Hey all, I wanted to share this coupon code (RLFANDF30) with you to get 30% off my book. This only works if you order through my publisher’s website, and only applies to pre-orders (books ordered before April 15th).
I also wanted to share that I’ve finally finished uploading all of the non-Chicago public domain newspaper photos to my photo database, so I’m hoping to make that available to the public at the beginning of next month!
And I have a tumblr now, where I’ll be posting more casual updates and info.
Before Leopold and Loeb had even been sentenced, reporters were warning from their newspapers that if they weren’t hanged, the pair would soon be back on the streets, eager to kill again. When they were sentenced to Life and 99 years, editorials across the country declared that in no time at all they would be freed. This mostly died down after a few weeks, but the sentiment was always smoldering under the surface, ready to be fanned into flame if there was any hint of the possibility of freedom for the killers. This is the story of that fear, and how one public official managed to set off a panic on the topic twice in two years.
Hinton G. Clabaugh was appointed chairman of the Illinois parole board by the governor in late August of 1926, which was announced to the public in an article series about “Redeeming Illinois.” Less than two weeks after he assumed the new position, Clabaugh spoke to reporters to announce some terrible news: Leopold and Loeb would likely be set free in December of 1935.
On what he claimed was a routine general investigation of prisoner records, Clabuagh said that he found an “error” in the pair’s mittimus file, which didn’t state if the Life and 99 year sentences ran concurrently or consecutively, but that if not stated specifically by the sentencing judge, they defaulted to run concurrently (meaning they would serve both sentences simultaneously instead of one after the other).
Clabaugh explained: “The law holds further that in case one sentence is longer than the other the longer one takes precedence. In other words, the prisoner serves the longer of the two sentences given him.
“Therefore it must be decided which is longer in the case of Leopold and Loeb-ninety-nine year or life. What can be longer than life?”
He acknowledged that if the life sentence were considered longer, they would have to serve 20 years.
“Bit it doesn’t end there. The good-time and merit system would out the parole down to a minimum of eleven years and three months. That’s the problem we are facing.
“If the ninety-nine year sentence were considered the longer, they would be eligible at the end of thirty-three years.”
Clabaugh told reporters that he addressed letters to both Crowe and the parole board’s attorneys to see if anything could be done legally to ensure Leopold and Loeb would remain behind bars. And he assured the reading public that: “you may be sure that as long as I personally have anything to do with the pardoning or paroling of Leopold and Loeb they will be required to stay in the penitentiary for the very maximum of years legally possible.”
I wasn’t able to find Clabuagh explaining how he got to the 11 years and 3 months idea. He claims this is what the good time parole law (allowing prisoners to get out early for good behavior) would do, but he doesn’t seem to understand that good time only allows you to get out once you’ve served your minimum, or he’s willfully ignoring that.
Judge Caverly, who sentenced the pair, explained this the day after Clabaugh’s statement: “I will say that under the law, making a life sentence 20 years, there is no question that the 99 year sentence is longer. In my interpretation of the law Loeb and Leopold are not eligible to parole until they have served one-third of their 99 year sentence, or 33 years. By that time we all may be dead or times may have changed so that we will look at this thing differently.”
State’s Attorney Robert Crowe, who prosecuted the case, side-stepped the legality of Clabaugh’s claims by saying: “I cannot discuss the technicalities involved at this time,” but made sure to make his position clear regardless that “I think Loeb and Leopold to be two of the most vicious criminals I ever handled and any direct move whatever to free them will be strenuously opposed by me as long as I’m in office.” He also remarked that the pair “would be peacefully at rest under the ground and no one would be worrying about them if my plea had been heard at the trial.”
Both Clabaugh and Crowe here were likely using the controversial killers as ways to gain easy public approval for their jobs and encouraging the public to vote for stricter parole laws and harsher sentences for convicted criminals.
And it worked; the public reacted in outrage over the statements.
Riding the publicity, a Chicago Tribune reporter took to the streets to ask citizens if they thought Loeb and Leopold should be freed in nine years. Obviously most responses were very negative, one man answering: “Let them stay out there, that’s the way I feel about it. They get off lucky if they stay out there the rest of their lives. Their little victim might have been my boy or yours, and they can’t bring him back to life.”
Especially in newspaper editorials the story found fertile ground. One especially riled up editor wrote:
“The time is now ripe for the friends of the slayers to put out “feelers” and ascertain what the public thinks about freeing the prisoners.
“There will be a protest, and then the matter will be dropped for a time. A year or two later it will be brought up again. Protests in these pardon cases grow feebler and feebler with the passing of the years. Then, when it is believed opportune, there will be a concerted effort to open the prison doors.
