Unknown Gender History: Anna Buchmann, Swiss Black Widow Serial Killer

FULL TEXT (Article 1 of 5): Mme. Backman [sic] has been arrested at Zurich for poisoning five husbands. We think she should of told that this sort of thing has got to be stopped.

[Untitled, The Sunday Mirror, Perth, W.A., Australia), Sep. 12, 1920, p. 4]

***

FULL TEXT (Article 2 of 5): A sensational poison trial at Geneva, after two days’ hearing, closed at Zurich, when a handsome Swiss woman named Buchmann, dressed in the latest fashion and wearing expensive jewels, was sentenced to imprisonment for life for poisoning two husbands with arsenic during the last three years, and also attempting to administer arsenic to a prospective third husband. The latter’s suspicions were aroused, and he informed the police, who exhumed the bodies of the two victims. A medical expert stated that he found enough arsenic in the bodies to kill a dozen men.

The question of the mysterious deaths of two lovers of Buchmann, though mentioned at the trial, was not pressed by the Court, which had sufficient evidence on the first two charges. The jury promptly returned a verdict of guilty, the foreman adding that the woman was a Swiss Borgia without scruples of honour. The Cantonment Zurich has abolished capital punishment by the guillotine, and the murderess left the Court smiling between two gendarmes.

[“Poisoned Two Husbands.” The Auckland Star (New Zealand), Feb, 26, 1921, p. 19]

***

EXCERPT (Article 3 of 5): Rafael Schermann is the most astounding phenomenon of our time. He is not a handwriting expert in the accepted sense of the term. He is not “scientific,” he has no system. But a person’s handwriting seems to fire him with an uncanny, supernatural second sight. He seems to be able to search out with deadly precision not only the character of the person whose writing he may see, but also the unexpressed desires and intentions which lie deep in their minds.

When Schermann was in Zurich, a year or so ago, public interest was aroused to the fever point by the trial of a certain Frau Buchmann, who was accused of having poisoned her husband. It was a mystifying case. Frau Buchmann was a mystifying woman. The public prosecutor, Dr. Brunner, asked Schermann to pass an opinion on Frau Buchmann’s handwriting. Schermann too one of the letters written by the woman and read it swiftly.

“This woman fears paragraphs,” he said. “In her mind, as she wrote this, was a dread of certain articles in the penal code. You see here, clearly, as suggestive of the mark we use to designate paragraphs. She is afraid of being arrested and punished for a terrible crime she has committed. Yes! There can be no doubt. She is guilty. She poisoned her husband.” [Does anyone understand the allusion to paragraphs? I don’t.]

Dr. Brunner was hesitant and embarrassed.

“I am sorry, sir,” he said. “That letter I showed you was written three years ago. She was not even married to Buchmann then.”

“Impossible. The woman who wrote this letter was married.”

“Married, yes. But to her first husband.”

“Is Herr Hanhardt living?”

“No, he isn’t. He—I recall it now—he died suddenly.”

“I should like to meet Frau Buchmann,” said the little wizard quietly.

Next day in Brunner’s office Schermann was introduced to the woman. She bowed to him with perfect self-possession.

“Would you mind writing two sentences that I will dictate?” asked Schermann.

“No, certainly,” she replied.

Schermann gave her paper and pen. “First, please write: “I have poisoned my husband,’” She did so calmly with a perfectly steady hand. “Now write: “’I have not poisoned my husband.’” She obeyed as before. “And sign your name.”

Schermann took the paper and studied it. Then he looked directly at the woman.

“You are the murderess, and you will confess,” he said.

Frau Buchmann lost her poise instantly. She sprang to her feet and passionately denied the accusation. Schermann bowed ad left the office. He started that day for Vienna. On his arrival there found this telegram: “The woman has confessed. She poisoned both husbands.”

