They talked to Mr. Herlitz on October 6 and did not find out anything incriminating. A neighborly dispute over pigeons seemed an unlikely motive for such a brutal attack.
However, the police uncovered evidence suggesting that there may have been issues of fidelity in the Ditter relationship. They found a letter in the couple’s home written by a woman, a G. Weinberg from Fürstenwalde, that they were curious about. Arthur Ditter told them a bizarre and implausible story to explain this letter.
His explanation tied in to the job he’d held just before the army drafted him. In a very strange coincidence, he worked for the Reichsbahn at the train-switching yard at Rummelsburg. This location would be ground zero for the S-Bahn murders, and it was here that Paul Ogorzow worked as an auxiliary signalman. Later on, the police did not generate any evidence that he and Ditter knew each other or that this was anything more than the sort of strange coincidence that sometimes pops up in the course of such an investigation. Of course, at the time the police were questioning Mr. Ditter, they had no idea who Paul Ogorzow was.
The story Mr. Ditter told about this letter was an odd one: “About fourteen days before my draft into the military, or maybe three weeks, I was working at the switching yard at Rummelsburg. A younger woman came out of a train compartment in the second class and asked if there were mailboxes nearby. My coworker ‘Stark’. . . . told me: ‘You can put the letter in the mailbox.’ The previously mentioned woman gave me the letter and asked me to put it in the mailbox. I brought this letter with me, put it in my jacket pocket, and then didn’t think about it again. Some days later, my wife found it in my things, ripped it open, and read it. Since doing that, we didn’t dare to send it. I wanted to put it in another envelope and send it, but my wife told me not to. So, that’s why the letter is in my apartment.”10
This version of events could be true. If so, it suggests that Ditter’s wife did not trust him in regards to other women. If it was a lie, then perhaps Mr. Ditter had cheated on his wife and did not want the Kripo to know of this. Even with an airtight alibi, in Nazi Germany, it was not a good idea to draw the attention of the authorities. If the police believed that he had been cheating on his spouse, they might decide to the pin the murder on him and claim that he’d hired someone to do it for him. He had no way of knowing that these particular detectives had no interest in finding a scapegoat. They wanted to capture the actual killer.
More damning, though, was a document the police found that Mr. Ditter had written to his wife. It was titled, “My Confession.” When asked about it, Arthur Ditter said, “I wrote this note years ago. We were not even engaged with each other yet. It’s not important at all. I just was trying to get her to become more attached to me. At that time, my wife went out once in a while to the movies with a certain Fritz Gann, who lives in our garden colony. . . . However, I don’t think in the slightest that Fritz Gann had anything going on with my wife or that he has to do with the death of my wife.”11
The police were curious about this strange note. After having first asked Mr. Ditter about it, and written down his explanation, they confronted him with the actual document. In response, Mr. Ditter told them, “I wrote this note because my wife asked me to after the first time we had sex. My wife dictated the text, but only the beginning, and I wrote the end by myself. The subtitle, ‘If Gerda Barth swears to me that she will no longer lie to me and go out with other men, give out her address, or do any other nonsense’—is so that she wouldn’t go to the movies with Gann anymore and then keep it a secret from me.”12
Mr. Ditter’s explanation did not fully clear this matter up. Both the backstory and the note itself were quite odd. However, the police accepted Mr. Ditter’s account of how he came to write this unusual letter given that he had a solid alibi for the night of the murder. This note did suggest, however, that there were issues of fidelity in the Ditters’ marriage and that perhaps Mrs. Ditter had cheated while her husband was away. Unknown to the police at this time, Mrs. Ditter had given out her address to a strange man (Paul Ogorzow) she met while waiting for the S-Bahn, and that was what had led to her death.
However, there was nothing at the scene or in the investigation thus far to tie this murder to the S-Bahn. While Mrs. Ditter had ridden the train, so did most everyone in Berlin. There was no way for the detectives to know that she had met her assailant there days before.
