Shortly after Leopold and Loeb confessed to killing Bobby Franks, a man named Charles Ream claimed that they had kidnaped and castrated him the previous November. In January of 1927 that case came to trial and lasted for four days, both Leopold and Loeb testifying on the witness stand. The jury couldn’t agree if Leopold and Loeb were guilty, and the matter was settled out of court. It’s long been debated whether the pair committed this crime, and I thought the trial transcript would help shed some light on the old case.
I visited the Will County Court archives to look for it, but they didn’t have a copy, so I did the next best thing: I went through every newspaper I could find that reported on the trial and copied down every quote they gave. As you’ll see, these often include quotes other papers left out and sometimes contradict each other, but it’s the best I can do unless an actual transcript surfaces.
If something’s in italics, those are my words, usually I’m paraphrasing something that wasn’t a direct quote. If something isn’t in italics it’s a direct quote from the newspaper.
Abbreviations for newspapers/wire services:
AP: Associated Press
CDJ: Chicago Daily Journal
CDN: Chicago Daily News
CEA: Chicago Evening American
CHE: Chicago Herald Examiner
CT: Chicago Tribune
JEHN: Joliet Evening Herald-News
UP: United Press
Initials used:
BC: Burt Crowe (Leopold and Loeb’s lawyer)
CR: Charles Ream
DT: David Tone (One of Ream’s lawyers)
HA: Henry Ashton (One of Ream’s lawyers)
HE: Hannah English
JH: Judge Hooper
MG: Michael Grady
NL: Nathan Leopold
OS: Orlando Scott
RL: Richard Loeb
SL: Samuel Leopold
Jump to the dates or testimony of specific people by clicking the links below
January 4th
Other Witnesses
Richard Loeb
Nathan Leopold
January 5th
Charles Ream
Orlando Scott
Hannah English
Police Officers
Tyrell Krum
Nathan Leopold
January 6th
Samuel Leopold
Nathan Leopold
Richard Loeb
E. J. Solomon
Bernice DeBreull
Hannah English and Grace Hart
Closing Arguments (General)
Burt Crowe’s Closing Argument
David Tone’s Closing Argument
January 7th
Jury Verdict
January 4th
(CT, January 5, 1924)
They were in court for 3 hours.
Other Witnesses
(CDJ, January 4th, 1927)
Miss F. M. Bales was the first witness. Bales testified that Ream came to her door on November 9th and rang the door bell. Leaning against the rail, he told her: “I’ve been drugged and choked.“
Richard Loeb
(CD,J January 4th, 1927, the paper doesn’t specify which attorney questioned him)
Q: What’s your name?
RL: Richard Loeb
Q: Where do you live?
RL: 1900 Collins St, Joliet ILL
Q: How long have you been there?
RL: Over two years
Q: Where did you live previous to that?
RL: Chicago
Q: Where did you go to school?
RL: I went to the University of Michigan and the University of Chicago
Q: While you were in Chicago you had occasion to drive automobiles, did you not?
RL: Yes sir, I drove many automobiles.
Q: Did you have a car of your own?
RL: Yes sir, I had a sedan
Q: Did you ever rent any automobiles?
RL: No sir, I never have
Q: You say you have never rented an automobile in Chicago?
An objection by Crowe, Loeb looked to judge
RL: “I don’t see why he doesn’t be specific. I remember one time when we drove to Ann Arbor and rented an auto for our use there.”
Q: When you were in college, what studies did you take?
RL: History, English, foreign languages, economics and along those different lines.
Q: Did you ever take a course in surgery?
RL: No, sir.
Q: And you say that you never rented a car in Chicago?
RL: Not that I know of.
Q: Did Leopold ever rent a car?
RL: Not that I know of.
(CEA January 4th, 1927)
HA: Did you ever rent a car in Chicago?
Loeb: No
HA: Did you ever rent a car any place?
RL: In Michigan. That is when I was at Ann Arbor. Leopold and I rented a car and we drove to Detroit. Leopold paid five bucks for it.
HA: Did you ever go riding with Leopold in Chicago?
RL: Leopold and I went riding once in a while.
HA: In whose car?
RL: Sometimes in mine and sometimes in Leopold’s.
HA: Did you ever rent any cars in Chicago?
RL: firm in his denial
On redirect Crowe asked where Loeb spent the majority of his time from the Fall of 1921 to the Spring of 1923.
RL: At the University of Michigan
BC: What studies did you pursue?
RL gave a list of studies, mostly in liberal arts school.
BC: Did you ever take a course in surgery?
RL: No
BC: Did you ever study medicine?
RL: No
BC: What kind of a car did you drive when you were at home?
RL: A Nash
BC: Did you ever drive any other cars at home?
RL: Yes. A Cadillac town car.
BC: What kind of car did Leopold drive?
