The State of Illinois vs.

Leopold and Loeb

Nathan Freudenthal Leopold, Jr. (November 19, 1904 August 29, 1971) [1] and Richard Albert Loeb (June 11,
1905 January 28, 1936), more commonly known as "Leopold and Loeb", were two wealthy University of Chicago
law students who kidnapped and murdered 14-year-old Robert "Bobby" Franks in 1924 in Chicago.[2]
The duo was motivated to murder Franks by their desire to commit a perfect crime.
Once apprehended, Leopold and Loeb retained Clarence Darrow as counsel for the defense. Darrows summation in
their trial is noted for its influential criticism of capital punishment as retributive, rather than a rehabilitative penal
system. Leopold and Loeb were sentenced to life imprisonment. Loeb was killed by a fellow prisoner in 1936; Leopold
was released on parole in 1958.
The Leopold and Loeb crime has been the inspiration for several works in film, theatre, and fiction, such as the 1929
play Rope by Patrick Hamilton, and Alfred Hitchcock's take on the play in the 1948 film of the same name. Later
movies such as Compulsion and Swoon were more accurate portrayals of the Leopold and Loeb case.
Early lives
Nathan Leopold
Nathan Leopold was born on November 19, 1904 in Chicago, Illinois, to a wealthy immigrant Jewish family from
Germany.[3] Nathan Leopold was a child prodigy who spoke his first words at the age of four months; [3] shocking and
amazing nannies and caretakers. He reportedly had an intelligence quotient of 210,[4] although this is not directly
comparable to scores on modern IQ tests. [5] At the time of the murder, Leopold had already completed an
undergraduate degree at the University of Chicago, graduating Phi Beta Kappa, and was attending law school at the
University of Chicago.[6] He claimed to have been able to speak 27 languages fluently, [7] and was a skilled ornithologist.
[8]
Leopold and several other ornithologists were the first to discover the Kirtland's Warbler in their area in over half a
century. Film from the early 1920s shows Leopold participating in the discovery. Leopold planned to transfer to Harvard
Law School in September 1924 after taking a trip to Europe. He was thought of as having a brilliant mind.
Richard Loeb
Richard Loeb was born on June 11, 1905, in Chicago to the family of Anna Henrietta (ne Bohnen) and Albert Henry
Loeb, a wealthy lawyer and vice president of Sears.[9] His father was Jewish and his mother was Catholic. [10] Like
Leopold, Loeb was exceptionally intelligent, and skipped several grades in school. However, Loeb was more focused on
non-academic activities. Loeb remains the youngest graduate in the history of the University of Michigan. Loeb
planned to enter the University of Chicago Law School after taking some postgraduate courses. [6]
Lead up
Both Leopold and Loeb lived in the affluent Kenwood neighborhood on Chicago's Southside, some six miles south of
downtown. Loeb's father, Albert, began his career as a lawyer and became the vice president of Sears and Roebuck.
Besides owning an impressive mansion in Kenwood, two blocks from the Leopold home, the Loeb family had a summer
estate, Castle Farms, in Charlevoix, Michigan.
Although Leopold and Loeb knew each other casually while growing up, their relationship flourished when they met at
the University of Chicago. They quickly formed a strong friendship. Leopold and Loeb found that they had a mutual
interest in crime, Leopold being particularly interested in Friedrich Nietzsche's theory of the superman. Leopold and
Loeb began to commit crimes. Leopold agreed to act as Loeb's accomplice.[11] They began with petty theft and
vandalism. They broke into a fraternity house at the university and stole penknives, a camera and a typewriter (later
used to type the ransom letter). They soon committed a series of more serious crimes such as arson.
The pair was disappointed with the lack of media coverage of their crimes. Leopold and Loeb then decided to commit a
"perfect crime" that would garner public attention.
The Superman
Because of Leopold's strong interest in Nietzsche, Leopold and Loeb believed themselves to be Nietzschean supermen
(bermenschen) who could commit a "perfect crime" (in this case, a kidnapping and murder). [6] Nietzsche suggested
that superior minds could rise above the laws and rules that bound the average man. The average man was inferior
and unimportant to those of superior qualities. This theory fed Leopold with the will to prove himself to be a truly
brilliant mind. Before the murder, Leopold had written to Loeb: "A superman ... is, on account of certain superior
qualities inherent in him, exempted from the ordinary laws which govern men. He is not liable for anything he may
do."[12]

