These are all the letters relating to the case which I’ve been able to find that were either read into the trial transcript of the 1924 hearing, printed in newspapers or available online. As they’re not directly from the source, there may be inaccuracies, the ones from newspapers may even be entirely fabricated.
There are thousands more letters connected to this case which are available to the public. The biggest collections of these are within the Nathan F. Leopold Papers at the Chicago History Museum and the Leopold and Loeb Collection at Northwestern University, but there are more than a hundred institutions across the country with material. For information on how to visit, please see the Archives, Libraries and Museums page.
Click on the descriptions below to be taken to the text of their letter. They are arranged in chronological order.
Julian W. Mack to Richard Loeb, December 18, 1915
Frank J. Marshall to Richard Loeb, January 5, 1916
Nathan Leopold to Ruthven Deane, October 22, 1920
Mrs. Struthers-Bishop to Richard Loeb, May 9, 1922
Postcard from Nathan Leopold to Katherine Friedman, June 22, 1923
Nathan Leopold to Richard Loeb, October 9, 1923
Nathan Leopold to Richard Loeb, October 10, 1923
Allan Loeb to Richard Loeb, May 19, 1924
Robert L. Leopold to Richard Loeb, undated (likely 1924)
Nathan Leopold and Richard Loeb (as George Johnson) to Jacob Franks, May 21, 1924
Nathan Leopold and Richard Loeb (as George Johnson) to Jacob Franks, May 22, 1924
Clarence Darrow to Jessie Brownlee, June 10, 1924
Clarence Darrow to Paul Darrow, June 25, 1924
Clarence Darrow to Paul Darrow, July 20, 1924
Nathan Leopold to P. L. Friedlander (Cook County inmate), undated (leaked August 3)
Clarence Darrow to Paul Darrow, August 3, 1924
Richard Loeb to Anna and Albert Loeb, August 9, 1924
Thomas Loeb to Allan Loeb, undated (released August 14)
Clarence Darrow to Paul Darrow, September 4, 1924 [Dated Aug. 4th]
Clarence Darrow to Nathan Leopold, September 20, 1924
Clarence Darrow to Nathan Leopold, March 9 (year unknown, likely 1925)
Nathan Leopold Jr. to Nathan Leopold Sr., May 5, 1926
Clarence Darrow to Nathan Leopold, October 3, 1928
Ruby Darrow to Nathan Leopold, October 3, 1928
Richard Loeb to Nathan Leopold, November 19, 1931
Julian W. Mack to Richard Loeb, December 18, 1915
Source: Richard’s Magazine, March 1916
Gentlemen:
Your letter of December 11th, addressed to me at New York, has just reached me in Chicago. A magazine whose editor is not only personally so well known to me, but in addition is vouched for by such high authority as Mr. Alexander Aaronsohn of Palestine, certainly deserves the support and encouragement of all lovers of young folks. I take it that it is primarily for them and only incidentally for their parents that the magazine is published.
I shall be glad at some time to contribute an article to it and I assure you that the honor will be entirely mine to have my name and writings thus preserved and rendered immortal. Thanking you for the opportunity that you thus gave me, I am,
Faithfully yours,
Julian W. Mack
Frank J. Marshall to Richard Loeb, January 5, 1916
Source: Richard’s Magazine, March 1916
Editor Richard’s Magazine
Dear Richard,
Your letter of January 1st received and I wish you all success.
I send the enclosed, which I believe may be interesting for your readers and I shall be very happy each month to contribute a column on chess, and also would be pleased if you accept one gratis for said position, until you are sure of success. I shall also try and get subscriptions for you, when I hear more and have blanks for same.
Sincerely yours,
Frank J. Marshall
Chess is good training for the mind, especially for young folks.
In some European countries they teach chess in the schools, and in New York many of the schools have chess teams.
Nathan Leopold to Ruthven Deane, October 22, 1920
Source: Biodiversity Heritage Library
[Leopold is sending him a copy of the pamphlet ‘Spring Migration Notes of the Chicago Area,’ which he and his friends self-published]
Dear Sir,
Am in receipt of your valued communication of the 21st inst., and take great pleasure in enclosing, under separate cover, a copy of the pamphlet you desire. As to your kind offer to make application for membership in the A.O.U. for my co-workers, I beg to state that unfortunately I have already made application for them. Thanking you for your kindness, I remain,
Sincerely,
N.F. Leopold Jr.