[“Man With X-Ray Eyes Performs His Many Seeming Miracles With Uncanny Ease,” Washington Star (The Sunday Star) (D.C.), Dec. 17, 1922, Magazine Section, p. 1]

***

FULL TEXT (Article 4 of 5): A sensational poison trial, after two days’ hearing, closed at Zurich (Switzerland) recently, when a handsome Swiss woman named Buchmann, dressed in the latest fashion and wearing, expensive jewels, was sentenced to imprisonment for life for poisoning two husbands with arsenic during the last three years, and also attempting to administer arsenic to a prospective third husband. The latter’s suspicions were aroused, and he informed the police, who exhumed the bodies of the two victims.

A medical expert said that he found enough arsenic in the bodies to kill a dozen men. The question of the mysterious deaths of two lovers of Buchmann, though mentioned at the trial, was not pressed by the court, which had sufficient evidence on the first two charges.

The jury promptly returned a verdict of “Guilty,” the foreman adding that the woman was a Swiss Borgia without scruples or honor. The Canton of Zurich has abolished capital punishment by the guillotine, and the murderess left the court, smiling, between two gendarmes.

[“A Swiss Borgia. Poisoned Two Husbands.” Grafton Daily Argus (NSW, Australia), Feb. 12, 1921, p. 3]

***

EXCERPT (Article 5 of 5) (translated from German): In the first months of 1920 Schermann gave lectures on his graphic work in various Swiss cities and came to Zurich in February. At that time, the investigation was taking place in a sensational process that the first public prosecutor of the “Public Prosecutor’s Office of the Swiss Canton of Zurich”, Dr. Brunner, against a woman Buchmann accused of poisoning her husband.

Dr. Brunner used the presence of Schermann to question graphologus mysticus in the unexplained matter of Frau Buchmann. He requested Schermann’s visit and brought the case to him about as follows: “A man named Buchmann died here about eight weeks ago. I had her arrested on the basis of anonymous letters accusing the Buchmann’s wife of poisoning her husband. - I have investigated the matter, but I cannot prove anything. Ms. Buchmann stubbornly denies and says she knows nothing. But since you are here, Mr. Schermann, I would like to have your opinion on Ms. Buchmann’s writings! «Dr. Brunner takes a letter from Frau Buchmann from a bundle of files and presents it to Schermann for examination. Schermann looks at the writing with vigorous attention and says: »I see paragraphs in this writing. This proves to me that the woman has done something that conflicts with the law. “(See Schermann’s statement on p. 40f. Of this book)” She is afraid of being locked up. I think she poisoned the man eight or ten years ago. “The prosecutor corrected:” That’s not true. At that time she wasn’t married to Buchmann at all. And Buchmann only died eight weeks ago. «Dr. Brunner looks at the date of the letter: it is a letter that Ms. Buchmann wrote three years ago. A possibility dawns on the prosecutor. The man who had died was Frau Buchmann’s second husband. Her first husband, a Mr. Hanhart, had died in Steckborn twelve years ago. Should the woman have poisoned her first husband too? The next day, Schermann appears at the criminal police. Ms. Buchmann is shown to him. She is accompanied by her two defenders. The public prosecutor introduces and then, turning to Ms. Buchmann, says: “Mr. Schermann will give an opinion on your writing!” The defense lawyers protest against the opinion of a written expert. In this case, that would be a completely inappropriate novelty. In addition, Ms. Buchmann absolutely refuses to write. Suddenly, however, as after a defiant resolution, she writes and writes, without trembling or twitching, apparently with complete peace of mind, two sentences that the public prosecutor dictates to her at Schermann’s request:

Schermann examines the writing and explains: When Ms. Buchmann committed the crime, it was done under irresistible compulsion. It was subject to influence and acted in such a condition. And he diagnoses from the scripture: it will confess.

The prosecutor communicates the report to Ms. Buchmann. She laughs and still claims to know nothing about anything.

