I received a summons to appear tomorrow at the police station; but don’t be alarmed, it is obviously connected with my Dozentur. The government wants to know whether I haven’t some vile deed to confess that would render me unworthy of the noble title. I am determined not to divulge a thing.
To his fiancé, Martha. The letter of August 12, 1885
Freud, Sigmund, The Letters of Sigmund Freud, (1960, p. 168).

John Freud, Sigmund Freud's nephew

John (Johann) Freud was born in 1855, in Freiberg, (Pribor) in Moravia, part of the Austro-Hungarian Empire. He was the son of Emanuel Freud and had 6 siblings. Emanuel Freud was the eldest son of Jacob Freud, Sigmund Freud's father. Thus John was Sigmund nephew. Emanuel with his family moved to Manchester, England around 1859 when Freud was three years' old. In England, Johann changed his name to John. The date and circumstances of John's death aren't known.

Murdered aged 20

In his book, Passion for Murder:-The Homicidal Deeds of Dr. Sigmund Freud, (1984), (2) Eric Miller, accused Freud of murdering his English nephew in 1875, thus when Freud was 19, and John was 20 years of age. (As it will be soon apparent, Miller was wrong about the dating of John's demise, but not about the fact that Freud was the culprit.)

Murdered aged 64

Likewise. a clinical psychologist, Paul Scagnelli, in his book, Deadly Dr Freud (1994), just like Clark before him, speculated that Freud was behind John’s disappearance in 1919.
Scagnelli, as he explained, pointed to Samuel Freud's letter to Sigmund on 22 May, 1919, advising him of John Freud's disappearance. As he explained, he deduced that Sigmund probably initiated arrangements for that murder in March 1919. (3)  Scagnelli didn't reveal the source of this information.  Again, just like Clark's before him, his information cannot be trusted.

Untraceable

Walter Boehlich, the editor of Freud’s letters to his youthful friend, Eduard Silberstein, in a footnote to Freud’s letter of August 3, 1875, explained that, John Freud (b. 1855) was untraceable, (4) not even attempting to date  John's disappearance.

Disappeared in his early thirties

And, David Cohen, in his book, Freud on Coke (2011) claims that Freud’s, childhood ‘companion John disappeared from Manchester when he was in his early thirties. As Cohen pointed out: There is no mention of John in any letter Freud wrote after 1890. (5) Cohen didn’t reveal in which of the earlier letters, if any, John was mentioned.

Disappeared before turning 55

A renowned Freud scholar, Michael Molnar, in his book, Looking Through Freud's Photos (2015) mentions the mysterious disappearance of Emmanuel's son, John, from all family records.
Molnar points to, Emanuel’s overbearing nature" oddly claiming that it might possibly have something to do with the mysterious disappearance of Emanuel’s son, John, from all family records. (6)
What Emanuel’s overbearing nature had to do with the disappearance of all records, not only in Manchester but also in Vienna, is an even a bigger mystery than the fact that they all disappeared.
And Molnar adds, there is no record of him being married up to the time when he disappears from the records at the age of fifty-four. It is also curious that no further mention of him can be found in any of the extant correspondences. (7)
Remarkably, the author wasn’t wondering why both branches of the Freud family, in Austria and England, would have expunged every single trace of the existence of a member of their family.
As, Molnar pointed out, On Emanuel’s [John’s father’s] journey to Vienna in 1900, he was accompanied by [the youngest son] Sam.  Apparently, by then, John was either estranged from his family or was dead.  And Molnar pointed out that, By 1906, Freud & Co.” had mutated into “E. Freud and Son”. And he clarified, That singular “Son” was, in all likelihood, Samuel, not John. (7) Apparently, by 1906 John, dead or alive, was no longer around. This is the author's source of information about the age at which John disappeared.

What happened to John?

As a matter of course, since there are so many differing dates related to John's disappearance, it is uncertain if any, and which, of those dates is true.
There are two camps when it comes to discussing  John's fate.  The Freudian camp claims that Freud disappeared, and the anti-Freudian one, claims that Freud killed his nephew.  Which camp is right, that is the question.

Scarce evidence of John's existence.

Although, on several occasions, Freud mentioned John in his writings and letters, remarkably every trace of John's existence had been meticulously expunged from the family history, not only in Manchester but also in Vienna, as if he never existed. There are no letters, no photos, no grave, nothing, which in itself is suspicious. Why erase every trace of a family member, if his disappearance had not been caused by anyone in the family?
The only evidence of John's existence in the U.K., besides Freud's mentions of him, are the censuses of 1861, 1871, and 1881.
(1) Clark, Ronald, Freud: The Man and the Cause, (1980, p. 394).
(2) Miller, Eric, Passion for Murder-The Homicidal Deeds of Dr. Sigmund Freud, (1984).
(3) Scagnelli, Paul, Deadly Dr Freud: The Murder of Emanuel Freud and the Disappearance of John Freud, (1994, p. 456).
(4) Freud, Sigmund, The Letters of Sigmund Freud to Eduard Silberstein 1871–1881, (1990, p. 124).
(5) Cohen, Freud on Coke, (2011, p. 124).
(6) Molnar, Michael, Looking Through Freud's Photos, (2015, p. 81).
(7) Molnar, (2015, p. 85).

