Death in a railway accident

Ernest Jones, Freud’s intimate and trustworthy follower, and biographer, selected for the task of writing the ultimate Freud biography by Freud’s youngest daughter, Anna Freud, revealed that,
On November 11 [1914] he [Freud] wrote to Ferenczi that he had just heard of his beloved brother Emmanuel’s death in a railway accident. (5)
Notably, Jones doesn't mention anything about the circumstances of Emanuel's death. Possibly, as David Cohen, pointed out in his book, The Escape of Sigmund Freud, published in 2009, one reason was that Jones did not want to draw attention to the surprising number of unexplained and suspicious deaths … in the Freud family between 1915 and 1930. (6)
How odd. So the Freud family members were dying in unprecedented numbers, and under suspicious circumstances, during those years?! And the common thread, when it comes to their demise, was the fact that they had the bad luck of being close to their famous relative, Sigmund.
Notably, the 2002 edition by the same author, features a different statement about Jones' not reporting the circumstances of Emanuel's death: Equally, he wrote nothing about any of the later untimely deaths in Freud’s family. (7)
Why the statement about the surprising number of unexplained and suspicious deaths had to be replaced by a much more benign, untimely deaths in Freud’s family, is an interesting question.
A case in point: Emanuel's mysterious death wasn't unique; a surprising number of Freud’s disciples, acquaintances, and "friends", en masse – and not all cases are known - committed "suicide".
(1) Molnar, Michael, Looking Through Freud’s Photos, (2015, p. 87).
(2) Krull, Marianne, Freud and His Father, (1986, p. 264).
(3) Molnar, (2015, p. 88).
(4) SE 20, p. 57, SE 12, p. 150.
(5) Jones, Ernest, The Life and Work of Sigmund Freud, (1955 p. 174).
(6) Cohen David, The Escape of Sigmund Freud, (2009, p. 49).
(7) Cohen David, The Escape of Sigmund Freud, (2012, p. 61)

There is an obvious question about Freud’s early knowledge of Emmanuel’s death. The United Kingdom's war with the Central Powers (including Germany and Austria) started on August 4, 1914. Thus, considering the immediate cancellation of post services, between the enemy countries during WWI, how could have Freud learned about Emanuel’s death in October 1914, already in November?  And why would Freud, when mentioning Emmanuel’s death, ask his friend and follower, Lou Andreas-Salomé on November 14, 1914, almost exactly to the day on the anniversary of Emanuel's death, whether she still believed that, all big brothers are good? Apparently, Freud didn't.
Freud’s early knowledge of Emmanuel’s death is a mystery. The United Kingdom war with the Central Powers (including Germany and Austria) started on August 4, 1914. Thus, considering the immediate cancellation of post services between the enemy countries during WWI, how could have Freud learned about Emanuel’s death in October 1914? Since Schur writes that, Freud wrote to her [Lou] on November 14, 1914, shortly after he had learned about the death of Emanuel, * it means that he knew about Emanuel’s death less than a month, about 28 days, after it happened. How it was at all possible is a good and, as yet, unanswered question.
Why would Freud, when mentioning Emmanuel’s death, ask his friend and follower, Lou Andreas-Salomé, on November 14, 1914, whether she still believed that, all big brothers are good? 
Notably, in his letter to Abraham of December 11, 1914, Freud wrote that Lou, had six big brothers, all of whom were kind to her. * Apparently, Freud believed, that Emanuel, unlike Lou's brothers, wasn’t kind to him! Without a doubt, by providing those quotes -why else? - not for the first time, Schur hinted at something he could not openly say.
There's no doubt that there was bad blood between Freud, and his eldest half-brother Emmanuel, possibly relating to Freud's several visits to Manchester. Who knows what Emanuel did to Freud? Or maybe, which is also a distinct possibility, Freud's aversion was simply a product of his cocaine-induced psychosis.
* Schur, Max, Freud: Living and Dying, (1972, p. 291).
** Abraham, Karl & Freud, Sigmund, A psycho-analytic dialogue: the letters of Sigmund Freud and Karl Abraham, 1907-1926, (1966, p. 205).

