Moreover, it is odd - assuming Freud had nothing to do with Weininger’s death - that he had a ready and, as it appears, phoney explanation for the latter’s demise. That Freud knew Weininger personally is apparent from Freud's letter to Fliess, of July 27, 1904, in which he recounted: my glossing over Weininger's visit to me.
As it is obvious, Weininger’s visit to Freud confirms that Weininger learned about Fliess' ideas from Freud. Since harming Fliess physically - that he had already attempted during their last “congress” (aka date) at Achensee - was no longer possible - apparently, Freud tried to harm him by giving away Fliess' intellectual property.
Furthermore, Freud confessed that,
In conjunction with my own attempt to rob you of your originality, – earlier on, Freud claimed bisexuality was his idea – I better understand my behavior toward Weininger. (3)
(1) Freud, Sigmund, The Complete Letters of Sigmund Freud to Wilhelm Fliess 1887–1904. (1985, p. 463).
(2) Freud, (1985, p. 464).
(3) Freud, (1985, p. 566).

Missing letters 

Notably, Freud's letters to Fliess, from the period preceding Weininger's death, on October 4, 1903, when he allegedly committed suicide, are missing. Thus, as far as other suspicious suicides were concerned, there's a remarkably large gap in their correspondence between the letters of December 7, 1902 *, and April 26, 1904 **. 

* Freud, (1985, p. 458).

** Freud, (1985, pp. 460-461).

Ferdinand Probst, Der Fall Otto Weininger, Eine Psychiatrische Studie (1904).

Without any proof, his biographer, Probst, in Weininger's biography, The case of Otto Weininger, claimed that, When Weininger returned to Vienna in the last days of September 1903, he had probably already decided to commit suicide.And he pointed out that, according to [one of Otto's friends] Rappaport, Weininger, as a dualistic personality, was both a criminal and a saint.  This was, as he alleges, the reason why Otto had killed himself. When evil seemed to gain the upper hand in Weininger - in the days of depression - he committed suicide in an "act of supreme heroism", so as not to succumb to evil, so as not to have to kill someone else. If you think that the explanation sounds absurd, you would be right.

Further, Probst explained that, in despair over the terrible thoughts that tormented him, he then committed suicide. According to him, this suicide, in the whole manner in which it was carried out, only testifies to hysteria. So, suicide was caused either by the fight with evil, or by hysteria, or both. There’s no proof that any of those claims was true, rather, as so often, these are the biographer’s suppositions, possibly reflecting his own personality rather than Otto’s.  

But one can agree that Weininger, ended his life with a bang. Assuming it was a suicide, it is obvious that. he wanted to attract the eyes of the world to himself even in death; that is why he performed the tragedy in the house where Beethoven died. And the biographer claimed that, only a hysterical person could do that.

Moreover, Probst claimed that Weininger suffered from a congenital degenerative condition, as a result, in 1901, developing, a hysterical mental disorder with a manic-depressive character causing, a complete transformation of the personality, tremendous self-esteem, complete sexual insensitivity, seizures, abnormal sensations, visual hallucinations, periodically changing delusions of greatness and guilt.

Unless Probst was inventing all those symptoms, this doesn’t sound like hysteria, but more like syphilis attacking different organs. But how would he know considering that neither the father nor his friends mentioned these kinds of mental problems? This sounds more like a description of Freud's personality than Weininger's.

According to Otto’s father, he was more cheerful than gloomy until he was 21 years old …  a year before his death that his mood darkened. Otto had a crisis during, a short period in November 1902, eleven months before his death … but it passed. According to his friend,  Rappaport, Weininger allegedly, had already been thinking about suicide … in 1902, before he wrote "Sex and Character".’ But his friends talked him out of it.

As Probst recounted, In June 1903, Weininger gave up his own apartment, traveled to Italy at the end of July, ... [and when he] returned to Vienna on 29 September 2003, he was in a very gloomy mood. But gloomy doesn't mean suicidal.
He … stayed in his father's house for five days, which he left on the evening of 3 October to take a room in the house where Beethoven had died, where he then ended his life. That Otto had taken his own life was a conclusion reached by his father and his friends, but could this have been a staged suicide instead?