Freud Family Collection

The University of Manchester Library holds Freud Family Papers. Among others, the collection holds, Letters and related material from Sam Freud to Sigmund Freud, consisting of 61 letters from Sam in Manchester between July 13, 1914 and May 2, 1936[ Reference GB 133 SSF/1/2.
Since Emanuel Freud with his family moved to Manchester around 1859, it is obvious that the letters of the earlier years, in which John would have been mentioned, are missing! This is not a coincidence.

 Although the collection contains some photographs of Freud's English relatives, there is not a single picture of John, Sigmund’s closest childhood friend, and the son of Emanuel.
Every trace of John’s existence had been expunged. Why did the Freud family obliterate all records of John’s existence?
When, why, and what happened to John is a good question. And the answer to it, no doubt, will explain, the secrecy concerning John’s disappearance.
Sometimes, lack of evidence is convincing evidence by itself. Apparently, for some obscure reason, John and his fate had to be forever hidden from the public view. Could it be because revealing John’s death, murder rather, would lead to a criminal investigation and a severe punishment of the culprit and the family that participated in the cover-up?

John in the U.K. censuses

Some records could not be expunged, no matter how hard the Freud family had tried. Thus, there are census records from the years after the Emanuel family's arrival in Manchester confirming John’s existence. And, John Freud's name appears in three consecutive censuses for England.  

Census of 1861

The first record of John appears in the census of 1861. At the time, John Freud aged 5, born in 1856, lived with his family at 6 Wellington Terrace, Broughton, Lancashire, England. The family consisted of his parents, Emanuel, aged 28, and, his wife, Marie (26), and, besides John, the siblings, Paulina (4), Bertha (2) and the baby Solomon st the time 9 1/2 months.

Census of 1871

According to the census of 1871, thus ten years later, John Freud, aged 15, born in 1856 in Austria, still lived with his family, although, at a new address, 12 Green Street, Manchester, Lancashire, England.   

Census of 1881

Notably, the next census of 1881, thus another ten years later, revealed that John, aged 25, born in Bohemia, Austria, was no longer living with his family. Instead, he was a lodger, of the Statham family, living at 13 Hyde Road in Lancashire, while working as a warehouseman.  So, for whatever reason, John left his family, and rented a place for himself not very far from his former address.

Census of 1891

 
John Freud's name is not to be found in the census of 1891, anywhere in England,indicating that he had disappeared without a trace, or was murdered between the years 1881 and 1891, thus, never reaching the age of 35.

Inconsistent date of birth

Information about John’s date of birth is inconsistent. According to the census of 1861 England & Wales Census, Johann/John Freud was born on August 13, 1855. This is also the date specified by Miller, in his Passion for Murder, who writes that his, Official records … show that Johann [John] Freud … was born on August 13, 1855. However according to the census of 1871, John was born in 1856, which would make him Freud's age-mate.

John in Freud’s writings and letters

Most, if not all of Freud's works, in particular his early works, like Screen Memories (1899), The Interpretation of Dreams (1899/1900), Psychopathology of Everyday Life (1901), The Joke and Its Relation to the Unconscious (1905), are, for the most part, autobiographical. But it is only in the Screen memories, and the dream book, that Freud provided information about his nephew, John, and his relation to him. There are also a couple of references to the youthful John in Freud’s letters to Eduard Silberstein and Wilhelm Fliess.
Thus, In the letter to Eduard of August 3, 1875, having been acquainted with John during his visit to England, Freud stated: My nephew John speaks and understands a little Spanish. (1) The claim, of course, was highly unlikely, unless speaking Spanish was a code word for some other kind of, possibly sexual, activity in which also Silberstein was involved.
And in the letter of September 9, 1875, Freud informed Eduard that John, is an Englishman in every respect, with a knowledge of languages and technical matters well beyond the usual business education. As it is usual for Freud, he was lying. Since John worked as a warehouseman, without a doubt, Freud greatly exaggerated John’s standing.
(1) Freud, Sigmund, The Letters of Sigmund Freud to Eduard Silberstein 1871–1881, (1990,, p. 123).
(2) Freud, (1990, p. 127).

Murderous hate

One Freud researcher, Roazen, suspected there was a murderous background to Freud's fainting.  
In fainting in Jung’s presence then, Freud may have been atoning for his murderous hate, Roazen wrote, with which he responded to the death wishes toward himself which he detected in his disciple. (2)
While there's no doubt that Freud was a murderous character, there's no proof that also Jung felt murderous hate toward Freud. More probably, Roazen's explanation reflects Freud's hatred directed at his own father, whom he wanted dead, projected onto his relationship with Jung. (In their relationship, Freud played the father, Jung the murderous son). It was all in Freud's sick mind.
The early translator of Freud's works, Dr. A. A. Brill in his Lectures on Psychoanalytical Psychology (1956) provided an explanation of fainting that seems to fit Freud's mishap like a glove.