RL: A Durant.
BC: Any other car?
RL: Well, later he got a Willys-Knight.
Ashton resumed cross-examination
HA: In May of 1924 did you and Leopold rent a car and drive it to [damaged, unintelligible]
This question was objected to by Crowe and RL was dismissed and Leopold put on. The questioning was about the same and brought the same answers.
(JEHN, January 5th, 1927)
Loeb gave his name on the stand speaking loudly and clearly
JH: “What was the last name?”
RL: “Loeb”
He said he was 21 and added that Leopold was 6 months older. He said they had been friends since 1920. Questioned by David K Tone, one of Ream’s attorneys. Said he never rented a car in Chicago and that he had driven two cars owned by his family.
DT: Previous to 1923 how long had you been driving cars?
RL: Five or six years
DT: Did you ever rent cars?
RL: No
DT: Did Leopold?
RL: I don’t know
DT: Are you sure that you and Leopold did not rent a car?
RL: I don’t see why you can’t be more specific. Do you mean in 1923, in Chicago, or when and where?
He then told of renting a car in Ann Arbor with Leopold. Questioned by Crowe, Loeb said he had an AB degree from UoM and was taking post-grad work in history at UoC in 1923 but had never studied anatomy, surgery or medicine. A reference to the car rented by the slayers in connection to Franks case was ruled out by Judge.
((AP) Atlanta Constitution, January 5th, 1927)
During cross Loeb told attorneys he was studying history and when emphasis was laid on the question “what kind?” he retorted: “all kinds.”
Loeb’s testimony was brief and dealt almost entirely with his preference in motor cars, what particular automobile he drove in 1923 and what kind of car Leopold owned.
(CT, January 5th, 1927 )
When Ashton asked his address he replied: “1900 Collins St., Joliet.” The crowd laughed.
Nathan Leopold
(JEHN, January 5th, 1927 )
Leopold was brought to the stand and asked routine questions. Said he had been an intimate friend of Loeb’s since 1920.
DT: How often did you see Loeb?
NL: That depends on the season of the year to which you are referring.
DT: In summer?
NL: Not at all.
DT: In the fall?
NL: Well in the early part of October I went to and from school with him four or five times a week.
DT: Did you go riding with Loeb in the evenings?
NL: Sometimes
DT: Did you make a collection of birds?
NL: Yes, I began my collection when I was five years old.
DT: Were you a taxidermist?
NL: No, but I skinned the birds.
DT: What tools did you use in skinning birds?
NL: An ordinary jackknife
DT: Would it have to be a sharp knife?
NL: The sharper the better
DT: Did you use a sharp knife to skin the birds?
NL: On what occasion?
DT: On any occasion
NL: Yes, I suppose so.
DT: In skinning a bird do you remove the flesh and skin
NL: If you did there’d be nothing left of the bird
DT: Do you know what flesh and skin are?
NL: I have an idea.
DT: Did you ever drive any cars other than those owned by yourself or your family?
NL: I may have sat behind the wheel of a friend’s car.
Crowe asked some questions about cars owned by the Leopold family and then he was excused.
(CT, January 5th, 1927 )
Nathan F. Leopold Jr., still taking notes, still telling a court stenographer how to spell, still arguing with opposing counsel.
When asked if he used a sharp knife to dissect birds he seemed to rejoice in his curt reply: “Well, of course, the sharper the knife, the better.” Occasionally he leaned down from the stand to interpret the lawyer’s words to the stenographer.
(CDJ, January 4th, 1927)
Leopold admitted knowledge of dissection but not surgery.
Leopold’s testimony differed in no major way from Loeb’s. He admitted to possession of birds and told how he occasionally dissected them with “an ordinary sharp jackknife”
((AP) Atlanta Constitution, January 5th, 1927)
Leopold seemed to be bored and yawned during his examination, once asking that the questions “be more concise.”
January 5th
Charles Ream
(JEHN, January 5th, 1927)
When court convened this morning, Ream took the stand again for cross examination. He appeared confused a time or two, but answered promptly. From the questions Crowe asked it seems he is trying to show that Ream’s story differs materially from the statement he allegedly made to police a few hours after the occurrence.
BC: You have driven cars for several years and have been employed as a taxicab driver for some time?
CR: Yes
BC: But you don’t know what kind of a car it was in which you were forced to enter?
CR: I’m not sure what it was
BC: Didn’t you say yesterday that it was a Packard?
CR: No, I didn’t say that. It looked something like a Cadillac
Said he wasn’t sure he could identify a Packard but could a Cadillac. Thought it a Cadillac because of the length and width of the chassis. Crowe showed Ream a typewritten sheet and asked if the signature was his. He said he believed it was. Marked as an exhibit but not entered into evidence. Believed this was his original statement. Tried to get him to admit he had been paid by newspapers to point the defendants out so pictures could be taken in 1924. He said he visited the building with cab driver Harry Flemming, but made the visit of his own accord.
