👮♂️What case should I do next? 🚀Get CuriosityStream/Nebula to watch thousands of documentaries: curiositystream.com/legaleagle and get the EXTENDED VERSION of this video!
A police chief on another true crime video noted the obvious: when teens, especially more than one teen, kill, it is usually pretty easy to solve. They tend to make dumb mistakes all the while thinking they are way too smart to be caught.
@@Itried20takennames As a teen, I am also of that mindset(if I hypothetically committed murder, I wouldn't do that ever!) But the reason my mindset is like that is because I'd be careful. How can you forget your glasses or think throwing the chisel out the window is a good idea? I could do this 5x better than they did and I can't kill a bug.
@some kinda guy "err, hey, you cold and emotionless right now?" "Bro, sooooo cold and emotionless. You?" "Haha yeah, totally... maybe we should hurry this up though, gotta get back to being super chill at our apartment..." "Yeyeah, maybe we should- I mean, let's just jog on back to the car and get the hell out of here" "...yeah, but in a cold and emotionless way, though right?" "Right. Because we're totally not freaking out and full of adrenaline having just murdered someone" "Nope" "Nope. Right" "Right then." "...Yep" "... soooooo emotionless right now..." "lol, tell me about it"
Much of Nietzsche's work still holds tremendous value today. He was one of the first philosopher's to ponder the affect industrialization and its social changes would shape the psyche of the masses.
"As long as you weren't still there when the police arrived, you had a 99% chance of getting away with it. To the point that, like, those old bank robbers, they take credit for the bank robberies! Like, they come running out of there and they're like 'Ha, ha, ha! And if anyone asks, you tell 'em it was Golden Joe and the Suggins Gang!'" -- John Mulaney
My exact thoughts. No cameras everywhere, no DNA evidence, no phone tracking, AND you can buy a full auto gun from a catalog without any sort of background check…. a legitimate, albeit very sad, example of overthinking and underperforming.
This is a shockingly common thing among narcissistic murderers, where they are so convinced of their own superiority and genius that they make extremely basic and simplistic mistakes. They lose the ability to even percieve anything they do as potentially incorrect.
I think it’s even worse that they had spent seven months planning this murder rather than having it be a spur of moment type thing, and in those seven months didn’t come up with a better way of disposing the evidence nor have a ton of eye witnesses testify against them.
@@Yomasi No. People lived to 80 easily, especially rich white bois. And this is the 1920s, not the 1500s. Life sentence should be the life of the convicted, not an arbitrary number that factors in infant mortality.
@@aoikemono6414 But that's not what a life sentence is. A life sentence is usually 15 years imprisonment before chance of parole unless the sentence specifically removes the chance of parole. Life with parole is basically you serve the rest of your life sentence in freedom but you promise to be good.
Remember a few years ago when the Snowden leaks revealed that the NSA was reading everyone everything? Remember the people who were shocked were no your average person they already assumed that they must be doing this, but the smart folks who you would assume knew better. I think their superiority complexes blinded them to the people all around them they seemed to have a bit of target blindness and they ran splat into the target they were focoused on.
@@anderssorenson9998 As one of the smart folks, i was never surprised that the NSA had an eye on everyone, just that they were stupid enough to get cought.
Obviously I’m horrified by the cold blooded murder. But I also spent most of this being like “…he left his glasses? They were near water and didn’t even rinse off the crowbar? They had a rental car and decided to commit murder that involved blood instead of like, poison?” Honestly people can be so horrible and also so dumb
Yes exactly like these dudes are geniuses and they can't pull this off but I think that they were trying to see how far can they push it without getting caught
It's almost like they weren't really geniuses, but just spoiled rich kids whose mommies and daddies paid people to give them high marks so they could look special, and who heard the lies so many times they started believing in them themselves.
@@mikem2849, There is a quote, believed to be Einsteins by the internet: Everyone is a genius. But if you judge a fish on its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid. These two where so good at climbing a specific academic tree they thought they could do the job of a professional kidnapper, hitman, crime scene clean up crew, and the police investigating them... all in one. Instead of realizing their intelligence was geared towards a specific task, they simply assumed their general thinking would be better then an experts. After the Dunning-Kruger effect kicks in... we end up with two murder's that all but mooned the police cause they thought they knew what they where doing. I can't help at thinking what these two would have thought about Richard Kuklinski's "academic history" and his "intelligence." Can't help but think they would have looked down on him for being some sort of brutal thug that clearly can't do anything without a handler. All in the while, 13 year old Kuklinski would have strangled these two and simply walked away from the bodies, never to be connected to them.... Like a professional.
Indeed. I'm against the death penalty, but can't shake off the feeling justice would have played out differently when the defendants wouldn't have come from a very rich background. And now I'm torn between feeling the injustice of class justice, and my stance on the death penalty.
Louisiana Kid my issue with the death penalty is that the law written or enforced can be wrong and/or anyone who is killed by the death penalty who actually did not commit the crime is unable to return from the grave. Death is permanent, life sentences can be reversed and people can be let free.
Louisiana Kid The death penalty now in some US states is counter-intuitive to this argument. It costs more to let someone make many appeals, have death-row housing and prepare the mandatory lethal injection than to house someone in normal prison for their lifetime. However, your argument is perfectly legitimate in states and nations with proper rights to gallows.
This murder was said to be the inspiration for "Rope", a play & later a Hitchcock film. I haven't seen the play, but in the film, they kill a fellow student, stuff his body in a trunk, & host a dinner party where they invite the victim's fiancee, parents, & a mutual professor. They keep dropping little hints because they think they are so smart, and it backfires there too.
Loeb: Ok, we’ve committed the perfect crime! Leopold: Yeah, sure, just let me leave behind my rare, one-of-a-kind prescription glasses Loeb: Sounds good to me
So odd to forget glasses, of all thing, too. I don't need or wear glasses but I imagine if you need glasses you'd very quickly realize that you don't have them? I can only think they probably lost them in the dark and were too scared to go back because as much as they weren't as smart as they thought, I can't imagine he didn't realize he'd left them. This is a sad sad affair but it's hard not to laugh at how very poorly thought out, not to mention executed all this was. Maybe in terms of 1920's forensics it was somewhat elaborate but by today's standards it sounds like what any idiot that's watched a crime show or two could come up with.
In his defense, the prescription and frames of the glasses were both very common, what was unusual were the hinges, which he wouldn't have been likely to know about
@@pettank i don't think they'd have a good chance of getting away with the murder of a child, but something like homeless crackhead on homeless crackhead murder just draws less attention
@@chillinsquirtle I only mentioned it since it's been a hot topic for the better part of the last decade with Detroit having one of the highest rates of murder as a city in the US. Can't say I'm fully educated on the topic but from what I recall in a couple documentaries and videos, at one point something like 60-70% of murders go unsolved.
Objection to your objection! He said "Too much jazz AND never enough Gin". As long as you have enough gin there is never too much jazz. Gotta keep your gin to jazz ratios right.
I was reading about Leopold and Loeb on Wikipedia. After his release, Leopold led a pretty inoffensive life, apart from writing a widely criticized autobiography, and attempting to block production of a fictionalized movie about his life. On that note, I thought this was amusing: "In 1959, Leopold sought unsuccessfully to block production of the film version of _Compulsion_ on the grounds that Levin's book had invaded his privacy, defamed him, profited from his life story, and 'intermingled fact and fiction to such an extent that they were indistinguishable.' Eventually the Illinois Supreme Court ruled against him, holding that Leopold, as the confessed perpetrator of the 'crime of the century' could not reasonably demonstrate that any book had injured his reputation."
@@NoriMori1992 Yeah I know, I wasn't really referencing you directly either. I'd seen many comments in a short time advocating that the guy was seemingly an upstanding citizen these days based on his Wikipedia article. It bothers me a bit that people so readily believe this guy is a rehabilitation success story because he hasn't been caught murdering anyone else. Nothing really against your comment at all.
The insanity plea should be thrown out the window, it shouldn't matter if someone is sane or not the facts are that they committed a crime. And in the case that crime is murder or some other awful act, they should be given either life imprison with no parole or the guillotine (depending on where you fall on the death penalty argument) because they have shown themselves to be a threat to others. The same thing goes for cases of attempted crimes, like attempted murder if you have the intent but for whatever reason didn't or couldn't you are still a threat.
This right here is the best argument for "how is society better served by the death penalty than by life in prison". In Clarence Darrow's own words "they should not be released, and [...] they should be permanently isolated from society." But clearly, even a sentence of "life in prison PLUS 99 years" was insufficient to keep Leopold "permanently isolated from society", and indeed would only actually serve 33 years in prison. Now, one may rightfully argue that a death sentence might actually never be carried out within the natural lifespan of the prisoner, especially given the length of the appeals process. And yet, there is is certainly no argument that one may be "paroled" from a death sentence. It may be commuted, it may be pardoned, but one does not get released early for "good behavior". In fact, I would argue that the very fact that a life sentence might (barring a commutation or pardon) result in less time served than the actual life of the prisoner undermines the faith of juries who might otherwise be persuaded to issue a life sentence instead of the death penalty. After all, if we are to believe that justice can be equally served in permanently isolating the criminal from society by a life sentence does so just as well as the death penalty, the possibility that someone can later be paroled from that life sentence might encourage a jury, otherwise predisposed towards mercy, to second guess whether their determination of life in prison will NOT achieve that goal. I would argue that in order to encourage mercy on the part of juries, an opponent of the death penalty would object to early release from a sentence of life in prison.
@@MisterTsumi I agree with most of what you said, but death penalty is not the only option. One could propose a strict no-parole-ever life imprisonment that would serve the job of isolating the convict from society forever only a little less well, but spare their life. Now, what about the possibility of the prisoner escaping? Even though I am strictly against death penalty, I could see as reasonable for such act be punished by death, as the convict is willingly forfeiting their right to live in isolation. Please also remember that the justice system is not as bulletproof as we'd like it to be, there is, even if the slightest, possibility, that an innocent man be sentenced the harshest punishment. Sparing his life just might save him from this fate, given future evidence of their innocence; rising them back from the dead is quite more difficult.
@@oldnelson4298 He's actually correct Edit: Old Nelson's correct. You can look this up on Google. 'Hanged' is used in the context of hanging someone to death but 'hung' is used to refer to hanging paintings, as Old Nelson put it, and such.
@@DigitalInsurgent If you read about his life during and after prison, that's also a reason against life sentence. He reorganized the prison library, helped teach inmates, helped in the prison hospital. After being released, he went on working in a hospital, learned in a university and started teaching other people. He could have gone for stock exchange with all his knowledge. He could have ruined other people's lives in a completely legal way. But instead he started giving back to the community and helping people. He became a monster in 18 years, but 33 years changed that monster to a human. A human, who contributed more to society than most people nowadays. The monster died in the prison.
my favourite thing about this case is that the lawyer that got them out of the death sentence gave this long (and actually kind of awesome) speech that basically said, "my two clients are shitheads and i don't ever want to see them again even if they become better people, but i also don't think you should hang them because the death penalty does not actually stop crime from happening."
and yet one of them was released back into society 33 years later despite his own lawyer saying that he should be removed from it permanently and arguing that life in prison would be just as effective as death in doing so. the very fact this man got parole proves his lawyers own argument false. if he ever committed another murder known or unknown that is one murder the state could have prevented with the death penalty. in fact if either of them ever so much as harmed society in ANY WAY past this point the state is culpable for not preventing it when it had not just the chance but the legal duty to do so on behalf of the victims family whom if not for the existence of the state might well have achieved a just and fair end to these monsters themselves. when the state bans revenge in order to prevent accidents and randomness in the execution of justice it inherits the duty to exact that vengeance ITSELF when it is clearly warranted and any shirking of that duty violates the states very right to exist. these two stole the life of a young boy. but one of them got to live more years free than that boy got to live total. that is not justice. the only compensation for a life stolen is the life that stole it. it is ironic. their lawyer argues they committed this murder because the state devalues human life. and the state responded by lowering the value of human life yet further by claiming that one can equal the value of a human life in only 33 years of living. they literally made human life worth a fraction of its total value. what makes these two more deserving of 12 or 40 years of life experience than the boy they killed. the boy that looked up to them and that they tricked and betrayed. Deterrence is not the only function of law. Vengeance, Justice, and Fairness are also reasons that the legal system exists. releasing this man and letting the other experience Prison for 12 years was neither Just nor Fair even if you disregard or dispute the effectiveness of the death penalty as a deterrent. that is not the only reason it exists. these two stole the life of a young boy. but one of them got to live more years free than that boy got to live total. that is not justice. the only compensation for a life stolen is the life that stole it.
