Bacheran tuned in and out, he returned to his newspapers. In the Tagesspiegel, under the title Three Lovers Entanglements was a perceptive article by Jochen Harringa. First he went into the relationship between Kusian and Kurt Muschan and of course the night of love making on the sofa under which Merten was hidden. It is said that life writes the best novels. But this real life scene … could be proof to the contrary. No scriptwriter, no novelist could have described such a decadent dime novel romance type of tête a tête without being censured for it. He moved on to Walter Kusian who had remained a slave to his love for Elisabeth to the end. And she had duly taken advantage of him. Was it only compassion and calculation: ‘I could get anything out of my husband if I handled him correctly,’ wasn’t it also contempt and hatred? It had been a classic love triangle. The defendant went back and forth between the two men: she exploited Walter Kusian, hating him so much that she didn’t hesitate to accuse him of the murders in court. She loved Kurt Muschan, showering him with presents, and admitting to the murders in order to free him from suspicion.
The reading finally came to an end. All the participants were fairly exhausted.
Helga couldn’t accept that his meant the trial had almost come to a close. “They need time to clear everything down to the smallest detail. Every statement made by a witness, even if on the surface it sounds improbable, should be investigated. I don’t understand it. They can’t just assume that all the people who implicate Walter Kusian, or say they saw other people at the scene of the crime, are unreliable.”
Bacheran agreed. “Strictly speaking, you are right of course: We should first send men to the moon and verify on the spot that there is no life; until we do, mankind will not be satisfied even though everybody knows for sure that there is nothing there but sand and rocks. It’s the same thing with this trial. But if we want to be pragmatic, then it is correct to end it now. All the evidence, all the scientific data point to Kusian’s guilt and everyone in this room is deeply convinced that she is the murderer. Why spend more time pouring over statements and hemming and hawing? It’s time for the Prosecutor to make his closing statements.”
But it wasn’t yet time: Kuntze declared that it was impossible for him to make his concluding arguments right after the five days of hearings. And so the court was adjourned to the following day.
41.
The same procedure as every day *. Again, on the morning of January 24th, Helga and Bernhard met at Ostkreuz station.
“What will we do when the Kusian trial is over?” Helga asked. For them the days spent at Moabit had almost felt like a vacation, both of them being freed from their usual obligations.
“That’s where you see how right Emil Durckheim is when he writes: ‘Crime unites the righteous.’ It has united us in any case.” Bacheran pulled her to him. But their moment of perfect happiness did not last: Helga showed him two East Berlin newspapers she had bought at the station in Grünau. Der Morgen again criticized the Western Police’s inadequate groundwork and Dr. Korsch’s insufficient command of the documents of the case. The Berliner Zeitung was more polemical. According to them the fact that Kusian’s first confession was validated in the end was to be seen as a catastrophic defeat for the presiding judge and it should be understood in the political context to which it belonged: With the end of the testimony, the purpose of the court’s consistently sluggish handling of the proceedings becomes clear. No stone was left unturned to prove that Elisabeth Kusian should not be suspected of the crime. Mrs. Kusian was a clever woman and she had immediately taken advantage of the court’s goodwill and the favorable situation… If her first confession proved to be false the West Berlin yellow press would be overjoyed to portray the People’s Police as “incompetent”. And of course, the colossal “competence” of the Stumm Police would have illuminated the lands of the setting sun, wiping away forever the disgrace of their failure and the failure of their justice system.
“God!” Bacheran was angry. “This can’t be true. You can’t see political machinations everywhere. I agree that Korsch is no genius and that he let things get out of hand, but there’s no cold war strategy behind any of it.”
“Well of course his thinking is determined by his background – and the people who pay him are conducting imperialistic policies and seek to take over the GDR because it is the land of peace.”