Murder of Robert Franks

The pair planned to kidnap and murder a young boy at random as their perfect crime. They would send the boy's
family a ransom letter, although the crime was not for money, as the two men's families supplied them with money.
Instead, the ransom note was a mere prop for their crime. Leopold and Loeb spent seven months planning the murder.
They covered everything from the disposal of the body to the murder weapon and how the ransom note was to be
written. They also discussed the method of receiving ransom money with little or no risk of being caught. [13] They made
sure that their plan would leave as little evidence as possible. Leopold was to hire a rental car for the murder. This was
the vehicle into which the young boy would be lured and then killed. He used the fake name "Morten D. Ballad" to hire
the car. A chisel was purchasedthis would be the murder weapon. When Leopold and Loeb were certain that they had
perfected their plans, they put their plot into motion on Wednesday, May 21, 1924. At this time, Leopold was 19 and
Loeb was 18.
The pair drove around the Harvard School For Boys (closed 1962) in the Kenwood area, [14] where Loeb himself had been
educated, looking for a young boy that they would be able to kill. They spent much time both driving around and
walking the grounds. They kept themselves hidden in fear of being seen. Leopold even admitted to having watched the
boys from a distance using his bird viewing binoculars. The pair finally decided upon Robert "Bobby" Franks, the 14year-old son of Chicago millionaire Jacob Franks. Loeb knew Bobby Franks well, for he was his second cousin and
neighbor and had played tennis at the Loeb residence several times. Their choice of victim was at random. Future
Hollywood producer Armand Deutsch, the then 11-year-old grandson of Julius Rosenwald, later claimed that he might
have been the intended victim of Loeb or Leopold. However, on the day of the murder, he was picked up by his
family's chauffeur after school because he had a dental appointment. [15][16]
The car pulled up alongside Franks, and he was offered a ride. At first he refused. However, Loeb pressed on and
eventually convinced the boy to ride with them because he wanted to discuss a tennis racket Bobby Franks had been
using. Franks was lured into the passenger seat of their rented car. Either Loeb or Leopold (it is uncertain which) then
drove while the other sat in the back armed with the taped chisel, a weapon commonly chosen by Loeb.
It is still unknown exactly who struck Franks, but it is commonly believed that it was Loeb who struck Franks several
times in the head with the chisel before dragging him into the back seat of the car, while Leopold drove. At this point,
Franks was gagged with a rag and soon thereafter lost consciousness. After driving into the country near the Indiana
line, they pulled the car over and Loeb moved from the back to the passenger seat as the body of the boy lay covered
in the back of the car.[17]
Leopold and Loeb had decided that they would hide the body near Wolf Lake in Hammond, Indiana. With the body on
the floor of the car and covered out of view, the killers drove to their dumping spot. This was an area Leopold was very
familiar with, for he had gone bird-watching there many times. The killers thought it was wise to choose a familiar
area. Leopold and Loeb had their dinner at a small sandwich place. After finishing their meal, the two waited until
nightfall. When it was dark enough for them to proceed with the dumping of the body, they removed Franks's clothes
and left them at the side of the road. They poured hydrochloric acid[18] on the face, genitals and a distinctive abdomen
scar to make identification more difficult; the boy's circumcision would reveal him as Jewish. They concealed the body
in a culvert at the Pennsylvania Railroad tracks near 118th Street, north of Wolf Lake. They then left the scene and
began to travel home.
By the time Leopold and Loeb returned to Chicago, word had already spread about Franks's disappearance. Leopold
called Franks's mother and informed her that her son had been kidnapped. He used the name "George Johnson" when
he called, which was the same name used in the ransom note. They later mailed this ransom letter to the Franks
family, typed on a stolen typewriter. They burned their blood-spotted clothing. They also attempted to clean
bloodstains from the upholstery of the rented automobile. The two then spent the rest of the evening playing cards.
The Franks family received the ransom note the following morning. The same day, Leopold and Loeb called the
Frankses a second time, instructing them to travel to a local drugstore where further instructions would be given to
them. In the stress of the situation, the address of the store was forgotten by the receiver of the call. Before the Franks
family could pay the ransom, Tony Minke, a Polish immigrant, came across the body that was later confirmed to be
Bobby Franks.[13][17] When Leopold and Loeb learned that the body had been found, they destroyed the typewriter used
to write the ransom note and burned the robe used to move the body. [13][17] Convinced that they had done everything
they could to hide their tracks, Leopold and Loeb went about their lives as usual.
Police investigations were now widely spread around Chicago. Rewards were guaranteed to any members of the public
who were able to provide the police with clues. Though Loeb went about his day-to-day routine quietly, Leopold
involved himself in the police investigations as much as possible. He offered theories to reporters and whoever else
would listen. When speaking with a detective, Leopold went so far as to say, "If I were to murder anybody, it would be
such a cocky little son of a bitch as Bobby Franks". [19]
For a while, the hunt for clues seemed hopeless. However, Detective Hugh Patrick Byrne, while searching for evidence,
discovered a pair of eyeglasses near the body. Though common in prescription and frame, these glasses were
equipped with an unusual hinge mechanism (patent 1,342,973 [20]). In Chicago, only three people had purchased
glasses with such a mechanism, one of whom was Nathan Leopold. [21] (Leopold's glasses are now in the Chicago
History Museum.[22]) The destroyed typewriter used for the ransom note was also found soon after. Upon being
questioned, Leopold told police he had possibly lost the glasses while bird-watching the previous week. [23] When asked
by the detective to demonstrate how the glasses would have fallen from his pocket, Leopold suggested that he might
have tripped on a tree root. He placed the glasses in his jacket pocket and threw himself onto the ground. However,