During these five days, at the father's home, as the father recalled, Otto was, extremely depressed but not more than previously. When asked, Otto denied that, he was suffering physically, or mentally because of, a relationship with a female being. The father stated that he believed him. So, if the father is right, Otto had no apparent reason to commit suicide.
According to the biographer, the father sees the cause of the suicide as primarily false pride”. Allegedly, Weininger expressed suicidal thoughts [and] said goodbye to his friends”. Since Probst didn’t mention the source of this information, his claim appears to have been a groundless conjecture.

Father's response 

Otto's father was not happy with how Probst reported his views about the reasons for Otto's death. Thus, in Otto’s friend, Emil Lucka’s, biography, Otto Weininger His Work and His Personality, (1905), Weininger's father complained about, the most blatant biographical distortions in Dr. Probst's brochure: "Der Fall Otto Weininger" published in the Viennese magazine "Die Fackel" (No. 169 of November 23, 1904). (1)
As the father pointed out in, Probst's brochure you can read: "He (the father) wanted a psychiatric examination." But, as the father explained he, neither felt nor expressed to anyone the desire to arrange such an examination. Also, as the father claimed his, comments on the reasons for suicide are reproduced … in a completely distorted manner. (2)
The father wrote: I could not find my way around the dark meanderings of his soul in the very last days of his life, and that voluntary death was a mystery to me too.
Oddly, without providing any details - Probst doesn't report it - the father claimed that his, son had said goodbye to his friend [Moriz] Rappaport before his death. (3)  Did Otto say farewell only to Rappaport, rather than to those who were close to him, like Lucka or Gerber? Or did Rappaport invent the goodbye scene? We will never know. A case in point: as Probst pointed out, Rappaport's biography of Weininger ... has an exquisitely pathological character, thus cannot be trusted.
(1) Lucka, (1905, p. 151).
(2) Lucka, (1905, p. 153).
(3) Lucka, (1905, p. 155).

Not suicidal. A friend, Emil Lucka’s, recollection (1905)

The author of Weininger's biography, Otto Weininger: His Work and His Personality, (1905) - published only two years after Otto’s death - Emil Lucka, was Otto's friend.  
As Emil wrote he, had a very close relationship with him in the two years before his death (except for the last three months, which he spent partly in Italy). (3)
Regarding Otto's mental health, Emil explained: it is not for me to decide whether Weininger's nervous system was completely healthy. In any case, he put a lot of strain on it.
This may be true but being a thinker doesn't necessarily mean being a mental case or suicidal. Emil pointed out that Otto Weininger was not mentally disturbed for a single minute in his life. This is a sentiment he shared with Rosa Weininger, Otto's sister.
Notably, having met him on the last day of Otto's life, Emil didn't notice any signs, or anything unusual, indicating that Otto was going to commit suicide.  Thus, he knew firsthand in what mood  Weininger was on the last day of his life.
I myself spoke to him on the afternoon before the night of his death, he recalled. As Emil explained, Otto also, spoke to his publisher in the evening, and later to his family: and neither of those noticed any clouding of mind or even any unusual agitation in him. (4) It doesn't sound like a suicidal person's behaviour, on the contrary. The fact that he was talking to his publisher indicates Otto's interest in continuing his authorship, thus staying alive. As it is apparent, Weininger was making plans for the future publications. Would Otto be making these kinds of plans, if he was going to kill himself the same night?
As is apparent from his reaction to the alleged suicide of the Norwegian writer, Knut Hamsun - which didn't happen the perspective of killing oneself scared Weininger. As Emil recalled,
(perhaps nine months before his death) Weininger came quite distraught and told his friends that Knut Hamsun had shot himself. The news was not confirmed; but the strange idea and the horrified expression with which it was presented shocked everyone.
Without a doubt, already a thought about Hamsun's suicide shocked Otto to the core. This is not the reaction of a man who wants to kill himself.
Oddly, Emil came to a different conclusion. As he writes:
I now believe that the decision to commit suicide had already been made at that time, and that his thoughts about it were somehow inexplicably linked to the thought of Knut Hamsun, with whom he felt a close kinship.
There's no proof for this claim; rather, it is just a desperate speculation of someone looking for an explanation of the unexplainable.
As Lucka believed - he could be right and he could be wrong - for Otto, criminals of the highest order were Kant (who [claimed that] "Man is evil by nature"), and Beethoven (especially in the furious Scherzos and Allegri).
According to him, Weininger also took refuge in the latter's Beethovven's house of death in his fear, probably out of a kind of superstition, as if to be close to relatives (in his view of the criminal, not in his talent) since he wanted to die. (5)
Refuge, fear, superstition, criminality, wish to die. This is a very convoluted (and bizarre) explanation of why Otto rented a room in Beethoven's house and why he wanted to kill himself there. So, identifying with the criminal Beethoven - since Otto perceived himself as evil - he went to Beethoven's house to commit suicide. The claim makes zero sense but, looking for an explanation of the unexplainable, a drowning man will clutch at a straw.
Lucka also claimed that Otto, “wrote his last will that summer” (6), but there’s no mention of how he knew that. Maybe it was his conjecture, once he had learned that Otto left a will behind. And even if it was true, it doesn’t mean that Otto was planning to kill himself a few months later. Lots of people write their will even though they aren't planning to commit suicide. Notably, neither the father nor Otto's sister mentioned the existence of a will - maybe because there was none?
(1) Abrahamsen, The Mind and Death of a Genius, (1946, p. 94).
(2)  Abrahamsen, (1946, p. 95).
(3) Lucka, Emil, Otto Weininger His Work and His Personality, (1905, p. 3)..
(4) Lucka, (1905, p. 126).
(5) Lucka, (1905, p. 142).
(6) Abrahamsen, (1946, pp. 92-93).

