J e w i s h  R i t u a l – M u r d e r :   a   H i s t o r i c a l   I n v e s t i g a t i o n

Der jüdische Ritualmord: Eine historische Untersuchung

von Hellmut Schramm, Ph. D.

1944

What is to follow is not a matter of issuing a list of documentarily proven jewish ritual-murders which has any claim to completeness. Such a list would be endless.

We wish to make clear that the cases before us represent only a tiny fraction of that horrifying murder which has replayed itself before our terrified eyes in centuries and millennia.

Jewish Ritual Murders Up to the Year 1840

The jewish ritual-murder is as old as jewry itself; to a further definition the objection could be made, insofar as the Gentile view is concerned, of subjectivity, injustice, or even partisan malice. For this reason we present for clarification of the concept a jewish passage, still generally valid today, from the Zohar, a “holy book” of Judaism, which is placed even before the Talmud by Jewish Orthodoxy.

While the Talmud says in one passage (Baba mezia 114b) — to use this as an introduction — that only jews are designated as human beings while the remaining peoples of the world (thus, all non-jews, not only the Christian peoples) are called cattle, the Cabbalistic Zohar (Shining Light) contains an unmistakable directive for ritual-murder.

This reads, verbatim according to the authentic translation of Dr. Bischoff:

“Further, there is a command of slaughtering, which takes place in a ritually valid manner for strangers, who are not human beings but are like unto cattle. For those who do not concern themselves with the Jewish religious law, must be made offerings (!) of prayer, so that they are offered as sacrifice to the blessed God. And when they thus are offered to Him, it is said of them: “for thy sake are we murdered the whole day, slaughtered, like sheep at the slaughtering bench” (compare to this Psalm 44:23)!

The exact point in time when these ritual-murders are to be carried out according to opportunity, is to be found in the Talmud passage Kethuboth 62a, where the slaughtering (schachat) of a boy on Passover evening is discussed. Actually, during the course of our investigation we will be able to determine that the individual acts of murder falling in the time of the Pessach are by no means of an accidental nature, but on the contrary they were and are executed by plan in observation of Jewish secret law.

The Passover (Pessach) celebration is held in the month of March or, respectively, April for eight days’ duration in remembrance of the removal of the “Children of Israel” (6) from Egypt. We can visualize what is said about the mass-slaughter of the first-born Gentile children in Egypt in Exodus 12:30:

“…and there went up a great wailing in Egypt, for there was no house in which there was not one dead,”

so we can understand that the institution of the Passover according to the instruction of the Jewish blood-god Yahweh:

“. . .you shall have this day for remembrance and shall keep it as a feast to the Lord (Yahweh)” (Exodus 12:14), 

can receive its consecration in the Jewish sense only through acts of murder of non-Jews. A similar feast of murder are “the days of Purim“, named after the Pur, or the lot, which was cast, “to terrify and to kill,” a lot which delivered up to the Jewish slaughterers over 75,000 of the best men in the ancient Persian kingdom of King Xerxes, who had surrendered himself to alcohol through the machinations of Mordechai, a Jewish beggar who had ascended to the position of Court Jew, and his niece and royal concubine Esther; among the slaughtered was Haman and his ten sons; Haman was aware of the enemy and had clearly recognized the looming Jewish danger:

“. . .there is a people, scattered and dispersed among all the peoples in all lands of your kingdom, and their law is different from that of other peoples, and they act not according to the laws of the king” (Esther 3:8).

The Purim feast “they hold for two days each year, as they were ordained and appointed” (Esther 9:27);

this “feast,” according to its entire historical or perhaps only legendary core, is likewise an explicit feast of revenge

“at which Jewry strikes dead its enemies, at least in thought” 

(according to the assessment of the Jewish “Professor” Gunkel), just as the Book of Esther is a document of the first water of the most unrestrained and limitless Jewish revenge against all non-Jews, about which Luther (Table-Talk 2996, Erlanger Edition Volume 62, page 181) made the judgment:

“Oh how they love the Book of Esther, which is in such fine tune with their blood-thirsty, eager-for-revenge murderous desires and hopes! The sun has never shone upon a more blood-thirsty and revenge-hungry people, than these who think of themselves as God’s People, that they should murder and throttle the heathens.”