Mrs. Struthers-Bishop to Richard Loeb, May 9, 1922
Source: Trial Transcript page 1305 (mentioned) Chicago Daily Journal, August 1, 1924
[This letter was read into record but not included in the transcript. The text below is from The Chicago Daily Journal]
New Haven, Connecticut, May 9, 1922
Dear Dicksie,
Your letter was very welcome, and I am now the guilty one in allowing myself to fall down. However, like yourself, I will pick it up again and the result remains to be seen.
It always seems to me that we, you and I, can never be wholly separated. We lived heart to heart so many years and I look back on it now as the pleasantest experience of my life. We were happy and satisfied with each other, students together and playmates, you the child of my heart and I with an everlasting ambition for your progress which at times I am sorry now was exaggerated by what it fed upon.
I have even now, every hope that you will justify my love and care for you.
Whether it be short or long, I can not tell, but in time you are going to come to the front with your ability and your ambition, and your natural inheritance of goodness, to temper the impulses that will from time to time be your master. This is not intended for anything except as part of my reflections, as I sit here thinking over old times.
Yesterday I was dancing and my mind carried me back to those old days in the game room, when we danced so much, and you would not dance with anyone but Michiumpa. It gave me a real thrill when I imagined I felt your little head against my shoulder. You were little then.
Now the situation would be quite reversed, no doubt, and my head would just be able to rest on your shoulder. I am real interested in hearing about your girls. I wish we could have a long talk; I am sure there are some things I could make clear to you. The struggles of nature at your age are many, and whether you realize it or not, there are pitched battles going on within you. Nature is calling you, and you are resisting.
Indeed, my dear Dickie, you are in love, it is true, for your nature is rich and responsive, and your temperament highly developed by your advanced intelligence, but you are not in love with any girl, you are in love with love, with life, with beauty-in fact, with all things, and Providence has arranged that when you must have experience, you turn toward the human element made expressly for you by ‘woman.’
She embodies love, and makes possible nearest perfection the expression of that which you feel. If she has beauty, intelligence and natural graces, she is that much more irresistible. But do not mistake that feeling for something permanent. Take what the girls can give you, of joy, and pleasure, of dancing, and beauty, holding yourself in a manner to give the equivalent, and I know that when the right one comes you will know her; there will be no questions; it will all be clear and transparent as the day; and that is a great revelation for those who are patient and bide their time.
Of course, you know, if you consider the question from another standpoint, it is this desire for expression in men that very often makes women victims. Men make women believe what they say, because very often when they say it they believe it themselves, but next day, or next week, they know they should not have said this, or done so and so, and they regret it, but the laws of nature are inexorable, and things are hard to undo, and sometimes impossible.
Therefore, dear boy, the responsibility rests with you for your own life and future. Hold logic and reason firmly in your grip, and when you see the danger signal, or feel it, bring them promptly to your rescue. I am glad you are enjoying your work. I would like to be there doing the same thing day by day, enriching my mind. Any time I will receive you with open arms.
Ask me anything you want and be sure and tell me if this letter means anything to you. I mean, in the clearing of any doubts. I have only to guess what it is you need, if you need anything. Have you read Hall Caine’s ‘Master of Men?’
Your ever, dear,
Michiumpa
Postcard from Nathan Leopold to Katherine Friedman, June 22, 1923
Source: Cranbrook Museum’s Blog
Addressed to:
Miss Kate Friedman
1047 Hyde Park Blvd
Chicago ILL
(Stamped June 23 1923 6pm)
Here goes to tell you the good news as I promised. Found our colony of K.W. the 18th. Have been making an elaborate study of it, and even got a man and took moving picture of bird feeding young and eating flies from my hand you won’t believe this but will show the movie. Regards to the folks. Hope to see you soon.
Your friend,
Babe.
Nathan Leopold to Richard Loeb, October 9, 1923
Source: Additional Statements, pages 425-433
October 9th, 1923
Dear Dick:
In view of our former relations, I take it for granted that it is unnecessary to make any excuse for writing to you at this time, and still I am going to state my reasons for so doing, as this may turn out to be a long letter, and I don’t want to cause you the inconvenience of reading it all to find out what it contains if you are not interested in the subjects.
