removed from idiocy. His testimony was brief, decided and intelligent.
When the motive for the murder, in this case most important,
came under discussion, he shrugged his shoulders and
answered my question--whether it was not committed on account of

[1] Dichl in H. Gross's Arehiv, XI, 240.

a girl--with, ``Yes, so they say.'' On further examination I reached
the astonishing discovery that not only the word ``jealousy,'' but
the very notion and comprehension of it were totally foreign to the
man. The single girl he at one time thought of was won away from
him without making him quarrelsome, nobody had ever told him
of the pangs and passions of other people, he had had no occasion
to consider the theoretic possibility of such a thing, and so
``jealousy'' remained utterly foreign to him. It is clear that his
hearing now took quite another turn. All I thought I heard from
him was essentially wrong; his ``funded thought'' concerning a
very important, in this case a regulative concept, had been too
poor.

The discovery of the ``funded thought'' is indubitably not easy.
But its objective possibility with witness and accused is at least a
fact. It is excluded only where it is most obviously necessary--
in the case of the jury, and the impossibility in this case turns the
institution of trial by jury into a Utopian dream. The presiding
officer of a jury court is in the best instances acquainted with a
few of the jurymen, but never so far as to have been entrusted with
their ``funded thought.'' Now and then, when a juryman asks
a question, one gets a glimpse of it, and when the public prosecutor