“Do you really believe this – or are you just parroting the words?” That was thoughtless and mean and he regretted it even before he had finished the sentence. But it was too late. She recoiled visibly and sat silently for the rest of the trip. She probably would have sat in a different seat in the court room but she couldn’t because there was no room. When he reached for her hand and tried to make up, she turned away.
“Please forgive me, I didn’t mean that. I love you, you know that.”
“Stop parroting phrases you’ve heard in movies.”
There was nothing left but to concentrate on what was happening up front, on the stage. Today the State Prosecutor had the leading role.
“Ever since the events over which we are sitting in judgment became known to the people of Berlin, the public has taken a great deal of interest in the investigation.” Herbert Kuntze began. “This interest has resulted in some awkward moments during the proceedings but there have also been positive consequences. The radio, the Press and the public at large have been very interested in the case and have helped solve it.”
He then returned to the decision to go to trial, recounting the time frame of the crimes, and the victims defending the way the trial had been conducted. “Although at times, it looked like the case had not been prepared with enough care, the opposite was true: nothing was neglected. The investigation led to a conclusion that agrees with the objective evidence. It is true that the statements the defendant made on the second day of the proceedings gave rise to some doubts about the accusations against her, but those doubts were absolutely baseless.”
He reached for a glass of water and went on. “I will now endeavor to prove – on the basis of the facts – that only the defendant could have committed these murders. I believe very, very little of what Elisabeth Kusian has said. I do strongly believe one thing though, and that is that she has lied again and again, that she lied constantly. Let us then look at the evidence…”
And so he began to recount all the known facts, carefully dissecting the defendant’s ‘confession’, piece by piece, for the court. “She cleverly tried to take the initiative away from the court. But only someone who did not know the defendant’s personality could be taken in. Her attempt has failed… The extent of her abuse of drugs didn’t reach the level set out in Paragraph 51. At no time was her judgment impaired by her drug use. Hers is undoubtedly an abnormal personality, she does evince some pathological traits, but she is neither feeble minded nor sick. As a matter of fact, the defendant was very alert and active when asked uncomfortable questions and she conferred with her lawyers before answering. Unraveling the mystery of her personality is extremely difficult, but what is absolutely impossible is finding our way inside the labyrinth of her life and of her lies.”
That’s a good way of putting it, Bacheran thought: ‘the labyrinth of her life and of her lies.’ If you add that we consider lies what for her were most probably wishes, things she had been yearning for so intensely and over such a long period of time that they had become reality.
“We are now convinced,” the prosecutor continued, “that the defendant acted exactly as she described. She murdered two people out of malicious greed and in order to conceal other crimes. Her financial situation was catastrophic at the time, she had piled on debts and she could see no way out. Elisabeth Kusian had to obtain money, by any means. This cost two people their lives. The fact that she is the mother of three cannot justify a lighter sentence. We can feel sorry for the children: she subjected them to the harshness of fate. But we cannot feel sympathy for the mother. We must pity the victims, not the murderer. Therefore, since the defenda
nt has committed two murders, I am requesting two life sentences against her!”
Bacheran expected that these words would strike Elisabeth Kusian like bullets, that she would collapse, but she remained stock-still as if in a trance, holding her head down. She let the hour long speeches run off her like a tree pelted by relentless rain. He figured that she could be paroled in 18 to 20 years. Then she would be about sixty. And who would want her at his side then? Her life was over. Was it really her fault what she had become…? As the son of a biology teacher Bacheran tended automatically to think that there must be some faulty connection in her brain. As a student he had heard of Freud: according to his theories there had to be serious cracks in her super ego. It might not be her fault, but the fault of the circumstances under which she was brought up. That sounded almost identical to what Helga believed: that capitalist society was at fault. Man is a wolf to his fellow man. The pastor at Martin Luther church would have phrased it differently – it was God’s will, which we human creatures must not question: May Your Will Be Done.