First, I am enclosing the document which I mentioned to you to-day, and which I will explain later. Second, I am going to tell you of a new fact which has come up since our discussion. And third, I am going to put in writing what my attitude toward our present relations is, with a view of avoiding future misunderstandings, and in the hope (though I think it rather vain) that possibly we may have misunderstood each other, and can yet clear this matter up.
Now, as to the first: I wanted you this afternoon, and still want you, to feel that we are on equal footing legally, and, therefore, I purposely committed the same tort of which you were guilty, the only difference being that in your case the facts would be harder to prove than in mine, should I deny them. The enclosed document should secure you against changing my mind in admitting the facts, if the matter should come up, as it would prove to any court that they were true.
As to the second: On your suggestion I immediately phoned Dick Rubel, and speaking from a paper prepared beforehand (to be sure of exact wording) said: “Dick, when we were together yesterday, did I tell you that Dick (Loeb) had told me the things which I then told you, or that it was merely my opinion that I believed them to be so?” I asked this twice to be sure he understood and on the same answer both times (which I took down as he spoke) felt that he did understand. He replied: “No, you did not tell me that Dick told you these things, but said that they were in your opinion true.”
He further denied telling you subsequently that I had said that they were gleaned from conversation with you, and I then told him that he was quite right, that you never had told me. I further told him that this was merely your suggestion of how to settle a question of fact, that he was in no way implicated, and that neither of us would be angry with him at his reply. (I imply your assent to this.)
This, of course, proves that you were mistaken this afternoon in the question of my having actually and technically broken confidence, and voids my apology, which I made contingent on proof of this matter.
Now, as to the third, last, and most important question. When you came to my home this afternoon I expected either to break friendship with you or attempt to kill you unless you told me why you acted as you did yesterday.
You did, however, tell me, and hence the question shifted to the fact that I would act as before if you persisted in thinking me treacherous, either in act (which you waived if Dick’s opinion went with mine) or in intention.
Now, I apprehend, though here I am not quite sure, that you said that you did not think me treacherous in intent, nor ever have, but that you considered me in the wrong and expected such a statement from me. This statement I unconditionally refused to make until such time as I may have become convinced of its truth.
However, the question of our relation I think must be in your hands (unless the above conceptions are mistaken) inasmuch as you have satisfied first one and then the other requirement, upon which I agreed to refrain from attempting to kill you or refusing to continue our friendship. Hence I have no reason not to continue to be on friendly terms with you, and would under ordinary conditions continue as before.
The only question, then, is with you. You demand me to perform an act, namely, state that I acted wrongly. This I refuse. Now it is up to you to inflict the penalty for this refusal- at your discretion, to break friendship, inflict physical punishment, or anything else you like, or on the other hand, continue as before. The decision therefore, must rest with you. This is all of my opinion on the right and wrong of the matter.
Now comes a practical question. I think that I would ordinarily be expected to, and in fact do expect to continue my attitude toward you, as before, until I learn either by direct words or by conduct on your part which way your decision has been formed. This I shall do.
Now a word of advice. I do not wish to influence your decision either way, but I do want to warn you that in case you deem it advisable to discontinue our friendship, that in both our interests extreme care must be had. The motif of “A falling out of cocksuckers” would be sure to be popular, which is patently undesirable and forms an irksome but unavoidable bond between us. Therefore it is, in my humble opinion, expedient, though our breech need be no less real in fact, yet to observe the conventionalities, such as salutation on the street and a general appearance of at least not unfriendly relations on all occasions when we may be thrown together in public.
Now, Dick, I am going to make a request to which I have perhaps no right, and yet which I dare to make also for “Auld Lang Syne.” Will you, if not too inconvenient, let me know your answer (before I leave to-morrow) on the last count? This, to which I have no right, would greatly help my peace of mind in the next few days when it is most necessary to me. You can if you will merely call up my home before 12 noon and leave a message saying “Dick says yes,” if you wish our relations to continue as before, and “Dick says no,” if not.
It is unnecessary to add that your decision will of course have no effect on my keeping to myself our confidences of the past, and that I regret the whole affair more than I can say.
Hoping not to have caused you too much trouble in reading this, I am
(For the present), as ever,
Babe
Enclosure to above letter
Source: Trial Transcript page 4061
I, Nathan F. Leopold, Jr., being under no duress or compulsion, do hereby affirm and declare that on this, the 9th day of October, 1923, I for reasons of my own locked the door of the room in which I was with one Richard A. Loeb, with the intent of blocking his only feasible mode of egress, and that I further indicated my intention of applying physical force upon the person of the said Richard A. Loeb if necessary to carry out my design, to-wit, to block his only feasible mode of egress.
