Eleanor Marx Aveling
Source: Commonweal, Vol 1 No. 7, August 1885, page 71
Transcribed: by Graham Seaman, February 2022
GERMANY. — Lieske, accused of assassinating Police-inspector Rumpff (one of the worst specimens of the police-agent, who after doing more than one man to death was himself stabbed, as my readers may remember, at Frankfort); Lieske, has been "found guilty" and condemned. Bearing in mind the many cases in which bourgeois judges and bourgeois juries have legally murdered men; remembering the Manchester and the Clerkenwell martyrs, the many French, German and the recent dynamite trials; remembering all these, I think I may still say that not one of them has been more infamously unjust than this Frankfort trial. I cannot, like some of our Socialist German papers say that "only in Germany" would such an iniquity be possible. I believe that exactly the same thing would, under the circumstances happen with French bourgeois judges, or with a "respectable" British jury. But this does not make the infamy less. The interest is increased if we can take this trial as typical of bourgeois "justice" in general rather than as an example of German bourgeois injustice in particular.
As to Julius Lieske there is no, absolutely no, evidence against him. Those who have followed the whole trial will admit that I am not exaggerating in making this statement. But readers of the Commonweal shall judge for themselves. I will simply give the facts. I will not suppress or seek to attenuate a single one, but state them exactly as they were brought forward by the prosecution.
Rumpff, it may be remembered, was found dying from a wound inflicted by a sharp instrument, in the front garden of his house, on January 15 of this year. No trace of the assassin could be found. Many persons were passing the streets at ihe time, and many swore to having seen the assassin. Of their evidence presently. On January 19 a young working man was arrested at Hockenheim. The incriminating circumstances against hira were these. (I reproduce them almost verbatim). When arrested he behaved in a fashion that showed he had "something on his conscience;" he offered resistance to the gendarmes, trying to shoot one. It was found that the papers he presented were not his; that up to the Rumpff affair he had been at Frankfort; that in Switzerland Lieske had belonged to an Anarchist club, and that "witnesses" (!) were there to prove he had spoken "threateningly." Further, he had a wound on his left hand. This is all. Now we will admit that this might be enough to authorize an inquiry. But if these "incriminating circumstances" did not lead to further discoveries, they would mean nothing. But this would not do. A victim must be found, and Lieske being to hand, probably he would do as well as any other for the purposes of the police.
For five months the "inquiry" was carried on, and at last Lieske is placed on his trial. Rumpff had been killed by a wound from "some sharp instrument." Note that none of the doctors and experts could say what kind of instrument. But no sooner is it known that Lieske is a shoemaker, than it is taken for "absolutely proved" that the wound "must have been indicted" by a double-edged knife, such as is used by shoemakers. This is the first piece of weighty evidence. Then comes the wound on the left hand, which was made the piece de resistance by the prosecution. But in face of the actual facts, this wound, far from proving against Lieske, proves for him. It is pretty certain that the assassin of Rumpff seized him by the throat (the likeliest thing, both to stop cries and get a stronger hold), while the stab was struck in the left side, straight at the heart. Now if, as the prosecution alleged, the wound in Lieske's hand had been inflicted by himself while holding his "victim," he would have had to simply seize him by the coat, and thus give him a chance of struggling. Is this, I ask anyone, probable? It was shown by the doctors that the wound had been struck straight and with great force. How, then, could the striker have managed to cut his own hand? Yet, impossible as it will seem, this hand-wound was the "chief count." Sa important was it considered, that the prison doctors stooped to the infamy of preventing it to heal. It was artificially kept open and made worse! There yet remain the "witnesses" who "saw" the accused commit the act. Not two of these gave the same evidence. Each contradicted the other in a fashion that, were it not so horribly tragic, and were not an innocent man's life in question, would be simply grotesque. Neither as to appearance, dress, actions, did two of these credible persons swear the same thing. Yet on this evidence has Lieske been condemned to death. All reports are unanimous that the sentence has created the greatest sensation, and that the public "fully expected Lieske's acquittal." The venal bourgeoise press have since tried to show that, though there was no real evidence, "the man's behavior after the sentence proved his guilt." Was there ever such logic ?
Let us note here that this "behaviour after his trial" refers to his excited demand for proof of guilt. "You say I am a murderer," he cried, "give the proofs — the proofs!" And, on being led away, he shouted to the multitude, "Throw dynamite bombs!" What does this prove? All through the trial, from beginning to end — Lieske is hot-tempered, and easily loses his head — he has strenuously denied everything in the counts against him; has denied being an Anarchist, or connected with Anarchists; has denied any desire to remove Rumpff or any other police-agent. And probably that cry of his means only that since such iniquities are possible, dynamite is the only weapon left. I have no desire to represent Lieske as a hero. He has strongly denied being an Anarchist or Socialist. But if the German Government kills him, it will be one of the most horrible murders ever committed even by the German Government. There may be truth in the suggestion that Lieske knows who the actual executioner of Rumpff is, and that all his denials are only cloaks to hide what he is too brave and generous to betray. If this is so, Lieske is doubly a martyr. But in any case his name will not be forgotten, nor those of the criminals who have done this innocent man to death.
E. M. A.
[There is not much space left for the "Record" this month, I have therefore thought it better to give readers a full account of a matter every one of us should take to heart, and of which but little can be learned from the ordinary press, and to leave over all other news for next month.]