Blood is thicker than water?

In the family group photo taken in 1876, thus the year after Freud’s first visit to England, although standing next to one another, Emanuel is turning their heads away from Freud. It is apparent that something was amiss but what?
This is not a display of brotherly love, but rather the opposite. The obvious, although rhetorical, question to ask is what, if anything, happened to Freud during his first visit to his eldest brother, in England, a year earlier, to cause discord between them.
Significantly, even though being a self-professed anglophile, Freud, allegedly, didn’t visit Manchester again for another 33 years, returning first in 1908.
Remarkably, until then, Freud didn’t want to relive his first English experience, or maybe for some reason, he wasn’t welcome back in Manchester.
Notably, Freud chose not to accompany his youngest daughter, Anna, on her visit to England in July 1914, only four months before Emanuel's death. It's all very confusing; so, this is what brotherly love, in Freud’s extended family, looked like.

Let's analyse the content of the article recounting Emanuel's death. It stated that,  just as an express passenger train passed Parbold Station, it was noticed that one of the carriage doors had opened, and an elderly man lay on the line. He had apparently fallen out of the compartment in which he had been travelling alone.
There are several issues with this statement. Since the English trains run on the left, if Emanuel stepped out of the train believing he had arrived at his destination, he would've fallen on the platform. And yet the article stated that he had fallen on the line. So he must have exited the train on the side opposite to the platform, which is odd. But, if it was a killer that wanted to push him out of the train avoiding being seen in the action, pushing out Emanuel on the side opposite to the platform would be a logical thing to do.
The article also stated that it was noticed that the carriage doors had opened, without revealing who and when noticed the open door. The article also stated that Emanuel was traveling alone in his compartment. How could they know that? He could've had a companion who, having pushed Emanuel out of the train, would have moved to another compartment or carriage.

Killed by falling from a train

Yet another biographer, Ronald Willian Clark, provided more detailed information about Emmanuel’s death, stating that at the start of WWI, among the last news to reach him [Freud] from Britain was the account of how his half-brother Emanuel had been killed by falling from a train between Southport and Manchester. (1)
Since we know already about Emanuel's death, the most interesting detail in this statement is the information that Emanuel’s death was caused by a fall from a local train. Notably, this information doesn't appear in the newspaper article. Oddly, Clark didn’t find Emanuel’s fall from the train suspicious, as if people were falling off trains in droves daily, all over the world, which doesn't happen. Unfortunately, Clark didn’t reveal the source of this crucial information.
Another odd detail in the statement was the claim that Freud somehow learned about Emanuel’s violent death at the start of the war. But this cannot be true. The war started on August 4, 1914, and Emmanuel died on October 17, 1914, thus 76 days, or 2 months, and 13 days later, when there was no postal service between the warring countries. Clark couldn’t have been unaware of the fact since he explained that, Direct and uncensored communication between Austria and Britain was reopened in April 1919. (2) If there was no communication during the war, how would it have been possible for Freud to learn about Emanuel's demise two months after the start of the war?
Once communication with Britain was restored, the elated Freud wrote, on April 18, 1919, to Jones: The first window opening in our cage. (2)
Without a doubt, there was no way for the news about Emanuel’s death in Manchester to reach Freud in Vienna,

Shrouded in mystery

 According to a more recent biographer, David Cohen, Emanuel’s death is still shrouded in mystery. (3) Interestingly, although contradicting the true chronology, just like Clark, Cohen claimed that Emanuel died just as the First World War started. (3) (Actually, Emanuel died more than two months after the war started.)
Having visited the fateful station of Parbold, Cohen noted that Parbold is still a tiny station, its short platform unable to accommodate more than three carriages.
Oddly Cohen's speculated that, It is just possible that Emanuel opened the door thinking there would be a platform there and fell out on to the track, but he madę the journey every day. He must have known the platform was short. (3)
Unfortunately, the assumption is without merit, since, as Cohen pointed out, Emmanuel made the same trip daily for many years. No doubt, he wouldn’t mistake the tiny Parbold station for the incomparably bigger station of his destination. And, there’s no chance in hell, either, that Emanuel would even attempt to step out of an express train running at full speed.
(1) Clark, Ronald W., Freud: The Man and the Cause, (1980, p. 376).
(2) Clark, Ronald W.,  (1980, p. 394).
(3) Cohen, David, The Escape of Sigmund Freud, (2009, p. 49).