Nathan Leopold to Richard Loeb, October 10, 1923
Source: Trial transcript pages 1497-1505
Toledo, Ohio, October 10, 1923, addressed to Mr. Richard A. Loeb, 5107 Ellis Avenue, Chicago, a special delivery letter.
October 10, 20th Century Limited, 1:45 P.M.
Dear Dick:
I want to thank you first of all for your kindness in granting my request of yesterday. I was highly gratified to hear from you for two reasons, the first sentimental and the second practical. The first of these is that your prompt reply conclusively proved my previous idea that the whole matter really did mean something to you, and that you respected my wishes, even though we were not very friendly. This is a great satisfaction, but the second is even greater, in that I imply from the general tenor of your letter that there is a good chance of a reconciliation between us, which I ardently desire, and this belief will give me a peace of mind on which I based my request.
But I fear, Dick, that your letter has failed to settle the controversy itself, as two points are still left open. These I will now attack. As I wrote you yesterday, the decision of our relations was in your hands, because it depended entirely on how you wished to treat my refusal to admit that I acted wrongly. This request you did not answer. You imply merely that because of my statement that, “I regret the whole matter” I am in part at least admitting what you desire. I thought twice before putting that phrase in my letter, for fear you might misconstrue it, as in fact you have done.
First, you will note that I said that “I regret the whole matter” (not any single part of it). By this I meant that I regretted the crime you originally committed (your mistake in judgment) from which the whole consequences flow. But I did not mean and do not wish to understood as meaning that once this act had been done, I regret anything subsequent. I do not in fact regret it, because I feel sure, as I felt from the beginning, that should we again become friends, it will be on a basis of better mutual understanding as a result of these unpleasant consequences which I deliberately planned and precipitated.
Furthermore, even if I did not regret those consequences, it would not follow at all that I consider myself to have acted wrongly. I may regret that it is necessary to go downtown to the dentist, and still not feel that I am acting wrongly in so doing. Quite the contrary. So if you insist on my stating that I acted wrongly, as a prerequisite to our renewal of friendship, I feel it duty bound to point out to you that this is not the meaning of what I wrote. In this do not think that I am trying to avoid a renewal of these relations. You know how much I desire a renewal but I still feel that I must point this out to you, as I could not consider re-entering these relations when you were under the misapprehensions that I had conceded to what you demanded. On the basis of this construction of my words, then, Dick, should you base your decision.
Next comes the other point of issue, namely, whether I wish to be a party to a reconciliation, supposing that you wish on the basis of the previous statements to do so. Here the decisions rests, not with you, but with me. Now, as I wrote you yesterday, you obviated my first reason for a refusal by telling me what I wanted to know, but another arose, the question of treachery, and that is not quite settled in my mind. For the purpose of this discussion, I shall not use the short term “treachery” as you suggested in your letter, to cover whatever you want to call it. I have no desire to quibble over terms, and am sure we both mean the same thing as treachery. Very well.
The whole question must be divided into two, namely, treachery in act and treachery in intention. On your suggestion, the first was to be settled by phoning Dick, as I did, I apologizing verbally on condition that you were right, and implying the same apology from you in case you were wrong.
You were proved wrong, and I am sure you are a good enough sport to stick by your statement, unless you question whether I did all you suggested in good faith. Hence, you remove any previous charge of treachery in act. If there was such. But the second is not so simple. I stated, and still hold, that if you still held me to have acted treacherously in intent, our friendship must cease. You circumvent that by saying you never could have held this opinion because you believe me to have acted hastily, etc. I did my best in stating I was wholly responsible for all I said and did, since I had planned it all, and if there were malice at all it would be malice afterthought. You refuse to believe me. Now, that is not my fault.
I have done my best to tell you the true facts, (since they were in my disadvantage) and hence have discharged my obligation. I still insist that I have planned all I did. You can believe this or not as you like or come to your own decision, or whether you still think I acted treacherously. If you say you do not, then I shall infer either that you never thought so (although you accuse me of it) or that you have changed your mind (and imply these as an apology for ever thinking so) and continue to be your friend. All I want from you then is a statement; that you do not now think me to have acted treacherously in intent, which I will construe as above. Then it is up to you whether you will forego my statement of wrong action or will on your part break up our friendship.