despite multiple tries, Leopold's glasses remained in place. [citation needed] Suspicions about the two boys began to circulate
among the public.
Loeb was also taken in for questioning on May 29, 1924. [24] Loeb told the police that Leopold was with him the night of
the murder. Leopold and Loeb claimed they had picked up two women (Edna and May) in Leopold's car and had
dropped them off near a golf course, never learning their last names. They both insisted that they drove in Leopold's
car. However, while the boys were being questioned, Leopold's chauffeur came by the police station to drop off
pajamas and toiletry supplies in case the police were to keep him at the station overnight. As he was leaving, the
chauffeur insisted that the boys could not have possibly been involved with the murder. He claimed that he was
repairing Leopold's car at the time of the murder. By the chauffeur's logic, the boys could not have possibly driven
anywhere, let alone as far as Wolf Lake. The chauffeur's wife later confirmed that the car had been in the Leopold
garage that night.
Confession
Loeb confessed first. He insisted that Leopold had planned everything. He claimed that Leopold was the one who sat in
the back of the car and killed Bobby Franks. Loeb said that he drove the car. Leopold was in another room at the time
of the confession. He initially stuck by what he had told the police earlier. However, when Leopold was informed that
his partner had confessed, his confession swiftly followed. [25] Leopold insisted that he was driving the car while Loeb
sat in the back. He said that it was Loeb who killed Bobby. Although their confessions corroborated most of the facts in
the case, each blamed the other for the actual killing. [13][17] Most commentators believe that Loeb struck the blow that
killed Franks.[11] However, which of the two actually wielded the weapon that killed Franks is not known. Psychiatrists at
the trial, impressed by Leopold's intelligence, agreed that Loeb had struck the fatal blow. Nevertheless, the
circumstantial evidence in the case, including eyewitness testimony by Carl Ulvigh (who saw Loeb driving with Leopold
in the back seat minutes before the kidnapping), suggests that Leopold may have been the killer. [26]
Motive
The ransom was not their primary motive; the young men's families provided them all the money that they needed.
Both had admitted that they were driven by the thrill of the kill and the desire to commit the "perfect crime". [6] The
Superman theory may have only deepened the boys' obsession with crime and caused them to think that they were
above the law, and therefore could not be caught. The fact that two wealthy teenagers kidnapped and murdered a
young boy at random confused, baffled, and angered the public. [citation needed]
Trial
The trial of Leopold and Loeb became a media spectacle. Held at Courthouse Place, it was one of the first cases in the
U.S. to be dubbed the "Trial of the Century".[27] Fearing that their child would receive a death sentence, Loeb's family
hired 67-year-old Clarence Darrow a well-known opponent of capital punishment to defend the young men
against the capital charges of murder and kidnapping. [28] Darrow was one of the best criminal lawyers in the country
and rumors circulated that his fee was a million dollars. Some were surprised that he had accepted the case
considering the physical evidence, confessions, and the nature of the crime that had been committed.
While the media expected Leopold and Loeb to plead not guilty by reason of insanity, Darrow changed the plea of his
clients to plead guilty, in order to avoid a jury trial, which he believed would likely have resulted in the death penalty.
[28]
The case was heard by Cook County Circuit Court Judge John R. Caverly. Darrow believed Caverly to be a softhearted and concerned judge and he hoped that he would be able to convince him to let the men off with a life
sentence rather than death.
Darrow's speech
During the 12-hour hearing on the final day, Darrow gave a speech that has been called the finest of his career [29] and
a "masterful plea."[30] It was aimed at the inhuman punishments and ways of the American justice system. The speech
included the following:
This terrible crime was inherent in his organism, and it came from some ancestor... Is any blame attached because
somebody took Nietzsche's philosophy seriously and fashioned his life upon it?... It is hardly fair to hang a 19-year-old
boy for the philosophy that was taught him at the university. [31]
Darrow's argument lasted for almost twelve hours. He touched on everything from the young age of his clients to the
plea for mercy.
This was part of Darrow's court argument:
Now, your Honor, I have spoken about the war. I believed in it. I dont know whether I was crazy or not. Sometimes I
think perhaps I was. I approved of it; I joined in the general cry of madness and despair. I urged men to fight. I was safe
because I was too old to go. I was like the rest. What did they do? Right or wrong, justifiable or unjustifiablewhich I
need not discuss todayit changed the world. For four long years the civilized world was engaged in killing men.
Christian against Christian, barbarian uniting with Christians to kill Christians; anything to kill. It was taught in every
school, aye in the Sunday schools. The little children played at war. The toddling children on the street. Do you
suppose this world has ever been the same since? How long, your Honor, will it take for the world to get back the
humane emotions that were slowly growing before the war? How long will it take the calloused hearts of men before
the scars of hatred and cruelty shall be removed?

