The Woman Los Angeles Let Go: The Victorian Trial That Set a Killer Free
In 1881, Los Angeles became the center of a sensational court case after an 18-year-old woman shot her lover in broad daylight—and was acquitted in just twenty minutes. Her defense claimed that emotional shock had driven her “temporarily insane,” and Victorian-era “science” helped convince the jury it was true.
This is the remarkable and unsettling story of how outdated beliefs saved a young woman from a murder conviction.
On March 16, 1881, gunfire rang out along Commercial Street. Francisco “Chico” Forster—40 years old, wealthy, influential, and known for a long history of romantic affairs—collapsed instantly. A single bullet ended his life.
Standing over him, calm and silent, was Lastania Abarta, a musically gifted teenager from a Basque immigrant family. She didn’t flee. She didn’t deny what she had done. Witnesses watched as the gun was taken from her hand.
Within two months, a jury would let her walk free.
Lastania’s family owned a pool hall in Los Angeles, where she often performed with her guitar. Her voice drew customers, and her beauty attracted attention—especially from Chico Forster, who came from one of Southern California’s most powerful families.
Although she resisted him at first, Chico eventually persuaded her with promises of marriage.
On March 14, 1881, after performing at a gathering hosted by former governor Pío Pico, Lastania left with Chico. At a hotel, he showed her what appeared to be a marriage license. He assured her they would marry the next day—after spending the night together.
Raised in a world where a young woman’s future depended on her reputation, Lastania believed him. By morning, he had vanished.
No ceremony. No ring. No commitment. Only betrayal.
Her engagement ended. Her mother rejected her. The community whispered. Her life seemed ruined.
Heartbroken, Lastania bought a revolver. At first, she intended to use it on herself.
Her sister, Hortensia, intervened. Instead of letting Lastania harm herself, she insisted they confront Chico and force him to keep his promise.
For two days, the sisters searched the city. When they finally found him, Chico was flirting and gambling as if nothing had happened. He offered excuses and delays, revealing that he had never intended to marry her.
The sisters tried to bring him to a church. But Chico escaped, jumping from a moving carriage and running through the crowded streets.
Lastania chased him. When she caught up, she raised her revolver and fired.
The trial began soon after, drawing crowds from across the city.
The prosecution argued that this was a clear, premeditated killing. She had bought the gun, pursued her victim, and shot him deliberately.
The defense took a different approach—one shaped entirely by Victorian-era beliefs.
They argued that Lastania had been overwhelmed by emotional shock and had suffered a moment of temporary insanity, caused by the trauma of losing her virginity.
Victorian medical theories supported this idea. Doctors of the era believed that women’s emotions and mental states were controlled by their reproductive systems. These same beliefs—used to limit women’s rights in education, property, and politics—became Lastania’s saving grace.
Dr. Joseph Kurtz, a respected physician, testified that any “virtuous young woman,” betrayed and abandoned, could lose her mental stability. The claim fit perfectly with the era’s ideas.
The courtroom erupted in applause.
The all-male jury retired to deliberate.
Twenty minutes later, they returned: Not guilty.
Lastania walked free.
She disappeared from public life soon after the trial. Some believe she later married and lived quietly; others say she simply faded from history.
Newspapers across the country printed her story, fascinated by a case where Victorian “science” convinced a jury to forgive a public killing.
But beneath the sensational headlines lies a deeper truth:
Lastania wasn’t acquitted because the jury believed she was justified. She was freed because a pseudoscientific theory claimed that women’s emotions made them uncontrollable—and in that moment, it worked in her favor.
Her case remains a striking reminder of the strange ways history, science, and gender expectations can intersect—and of the one moment when those outdated beliefs set a killer free.