Pfennig, Richard, Wilhelm Fliess und seine Nachentdecker, O. Weininger Und H. Swoboda (1906)

As the author pointed out, in his work, Wilhelm Fliess and the post-discoverers [plagarisers}, Weininger and Swoboda were the closest of friends. Moreover, they also shared ideas that belonged to another [thus Fliess], to which they had access through a third person.

Who was this person, the Judas conspiring against his former boyfriend, Fliess', interests? This person was the Viennese professor of neurology Dr. Sigmund Freud.
As Pfenning recounted, In the autumn of 1903, Otto Weininger, aged 23 and a half, shot himself in a neurotic panic in Beethoven's hospice in Vienna, as Pfenning believed, so as not to have to kill someone else. As it will be apparent, everyone writing about Otto's death provided a different explanation as to its cause, which means they had no idea. In particular, the idea that Otto killed himself because he felt an urge to kill someone is bizarre and without any support from other recollections of people who knew him.
Pfenning also claimed that, in his final days, all his thoughts revolved around crime, atonement and punishment. How would he know, not being personally acquainted with Weininger? As a matter of course, no one, except himself, can know what was on Otto's mind in his final days.
Even his father had no idea. Contradicting himself, the biographer admitted that, We do not know what weighed on the unfortunate man. One can only agree. We don't even know if he killed himself or was killed. As Pfenning explained, we only know of one serious transgression: he stole the basic biological idea of his main work from Wilhelm Fliess, without naming the true author.
        Actually, we cannot even know that. As Freud pointed out, one cannot patent ideas, and the idea of bisexuality is as old as the history of humanity. According to Greek mythology, humans were created with four arms, four legs, and a head with two faces. Fearing their power, Zeus split them into two separate parts, a man and a woman, condemning them to spend their lives searching for their other missing halves.

Not suicidal. A friend, Arthur Gerber’s, recollection (1920)