We read of killing one hundred thousand men in a day. We read about it and we rejoiced in itif it was the other
fellows who were killed. We were fed on flesh and drank blood. Even down to the prattling babe. I need not tell you
how many upright, honorable young boys have come into this court charged with murder, some saved and some sent
to their death, boys who fought in this war and learned to place a cheap value on human life. You know it and I know it.
These boys were brought up in it. The tales of death were in their homes, their playgrounds, their schools; they were in
the newspapers that they read; it was a part of the common frenzywhat was a life? It was nothing. It was the least
sacred thing in existence and these boys were trained to this cruelty.
It will take fifty years to wipe it out of the human heart, if ever. I know this, that after the Civil War in 1865, crimes of
this sort increased, marvelously. No one needs to tell me that crime has no cause. It has as definite a cause as any
other disease, and I know that out of the hatred and bitterness of the Civil War crime increased as America had never
seen before. I know that Europe is going through the same experience today; I know it has followed every war; and I
know it has influenced these boys so that life was not the same to them as it would have been if the world had not
made red with blood. I protest against the crimes and mistakes of society being visited upon them. All of us have a
share in it. I have mine. I cannot tell and I shall never know how many words of mine might have given birth to cruelty
in place of love and kindness and charity.
Your Honor knows that in this very court crimes of violence have increased growing out of the war. Not necessarily by
those who fought but by those that learned that blood was cheap, and human life was cheap, and if the State could
take it lightly why not the boy? There are causes for this terrible crime. There are causes as I have said for everything
that happens in the world. War is a part of it; education is a part of it; birth is a part of it; money is a part of itall
these conspired to compass the destruction of these two poor boys.
Has the court any right to consider anything but these two boys? The State says that your Honor has a right to
consider the welfare of the community, as you have. If the welfare of the community would be benefited by taking
these lives, well and good. I think it would work evil that no one could measure. Has your Honor a right to consider the
families of these defendants? I have been sorry, and I am sorry for the bereavement of Mr. and Mrs. Franks, for those
broken ties that cannot be healed. All I can hope and wish is that some good may come from it all. But as compared
with the families of Leopold and Loeb, the Franks are to be enviedand everyone knows it.
I do not know how much salvage there is in these two boys. I hate to say it in their presence, but what is there to look
forward to? I do not know but what your Honor would be merciful to them, but not merciful to civilization, and not
merciful if you tied a rope around their necks and let them die; merciful to them, but not merciful to civilization, and
not merciful to those who would be left behind. To spend the balance of their days in prison is mighty little to look
forward to, if anything. Is it anything? They may have the hope that as the years roll around they might be released. I
do not know. I do not know. I will be honest with this court as I have tried to be from the beginning. I know that these
boys are not fit to be at large. I believe they will not be until they pass through the next stage of life, at forty-five or
fifty. Whether they will then, I cannot tell. I am sure of this; that I will not be here to help them. So far as I am
concerned, it is over.
I would not tell this court that I do not hope that some time, when life and age have changed their bodies, as they do,
and have changed their emotions, as they dothat they may once more return to life. I would be the last person on
earth to close the door of hope to any human being that lives, and least of all to my clients. But what have they to look
forward to? Nothing. And I think here of the stanza of Housman:
Now hollow fires burn out to black,
And lights are fluttering low:
Square your shoulders, lift your pack
And leave your friends and go.
O never fear, lads, naughts to dread,
Look not left nor right:
In all the endless road you tread
Theres nothing but the night.
I care not, your Honor, whether the march begins at the gallows or when the gates of Joliet close upon them, there is
nothing but the night, and that is little for any human being to expect.
But there are others to consider. Here are these two families, who have led honest lives, who will bear the name that
they bear, and future generations must carry it on.
Here is Leopolds fatherand this boy was the pride of his life. He watched him, he cared for him, he worked for him;
the boy was brilliant and accomplished, he educated him, and he thought that fame and position awaited him, as it
should have awaited. It is a hard thing for a father to see his life's hopes crumble into dust.
Should he be considered? Should his brothers be considered? Will it do society any good or make your life safer, or any
human beings life safer, if it should be handled down from generation to generation, that this boy, their kin, died upon
the scaffold?
And Loebs the same. Here are the faithful uncle and brother, who have watched here day by day, while Dickies father
and his mother are too ill to stand this terrific strain, and shall be waiting for a message which means more to them
than it can mean to you or me. Shall these be taken into account in this general bereavement?

Have they any rights? Is there any reason, your Honor, why their proud names and all the future generations that bear
them shall have this bar sinister written across them? How many boys and girls, how many unborn children will feel it?
It is bad enough as it is, God knows. It is bad enough, however it is. But its not yet death on the scaffold. Its not that.
And I ask your Honor, in addition to all that I have said to save two honorable families from a disgrace that never ends,
and which could be of no avail to help any human being that lives.
Now, I must say a word more and then I will leave this with you where I should have left it long ago. None of us are
unmindful of the public; courts are not, and juries are not. We placed our fate in the hands of a trained court, thinking
that he would be more mindful and considerate than a jury. I cannot say how people feel. I have stood here for three
months as one might stand at the ocean trying to sweep back the tide. I hope the seas are subsiding and the wind is
falling, and I believe they are, but I wish to make no false pretense to this court. The easy thing and the popular thing
to do is to hang my clients. I know it. Men and women who do not think will applaud. The cruel and thoughtless will
approve. It will be easy today; but in Chicago, and reaching out over the length and breadth of the land, more and
more fathers and mothers, the humane, the kind and the hopeful, who are gaining an understanding and asking
questions not only about these poor boys, but about their ownthese will join in no acclaim at the death of my clients.
These would ask that the shedding of blood be stopped, and that the normal feelings of man resume their sway. And
as the days and the months and the years go on, they will ask it more and more. But, your Honor, what they shall ask
may not count. I know the easy way. I know the future is with me, and what I stand for here; not merely for the lives of
these two unfortunate lads, but for all boys and all girls; for all of the young, and as far as possible, for all of the old. I
am pleading for life, understanding, charity, kindness, and the infinite mercy that considers all. I am pleading that we
overcome cruelty with kindness and hatred with love. I know the future is on my side. Your Honor stands between the
past and the future. You may hang these boys; you may hang them by the neck until they are dead. But in doing it you
will turn your face toward the past. In doing it you are making it harder for every other boy who in ignorance and
darkness must grope his way through the mazes which only childhood knows. In doing it you will make it harder for
unborn children. You may save them and make it easier for every child that sometime may stand where these boys
stand. You will make it easier for every human being with an aspiration and a vision and a hope and a fate. I am
pleading for the future; I am pleading for a time when hatred and cruelty will not control the hearts of men. When we
can learn by reason and judgment and understanding and faith that all life is worth saving, and that mercy is the
highest attribute of man.
I feel that I should apologize for the length of time I have taken. This case may not be as important as I think it is, and I
am sure I do not need to tell this court, or to tell my friends that I would fight just as hard for the poor as for the rich. If
I should succeed, my greatest reward and my greatest hope will be that for the countless unfortunates who must tread
the same road in blind childhood that these poor boys have trodthat I have done something to help human
understanding, to temper justice with mercy, to overcome hate with love.
I was reading last night of the aspiration of the old Persian poet, Omar Khayyam. It appealed to me as the highest that
I can vision. I wish it was in my heart, and I wish it was in the hearts of all:
So I be written in the Book of Love,
I do not care about that Book above.
Erase my name or write it as you will,
So I be written in the Book of Love.
[citation needed]