“The question ‘Did Leopold and Loeb, when they entered prison, believe they would remain there during their natural lives?’ is absurd. We doubt if they expected to remain in confinement as long as they have.”
Eventually, with no more statements forthcoming from anyone involved, the conversations around possible paroles died down, but it wouldn’t be long until it roared to life once more.
On May 31, 1927, the Fifteenth Annual Meeting of the American Psychoanalytic Association was held in Cincinnati, Ohio. Dr. Bernard Glueck, one of the psychiatrists who had examined Leopold and Loeb in 1924, presented a paper on “Constitutional Tendencies of the Ego.” After the meeting Glueck, who lived in New York, continued west to attend another meeting in Chicago, and decided to stop in for a visit with one of his old clients. Nathan Sr. explained: “Dr. Glueck was passing through Chicago and had a day to spare. He never had seen the Stateville prison and asked me to use my visiting privilege in his behalf. The doctor who examined the boy during the trial wanted to view the effects of incarceration on him after his years in prison.”
Glueck and Leopold apparently had a nice visit for about 30 minutes in the visiting room. Deputy Warden Kness described Glueck as asking Leopold several questions about his health, work and studies. When Glueck asked Leopold how he felt Leopold replied: “First class.” He said his chief studies at the moment were shorthand and Brahmanism. Glueck himself commented on the visit that “as former criminologist at Sing Sing prison I am intensely interested in all prisons and prison management. I was in Chicago attending a meeting so I availed myself of this opportunity to see the prison and have a visit with Leopold. I made no mental observations.”
Though it may seem ridiculous, this single short social visit set off another storm of publicity. As one newspaper editor summed it up: “Once more influences back of Leopold and Loeb…are moving tentatively and putting forth feelers to determine whether the time has come for attempting to shift Loeb and Leopold from prison to the hospital for the criminal insane, and thence, by way of “restored” sanity, to freedom and the outside.
“One of those expensive psychiatrists has just made a call at the prison to talk things over with Nathan Leopold jr., with a view, apparently, to the arrangement of a course in insanity to be followed in future by Leopold as a preliminary to examinations and demonstrations justifying the young criminal’s transfer from hard work to a hospital and thence to the open air.”
Despite denials from Glueck, the warden, deputy warden, Nathan Sr., Darrow and Bachrach, the rumor persisted for a few weeks that Loeb and Leopold would soon be freed.
Then in September of 1928, almost exactly two years from his first entry into the conversation, Hinton Clabaugh was back singing his same old tune, but this time the killers themselves were pushed to publicly respond.
Once again Clabaugh announced to reporters that because of an error in the mittimus, Loeb and Leopold only had to serve eleven years and three months, meaning they could be released in six years time.
And once again, other public officals responded to his statement with confusion. Assistant State’s Attorney Rittenhouse pointed out that at the very minimum, Loeb and Leopold would be able to get out 20 years after being sentenced, and that the pardon and parole board, of which Clabuagh was the leader, “has the power to keep these murderers in prison for their natural lives.” Even if they served their minimum, that only meant they would be allowed to apply for parole-not that they would be automatically released. Clarence Darrow also spoke up about the 20 year minimum and said the entire thing was “nonsense. In the first place no one wants them paroled; least of all their families.”
This time around Clabuagh also took shots at the prison directly, referring to the killers as “pampered pets in Joliet,” in part because they held clerk jobs. “It’s a farce. These boys are already building up fine reputations with a view to seeking parole,” Clabaugh explained, questioning how the killers had been able to snag two of the “choicest” jobs in the institution.
Stateville’s warden Elmer Green didn’t take these attacks lying down. Regarding the jobs both prisoners held, Green explained:
“It is necessary in assigning inmates to assign those who have the ability to perform the work of the various departments. A horseshoer could not do clerical work or keep records.
It is the duty of the warden to assign inmates to the various departments, and as such warden I shall continue to assign inmates as I deem proper.”
“If the newspaper reports are correct, that Mr Clabaugh is not conversant with the law which he attempts to quote.”
“It looks to me as though Mr. Clabaugh’s chief ability lies along the line of personal publicity. It might be suggested that he devote more time to his own division, letting the heads of other institutions run their own institutions.”
Why is he paying so much attention to these two and not the 520 other murderers we have serving time? Can he name even 15 of them?”
The warden’s comments did nothing to calm the public, who once again jumped onto the hysteria bandwagon. So for the first time in four years, both Leopold and Loeb spoke to the press.
These interviews seem to have been the idea of the prison administration, as both murderers were summoned to the warden/deputy warden’s office to be interviewed without realizing what was happening and stated themselves as being reluctant to talk. From their separate prisons, the pair were each interviewed in the presence of the warden and parole officials, assumedly to make sure they said the right things.
