Chicago Tribune Packet (Leopold and Loeb)

In reading these articles on the murder investigation and subsequent trial of Nathan Leopold and Richard Loeb, I noticed how different the journalism seemed compared to articles we’ve read from more recent issues of The New York Times. In every article there is a new expert being interviewed, a new theory being developed and more “clews” to be deciphered. The journalists sound more like crime novel authors than journalists. Is it at all newsworthy that the triangle part of the A is larger than normal? How does that in any way indicate that the murderers were intelligent? Many of these experts and sources are unnamed; one girl cries into her tea because she is so sad for Dickey Loeb’s troubles, and yet she is not identified in the slightest. I wonder if the journalists have any grounds for these claims, or if they are merely creating stories to sell issues. The public certainly seemed to stay interested if stories were continuing on the matter four months later, so maybe this extra drama was just playing to that.
Many of the articles discuss the mental states of the boys; their lack of Jewish faith, lack of community, heightened intelligence, parents, lack of discipline and regular consumption of moonshine are all mentioned as explanations for the violent crime these boys committed. There was also great debate to whether or not Leopold and Loeb were sane when they kidnapped Robert Franks. The defense and prosecution go back and forth presenting evidence to support their own claim, including reasons as bizarre as “autohypnosis”. In addition, while one article describes Loeb as the “King” and Leopold the “slave”, yet another says it was Leopold who manipulated the gentle Loeb. The different journalists have their own biases that shine through in their work.