(CEA, January 5th, 1927)
Ream was put through a grueling cross-examination during the greater part of the morning by Crowe. The examination revealed that the defense intends to show, first, that there were others besides Loeb and Leopold who might reasonably be suspected of the crime, and second, that Ream has no basis for his identification of the defendants and that he had been persuaded to bring the suit by persons promoted by ulterior motives.
At one point during cross Crowe asked:
BC: Is it not a fact that a reporter paid you $10 to appear at the Criminal Court building to identify Loeb and Leopold as the men who preformed the operation on you?
The witness denied this
The witness admitted meeting a reporter in a lawyer’s office but could not recall the name of the lawyer and insisted he had identified Leopold and Loeb of his own accord.
Crowe brought a protest from Ream’s counsel when he turned in his chair and asked:
BC: Is it not a fact that you, Mr. Ream, were arrested indicted, convicted, and sentenced in Iowa for violation of the Dyer act?
Hooper sustained the objection, but further cross examination affirmed the suggestion contained in the original question.
Crowe then introduced records of the indictment and sentence, he brought out that Ream had served 4 months in the Hope County jail in addition to 2 months that he was held in jail awaiting trial. The examination counsel hinted that Ream had had trouble with his employers while driving a taxi cab, but the youth was firm in denying this.
Ream took the witness stand this morning when court opened. It was the beginning of a 2 hour and 15 minute attack of cross quizzing by Crowe. He attempted to show that Ream had been in trouble with fellow employees while he was driving a cab just prior to the attack on him.
Crowe questioned Ream closely about his alleged troubled with Corrigan, another chauffeur, about his cousin Earl English, 5836 Blackstone ave, a University of Chicago student, and about the date of the attack, which Ream gave as Nov 21, but which records show was Nov 20.
BC: Yesterday you said this attack occurred on the morning of November 21, 1921. Are you sure of that date?
CR: Yes
BC: What day of the week was it?
CR: Tuesday, I think
BC: Are you sure?
CR: I’m not positive.
BC: Did you ever examine the records of the Chicago Memorial Hospital in an attempt to verify the date?
CR: No
BC: Would it be a surprise to you if I refreshed your memory by telling you that this attack occurred on the 20th of November?
CR: Yes
BC: That is the first time you even knew it occurred on that day?
CR: Yes
Crowe then asked what work he’d been doing 5 years prior to being a cab driver. He said an elevator operator, carpenter and odd jobs worker.
BC: How old were you in November, 1923?
CR: 22
BC: Your parents were dead?
CR: Yes
BC: You were living with an aunt?
CR: Yes
BC: Were there any others in the family besides your aunt?
CR: Yes, two cousins
BC: Were they boys or girls?
CR: One was a boy and one a girl
BC: What did the boy do?
CR: He went to the University
BC: The University of Chicago?
CR: Yes
BC: What was he studying at the University?
CR: He was studying law
BC: Did he ever study medicine?
CR: No
BC: Are you sure about this?
CR: Yes
BC: Were you and your cousin, the English boy, on good terms?
CR: Yes
BC: The other cousin was a girl?
CR: Yes
BC: How old was she?
CR: 15
BC: You were on good terms with her?
CR: Yes
He then referred to Ream’s employment in the cab service
BC: Did you know a man named Corrigan?
CR: No, I can’t remember him
BC: He worked as a Yellow Cab driver?
CR: I know many of them. I don’t place him.
CBC: Do you remember meeting Corrigan at the Windermere Hotel early in November of 1923?
CR: No
BC: Do you remember going to 95th st at Western av with him for a load?
CR: No
BC: Do you remember going out South and running out of gas and that Corrigan let you take a gallon?
CR: No
BC: Do you remember going to a roadhouse on that night?
CR: No
BC: Do you remember drinking wine at a roadhouse near 95th and Western?
CR: No
(CDJ, January 5th, 1927)
Ream’s voice was soft and lifeless and he described his hopeless life since mutilation, his manner indolent and listless. Crowe points out the difference between now and who he was before the mutilation, masculine, sinewy.
In afternoon Ream cross by Crowe, who tried to draw out the statements he made to Grady. Drew from him that Ream for a time thought a 63 street fruit store owner had mutilated him in revenge for an automobile collision. Also admitted he told officers he only had a fleeting glimpse of one face. Ream described the assailants as: “one short, stout man and one tall slim man”
BC: I suppose the short, stout man is Leopold, Jr.
Leopold is short but slender and wiry.
((AP) CDN, January 5th, 1927)
Ream testified he was jailed for four months because he transported cars across state lines without owner’s permission.