@@scorpioneldar Why should more suffering be the response to suffering? Retribution is not logical; if it is not mean as a deterrent, it does not prevent suffering, and, despite what these people did, they are still people. Murder should not be the response to murder; the loss of one life is bad enough. Why should they be sentenced to death, which you clearly stated to be purely for retribution? They still had a mind and emotions and don't "deserve" to die, suffering just as much as anyone else from being killed. Everyone has done some wrong, but that doesn't mean that everyone deserves to be wronged. Furthermore, the criminal shouldn't be forced to be less happy or have less total freedom than the victim after the end of their sentence.
@@johnidchannel6877 an execution is not a murder. Murder is the Unjustified slaying of the innocent. and execution is is a justified ending of a proven threat. you also clearly have no understanding of Reciprocity. these two monstrous people stole the entire life of that boy. in that moment their own entire life was by nature of the act itself forfeit in exchange. in this case there were no mitigating circumstances, no argument for defense, no heat of the moment act, no order from above, no lack of agency, no desperation, just the cold belief that they were a better being than everyone else and thus could do whatever they wished. all signs pointed to them being likely to kill again as they believed themselves supermen above the very concept of morality and because the state failed to exact from them the price of their heinous act the state proved them RIGHT in their belief that they were worth more than the boy they tricked, betrayed, kidnapped and Murdered in cold blood. while Suffering actually IS an appropriate response to suffering and is in fact the basic principle of an equal and just society (paying onto each what they are owed by their own acts.) that is the least of the reasons why these two should have been killed. there are far more practical reasons. they should have been killed to prevent them from ever escaping or being let free to terrorize those they view as "lesser beings" ever again. according to their own testimony their status as "supermen" meant that they would feel fully justified killings again. you might recognize this as a core principle of Nazi Ideology. they should have been killed because the state had a duty as to their own laws to exact retribution upon those who harm its citizens. a duty it took upon itself the moment it made the natural seeking retribution itself a crime. they should have been killed because unless you believe in a painful retributive after life there is less suffering involved for the victims family, the two of them, and the state than a life pinion sentence where in all must languish in the pain of their act until their natural deaths. (though if I honestly believed that most lifers actually got life in prison I would find the distinction mostly academic/financial and not really mind such a sentence. but as we see here they did NOT both get life in prison despite being sentenced to Life +99 years.) and they should have been killed to definitively prove that a human life has a value that can only be matched by a human life. Every time the state fails to kill a convicted murderer it further dilutes the value of life. it further proves that it finds some lives. specifically the lives of those who kill the innocent, more valuable and more important to protect than not only their victims but also all the rest of the society. how many murderers were released from prison by Governor Brown and Governor Newsom only to kill again? if the number is even 1 (and it is more) then that one dead person is as much the victim of a cowardly state as they are the victim of the monster the state should have eliminated. it is duty bound to serve and protect its people. Revenge itself also serves a valuable purpose. It raises the stakes for those who need the costs of terrible action to outweigh their benefits to prevent them from doing such acts and anthropologically revenge based societies tend to survive longer than their neighbors as their neighbors are overall less likely to wrong them (the risk is simply too great). long story short. proper consequences for actions reduce the overall suffering for society. It prevents society from being revictimized by the same people, acts as a deterrent for others who might act as they do and prevents society from wasting resources on those who would if but given the chance prey upon it for their own amusement and satisfaction. We have no way of knowing if this man who was released had more victims after his release but we can predict that he certainly wanted them and wholly believed that it would be right for him to make them based upon his own words.
That's hearsay For one he's saying it as a joke or just something memorable to direct people to a certain site he and friends are joining, and secondly it could just be his opinion that being murdered is less terrifying to him than losing income because of the subject matter he chose for a video which was intended to make audiences interested, but now none of those eyes even have the chance of seeing ads that fund his channel.
You can also argue that since demonization is significantly more probable, it is scarier. Legal Eagle has to deal with avoiding demonization as part of his normal work, but probably does not worry about being murdered. (That said I know it wasn't a serious remark)
Leopold and Loeb: "There's no way the police would ever be able to figure out that we committed the crime! It's fool proof." Police, almost instantly after discovering the body: "Ok it was like definitely Leopold and Loeb, right?"
I find it interesting how these “geniuses” who wanted to challenge went for a child who is less capable of defending themselves. Really goes to show how cowardly they actually were.
@@michaelweiske702It's proof that they weren't even capable enough to take down an adult with any capacity to defend themselves, therein they wouldn't even make it to the point of being able to challenge the law enforcement itself
"ah yes our perfect murder will be to someone we have direct ties with" second mistake right there. The first of course being plotting murder in the first place.
@@jameson1239 Not exactly. If you commit the perfect murder, you will sit on the stand, everyone will know you did it, and you will walk away from the crumbs and circumstantial evidence a free man, or if not arrested at least in the media. This is why you leave a trail, so you get the glory. This is what genius killers do. At the very least they taunt the police, like the Unabomber, Jack the Ripper, Green Ridge Killer, Zodiac Killer. If they did get caught, it was through 3rd parties, outside of their direct control, outside of the scenes of their crimes.
@@jameson1239 Or in case of a high profile individual, no body, see: Jimmy Hoffa. Lot of unanswered questions but no arrest let alone conviction. Or one where you commit murder but have someone else take the fall, potentially JFK, though that may or may not be a conspiracy theory. That leaves no unanswered questions, guy in prison, no issues with getting caught decades later.
Yeah, seems kinda dumb. The perfect crime is one that no one KNOWS is a crime. The ransom already ruined that. But even taking that out, maybe don't choose someone you know well, and maybe don't leave the incriminating blood all over your car?
@@professorhaystacks6606 Asking for ransom does not mean it is not perfect I think it would be the opposite. I feel like if someone can pull off an untraceable homicide and get money off of it it just adds to why it was perfect.
I don't know Online... if you consider the time and the forensic technology available in 1924, the only way you could say "Idiots" is if they were caught in the act. Fingerprinting was a relatively new (and not entirely accepted) technology. Blood typing at the highest level was just being used to try to give people live saving transfusions (not solving crimes) and besides - tons of blood in a car? Could have been anything from someone hunting to someone with a bad nose bleed. DNA was just a futuristic fantasy like the Flash Gordon shorts that start shortly playing in the movies at that time. There were the eyeglasses, but considering that Leopold was an Ornithologist and a professor to top it, it could have been argued that he had simply taken his class out there on a field trip or some other such nonsense. That just leaves the witnesses - to what? There were no witnesses to the actual killing - just circumstantial pieces of the cleanup, etc. but nothing directly related. Believe me, I'm not arguing for their innocence - AT ALL - what they did was heinous and well beyond the pale. However, I can say that there is some reasonable understanding on why they thought it was "the perfect crime" given the forensic capabilities and actual physical evidence left behind. They deserved what they got, and there is no excuse for their arrogance, attitude and philosophy (although they wouldn't be the last to twist Nietzsche's theories into a terrible application).
@@zombieslayer2016 Why shouldn't he get out if he's considered changed and safe for the public? 33 years is still an insanely long time to spend in a prison...
And they supposedly spent 7 months coming up with it. My only question is if people were just more observant back then. That lady and her daughter in the car, who flashed their lights at him. Unless there was a specific reason I don't think I'd remember a random car with random people on a late night drive. I know the murder was quickly reported, but still.
It is “the perfect” murder in an intentional irony... because of the psychology behind their thinking... much like Raskolnikov in Crime and Punishment these killers believed they could orchestrate the perfect murder, yet it was a failure from the getgo.
Not just that but gruesomely murdered by a family friend that you and your child trusted. All for the sake of “I wonder what it would be like to kill a child?” And then they were arrogant afterwards, and seeing them minutes after they killed your baby... damn poor people.
@@elizabethgatchell4546 And not only that, but to not see any real justice by having the defendant win the case, and having one of them not even serve his full sentence and walk free...
I always considered my biggest lesson from when I had to study this case was basically "If someone thinks they've committed the perfect crime? they're caught" They spent so much time planning that was really just more excuses to themselves they'd get away with it
@@charlescalthrop2535 You would think so, but not really, cars in 1924 range from around $300 to $1900 while the average wage in the US was around $2200. Adjusted for inflation that is cars costing between $4500 and $29,000 with a yearly wage of $32,500. Cars today are $14,000 to $75000 for the equivalent class of car with a average wage of around $50000. Meaning that a car in 1924 would cost between 14% and 89% of the average Americans income, while in 2020 it is between 28% and 150%. By the 1920s the assembly line was in common use and it brought down prices for things like cars. I excluded the super rich cars because there are no point to them in this discussion.
I wear glasses and I can't for the life of me imagine that I'll not notice that I lost my glasses For a pair of prodigal geniuses that want to commit the perfect crime they sure are unperceptive
Well, if they were reading glasses, it would make sense that he didn't notice they were gone... But then he'd be an idiot for having them on him in the first place unless he was reading a road map or something.
He didn't mention it for some reason, but they were sentenced to life in prison rather than death because of their age. It's believe Darrow's summation mattered very little in the actual sentencing.
@@riz8114 So you saying Darrows tactics on making the court focus on sentencing and providing a strong summation didn't matter. So then you believe that a teenage minority from a poor family would have avoided a death sentence for such crime in the 1920s. What is your basis for this?
@@Murf181 The judge who sentenced them never sentenced a defendant under 21 to death. It's a fact that according to his ruling, his decision was based on precedent and the youth of the accused. I never said anything about a "minority"... Not sure where that assumption is coming from.
@@riz8114 I'm not saying you are wrong. I just wanted more information on this. You say it was a fact but me lacking information will need citation. Also, how many teen murders had the judge trailed. Did the teen murderers have expensive lawyers too. If the judge had only trialed 4 previous teen murderers coming from rich families that it not conclusive enough to say the trail would never have been a death sentence without the lawyer's work.
"the perfect murder" they threw the murder weapon still bloody out of the window in front of an eye witness. are we sure they didn't lie about the planning of this? surely they realize that if you throw a bloody chisel out of the window in front of people that is not a very good crime. they put the body in a place that would definitely be seen by people and yet still planned to try to get a ransom from the parents without considering that a missing kid and a dead kid body would be immediately noticed by police face or no face. it seems a lot more like the just did it one day and are so full of themselves they wanted to pretend they had a plan and shit.
@@factbeaglesarebest have you even read the books? His murder plan was far from perfect! It was hastened, improvised and even interrupted by a third person he initially didn't intend to murder but had to just to get ride of a witness! Their plan was just "I will make a little cloth loop inside my coat and hang an axe in there!"
Consider this: they were severely upper class. The idea that anyone would ever enter a sewage drain for any reason other than hide a body probably didn't cross their minds.
Why isn’t there more of these? So bummed there was only 4. Really love the storytelling and animation with the combination of the transcript of the court
"the perfect murder" they kidnapped their neighbor and second cousin and bludgeoned him in their car on the way home from the scene of the kidnapping? oh, okay
@@thomasjones6216 To rent a car with a fake name you would need to show fake id, car rental aren't stupid. Even if you did manage to rent under a fake name, you wouldn't have a fake face and the people from the rental are likely to remember you. I think you'd leave less of a trail if you stole a car then ditched it rather than rent one.
Objection! Being that over 40% of homicides went unsolved in the US last year alone, the fact that these "geniuses" couldn't accomplish this long before DNA and fingerprint technology was still fairly new and highly susceptible to human error makes them laughable at best. Their initial string of successful crimes is a joke before there were security cameras.
As much as I never condone the reactive use of the death penalty, I find it rather endemic of the social inequality and its effects on justice that the only reason that the pair were spared the death sentence was because their parents were exceptionally wealthy. It's certainly an early example of the exact situation that we are often faced with in the modern justice system in which the extremely wealthy can effectively wield law representation as a sword to cut a clear divide between themselves and those who aren't as wealthy in terms of how the law treats people. Had the duo not been born to such wealthy parents, it's highly unlikely that they would have been able to bring a lawyer on board who would have been capable of staving off the death penalty. Whether there's a solution to such inequality or not, I'm really not certain... it's obviously a complex matter with no simple answers. Being a lawyer is still a profession and one that people spend many years going to college in order to perform, as well as spending exorbitant amounts of money in student debt. Thus, it's not really surprising that better lawyers will inevitably float to the top end of the economic spectrum and that the wealthy who can afford to pay higher amounts will often have unequal representation in court. About the only solution I can possibly think of would be to federalize the field of law and essentially remove the option of being a private lawyer, but obviously that's going to present an issue in that government control and oversight over lawyers could very easily lead to abuse of that oversight to wield lawyers as a weapon to defend tyranny. That being said, I am against the death penalty generally, my only criticism of this case is the fact that the circumstances only led to its disuse because of the economic disparities of the time, rather than an actual moral movement. Generally, as it's near to impossible to absolutely, one hundred percent without a shadow of a doubt prove that someone has committed a crime without literal direct video evidence, sentencing someone to the death penalty is far too final. People have been put to death for crimes they did not commit, and when that happens there's no take backs... that's it, someone's life has been unjustly ended, and no amount of compensation for their family will bring their loved one back to them.