Not able to tolerate the war

Yet another Freudian scholar - there are lots of them - Elisabeth Roudinesco, reporting Emanuel’s untimely death, explained that, in the fall of 1914, he [Freud] learned that his cherished half-brother Emanuel had died, at age eighty-one. Notably, she repeated uncritically Freud’s bizarre, and false claim, that, Emmanuel had died, because, he had not been able to tolerate the war. (1)
This short statement contains several misleading claims. Freud didn’t cherish his brother, most certainly not at the time around Emanuel’s death. Also, the claim that Emanuel had died, implies wrongly a death of natural causes, or by suicide. And, Emanuel’s death wasn’t caused by his “intolerance” of war – a new and highly unusual disease - but by a fall from a running, at high speed, express train.

Killed himself

Remarkably, the author of Karl Abraham’s biography – Abraham was one of Freud’s most devoted followers - claimed that Emanuel’s death was a suicide. According to her, Emanuel, killed himself … at the age of eighty-one … he jumped from a moving train. Freud believed the outbreak of war had been too much for him to bear. (2)
As she explained, this information was based on Freud’s letter to Ferenczi, of November 11, 1914, but the letter doesn’t mention either suicide or jumping! Notably, as the dating of Freud’s letter to Ferenczi indicates, Freud knew about Emanuel’s death at least 25 days after the tragic event. How was that possible with the raging war?

A shadow of doubt lingers on

Yet another Freud biographer, Freud scholar, and a former Freud Museum Director, Michael Molnar, recounting the circumstances of Emanuel’s demise, speculated that Emanuel's fall from a train may have been a self-inflicted accident. Blaming Emanuel’s age, he theorised that Emanuel opened the door either by mistake, or because of the need to urinate, or perhaps having mistaken the train door for a toilet’s; each explanation more fanciful than the previous one.  And, since every biographer comes with new explanations of how Emanuel died, chances are, all of them are wrong, all of them for some odd reason, unsuccessfully clutching for the Freudian straws.
This is the entire quote: Given Emanuel’s age, he might have mistakenly opened the door out of forgetfulness and under pressure of a natural need, perhaps thinking he was entering the train corridor or opening a lavatory door. This hypothesis would be strong enough to support the most probable verdict of accidental death. Yet a shadow of doubt lingers on. (3) It most certainly does.
But, if neither of the explanations sounds convincing, the pertinent question remains: what, or maybe who, forced Emanuel out of his compartment to his death? Remarkably, even though noticing that Emanuel died at the same age as Freud’s father, Molnar doesn’t wonder about the uncanny coincidence. And even though he points out that Freud was numerically superstitious, (3) he refrains from drawing the obvious conclusion that Freud’s numerical obsession could have had something to do with Emanuel’s, possibly ritualised, death.

Fallen out of a train

Interestingly, in his foreword to Molnar's book, professor Brett Kahr, mentions, Freud’s elder half-brother, Emanuel Freud, who plunged to his death, having fallen out of a train. (4)
Actually, it is rather uncommon for people to fall out of trains, plunging to their deaths; Emanuel's case an exception rather than a rule. Could it be that the reason for Emanuel's fall to his death was the fact that he was too closely related to his youngest, and murderous, half-brother, Sigmund?
Oddly, none of the Freudian scholars turned biographers contemplated the possibility of Emanuel’s forced exit from the train, with Freud's, unasked-for, but eager, cooperation.
1) Roudinesco, Elizabeth, Freud: In His Time and Ours (2016, p. 176-177).
(2) Bentinck van Schoonheten, Anna, Karl Abraham: Life and Work, a Biography, (p. 2016, p. 369).
(3) Molnar, Michael, Looking Through Freud's Photos, (2019, p. 87 ff).
(4) Molnar, Michael, (2019, p. xvi).

Continued on #2