((UP) Dekalb Daily Chronicle, January 5th, 1927)
Ream said “a foreign looking man” had forced him into an automobile with pistol. He said he had been knocked unconscious and then when he regained consciousness he found he had been the victim of a revolting operation. His assailants had liquor on their breath, he added.
Under cross with Crowe, Ream admitted that Leopold does not “look like a foreigner.” He further revealed under Crowe’s searching questions that he had been in a taxi cab accident with two foreigners.
Orlando Scott
Dr. Orlando F Scott, physician and surgeon, was the last witness before noon recess. Said he was called to the hospital shortly before Thanksgiving 1923. Said he found Ream had been permanently disabled.
(CEA, January 5th, 1927)
OS: There were two incisions. They had been made in a skillful manner, each one being a perfect semi-circular cut.
DT: And would you call the operation a regular surgical job, doctor?
OS: No, anything but that
DT: And why not?
Scott stated his reasons in technical language.
Dr. Scott went on the witness stand in the afternoon again and was submitted to cross by Crowe. The two defendants were not scheduled to take the stand until tomorrow. The defense will put on six witnesses, including Grady, Mangan and Smith.
((AP) CDN, January 5th, 1927)
Dr. Orlando Scott said Ream’s operation had not been skillfully preformed and he was left in dangerous condition.
((UP) Dekalb Daily Chronicle, January 5th, 1927)
After 2.5 hour cross of Ream, Dr. Orlando F Scott took the stand and said the mutilation of Ream could only have been done by a surgeon or one familiar with surgical instruments.
Hannah English
(CEA, January 5th, 1927)
Witnesses this afternoon were Mrs. Hannah English-Ream’s aunt-for the plaintiff.
Mrs. English, with whom Ream lives, testified merely to the fact that his physical and nervous condition has been poor since the alleged attack.
(Victoria Daily Times, January 6th, 1927)
Mrs. Hannah English testified that since his mutilation Ream has become morose, dissatisfied and ambitionless. He was once a happy and sprightly nature.
(CHE, January 6th, 1927)
Hannah English of 5324 Blackstone av., told the tragedy in a few words:
HE: He used to be good natured and very active. Now he is irritable and indolent.
Police Officers
(CEA, January 5th, 1927)
Witnesses this afternoon were Lieut. Mike Grady, Lieut. Thomas Morgan and Sergt. Bill Smith of Chicago police for the defense.
Grady furnished considerable amusement and, indeed, appeared to enjoy the unwonted position of being a witness for the defense. He was asked by David K Tone whether a criminal might be expected to wear the same clothing after committing a crime.
MG: Not unless he’s a [expletive] fool!
JH: I see you speak two languages, both English and profane. But there are ladies present.
Grady apologized.
Grady, Mangan and Smith all testified that Ream, in statements to them, had described his assailant as: “a heavy man, between 160 and 200 pounds.” Leopold and Loeb both are of slight physique.
(JEHN, January 6th, 1927)
Three police officers testified for defense that Ream said he couldn’t identify the masked men unless they were wearing the same clothes. Described the one who got him in the car as 5’ 9” or 10” and 170-180 lbs. Leopold looks to be 5′ 4″ and 140lbs.
(CDJ, January 5th, 1927)
Grady claimed Ream said he could never identify who did it. Said he talked to Ream in hospital 10 days after it happened and took him on a trip through south side seeking a car with a brass footrail-the only certain mark of identification. Ream said both had been wearing handkerchiefs and except for fleeting glance of face as it slipped, had never seen their features. Ream said unless he saw them in the same clothes, couldn’t identify them.
(CHE, January 6th, 1927)
Loeb, Leopold and girls in the crowd laughed during cross of Lieut. Michael Grady, called to tell of the police investigation, which led nowhere. Throughout, the defense counsel referred to the officer as “Master O’Grady” that called for a giggle every time.
(CT, January 6th, 1927)
Three policemen-who had been assigned Ream’s case-were for them, they said at the time Ream said he’d never be able to identify the man driving, though maybe the man in the rear seat as his mask slipped momentarily. Ream’s description of this man was of 5 ft 9″, weight about 180 or 190 and age 25. This is the man he now says was Leopold-who does not fit that description.
Tyrell Krum
(CT, January 6th, 1927)
Tyrell Krum testified that the pic of Ream pointing to Leopold had been taken at the behest of reporters. The identification was staged, not spontaneous.
Nathan Leopold
(CT, January 6th, 1927)
Leopold’s 15 mins of testimony came at the conclusion of several hours of defense testimony.
(Victoria Daily Times, January 6th, 1927)
NL: I never saw this man until this trial was in progress. I never held him up, robbed him or harmed him in any way or assisted in harming him.”
Leopold said he was home attending a party the night of the attack.