The police were aware of other crimes against women that had been committed in this area during the blackout. As Berlin historian Dr. Laurenz Demps later explained, this “brutal murder . . . was something new for them—even though there had been multiple rape attempts and instances of rape in this garden area.”13
In addition to investigating suspects with connections to Mrs. Ditter, they also focused on the possibility that the man who killed her was the same one who had been harassing and attacking the women of this garden colony area.
On October 7, the Berlin Kripo announced a thousand-reichsmark reward for information that led to solving this crime. They posted reward posters with information about this crime as well as questions they hoped the public could help them with:
Warning!!! Do Not Destroy!!! Relay Contents!!!
Woman murdered in “Gutland II” colony
1000 RM reward!
On Friday, October 4th, 1940, Gerda Ditter, a 20-year-old married woman, was found murdered in her garden plot, Berlin-Friedrichsfelde, “Gutland II,” Way 5a, Number 33, with a deep knife cut in the left side of her neck. The woman was additionally strangled. Nothing was stolen.
Mrs. Ditter was seen last on October 3, 1940, at about 5 P.M. near her apartment.
For a long time, in colony “Gutland,” and in the surrounding area, solitary women have been immorally harassed and some have also been wounded with a knife—especially in the dark—by an unknown offender. It is to be assumed that this situation concerns the same offender.
It is the duty of every citizen to actively participate in identifying this demon!
Description of the suspect:
30 to 40 years old, 1.65–1.70 meters tall, bawdy facial expression.
Clothing: mostly blue visor caps, short jacket (leather?), sports-shirt with open collar, long dark pants, often has or is riding a bicycle.
The answers to the following questions are of urgent importance:
Who saw or talked to Mrs. Ditter on the night or in the day of the murder; either alone or maybe in the company of a man?
Who can describe her daily activities in more detail?
In which businesses did she often purchase things?
Did someone see Mrs. Ditter somewhere or at some time with the above-described man?
Who can say anything else about the suspect?
Every notification—even things which seem unimportant—is important and will be, by request, handled in a strictly confidential manner.
The Criminal Police Department of Berlin issued the above-mentioned reward for information from the public which leads to the identification and seizure of the offender. This reward is not meant for officials whose occupational obligation it is to track offenses or crimes. The disbursement of the reward will follow upon closure of the legal process. Every member of the police department is capable of taking in updates, especially the homicide division “Ditter,” police headquarters of Berlin, Alexanderplatz, entrance Dircksenstraße, number 13/14, floor IV, room number 902, extensions 699 and 738.
Berlin, October 7, 1940.
Homicide Division “Ditter”14
This reward poster was put up in and around the garden area where Ogorzow preyed on women. While the poster did reveal that a murder had been committed in the area and that women had been harassed there, it played down the level of such attacks. It did not spell out that there had been actual rapes, instead using the euphemism “immorally harassed.”
Also on October 7, the Kripo published a detailed announcement of th
is crime in the Reich Criminal Investigation Department newspaper (Deutsches Kriminalpolizeiblatt). This was a newspaper that was not intended for the general public; instead it was meant to be read by law enforcement personnel. This way they could share information on cases so that if any police officers knew something related to a given case, or saw a connection to another case, they could get in touch with the detectives involved.
This announcement included the material contained in the reward poster as well as additional information intended only for law enforcement. It was more blunt about the activities of the suspect in this area: “The criminal should be searched for in circles of sexual-offenders. Since 1938, a sexual-offender has been making trouble in the area. He attacks solitary women in the late hours of the evening or at night; mostly from behind. He chokes them and then abuses them sexually.”15
The police looked at where Mrs. Ditter shopped, in the hopes it would lead them to a suspect, or at least give them additional insight into this victim. This was a time long before supermarkets were the norm, and the police knew that the local shops were a good source of gossip.