Darrow succeeded in persuading the judge to waive the death penalty. The judge sentenced Leopold and Loeb each to
life imprisonment for the murder and 99 years each for the kidnapping. [28] This was mainly on the grounds that, being
under 21, Leopold and Loeb were legal minors. Shortly thereafter, on October 27, 1924, Loeb's father, Albert Henry
Loeb, died of heart failure.[32]
Prison
Leopold and Loeb were initially held at Joliet Prison. Although they were kept apart as much as possible, the two
managed to retain their relationship. Leopold was later transferred to Stateville Penitentiary. Loeb was soon
transferred there as well. Once reunited, the two taught classes in the prison school. [33

The Crown vs. Wilbert Coffin

The Coffin affair was an event in Canadian history in which a man named Wilbert Coffin was hanged for the murder of
three men. The affair started in June 1953 in Gaspsie when three men from Pennsylvania were reported missing. Their
bodies were found a month later deep in the woods sixty kilometres from the nearest town.
Trial and execution
The main suspect in the case was Wilbert Coffin, who was found to have many items belonging to the men in his
possession. Coffin was sent to trial in July 1954 and though the evidence against him was mostly circumstantial, he
was convicted with one count of murder (as the penal code prohibited multiple convictions of murder in the same
trial). On August 5 he was sentenced to hang.
An appeal to the Quebec Court of Queen's Bench was dismissed. Coffin's application for leave to appeal to the
Supreme Court of Canada was turned down but the federal Cabinet submitted a reference question to that Court
asking: "If the application made by Wilbert Coffin for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada had been
granted on any of the grounds alleged on the said application, what disposition of the appeal would now be made by
the court?"[1][2]
The federal government's decision to take the question to the Supreme Court of Canada caused tension with the
government of the province of Quebec. [3] The Supreme Court answered that it would have upheld the conviction of
Coffin: Reference re Regina v. Coffin, [1956] S.C.R. 191.
Coffin was hanged at Montreal's Bordeaux Prison on February 10, 1956 at 12:01 AM.
But the story did not end with Coffin's death. Jacques Hbert, a reporter during the trial and later a senator, published
two books on the matter: Coffin tait innocent (1958) and J'accuse les assassins de Coffin (1963). Hbert's 1963 book
caused such controversy that the provincial government established a Commission of Inquiry into the case. Headed by
judge Roger Brossard with Jules Deschnes as Counsel to the Commission, over 200 witnesses were interviewed. The
commission found that Coffin did receive a fair trial.
In 1979, filmmaker Jean-Claude Labrecque made a feature film on the matter entitled L'Affaire Coffin. It was released
on September 10, 1980. Other documents inspired by the Coffin case include Dale Boyle's song "The Wilbert Coffin
Story" and the Alton Price book, To Build A Noose, which reflects Price's intensive research on the case.

Recent interest and debate

In 2006, 50 years after Coffin's hanging, four generations of his family commemorated his death at his graveside. That
week, the Association in Defence of the Wrongly Convicted announced it was studying the case. The director of client
services for the association called Coffin's case "a blot on the criminal justice system." [4]
The coroner at the time, Lionel Rioux, recently told the news media that he believes Coffin was innocent. Rioux
accused Maurice Duplessis, premier of Quebec at the time, of making Coffin into a scapegoat for the killings of foreign
tourists. Rioux held a coroner's inquest at which Coffin testified. Rioux says that the provincial government destroyed
the transcript of Coffin's testimony. Coffin did not testify at his trial. Speaking in 2006, prominent Canadian criminal
lawyer Edward Greenspan blamed Coffin's trial lawyer, Raymond Maher, for keeping Coffin out of the witness box: "It
was incompetence with a capital I," Greenspan said of Maher. "It's the worst case of lawyering I've ever seen." [4]
At the time Coffin was hanged, he had an 8-year-old son. The child's mother wanted to marry Coffin before the
execution, but Duplessis denied permission and said it would not be "decent." [5]
Case closed?
But there is something new in this matter. Numerous Canadians believe that Coffin was the victim of a miscarriage of
justice.[citation needed] Last October, in a 384 page book titled Laffaire Coffin: une supercherie (translation: The Coffin Affair:
A Hoax?) published by Wilson & Lafleur in Montreal, Clment Fortin, a retired attorney and law professor, proceeded to
re-establish the facts. Given the evidence presented to the Perc jurors in 1954, Fortin concluded that they were
justified to render a verdict of guilty as charged. In 1964, the Royal Commission of Enquiry on the Coffin Affair reached
the same conclusion.