The German edition of Weininger’s notes and letters, titled Otto Weininger, Taschenbuch und Briefe an einen Freund, was published in 1920, thus seventeen years after Weininger’s death, and fifteen years after Lucka’s biography of Weininger, by another of Otto’s friends, Arthur Gerber.
As a matter of course, Lucka’s biography written shortly after Otto’s death is more reliable. Notably, Gerber believed that an earlier event was somehow related to Weininger’s death. The event, he was referring to concerned Otto’s allegedly “hysterical” reaction when he learned about the Norwegian writer’s, Hamsun’s, alleged suicide.
This is how Gerber remembered that occasion: I told him the news that had appeared in a morning paper but later turned out to be false, that Knut Hamsun, with whom he felt a deep affinity ... shot himself. Recounting Otto’s reaction to this news Gerber alleged that, Weininger flinched, looked at me in dismay and said: "So him too?" (1)
Even though Weininger didn’t threaten, or even mention, suicide, Gerber in a melodramatic vein claimed that, loss of one's dearest friend was at stake. Committed to save Otto, with or without his consent, Gerber inquired: Do you have any weapons here? Alas, Otto disappointed him telling Gerber: I have no weapon!. (2)
So, there was no weapon which Is significant when considering the fact that Weininger killed himself by shooting himself in the heart. A hard thing to do if you have no weapon.
As Gerber claimed, Otto allegedly told him: I have known that I am a murderer. That is why I must kill myself. (3) Unfortunately, seventeen years after the fact, there’s no way of knowing what Otto said and what Gerber fantasised.
        Saved by Gerber (?), Weininger continued to live, publishing his book, Sex and Character, in June 1903. Recalling the circumstances around Otto’s death on October 4, 1903, Gerber wrote, In the early summer of 1903 we spent many hours together. He often spoke of criminal tendencies, but in a milder form [than before] that gave hope that the crisis was abating. This is an odd claim considering that Weininger left Vienna in mid-July and stayed away until the last third of September. And since Gerber doesn’t write anything about Otto’s stay in Italy during this three-month vacation, it is obvious that Otto didn’t keep in touch with him.
So, maybe, Otto didn’t consider Gerber such a close friend? Further, Gerber revealed that Otto, came back, apparently without having recovered. I had no idea that he was planning suicide again. It is unclear what Otto was supposed to recover from. In any case, since he came back alive, there’s no doubt that he didn’t commit suicide. And, as Gerber recounted, Otto wasn’t giving an impression of being suicidal. Moreover, there's no evidence that Weininger ever considered committing suicide!
On the contrary, Otto was making plans. As Gerber recounted: When I saw him for the last time he said, ‘ … You did not help me with the proofreading of the first edition. … Promise that you will be responsible for the second edition.’  Otto also told him they would not see each other soon because, he had some work which he had to finish at once.  As a matter of course, a suicidal person, besides killing himself, doesn’t have any other work that needs to be finished at once or ever. When they parted, they did so without being in any way solemn, just cordial in the ordinary way. Thus it is obvious that - since he was making other plans - Otto wasn’t planning to kill himself. Unfortunately, Gerber didn't state when their last meeting took place.
Gerber quotes from an undated letter to an unknown recipient, which states that, He must not regard my suicide as a personal matter. (4)
Without knowing anything about the other content of the letter, its context and date in particular, it is impossible to know whether the quote had relevance for Otto’s death. We cannot be even certain that the letter, and the quote, ever existed. It wouldn’t be surprising if Gerber invented the quote, to make the book more interesting. After all, books that have no tantalising content do not sell. Moreover, if the letter was sent to another person, it is a valid question, how would it end up in Gerber's possession?
This is how Gerber described the last moments of Otto’s life: On October 4, 1903, at half past ten in the morning, he died in the Vienna General Hospital, where he had been transferred during the night in a hopeless condition. (5) So, Otto shot himself or was shot sometime during the night.
(1) Otto Weininger, Taschenbuch und Briefe an einen Freund, ed. Gerber, Arthur, (1920, p. 17)
(2) Weininger, (1920, p. 18).
(3)  Weininger, (1920, p. 20).
(4) Weininger, (1920, p. 28).
(5) Weininger, (1920, p. 22).

David Abrahamsen, The Mind and Death of a Genius, (1946).