I was wondering about the exact same thing. It is truly sad that wealthy people can get away with many more crimes than the average person. I hear so many complaints about racial inequality in justice systems, but I rarely hear about the differences in wealth. I think one possible solution would be to have more narrowly defined bounds on punishments for certain crimes, setting a definite minimum and maximum for certain crimes. The downside of this is that there is always a lot of circumstances that lead people to commit crimes. Some people will be judged more harshly than they perhaps should have. The solution you proposed is also interesting, but the big problem is what you already mentioned: No sane person would trust the government to arrange a lawyer for them when they are being sued by that same government. I also agree with your stance on the death penalty. It is impossible to be sure someone is guilty, even if they plead guilty themselves. I also believe that executing people is pointless. It might give a brief moment of relief for the victims, but ultimately they will gain absolutely nothing from it. The death penalty could be argued to be just for some extreme outliers who are known to be guilty, such as Anders Breivik, in my opinion. However, it still will not fix the horrible crimes that they commit. Killing someone will not bring back the victims. Even worse, when these degenerate terrorists are killed they might even be seen as martyrs. I say that a lifetime in prison is a much better sentence, not just for the individual, but also for society as a whole.
Wow, two very well thought out, and well put statements regarding this case, inequality in the justice system, and the morality of the death penalty. I think a long, miserable life locked in a cage is much worse than death. If anything, the worst people should be forced to keep the healthiest of all prisoners.
i think death penalty is not always the right answer but it shouldn't be cut off either. many gruesome crimes can't be punished with just years in prison but anyway it's not like these people aren't gonna live in hell forever after their death. yes giving a death sentence won't bring the dead victims back but it can revenge the family and also many times the criminals family, friends etc also want them dead. nowadays i believe technology is pretty advanced so murderers are caught more easily. yes back in the days a lot of crimes weren't fully investigated and a lot of so called criminals by the law were found out to be actually innocent. but now things have changed and if the evidence is fully covered and the crime is disgustingly horrible or if we're taking about a serial killer then maybe death sentence isn't a bad option @@unluckygamer692
@@kiram.3619 I think book smarts would absolutely lead to more, it's their overestimation that led them to undermine what's needed to complete an unsolvable crime and to cut corners and become forgetful and clumsy in their ways. If they were less cocky then they probably could've gotten away with it. With the point that they believe they are higher above most of society in intelligence, so much so that they believe they are of superhuman intelligence, they overlook simple things that led to the failure of their attempt at a perfect crime.
@@tobak952what would leaving them in jail do? it costs money to feed and give them clothes why should tax payers pay for them murdering a kid how is that fair to society?
@@rylak3 executions are alot more expensive then life in prison, especially when you count the years they would spend on deathrow anyway ;) www.thebalance.com/comparing-the-costs-of-death-penalty-vs-life-in-prison-4689874
@@rylak3 what's the point? Not saying what they did is okay, but if someone is going to kill someone they're going to do it, clearly. In Texas people still get murdered despite the fact that the death penalty is a thing. There is NO point in the death penalty because it doesn't stop murders, it just makes the victims families feel better. Literally useless.
It probably falls under "Show me a genius and I will show you a great fool" we all have gaps in our knowledge, but to assume that pulp detective novels were an adequate research source might be the stupidest thing you could possibly do. I have always wondered how many Leopold and Loebs came before and after them but weren't so arrogant and sloppy.
>we want to commit "the perfect crime" >let's murder our next door neighbor who is also blood relative, dump his blood everywhere especially all over the car, literally throw the murder weapon out the window, and make sure they body and, like, all the evidence is found, like, within 24 hours wow, criminals were pretty stupid back before there were true crime and LegalEagle and That Chapter for everyone to watch
and in time we do know the extent of the states failings. they sentenced a man to life plus 99 years yet were unable to even make him serve 34. neverminded that they failed to enact justice in the first place in the sentence itself.
@@scorpioneldar it seems you are not aware of the references. These are phrases uttered by the narrator in a game called darkest dungeon. It's just funny that they fit perfectly to this situation.
A "life sentence" is supposed to be 60 years so yes, with the additional 33 he shouldn't have gotten out of prison until he was 111. He was paroled because the idea that the legal system is just and even and does not care about wealth or race is a joke.
What's another 39 years supposed to accomplish? I would think that spending 60 years staring at a wall would be enough of a waste of taxpayer money. He went on to study wildlife in the middle of the jungle which hopefully helped further scientific research until he died. Which honestly I feel he could have been allowed to be doing twenty years earlier. Just keeping him locked up makes no one happy especially since the parents and direct relatives of the victim were likely all dead by then.
@@lucassmart1473 you're right, you're missing something in his philosophy... there's good reason Nietzsche is mentioned in the same breath as Descartes, Zeno of Citium, Aristotle, Baudrillard and Socrates as being among the most influential philosophers of all time. If either of them had actually understood even the basics of his philosophy they'd have understood that he'd have been as appalled and disgusted by their actions as anyone else, not to mention grossly insulted that they had so wildly misunderstood even the rudimentary qualities in his notion of the superman. The same thing happened when Nietzsche's sister allowed the Nazis to misappropriate his work to help justify the attempted extermination of races... he'd have been horrified by the act. Perhaps not surprised mind you, he was well aware of the danger in philosophical ideas misunderstood or manipulated, but horrified they'd been so used.
While I'm not a fan of Nietzsche at all (I'm more of a Kantian, which btw can be misused just like any ethics if you really try), they completely misunderstood him, if that is what they interpreted into the text.
There is a popular story that the news article annoucing Loeb's killing after he made advances on another prisoner started with "Richard Loeb, a master of many languages, ended his sentence with a proposition."
I love how you do these “true crime” videos. We appreciate that they take a huge amount of effort and probably garner less monétisation, but they are great.
@@eliask6797 what exactly do you mean by "fair"? and how exactly would shortening the lives of the two criminals, mend the fact that Bobby was dead? Hanging them would not bring him back, so what would it accomplish?
@@Kenbow183 for whom? wouldn't it have felt horrible for their family? Do we really want to derive pleasure from killing? isnt that exactly what they did? are we allowed to kill if it feels good?
"Darrow is even smarter than the two men he is defending." At this point, that doesn't seem too seem to high a bar. Edit: if one's sentence is life + 99 years, how can it be served in 33? Why on earth were these two not sentenced "without parole"?
Life without parole wasn't a thing back then, it was first adopted in the '70s. @Mirsab Hasan Although our justice system isn't perfect, no one's being pardoned just for being white. Can't deny that money does play a part in the courtroom but rarely in criminal justice Edit: life without parole wasn't introduced in Indiana until 1978
@@tyranttitanium5721 Thank you, a lot of people just jump to whatever conclusion fits closest to their preconceived notions instead of doing ANY form of research. What a sad reality to live in
A book on this case I read several years ago contended that the judge fell back on the precedent that IL had never sentenced anyone under 21 to death, and he was not going to set the precedent, and therefore, issued the life sentence.
@@Amethystic95 I mean..he did say all that stuff. The video just might not have articulated well enough that he was doing it so that the news cycle about the trial would be his 12 hour closing and sharp arguments against the death penalty and less about the case itself - his obvious fear being that public fury around the trial might persuade the judge to go against precedent and give them death. By tempering the public discourse he gave the judge an out to not have to break precedent and also not have to suffer the consequences of a public outcry over them not getting hung.
@@nickbrennan8979 Yeah, just highlighting that it was _far from it_. I know it's referencing like how they were "supposed" to be able to commit "the perfect murder".
I think they just got unlucky with that one (that someone happened to be like "huh I wonder what those people threw out of their car"), but they should have at least cleaned the murder weapon.
So Stella the Legal Beagle is the greatest lawyer in the world? I mean, I always suspected she was the brains behind the operation, but it's nice to have it confirmed.
I love how you tell these stories. a lot of other accounts tell the story backwards and start with evidence found. I think it makes it more suspenseful to start with the crime and see their defense crumble
I think the most refreshing thing about this True Crime series on this channel is the objective presentation of both sides of a criminal case. I think many people are far too used to hearing a biased or distorted side of a story while being largely ignorant of any other opposing viewpoint. For me, this case should clearly have resulted in the death penalty. But, in listening to it, I hear plenty of strong defense for less than that. It's refreshing and challenging at the same time.
Yeah I was like, you said it yourself buddy... there is no case for the death penalty. I'm totally against the death 'penalty,' but when he did the pause thing I had to say that as that judge at that time with the arguments shown in this video I probably wouldn't give life in prison but had them hung (as a judge trying to follow the law and precedent of the time). He said Darrow went on for twelve hours, so I'm sure there were more convincing arguments than just the ones in the video. Of course, it is a bit ironic that the prosecutor kept calling them sociopaths which would make them really crazy and therefore at least be an argument against death penalty due to limited liability for their actions. Of course again this is in this video overview and the arguments in the real court case might have been a bit different on both sides with the whole picture. Finally, pleading guilty even if done out of fear had to be a small boast in their favor.
@@brcoutme Pretty much came down to the Prosecutor being competent, but not brilliant, while the Defense Attorney was all "I'm about to ruin this man's whole career." Not out of maliciousness or anything, but it's like putting an average High School Teacher against someone with a Doctorate.
What is my perfect crime? I break into Tiffany's at midnight. Do I go for the vault? No, I go for the chandelier. It's priceless. As I'm taking it down, a woman catches me. She tells me to stop. It's her father's business. She's Tiffany. I say no. We make love all night. In the morning, the cops come and I escape in one of their uniforms. I tell her to meet me in Mexico, but I go to Canada. I don't trust her. Besides, I like the cold. Thirty years later, I get a postcard. I have a son and he's the chief of police. This is where the story gets interesting. I tell Tiffany to meet me in Paris by the Trocadero. She's been waiting for me all these years. She's never taken another lover. I don't care. I don't show up. I go to Berlin. That's where I stashed the chandelier.
@@raydunakin nah, theres over 200 countries that are not your USA. i live in a whole other continent man; a little shoplifting is nothing compared to what goes on in slums everyday
I watched this and was reminded of a movie called "Murder By Numbers" starring Sandra Bullock about two teenagers who commit a murder to prove they could get away with it. Turns out that movie was directly inspired by this case.
OBJECTION: Your courtroom for trying a case in Illinois has the Iowa State flag in it. Therefore we can conclude that the court is an Iowa State court and lacks jurisdiction over crimes committed in Illinois and Indiana. Case dismissed, I am clearly the best lawyer ever.
this case reminds me of something i heard a while ago "most crimes are not committed by stupid people they are committed by smart people acting stupidly"
I don't believe that one iota. I think most criminals are morons. Of course, it is possible that the smartest criminals simply don't get caught (as often, anyway). Maybe it's the cops who aren't so bright? There is a fine line between being a cop and being a criminal.
He found Jesus, with a German Baptist group the Church of the Brethrwn taking him in at parole. He also married a widowed florist, worked as radiologist and taught at university in Puerto Rico.
@Comrade Sky Hitler most likely committed suicide. As a catholic; that's a burning. The belief that you just need to repent is obviously wrong. God turned people into pillars of salt for looking back. (Allegedly.) Belief and love for Jesus does not negate your actions. 'Through Jesus' doesn't mean this. Read the various definitions of the word and you should get what it actually means. [Before the mud slinging: I am atheist.]
@@rantymcrant-pants9536 idk, I'm not too much of a religious person, but if there were a god, I'd certainly hope he forgives those who repents and forgives. Whether in life or after. *if* there were such a thing as him. And trust me, this is coming from a petty and vengeful person; who would at least try to do the same.
If a person who has been framed, especially when so little effort is put into framing them, can be convicted under the current legal system-- that is more than enough reason to never hang anyone.
@@dinolandra Didn't Scalia once rule that a person sentenced to death, but later exonerated, should still be put to death because the sentence was legally given?
@@dasmeatloaf7670 I thought that was ridiculous but it did basically happen. Scalia made a dissenting opinion(not a ruling) that innocence, given current laws, is not a legal reason for exoneration (or overturning decisions) for any crimes. So yeah, if A goes to jail for crime B, later B admits (gets convicted) to crime B, that does not automatically overturn As verdict. Common sense says it should but there is just no process for it in the books
@Elalae La Ehh, it's okay. Pfps aren't that bad but if you're talking about Among Us 24/7 then you have a problem. I have a pfp of Ken Amada from Persona 3 but I'm not talking about Persona all the time.
Did the family really get peace? The father died within, 3 years of his death, his mother remarried, died from breast cancer, in the 30's. His brother, died while in his 30's. His sister, lived to be 100 or so. Her children said, she never talked about it.
