A CRIMINAL HISTORY OF MANKIND

efinement: that instead of merely abandoning the women, Fernandez should kill them. During the
next two years, the couple murdered at least twenty women. Their final victims were Mrs Delphine
Dowling of Grand Rapids, Michigan and her two-year-old daughter Rainelle; the police became
curious about Mrs Dowling’s disappearance, searched the house, and found a spot of damp cement
in the cellar floor. Under arrest, Fernandez and his ‘sister’ admitted shooting Mrs Dowling and
drowning the child in a bathtub two days later when she would not stop crying. Further
investigation slowly uncovered a two-year murder spree. Both were executed.
The evidence makes it clear that the sexually insatiable Martha was an altogether more dominant
character than Ray Fernandez, who, at the time of their meeting, was only a rather unsuccessful
petty crook. Almost certainly, he qualifies as medium dominance; certainly, Martha was high
dominance. Then why were they drawn together? From Martha’s point of view, because Fernandez
was a fairly personable male with a high sex drive. From his point of view, because the frenzied
adoration of this rather frightening woman was flattering. A revealing glimpse into their
relationship was afforded by an episode in court; Martha came into court wearing a silk dress,
green shoes and bright red lipstick; she rushed across the court, cupped Fernandez’s face in her
hands, and kissed him hungrily again and again. Sexually speaking, she was the one who took the
lead.
It seems evident that Fernandez would have never committed murder without Martha’s
encouragement. It was the combination of the high dominance female and medium dominance male
that led to violence.
Again and again, in cases of ‘double murder’, the same pattern emerges. It explains one of the most
puzzling crimes of the century - the murder by Nathan Leopold and Richard Loeb of fourteen-yearold
Bobbie Franks in May 1924. Both came from wealthy German-Jewish homes; both were
university graduates. They became lovers when Loeb was thirteen and Leopold fourteen. Loeb was
handsome, athletic and dominant; Leopold was round shouldered, short-sighted and shy. Loeb was
a daredevil, and in exchange for submitting to Leopold’s desires, made him sign a contract to
become his partner in crime. They committed a number of successful petty thefts and finally
decided that the supreme challenge was to commit the perfect murder. Bobbie Franks – a friend of
Loeb’s younger brother - was chosen almost at random as the victim. Franks was picked up when
he came out of school and murdered in the back of the car by Loeb, while Leopold drove; then his
body was stuffed into a culvert. Then they tried to collect ransom money from the boy’s family, but
the body was discovered by a railway worker. So were Nathan Leopold’s spectacles, lying near the
culvert. These were traced to Leopold through the optician. The trial was a sensation; it seemed to
be a case of ‘murder for fun’ committed by two spoilt rich boys. Leopold admitted to being
influenced by Nietzsche’s idea of the superman. Both were sentenced to life imprisonment.
Yet the key to the case lies in their admission that Leopold called Loeb ‘Master’ and referred to
himself as ‘Devoted Slave’. Loeb derived his pleasure from his total dominance of Leopold.
Leopold might be far cleverer than he was, but he was obedient to Loeb’s will. It was Loeb who
made Leopold sign a contract to join him in a career of crime, in exchange for permitting sodomy.
Loeb was the one who got his ‘kicks’ out of crime; Leopold preferred bird-watching. Left to
himself, Loeb would never have committed murder. But his deepest pleasure came from his
dominance of Nathan Leopold, and to enjoy that dominance to the full he had to keep pushing
Leopold deeper and deeper into crime.