Please wire me at my expense to the Biltmore Hotel, New York, immediately on receipt, stating, one, whether you wish to “break our friendship or to forego my statement, or, two, whether or not you still think me to have acted treacherously. If you want further discussion on either point merely wire me that you must see me to discuss it before you decide.
Now, that is all that is in point to our controversy but I am going to ask a little more in an effort to explain my system of a Neitzschien philosophy with regard to you.
It may have occurred to you why a mere mistake in judgment on your part should be treated as a crime, when on the part of another it should not be so considered. Here are the reasons. In formulating a superman, he is, on account of certain superior qualities inherent in him exempted from the ordinary laws which govern ordinary men. He is not liable for anything he may do. Whereas others would be, except for the crime that it is possible for him to commit — to make a mistake.
Now, obviously any code which conferred upon an individual or upon a group extraordinary privileges without also putting on him extraordinary responsibility would be unfair and bad. Therefore, an ubermensch is held to have committed a crime every time he errs in judgment, a mistake excusable in others.
But you may say that you have previously made mistakes which I do not treat as crimes. This is true. To cite an example, the other night you expressed the opinion and insisted that Marcus Aurelius Antonius was, “practically the founder of stoicism”, and in so doing you committed a crime. But it was a slight crime and I choose to forgive it. Similarly I have and had before this matter reached ? forgiven the crime which you committed in committing the error in judgment which caused the whole train of events. I did not and do not wish to charge you with a crime, but I feel justified in using any of the consequences of your crime for which you were held responsible to my advantage. This and only this I did, so you see how careful you must be.
Now, Dick, just one more word to sum up. Supposing you fulfill both conditions necessary for reconciliation. One, waive claim to my statement, and, two, state yourself that you no longer think me to have acted treacherously. We are going to be as good or better friends as before.
I want that to come about very much, but not at the expense of your thinking that I have backed down in any way from my stand, as I am sure of that in my mind and want you to be.
Well, Dick, the best of luck if I do not see you again and thanks in advance for the wire I am sure you will be good enough to send. Hoping you will be able to decide in the way I obviously want,
I am
Babe.
P.S. Excuse scrawl. Train is moving. Your spelling, young man, is abominable, and I for one should advocate that Tomsie-boy be taken away from your instruction in the subject.
Allan Loeb to Richard Loeb, May 19, 1924
Source: Trial Transcript pages 4330-4332
[This and many other letters were taken from Leopold and Loeb’s rooms by police/state’s attorney’s office employees]
Marked Personal, mailed at 5:30PM
Dear Dick,
I wanted to send you this letter to you so there would be no possible chance of Dad seeing it. Glad to hear about Sammy Schmaltz, but could that amount have been possibly reversed? If so, you are all wrong in your gambling, and even so you must be shooting a little too high. Did you get cash?
Best love, Allan
Robert L. Leopold to Richard Loeb, undated [likely 1924]
Source: Trial Transcript, pages 4333-4334
[This and many other letters were taken from Leopold and Loeb’s rooms by police/state’s attorney’s office employees]
530 Thompson Street, Ann Arbor, Michigan
Dear Dick:
Just a line, as I am awfully busy, and I am coming to you for help. I have an exam in history, seventeen, and know nothing about it. Furthermore, my notes are no good. You said last semester that you would let me take your notes in the course. Please send them to me right away if you can. My exam is next Friday and I must study. Please drop me a line and let me know, so I know whether to plan on them or not. I am damn sorry that we couldn’t see each other while I was home, but you are always so ____ [likely an expletive removed] busy. I guess I am too, while home. But I always feel as though I am intruding when you guys are gambling, because I don’t gamble that high. At any rate, better luck next time when home. Thanks in advance for your trouble.
Sincerely
Bobby
Nathan Leopold and Richard Loeb (as George Johnson) to Jacob Franks, May 21, 1924
Source: Northwestern University Archives
Dear Sir:
As you no doubt know by this time your son has been kidnapped. Allow us to assure you that he is at present well and safe. You need fear no physical harm for him provided you live up carefully to the following instructions, and to such others as you will receive by future communications. Should you however, disobey any of our instructions even slightly, his death will be the penalty.
1. For obvious reasons make absolutely no attempt to communicate with either the police authorities, or any private agency. Should you already have communicated with the police, allow them to continue their investigations, but do not mention this letter.