Like the Menendez brothers only being caught because one of them told their therapist who recorded it and let his mistress listen to it, and then the mistress turned them in.
1. Kill someone you know. 2, kill them in a rented vehicle, they could of controlled the crime scene. Don't leave glasses behind. I think you could dispose of the murder weapon better.
He skipped some of the other dumb stuff they did. Off the top of my head: In order to rent the car, they had to create an alias. To do so Leopold (I think) went into Chicago and rented a hotel room under an assumed name, saying he was a traveling salesman. To sell the lie he brought suitcases with him. To make like the suitcases were full of his belongings he filled them with random books he had *including* library books he had taken out under his own name. Once the assumed identity had been created they just left the suitcases at the hotel and "skipped town" on the hotel bill, not particularly caring about getting them back. So now the rented car which almost definitely still had Bobby Franks' blood in it (no matter how much they cleaned it) could be identified as being rented by that alias, whose suitcases were full of Leopold's library books.
The point of such a sentence is acknowledgement that letting the criminal out again would be a danger to society and so can never happen. However this only holds a s long as the danger persists. Especially with relatively young people change is always possible and that's what parole is for. The sentence handles the status quo of the criminal. As he is now he may never be set free. The parole deals with the prisoner in the future who isn't necessarily the same person who got sentenced to life and may no longer be a danger to society.
I want to know how that hearing for parole went. "Your honor my client hasn't killed anyone since he was 18 when he was given life+99; so he's probably fine?"
👮♂️What case should I do next?
🚀Get CuriosityStream/Nebula to watch thousands of documentaries: curiositystream.com/legaleagle and get the EXTENDED VERSION of this video!
How about "What I would do" OJ case.
H.H. Holmes was definitly a trip, and from my understanding, the trial was a big thing
You gotta do Sacco and Vanzetti
The McDonald's coffee case. Reality vs popular opinion of the case
@@jeffslote9671 oooh, I like that one, I live in albuquerque and some of the lawyers are regular customers at my work
"The time is the Roaring Twenties."
*[checks watch]*
"I'll allow it."
You smartass xD .
Nice.
Your generosity is duly noted.
I don't get it.
@@MrGamelover23 it's 2020.
2 super-geniuses whose only concept of concealing evidence is *"Yeet it out the window."*
"Fly little chisel! Be free!"
A police chief on another true crime video noted the obvious: when teens, especially more than one teen, kill, it is usually pretty easy to solve. They tend to make dumb mistakes all the while thinking they are way too smart to be caught.
@@Itried20takennames As a teen, I am also of that mindset(if I hypothetically committed murder, I wouldn't do that ever!) But the reason my mindset is like that is because I'd be careful. How can you forget your glasses or think throwing the chisel out the window is a good idea? I could do this 5x better than they did and I can't kill a bug.
@@Forestdude9000 aha, id like to see you try, stress and a lot of other things make you forget a lot of things fast
@some kinda guy "err, hey, you cold and emotionless right now?" "Bro, sooooo cold and emotionless. You?" "Haha yeah, totally... maybe we should hurry this up though, gotta get back to being super chill at our apartment..." "Yeyeah, maybe we should- I mean, let's just jog on back to the car and get the hell out of here" "...yeah, but in a cold and emotionless way, though right?" "Right. Because we're totally not freaking out and full of adrenaline having just murdered someone" "Nope" "Nope. Right" "Right then." "...Yep" "... soooooo emotionless right now..." "lol, tell me about it"
I love how one of their attorney's arguement is basically "your honor, imagine actually taking Nietzsche seriously lmao"
Much of Nietzsche's work still holds tremendous value today. He was one of the first philosopher's to ponder the affect industrialization and its social changes would shape the psyche of the masses.
@@sadslavboy Marx did that first and better
“We’ve committed the perfect crime “ *Gets caught almost immediately* . How can you be so bad at a crime to get caught so quickly in the 1920’s.
"As long as you weren't still there when the police arrived, you had a 99% chance of getting away with it. To the point that, like, those old bank robbers, they take credit for the bank robberies! Like, they come running out of there and they're like 'Ha, ha, ha! And if anyone asks, you tell 'em it was Golden Joe and the Suggins Gang!'"
-- John Mulaney
My exact thoughts. No cameras everywhere, no DNA evidence, no phone tracking, AND you can buy a full auto gun from a catalog without any sort of background check…. a legitimate, albeit very sad, example of overthinking and underperforming.
Excellent police work. Kudos to their effort and professionalism. Helpful random members of society as well.
This is a shockingly common thing among narcissistic murderers, where they are so convinced of their own superiority and genius that they make extremely basic and simplistic mistakes. They lose the ability to even percieve anything they do as potentially incorrect.
I think it’s even worse that they had spent seven months planning this murder rather than having it be a spur of moment type thing, and in those seven months didn’t come up with a better way of disposing the evidence nor have a ton of eye witnesses testify against them.
Whenever "Highly Educated" people do stupid things, I'm often reminded of this quote:
"Knowledge without wisdom is only fancy ignorance."
fancy ignorance, that is good.
Yep, the world is full of educated fools.
"Intelligence is knowing a tomato is a fruit; Wisdom is knowing better than using tomato in a fruit salad."
Good philosophy
that is the best quote ever
When you're expecting Moriarty, but you get Team Rocket instead.
Well considering they excell at anything BUT stealing Pikachu, you might still get a Moriarty
@MrSotiredofnewyoutube Harry and Marv would be glad they aren't the only ones
@MrSotiredofnewyoutube ash was supposed to be 10 at the time
More like Bevis and Butt-Head
“Everything i could possibly say to you has already crossed your mind...”
“I suppose my answer has crossed yours”
“TEAM ROCKET’S BLASTING OFF AGAIN!!”
Leopold: We have to be extra careful about witnesses!
Also Leopold to the police: If I was going to kill anyone it would totally be that kid.
Also, "extra careful about witnesses" means driving all over and making the crime as far reaching as possible
If you ever wondered what a 20 Intelligence and a 4 Wisdom looked like, this is it.
Nah they dumb as hell
Brilliant lol! Long live DnD
@@rei1sba315 You can be intelligent without having common sense.
Lol u right 🤣
I think this a dragons and dungeon reference 🤔
Their own lawyer: They should be PERMANENTLY ISOLATED FROM SOCIETY.
Legal system: Eh, 33 years is close enough.
Remember that life sentence used to be 25 years back then
Would be the equivalent of 130 years today
@@Yomasi What about the other 99 years? He served a minuscule fraction of that.
@@novaiscool1 good behaviours in prison can reduce a sentence
Plus there is a possibility he was pardonned
Or that it was with parole
@@Yomasi No. People lived to 80 easily, especially rich white bois. And this is the 1920s, not the 1500s. Life sentence should be the life of the convicted, not an arbitrary number that factors in infant mortality.
@@aoikemono6414 But that's not what a life sentence is. A life sentence is usually 15 years imprisonment before chance of parole unless the sentence specifically removes the chance of parole. Life with parole is basically you serve the rest of your life sentence in freedom but you promise to be good.
"We're so smart no one will ever catch us"
*plan falls apart and police are on them before they are even done*
Remember a few years ago when the Snowden leaks revealed that the NSA was reading everyone everything? Remember the people who were shocked were no your average person they already assumed that they must be doing this, but the smart folks who you would assume knew better. I think their superiority complexes blinded them to the people all around them they seemed to have a bit of target blindness and they ran splat into the target they were focoused on.
@@anderssorenson9998 As one of the smart folks, i was never surprised that the NSA had an eye on everyone, just that they were stupid enough to get cought.
Raw intellect loses every time to plodding expertise.
@@Azaghal1988 self proclaimed "smart people" are just pretentious morons >.>
@@Azaghal1988
"one of the smart folks"
"get cought"
Not helping your case there, bud.
Obviously I’m horrified by the cold blooded murder. But I also spent most of this being like “…he left his glasses? They were near water and didn’t even rinse off the crowbar? They had a rental car and decided to commit murder that involved blood instead of like, poison?” Honestly people can be so horrible and also so dumb
18:50 yeah he’s smarter than the two men he’s defending, he didn’t murder anyone.
Yes exactly like these dudes are geniuses and they can't pull this off but I think that they were trying to see how far can they push it without getting caught
The men committed a huge string of crimes beforehand,they were cocky,they thought they were untouchable
"How are we going to kill the victim?"
"Bonk him with a chisel"
"Genius"
Takes a 180+ IQ brain to come up with that one I tell you hwat.
For 7 months of planning they sure were about as sloppy as possible
It's almost like they weren't really geniuses, but just spoiled rich kids whose mommies and daddies paid people to give them high marks so they could look special, and who heard the lies so many times they started believing in them themselves.
Take note that they still had to strangle the disoriented kid as well, and they couldn't even tell their plan was bad right then and there....
@@mikem2849,
There is a quote, believed to be Einsteins by the internet:
Everyone is a genius. But if you judge a fish on its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.
These two where so good at climbing a specific academic tree they thought they could do the job of a professional kidnapper, hitman, crime scene clean up crew, and the police investigating them... all in one. Instead of realizing their intelligence was geared towards a specific task, they simply assumed their general thinking would be better then an experts. After the Dunning-Kruger effect kicks in... we end up with two murder's that all but mooned the police cause they thought they knew what they where doing.
I can't help at thinking what these two would have thought about Richard Kuklinski's "academic history" and his "intelligence." Can't help but think they would have looked down on him for being some sort of brutal thug that clearly can't do anything without a handler. All in the while, 13 year old Kuklinski would have strangled these two and simply walked away from the bodies, never to be connected to them....
Like a professional.
"Why would the most prestigious lawyer in the world take their case?"
Well, 70,000 doll-
"He was against the death penalty"
Oh, of course.
To be fair, if someone offered me a million bucks to argue something I already believe in, I'd definitely take it.
Indeed. I'm against the death penalty, but can't shake off the feeling justice would have played out differently when the defendants wouldn't have come from a very rich background. And now I'm torn between feeling the injustice of class justice, and my stance on the death penalty.
Louisiana Kid my issue with the death penalty is that the law written or enforced can be wrong and/or anyone who is killed by the death penalty who actually did not commit the crime is unable to return from the grave. Death is permanent, life sentences can be reversed and people can be let free.
@@louisianakid3122 The death penalty is almost always more expensive than life imprisonment.
Louisiana Kid The death penalty now in some US states is counter-intuitive to this argument. It costs more to let someone make many appeals, have death-row housing and prepare the mandatory lethal injection than to house someone in normal prison for their lifetime. However, your argument is perfectly legitimate in states and nations with proper rights to gallows.
Now, if *I* was plotting a perfect murder, “don’t boast about the cool murder you did” is probably rule number 1
This murder was said to be the inspiration for "Rope", a play & later a Hitchcock film. I haven't seen the play, but in the film, they kill a fellow student, stuff his body in a trunk, & host a dinner party where they invite the victim's fiancee, parents, & a mutual professor.
They keep dropping little hints because they think they are so smart, and it backfires there too.
i know now a days people brag about it on facebook lol
What's the point of even doing a cool murder if you can't boast about it?
@@Hermititis I studied that movie at school, it's shot soooo well. The tension almost killed me, I swear.
Loeb: Ok, we’ve committed the perfect crime!
Leopold: Yeah, sure, just let me leave behind my rare, one-of-a-kind prescription glasses
Loeb: Sounds good to me
And my sock for some reason
@@Свободадляроссии Those were Bobby's socks, not Loeb's or Leopold's.
@@simj202 Oh, might be. Still a huge oversight and their second one lol
So odd to forget glasses, of all thing, too. I don't need or wear glasses but I imagine if you need glasses you'd very quickly realize that you don't have them? I can only think they probably lost them in the dark and were too scared to go back because as much as they weren't as smart as they thought, I can't imagine he didn't realize he'd left them.
This is a sad sad affair but it's hard not to laugh at how very poorly thought out, not to mention executed all this was. Maybe in terms of 1920's forensics it was somewhat elaborate but by today's standards it sounds like what any idiot that's watched a crime show or two could come up with.
In his defense, the prescription and frames of the glasses were both very common, what was unusual were the hinges, which he wouldn't have been likely to know about
Imagine thinking you’re genius god-kings who can get away with anything, and a week later your trial goes straight to sentencing lmao
They spent 7 months planning it and a couple days getting caught lmao
meanwhile crackheads in detroit get away with it on accident
@@pettank i don't think they'd have a good chance of getting away with the murder of a child, but something like homeless crackhead on homeless crackhead murder just draws less attention
@@chillinsquirtle I only mentioned it since it's been a hot topic for the better part of the last decade with Detroit having one of the highest rates of murder as a city in the US. Can't say I'm fully educated on the topic but from what I recall in a couple documentaries and videos, at one point something like 60-70% of murders go unsolved.