Freud's hysteric faint

Whenever a person’s powerfully repressed emotions (fear or desire) are suddenly released or revealed, the hysterical symptom (fainting ...) appears.
The hysteric fainter ... unable to face the consequences of the suddenly revealed inner state, escapes by falling instantly into a temporary sleep-oblivion-simulated death called fainting. (3)
Thus, according to Brill's explanation, Freud's fainting may have been caused by a, suddenly released, repressed fear of being identified as a murderer. And, Freud was a self-professed hysteric!
The only explanation of the fainting provided by Freud, which makes some sense, appeared in his letter to Jones on December 8, 1912, in which Freud admitted that, There is some piece of unruly homosexual feeling at the root of the matter. (4)
As Freud himself revealed, in the allegoric form in the dream book, his homosexual encounter with John resulted in the latter's "defeat", thus death. If the paranoid Freud suspected that Jung was alluding to the fact that John's body was resting in the Manchester peat-bog, no wonder that he would have fainted.
(1) Chat Moss: Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chat_Moss
(2) Roazen, Paul Freud and his followers, (1975, p. 250).
(3) Rosenberg, Sam, Why Freud fainted, (1978, p. 56).
(4) Jones, Ernest, Sigmund Freud: Life and Work: The Formative Years and the Great Discoveries, 1856-1900, (1953, p. 317).

Miraculous metamorphosis of Freud into Froud, hallelujah!

In his Freud family biography titled tantisingly, Freud’s British Family: Reclaiming Lost Lives in Manchester and London, (2025!) Roger Willoughby, presents the results of his epoch-making decennial research into the lives of Freud’s British Family.
Considering that the British branch of the family, dealing in textiles, and counterfeit Russian money, didn't contribute anything of value to the welfare of the British Empire, it is beyond me why anyone would waste time on this kind of research. Actually, this is not entirely true. There are two of Freud's relatives whose deaths, but not lives, deserve serious scrutiny. Incidentally, the two individuals, Emanuel, the father, and his son, John were Sigmund Freud's closest relatives. Emanuel was Freud's eldest half-brother, and John was Freud's nephew. I have described the stories of their life and death in separate pages on this site under the overarching title Murder.
Willoughby mentions, The (dis)appearance of John Freud, in the table of contents, dedicating a whole five pages to Freud's nephew. Only five pages to describe the life and death of a person? Why is that? And the answer is obvious. Because every single piece of paper and photograph, related to John, has been deleted from the Freud family's collection. There's a reason for it, and it is not an innocent one. Without a doubt, Freud murdered his nephew between the years 1881 and 1891. (The last record of John's existence appeared in the census of 1881.
Absurdly, the author refers to John Froud’s grave marker, Highgate Cemetery, London, as proof that John lived past 1891, dying of natural cases. But the claim is as absurd as it appears.
There were many John Frouds in the census of 1891 and beyond. No wonder, Willoughby managed to find one that would fit his bill of proving John's survival. Unfortunately, they aren't related to the Austrian Jewish Freuds.
How a serious researcher can fall into this kind of trap beggars belief. Even a child would realise that there's no way that John Freud's name, which was spelled correctly in every census since he arrived in England, would be misspelled on his gravestone. Mistakes like that may happen, but it is extremely rare like a meteor falling from the sky onto one's house.
According to one of the reviewers, John Freud, Sigmund’s infant playmate, vanished so mysteriously from the historical record that certain fantasists could even argue Freud had killed him. *
Thank you for pointing that out. John, indeed, mysteriously vanished, leaving not a single trace of his existence, except for census records.
Could Freud have killed John? Of course. Did he kill John? Most probably. So, maybe the researchers who claimed that Freud killed John weren't fantasists but realists, aka truth-seekers?
So, Willoughby is right and everyone else is wrong? There's no smoke without a fire. Moreover, no one accused any other member of the family of being a killer! (Actually, it's not true. Some believed that Josef, Freud's father, may have killed off one of his three wives, Also Josef's second wife, Rebecca, like John, disappeared without a trace.)
Willoughby rightly pointed out - he wasn't wrong about everything -  the dearth of publicly available archival material touching on Freud’s British family, Oddly, he never asked what the reason for this kind of secrecy was. As a consequence of this kind of secrecy, there's the tantalising sense that this absence marks a repression of the history of this branch of the family.
Without a doubt, the Emanuel's and Philips Freud families, at the time, were keeping their dirty secrets under wraps. Willoughby recounts that Freud's youngest son, Ernst Freud even pointed to this when he noted that: ‘Complete collections of letters, such as those to my father’s half brother, Emanuel, and his nephew John, have obstinately refused to come to light.'  **
As a matter of course, the letters didn't refuse anything, it was the family that refused to provide any information and documents related to Emanuel's and John's fate and deaths. And one can only wonder why if there was nothing suspicious about their sudden demise.
* Michael Molnar, ex-Director of the Freud Museum, London, author of Looking Through Freud’s Photos and editor of The Diary of Sigmund Freud 1929–1939, in Willoughby, Roger, Freud’s British Family: Reclaiming Lost Lives in Manchester and London, (2025).
** Freud, Sigmund, The Letters of Sigmund Freud, (1960, p. IX.).