Msympathy for the Frenzel trial is particularly lively for one reason. Years ago I employed a little peasant girl from a Thuringian village as a domestic servant. Only for three months because she was an unpleasant person. Red-cheeked, robust, hard-working, but unreliable and lying. Household items disappeared for weeks, only to be found again in impossible places. In addition, the worst was a need to tell indecent stories that she wanted to have experienced herself (she was then 14 years old), these stories could not be avoided except by resigning.
A few months later a detective came to me and asked me for information about the girl, which I gave him without further clarification, at least I emphatically emphasized her mendacity. Soon this was followed by a summons to the court in a neighboring town for the purpose of giving evidence about this girl, who was also called Gertrud.
A wool goods manufacturer (around 30 years old, married for four years, father of a three-year-old child, husband of a nice woman) was accused of raping his domestic servant, Gertrud, on several occasions and mostly in the presence of the three-year-old child who was in this girl’s bed slept.
Destroyed the defendant’s reputation
The minority of the girl and the presence of the child had taken this public opinion of the small town completely against the man. Masses of witnesses who “thought he could do it” or “heard it”, rumored or with their own ears, if they were house residents, testified against the man. The girl herself indulged in such indescribable details that the blind should have seen. A pathetic, melodramatic stepfather stood by her side.
The accused was completely helpless, handicapped by the hostile atmosphere in the courtroom, his lawyer apparently felt at a loss, in any case he made no significant attempts to save the situation. All witnesses: pastors, teachers, neighbors from the village, who had known the girl from childhood, gave her the very best testimony, her credibility was beyond doubt in the opinion of the court and all experts.
–
–
I strongly emphasize the opposite and have been able to substantiate my assertions in considerable detail. The public prosecutor, however, allowed himself to remark that in view of the rare correspondence between the testimony of all impeccable witnesses and the view of a former employer who was visibly not free from animosity and apparently “believed to have heard” something about psychology (!) , unquestionably need not put any weight. I had no idea whether a witness would have the opportunity to object to such behavior; the defendant’s lawyer did not help me.
– .