2. Secure before noon today ten thousand dollars, ($10,000.00). This money must be composed entirely of OLD BILLS of the following denominations:
$2,000.00 in twenty dollar bills
$8,000.00 in fifty dollar bills
The money must be old. Any attempt to include new or marked bills will render the entire venture futile.
3. The money should be place in a large cigar box, or if this is impossible in a heavy cardboard box, SECURELY closed and wrapped in white paper. The wrapping paper should be sealed at all openings with sealing wax.
4. Have the money with you prepared as directed above, and remain at home after one o’clock P.M. See that the telephone is not in use.
You will receive a further communication instructing you as to your future course.
As a final word of warning – this is a strictly commercial proposition, and we are prepared to put our threat into execution should we have reasonable grounds to believe that you have committed an infraction of the above instructions. However, should you carefully follow out our instructions to the letter, we can assure you that you son will be safely returned to you within six hours of our receipt of the money.
Yours truly,
GEORGE JOHNSON
Nathan Leopold and Richard Loeb (as George Johnson) to Jacob Franks, May 22, 1924
Source: Northwestern University Archives
On the envelope was this typewritten message:
Mr. Jacob Franks
Should anyone else find this note, please leave it alone, the letter is very important.
The note itself:
Dear Sir:
Proceed immediately to the back platform of the train. Watch the east side of the track. Have your package ready. Look for the first LARGE, RED, BRICK factory situated immediately adjoining the tracks on the east. On top of this factory is a large, black watertower with the word CHAMPION written on it. Wait until you have COMPLETELY passed the south end of the factory – count five very rapidly and then IMMEDIATELY throw the package as far east as you can.
Remember that this is your only chance to recover your son.
Yours truly,
GEORGE JOHNSON
Clarence Darrow to Jessie Brownlee, June 10, 1924
Source: University of Minnesota, Clarence Darrow Digital Collection
Have been so busy no time to write letters…This case is quite perplexing and will most likely be a hard struggle to save the lives of the boys. Was intending to go to NY as a delegate to the convention but may not be able to get away.
Clarence Darrow to Paul Darrow, June 25, 1924
Source: University of Minnesota, Clarence Darrow Digital Collection
I have been so busy that I have hardly had time to think of anything but this weird case. Don’t know how I will come out. It is very hard to get a fair hearing. As to fees I will of course get a fair & substantial fee as yet I have no idea how much time it will take. The families are fine people and will do what is right & of course you know I will.
…
Don’t know when I will get out there probably not until this case is finished.
Clarence Darrow to Paul Darrow, July 20, 1924
Source: University of Minnesota, Clarence Darrow Digital Collection
Dear Paul
You have no doubt been surprised at the turn we have taken in the Loeb-Leopold case. We have concluded it is the most hopeful way of saving the boys lives. It is doubtful if any way will accomplish it.
Hastily,
C.S.D.
Nathan Leopold to P. L. Friedlander (Cook County inmate), undated (leaked August 3rd)
Source: Chicago Evening American
Dear Friend,
Allow me to offer you my sincere and heartfelt thanks for your kindness in sending me the poem which I requested from you. Allow me also to compliment you upon your extraordinary talent in improvi[?]-you certainly put most graciously a very deep thought and emotion.
You may be interested to know that in the event that I am sentenced to death upon the gallows (as appears quite likely) I shall take steps to attempt to pierce the veil, altho I personally am convinced that no after life exists. I, at least, will be prepared for the exigency in case I be mistaken.
Will you pardon me if I offer an excerpt from one of my favorite poems which embodies my idea of the fullness of life? I hope you will not think me impertinent but I am sure you will agree that a real and legitimate difference of opinion may exist. Well, here goes-
For this is Wisdom-to love, to live,
To take what Fate, or the Gods, may give,
To ask no question, to make no prayer-
To kiss the lips and caress the hair,
To spend passion’s ebb as you greet its flow,
To have, to hold, and in time let go.
I have several poems which I should like to have you peruse and criticize if it is not asking too much, but hesitate to send them to you as I don’t want to impose upon good nature. Perhaps you will let me know, though, if I shouldn’t be boring you and if you like I’ll send them to you.
Many, many thanks again for your kindness and believe me,
Gratefully yours.
P.S.-I shall most certainly respect your confidence absolutely.
Letter number 2
Dear Friend:
The delay in answering your kind note-I am loath to admit was due to the impecuniosity of this poor “millionaire’s son.” In fact I had to borrow the paper from an obliging friend and comate in exile.