“My duties as a clerk to Deputy Warden Barrowman in no way give me any liberties,” Loeb said. “I get up at 6 a.m., the same time the other prisoners, eat the same food and run errands for the deputy.”
“I want the public to realize that I am treated the same as any other prisoner and I desire that my identity be forgotten and do not care for publicity.”
“Are your folks planning to apply for a parole or pardon?” Loeb was asked.
“This question has never been discussed since I came to Joliet.”
“How long must you serve before you can apply for a parole?”
“Under the life sentence, 20 years, under the sentence of 99 years for kidnaping, 33 years,” Loeb answered.
“I can’t see why I should be singled out over others in prison here. I am permitted to see my relatives every two weeks and permitted to purchase tobacco or candy in the prison store the same as others. We are not allowed any money. Money is left to our credit and we draw against this credit for purchases made in the prison store.
“I have no authority or any right to tell any prisoner what to do in the yard detail. I simply carry messages from the deputy warden to the keepers.
“My spare time is spent in reading. I attend the chapel services the same as others. I attempted to take a Latin course from the Columbia University in New York, but there was so much publicity I decided to drop the course. My folks suffer thru the publicity in this case and I greatly regret it.”
“Loeb seemed embarrassed with this last statement and appeared anxious to have the interview ended, so Deputy Warden Barrowman explained Loeb’s duties and the manner in which prisoner were assigned to work.”
Leopold, in Stateville, gave very similar answers.
“I have no idea when I will be eligible for a parole,” he claimed. “I have never discussed this question with my relatives. I know I am serving a sentence of life and 99 years.
“I am employed in the prison library. I am required to keep the place clean, and do a certain amount of typing work for the Rev. William Frye, Protestant chaplain.
“I get up at the same time other prisoners do, eat the same food and have no special privileges of any kind.”
“I can’t understand why our case should be continually in print,” Leopold said. “There are many other murder cases in prison here.”
While Loeb kept his interview short, Leopold was more inclined to discuss his personal life and other topics:
Leopold said he had read many new novels sent direct to him, including the “Strange Fugitive” and “The Bridge of San Luis Rey. “Much of my spare time is spent in reading,” he said.
Asked if he was writing a book of “Memoirs of the Franks case,” Leopold answered in the negative and Kness added “he wouldn’t be permitted.”
Asked if he mingled with other prisoners, Leopold said “You can’t hold yourself aloof from the men in this place, but naturally I do not seek out friendship with other prisoners.”
“I warned Leopold not to become too friendly with other inmates,” Warden Kness explained.
The conversation drifted to the Klein slaying, which Walker, former sheriff of Will county, investigated.
“I knew you had nothing to do with the Klein break,” Walker said.
“It was ridiculous to make such a charge,” Leopold added.
“Deputy Warden Kness is known to the men as a strict disciplinarian, but he gives every man a fair ‘break,” Leopold volunteered.
In response to these interviews, Darrow wrote to Leopold: “I often think of you especially when people get a brain storm lately about the deep laid plans to procure your freedom. It is strange the satisfaction people get over torturing someone. I saw your interview and Dick’s and thought they were both very good. Don’t know what anyone else thinks about it, but I shall always cling to the hope that you will be out, but it will not be for a long time still.”
Despite their efforts, these interviews did little to slow the public’s imagination, in fact they only sparked more comments.
One editor warned: “Fathers and mothers of Chicago that do not want their boys murdered “for the thrill,” or any other reason, should see to it that these murderers stay where they are.
The Chicago incident shows that to commit murder in America and be caught is dangerous, unless you have rich parents, or political influence.”
Another praised Clabaugh’s methods: “This is not the first time Clabaugh has thundered about the alleged flaw in the mittimus. We hope it will not be the last, whether he is right or wrong. Every time he says it he stirs up the public’s memory of the crime and renews its determination that these murderers shall never be released. That is a public service. Clabaugh deserves a medal if not a pension.”
Clabaugh resigned from his post in 1929, but even that didn’t stop him from talking about Leopold and Loeb going free.
In 1931 the article ‘Loeb and Leopold Look to Freedom’ was published in a magazine called ‘America’s 20 Greatest Detective Stories.’ The article warns that “the gates of Joliet may loose this bloody-handed pair again upon the society they mocked in their perverted egoism!”
Clabaugh was interviewed for it and is quoted heavily throughout. Arguing again about the length of the sentences, he nonsensically stated that though legally the minimum time someone must serve for a 99-year sentence was longer than one for life, “obviously a life term is longer than ninety-nine years, for it is possible for persons to live more than ninety-nine years. Therefore, Leopold and Loeb were not really sentenced for kidnaping…the good-time allowance rule might have reduced their time in prison to eleven years and three months-to December, 1935!”