@@pettank So...is what you're saying is Detroit is full of genius god-kings who moonlight as drugged homeless people?
Objection: You can never have "Too much Jazz"
I concur :D
Objection to your objection! He said "Too much jazz AND never enough Gin". As long as you have enough gin there is never too much jazz. Gotta keep your gin to jazz ratios right.
Objection - jazz is awful
@@mintybill objection! I demand you take that back! Heathen.
"Ya like jazz?"
I was reading about Leopold and Loeb on Wikipedia. After his release, Leopold led a pretty inoffensive life, apart from writing a widely criticized autobiography, and attempting to block production of a fictionalized movie about his life. On that note, I thought this was amusing:
"In 1959, Leopold sought unsuccessfully to block production of the film version of _Compulsion_ on the grounds that Levin's book had invaded his privacy, defamed him, profited from his life story, and 'intermingled fact and fiction to such an extent that they were indistinguishable.' Eventually the Illinois Supreme Court ruled against him, holding that Leopold, as the confessed perpetrator of the 'crime of the century' could not reasonably demonstrate that any book had injured his reputation."
That's hilarious lmao
Congratulations, Leopold, you played yourself, lol!
W H E E Z E
@@savagesalvage9449 I didn't say "upstanding". I said "inoffensive".
@@NoriMori1992
Yeah I know, I wasn't really referencing you directly either. I'd seen many comments in a short time advocating that the guy was seemingly an upstanding citizen these days based on his Wikipedia article. It bothers me a bit that people so readily believe this guy is a rehabilitation success story because he hasn't been caught murdering anyone else. Nothing really against your comment at all.
Yeah, this seems like the kind of "perfect murder" someone would come up with after mainly reading detective novels.
Exactly what I was thinking. Every "true crime enthusiast" with a pet murder plot.
@@cam4636
🤡-nery of the cockiest order.
And having failed to realize that the detective catches the criminal at the end.
'Life in Prison +99 Years'
'served his sentence and was released'
*confusion*
The magic of parole.
@@mst3kwookie additionally parole isn't a bad thing. The purpose of prison SHOULD be rehabilitation after all
@@Dr.Spatula That's just one of the many given purposes of prison. Unless there's an actual law stating THAT as the only option, it is a debate.
@@marreco6347 yep, everything i said was an opinion, just like prison should not be privately run, incentivising prisoners being "return customers"
Personally I think a life sentance should always be without possibility of parole. Defeats the purpose otherwise.
"You'd have to be *crazy* to try the insanity defense" can be read two ways
This made me realize he really, really, REALLY, needs to review "Cloudy, With A Chance Of...Murder" from Psych.
KnightsaysNi yes. Just yes. Psych is just yes.
The insanity plea should be thrown out the window, it shouldn't matter if someone is sane or not the facts are that they committed a crime. And in the case that crime is murder or some other awful act, they should be given either life imprison with no parole or the guillotine (depending on where you fall on the death penalty argument) because they have shown themselves to be a threat to others. The same thing goes for cases of attempted crimes, like attempted murder if you have the intent but for whatever reason didn't or couldn't you are still a threat.
Varangian Gaming oh yeah. Someone who isn’t responsible for their own crimes. Just kill em.
KnightsaysNi psych is the best show ever made.
"Life plus 99 years"
"Served the rest of his sentence and was paroled 33 years later"
Interesting
This right here is the best argument for "how is society better served by the death penalty than by life in prison". In Clarence Darrow's own words "they should not be released, and [...] they should be permanently isolated from society." But clearly, even a sentence of "life in prison PLUS 99 years" was insufficient to keep Leopold "permanently isolated from society", and indeed would only actually serve 33 years in prison.
Now, one may rightfully argue that a death sentence might actually never be carried out within the natural lifespan of the prisoner, especially given the length of the appeals process. And yet, there is is certainly no argument that one may be "paroled" from a death sentence. It may be commuted, it may be pardoned, but one does not get released early for "good behavior".
In fact, I would argue that the very fact that a life sentence might (barring a commutation or pardon) result in less time served than the actual life of the prisoner undermines the faith of juries who might otherwise be persuaded to issue a life sentence instead of the death penalty. After all, if we are to believe that justice can be equally served in permanently isolating the criminal from society by a life sentence does so just as well as the death penalty, the possibility that someone can later be paroled from that life sentence might encourage a jury, otherwise predisposed towards mercy, to second guess whether their determination of life in prison will NOT achieve that goal. I would argue that in order to encourage mercy on the part of juries, an opponent of the death penalty would object to early release from a sentence of life in prison.
@@DigitalInsurgent hanged, not hung
@@MisterTsumi I agree with most of what you said, but death penalty is not the only option. One could propose a strict no-parole-ever life imprisonment that would serve the job of isolating the convict from society forever only a little less well, but spare their life. Now, what about the possibility of the prisoner escaping? Even though I am strictly against death penalty, I could see as reasonable for such act be punished by death, as the convict is willingly forfeiting their right to live in isolation.
Please also remember that the justice system is not as bulletproof as we'd like it to be, there is, even if the slightest, possibility, that an innocent man be sentenced the harshest punishment. Sparing his life just might save him from this fate, given future evidence of their innocence; rising them back from the dead is quite more difficult.
@@oldnelson4298 He's actually correct
Edit: Old Nelson's correct. You can look this up on Google. 'Hanged' is used in the context of hanging someone to death but 'hung' is used to refer to hanging paintings, as Old Nelson put it, and such.
@@DigitalInsurgent If you read about his life during and after prison, that's also a reason against life sentence. He reorganized the prison library, helped teach inmates, helped in the prison hospital. After being released, he went on working in a hospital, learned in a university and started teaching other people.
He could have gone for stock exchange with all his knowledge. He could have ruined other people's lives in a completely legal way. But instead he started giving back to the community and helping people.
He became a monster in 18 years, but 33 years changed that monster to a human. A human, who contributed more to society than most people nowadays. The monster died in the prison.
my favourite thing about this case is that the lawyer that got them out of the death sentence gave this long (and actually kind of awesome) speech that basically said, "my two clients are shitheads and i don't ever want to see them again even if they become better people, but i also don't think you should hang them because the death penalty does not actually stop crime from happening."
My love for Clarence Darrow is deep and profound and has lasted for more than half my life. [fans self]
and yet one of them was released back into society 33 years later despite his own lawyer saying that he should be removed from it permanently and arguing that life in prison would be just as effective as death in doing so. the very fact this man got parole proves his lawyers own argument false. if he ever committed another murder known or unknown that is one murder the state could have prevented with the death penalty. in fact if either of them ever so much as harmed society in ANY WAY past this point the state is culpable for not preventing it when it had not just the chance but the legal duty to do so on behalf of the victims family whom if not for the existence of the state might well have achieved a just and fair end to these monsters themselves. when the state bans revenge in order to prevent accidents and randomness in the execution of justice it inherits the duty to exact that vengeance ITSELF when it is clearly warranted and any shirking of that duty violates the states very right to exist.
these two stole the life of a young boy. but one of them got to live more years free than that boy got to live total. that is not justice. the only compensation for a life stolen is the life that stole it. it is ironic. their lawyer argues they committed this murder because the state devalues human life. and the state responded by lowering the value of human life yet further by claiming that one can equal the value of a human life in only 33 years of living. they literally made human life worth a fraction of its total value.
what makes these two more deserving of 12 or 40 years of life experience than the boy they killed. the boy that looked up to them and that they tricked and betrayed.
Deterrence is not the only function of law. Vengeance, Justice, and Fairness are also reasons that the legal system exists. releasing this man and letting the other experience Prison for 12 years was neither Just nor Fair even if you disregard or dispute the effectiveness of the death penalty as a deterrent. that is not the only reason it exists. these two stole the life of a young boy. but one of them got to live more years free than that boy got to live total. that is not justice. the only compensation for a life stolen is the life that stole it.
Well, death penalty is a easy way out for criminals, in my opinion. Besides, they get to be in the news afterwards as an added bonus.
@@scorpioneldar Why should more suffering be the response to suffering? Retribution is not logical; if it is not mean as a deterrent, it does not prevent suffering, and, despite what these people did, they are still people. Murder should not be the response to murder; the loss of one life is bad enough. Why should they be sentenced to death, which you clearly stated to be purely for retribution? They still had a mind and emotions and don't "deserve" to die, suffering just as much as anyone else from being killed. Everyone has done some wrong, but that doesn't mean that everyone deserves to be wronged. Furthermore, the criminal shouldn't be forced to be less happy or have less total freedom than the victim after the end of their sentence.
@@johnidchannel6877 an execution is not a murder. Murder is the Unjustified slaying of the innocent. and execution is is a justified ending of a proven threat.
you also clearly have no understanding of Reciprocity. these two monstrous people stole the entire life of that boy. in that moment their own entire life was by nature of the act itself forfeit in exchange. in this case there were no mitigating circumstances, no argument for defense, no heat of the moment act, no order from above, no lack of agency, no desperation, just the cold belief that they were a better being than everyone else and thus could do whatever they wished. all signs pointed to them being likely to kill again as they believed themselves supermen above the very concept of morality and because the state failed to exact from them the price of their heinous act the state proved them RIGHT in their belief that they were worth more than the boy they tricked, betrayed, kidnapped and Murdered in cold blood.
while Suffering actually IS an appropriate response to suffering and is in fact the basic principle of an equal and just society (paying onto each what they are owed by their own acts.) that is the least of the reasons why these two should have been killed. there are far more practical reasons.
they should have been killed to prevent them from ever escaping or being let free to terrorize those they view as "lesser beings" ever again. according to their own testimony their status as "supermen" meant that they would feel fully justified killings again. you might recognize this as a core principle of Nazi Ideology.
they should have been killed because the state had a duty as to their own laws to exact retribution upon those who harm its citizens. a duty it took upon itself the moment it made the natural seeking retribution itself a crime.
they should have been killed because unless you believe in a painful retributive after life there is less suffering involved for the victims family, the two of them, and the state than a life pinion sentence where in all must languish in the pain of their act until their natural deaths. (though if I honestly believed that most lifers actually got life in prison I would find the distinction mostly academic/financial and not really mind such a sentence. but as we see here they did NOT both get life in prison despite being sentenced to Life +99 years.)
and they should have been killed to definitively prove that a human life has a value that can only be matched by a human life. Every time the state fails to kill a convicted murderer it further dilutes the value of life. it further proves that it finds some lives. specifically the lives of those who kill the innocent, more valuable and more important to protect than not only their victims but also all the rest of the society. how many murderers were released from prison by Governor Brown and Governor Newsom only to kill again? if the number is even 1 (and it is more) then that one dead person is as much the victim of a cowardly state as they are the victim of the monster the state should have eliminated. it is duty bound to serve and protect its people. Revenge itself also serves a valuable purpose. It raises the stakes for those who need the costs of terrible action to outweigh their benefits to prevent them from doing such acts and anthropologically revenge based societies tend to survive longer than their neighbors as their neighbors are overall less likely to wrong them (the risk is simply too great). long story short. proper consequences for actions reduce the overall suffering for society. It prevents society from being revictimized by the same people, acts as a deterrent for others who might act as they do and prevents society from wasting resources on those who would if but given the chance prey upon it for their own amusement and satisfaction. We have no way of knowing if this man who was released had more victims after his release but we can predict that he certainly wanted them and wholly believed that it would be right for him to make them based upon his own words.
"The only thing scarier than murder is getting demonetized." - LegalEagle
Why do I feel like this quote will be read in court at some point?
That's hearsay
For one he's saying it as a joke or just something memorable to direct people to a certain site he and friends are joining, and secondly it could just be his opinion that being murdered is less terrifying to him than losing income because of the subject matter he chose for a video which was intended to make audiences interested, but now none of those eyes even have the chance of seeing ads that fund his channel.
There are legitimate arguments for loss of livelihood being scarier than death...
You can also argue that since demonization is significantly more probable, it is scarier. Legal Eagle has to deal with avoiding demonization as part of his normal work, but probably does not worry about being murdered. (That said I know it wasn't a serious remark)
Leopold and Loeb: "There's no way the police would ever be able to figure out that we committed the crime! It's fool proof."
Police, almost instantly after discovering the body: "Ok it was like definitely Leopold and Loeb, right?"
Shows the difference between book smart and street smart.
@@turtleneckrobot7714 They were none of them though.
The fact they thought themselves so intellectually superior to the common kinda confirms it.
Among Us in a nutshell
@@shytendeakatamanoir9740 True, an intelligent man is all the more aware of the things he doesn't know
@Evan Paulat ya man also where's the doc?
Them: We're so smart, we're like.. Not human anymore.