About the poems first, I am sorry that I seem to have left you under the misapprehension that I was referring to original compositions. Unfortunately my ability along poetic lines is absolutely nil-my one and only attempt being a miserable translation into Latin poetry of the epitaph in “Gray’s Elegy.” I was referring rather to some of my favorite poems in the same volume of Laurence Hope, with which you seem to be well acquainted.
I fear I cannot subscribe to your sentiment that Hope shows only the material phase of life, however. Sure when we read her marvel of cynicism “A Window Overlooking the Harbor,” we feel as though this were the only side of existence which appealed to her, but when we realize that the same woman who penned this pessimistic complaint also conceived the peaks of emotion and the delicate tenderness of “Adoration,” we must at least give her credit for many-sidedness. Although we may censure her for that delightful inconsistency which is the birthright as well of poets (remember your Horace) as of women.
The above mentioned I have always considered among Hope’s best works. “Adoration” particularly, is a gem. (To prove my extreme youth I shall add that if properly recited it never fails to accomplish results with an impressionable young girl.)
May I cite you, apropos of poetry, a fact which appears almost paradoxical. I, a confessed murderer, believe that I can lay claim absolutely to having fulfilled the command in Bryant’s immortal ‘Thanatopsis.’ I have so lived that when my summons comes, I shall not go as a quarry slave at night, scourged to my dungeon, but rather, although unsustained and soothed by my unfaltering trust, I shall approach my grave as one who wraps the draperies of his couch about him and lies down to pleasant dreams.
I should dearly love to have the opportunity of discussing with you such interesting topics as the probability of the existence of God. Unfortunately, that very difference in age which would make your opinions more mellow, and hence more interesting and valuable than mine, is the very factor which obviates the possibility of conversation between us. I have no doubt that I could and would learn much from one who has enjoyed so many varied experiences as you. I am not even sure I might not be convinced on many points (I insist that my attitude has always been open-minded). Although I pride myself in thinking that I may have lived more rapidly than most people, I realize acutely that I am still in my ‘teens and that my judgement, while logical, has not the mellowness which years alone can bring.
I should therefore enjoy very much any instruction which you might find it possible, in view of your limited means of communication, to impart.
Clarence Darrow to Paul Darrow, August 3, 1924
Source: University of Minnesota, Clarence Darrow Digital Collection
I don’t know how I shall come out in the case. It is an awful hard fight and the papers have been so rotten that the feeling runs high. However I am hopeful of succeeding in saving their lives. It will probably be over in about two weeks.
Richard Loeb to Anna and Albert Loeb, August 9, 1924
Source: Chicago Daily Journal and Chicago Evening American
Dearest Mompsie and Popsie,
I have just a few minutes between the morning and afternoon sessions of court, and I thought I’d take this time to write. Allan said he was going to the farm tonight and he can tell you about everything in Chicago better than I, but I wanted to reassure you again of my good spirits and good health. I am not really in the least despondent. I have been working cross-word puzzles and have been enjoying them very much. The library, of course, has also furnished plenty of opportunity for me to spend my time. I often think of you-of Tommy, of Adele and Ernie and I send you all my very best love.
Thomas Loeb to Allan Loeb, undated (released August 14th)
Source: Chicago Tribune and Chicago American
Dear Allan:
How are you and Dick getting along? How about my watch? I need it awful bad. Am still working in the morning and swimming in the afternoon, and I still love my work. I haven’t missed a day since I started, except Sunday, of course. Dad is fine and so is mother. Write soon and when you do tell me how everything is. Give Ernie my love and take your share.
Your kid brother,
Tom
Clarence Darrow to Paul Darrow, September 4, 1924 [Dated Aug. 4th]
Source: University of Minnesota, Clarence Darrow Digital Collection
I suppose you know that the case will be decided the tenth of this month. I am very hopeful that I will win, but I may not. Will send you 25 copies or more if you want as soon as it is ready to go which will be in a few days. If we win I shall go away for a little time & later go out to Colorado, but have your mother stay as long as she wishes. Any how it will be some time before I go. If we loose shall probably stay here for a while to figure something else to do, but I do not really expect to loose. Can’t just see how the judge can beat us.
Clarence Darrow to Nathan Leopold, September 20, 1924
Source: University of Minnesota, Clarence Darrow Digital Collection
[The stationary for the envelope says:
Mrs. Albert Loeb
Loeb Farm
Charlevoix, Mich.