The Crown vs. Madeleine Smith

Madeleine Hamilton Smith (29 March 1835 28 April 1928) was a 19th-century Glasgow socialite who was the
defendant in a sensational murder trial in Scotland in 1857.
Background
Smith was the first child of an upper-middle-class family in Glasgow; her father James Smith (18081863) was a
wealthy architect, and her mother, Janet, the daughter of leading neo-classical architect David Hamilton. The family
lived at No 7, Blythswood Square, Glasgow, and also had a country property, "Rowaleyn", near Helensburgh.[1]
Smith broke the strict Victorian conventions of the time when, as a young woman in early 1855, she began a secret
love affair with Pierre Emile L'Angelier, an apprentice nurseryman who originally came from the Channel Islands.
The two met late at night at Smith's bedroom window and also engaged in voluminous correspondence. During one of
their infrequent meetings alone, she lost her virginity to L'Angelier.
Smith's parents, unaware of the affair with L'Angelier (whom Smith had promised to marry) found a suitable fianc for
her within the Glasgow upper-middle class William Harper Minnoch.
Smith attempted to break her connection with L'Angelier and, in February 1857, asked him to return the letters she
had written to him. Instead, L'Angelier threatened to use the letters to expose her and force her to marry him. She was
soon observed in a druggist's office, ordering arsenic, and signed in as M.H. Smith.

Early in the morning of 23 March 1857, L'Angelier died from arsenic poisoning. After Smith's numerous letters were
found in his lodging house, she was arrested and charged with murder.
Trial
At trial, Smith was defended by noted advocate John Inglis, Lord Glencorse.[2]
Although the circumstantial evidence pointed towards her guilt (Smith had made purchases of arsenic in the weeks
leading up to L'Angelier's death, and had a clear motive), the jury returned a verdict "not proven", i.e. the jury was
unconvinced that Smith was innocent, but the prosecution had produced insufficient evidence to the contrary.
Crucial to the case was the chronology of certain letters from Smith to l'Angelier, and as the letters themselves were
undated, the case hinged to some extent on the envelopes. One letter in particular depended on the correct
interpretation of the date of the postmark which was unfortunately illegible, and attracted some caustic comments
from the judge; but the vast majority of these postmarks were quite clearly struck. It transpired that when the police
searched L'Angelier's room, many of Smith's letters were found without their envelopes and were then hurriedly
collected and stuck into whichever envelopes came to hand. [citation needed]
Later life
The notoriety of the crime and trial were scandalous enough that Smith left Scotland.
On 4 July 1861 she married an artist named George Wardle, [3] William Morris's business manager. They had one son
(Thomas) and one daughter (Mary).[4] For a time she became involved with the Fabian Society in London, and
sometimes made the coffee at meetings. As she was known by her new married name not everyone knew who she
was, but a few did. [5] After many years of marriage, she and her husband separated, and Madeleine moved to New
York City and died in 1928 under the name of Lena Wardle Sheehy.
Later theories
As in the case of Lizzie Borden, scholars and amateur criminologists have spent decades going over the minutiae of
the case.
Most modern scholars believe that Smith committed the crime and the only thing that saved her from the noose was
the fact that no eyewitness could prove that Smith and l'Angellier had met in the weeks before his death. [5]
After the trial, The Scotsman ran a small article stating that a witness had come forward claiming that a young male
and female were seen outside Smith's house on the night of l'Angellier's death. However, the trial was already in
progress, and the witness could not be questioned during it.

The Crown vs. Lindy and Michael Chamberlain

Azaria Chantel Loren Chamberlain (11 June 1980 17 August 1980) was an Australian baby girl who was killed by
a dingo on the night of 17 August 1980 on a family camping trip to Uluru (at that date known as Ayers Rock) in the
Northern Territory. Her body was never found. Her parents, Lindy and Michael Chamberlain, reported that she had
been taken from their tent by a dingo. Lindy Chamberlain was, however, tried for murder and spent more than three
years in prison. She was released when a piece of Azaria's clothing was found near a dingo lair, and new inquests were
opened. In 2012, some 32 years after Azaria's death, the Chamberlains' version of events was officially confirmed by a
coroner.
An initial inquest held in Alice Springs supported the parents' claim and was highly critical of the police investigation.
The findings of the inquest were broadcast live on televisiona first in Australia. Subsequently, after a further
investigation and a second inquest held in Darwin, Lindy Chamberlain was tried for murder, convicted on 29 October
1982 and sentenced to life imprisonment. Azaria's father, Michael Chamberlain, was convicted as an accessory after
the fact and given a suspended sentence. The media focus for the trial was unusually intense and aroused accusations

