FULL TEXT (article 1 of 2): At the assizes at Prenzlau, in
Germany, on November 5 [1895], Hermann Springstein (a local shopkeeper) and his
sister (a widow named. Bock) were convicted of the murder by poisoning, of the
male prisoner's wife in March of this year, and sentenced to death. The
prisoners were also accused of the murder by poisoning of six other persons,
including their mother and father and Mrs. Bock’s husband, and son, between
1886 and 1892. The lives of the male prisoner's wife and brother-in-law had
been insured.
[Untitled, The Otago Witness (Dunedin, New Zealand), Jan. 2,
1896, p. 17]
***
FULL TEXT (Article 2 of 2): London, November 8 [1895]. –
Router’s correspondent at Prenzlau wires the English papers (says our London
correspondent) particulars of a curious poisoning trial which is not unlike the
famous Joniaux case. The accused were Hermann Springstein and his sister
Auguste, widow of a locksmith named Bock. They were accused of poisoning,
between 1886 and 1895, no fewer than seven persons, including their father and
mother, the male prisoner’s wife, the husband of the female prisoner Bock, her
son Alfred Bock, and an unmarried woman named Fiebelkorn; but the indictment
upon which they were arraigned was limited to a single one of those crimes— the
murder of the male prisoner’s wife, on the 7th of March last, with
premeditation— the other charges being investigated collaterally. A motive for
the alleged crimes was suggested by the fact that the lives of the deceased
persons had been insured for considerable sums. The female prisoner was brought
to take her trial from the Luckau Penitentiary, where she was undergoing a
sentence of four years’ penal servitude for perjury, of which she was convicted
at this court in June last.
Hermann Springstoin, though latterly keeping a grocery
store, was a blacksmith by trade, and had also dabbled in veterinary surgery,
in which connection he naturally acquired a knowledge of poisons. He lived at
Konigsberg until 1893, when he removed to Anklam, and thence to Pasewalk, his
sister Auguste keeping house for him. At Pasewalk, in July, 1893, he married,
and in May of the following year he came to Prenzlau. His wife died suddenly on
March 7 last, after an attack of cramp, to which Springstein said she was
subject. Dr Beutlich, the family doctor, next day gave a certificate to the
effect that Mrs Springstein had died from spasmodic constriction of the larynx.
The body was exhumed a fortnight later by order of the Public Prosecutor. An
examination of the intestines made by Dr Bischoff, the police chemical expert
in Berlin, established the presence oi 0.034 grammes of strychnine in the
stomach and intestines, while perceptible traces of the same poison were found
in the internal organs. The life of the deceased had been insured by her
husband for 3,000 marks. The attention of the authorities was then turned to
six other cases of death under suspicious circumstances which had occurred in
the prisoner’s household between 1886 and 1892, while Springstein was living at
Konigsberg. The brother-in-law’s life was insured for 12,000 marks. The bodies
of these persons were also exhumed, but though traces of arsenic were found in
the intestines of Springstein’s parents the poison was not present in
sufficient quantities to justify the conclusion that it was the cause ot death.
The bodies were, however, in an advanced state of decomposition. Springstein
was alleged to have been in the habit of making his wife drunk, and the woman
frequently complained that after drinking liquor given to her by her husband,
and also after eating food prepared by the female prisoner, she suffered from
cramps in the throat such as might be occasioned by strychnine poisoning.
Quantities of strychnine, sulphuric acid, and other poisons were found in
Springstein’s house. Twenty-five witnesses, including three experts, were cited
for the prosecution. Springstein is a powerfully-built unkempt man of rough
exterior, and his sister a common-looking woman speaking with a strong Berlin
lower-class accent. Both maintained a callous demeanor during the proceedings,
the woman on several occasions impudently interrupting the presiding judge in
the course of his interrogatory. The judges were Provincial Court Councillor
Wilke and Provincial Judges Knitsehki and Simonsohn.
The prisoners having pleaded not guilty, the president
proceeded to interrogate them as to the death of their father. Springstein, in
reply, described life in the paternal household as being wretched in the
extreme. He and his father frequently came to blows, and had quarrels of the
most violent character. His father drank heavily, and prisoner alleged that his
sudden death was the result of drink. In support of this statement he mentioned
that the deceased, when found, held an empty schnapps bottle clutched to his
breast in hi 3 death grasp. Prisoner’s brother advised him to report their
father’s death to the police, but this Springstcin demised to do, on the ground
that it was quite unnecessary. Shortly afterwards his brother was taken to a
lunatic asylum, but he was subsequently released. Interrogated as to his
veterinary practice, Springstein said it was true that he had insured the lives
of cattle for large sums, but he repudiated the suggestion that he had poisoned
them in order to obtain the insurance money. It was true that the insurance
company had entertained suspicions on the subject, but he had protested against
the suggestion. He admitted that he had recommended to his brother a certain
vegetable poison, which he described as sure and effectual, leaving no traces
behind. Prisoner also denied that he had poisoned his nephew. As to his
brother-in-law, he declared that he had died from an overdose of schnapps and
arsenic, a mixture which he had been in the habit of taking regularly.
Springstein likewise denied that he had poisoned the young woman named
Fiebelkorn.
The Public Prosecutor here pointed out that shortly after
Springstein senior’s death the woman in question expressed the belief that he
had been poisoned. Two days later she was dead herself. His mother, prisoner
said, had died after drinking some very strong coffee. She had to go out and
dig potatoes one night, and his sister handed her a cup of coffee before she
left the house. Several witnesses testified that on the evening in question the
old woman, while she was working, suddenly screamed out that she had been
poisoned, and asked for a drink of milk. Some milk and water was handed her by
a neighbor, but she died soon afterwards. Prisoner stated . that his mother
might possibly have taken arsenic in mistake for salts. In explanation of his
being in possession of poisons, Springstein alleged that he had sold quantities
of poison for killing foxes. The female prisoner, questioned as to the manner
of her husband’s death, said his lungs were not strong, and he also was
troubled with his heart and stomach. The poison found on him was, she declared,
quite harmless. One witness stated that on one occasion Mr. Bock remarked to
her: “There were six deaths in our house this year — my mother, my husband, and
my son, two horses, and a dog,” adding “and the dog had the finest funeral.”
Another witness said the male prisoner had threatened to shoot him. A violent dispute
ensued, and in the course of the quarrel prisoner shouted: “I shall do for you
yet; I don’t need a pistol for you.”
At the close of the previous day’s proceedings the male
prisoner was observed to be making signs to the warder who was taking him back
to his cell. The President promptly recalled him and asked what he meant, to
which the accused replied in Berlin slang : “Off goes my head. Then off go I to
heaven.”
Three medical experts deposed that Spring, stein’s wife had
been slowly poisoned through repeated doses of strychnine administered to her,
and expressed the opinion that his father and mother, brother-in-law, and
nephew had all been similarly poisoned. The Public Prosecutor asked for a
verdict of guilty, declaring that, apart from the murder of Mrs Springstein,
there was the strongest suspicion that the male prisoner was likewise guilty of
the murder of the four persons above-mentioned. Herren Meissner and Dietrich,
for the defence, argued that there was nothing in the evidence to justify a
verdict of guilty. The jury, however, replied in the affirmative on each count
of the indictment, and sentence of death was pronounced on both prisoners.
[“Remarkable Poisoning Case. - A Brother And Sister
Sentenced To Death.” The Tuapeka Times (Lawrence, New Zealand), Jan. 1, 1896,
p. 6]
***
No comments:
Post a Comment