(CHE, January 6th, 1927)
Nathan Leopold, jaunty and mirthful, took the witness stand in Joliet Circuit Court late yesterday and denied charges upon which Charles Ream bases his $200,000 suit.
NL: I never saw this man (indicating Ream) until this trial was in progress. I never held him up, robbed him, or harmed him in any way, or assisted in harming him.
BC: Where were you the night of November 19, 1923?
NL: I don’t know
BC: On the twentieth?
NL: I don’t know
Crowe then asked about Nov 21, the date of the mutilation as fixed by Ream.
NL: I was at home, attending a birthday party.
BC: Did you go anywhere afterward?
NL: Yes-to bed.
Crowe gestured with his hand, as though to warn against flippancy.
He was asked about a photograph taken in Criminal Court and replied he had no recollection of it, as it “was merely one of hundreds.”
On cross, Attny. David Tone sought to question Leopold about the Franks murder, to which he plead guilty.
BC: We admit that.
DT: And he was sentenced to life imprisonment?
BC: And 99 years
JH: And three days more for the time in court
January 6th
Samuel Leopold
(JEHN, January 6th, 1927)
Sam offers an alibi-Leopold was home in bed after party on Nov 19. He remembers the party because it was the last one they celebrated. Party began with dinner at 7, then it was cards and mahjong, About 12:30-45 the morning of Nov 20 Sam said he and Nathan went to bed. They occupied the same room and had done so for about 8 years.
(CDN, January 6th, 1927)
DT: How do you remember the birthday party so well?
SL: Because it was the last birthday party I had with him-before he went to prison.
That was in their old house, Sam made it clear they no longer live there. He remembered going with Nathan that night to the room where they had slept together for 8 years. His father was at the party for a time.
DT: And was your mother there?
SL: She’s dead.
(CHE, January 7th, 1927)
SL: I slept in the same room with Nathan and I know he did not leave the house after the party.
Sam gave his address as 420 Roscoe st., Chicago and substantiated the testimony about the party. He said he wasn’t sure that Loeb was there, although as far as he could recall he was. He testified that the party broke up at about 12 or 12:30.
BC: Did Nathan retire at the same time you did?
SL: Yes. We both had slept in the same room for eight years.
Nathan Leopold
(JEHN, January 6th, 1927)
Leopold gave the same testimony as Sam.
Both Leopold and Loeb denied attacking Ream. They denied they were outside their homes on the night when the attack occurred.
Leopold admitted on cross that he was familiar with the area-108th and Avenue G-said he had hunted birds in the vicinity.
(CDN, January 6th, 1927)
NL: We had two cocktails before dinner and then we played bridge. I went to bed before midnight.
(CT, January 7th, 1927)
DT: Did you have anything to drink on the night of Nov. 19, 1923?
NL: Yes.
DT: What was it?
NL: An Alexander cocktail.
DT: Who served it?
NL: I did.
DT: Was Loeb there?
NL: Yes.
DT: Did he drink?
NL: Yes.
DT: Where did this drinking take place?
NL: At my home, 4754 Greenwood avenue.
DT: Were there any drinks served after 7 o’clock in the evening?
NL: I don’t believe so.
DT: What time did dinner start?
NL: 7:15
DT: What time did you leave the table?
NL: 8:15 or 8:30.
DT: Were there any cocktails called for by the guests after that?
NL: No.
DT: After that where did you go?
NL: Into the living room.
DT: Who was at this party besides yourself and Loeb?
NL: Richard Rubel, Leon Mandel, William Steele, my father, my two brothers, Foreman and Samuel, and an aunt, Mrs. Schwab.
DT: You used sharp knives for the mounting of birds, didn’t you?
NL: Yes.
DT: How many?
NL: Two or three.
DT: Did you use a jackknife?
NL: Yes, a jackknife and two other knives.
DT: Were they scalping knives?
NL: I don’t know the technical term for them.
DT: They were sharp knives used for cutting flesh, weren’t they?
Crowe objected-Leopold said he used the knives for cutting birds.
DT: Did you use any anesthetic in connection with cutting birds?
NL: No.
DT: Did you ever have any chloroform in the room that you worked in?
NL: Not that I can think of.
DT: You may have had ether there?
NL: I think not.
DT: Do you know where 108th street and Avenue G, Chicago, is?
NL: Not exactly, but I do know where 108th and Avenue F is, and I presume that is approximately the same neighborhood.
DT: You were in this district frequently?
NL: Yes.
DT: Did you ever go there at night?
NL: No.
(CHE, January 7th, 1927)
[CHE and CT matched on the beginning of the testimony: Leopold being asked about the birthday party, so I have excluded that part of the CHE material]
When Leopold first took the stand he was quizzed closely on his use of sharp knives in connection with his study of birds. Tone asked if he knew any of the neighbors living in the vicinity of 108th st and avenue G. He said no.