On October 10, they wrote, “The findings have shown that Mrs. Ditter almost only bought goods from the grocery store of Frenzel, Berlin-Friedrichsfelde, Triftweg 9, and the dairy man Hampe, Berlin-Friedrichsfelde, Volkradstraße 10. The findings in both businesses have shown that there is no evidence that Ditter associated with other men. In general, people speak well of her there.”16 So this was another dead end for the police.
On October 15, the Kripo sent out a local news release related to this crime. Just as with the original reward poster and the announcement in the police newspaper, no connection was made between this crime and the attacks on women on the S-Bahn. This was not because the police were covering up this connection. It was because they were unaware that any such connection existed. They did however view this murder as possibly related to the sexual assaults and harassments in the garden area. As for the arrests the news release mentioned, these referred to people who were temporarily detained by the police for questioning such as relatives and neighbors, before being cleared.
This release read as follows:
Berlin, October 15th, 1940
1,000 RM Reward. Lichtenberg woman—murder still unsolved
A couple [implying a man/woman in a relationship]
is being searched for as witnesses!
Despite intense investigation towards solving the murder of the 20-year-old married woman Gerda Ditter, who, as reported, was found murdered on the fourth, Friday, midday, in her garden colony home in Colony Gutland II in Berlin Lichtenberg-Friedrichsfelde, the [Kripo] have not been able to trace the criminal. Mrs. Ditter was killed by being strangled and stabbed in her neck. The crime most likely happened during the night.
With reference to the established reward of 1,000 RM, all sections of the population are being asked to actively participate in solving this crime.
During the course of the manhunt carried out by criminal investigators over the day and night, many suspected people were arrested; none of these, however, were found to have been involved in the crime.
The manhunt for the investigation of the suspected man who was, as reported, in Colony Gutland II and the surrounding area some time before the crime and who, at that time, harassed lone women in the night, is still in process, as he has not been able to be apprehended. Hints, which could lead to the determination of who he is or to his arrest, are, as before, being accepted by the [Kripo]. The suspect is 30–40 years old, 1.65–1.70 meters tall, was wearing mostly blue visor-caps or sports-caps, a short jacket, maybe leather—it’s probably a heavy jacket—a sports-shirt with an open collar, and long, dark pants. He often had a bicycle with him.
Recently, it was found that, in the evening before the discovery of the murder, on Thursday the third of the month at about 11 P.M., not far from the garden house of Mrs. Ditter, on a cattle/sheep track at the corner of Way 5a, a couple was standing and talking to each other for a while. The testimony of these two still unknown people is very sought after by the [Kripo]. They are being requested to come forward immediately.
Pertinent information which could lead to finding the previously described suspect, or in any other way could lead to solving the crime, is being accepted by the homicide division “Ditter” (Police Headquarters, room 902, phone number 51 0023, extensions 699 and 738) under assurance of confidential handling.17
The police hoped that this news release would result in useful clues, or perhaps even the name of the killer himself. That did not happen, though, and the couple the police sought had nothing to do with this crime, which was committed by one man operating on his own. The police had claimed to be looking for them as possible witnesses, but there had been some hope that they had something to do with the crime. They did not even have any use as witnesses.
The description that the Kripo had of Ogorzow was all the information they had about the man behind the attacks on the women in this area. There was no description of who had come to Mrs. Ditter’s house that night to kill her. They were only speculating that it could be the same man who was responsible for the crime spree against women in this garden area.
By early November, the Kripo had identified roughly thirty suspects. After a thorough examination of these suspects, none were believed to be the killer.
They also chased a red herring in the form of a hearsay report of a scream on the night of the crime. This tip came in after the reward had been announced.
Mrs. Helene Schollain, a resident of Colony Gutland II, informed the police that she had heard rumors of a scream that night. This was all hearsay. She had not heard this alleged scream herself.