Despite the efforts of those looking to sell magazines, this was the last gasp of the rumor. W. C. Jones, the man who replaced Clabaugh, denied his predecessor’s claim, explaining: “The accompanying sentence of 99 years for kidnaping means that the two prisoners must serve at least one-third, 33 years, before any move for parole may be considered. The law is plain. Even without the kidnaping sentence, they would be obliged to serve a minimum of 20 years on the life sentence for murder, regardless of good behavior.”
At last the rumor was allowed to die down, and Leopold and Loeb passed December 1935 without the possibility of parole or a whisper of publicity.
For the new year I wanted to look at how well liked and popular media about Leopold and Loeb is. This is something I like to do every year, to update old scores and add in new properties.
This year brought 5 new works; for fiction there was Hollow Fires, Past Resort and Jazzed, and for non-fiction there was Murder Among Friends and Nothing but the Night.
First I’ll look at how popular various media was in 2022, and then I’ll cover media popularity over time.
I was able to find 96 articles, reviews and/or interviews about specific media this year, and here’s the breakdown:
Thrill Me: 25 Nothing But the Night: 19 Murder Among Friends: 18 Never the Sinner: 6 Jazzed: 5 A Twisted Bargain: 5 The Agony & The Agony: 5 Rope (movie): 4 Swoon: 3 Murder by Numbers: 3 Darrow: 2 Compulsion (movie): 1
The musical Thrill Me is at the top of things, unsurprising as it had a very successful run at the beginning of the year with lots of reviews. Following that are the two new non fiction books released this year. The plays Never the Sinner, The Agony & The Agony and Darrow were all performed this year, and Jazzed and A Twisted Bargain were new works of fiction which were published/debuted this year. The rest of the works got some retrospective analysis.
Now onto how popular and prolific all Leopold-Loeb media is across the years.
The scoring system I use is a mesh of my own data and data gathered from online review sources, including Goodreads, Library Thing, Letterboxd, IMDB and Rotten Tomatoes. I don’t use Amazon because I discovered that in almost every case the Amazon score was much higher than scores on any other site, and just skewed the data.
My Data is gathered from published reviews. I determine if the review is positive, negative or mixed: positive reviews get 10 points, mixed get 5, negative get 0, and then the percentage is found out of the possible perfect score. Sometimes this means my data is different from the review sites, so I combine them to try and get closer to an approximate, but you could look at My Data as being the critical response, while the Outside Data is the audience response.
Popularity is determined by the amount of reviews/ratings the work has received. I also only take things that have been rated more than 10 times, because a single positive review does not mean something is the pinnacle of media. I also don’t save reviews of things which are very far from the Leopold/Loeb story (like Scream, Native Son, etc.) This is why some graphs only have two bars instead of three.
Here’s a look at some of the raw data (data was gathered on December 18th, 2022 so may not be completely up to date):
Now onto the graphs and lists!
All Fictional Works
Best Reviewed
Past Resort (Minerva Biggs #3)
Hollow Fires
Homo Superiors
Thrill Me: The Leopold and Loeb Story
Criminal Minds: True Genius
Worst Reviewed
R.S.V.P.
Sallie’s Newspaper
Murder by Numbers
Blood Brothers
Darrow (1991)
Most Popular
Scream (1996)
Funny Games (1997)
Rope (1948)
Funny Games (2007)
Native Son
Fictional Books
Best Reviewed
The Hunting Accident
Past Resort (Minerva Biggs #3)
Hollow Fires
Compulsion
Homo Superiors
Most Popular
Native Son
These Violent Delights
Ice Haven
Witness
Hollow Fires
Fictional Movies
Best Reviewed
Compulsion
Funny Games (1997)
Scream (1996)
Rope
Swoon
Most Popular
Scream (1996)
Funny Games (1997)
Rope
Funny Games (2007)
Murder By Numbers
Theatre
Best Reviewed
Thrill Me
Never the Sinner
Gin and “It”
Most Popular
Compulsion
Thrill Me
Rope
Non Fiction Books
Best Reviewed
Murder Among Friends
Nothing But the Night: Leopold & Loeb and the Truth Behind the Murder That Rocked 1920s America
The Crime of the Century: The Leopold and Loeb Case
Leopold and Loeb Files
Life Plus 99 Years
Most Popular
For the Thrill of it
The Crime of the Century: The Leopold and Loeb Case
Murder Among Friends
Clarence Darrow For the Defense
Nothing But the Night: Leopold & Loeb and the Truth Behind the Murder That Rocked 1920s America
The Lives and Legends of Richard Loeb and Nathan Leopold 