DT: Were you known as the bird charmer out there?
NL: Not that I know of
DT: You used sharp knives for the mounting of birds, didn’t you?
NL: Yes
DT: How many?
NL: Two or three
DT: Did you use a jackknife?
NL: Yes, a jackknife and two other knives
DT: Were they scalping knives?
NL: I don’t know the technical term for them
DT: They were sharp knives used for cutting flesh, weren’t they?
Crowe objected. Tone explained he just wanted to make it clear they were sharp knives and was allowed to proceed. NL admitted he used the knives for cutting birds.
DT: Did you use any anesthetic in connection with cutting birds?
NL: No
DT: Did you ever have any chloroform in the room that you worked in?
NL: Not that I can think of
DT: Are you sure?
NL: Well, probably not
DT: You may have had ether there?
NL: I think not.
DT: Do you know where 108th st and Avenue G Chicago, is?
NL: Not exactly, but I know where 108th and avenue F is and I presume that is approximately the same neighborhood
DT: You were in this district frequently?
NL: Yes
DT: Did you ever go there at night?
NL: No
Richard Loeb
(CT, January 7th, 1927)
Loeb took the stand. He was asked if he could remember Nov 19th
RL: Yes I can, I was at Leopold’s home.
BC: What time did you return to your own home?
RL: About 11:30 or 12 o’clock.
BC: When did you first see Ream in your life?
RL: Here Tuesday.
Then turned over to Tone for cross
DT: Did you have anything to drink at that party?
RL: I don’t remember.
DT: Did you play cards that night?
RL: Yes, we played bridge.
DT: What time did you leave Leopold’s home?
RL: About 12 o’clock.
DT: Where did you go then?
RL: I put my car in the garage and then went home.
(CHE, January 7th, 1927)
Crowe asked him if he could remember where he was the night of Nov 19th, 1923.
RL: Yes I can. I was at Leopold’s home
BC: What time did you return to your own home?
RL: About 11:30 or 12 o’clock
BC: When did you first see Ream in your life?
RL: Here Tuesday
BC: Did you ever taken any study in medicine, anatomy or surgery while you were in college?
RL: No
Then turned over to Tone for cross
DT: Did you have anything to drink at that party?
RL: I don’t remember
DT: Did you play cards that night?
RL: Yes, we played bridge
DT: What time did you leave Leopold’s home?
RL: About 12 o’clock
DT: Where did you go then?
RL: I put my car in the garage and then went home.
DT: You lived only four blocks from Leopold. Why did you drive over there?
RL: I had been at school, and I went right from school to Leopold’s home for dinner that night.
DT: Isn’t it a fact that you had the car at the party because you and Leopold wanted to go out riding afterwards?
RL: No
(JEHN, January 6th, 1924)
Loeb testified that he had attended the party and left around midnight, went home to bed.
BC: When did you first see the plaintiff, Charles Ream?
RL: Tuesday, here in court.
Both denied attacking Ream. They denied they were outside their homes on the night when the attack occurred.
(CDN, January 6th, 1927)
Loeb said of Nov 20th that he thought he went down to watch football practice at the university that afternoon.
BC: When did you first see Ream?
RL: Last Tuesday, in the courtroom.
Loeb had no knowledge of surgical science or dissection, and he had never used a sharp knife expertly. He was on the stand for a short time.
E. J. Solomon
(JEHN, January 6th, 1924)
Ream charged in his bill that the assault occurred Nov 21st morning, but Solomon testified that he went to examine Ream Nov 20th and the hospital records show he was received on that date.
Bernice DeBreull
(JEHN, January 6th, 1924)
Mrs. Bernice DeBreull was called by defense as witness today-she had rented an apartment to Ream, his sister and brother in law and he had told her about the assault. He said then a man stepped out of an automobile, hit him over the head, dragged him into the car where a coat or blanket was thrown over him, but he had seen two men in the backseat. He had said the journey was bumpy in spots but at end went smooth like on concrete road. When regained consciousness found himself on a prairie. She said Ream told her he couldn’t identify the men because they were masked. Also the brother in law owes her money.
(CDN, January 6th, 1924)
Bernice de Bruill, 3762 Ellis av, rented lodgings to Ream. Said that after the affair Ream said that “he would probably never be able to identify the two men.”
(CDJ, January 6th, 1924)
Mrs. Bernice Breull, owner of rooming house testified that Ream told her frequently that he would never be able to identify the men who did it-only got fleeting glimpse of one.
(CHE, January 7th, 1924)
Mrs. Berenice de Breuil, 4144 Grand Blvd, Chicago said Ream had been a lodger at her house on 3763 Ellis ave in 1924 and had told her the story of his experience, with the comment that he could not identify his assailants.
