In 1926: living at the edge of time - Monoskop

MURDER
On Sunday, August 8, the Berliner Tageblatt publishes a detailed report
on a criminal trial that has concluded in Frankfurt. What makes this case
so fascinating is, paradoxically, the absolute clarity of the facts. The
defendant is a certain Fraulein Flessa. Her first name, age, and situation
in life are not mentioned by the newspaper, but readers learn that she is
"neither young nor pretty." Flessa has never denied committing the act
she is accused of: with three shots from a revolver, she has murdered Dr.
Seitz, a man of about forty whom the article describes as "an average,
good-natured, easygoing, corpulent gentleman." The trial has failed to
produce any definitive evidence concerning the relationship between
Flessa and Seitz. The defendant claims that Seitz deflowered her, but the
court seems to assume that she is still a virgin, and there has been no
medical investigation on this point. For although the fact of Flessa's
action is incontrovertible and the death penalty would thus be legally
justifiable, the judges feel that a morally responsible evaluation of the
case must be grounded on a different kind of evidence. This evidence,
which they make strenuous efforts to produce, is the answer to the
question: "What was going on in her soul ... prior to and during the
murder?" Such a question has the potential for transforming a legal issue
into one of psychological interpretation, and for changing the status of
the defendant from that of a deliberate malefactor to that of a mentally
unbalanced individual. The less access the defendant gives to "what was
going on in her soul," the more she has a right to be treated as a clinical
155