The prosecutor tried for two and a half hours, in kindness and anger, to confess: Ms. Buchmann denied. One of Frau Buchmann’s lawyers said to Schermann as they descended the stairs together: “Herr Schermann, if I had known that your report would be so, I would not have been against it from the outset! - You said that Ms. Buchmann acted under an irresistible constraint. Even if I don’t think my client is a murderer, if she confesses, I want to point out the fact you cited! “That happened around February 20th. A few days later - on February 26th - Schermann also had a written report on the written sample of Ms. Anna Buchmann to the public prosecutor Dr. Brunner arrive. He justified his perceptions and explained: Ms. Buchmann had committed the act - in a state of greatest influence - out of a feeling of revenge - and Ms. Buchmann was a person who could be very excited by the crossfire of an energetic examination and who was thus turned into Confession. On February 27, Schermann, who had meanwhile traveled to Basel, received the telegraphic communication from Zurich: “Poisoner has stood!” Friday, March 5, Ms. Buchmann asked for another interview. In doing so, she confessed to poisoning her first husband, Hanhart, in Steckborn.

[Max Hayek, Der Scriftendeuter Rafael Schermann, 1921, E. P. Tal & Co. Verlag, Leipzig, Wien, Zürich, pp. 84-88]

***

Wikipedia: Rafael Schermann (1879-1945) also known as Raphael Schermann was a Polish graphologist, parapsychologist and writer.

Schermann was born in Kraków. From a young age he had a fascination with handwriting and collecting envelopes. He settled in Vienna in 1910 and worked for insurance companies. He became an expert graphologist and it was alleged that he possessed the powers of clairvoyance, second sight and telepathy.

Oskar Fischer a Professor of psychology from the University of Prague conducted a series of graphology experiments with Schermann between 1916 and 1918. Fischer reported that with his eyes bandaged or by just touching handwriting samples in sealed envelopes Schermann had successfully given many accurate character descriptions and statements about the writer. Fischer became convinced that Schermann was a genuine psychic.

Other researchers have been more critical. Brazilian physician Antônio da Silva Melo noted flaws in the experiments and attributed his graphology abilities to psychological factors relating to memory, unconscious cues and suggestion. [accessed Jul. 14, 2016]

***

EXCERPT: In den ersten Monaten des Jahres 1920 hielt Schermann in verschiedenen Schweizer Städten Vorträge über sein graphologisches Wirken und kam, im Februar, auch nach Zürich. Zu jener Zeit spielte sich dort die Untersuchung in einem sensationellen Prozesse ab, den der erste Staatsanwalt der »Staatsanwaltschaft des schweizerischen Kantons Zürich«, Dr. Brunner, gegen eine des Giftmordes an ihrem Manne angeklagte Frau Buchmann führte.

