The opposing party, the defendants, now Duke Phillip Julius and the town council, took their time and did not submit a response until five years later. In 121 articles, the rejected all accusations, declaring that they were „no guilty of responding to them“. They admitted that Isabella had been tortured, imprisoned, and expelld from the country because she was „suspected of being a sorceress“ (16). While they started that they were unable to comment on certain allegations, such as the severity of the torture, they denied most of claims, including her alleged losses amounting to 40,000 Reichstaler, as unfounded. The duke maintained that he did not wish to be „complained of by the plaintiff“ and dismissed the entire lawsuit as slanderous, insisting that he be „released from the frivolous lawsuit“.

The defendants‘ strategy was to uphold both the accusations against Isabella and the punishment imposed upon her as lawful, while simultaneously discrediting her family and attacking her honour. They did not acknowledge her claim to her property and possessions in any respect.

In accordance with the provisions of the „Carolina“, „two or three credible witnesses who speak from true knowledge“ were examined. However, two of the three witnesses had already died. According to the Halsgerichtsordnung (criminal court regulations), anyone who „has particular association with sorcery and sorceresses“ or „engages in such suspious activities, gestures, words and behaviour“ and „is otherwise notorious for the same“ proviedes a legitimate indication of sorcery. (17) One of the witnesses, Isabella`s servant Peter Züssen, testified that she had maintained contact with a woman known as the Wedelsche. According to his statement, this woman who lived in Mecklenburg, was suspected of being a fortune teller, sorceress and worshipper of the devil. He claimed that Isabella had „spent whole days and nights talking suspiciously“ with her, and had sent her butter and eel. Furthermore, he stated that, through a hole in the wall, he had seen a black dog standing between the two women.

As early as 1588, another woman in the town, known as Luchtische, was arrested and accused of witchcraft. According to reports, her maid had spread the rumour that she possessed a devil, which she kept in a glass jar. This devil was suposedly responsible for bringing her prosperity in trade and business. The Luchtische was also accused of having driven the maid insane. The latter was said to have run through the town „naked and bare“ and was later found dead in a pit. Under torture, the Luchtische confessed that Isabella Schlichtekrull possessed two devils, Hildebrandt and Luutz, who procured grain and money for her. She further alleged that Isabella had committed adultery with her fisherman’s servant, Klaus Krause. Krause feared Isabella because she constantly shouted at him in anger. Her later claimed that he outbursts had caused him physical harm and that he had „become incapable of all marital duties“. Krause was regarded at Isabella`s enemy, as he had hoped to marry her after the death of her first husband. These accusations, however, did not save the Luchtische herself. She was convicted of witchcraft without a formal trial for allegedly causing the maid`s death and was punished „with fire“. In addition to those townpeople who envied Isabella’s commercial success, even her husband accused her of being in league with the devil. Accordingn to his account, the devil had appeared at her „wedding“ in the form of an unknown old woman who brought her a large sum of money. Money played a significant role throughout the case. The council accused Isabella of concealing her cashin prepartion of flight. However, buying money for safekeeping was a common practice at the time, intended to protect it from servants and even family members. Nevertheless, the coucil searched for the hidden funds until they eventually discovered them in a pit.

The defendants acknowledged that Isabella`s parents had lived in Pomerania, but they claimed that her father had been a criminal who had been imprisoned for theft in Holstein, where he subsequently died. According to their account, Isabella arrived in Anklam, the small town on the Peene River only afterwards, „keeping herself poor and humble“ and „serving as a maid for citizens and fishermen“. (18) They portrayed her as nothing more than a poor fisherwoman who married her first husband, J. Lüdtke, „a son of higher standing“, and bore him children, although he was allegedly able to provide only meagre support for the family. The defendants further argued that her imprisonment and repeated torture had been necessary because, despite repeated warnings, she had done nothing to clear herself of the accusations. Isabella remained silent. They maintained that they had acted with due consideration and in accordance with the judicial regulations, and that the painful interrogations had been conducted in such a manner that she was „injured as little as possible by wounds and harm“. (19) Nevertheless, they continued to regard her as notorious for witchcraft, citing her alleged use of „all kinds of demonic words“, her habit of „paying little attention to the church and the sacraments“, and her frequent invocation of the devil’s name. For these reasons, they argued that she had „deserving expulsion from the country for such superstitious curses“. The defendants even alleged that Isabella had employed „abominable superstitious things against her husband“ (D. Radtke) in order that „he would not pursue whores, or would beat the Clegerin any more“.

With regard to her property, „which the Clegerin would like to claim“, the town maintained that it had „done very little“ because after her release from prison, she „never had such property“. Her husband asserted „that all of them had been sold with the knowledge and consent of the Clegerin herself“. According to this argument, there had been no reason to confiscate her possessions or enter them into the register of confiscated property. Consequenetly, the defendants claimed that they bore „no blame for the destruction of the property“.

The Imperial Chamber Court in Speyer responded promptly with the plaintiff Isabella Schlichtekrull`s reply to the defendant`s submission. (20) In a document extending to one hundred pages, her legal reprensentatives not only accused the defendants of serious procedural violations but also substantiated these allegations by reference to the provisions of Charles V’s Halsgerichtsordnung (criminal procedure code). The document provided detailed legal commentary on the handling of evidence, the examination of witnesses, and the use of torture. Among other criticisms, it highlighted the defendant`s failure to conduct a thorogh investigation of the accusations, particularly in their examination of witnesses. Rather than investigating the allegations themselves, the defendants had relied on rumours and „nothing but fairy tales“. In doing so, they had also disregarded the proper sequence of judicial proceedings. According to the plaintiff`s argument, a judge should first have established the facts, then relied on solid evidence concerning who had commited the alleged offence, when and where it had occurred, why it had happened, and what damage had resulted. Only after such evidences had been established should the plaintiff have been subjected to painful questioning.