David Abrahamsen’s biography of Weininger, (1946), was published 43 years after Otto’s death. This is how according to his biographer - who didn't specify the source of his information - Otto Weininger died:
On October 3, he left his parents' home and took a room in the house … where Beethoven had died. After he had rented the room, he left and returned at 10 o'clock in the evening. As it appears, Weininger wasn’t in a hurry to kill himself. Maybe he wasn’t contemplating killing himself at all.
On his return, He then told the landlady that he was not to be disturbed before morning since he was going to work and would go to bed late. Otto’s claim about having to work sounds like a subterfuge intended to keep the landlady at a distance.
As a matter of course, if he wanted to write, he could have done so at home. As he stated, he didn’t want to be disturbed but, most probably, not because of work but, because he expected a visitor, which would explain the need to rent a room rather than inviting the visitor into his home. Considering his homosexuality, which was at the time unacceptable, it would only be natural for him to keep his tryst with another male secret.
The next day he was dead. His landlady the next morning knocked on his door in vain. No one had heard the shot, which is unusual. And it is unlikely that Weininger would have used a silencer when killing himself.
We can assume that the landlady would have knocked on the door at around 9 am. After all, if Otto was supposedly working until late, he wouldn't be waking up early.
Then, His brother Richard arrived … and had the door opened by a locksmith. This statement raises some questions. Since it is doubtful that at that early hour the mail would have been already delivered, how would the brother have known what happened, and where to go? Did he arrive at all? And it would take some time to get a locksmith to come. So the timing is odd.
The biographer claimed that Richard and his father had received letters from Otto by the morning mail, telling them that he was going to shoot himself. This was a very strange arrangement; a suicidal person sending letters to the members of his family, by mail (!), to inform them of his plans to kill himself.
Assuming that Otto sent the letters the day before his death, it is unlikely they would be delivered that early in the morning the next day. What is even odder, is the claim that both the father and the brother received a letter each. Only in one of three suicides, the person killing himself leaves a suicide note, and in this case, there were two!
What is mystifying is the fact that in his comments in Lucka’s biography the father didn't mention any suicide note. Thus, as it appears, the claim that Otto sent a suicide letter to both his brother and his father, is an invention of the author of Otto's biography. Notably, Abrahamsen didn’t explain where his information about suicide notes originated.
As Abrahamsen reported, When the door was opened, Weininger was found lying fully dressed on the floor, unconscious, with a wound in the left part of his chest. Notably, there’s no mention of any weapon being found. And, at least in the past, he didn't own a gun. Considering that fingerprinting wasn’t being used before 1903, the police would not be able to match fingerprints on the weapon with Otto’s. Dying or already dead, He was rushed by the voluntary ambulance corps to Wiener Allgemeiner Krankenhaus, where he died that morning at 10:30. So, the whole scene took no more than a couple of hours.
The hospital note stated: On October 4, 1903, we received a patient, Otto Weininger, age 24, doctor philosophiae, from Schwarzspanierstrasse 15. He had shot himself in the left part of his chest with suicidal intent. The patient died from his wound the same day at 10:30 A.M. Oddly, it was the doctors, and not the police, who determined that it was a suicide rather than murder.
Subsequently, There was no post mortem, as there was no doubt of the suicide. *
This is an odd statement. The hospital personnel could not have known whether this was a suicide, an accidental shooting, or a murder staged as a suicide.
Moreover, the whole story about how Otto was found on the morning of his death seems to be a figment of the writer’s imagination. As Gerber, Otto’s close friend, already in his book of 1920, thus 26 years earlier, and only 17 years after Otto’s death stated, Otto, died in the Vienna General Hospital, where he had been transferred during the night in a hopeless condition. And since he claimed that he had gone to the hospital to see Weininger's body, it is more than probable that his recollection of the circumstances surrounding Otto's death is the correct one.
So the whole Abrahamson's fable about the events on the morning of Otto’s death, about the brother and father receiving the suicide letter, about the landlady knocking on the door in the morning, about the brother coming to the rescue, about the locksmith being called in – it is all fake.
* Abrahamsen, David, The Mind and Death of a Genius, (1946, pp. 95-96).

Burns, Steven, A Translation of Weininger's Über die letzten Dinge (1904/1907) / On Last Things, (2001).

As the translation author claims, Otto, ‘profoundly admired Beethoven for the remarkable, transfigured joy of which [he] alone was capable of. *
According to Burns, aged only 23, and increasingly mentally ill, Weininger returned to Vienna from a trip to Italy, spent a few days seeing friends and writing aphorisms, rented the rooms in which Beethoven had died, wrote letters to his father and brother, then shot himself in the heart. He died the next morning, 4 October, 1903.
(How Burns would know all those details almost a century after  Otto's death is a good question.)
Thus, we get yet another explanation for Weininger’s death, the translator claiming that Otto, increasingly mentally ill, killed himself. But, since everyone writing about Otto’s death provides a different explanation as to its cause, it is apparent that they either didn’t have an idea, or there was no such a cause.
And if so, the only alternative explanation that makes sense is that Weininger was murdered by a visitor. As a matter of course, assuming there was a visitor, Otto must have known that person, or why else would he allow that person to enter his room? Who was that person well known to Weininger? Could it have been Freud? Even though we cannot know for sure, considering Freud’s murderous character, this suspicion makes lots of sense.
* Burns, Steven, A Translation of Weininger's Über die letzten Dinge (1904/1907) / On Last Things, (2001, p. xx).
** Burns (2001, p. p. xviii).

