On September 10, 1849, there was discovered among the reeds of the Spree, between Charlottenburg and Spandau, a headless corpse. Fifteen paces further off lay a shattered head, mangled beyond recognition. The physicians who examined the body concluded that a double gunshot wound had destroyed the cranium and brain, causing death; in their judgment, the decapitation had followed upon the discharge, most likely without delay. This finding accounted for the wounds without resolving the primary question: the clothing appeared to belong to a man sought for poaching and the illicit trade in game, yet the identification failed to satisfy every observer. When Franz Schall was condemned to death, a persistent doubt endured: had it truly been proven that he had slain Gottlob Ebermann, or had the authorities merely gathered about him a menacing web of presumption? The matter did not close with the verdict. Two successive confessions, mutually contradictory as to motive and circumstance, prompted a second inquiry even as the capital sentence stood already confirmed.
The discovery of the corpse opened several avenues at once. The medical examiners recorded a gunshot wound to the head and a severance of the neck. The earliest findings ascribed death to the discharge; later, Dr. Casper disputed certain conclusions of the autopsy, proposing an alternative reading of the lesions. Whether the man had been beheaded after his demise or while still breathing became a matter of sharp controversy. The absence of certain expected tattoos further unsettled the question of identity. While the garments, personal effects, and depositions ultimately led to the recognition of Ebermann, several jurists subsequently maintained that the demonstration of his identity remained short of irrefutable.
Charlotte Louise Glaser confounded the earliest days of the inquest. Presenting herself under a false name, she claimed the dead man as her husband. Her narrative also encompassed an assault by a fair-haired man said to have struck her down. The chronicler treats these declarations as a calculated diversion, yet subsequent inquiries failed to establish every detail with certainty. Glaser was unmasked as an impostor; the fair-haired assailant was never identified beyond doubt. This false scent demonstrated early on how readily a headless corpse could attract the most self-serving fabrications.
The magistrates then turned toward Ebermann’s circle of associates. He had frequented Schall and a man named Pfeffer, both familiar to the criminal underworld. The three men had met in prison before obtaining their release under the amnesty of 1848. In Schall’s possession were found effects attributed to Ebermann: a watch, shirts, and a walking stick. A cane linked to Schall was recovered near the place where the body had lain. He furnished shifting explanations regarding the watch and the apparel; depositions from Hanse, Ebermann’s former companion, served to contradict his tale.
The public prosecutor forged his accusation as an unbroken chain. Hanse testified to having seen Ebermann in Schall’s company in Berlin on September 9, after which the two men departed toward Charlottenburg. The dead man’s watch had been pawned by Schall shortly after the disappearance. Effects belonging to Ebermann were discovered in his lodging, and witnesses placed him in the vicinity. Schall initially denied having accompanied Ebermann. He accounted for the items by alleging prior transactions, yet his accounts wavered. The prosecution likewise invoked his penury and his fellowship with wanted men; the defense replied that a prisoner’s past could never take the place of material proof of murder.
Pfeffer occupied a shadowy station in this history. Several witnesses had linked him with Schall and Ebermann, yet the procurator did not contend that he had taken part in the slaying, for the evidence did not warrant it. The defense, by contrast, presented him as the plausible perpetrator. Counsel suggested that Ebermann might still be alive, that the corpse belonged to another, or that Pfeffer had killed and decapitated a stranger to cast the guilt upon Schall. None of these hypotheses was substantiated. Their weight derived solely from the uncertainty shrouding the corpse’s identity and the construction of the circumstantial evidence, not from any positive proof against Pfeffer.
A sudden incident disrupted the judicial inquiry. In August 1851, Hanse was wounded by a gunshot. She attributed the assault to a man she associated with Pfeffer, though the identification in the record remained guarded. The trial suffered delay. To the prosecution, this attempt appeared aimed at silencing an essential witness; to the defense, it lent credence to the view that another man had reason to close Hanse’s lips. Schall, being incarcerated, could not be charged as the physical assailant. The investigation never firmly resolved who had fired the shot.
When the cause came before the Berlin Assize Court in 1852, Schall defended himself with remarkable acumen. He contested the identity of the body and the evidentiary worth of the recognized objects. His advocate recalled that the bodily marks expected on Ebermann were not to be found, and that forensic science was divided. The watch, he pleaded, might have passed through many hands before the crime; a cane resembling Schall’s was by no means unique. The witnesses differed as to hour and path. At the close of the arguments, the presiding judge offered a lengthy summation of the evidence without imposing his own conclusion.
The jurors answered the primary question in the affirmative by a majority of more than seven votes. They dismissed the alternative counts alleging joint participation. The court pronounced Schall guilty of the premeditated murder of Ebermann and sentenced him to death by decapitation. Schall protested the treatment of the witnesses, proclaiming that God would judge. His plea in cassation was dismissed in June 1852; he subsequently petitioned the Crown for mercy.
Before the sentence was confirmed, the regional court submitted an ambivalent report to the King: in its opinion, neither the identity of the body nor the attribution of the murder to Schall rested upon adequate direct proof. Procurator Riem and the former president of the Assize Court, Holzapfel, framed a counter-memorial upholding the verdict, which they deemed fully sustained by the convergence of circumstances. A persistent rumor asserted that Ebermann was yet alive; a taverner believed he had seen him, though the individual was subsequently revealed to be a Russian traveler. These two conflicting reports were laid before the sovereign prior to his decision.
By cabinet order of December 23, 1852, the King confirmed the sentence; it was promulgated on January 10, 1853. On the following day, upon learning of the confirmation, Schall requested an audience with another magistrate. He confessed to having slain Ebermann, but maintained he had acted in lawful self-defense: the two men had fought, Ebermann had raised his fowling piece, threatening his life; both barrels had discharged in the struggle, whereupon Schall severed the head, unaware that his companion had already expired. The physicians rejected this mechanism as impossible. The prison chaplain discerned in him no convincing repentance. The judiciary instituted no comprehensive new proceeding, for the judgment was final and Schall petitioned for neither revision nor pardon.
On February 10, the eve of his execution, Schall made a final declaration. He stated that he had slain Ebermann in cold blood, out of envy and from a desire to rid himself of him, a dispute concerning a projected burglary of the Mirow crypt having brought their quarrel to a head. He admitted firing upon Ebermann and subsequently severing his head. This time, he spoke no more of self-defense. He also recounted a break-in committed at Mirow with Pfeffer and other accomplices; yet the chronicler observes that this confession intermingled verified facts with details likely intended to prolong uncertainty regarding the date of the crime. The tardy confession could not be verified in all its particulars.
On February 11, 1853, Schall was executed in the courtyard of Moabit Prison. Before the assembled witnesses, he declared that he had slain Ebermann with premeditation and sought forgiveness from all whom he had wronged. The execution brought the narrative to its physical close, yet it did not resolve every perplexity in the record. The chronicle itself sets forth the objections of those jurists who held the identity of the corpse and the evidence against Schall to be insufficiently established, while recording that the condemnation stood confirmed. Between his initial denial, the plea of self-defense, and the ultimate confession of coldblooded slaughter, the condemned man’s word had shifted more than once. The law, for its part, held fast to the verdict of the jury and the royal warrant.