Prosecution: I question their status as humans.
Defense: They're humans.
You can say they rejected their humanity
@@carlwebber4094 "You thought this act of wanton depravity was the work of Dio, but it was actually I, Leopold!"
Lady Ymir -- That's a really good summary!
I find it interesting how these “geniuses” who wanted to challenge went for a child who is less capable of defending themselves. Really goes to show how cowardly they actually were.
But they weren't challenging the child, but the investigators and police. The boy was not the opponent in this game, he was the ball.
@@michaelweiske702It's proof that they weren't even capable enough to take down an adult with any capacity to defend themselves, therein they wouldn't even make it to the point of being able to challenge the law enforcement itself
"ah yes our perfect murder will be to someone we have direct ties with" second mistake right there. The first of course being plotting murder in the first place.
There third mistake is writing down all there plans and there fourth is leaving a bloody mess
Or the fact they knew the house number to make that ransom call
@@jameson1239 Not exactly. If you commit the perfect murder, you will sit on the stand, everyone will know you did it, and you will walk away from the crumbs and circumstantial evidence a free man, or if not arrested at least in the media. This is why you leave a trail, so you get the glory. This is what genius killers do. At the very least they taunt the police, like the Unabomber, Jack the Ripper, Green Ridge Killer, Zodiac Killer. If they did get caught, it was through 3rd parties, outside of their direct control, outside of the scenes of their crimes.
Jame Gumb the perfect murder is the one we don’t know about but yeah
@@jameson1239 Or in case of a high profile individual, no body, see: Jimmy Hoffa. Lot of unanswered questions but no arrest let alone conviction.
Or one where you commit murder but have someone else take the fall, potentially JFK, though that may or may not be a conspiracy theory. That leaves no unanswered questions, guy in prison, no issues with getting caught decades later.
They spent all that planning and came up with “bludgeoning to death and getting blood all over the interior of the car”? Idiots
His genius was too much for this world, the world stuck back
Suffocating or killing at the hiding spot would have been more thought out.
Yeah, seems kinda dumb. The perfect crime is one that no one KNOWS is a crime. The ransom already ruined that. But even taking that out, maybe don't choose someone you know well, and maybe don't leave the incriminating blood all over your car?
@@professorhaystacks6606 Asking for ransom does not mean it is not perfect I think it would be the opposite. I feel like if someone can pull off an untraceable homicide and get money off of it it just adds to why it was perfect.
I don't know Online... if you consider the time and the forensic technology available in 1924, the only way you could say "Idiots" is if they were caught in the act. Fingerprinting was a relatively new (and not entirely accepted) technology. Blood typing at the highest level was just being used to try to give people live saving transfusions (not solving crimes) and besides - tons of blood in a car? Could have been anything from someone hunting to someone with a bad nose bleed. DNA was just a futuristic fantasy like the Flash Gordon shorts that start shortly playing in the movies at that time.
There were the eyeglasses, but considering that Leopold was an Ornithologist and a professor to top it, it could have been argued that he had simply taken his class out there on a field trip or some other such nonsense. That just leaves the witnesses - to what? There were no witnesses to the actual killing - just circumstantial pieces of the cleanup, etc. but nothing directly related.
Believe me, I'm not arguing for their innocence - AT ALL - what they did was heinous and well beyond the pale. However, I can say that there is some reasonable understanding on why they thought it was "the perfect crime" given the forensic capabilities and actual physical evidence left behind. They deserved what they got, and there is no excuse for their arrogance, attitude and philosophy (although they wouldn't be the last to twist Nietzsche's theories into a terrible application).
Man I wish he would make more of these. He makes such a fantastic narrator.
Yes, exactly. This video was amazing.
They just take so much more time and won't make him more money. I still love these videos
The worst attempt at committing a perfect crime ever...
So the imperfect crime?
I dont think life sentences are really carried out to full term often.
@@zombieslayer2016 I mean would that still be considered 'perfect'?
@@zombieslayer2016
Why shouldn't he get out if he's considered changed and safe for the public? 33 years is still an insanely long time to spend in a prison...
And they supposedly spent 7 months coming up with it. My only question is if people were just more observant back then. That lady and her daughter in the car, who flashed their lights at him. Unless there was a specific reason I don't think I'd remember a random car with random people on a late night drive. I know the murder was quickly reported, but still.
"We are so intelligent, we'll leave countless evidence behind!"
"to be fair, you do need a high iq to muder a child..."
zzcolby27 tooooo be faaaaaaaaair!
Abbott and Costello would have done a more thorough job.
It seems like they put the least thought into actually disposing of the body. 🤦
TBF really smart people do really dumb shit all the time.
I love that the ransom note ends, "Yours truly." I never thought heinous murderers and kidnappers would be so polite.
After pulling off the largest bank robbery in Japan's history, the robbers left a thank you note
@@TheSecondVersion Rapists also send you photos afterwards with a kind text message for your time. Hell, they even offer to drive you home afterwards.
This lawyer got life for his clients with what was basically the precursor to the "Video games cause violence" argument, absolute madlad
Objection!
This is not the perfect murder. Do you know why we haven't heard of the perfect murder?
Because it was perfect. 😉
Very fair
"If you do it right, you don't have to hide the body"
It is “the perfect” murder in an intentional irony... because of the psychology behind their thinking... much like Raskolnikov in Crime and Punishment these killers believed they could orchestrate the perfect murder, yet it was a failure from the getgo.
Zodiac Killer says leohl.
I disagree. I think we could know about the perfect murder if it was perfect because it couldn't be charged.
I feel so bad for Bobby's parents. Imagine raising a child that you love for 14 years only for all of that to be crushed and go down the drain.
Not just that but gruesomely murdered by a family friend that you and your child trusted. All for the sake of “I wonder what it would be like to kill a child?” And then they were arrogant afterwards, and seeing them minutes after they killed your baby... damn poor people.
@@elizabethgatchell4546 And not only that, but to not see any real justice by having the defendant win the case, and having one of them not even serve his full sentence and walk free...
@@elizabethgatchell4546 never trust anyone. Everyone is terrible. Trust me. There are no good people.
To Cody . Does your comment include yourself as well? Just curious.
Litteraly
This doesn't sound so much like a "gone wrong" as it does a couple of idiots screwed up literally every single step due to carelessness.
I always considered my biggest lesson from when I had to study this case was basically "If someone thinks they've committed the perfect crime? they're caught"
They spent so much time planning that was really just more excuses to themselves they'd get away with it
I was most surprised by the fact there were rental cars in the 20s
i'm more disgusted by the fact that these blokes did a bloody crime inside a rental car.
I assume that cars would be significantly more expensive then, so there would be sufficient demand back then.
@@charlescalthrop2535
which is more or less the same in recent years. or at least in my third world shitfest.
Capitalists are quick. We are commodified before we are born.
@@charlescalthrop2535 You would think so, but not really, cars in 1924 range from around $300 to $1900 while the average wage in the US was around $2200. Adjusted for inflation that is cars costing between $4500 and $29,000 with a yearly wage of $32,500. Cars today are $14,000 to $75000 for the equivalent class of car with a average wage of around $50000. Meaning that a car in 1924 would cost between 14% and 89% of the average Americans income, while in 2020 it is between 28% and 150%. By the 1920s the assembly line was in common use and it brought down prices for things like cars. I excluded the super rich cars because there are no point to them in this discussion.
I wear glasses and I can't for the life of me imagine that I'll not notice that I lost my glasses
For a pair of prodigal geniuses that want to commit the perfect crime they sure are unperceptive
Well, if they were reading glasses, it would make sense that he didn't notice they were gone... But then he'd be an idiot for having them on him in the first place unless he was reading a road map or something.
So one day I decide to walk to the theatre, I walked half a mile on auto pilot before realizing I couldn’t make out the entrance sine of the cinema
he probably only wore these glasses to look smart
Knowledge and wisdom are not the same thing
Of course they were unperceptive -- they lost their glasses!
Good example of the Darkest Dungeon quote, this.
"Overconfidence is a slow, insidious killer."
Meh, caught up with them pretty fast.
"Be wary - triumphant pride precipitates a dizzying fall..."
yeah but one did actually get away with it.
Your faith in your friends is yours...
This case was honestly bone chilling to hear. It's horrific that they could kill a child in cold blood and not feel any remorse.
The two boys would have been sentenced to death if it wasn't for that outstanding attorney Clarence Darrow
Court: I sentence you to Death!
Leopold and Loeb's parents: We have the best Lawyer and lots of Money
Court: I sentence you to life in prison
Rich always had it better in this regard.
He didn't mention it for some reason, but they were sentenced to life in prison rather than death because of their age. It's believe Darrow's summation mattered very little in the actual sentencing.
@@riz8114 So you saying Darrows tactics on making the court focus on sentencing and providing a strong summation didn't matter. So then you believe that a teenage minority from a poor family would have avoided a death sentence for such crime in the 1920s. What is your basis for this?
@@Murf181 The judge who sentenced them never sentenced a defendant under 21 to death. It's a fact that according to his ruling, his decision was based on precedent and the youth of the accused. I never said anything about a "minority"... Not sure where that assumption is coming from.
@@riz8114 I'm not saying you are wrong. I just wanted more information on this. You say it was a fact but me lacking information will need citation. Also, how many teen murders had the judge trailed. Did the teen murderers have expensive lawyers too. If the judge had only trialed 4 previous teen murderers coming from rich families that it not conclusive enough to say the trail would never have been a death sentence without the lawyer's work.
Imagine just being a dude really into birds and someone trys to put a murder on you
had it coming though
@@Hamstray why?
George wanted to study Zoology for birds. Later on in the vid we learn that Leopold shared his passion by learning Zoology when he aged. Strange.
@@thomasjones6216 no one who voluntarily watches birds is "innocent"
That dude's biggest worry went from dropping his binoculars to something a lot more serious in a hurry
This is like having a detective book read to me. What a lovely format.
The scenes are very reminiscent of batman too. This video was done well
"Perfect crime gone wrong" that sounds like any crime with extra steps
U-la-la someone is gonna get laid in college
only ones where they got caught, i guess
Imagine putting this episode together.
"*Googling* Sounds of children gagging... Ah, yes, this sounds just right."
Yea googling that one had to get him automatically added to SOME kind of list.
"But this bird expert has no way of knowing that that fish wouldn't swim"
Oh, that was good- I love the way this is written
"the perfect murder" they threw the murder weapon still bloody out of the window in front of an eye witness. are we sure they didn't lie about the planning of this? surely they realize that if you throw a bloody chisel out of the window in front of people that is not a very good crime. they put the body in a place that would definitely be seen by people and yet still planned to try to get a ransom from the parents without considering that a missing kid and a dead kid body would be immediately noticed by police face or no face. it seems a lot more like the just did it one day and are so full of themselves they wanted to pretend they had a plan and shit.
Another person who can’t grasp irony. I’d assume Raskolnikov wasn’t also actually a genius and his murder plot wasn’t perfect?
@@factbeaglesarebest the narrator saying the murder was planned for 7 months is not "irony". The original comment is questioning that fact.
@@factbeaglesarebest god the belief in geniuses is the irony. I hated that story simply because I saw all the flaws till the end.
@@factbeaglesarebest have you even read the books? His murder plan was far from perfect! It was hastened, improvised and even interrupted by a third person he initially didn't intend to murder but had to just to get ride of a witness! Their plan was just "I will make a little cloth loop inside my coat and hang an axe in there!"
Consider this: they were severely upper class. The idea that anyone would ever enter a sewage drain for any reason other than hide a body probably didn't cross their minds.
Why isn’t there more of these? So bummed there was only 4. Really love the storytelling and animation with the combination of the transcript of the court
"the perfect murder" they kidnapped their neighbor and second cousin and bludgeoned him in their car on the way home from the scene of the kidnapping? oh, okay
Left their custom-designed glasses next to the body.
Murdering in the car was really stupid. Why not just keep him bound or knock him out until they reach the disposal sight? They were really stupid.
@@charlescalthrop2535 Or at least strangle him. I mean it doesn't take a genius to know there's blood inside a body.
Why keep the car? And even bother to clean it? Just rent it under fake name, pay cash; then torch the car to damage evidence
Really bad planning
@@thomasjones6216 To rent a car with a fake name you would need to show fake id, car rental aren't stupid.
Even if you did manage to rent under a fake name, you wouldn't have a fake face and the people from the rental are likely to remember you.
I think you'd leave less of a trail if you stole a car then ditched it rather than rent one.
Objection!
Being that over 40% of homicides went unsolved in the US last year alone, the fact that these "geniuses" couldn't accomplish this long before DNA and fingerprint technology was still fairly new and highly susceptible to human error makes them laughable at best. Their initial string of successful crimes is a joke before there were security cameras.
i cant believe that dude forgot, of ALL things, his GLASSES! what!?
