slave. Dr. White also focused on the relationship of the two defendants together. As he testified, “I do not believe that the Franks homicide can be explained without an understanding of this relation. Babe would not have entered it alone, because he had no criminalistic tendencies, as Dickie did. Dickie would never have gone as far as he did without Babe to give that final push” (cited in Sellers, 1926, p. 16). Dr. White would also testify that Leopold had confided that both he and Loeb had considered killing each other (see The Pensacola Journal, “Dual Mind of Loeb and Leopold Worked With Devilish Ingenuity in Kidnaping of Young Franks, Says Expert Alienist,” August 2, 1924, p. 1). Dr. White’s testimony concluded by “defining how new psychiatrists, the disciples of Freud, differed from the old ones” (Higdon, 1999, p. 212).

  Perhaps the two most ill-advised statements made by Dr. White, which would be fodder for the press and for the prosecution, were as follows. First, when the defense lawyer asked Dr. White if Loeb’s mental condition on the day of the murder was normal, he responded “Decidedly otherwise. He is still a little child talking to his Teddy bear” (cited in Sellers, 1926, p. 16). Clarence Darrow would note in his closing argument that the prosecution made fun of Dr. White for his teddy-bear comments (see McKernan, 1924).

  Second, “Dr. White described pictures of Dickie as a child dressed in a cowboy costume holding a pistol, and again dressed as a policeman. The earnestness of the boy’s expression convinced the psychiatrist that he took great interest in playing these roles” (Higdon, 1999, p. 208). As one writer would later sarcastically comment about Dr. White’s testimony, “An idea strikes me—a great idea, and one that may eliminate murder forever. If childhood pictures are indications of our future deeds, there need never be another murder. A law should be passed at once compelling parents to have photographs taken of their children annually between the ages of three and nine—then if a child should pose in the costume of an Indian, or is snapped while aiming a pop gun at any object whatever, hang the child at once and thus prevent murder for all time” (cited in Higdon, 1999, p. 208). One of these cowboy pictures of Loeb is widely available on the internet, and the Chicago History Museum (www.chicagohistory.org) has an additional photograph of Loeb in the cowboy costume.

  Newspapers across the country would report that on August 2, the lead prosecution attorney, Robert Crowe, would mock Dr. White’s childish phantasy theory when given the opportunity to cross-examine the witness (see The Hartford Courant, “Childish Phantasy Defense of Franks Slayers Ridiculed,” August 3, 1924, p. 1). The prosecution also made clear that they believed that Dr. White had been fooled by two highly intelligent individuals with a long history of telling lies (see The Atlanta Constitution, “Alienists Bilked by Fabric of Lies, is Stand of State,” August 3, 1924, p. 1; Los Angeles Daily Times, “Crowe’s Logic Explodes Boy Slayers’ Baby Plea,” August 3, 1924, p. 1). As one example of the questioning, Crowe asked Dr. White if he was familiar with the literary characters Tom Sawyer and Huckleberry Finn. He then asked Dr. White if he thought that the boyhood phantasies of Huck Finn and Tom Sawyer and their unkind dealing with ‘Jim’ were signs of criminal inclinations (see The New York Times, “Prosecutor Assails Alienist Testimony for Franks Slayers,” August 3, 1924, p. 9 continued from p. 1). The testimony on August 2 also highlighted that Dr. White was being paid a $250 a day fee for his testimony (see The Sunday [Florida] Times-Union, “Prosecution Makes Fun of Childish “Phantasy” Theory,” August 3, 1924, p. 1). The public, whether they believed the defense position or thought Dr. White’s testimony was nothing more than a clever scheme to mitigate punishment, was fascinated with the alienist testimony.

  In one of the more clever negative commentaries about Dr. White’s testimony, The New York Times (August 4, 1924, p. 12) wrote an editorial titled “Ex Post Facto.” This editorial criticized the after the fact nature of the testimony by comparing the similarities of how a Freudian expert would write about Nathan Leopold and how a historian would write about a productive historical figure with a strong imagination. While the descriptions in the commentary were of individuals with similar characteristics, the Freudian was referring to the defendant who participated in a murder and kidnapping (i.e., Nathan Leopold), while the historian was referring to Joan of Arc. Dr. White, who had first taken the witness stand with such confidence, was made to look foolish upon cross-examination. Perhaps th
is explains why, in Dr. White’s (1938) lengthy autobiography (“The Autobiography of a Purpose”) his participation in the Leopold and Loeb trial receives such scant attention.

  On Monday, August 4, Dr. William Healy testified next for the defense. Dr. Healy would reinforce much of Dr. White’s testimony about the abnormal childhoods of both defendants resulting in their current abnormal personalities, and of the resulting king-slave phantasy (see The Seattle Times, “Leopold is Unbalanced, Says Expert,” August 4, 1924, p. 1). He would describe Leopold as having a “paranoiac personality” (cited in Sellers, 1926, p. 19) and that Babe “showed himself to be self-centered and egotistic beyond any normal limit” (cited in Sellers, 1926, p. 21). Likewise, Babe wasted no time with emotional development, as he was solely focused on intellectual pursuits (see The Boston Daily Globe, “Boy's Slayers Mentally Diseased, Says Boston Alienist,” August 5, 1924, p. 1a). Dr. Healy testified that Leopold was proud he had no conscience and that early in life he tried to stifle his emotional development and began to develop his “egotistic” persona (see The Pittsburg Post-Gazette, “Doing Murder Like Choosing Pie to Leopold, Alienist Says,” August 5, 1924, p. 1). Dr. Healy’s testimony would also inform newspaper readers that Loeb had confided in him that they had contemplated murdering member of the Loeb family (see The Boston Daily Globe, “Loeb Willing to Kill a Relative,” August 5, 1924, p. 1).

  Perhaps the most explosive testimony by an alienist during the trial occurred when Dr. Healy told the court of a bizarre compact that tied the defendants together from childhood and he believe had a strong influence over the criminal behavior of the defendants (see The Atlanta Constitution, “Sinister Compact of Boyhood Bound Slayers, is Claim,” August 5, 1924, p. 1). When Dr. Healy was cross-examined by the prosecution, they wanted to know the details of this compact, but Dr. Healy said that it was only appropriate to tell the judge in chambers. The compact, which had started years ago and was referred to as “For Robert’s Sake,” was part of the King-Slave fantasy. When Loeb would direct Leopold to carry out a request “For Robert’s Sake,” which typically was a criminal venture, Leopold would be rewarded by the “King.” The reward for Nathan Leopold was “the privilege of inserting his penis between Loeb’s legs at special dates” (Theodore, 2007, p. 142).