User Reviews

This film is about the Leopold and Loeb murder and these spoiled rich men's defense run by Clarence Darrow. It goes from their odd homosexual relationship to the murder to the trial to their lives post trial.

"American Experience" is consistently among the best shows on television. The episodes are exquisitely crafted, extraordinarily interesting and a must-see for history buffs like me. This episode about the infamous Leopold/Loeb murder case is similarly well- crafted and interesting. I have one minor reservation, however, and that is that throughout the film the 19 and 20 year-old murderers are referred to as 'boys' and much of the thrust in the show was about their youth. However, they weren't 16 or 17...but clearly were adults and referring to them as boys seemed rather insulting to the memory of their victim.

The proximate cause of this trial, the murder of an innocent nine-year old boy, is pretty well known so I won't dwell on it. Two rich, brilliant kids from powerful Jewish families in Chicago -- Leopold and Loeb -- are only 18 and 19 years old when, in thrall of Neitzsche, they kidnap a neighbor's kid at random, murder him, strip him, mutilate the body, stuff the body into a water pipe in a park, and write a ransom letter to the parents of little Bobby Frank. They don't care about the money. They care about proving they are Übermenschen, Nietzschean supermen to whom the laws no longer apply.

They make a series of stupid mistakes and are quickly rounded up. They seem proud of their accomplishment, taking the police and the press on a tour of relevant locations in Chicago. They confess to every detail. The police officer in charge, Crowe, who is as ugly and ordinary as Leopold and Loeb are exceptional, had got everything he needs to get the boys to the gallows. He doesn't figure on the famous defense lawyer Clarence Darrow being hired by one of the families.

Sensing that the jury in the case is ready to pull the levers and see these rich snotnoses get their necks stretched, Darrrow switched the plea to "not guilty," which eliminates the jury and puts the fate of the two young criminals -- the noose or life behind bars -- in the hands of the judge alone. It's a smart move. The prosecutor presents all of the damning facts, parading witness after witness before the court. No cross-examinations from Darrow, and the two defendants watch the testimony snickering from time to time. The defense seems helpless until it's Darrow's turn. He brings his own cavalcade of expert witnesses who testify that both the boys are cases of arrested development with the emotional assets of small children. (One carries around a teddy bear.) They even introduce the abuse excuse -- one of them claims to have been sexually abused by his governess at the age of twelve. "It took a lot of chutzpah," says one commentator, "but Darrow managed to convince a lot of people that these boys were victims."

He did it by introducing some Freudian material. This was in 1924 and it was all new to the public. They boys were acting out "phantasies" that had been generated by childhood conditions. Gosh. "Maybe we're all a little nuts," said one newspaper cartoon. The media and the readers were riveted. The main message, simple as it sounds now, was that there were reasons for everything that happens. People aren't just good or evil. Everybody is a bit of both. The film doesn't say so but the result was a new look at causality. From childhood onward through time to the deed, with each incident providing a springboard for the next. Previously, ordinary reasoning had been backwards, beginning with the crime and then examining personal history for more corroborating evidence of criminal inclinations. In my opinion the judge made the mistake of conflating "explanation" with "justification." That particular problem persists, not just in courtrooms but in everyday behavior.

The trial took three months. Darrow's final statement was long, rambling, probing, and moving. "It could have been written by Shakespeare." Darrow was being well paid but his bewitching lecture wasn't phony. He was a devout atheist and a committed activist against the death penalty, for anyone. "He had the whole courtroom eating out of his hand." It took the judge four days to reach a decision. They got life for the murder and 99 years for kidnapping. Half the country was outraged because, after all, if these two didn't deserve the death penalty, who did? Nathan Leopold, the brilliant Schlub, was released in 1958. His partner, the dazzling Loeb, had had his throat cut by a fellow inmate years earlier.