It was now the defense’s turn and the first one to speak was Dr. Arno Weimann. He began by countering the sharp attacks made against the defense during the trial. “In the course of the proceedings, we did not, your Honor, dear members of the court, determine the strategy of the defense, the defendant did. And no lawyer has the right to disavow his client. This trial is a text book example of how to build up the defendant as a MONSTER so that its conclusion is determined from the outset by the instinctive rejection of the defendant by all and sundry. This case has turned into a kind of ‘cause célèbre,’ a case of collective delusion, something that hinders the lawful determination of the truth. Therefore I call on the members of the jury to resist being influenced by emotion in any way.” He went on to point out the holes in his brother’s psychiatric evaluation. “Why was this evaluation not entrusted to a professional psychiatrist instead of a – certainly highly qualified – Medical Examiner? A skilled psychiatrist would for example have undoubtedly described the defendant as schizophrenic – and as such, she would have been treated very differently by the court.”
Bacheran leaned over to Helga: “He’s absolutely right about that.”
Arno Weimann used all his powers of persuasion to generate sympathy and understanding for Kusian. “But as things stand now, no one will believe her anymore: that’s her fate. Be that as it may: I am not satisfied, the defense is not satisfied, that the court has produced convincing evidence that Mrs. Kusian committed both murders. How can a woman who until then had committed one theft and a few minor offenses, turn into a murderer from one day to the next? That’s taking a giant leap of faith. Maybe she was no more than an assistant, an accessory, or a receiver of stolen goods – we do not know. And when you don’t know, there is only one rule: in dubio pro reo. In this case it does apply.”
The second defense attorney had prepared a less flamboyantly rhetorical performance. Instead he tried to undermine the court’s conclusion that Elisabeth Kusian was the sole perpetrator, by presenting objective arguments. “We are all convinced that the defendant lied again and again and yet, the prosecutor’s case rests on the premise that Mrs. Kusian was telling the truth when she first confessed. Why make an exception only in that instance? As to whether in the end Mrs. Kusian lied to us her defense attorneys, I cannot answer.” He proceeded to point out the details in the case that according to him had not been cleared: first, the statement under oath by the porter lady, Mrs. Schütz, that, on December 26, 1949 she saw Mrs. Kusian going down the stairs together with a man carrying a heavy load. Second, the witness Olga Maus’s statement – also under oath – that her friend Dorothea Merten told her she had met a certain Walter Kusian; and finally, the unsolved mystery of the big dark lady. “Because in all these instances, the facts have not been clearly established, I ask that the court not issue a guilty verdict but that it refer the case back to the Examining Magistrate.”
After that the court withdrew to deliberate. Although Helga was still sulking she didn’t refuse Bacheran’s invitation to lunch. He would have liked to treat her to a gourmet restaurant and spoil her with fine food, and so lure her to the Western kind of ‘ars vivendi’, but the only place nearby was a cafeteria serving Bockwurst and meatballs. Oh well…
They sat across from each other and he took her hands in his. “Please forgive me, I didn’t mean it like that. Of course you may have your own opinions…”
“Thank you.”
“You didn’t use to be so sarcastic.”
“I got that from you.”
With a sharp pang of fear, he realized that a wall had come up between them and he hurried to say: “Think though, love knocks down all barriers.”
“Well, move to Karolinenhof then, we can fix the attic floor into an apartment.”
“You move to Wilmersdorf, I can get a place on Uhlandstrasse.”
The eternal stalemate. They laughed and returned to their food. Of course they talked about how the trial would end, although there was little doubt as to the outcome.
“They’ll find her guilty, I think everyone agrees.” Helga said.
“If I were a member of the jury or a judge I would be in somewhat of a quandary right now…” Bernhard tried to explain his feeling. “On the one hand, I’m convinced she committed both murders, but on the other, from a strictly legal point of view, I don’t think the existing circumstantial evidence can prove it. And when there are doubts, it must be in the defendant’s favor. This is fundamental to our government of laws.”