October 5, 1903

This is how, under the title, “Suicide of a Philosopher” the Neue Wiener Journal reported on the 5th of October 1903 Weininger’s death:
Yesterday afternoon the 23 year-old Dr. phil. Otto W. at his apartment, Schwarzspanierstrasse 15, shot himself in the region of the heart with suicidal intent. Emergency doctors brought him to the General Hospital, where he expired from his wound. *
Janik Alan S., & Veigl, Hans, A Biographical Excursion Through the City and Its History, (1998, p. 204). 

October 6, 1903

On the following day the Neue Freie Presse conjectured … the reason for the deed: “He seems to have so exerted himself with his scholarly studies and literary work that he landed in a state of nervous exhaustion and probably committed suicide in a passing mentally-disturbed condition. Dr. Weininger had returned to Vienna from Italy but a few days ago and rented a room in the Schwarzspanierstrasse.*

Notably, the article claimed that, he shot himself in the chest yesterday morning. It wasn’t revealed, how the exact time of Weininger’s death was determined, but it seems unlikely that he shot himself in the morning.
* Janik Alan S., & Veigl, Hans, A Biographical Excursion Through the City and Its History, (1998, p. 204).

Suicide by a shot to the heart?

According to the suicide statistics, when the gun is used, most suicides are committed by a shot to a head, and mouth in particular. * In fact, self-inflicted gunshot wounds to the chest-[are] a relatively uncommon means of suicide. **
So, why would Weininger have chosen a shot to the heart as a means of committing suicide? Holding the gun with your right hand is not an easy shot.  What if the bullet missed the heart? Notably, in the case of a premeditated murder, a shot to the heart – possibly related to love matter - carries a symbolic meaning.
Could this have been a murder staged as a suicide?
*The mouth is known to be one of the main sites of suicide-related gunshot wounds, generally the head ...and more specifically the forehead, mouth, submental triangle and fundamentally the right temple.
Dorado-Fernández, Enrique et al., Deaths by firearm and intraoral gunshot: Medicolegal etiology, Spanish Journal of Legal Medicine, Vol. 43. Issue 2, pp. 70-78 (April - June 2017).
(2)  Strajina V, et al., Forensic issues in suicidal single gunshot injuries to the chest: an autopsy study. Am J Forensic Med Pathol. 2012 Dec; 33(4):373-6.

What was Weininger doing in the rented room?

There’s an obvious question about Weininger committing suicide, of all places, in a rented room in Beethoven’s house.  There are two points to be made: Weininger was a homosexual, and Beethoven, allegedly, was his favourite musician.
Had someone - a murderer, assuming it was a murder  – arranged with him a homosexual tryst in the house of his favourite musician? Could Weininger have refused such a tantalising offer?

A case in point. Freud was bisexual, preferring males to females. Were Freud and Weininger involved in, or planning, a homosexual liaison? After all, they had met before, and both were closet homosexual. 

Motives for murder

Having betrayed Fliess - the love of his life - by telling Weininger about his ideas - Freud would have been keen to cover the traces of his betrayal of his former lover. And the best way would have been to get rid of the recipient of Fliess’ secrets, Weininger.
Most certainly Freud wouldn’t want Fliess to be able to interview Weininger about Freud’s involvement in the fact that Weininger's book presented the ideas that rightfully belonged to Fliess. Had Weininger lived, and had Freud been sued, Freud’s involvement in the case would have become public, destroying his reputation.
Notably, Weininger died shortly after his book was published, once the damage to Fliess was done. Assuming it was Freud, indeed, who killed Weininger, we can only speculate about Freud’s motives. On the other hand, Weininger’s death shows uncanny strangeness and similarities to other alleged suicides, aka staged murders, of Freud’s friends and enemies. Without a doubt - since there are too many oddities in his death - Weininger’s suicide appears to have been both staged and ritualised.