His one of a kind glasses
As someone who wears glasses, i'm like how?
From what I understand he stopped wearing them months ago he was using them to treat the straining of his eyes
Smart people often self-sabotage. I have no knowledge of this case but it wouldn't surprise me that someone intelligent and troubled would do it.
Seriously. He forgot his practically custom glasses. I guess he wasnt that smart.
As much as I never condone the reactive use of the death penalty, I find it rather endemic of the social inequality and its effects on justice that the only reason that the pair were spared the death sentence was because their parents were exceptionally wealthy. It's certainly an early example of the exact situation that we are often faced with in the modern justice system in which the extremely wealthy can effectively wield law representation as a sword to cut a clear divide between themselves and those who aren't as wealthy in terms of how the law treats people. Had the duo not been born to such wealthy parents, it's highly unlikely that they would have been able to bring a lawyer on board who would have been capable of staving off the death penalty.
Whether there's a solution to such inequality or not, I'm really not certain... it's obviously a complex matter with no simple answers. Being a lawyer is still a profession and one that people spend many years going to college in order to perform, as well as spending exorbitant amounts of money in student debt. Thus, it's not really surprising that better lawyers will inevitably float to the top end of the economic spectrum and that the wealthy who can afford to pay higher amounts will often have unequal representation in court. About the only solution I can possibly think of would be to federalize the field of law and essentially remove the option of being a private lawyer, but obviously that's going to present an issue in that government control and oversight over lawyers could very easily lead to abuse of that oversight to wield lawyers as a weapon to defend tyranny.
That being said, I am against the death penalty generally, my only criticism of this case is the fact that the circumstances only led to its disuse because of the economic disparities of the time, rather than an actual moral movement. Generally, as it's near to impossible to absolutely, one hundred percent without a shadow of a doubt prove that someone has committed a crime without literal direct video evidence, sentencing someone to the death penalty is far too final. People have been put to death for crimes they did not commit, and when that happens there's no take backs... that's it, someone's life has been unjustly ended, and no amount of compensation for their family will bring their loved one back to them.
I was wondering about the exact same thing. It is truly sad that wealthy people can get away with many more crimes than the average person. I hear so many complaints about racial inequality in justice systems, but I rarely hear about the differences in wealth. I think one possible solution would be to have more narrowly defined bounds on punishments for certain crimes, setting a definite minimum and maximum for certain crimes. The downside of this is that there is always a lot of circumstances that lead people to commit crimes. Some people will be judged more harshly than they perhaps should have.
The solution you proposed is also interesting, but the big problem is what you already mentioned: No sane person would trust the government to arrange a lawyer for them when they are being sued by that same government.
I also agree with your stance on the death penalty. It is impossible to be sure someone is guilty, even if they plead guilty themselves. I also believe that executing people is pointless. It might give a brief moment of relief for the victims, but ultimately they will gain absolutely nothing from it. The death penalty could be argued to be just for some extreme outliers who are known to be guilty, such as Anders Breivik, in my opinion. However, it still will not fix the horrible crimes that they commit. Killing someone will not bring back the victims. Even worse, when these degenerate terrorists are killed they might even be seen as martyrs. I say that a lifetime in prison is a much better sentence, not just for the individual, but also for society as a whole.
Very well put.
Wow, two very well thought out, and well put statements regarding this case, inequality in the justice system, and the morality of the death penalty.
I think a long, miserable life locked in a cage is much worse than death. If anything, the worst people should be forced to keep the healthiest of all prisoners.
i think death penalty is not always the right answer but it shouldn't be cut off either. many gruesome crimes can't be punished with just years in prison but anyway it's not like these people aren't gonna live in hell forever after their death. yes giving a death sentence won't bring the dead victims back but it can revenge the family and also many times the criminals family, friends etc also want them dead. nowadays i believe technology is pretty advanced so murderers are caught more easily. yes back in the days a lot of crimes weren't fully investigated and a lot of so called criminals by the law were found out to be actually innocent. but now things have changed and if the evidence is fully covered and the crime is disgustingly horrible or if we're taking about a serial killer then maybe death sentence isn't a bad option @@unluckygamer692
So, they were "geniuses" that loved crime novels and this was the best they could come up with? Obviously that was all book smarts and nothing more.
It was almost ridiculously cartoonish.
Even book smarts should lead to more.
@@kiram.3619 I think book smarts would absolutely lead to more, it's their overestimation that led them to undermine what's needed to complete an unsolvable crime and to cut corners and become forgetful and clumsy in their ways. If they were less cocky then they probably could've gotten away with it. With the point that they believe they are higher above most of society in intelligence, so much so that they believe they are of superhuman intelligence, they overlook simple things that led to the failure of their attempt at a perfect crime.
@@oliversadler1815 they read Nietzsche, thought themselves supermen/gods and went full nuts.
Their issue was their hubris. They thought they were superhuman and above it all that's where they started making mistakes
I'd throw these guys in jail for just having lethal levels of smugness.
I'd have them hang. Child murderers should not get off easy.
@@frankg2790 what good would that do?
@@tobak952what would leaving them in jail do? it costs money to feed and give them clothes why should tax payers pay for them murdering a kid how is that fair to society?
@@rylak3 executions are alot more expensive then life in prison, especially when you count the years they would spend on deathrow anyway ;) www.thebalance.com/comparing-the-costs-of-death-penalty-vs-life-in-prison-4689874
@@rylak3 what's the point? Not saying what they did is okay, but if someone is going to kill someone they're going to do it, clearly. In Texas people still get murdered despite the fact that the death penalty is a thing. There is NO point in the death penalty because it doesn't stop murders, it just makes the victims families feel better. Literally useless.
"Leopold and Loeb, the Genius Murderers" [citation needed]
They were geniuses who murdered but they sure weren't genius murderers
It probably falls under "Show me a genius and I will show you a great fool" we all have gaps in our knowledge, but to assume that pulp detective novels were an adequate research source might be the stupidest thing you could possibly do. I have always wondered how many Leopold and Loebs came before and after them but weren't so arrogant and sloppy.
@@anderssorenson9998 ...so what's a genius? Someone that knows everything? What's the POINT of your comment? What have you added?
They were Academic Geniuses who committed murder hence the title, and not Murder Geniuses.
Citation needed? Do you watch Tom Scott?
This series is probably the only set of UA-camr dramatization, acting, or skits that doesn’t make me roll my eyes and skip ahead!
2 "geniuses" work for 7 months to make the perfect murder and come up with this? lol ok bro.
In my own inexpert opinion, anything other than an icicle stabbing seems to be asking for trouble.
@@bluegenes2273 *John McClane, Die Hard II* "I agree with this statement."
i don't know if i should say this but here goes gimme 7 months i will plan something better than that
>we want to commit "the perfect crime"
>let's murder our next door neighbor who is also blood relative, dump his blood everywhere especially all over the car, literally throw the murder weapon out the window, and make sure they body and, like, all the evidence is found, like, within 24 hours
wow, criminals were pretty stupid back before there were true crime and LegalEagle and That Chapter for everyone to watch
"Remind yourself that overconfidence is a slow and insidious killer ..."
The last place I expected to see a reference to Darkest Dungeon. Yet the ideal place for a reference to Darkest Dungeon.
Best comment after the one about intelligence and wisdom
"In time you will know the extent of my failings."
and in time we do know the extent of the states failings. they sentenced a man to life plus 99 years yet were unable to even make him serve 34.
neverminded that they failed to enact justice in the first place in the sentence itself.
@@scorpioneldar it seems you are not aware of the references. These are phrases uttered by the narrator in a game called darkest dungeon. It's just funny that they fit perfectly to this situation.
How was he paroled?! Isn’t that the point of a life sentence AND 99 years, that he lives out the rest of his days in a cell?
A "life sentence" is supposed to be 60 years so yes, with the additional 33 he shouldn't have gotten out of prison until he was 111. He was paroled because the idea that the legal system is just and even and does not care about wealth or race is a joke.
@@whiteraven181 yup
@@whiteraven181 Even David Greenglass the nuclear spy was paroled.
@Neon Muntique This video is _about_ the other option; namely, the death penalty.
What's another 39 years supposed to accomplish? I would think that spending 60 years staring at a wall would be enough of a waste of taxpayer money.
He went on to study wildlife in the middle of the jungle which hopefully helped further scientific research until he died.
Which honestly I feel he could have been allowed to be doing twenty years earlier. Just keeping him locked up makes no one happy especially since the parents and direct relatives of the victim were likely all dead by then.
When I heard “bloody chisel,” my mind went straight to John Mulaney & “clean up that pool of blood, and now back to my hunch!”
Shit was so easy back then. Just don't be there. Don't let anyone see you.
How they messed up this badly is beyond me.
@@brambleberryproductions1235 Yeah, there wasn't DNA analysis, fingerprinting, etc. You just had to not be seen.
@@wta1518 Fingerprinting had been used since 1910.
@@cam4636 I stand corrected.
You: And then they found Nietzsche.
Me: Uh oh.
Found, and in that truest Stateside fashion, _ToTaLlY DiD NoT MiSrEaD! lEaStWiSe oN aCcOuNt oF InSuFfIcIeNt iLlUsTrAtIoNs!_
I know right? I must not get something about his philosophy, because It seems so obnoxious to me. I suspect they saw what I saw, but liked it
@@lucassmart1473 you're right, you're missing something in his philosophy... there's good reason Nietzsche is mentioned in the same breath as Descartes, Zeno of Citium, Aristotle, Baudrillard and Socrates as being among the most influential philosophers of all time. If either of them had actually understood even the basics of his philosophy they'd have understood that he'd have been as appalled and disgusted by their actions as anyone else, not to mention grossly insulted that they had so wildly misunderstood even the rudimentary qualities in his notion of the superman. The same thing happened when Nietzsche's sister allowed the Nazis to misappropriate his work to help justify the attempted extermination of races... he'd have been horrified by the act. Perhaps not surprised mind you, he was well aware of the danger in philosophical ideas misunderstood or manipulated, but horrified they'd been so used.
That was the funniest part, as these "geniuses" didn't even get what Nietzsche was getting at lol
While I'm not a fan of Nietzsche at all (I'm more of a Kantian, which btw can be misused just like any ethics if you really try), they completely misunderstood him, if that is what they interpreted into the text.
can we talk about how this 35 min video had me at full attention for every second? i like true crime but the focus on the legal aspects has me shook
There is a popular story that the news article annoucing Loeb's killing after he made advances on another prisoner started with "Richard Loeb, a master of many languages, ended his sentence with a proposition."
Whether apocryphal or not, that's a great quip!
I love how you do these “true crime” videos. We appreciate that they take a huge amount of effort and probably garner less monétisation, but they are great.
"We seek mercy."
Yea, well, I bet Bobby did too when he was getting beat with a chisel.
so you would have "justice" immitate the crime?
tobak952 It is only fair that way, Bobby only got to live 14 years while one of these depraved men lived untill the age of 66. Insanity.
@@eliask6797 what exactly do you mean by "fair"? and how exactly would shortening the lives of the two criminals, mend the fact that Bobby was dead? Hanging them would not bring him back, so what would it accomplish?
@@tobak952 It wouldn't accomplish anything but it sure as hell would have felt a lot better.
@@Kenbow183 for whom? wouldn't it have felt horrible for their family? Do we really want to derive pleasure from killing? isnt that exactly what they did? are we allowed to kill if it feels good?
"Darrow is even smarter than the two men he is defending." At this point, that doesn't seem too seem to high a bar.
Edit: if one's sentence is life + 99 years, how can it be served in 33? Why on earth were these two not sentenced "without parole"?
Because this is Americana’s they were rich and white
Life without parole wasn't a thing back then, it was first adopted in the '70s. @Mirsab Hasan Although our justice system isn't perfect, no one's being pardoned just for being white. Can't deny that money does play a part in the courtroom but rarely in criminal justice
Edit: life without parole wasn't introduced in Indiana until 1978
He’s rich. The rich get a slap on the wrist. Especially if they are white as paper
@@blakebell8533 Other replies: They're white
Yours: *an actual intelligent reason*
@@tyranttitanium5721 Thank you, a lot of people just jump to whatever conclusion fits closest to their preconceived notions instead of doing ANY form of research. What a sad reality to live in
As Luke once said: "Your overconfidence is your weakness."
That was the Emperor Palpatine.
@@BadWebDiver Palpatine's line was: "Your faith in your friends is yours."
that was yoda
@@Blue_Firefox but darth vader 'finds your lack of faith disturbing'
@BadWebDiver No, it wasn’t. Palpatine’s line is “your faith in your friends is yours.”