Mrs. Schollain told the Kripo a convoluted story of one person telling another about this supposed scream and so on: “On Monday, 10/7/1940, Mrs. Liebetraut, [residing at] Heinrichstraße 27, told Mrs. Schollain that she heard that, during the night when Ditter was murdered, a scream was heard from an unknown person. According to Mrs. Liebetraut, this came from a neighbor of Mrs. Ditter. There was even the assumption that it might be the neighbor Mrs. Bohm, who, out of fear of revenge of Mr. Herlitz, who lives with her, doesn’t dare to say anything. Mrs. Liebetraut heard about the scream through her father, Mr. Gerbert, who apparently heard it from a coworker.”18
This sounded like a rumor based on the well-known (within the neighborhood) dispute between Mr. Herlitz and Mrs. Ditter over Mrs. Ditter’s pigeons. But the police could not be certain if there were something to this or not without investigating it.
The police talked to Mr. Herlitz’s live-in girlfriend, Mrs. Auguste Bohm, on October 16 about this alleged scream, and she told them, “I did not hear any scream(s) on Thursday evening. If that were the case, I would say it without hesitation, without trying to protect someone.”19
The police were not surprised that Mrs. Liebetraut was willing to snitch. Nazi Germany was full of people willing to inform on their neighbors to the authorities, and the announcement of a huge reward only contributed toward that tendency.
A police history set forth how the Nazi state used informants: “There were two general categories of informers in Nazi Germany. First, there were those who had a more formal relationship with the Gestapo and often had connections to the activity they were informing on. The state often paid this type of individual, the most important of whom were known as Vertrauensleute, or V-persons. . . . The numbers of those formally enlisted, however, pale in comparison to the second major category: volunteers who came forward to inform on or denounce an acquaintance or neighbor or even a spouse or child, to the Gestapo. These did so through letters, both anonymous and signed, tips and even visits to the local Gestapo office.”20
So in addition to the people who came out in response to the prospect of a big reward, there were those in Nazi Germany who enjoyed denouncing others for free. It was a way to get revenge on a neighbor, neutralize a romantic riv
al, or simply feel important as a loyal citizen of the Third Reich.
Unfortunately for the police in this case, the tips they had received so far were worthless scraps of information like that provided by Mrs. Liebetraut. And these bad tips wasted police resources, as they needed to track down all of the people involved and interview them.
Meanwhile, a killer was still out there, hunting the women of Berlin.
CHAPTER ELEVEN
A Blunt Object
During the night of November 4, 1940, Paul Ogorzow again took to the S-Bahn to find a woman to attack. Under his jacket, he carried with him a concealed heavy piece of lead cable, the same one he’d used before to knock out Mrs. Julie Schuhmacher.
Ogorzow had come to discover, based on his past experiences, that a heavy blunt object better suited him than using his bare hands or a knife. He’d found that trying to choke a woman with his hands or threatening her with a knife might still allow his victim to resist his attack. Sometimes the women cried out; on other occasions, they tore at him and scratched him. One woman he harassed in the garden area had hurt him with her keys. The state of forensics at the time was such that even if any of these women did have bits of Ogorzow’s skin under their nails it would not have done the police much good. No one turned in any strands of hair to the police. If Ogorzow had lost any in these struggles, the police never obtained it. All that it would have told them at the time was what color his hair was and if he dyed it.
Indeed, Ogorzow may have discovered the hard way that he was almost as likely to cut himself as his victim during a knife attack. It is very common for a criminal who wields a knife to injure himself while using it. A book on forensic biology discussed such “self inflicted wounds on the assailant” as follows: “Assaults are often chaotic events and the assailant may wield their weapon in a wild manner even if the victim is already dead. If the victim is vigorously defending themselves the scene is likely to be both noisy and violent. It is therefore not unusual for the assailant to wound himself, especially if he is using a sharp implement. In addition, the weapon may become covered in blood and therefore difficult to grip and if a knife without a guard is being used the hand holding it may slip down over the blade if it suddenly hits a hard object. Usually, the assailant acquires wounds in the form of cuts and stabs to the hands . . . although other parts of the body may be hurt.”1
A Serial Killer in Nazi Berlin Page 8