Weininger, a critic of Freud

Unfortunately for him, Weininger claimed that, The fallacy of representing the hysterical as being eminently moral is one which even Breuer and Freud have shared. * Freud never liked to be criticised.
As his biographer, Probst, points out that, Weininger once provides a gruesome treatise on hysteria where, in a manner analogous to that of Judaism, he presents Freud's views in a truly comical way and leniently points out some of his errors. ** T
Taking into account Freud's belief that he was the psychoanalytical pope, Freud wouldn’t have liked being made fun of, so much is certain, but was Weininger's critic enough for Freud to feel murderous rage?
* Weininger, Otto, Sex and character, trans. 6th German ed., (n.d., p. 269).
** Probst, (1931).

A pattern of deaths

As the FBI profiler, John Douglas pointed out, If you want to understand the artist, look at his work. (1) And, since he was never apprehended, without a doubt, Freud was one of the most accomplished artists in the serial murder trade.
There’s a definite and bizarre pattern in the alleged (staged) suicides of people in Freud’s vicinity. Thus, two of the suicide victims were found hanged on a cross window, one of them was also shot in the head and allegedly castrated.  There were also deaths, described in the chapter on murder, caused by poisoning with a pathogenic agent, by medical negligence, and by other methods.
As a matter of course, a clever killer varies his modus operandi to make an impression of not being a sole predator. Notably, the modus operandi in each case – although not identical, was uniquely inventive, bizarre, and even “artistic.” A case in point: Freud didn’t consider himself a scientist, in his letter to Fliess, referring to himself as a conquistador. And what kind of person was a conquistador, if not a murderer?
As Freud’s earliest biographer, Fritz Wittels emphasised – no need to believe him - An incomplete psychoanalysis, a dream interpretation severed from its connections with the general course of the life to which it belongs, is as dangerous as an operation which the surgeon has left half-finished. This is an absurd exaggeration. Over the many years that psychoanalysis was practiced - except among Freud’s followers and patients in Vienna -there was no avalanche of dying practitioners or patients. Was Vienna the cause of their deaths? Or, more likely, was it Freud? As Wittels further stated, We may be warned by the suicide of the analysts who have studied the dreams of their patients, and have seen a caricature of their own unconscious mirrored in these dreams.
Oddly, neither Freud, nor Wittels was affected in that way. Thus, according to Wittels, the reason for the analysts' suicide was their insight into their unconscious. As he wrote, Seized with horror, they have cut their own lives short. Without a doubt, either Wittels was blind or was too scared to see the true cause of their deaths. It was not the horror of their unconscious that was the cause of their untimely demise but Freud.
This is what according to Wittels was the reason for Otto Weininger’s demise. As he explained, Otto Weininger, for example, practised a fragmentary self-analysis; and the glimpse into his unconscious drove him. to suicide. It is not known how Wittels obtained this information, nor how he came to this conclusion. Considering that Otto died 20 years earlier, it is doubtful that Wittels knew anything about what drove Weininger to his death. Moreover, Wittels didn't claim that he had known Weininger personally. Thus, those claims are all conjectures on his part.
As Wittels pointed out that, Three among the distinguished psychoanalysts I have personally known, Schrötter, Tausk, and Silberer, ended their own days. These were all members of the small psychoanalytical circle in Vienna. Again, Wittels doesn’t ask a pertinent question. Why were so many of Freud’s followers and critics committing suicides? As a premonition, Wittels warned that, Others may follow in their steps. And most certainly some did. And he forewarned that, The practice of psychoanalysis should only be undertaken by persons whose minds are well poised and thoroughly healthy. (2)
Notably – they were all less or more insane – Wittels revealed that, Each one of us has a neurosis, which is necessary for entry into Freud's teachings. (3) And, if all of Freud’s disciples were neurotic - as well as their master - being neurotic a prerequisite to becoming Freud’s follower, no wonder that none of them was thoroughly healthy. Oddly, only, it was in the first those who were in opposition to Freud that committed suicide. None of Freud’s admirers committed suicide.
Remarkably, the torrent of suicides between Freud's disciples ended with his death.
(1) Douglas, John E; Olshaker, Mark, Mind hunter: inside the FBI's elite serial crime unit, (1996, p. 19).
(2) Wittels, Fritz, Sigmund Freud: his personality, his teaching, & his school. (1924, pp. 67-69).
(3) Mahony, Patrick, Psychoanalysis and Discourse, (2005, p. 149).