The defense also put Mrs. Berenice De Bruiel, who gave her address as 3762 Ellis. She testified that Ream had lived with her for a few months after his attack and that he told her he couldn’t identify his assailants.
Hannah English and Grace Hart
(JEHN, January 6th, 1927)
Ream’s attorneys concluded their testimony showing that while Ream was at the home of Mrs. Hannah English four suspects were brought before him and he informed Detective Grady that one of the suspects was the man who mutilated him. This was corroborated by Mrs. English and Mrs. Grace Hart.
(CHE, January 7th, 1927)
The defense closed shortly before noon. The plaintiff put on a rebuttal witness-Mrs. Hannah English, an aunt of Ream, and Mrs. Grace J Hart, who was visiting Mrs. English when she was interviewed by Michael Grady. Both declared that Grady brought suspects to the English home so Ream might look them over. This was to refute Grady’s testimony yesterday when he denied bringing suspects to the English home for identification because “Ream told me he could not identify the men.”
Closing Arguments (General)
Arguments started at 11:30, allowed an hour and a half each.
Burt Crowe’s Closing Argument
(JEHN, January 6th, 1924)
Defense closed by reading a statement Ream made to police failing to describe assailants. Also offered letter from Dr. Orlando Scott saying the surgery had been done by someone skilled with surgical instruments.
(CT, January 7th, 1927)
Burt Crowe’s closing argument: Ream was searching about vaguely to try and identify the people who did this to him, read of the Franks case, noted the similarities between the cases (unusualness, bird knives, location) and decided he would blame it on Leopold-perfect for a $100,000 damage suit. Stressed Ream’s changes in testimony, testimony of policemen and Krum’s statement.
(CDJ, January 6th, 1927)
Crowe in closing says the case was:
BC: A frame-up, pure and simple….The plaintiff in this case has been unable to prove that either of these young men who fell afoul of the law in pursuance of a morbid philosophy was in any way implicated in the crime of which he was victim and the defendants have established an alibi which the plaintiff has failed to pierce with identification.
(CEA, January 6th, 1927)
Burt Crowe, in sweeping statements punctuated by fiery oratory, pleaded with the jury to forget that the two defendants were life inmates of the penitentiary for the time being and to consider the charges made by Ream purely in the light of a civil action between citizens.
David Tone’s Closing Argument
(CHE, January 7th, 1927)
DT: I direct your attention to the demeanor of the defendants in court. When I read into the record the story of the murder they admitted, do you remember how Leopold snickered and laughed?
The white haired, slightly stooped leader, Attorney Tone, dwelt at length on the weight of the testimony given by Leopold and Loeb during the earlier part of the day. It was testimony, he declared, of witnesses who were serving life sentences for murder.
DT: If a man would commit murder, would you put it beyond him to commit perjury? I ask you to direct your attention to the conduct and demeanor of these defendants in court. Do you remember when I asked Leopold if he had entered a plea of guilty to the crime of murder of Robert Franks before Judge John R. Caverly, how he snickered and laughed? He ought to pause and ponder over that name-a name with which is associated the disgrace to which he subjected his family and his school, the University of Chicago.
Crowe objected to UoC being introduced in this fashion.
He is still the hardened criminal he was in 1924 and his word as such is worth no more than it was then. It is the word of a depraved man, a fact which his own testimony and records reveal.”
He then spoke of Leopold’s familiarity with the use of a sharp knife of the type that [damaged] south side prairies and recalled that Leopold had admitted he was familiar with the district in the vicinity of 108th st and Avenue F, just a block away from where Ream was led out of his assailant’s car and mutilated.
Then Mr. Crowe-and I am indebted to the defense for this-asked Ream if he had smelled anything in the car when he was first forced into it at the point of a gun. Mr. Crowe indicated that he intended that Ream should answer that he had noticed the odor of liquor. And what was the reply of this unfortunate youth? ‘I smelled liquor on the breath of the man who got into the back of the car with me,’ Ream said.
Only this morning Leopold admitted that he had been drinking cocktails at his home that night: [damaged, unintelligible] and let me remind you gentlemen, that this was after the national prohibition act had been passed.
(JEHN, January 6th, 1927)
David Tone in closing argument narrates his version of the night, saying the mask slipped and Ream saw Leopold: “look at his jaw, his face, his eyes and features and if he ever held up any of you jurors and you got a good view of his features you would never forget him. It was a criminal assault, a remarkable crime.” Goes on that if Leopold and Loeb were law abiding they might get benefit of the doubt, but they’re murderers so they wouldn’t hesitate to perjure themselves.
DT: You saw Leopold on the stand and when I asked him if he pleaded guilty to the slaying of Robert Franks he answered with a snicker. Do you remember how he smiled with the mention of the Franks crime while the very mention of the name Franks ought to make him sob?