“A government that also sponsors so many injustices: the exploitation of the working class, privileges for the rich. The Reich collapsed, the rich remain. Plus absolutely illegal sentencing of freedom fighters… and on and on…”
“Please, let’s stick to Kusian!” Bernhard warned. “What if she really is innocent – or if she was only an accomplice?”
“Bad luck for her then,” Helga was laconic. “At least mankind will be spared some trouble as long as she’s behind bars.”
“If she really is a schizophrenic, she belongs in a hospital.”
“She does – preferably as a nurse.”
Bacheran sighed loudly. “Going out with a decadent Assistant State Attorney has really done something to you.”
“Unfortunately it hasn’t worked the other way around yet.”
“Oh come on, we do agree about fighting fascism. And if the GDR finally does manage to rid its army and secret service of ex Nazis, then…”
She threw her napkin on the table. “That’s really outrageous!”
“Waiter, the bill please. We have to return or we’ll miss the verdict.”
They hurried back to the courthouse and took their usual seats just as Dr. Korsch pronounced the defendant guilty of the two murders and, in the name of the people, sentenced her in accordance with the prosecution’s request to lifelong incarceration and the loss of civil rights.
It was so “short and painless,” as Bacheran later told his family, that he almost didn’t understand what was being said. The president’s voice reached him as if from afar, in a dream.
“The defendant committed these heinous crimes in order to conceal another crime, not out of greed. She is entirely responsible for her actions. The court does not have to deliberate as to whether the defendant deserves the death penalty or whether a particular exemption applies in this case since three days ago the Justice Department was informed that the death penalty has been abolished and is replaced by life imprisonment.”
“Undoubtedly a harsher sentence,” some old cynic grumbled behind Bacheran.
“If this trial,” the president continued, “has attracted attention far outside the boundaries of the city of Berlin, it is not because two horrible murders have been committed by a woman but because the murderer was a nurse. We all expect nothing but love and kindness from a nurse. This woman has sullied the beautiful and difficult profession of nursing. We as judges must only consider the criminal acts i
n themselves and give the defendant earthly punishment. As to what she has inflicted on the relatives of her victims, she will have to answer for it before God.”
“He’ll like that!” someone said in the back.
“We as jurists know – and it isn’t hard to understand the fact – that in every trial, when a certain amount of time has elapsed since the crime, there will be contradictory statements. Each person, because of his or her natural inclination, because of their upbringing and the influence of the environment, constructs a different picture of what has happened. It was particularly so in this case.” After a thorough assessment of the witnesses’ statements, the presiding judge once again reconstructed the events. “It is certain that Walter Kusian was not present when either Seidelmann or Doris Merten were killed, nor did he have any knowledge of the murders. If the court is criticized for not referring the case back to the Examining Magistrate after Kusian’s sensational statements, then I must point out that according to the code of criminal procedure, that is not possible.”
“I told you so!” Bacheran said to Helga.
An hour later Dr. Korsch came to his conclusion: “The defendant is two different people. One is not bad. All her colleagues have stated that she is self sacrificing and eager to help. But the other one is evil. The defendant lived her life that year as if she wanted to have All or nothing as Ibsen famously wrote. Evil won out in the end.”
‘Evil won out in the end.’
These words would remain etched in Bacheran’s memory.
Epilogue
42.
After the trial… ‘She started to serve her sentence as a martyr who must pay for the sins of others.’ So concludes Waldemar Weimann’s account of the investigation, entitled, The Most Mysterious Murderer of my career – Nurse Elisabeth Kusian. We can assume that she opted for this ‘neutralization’ technique mainly in order to survive: it meant ‘I am a good person: everything I did was for the man I love.’ Just as she had always tended to do, replacing reality with the virtual, mistaking what her imagination had conjured for reality itself, so that in prison she continued to consider herself not as a murderer but as a warm hearted Samaritan. ‘Walter did it, and I just wanted to help him escape…’
Cold Angel: Murder in Berlin 1949 Page 32