As requested by the defendants, namely „to compel the plaintiff to give a correct and decisive answer“, Isabella was summoned to appear before a notary in Speyer. There, she was questioned in detail regarding each of the allegations brought against her. Concerning her relationship with Mrs Wedel, who was alleged to have been her witch mistress, Isabella explained that her husband, J. Lüdtke, had suffered from a prolonged illness for which no remedy had proved effective. She then heard of Mrs Wedel, a woman in Mecklenburg, who was reputed to posess healing power. Isabella brought her husband’s urine to her, whereupon Mrs Wedel prepared a medicinal potion. According to Isabella´s testmony, „he recovered from his illness“. In gratitude, she and her husband frequently sent Mrs Wedel fish and butter and visited her on several occasions.

The RKG challanged the crediblity of the two servants, Züssen and Krause, who had been presented as witnesses by the defendants. It pointed out that neither man had testified under oath and that their statements were therefore unreliable. Züssen, who claimed to have witnessed the sorcery allegedly practised by the Wedelsche, was described as „a public thief who was hanged on the gallows“. As for Krause, who alleged that Isabella´s shouting had rendered him „incapable of all marital acts“, the RKG responded by asking, „how could he have known that“, since he was unmarried. Consequently, it argued that „he must have committed fornication and lewdness“.

As for the Luchtische, she too was dismissed by the RKG as „absurd and unbelievable“. She had claimed that Isabella had committed adultery with Krause six years earlier. Aside from the RKG´s critisism of questioning a defendant „with which he intends to accuse others of the same crime“, Isabella denied the allegation and stated she had confronted the Luchtische. The latter had told her that she had been „questioned extensively“ because of her and that she had therefore been „subjected to excessive torture, so that her belly had burst and her intestines had fallen out of her body“.

Isabella was suprised at the disparaging portrayal of her parents and explained that they had been well known throughout the town because they were long-established residents. She herself had not arrived in Anklam in poverty or destitution but had been born there and baptised in St. Nicolas‘ Church. Nor did she accept any disparagement of her fish trade, from which she paid the duke 500 Talers a year. On contrary, it was „no small and poor opportunity“, but rather „usually brought in a large and very noticeable amount annually“. Anyone considered respectable in the town owned a Zeeseboat and sold „whole barrels full“ of fish.
Under torture, the RKG observed, „such statements and confessions are null and void and of no force whatsoever“. The defendants and a judge ought to have taken greater care to ensure credible reports and suspicions, rather than resorting to torture. They should instead have made enquiries and „diligently investigated … whether the misdeed had actually taken place, whether the suspicion was sufficient or not“. The defendants knew that „they had wronged the plaintiff and done too much, and yet they were unable or unwilling to desist“. They relied on witnesses only after the fact in order to „obtain a remedy and a pretence for themselves and to fish for evidence“. Overall, „no legal proceedings were held with her, which is wrong and cannot be justified“. According to the RKG, in such violations of the Criminalis Carolina, „the judge and the authorities shall also be severely punished for this reason, … that they shall make due reparation to the accused for the shame, pain and damage inflicted upon her“.

According to the RKG, the defendants were obliged, „of answering to the plaintiff for all such goods as they have inventoried and described and of returning them to her in fll“. Had the inventory been properly compiled, it would have been evident „that she and no one else had been in possession of the goods“. Isabella denied that she had ever granted her husband Radtke or her children permission to take possession of, or dispose of, her property. On this basis, she maintained that the defendants, both the mayor and the council, were required either to restore the goods or to compensate her in the amount of 20,000 Talers. She further noted that the defendants had actively participated in the search for her cash without reservation. Isabella also contested the justification for her detention, namely the alleged rist of flight. In her account, she had safeguarded her assets and „removed it from her unfaithful husband, who had taken everything he could from her and squandered it on frivolous people“.

In this context, Isabella characterised „her unfaithful, supposed husband“ as „her worst and most evil enemy“, who, in her view, had acted out of revenge and had been „the true instigator“ of her misfortune.
The RKG likewise took note of this aspect, observing that „defendants themselves acknowledged this in their report, which they sent to His Imperial Majesty, or most gracious lord in Prague, to His Imperial Majesty’s Court Chancellery. For therein they report that „this husband of hers, the plaintiff, had her defer and put away“.

The ultimate outcome of the proceedings remains unclear. The defendants did respond, albeitwith evident reluctance. At issue was, in particular, the question of alimony which Isabella was to recieve from her estates. However, the defendants again evaded a substantive resolution, arguing that the estates were by then in the posession of third parties and further maintaining that they had not even „inquired“ into the seizures demanded from Radtke and her son-in-law. (21) This effectively brought the matter to a close.

The final correspondence relating to the case dates back to 1614. Emperor Matthias in Prague intervened personally on Isabella’s behalf and ordered the mayor of Anklam to comply with a „summons“ to Speyer. (22) The delivery of this imperial mandate was formally acknowledged by the messenger, who confirmed that he had handed the letter directly to the mayor. (23) It is therefore plausible that Isabella had died in the meantime, with the RKG leaving the case among the many unsolved files that accumulated in its records.