(CDJ, January 6th, 1927)
Tone said they were perjurers, started his close just before noon recess.
DT: Anyone who has committed a crime so heinous as the murder of little Bobby Franks would not hesitate to commit the lesser crime of perjury where $100,000 was involved, especially when he must serve the rest of his life in Joliet penitentiary anyway.
Look at the jaw, mouth, nose and eyes of Leopold, Jr., and tell me, gen [I’m missing the last page of this story]
(CDN, January 6th, 1927)
Attorney Tone in his closing argument assailed Leopold and Loeb in heated terms. He dwelt at length on their hardness as exemplified by their frequent snickering and the placidity with which they greeted the details of the crime against them.
DT: Under ordinary circumstances it is possible to believe the defendants in a lawsuit. But these defendants are not men of good repute. They glory in their crimes. Why, when I read into the record yesterday the story of their murder of Bobby Franks, they should have hung their heads in shame. Instead, gentlemen, Leopold snickered and yawned.
(CT, January 7th, 1927)
Jury have so far failed to reach a verdict. When the case went to the jury at 4:19pm it was the impression in courtroom that Ream’s identification of Leopold and Loeb was too vague to furnish a basis for a damage verdict.
Ream’s counsel made 5 points in closing:
- The crime is startlingly unusual, as was the Franks murder. If you can do one can easily do the other.
- Orlando Scott said the operation was not skillful or surgical. Leopold’s techniques skinning birds would provide him with the equipment necessary to do such an experiment.
- The defendants in their alibi said they had been at Leopold’s birthday party drinking cocktails-Ream testified that the men who held him up had been drinking.
- Ream said he was driven to a prarie near 108th st and ave. G-Franks boy was placed near 108th and ave F.
- After he made his identification of the boys Ream is said to have swooned
(CEA, January 7th, 1927)
Went to jury at 3:20 this afternoon after David K Tone had bitterly denounced the two defendants as “two men criminally depraved.”
((AP) Buffalo Courier, January 7th, 1927
DT: Leopold and Loeb are not in good repute. They glory in their crime. Why when I read into the record yesterday the story of their killing of Bobby Franks, for which they are now serving a penitentiary sentence, Leopold snickered and yawned instead of hanging his head in shame.
He reminded jurors of the birthday parking and drinking testimony, swelling on the seriousness of the crime against Ream.
January 7th
Jury Verdict
(CT, January 8th, 1927)
The jury was discharged at 3:50pm after discussing for 23 hours and 31 minutes and failing to reach a verdict. Joseph Boylan, foreman of the jury told reporters:
“I guess we never would have agreed. Eight of us simply believed one way and the other four the other. And no one in the end would give ground. Eight of us were convinced that Loeb and Leopold were guilty. We believed it perfectly possible and even probable for Ream to identify-to recognize them-under all the circumstances. Everything hung on the question of identification.”
Once during the night when it was brought up that the assailants of Ream had handkerchiefs over their faces, the jurors all experiments to see whether identification could be made under such circumstances. One juror would stand up against the wall with his face partially covered with a handkerchief. The others would scrutinize him and see whether they thought they could recognize him. The experiment got nowhere; the eight were convinced they could and the four convinced it could not be done.
In all thirty ballots were taken by the jury.
(CEA, January 7th, 1927)
Failed to reach a verdict. 30 ballots had been taken between 3:20pm yesterday and 2:30m today when they made their final report. The first ballot was 8 to 4 for Ream, this was the same as the final ballot. Neither plaintiff nor defendants or their counsel were in court when the jury was dismissed. The 4 jurors who held out maintained their position on the somewhat vague identification. The greater part of the jury said Ream was the only one who could make that identification. They thought it would be difficult under the circumstances to make the identification “beyond a shadow of doubt.”
A great deal of time was devoted to a discussion of this question and some jurors tied handkerchiefs around their faces to reproduce the circumstances of the crime. Most of the jurors believed it was quite possible to identify a man after he had been seen with a handkerchief about the lower part of his face.
A circumstance which carried a lot of weight was Leopold admitting he was familiar with the area where Ream was found. Also Leopold admitting he’d drunk some cocktails earlier in the evening and Ream testified to smell liquor on his assailant’s breath.
Warden Elmer Green was called to ask the defendants what their opinion was. Deputy Warden William Barrowman found Loeb in the yard and asked. “I have no comment to make,” was all he would say. Kness asked Leopold and he responded in like manner.
(CDJ, January 7th, 1927)
Frank L Cooper released the jury at 3pm after they informed the court it would be “impossible to reach a decision.” Joseph Boylan, foreman of the jury, agreed he wanted a verdict, but they debated for 23 hours and “it looked absolutely hopeless.”
The Lives and Legends of Richard Loeb and Nathan Leopold 