I feel like the fact he got parole is a slap in the face of the sentence itself
A book on this case I read several years ago contended that the judge fell back on the precedent that IL had never sentenced anyone under 21 to death, and he was not going to set the precedent, and therefore, issued the life sentence.
Paul Fortney
sounds like Darrow’s argument about future hangings of 17 or 14 year-olds hit the nail on the head
That honestly makes more sense than all the talk of "progress" and ending the "hate" that was in this dramatized version of the defense.
@@Amethystic95 I mean..he did say all that stuff. The video just might not have articulated well enough that he was doing it so that the news cycle about the trial would be his 12 hour closing and sharp arguments against the death penalty and less about the case itself - his obvious fear being that public fury around the trial might persuade the judge to go against precedent and give them death. By tempering the public discourse he gave the judge an out to not have to break precedent and also not have to suffer the consequences of a public outcry over them not getting hung.
"The Curious Case of the Smart Boys and the Dunning-Kruger Effect"
"The perfect murder" the murder weapon was found less than a day after the murder.
Clayton Does Hiding From The World body found at the break of dawn 😂
Really justifies the "gone wrong" in the title, if you ask me.
@@nickbrennan8979 Yeah, just highlighting that it was _far from it_. I know it's referencing like how they were "supposed" to be able to commit "the perfect murder".
I think they just got unlucky with that one (that someone happened to be like "huh I wonder what those people threw out of their car"), but they should have at least cleaned the murder weapon.
Or they could've, you know, tossed it into the river? Kind of hard to find, and it would be cleaned in less than an hour.
"Your Honor, I can't do a life sentence!"
"Well, just do what you can, son."
Nice work if you can get it!
The fact that they were caught so quickly becomes even more ridiculous when you keep in mind just how bad the police is at solving crimes.
and how we are talking about a Police without most of modern tools to gather evidence.
Not to mention how much effort they put into planning the deed. All that time and effort and it went to crap immediately.
Well like the saying goes, the Police catch those who make mistakes.
The police did a good job in this case though
@@davidholmgren8156 No, the murderers just did a horrible job.
So Stella the Legal Beagle is the greatest lawyer in the world? I mean, I always suspected she was the brains behind the operation, but it's nice to have it confirmed.
I love how you tell these stories. a lot of other accounts tell the story backwards and start with evidence found. I think it makes it more suspenseful to start with the crime and see their defense crumble
I think the most refreshing thing about this True Crime series on this channel is the objective presentation of both sides of a criminal case.
I think many people are far too used to hearing a biased or distorted side of a story while being largely ignorant of any other opposing viewpoint.
For me, this case should clearly have resulted in the death penalty. But, in listening to it, I hear plenty of strong defense for less than that. It's refreshing and challenging at the same time.
Isn’t the Hitchcock movie The Rope based on this story by any chance?
And the play Compulsion.
LegalEagle
Jesus, I thought it sounds like a great inspiration for dramas...stuff’s tense...
There is an early 2000's movie called Murder by Numbers which could be based on this as well.
LegalEagle the pair were not geniuses, they were just arrogant.
@@lesleeherschfus707
You are mistaken. The Leopold & Loeb trial ended in September 1924. The play "Rope" was written in 1929.
Prosecutor: "If ever a case for the death penalty existed, it is this one."
Darrow: "Hold my beer..."
Yeah I was like, you said it yourself buddy... there is no case for the death penalty. I'm totally against the death 'penalty,' but when he did the pause thing I had to say that as that judge at that time with the arguments shown in this video I probably wouldn't give life in prison but had them hung (as a judge trying to follow the law and precedent of the time). He said Darrow went on for twelve hours, so I'm sure there were more convincing arguments than just the ones in the video. Of course, it is a bit ironic that the prosecutor kept calling them sociopaths which would make them really crazy and therefore at least be an argument against death penalty due to limited liability for their actions. Of course again this is in this video overview and the arguments in the real court case might have been a bit different on both sides with the whole picture. Finally, pleading guilty even if done out of fear had to be a small boast in their favor.
@@brcoutme Pretty much came down to the Prosecutor being competent, but not brilliant, while the Defense Attorney was all "I'm about to ruin this man's whole career." Not out of maliciousness or anything, but it's like putting an average High School Teacher against someone with a Doctorate.
What is my perfect crime? I break into Tiffany's at midnight. Do I go for the vault? No, I go for the chandelier. It's priceless. As I'm taking it down, a woman catches me. She tells me to stop. It's her father's business. She's Tiffany. I say no. We make love all night. In the morning, the cops come and I escape in one of their uniforms. I tell her to meet me in Mexico, but I go to Canada. I don't trust her. Besides, I like the cold. Thirty years later, I get a postcard. I have a son and he's the chief of police. This is where the story gets interesting. I tell Tiffany to meet me in Paris by the Trocadero. She's been waiting for me all these years. She's never taken another lover. I don't care. I don't show up. I go to Berlin. That's where I stashed the chandelier.
I shoplift a lot. Go in eat stuff off the shelves they ain't gonna do shit
Thank you, Dwight Schrute (and the writers for The Office - US).
@@violenceisfun991 You must live in California, where criminals are a protected species.
@@raydunakin nah, theres over 200 countries that are not your USA. i live in a whole other continent man; a little shoplifting is nothing compared to what goes on in slums everyday
Tiffany was the last name, not some daughter...
Man this must have been one heck of a trial to sit through, these two lawyers are amazing (based on the dialog provided us)
I watched this and was reminded of a movie called "Murder By Numbers" starring Sandra Bullock about two teenagers who commit a murder to prove they could get away with it. Turns out that movie was directly inspired by this case.
I think Compulsion (1959) with Orson Welles, Dean Stockwell and E.G. Marshall is the definitive Leopold & Loeb Movie.
Me too. I love that movie and thought of it immediately.
There’s also an Alfred Hitchcock movie called “Rope” that’s loosely based on it. Also the 1959 movie “Compulsion.”
@mipmipmipmipmip look above
OBJECTION: Your courtroom for trying a case in Illinois has the Iowa State flag in it. Therefore we can conclude that the court is an Iowa State court and lacks jurisdiction over crimes committed in Illinois and Indiana. Case dismissed, I am clearly the best lawyer ever.
Glad someone else noticed this too
I’m glad someone else noticed that
Dale from King of the Hill
Big Brain
@@Gna-rn7zx SHI SHI SHAAAA
this case reminds me of something i heard a while ago "most crimes are not committed by stupid people they are committed by smart people acting stupidly"
Fargo is far more based on real life than people give it credit.
I don't believe that one iota. I think most criminals are morons. Of course, it is possible that the smartest criminals simply don't get caught (as often, anyway). Maybe it's the cops who aren't so bright? There is a fine line between being a cop and being a criminal.
@@valerierodger7700 Yeah, and that chasm is that cops commit crimes all the time without being considered criminals
Both of those sentiments are wrong. Most crimes are committed by desperate people.
Yep, most of the smartest people are behind bars. Don't believe me? Just ask them how smart they are.
LeagleEagle can you PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE do more of these? I would love to see more of this the animation the case study everything just top notch
"He died of a heart attack at the age of 66."
I guess his demonic deal expired.
He found Jesus, with a German Baptist group the Church of the Brethrwn taking him in at parole. He also married a widowed florist, worked as radiologist and taught at university in Puerto Rico.
@@The_Practical_Daydreamer I mean, just about everyone in prison "finds jesus". Doesn't necessarily make them better people.
@Comrade Sky
Hitler most likely committed suicide. As a catholic; that's a burning.
The belief that you just need to repent is obviously wrong. God turned people into pillars of salt for looking back. (Allegedly.)
Belief and love for Jesus does not negate your actions. 'Through Jesus' doesn't mean this. Read the various definitions of the word and you should get what it actually means.
[Before the mud slinging: I am atheist.]
@@rantymcrant-pants9536 idk, I'm not too much of a religious person, but if there were a god, I'd certainly hope he forgives those who repents and forgives. Whether in life or after. *if* there were such a thing as him. And trust me, this is coming from a petty and vengeful person; who would at least try to do the same.
@Comrade Sky I have no idea to what you are referring to...
I think the most degusting thing is that bobby knew and was cousins with the murderers and trusted them and probly loved them!
Right? Like I just imagine if my cool cousin wanted to talk about something I'm interested in in their car, I'd be totally down. This is so messed up.
Unfun fact: this is true of the majority of violent crimes, including kidnapping, murder, and rape.
@@noatrope Also home invasion and burglary (though the latter of which is usually not violent).
He was a second cousin of Richard Loeb.
It’s still a family they grew together (played tennis)
Had the person they tried to frame been convicted, he would have been hanged.
Yes, that should not be glossed over.
If a person who has been framed, especially when so little effort is put into framing them, can be convicted under the current legal system-- that is more than enough reason to never hang anyone.
@@TheHobgoblyn you would think so but there are a lot of innocent people who have been executed and vindicated after their death
@@dinolandra Didn't Scalia once rule that a person sentenced to death, but later exonerated, should still be put to death because the sentence was legally given?
@@dasmeatloaf7670 I thought that was ridiculous but it did basically happen. Scalia made a dissenting opinion(not a ruling) that innocence, given current laws, is not a legal reason for exoneration (or overturning decisions) for any crimes.
So yeah, if A goes to jail for crime B, later B admits (gets convicted) to crime B, that does not automatically overturn As verdict.
Common sense says it should but there is just no process for it in the books
Man I wasn't expecting the sentencing discussion at the end to be the part that really captivated me, that was so good.
I remember following this case in the newspapers.
No I'm not that old, I just did my senior thesis on the 1920s.
Moral of the story: keep your ego in check
Obviously tho if your gonna murder people at least don't be an asshole about it
Also, don't murder
@@cam4636 Correction: don’t murder unless you know what you’re doing
Leopold and Loeb: "We were in electrical the entire time!"
Everyone else: "no you weren't"
They were the impostors all along.
Oh my god do you think of anything but among us?
The Wrist Game 2 nay
@@helvetica9420 no
@Elalae La Ehh, it's okay. Pfps aren't that bad but if you're talking about Among Us 24/7 then you have a problem. I have a pfp of Ken Amada from Persona 3 but I'm not talking about Persona all the time.
This gave me chills, great job telling it. I'm so glad justice was served & the family can have peace
Did the family really get peace? The father died within, 3 years of his death, his mother remarried, died from breast cancer, in the 30's. His brother, died while in his 30's. His sister, lived to be 100 or so. Her children said, she never talked about it.
I'm so glad I randomly stumbled on this channel one day for an Always Sunny video years ago. Happy New Years friends
7:44 for some reason I love it when someone's perfect crime is found out by a mistake so simple that only an idiot would do it.
Like the Menendez brothers only being caught because one of them told their therapist who recorded it and let his mistress listen to it, and then the mistress turned them in.
This "perfect crime" was so so poorly executed.
Two geniuses had seven months...and that's their plan? I guess they were so arrogant they assumed _anything_ they did was perfect...
Routinely average IQ murderers escape detection, yet these two geniuses who are over-clever by half make major blunders. They couldn't KISS.
1. Kill someone you know. 2, kill them in a rented vehicle, they could of controlled the crime scene. Don't leave glasses behind. I think you could dispose of the murder weapon better.
They were teenagers I guess
He skipped some of the other dumb stuff they did. Off the top of my head: In order to rent the car, they had to create an alias. To do so Leopold (I think) went into Chicago and rented a hotel room under an assumed name, saying he was a traveling salesman. To sell the lie he brought suitcases with him. To make like the suitcases were full of his belongings he filled them with random books he had *including* library books he had taken out under his own name. Once the assumed identity had been created they just left the suitcases at the hotel and "skipped town" on the hotel bill, not particularly caring about getting them back. So now the rented car which almost definitely still had Bobby Franks' blood in it (no matter how much they cleaned it) could be identified as being rented by that alias, whose suitcases were full of Leopold's library books.
I love this style of video with case breakdowns, please do more like this
Those two boys would have been put to death if it wasn't for their attorney Clarence Darrow
Can't believe he got paroled. What's the point of a life sentence + 99 years if you can get paroled out of it?
Because life without parole just means death by imprisonment, as opposed to death by hanging or by lethal injection.
The point of such a sentence is acknowledgement that letting the criminal out again would be a danger to society and so can never happen. However this only holds a s long as the danger persists. Especially with relatively young people change is always possible and that's what parole is for. The sentence handles the status quo of the criminal. As he is now he may never be set free. The parole deals with the prisoner in the future who isn't necessarily the same person who got sentenced to life and may no longer be a danger to society.
Seems like the logical progression of (half) time off for good behaviour (as if prison were the best test of good behaviour).
*Evidence for providing the Death Penalty intensifies*
I want to know how that hearing for parole went.
"Your honor my client hasn't killed anyone since he was 18 when he was given life+99; so he's probably fine?"