of sensationalism, while the trial itself was criticised for being unprofessional and biased. The Chamberlains made
several unsuccessful appeals, including the final High Court appeal.
After all legal options had been exhausted, the chance discovery in 1986 of a piece of Azaria's clothing in an area full
of dingo lairs led to Lindy Chamberlain's release from prison. On 15 September 1988, the Northern Territory Court of
Criminal Appeals unanimously overturned all convictions against Lindy and Michael Chamberlain. [5] A third inquest was
conducted in 1995, which resulted in an "open" finding. [4] At a fourth inquest held on 12 June 2012, Coroner Elizabeth
Morris delivered her findings that Azaria Chamberlain had been taken and killed by a dingo, [6] and an amended death
certificate was issued immediately.
Numerous books have been written about the case. The story has been made into a TV movie, the feature film Evil
Angels (released outside of Australia and New Zealand as A Cry in the Dark), a TV miniseries, a play by Brooke Pierce,
a concept album by Australian band The Paradise Motel and an opera, Lindy, by Moya Henderson.
Coroner's inquests
The initial coronial inquest into the disappearance was opened in Alice Springs on 15 December 1980 before
magistrate Denis Barritt. On 20 February 1981, in the first live telecast of Australian court proceedings, Barritt ruled
that the likely cause was a dingo attack. In addition to this finding, Barritt also concluded that, subsequent to the
attack, "the body of Azaria was taken from the possession of the dingo, and disposed of by an unknown method, by a
person or persons, name unknown".[3]
The Northern Territory Police and prosecutors were dissatisfied with this finding. Investigations continued, leading to a
second inquest in Darwin in September 1981. Based on ultraviolet photographs of Azaria's jumpsuit, James Cameron of
the London Hospital Medical College alleged that "there was an incised wound around the neck of the jumpsuit in
other words, a cut throat" and that there was an imprint of the hand of a small adult on the jumpsuit, visible in the
photographs.[7] Following this and other findings, the Chamberlains were charged with Azaria's murder.
In 1995, a third inquest was conducted which failed to determine a cause of death, resulting in an "open" finding. [4]
In December 2011 the Northern Territory coroner, Elizabeth Morris, announced that a fourth inquest would be held in
February 2012.[8] On 12 June 2012 at a fourth coronial inquest into the disappearance of Azaria Chamberlain, Coroner
Elizabeth Morris ruled that a dingo was responsible for her death in 1980. [6] Morris made the finding in the light of
subsequent reports of dingo attacks on humans causing injury and death. She stated, "Azaria Chamberlain died at
Uluru, then known as Ayers Rock, on 17 August 1980. The cause of her death was as a result of being attacked and
taken by a dingo."[6] Morris offered her condolences to the parents and brothers of Azaria Chamberlain "on the death of
[their] special and dearly loved daughter and sister" and stated that a death certificate with the cause of death had
been registered.[6]
Case against Lindy Chamberlain
The Crown alleged that Lindy Chamberlain had cut Azaria's throat in the front seat of the family car, hiding the baby's
body in a large camera case. She then, according to the proposed reconstruction of the crime, rejoined the group of
campers around a campfire and fed one of her sons a can of baked beans, before going to the tent and raising the cry
that a dingo had taken the baby. It was alleged that at a later time, while other people from the campsite were
searching, she disposed of the body.[9]
The key evidence supporting this allegation was the jumpsuit, as well as a highly contentious forensic report claiming
to have found evidence of foetal haemoglobin in stains on the front seat of the Chamberlains' 1977 Torana hatchback.
[10]
Foetal haemoglobin is present in infants six months and younger and Azaria was nine weeks old at the time of her
disappearance.[11]
Lindy Chamberlain was questioned about the garments that Azaria was wearing. She claimed that Azaria was wearing
a matinee jacket over the jumpsuit, but the jacket was not present when the garments were found. She was
questioned about the fact that Azaria's singlet, which was inside the jumpsuit, was inside out. She insisted that she
never put a singlet on her babies inside out and that she was most particular about this. The statement conflicted with
the state of the garments when they were collected as evidence. [12] The garments had been arranged by the
investigating officer for a photograph.[citation needed]
In her defence, eyewitness evidence was presented of dingoes having been seen in the area on the evening of 17
August 1980. All witnesses claimed to believe the Chamberlains' story. One witness, a nurse, also reported having
heard a baby's cry after the time when the prosecution alleged Azaria had been murdered. [13] Evidence was also
presented that adult blood also passed the test used for foetal haemoglobin, and that other organic compounds can
produce similar results on that particular test, including mucus from the nose, and chocolate milkshakes, both of which
had been present in the vehicle where Azaria was allegedly murdered. [citation needed]
Engineer Les Harris, who had conducted dingo research for over a decade, said that, contrary to Cameron's findings, a
dingo's carnassial teeth can shear through material as tough as motor vehicle seat belts. He also cited an example of a
captive female dingo removing a bundle of meat from its wrapping paper and leaving the paper intact. [14] His evidence
was rejected, however.[citation needed]

