How accurate to true life was this movie? (SPOILERS)

You could have easily researched the actual case. One source reports:



"Leopold attempted to initiate a sexual relationship with Loeb. At first, he spurned the other’s advances but then offered a compromise. He would engage in sex with Leopold, but only under the condition that the other boy begin a career in crime with him. Leopold agreed and they signed a formal pact to that affect.

Over the course of the next four years, they committed robbery, vandalism, arson and petty theft, but this was not enough for Loeb. He dreamed of something bigger. A murder, he convinced his friend, would be their greatest intellectual challenge.

They worked out a plan during the next seven months. For a victim, they chose a 14 year old boy named Bobby Franks. He was the son of the millionaire Jacob Franks, and a distant cousin of Loeb. They were already acquainted with the boy and he went happily with them on that May afternoon. They drove him to within a few blocks of the Franks residence in Hyde Park then suddenly grabbed him, stuffed a gag in his mouth and smashed his skull four times with a chisel. He fell to the floor and bled to death in the car.

When the brief bit of excitement was over, Leopold and Loeb casually drove away, stopped for lunch and then ended up near a culvert along the Pennsylvania Railroad tracks. After dunking the boy’s head underwater to make sure that he was dead, they poured acid on his face (so that he would be hard to identify) then stuffed his body into a drainpipe.

After this, they drove to Leopold’s home, where they spent the afternoon and evening drinking and playing cards. Around midnight, they telephoned the Franks’ home and told Mr. Franks that he could soon expect a ransom demand for the return of his son. They typed out a letter on a stolen typewriter and mailed it to Franks, intent on continuing their twisted “game”. However, by the time the letter arrived, workmen had already stumbled upon the body of Bobby Franks.

Despite their “mental prowess” and “high intelligence”, Leopold and Loeb were quickly caught. Leopold had dropped his eyeglasses near the spot where the body had been hidden and police had (cleverly) traced the prescription back to him. They also traced the ransom note to a typewriter that Leopold had “borrowed” from his fraternity house the year before."

I was first interested in this case after seeing Alfred Hitchcock's "Rope," which was inspired by the Leopold and Loeb story.

Years later, I read a book on the case itself. Shortly after, I watched the movie. It is incredibly accurate, even the more perposterous things, like their reporter acquaintence covering the story. I think the rape subplot may have been conjured up, but everything else is right on the nose.

Darrow didn't have them plead guilty in hopes of having them acquited; he had them plead guilty in hopes he could convince a judge to spare them the noose. Which he did.

Leopold and Loeb made a lot of ridiculous statements to the press; they giggled and passed notes during the trial. During the trial, they would only give interviews to certain papers, usually in exchange for things like wine.

Except the ridiculous opening music, and the horrible rear view projection in the first scene, I think this is a pretty solid picture, and a good introduction to the case. Read a book if you want all the facts. Of course, the movie has to simplifly events and skip over things, but they don't fudge any facts in this one.

The details you mention of the crime and afterward were portrayed pretty accurately.

I can remember after watching the movie and reading the book becoming interested in Nietzsche, and how someone's philosophical writing could so negatively influence people.

For the criminal's side of the story, I recommend you read Nathan Leopold's autobiography, 99 Years to Life. (At least I think that's the title. It's been a looooong time since I read it.)

ALTHO73, the answer to your six questions is YES, except for qestion 5. Clarence Darrow (Jonathan Wilk) knew his client's would be convicted due to overwhelming evidence (including confessions) and would get the death penalty. By changing the plea to guilty at the last moment, Darrow hoped to get the judge to consider psychological evidence in mitigation before sentencing. Darrow opposed capital punishment, and hoped this evidence would spare his scumbag clients from the gallows.

Judge Caverly accepted psychological testimony from both defense and prosecution witnesses, then did decide to give the killers life in prison. Caverly stated that he was sparing the two not via the testimony, but because they were under 21, and that death penalty for minors was rare.

Yes,Yes,Yes,Yes Loeb was the one who confessed,In the film Darrow says they have a better chance with just a Judge, The film ends at the end of the trial

Oh GOOD!,my dog found the chainsaw