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

You smartass xD .

Nice.

Your generosity is duly noted.

I don't get it.

@@MrGamelover23 it's 2020.

"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.

@@Forestdude-be6ud 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"

"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.

Its sad how nietzsches sister and the framing of sociopaths have discredited him so badly, the whole right to power and wreckless abandon thing is not part of his work at all. What he was always putting forward was the acceptance of our human weaknesses - our own emotionality and fallacy. Sociopaths took that to mean their nihilistic and selfish desires because of the framing through tueynsee and interpret the world... the only thing that really drew them to his work was the idea of 'ubermensch'. We're only now starting to appreciate nietzsches work indirectly, becoming less critical of our failures and more receptive to the ability to grow. The individual who denies all responsibility and blames another because of our societies demand for human perfection is being seen more and more as a toxic asset and a sign of things going wrong in an organization.

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.

Being someone who studies neuroscience as part of their job, philosophers are great sources for hypothesis as those who have spent tgeir whole lives pondering different aspects of the human condition. I find Nietzsche may have had more insight into what is at the core of our motivation for living than we currently understand or accept - fear. Certain hormones affect brain formation in response to external stimuli such as cortisol in response to stress/fear. Cortisol essentially enlarges the primitive part of the brain and reduces grey matter, increasing base drives and emotions whilst also streamlining the brain to function more efficiently, however with the increased base functions and reduced grey matter, they also lose higher cognitive capabilities like depth and complexity of thought. This is essentially how sociopaths develop and what military training does to achieve an 'ideal' soldier. The earlier in your development you experience these changes, the more profound. One observation i have is that such people appear most motivated to 'live' in a sense, to 'achieve'.... contributing also to nietzsches idea of an 'ubermensch' and why, due to their reduced ability to examine the depth of the idea portrayed and thier inherent narcisism, they assume they are such. This is only one aspect of an extremely complex formulae for what makes us who we are but its seemingly quite important to us, at least in moderation, as without it we perhaps wouldnt have the drive to push forward and improve our lives on this planet. I often think about the movie Serenity when i ponder the effect of fear and suffering on our development, how in the pursuit of a perfectly controlled utopia an entire population simply lost the will to do anything, whilst on the flip-side others became monstrous cannibals. It makes me feel in a way, we need to accept and even embrace some of the chaos in our society instead of striving towards an absolutist utopia, lest we simply stagnate or even destroy ourselves. Its frustrating when people demand perfection from one another in their professional lives and also seeing governments overreach their function as a regulatory body to interfere in how individuals choose to live their lives independantly from others. Forcing conformity and belief more so than universal truths that we can all relate to.

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 🤔

They'd have been better off renting a car under an assumed name while wearing a disguise and just pulling a drive-by on a random stranger...

@@JesterNR1 This was in the 20s. They could have just killed any minority and said they were threatened and got away with it. They wanted to feel powerful and see that pain and see society respond to it.

The more convinced someone is of their own superiority, the more foolish they will act.

@@rachelevil That's a nice deepity.

Why did they kill him in the car? Why not kill him at the spot they dump the body? Y'know so they don't get blood in the car. Just knock him out with a blunt object if you don't want him to call for help while you murder him at the dumping spot. Did they even check if the pipe was still in use? Why choke him, wouldn't that leave finger prints? Okay that last one could be done away if you use acid on his skin.

Also, "extra careful about witnesses" means driving all over and making the crime as far reaching as possible

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

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!!”

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

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.

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

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.

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.

And my sock for some reason

@@user-mw2vn7pv8n 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

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.

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.

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.

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

U-la-la someone is gonna get laid in college

only ones where they got caught, i guess

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.

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.

The two boys would have been sentenced to death if it wasn't for that outstanding attorney Clarence Darrow

They spent 7 months planning it and a couple days getting caught lmao

meanwhile crackheads in detroit get away with it on accident

@@pettank2397 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.

@@pettank2397 So...is what you're saying is Detroit is full of genius god-kings who moonlight as drugged homeless people?

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 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.

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.

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.

@@Addyson1991 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.

@@Addyson1991 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.

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.

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?"

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.

Nice work if you can get it!

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.

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.

Your interpretation consists of an amalgam of over an extra 100 years of extra analysis by incredibly smart people.

@@ColdfFlare Theirs consisted of a couple readthroughs that just gave confirmation bias to their already inflated self importance.

@@ColdfFlare And...? That's kinda how philosophy works.

@@antonioscendrategattico2302 Garrett likes to feel superior when he isn't even using his own interpretation of nietzsche. He's using a regurgitated version he has heard from others.

@@ColdfFlare That's because in philosophy reading others' interpretations is necessary. This idea that you can just up and understand it all by yourself is stupid and arrogant. It's a stupid person's idea of what philosophers do and usually leads to interpretations as shallow as that of the two dudes in question.

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)

Welcome to the world of perceptives. You may jugde them guilty. However their guilt's consequences are flexible. There is a problem of classification. You may not be able to govern such jugdement. Because world of legal cogs that can be skewed through numerous tries. It is also because it is a punishment that tries to salvage people from prisons. Much like the labour prisons that did much of the same.

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.

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).

How to speedrun your prison sentence.

Bingo!

"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.

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

Wait, which case was the latter?

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.

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

if anyone deserved to have that happen its definitely him

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?

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.

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!

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...

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.

Those two boys would have been put to death if it wasn't for their attorney Clarence Darrow

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?

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.

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.

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

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.

Yea googling that one had to get him automatically added to SOME kind of list.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

I was reading this and thinking... what police sirens?

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.

Whether apocryphal or not, that's a great quip!

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...

The scenes are very reminiscent of batman too. This video was done well