Evidence to the effect that a dingo was strong enough to carry a kangaroo was also ignored. Also ignored was the
removal of a three-year-old girl by a dingo from the back seat of a tourist's motor vehicle at the camping area just
weeks before, an event witnessed by the parents.[citation needed]
The defence's case was rejected by the jury. Lindy Chamberlain was convicted of murder on 29 October 1982 and
sentenced to life imprisonment. Michael Chamberlain was found guilty as an accessory after the fact [13] and was given
an 18-month suspended sentence.
Appeals
An appeal was made to the High Court in November 1983. [15] Asked to quash the convictions on the ground that the
verdicts were unsafe and unsatisfactory, in February 1984 the court refused the appeal by majority. [16]
Release and acquittal
The final resolution of the case was triggered by a chance discovery. In early 1986, English tourist David Brett fell to his
death from Uluru during an evening climb. Because of the vast size of the rock and the scrubby nature of the
surrounding terrain, it was eight days before Brett's remains were discovered, lying below the bluff where he had lost
his footing and in an area full of dingo lairs. As police searched the area, looking for missing bones that might have
been carried off by dingoes, they discovered a small item of clothing. It was quickly identified as the crucial missing
piece of evidence from the Chamberlain case, Azaria's missing matinee jacket. [17]
The Chief Minister of the Northern Territory ordered Lindy Chamberlain's immediate release and the case was
reopened. On 15 September 1988, the Northern Territory Court of Criminal Appeals unanimously overturned all
convictions against Lindy and Michael Chamberlain. [5] The exoneration was based on a rejection of two key points of
the prosecution's case and of biased and invalid assumptions made during the initial trial. [citation needed]
The questionable nature of the forensic evidence in the Chamberlain trial, and the weight given to it, raised concerns
about such procedures and about expert testimony in criminal cases. The prosecution had successfully argued that the
pivotal haemoglobin tests indicated the presence of foetal haemoglobin in the Chamberlains' car and it was a
significant factor in the original conviction. But it was later shown that these tests were highly unreliable and that
similar tests, conducted on a "sound deadener" sprayed on during the manufacture of the car, had yielded virtually
identical results.[citation needed]
Two years after they were exonerated, the Chamberlains were awarded A$1.3 million in compensation for wrongful
imprisonment, a sum that covered less than one third of their legal expenses. [18]
The findings of the third coroner's inquest were released on 13 December 1995; and the coroner found that: [4]
Azaria Chantel Loren Chamberlain died at Ayers Rock on 17 August 1980. As to the cause of her death and the
manner in which she died the evidence adduced does not enable me to say. I therefore return an open finding and
record the cause and manner of death as unknown.
John Lowndes, Coroner. Inquest into the Death of Azaria Chamberlain. December 1995.
Media involvement and bias
The Chamberlain trial was the most publicised in Australian history. [3] Given that most of the evidence presented in the
case against Lindy Chamberlain was later rejected, the case is now used as an example of how media and bias can
adversely affect a trial.[19]
Public and media opinion during the trial was polarised, with "fanciful rumours and sickening jokes" and many
cartoons.[20][21] In particular, antagonism was directed towards Lindy Chamberlain for reportedly not behaving as a
"stereotypical" grieving mother.[22] Much was made of the Chamberlains' Seventh-day Adventist religion, including false
allegations that the church was actually a cult that killed infants as part of bizarre religious ceremonies, [23] that the
family took a newborn baby to a remote desert location, and that Lindy Chamberlain showed little emotion during the
proceedings.[citation needed]
One anonymous tip was received from a man, falsely claiming to be Azaria's doctor in Mount Isa, that the name
"Azaria" meant "sacrifice in the wilderness" (it actually means "God helped") [24] Others claimed that Lindy Chamberlain
was a witch.[25]
The press appeared to seize upon any point that could be sensationalised. For example, it was reported that Lindy
Chamberlain dressed her baby in a black dress. This provoked negative opinion, despite the trends of the early 1980s,
during which black and navy cotton girls' dresses were in fashion, often trimmed with brightly coloured ribbon, or
printed with brightly coloured sprigs of flowers.[26][27]
Subsequent events
Since the Chamberlain case, proven cases of attacks on humans by dingoes have been discussed in the public domain,
in particular dingo attacks on Fraser Island (off the Queensland coast), the last refuge in Australia for isolated purebred wild dingoes. In the wake of these attacks, it emerged that there had been at least 400 documented dingo
attacks on Fraser Island. Most were against children, but at least two were on adults. [28] For example, in April 1998, a
13-month-old girl was attacked by a dingo and dragged for about one metre (3 ft) from a picnic blanket at the Waddy
Point camping area. The child was dropped when her father intervened. [29]

In July 2004, Frank Cole, a Melbourne pensioner, claimed that he had shot a dingo in 1980 and found a baby in its
mouth. After interviewing Cole on the matter, police decided not to reopen the case. He claimed to have the ribbons
from the jacket which Azaria had been wearing when she disappeared as proof of his involvement. However, Lindy
Chamberlain claimed that the jacket had no ribbons on it. [30] Cole's credibility was further damaged when it was
revealed he had made unsubstantiated claims about another case. [31]
In August 2005, a 25-year-old woman named Erin Horsburgh claimed that she was Azaria Chamberlain, but her claims
were rejected by the authorities and the Australian Broadcasting Corporation's Media Watch programme, which stated
that none of the reports linking Horsburgh to the Chamberlain case had any substance. [32]
In 2008, the Holden Torana car that was tested for Azaria's blood in the original court case was used in the wedding of
Aidan Chamberlain, Azaria's brother, who was six when his sister disappeared. His bride arrived at the ceremony in the
car and his father, Michael Chamberlain, said that he was proud the couple had chosen to use the car which was the
centrepiece of the case.[33]
Current status
The cause of Azaria Chamberlain's disappearance was determined and announced on 12 June 2012. The Northern
Territory coroner officially amended her death certificate to show that the cause of death "was as the result of being
attacked and taken by a dingo".[1][2]
The Chamberlains divorced in 1991 and have both remarried. Lindy and her second husband lived for a time in the
United States and New Zealand but have since returned to Australia. [citation needed]
The National Museum of Australia has in its collection more than 250 items related to the disappearance of Azaria
Chamberlain, which Lindy Chamberlain has helped document. Items include courtroom sketches by artists Jo
Darbyshire and Veronica O'Leary, [34] camping equipment, a piece of the dashboard from the Chamberlain family's car,
outfits worn by Lindy Chamberlain, the number from her prison door, and the black dress worn by Azaria. [26][35] The
National Library of Australia has a small collection of items relating to Azaria, such as her birth detail records and her
hospital identification bracelet, as well as a manuscript collection which includes around 20,000 documents including
some of the Chamberlain family's correspondence and a large number of letters from the general public. [36]