The case still fascinates the public and for good reason. Leopold and Loeb had everything going for them. Why would they do such a horrible thing? What was their "motive"? Darrow tried to dispense with a search for motive by explaining that they were somehow "sick" without being frankly nuts. It sounds phony to us but it was a step forward in forensic psychology. Instead of a Manichean world of black and white, there were perplexing shades of gray. What Darrow did was separate the killers from the crime.

Yet, even today, we're consumed by the search for a "motive," even where every motive we can imagine looks preposterous. Most of the time we can understand a murder because it's been committed by someone for profit or out of passion. We tend to kill people we know or love because we care about their opinions of us, they're in a position to hurt us. But mass murders, serial killers, or misguided ideologues like Leopold and Loeb? It's so tragic it's ridiculous.

Let me begin by offering my sincere condolences to the decendants of the Franks Family who lost their 14-year-old son Robert "Bobby" Franks. The 14 year old Bobby Franks, from an affluent Chicago neighborhood, in 1924, was murdered in cold blood and his body mutilated then discarded in a water catch basin some 25 miles away. His murder at the hands of Richard Loeb (who was Bobby's second cousin) age 18, and Nathan Leopold age 19, who in 1924 were two young men who obviously felt they were above the law when they planned to kidnap and then murder the younger 14 year old Bobby Franks. Loeb was a second cousin to the younger Bobby Franks and they lived across the street from one another. Bobby had played tennis over at the Loeb's house on several occasions.

This documentary was first rate, and I believe some of the earlier IMDB reviewers were obviously in favor of capital punishment. The well known civil liberty lawyer Clarence Darrow on the other hand was an advocate to abolish capital punishment and he used the trial of the two young admitted murderers Richard Loeb 18, and Nathan Leopold 19, who admitted to the police of their kidnapping and murder of young Bobby Franks, as his avenue to express his personal disdain for capital punishment by presenting a string of psychiatrists, and psychologists that outlined that these two young men were not functioning in the normal manner as most young men in the society during the 1920's.

I understand Clarence Darrow's approach in a judge only trial, and to having Richard Loeb and Nathan Leopold plead guilty as the evidence (and by their own admissions) against them was overwhleming. Court documents and the excessive newspaper coverage exploited that Richard Loeb and Nathan Leopold were homsexuals and in a romantic relationship. What was left for Judge John Caverly to decide was should these men hang for their hideous crimes, or rot in prison to the end of their natural lives?

After a lengthy trial, Judge John Caverly chose to send both of them to prison with life sentences. Twelve years into Richard Loeb's sentence he was murdered by another prisoner (who earlier on a portion of Loeb's family allowance was being paid to protect their son in prison) in the shower with a straight razor slicing his throat open and bleeding out. The prisoner who murdered Richard Loeb was James E. Day and he was found not guilty after telling the authorities that Loeb was making sexual advances toward him, and he was only defending himself.

As for Nathan Leopold, he was released from prison in March 1958, and he moved to Santurce, Puerto Rico, to avoid media attention where he married a widowed florist.

After watching the documentary, and seeing how both young men were actually spoiled teenagers (just nearing manhood) lived a life of wealth and privilege that granted them a life of never wanting for anything, except maybe more hands on parenting rather than being raised by paid caregivers, thus the question nature versus nurture?

This is an excellent documentary with great insight into the crime of murder in the 1920's era and the thinking behind capital punishment. It may not have been a perfect crime but this documentary is worthy of a perfect 10/10 rating.

In May 1924 when the victim's body was discovered Nathan Leopold and Richard Loeb were 18 and 19 yrs old. It made no sense why the two young men age 18 and 19 were constantly referred to as "boys" throughout the narration of the film. If these were "boys" then what were those soldiers in WW1 7yrs earlier? Even in the trailer, the lady interviewed calls them "children" of privilege. What an insult to the family of the victim even today! The victim was 14yrs old. Not a boy yet not a man by anyone's definition. Really, I'm appalled. As for the rest of the film quality, it is okay from the purely filming point of view but not as good as some programs on ID channel. Honestly, if the title were changed to not be so misleading with such high expectations going in that direction I might have liked it better.