Dr. Brunner benützte die Anwesenheit Schermanns, um den graphologus mysticus in der unaufgeklärten Angelegenheit der Frau Buchmann zu befragen. Er erbat sich den Besuch Schermanns und trug ihm den Fall etwa folgendermaßen vor: »Es ist vor ungefähr acht Wochen ein Mann namens Buchmann hier gestorben. Auf Grund anonymer Briefe, in denen die Gattin des Buchmann des Giftmordes an ihrem Mann bezichtigt wurde, ließ ich diese verhaften. – Ich habe die Sache untersucht, kann aber nichts nachweisen. Frau Buchmann leugnet hartnäckig und erklärt, von nichts zu wissen. Aber da Sie hier sind, Herr Schermann, möchte ich Ihr Gutachten über die Schrift der Frau Buchmann haben!« Dr. Brunner entnimmt einem Aktenbündel einen Briefder Frau Buchmann und legt ihn Schermann zur Prüfung vor. Schermann besieht die Schrift mit eindringlicher Aufmerksamkeit und sagt: »Ich sehe in dieser Schrift Paragraphen. Das beweist mir, daß die Frau etwas angestellt hat, was mit dem Gesetz kollidiert.« (Man vergleiche hierzu Schermanns Feststellung auf S. 40f. dieses Buches) »Sie fürchtet, eingesperrt zu werden. Ich glaube, daß sie den Mann vor acht oder zehn Jahren vergiftet hat.« Der Staatsanwalt stellt richtig: »Das stimmt nicht. Damals war sie ja noch gar nicht mit Buchmann verheiratet. Und Buchmann ist ja erst vor acht Wochen gestorben.« Dr. Brunner besieht das Datum des Briefes: es ist ein Brief, den Frau Buchmann bereits vor drei Jahren geschrieben hatte. Dem Staatsanwalt dämmert eine Möglichkeit. Der Mann, der gestorben war, war der zweite Mann der Frau Buchmann. Ihr erster Mann, ein Herr Hanhart, war vor zwölf Jahren in Steckborn gestorben. Sollte die Frau auch ihren ersten Mann vergiftet haben? Schermann erscheint am nächsten Tage bei der Kriminalpolizei. Frau Buchmann wird ihm vorgeführt. Sie ist von ihren beiden Verteidigern begleitet. Der Staatsanwalt stellt vor und sagt dann, zu Frau Buchmann gewendet: »Herr Schermann wird ein Gutachten über Ihre Schrift abgeben!« Die Verteidiger protestieren gegen das Gutachten eines Schriftsachverständigen. Das wäre im gegebenen Falle ein durchaus unangebrachtes Novum. Zudem weigert sich Frau Buchmann aufs bestimmteste, zu schreiben. Plötzlich aber gibt sie, wie nach trotziger Entschließung, nach und schreibt, ohne Zittern und Zucken, anscheinend mit vollkommener Seelenruhe, zwei Sätze nieder, die ihr der Staatsanwalt auf Schermanns Wunsch diktiert:

Schermann prüft die Schrift und erklärt: Wenn Frau Buchmann die Tat begangen hat, geschah es unter unwiderstehlichem Zwange. Sie sei einem Einflusse unterlegen und habe in solcher Verfassung gehandelt. Und er diagnostiziert aus der Schrift: Sie wird gestehen.

Der Staatsanwalt teilt Frau Buchmann das Gutachten mit. Sie lacht und behauptet nach wie vor, von gar nichts zu wissen.

Der Staatsanwalt bemüht sich zwei und eine halbe Stunde lang, in Güte und Zorn, um das Geständnis: Frau Buchmann leugnet. Einer der Anwälte der Frau Buchmann sagt zu Schermann, während sie zusammen die Treppe hinabsteigen: »Herr Schermann, wenn ich gewußt hätte, daß Ihr Gutachten so ausfällt, wäre ich nicht von vornherein dagegen gewesen! – Sie haben nämlich gesagt, Frau Buchmann hätte unter einem unwiderstehlichen Zwange gehandelt. Wenn ich auch nicht glaube, daß meine Klientin eine Mörderin ist, so will ich doch, falls sie gestehen sollte, auf die von Ihnen angeführte Tatsache hinweisen!« Das geschah um den 20. Februar herum. Wenige Tage später – am 26. Februar – ließ Schermann auch noch ein schriftliches Gutachten über jene Schriftprobe der Frau Anna Buchmann an den Staatsanwalt Dr. Brunner gelangen. Er begründete darin seine Wahrnehmungen und erklärte: Frau Buchmann habe die Tat begangen – und zwar im Zustande stärkster Beeinflussung – aus einem Gefühl der Rache heraus – und Frau Buchmann sei ein Mensch, den das Kreuzfeuer einer energischen Untersuchung sehr reizen könne und den man so zum Geständnis bringen werde. Am 27. Februar erhielt Schermann, der inzwischen nach Basel gereist war, die telegraphische Verständigung aus Zürich: »Giftmörderin hat gestanden!« Freitag, den 5. März verlangte Frau Buchmann nach neuerlicher Einvernahme. Sie legte dabei das Geständnis ab, auch ihren ersten Mann, Hanhart, in Steckborn vergiftet zu haben.

[Max Hayek, Der Scriftendeuter Rafael Schermann, 1921, E. P. Tal & Co. Verlag, Leipzig, Wien, Zürich, pp. 84-88]

***