The letterhead is Charlevoix, Michigan
It was mailed on September 22, 1924 at 8:30 am from Charlevoix]
Dear Nathan
I have been up here for about ten days getting some rest. Shall be back in Chicago on Monday & will arrange to go & see you soon after arriving. I wont take the trouble to give you advice now & any how I presume I know less about it all than you do. Although I am not a Christian Scientist (or any thing else) I know that the merit of life “is within” us and man is a wonderfully adaptable animal. I think you know this too. Of course you will be there for a long time & will naturally figure out the best way to make things tolerable, as I have tried to do, with poor success, on the outside. I can help you figure this out & will make it my business to do it both for you & Dick.
I am ambitious for you to write your first book. I have had a good deal of pleasure, or rather forgetfulness in writing books which no one reads, & I want you to write one which will be read Any how I wont forget you and I am sure I can help you in many ways
Always Your friend
Clarence Darrow.
Clarence Darrow to Nathan Leopold, March 9 [year unknown, likely 1925]
Source: University of Minnesota, Clarence Darrow Digital Collection
Dear Nathan
I hope you will forgive me for staying away so long. I have been in Florida for five weeks and before that was out of town a good deal. Havent been very well so I have loafed a lot. However I will be down either about March 18th or even after April 1st I dont know how much I can do to make things easier but I want to try and any how I want to see you. I am still anxious that you should have a chance to write a book about birds.
With best wishes always
Your friend
Clarence Darrow
Nathan Leopold Jr. to Nathan Leopold Sr., May 5, 1926
Source: Chicago Daily News and Joliet Evening News Herald
[It’s unclear which, if either, of these letters are what Leopold actually scratched into cork while seven inmates were escaping from prison.]
Dear Father:
Believing that I may never see you again, I want you to know that in my last hour my thoughts were of you and that I still acknowledge that the things you taught me in my youth were correct. I am sorry for the trouble I have caused you.
Lovingly, Nathan.
Dear Father:
As I am about to go away I want you to know that in my last hours I acknowledge that had I followed your teachings I would have avoided trouble. I am sorry, dear father, for the trouble I have caused you and realize that I did not do the right thing.
Lovingly, your son,
Nathan
Clarence Darrow to Nathan Leopold, October 3, 1928
Source: University of Minnesota, Clarence Darrow Digital Collection
Dear Nathan,
I have expected to come and see you long before now but I am awfully lazy and quite busy and then I am not as ambitious as I once was. You can guess the reason. I often think of you and especially when the people got a brain storm lately over the deep laid plans to procure your freedom. It is strange the satisfaction people get over tormenting someone. The rest of the animal kingdom do not indulge in these pleasing past-times which shows, of course, that man is the apex of creation. But, the apex is not very high. I saw your interview and Dick’s and thought they both were very good. I don’t know how anybody else feels about it, but I shall always cling to the idea that sometime you will be out but it will not be very near, still, at that, you have a longer time to live outside than I have. I don’t know whether it is a consolation to you; it is to most people, especially the shortness of my time. Of course, we all learn to adjust ourselves in this world no matter what the circumstances are, and I presume that you are doing it fairly well, and automatically, if no other way. You know I am no preacher or moralist. I don’t know what the Devil to say to make life any easier to you or to any other person. Anyhow, I think of you often and would be glad to help you. I am going to be quite busy in this campaign but when I get through I shall make you a visit.
Always, your friend,
Clarence Darrow
Ruby Darrow to Nathan Leopold. October 3, 1928
Source: University of Minnesota, Clarence Darrow Digital Collection
Please believe that we do not forget you – and shall visit you soon as possible. Of things that you might like — what will the warden permit us to bring as a little sign of our great desire to leave with you a bit of cheer where we must say au revoire? You would have seen us long ago — but Mr. Darrow has never been very well since that summer of anxiety & uttermost tension so — we are away much of the time. Until we meet — and ever — your sincere — Ruby Darrow
Richard Loeb to Nathan Leopold, November 19, 1931
Source: Chicago History Museum (and Arrested Adolescence)
Happiest Birthday
To you
I’m wishing you many happy returns
And pleasures without end.
Because I’m glad that you were born,
And proud to be your
Friend.
The Lives and Legends of Richard Loeb and Nathan Leopold 