****************************

 – Reich Revision: The rest of the article is somewhat lengthy, but goes into great detail and I think worth posting for reference and posterity sake.

****************************

In the year 1848, the Bishop of Paderborn, Dr. Konrad Martin, an entirely “unsuspect” witness and an eminent expert in Jewish antiquity and customs, wrote in the (7) Katholischen Vierteljahrschrift für Kunst und Wissenschaft [Catholic Quarterly Review of Art and Science] about “the accusation that Jews seized Christian children in order to shed their blood during the Easter holiday,” according to the example of the Abbot and Orientalist Chiarini, the following striking sentence:

“To want to deny that Jews, at various times and locations have committed such crimes, is to erase from the books of history 30-40(1) recorded and established facts, and it is to destroy all the monuments which several cities have preserved unto the present day, along with the traditions involved in such an abominable attempt at assassination.” [It is almost certain that all such public and/or church monuments and inscriptions — and there were a surprising number of them — have been removed and destroyed by those who are the actual rulers of Europe.]

Under the pressure of historical material, even the Vatican saw itself forced on 18 November 1913 to render its expert opinion unmistakably on the matter of Jewish ritual-murder as follows: “It is to be regarded as proven that it is an old Jewish custom to murder Christian children at Easter time.” The documents relating to this, in the original texts written by the popes, are found in the Vatican Library.

Already in 1892 the Milan Osservatore Catolico published a list of 154 attempted or completed ritual-murders, from which it emerged that Jews sacrifice the blood of non-Jews on Good Friday.

But when, a year after the victory of National Socialism in Germany, a Catholic opponent of the Jews maintained the fact of the ritual-murder custom in Austria in 1934 in a special monograph, the papers distanced themselves from him and his work was generally discredited because it “was un-Christian” (Theodor Fritsch: Handbuch der Judenfrage [Handbook of the Jewish Question]).

It is natural that international Jewry, even after the murder instructions of its secret law books had become known to a larger circle in excellent and unimpeachable translations — beginning with those of Eisenmenger and up through Erich Bischoff — (8) denied, making all possible explanations, that these crimes were committed. The investigations which lie before us should help to demonstrate the dishonesty of this technique.

Moreover, Judah itself has always had a very bad conscience. Thus, during the middle of the 13th century (see the passages relating to this in this book) a Jew who had mutilated his female servant for ritual purposes was prevented from confessing the true reasons for the crime shortly before his execution, so that he might not be able to say anything to the detriment of Judaism.

On the occasion of the ritual-murder trial at Damascus in 1840, there was an attempt with enormous expenditure of money and just as great political pressure, to cause a personage in authority to omit the planned translation of the Talmud and other books, using the extremely revealing argument that this would mean a “humiliation of the Jewish Nation.”

But in truth, “the Jews no longer had the hope of denying what was proven during the course of the trial, namely that the blood of all non-Jews belongs to them.” Thus a French compiler of the trial, Achille Laurent, expressed it, in his work dealing with the entire trial against the Jews in Damascus, which was published in 1846 in Paris and soon disappeared in a mysterious manner (Volume II, 1846, page 292, cited by G.d. Mousseaux; see more about this below.): “Swallowed up by Jewish gold, this historical memorial has almost completely vanished; one still comes across some single copies only in the places which are unreachable by Jewish claws. Translated in Italy and reissued several times there, the same persecutory rage descended upon it and made it disappear. The publication of P. de Mondovi of Marseilles about the same subject is likewise unable to be found, although it had several editions.

This hunting down [of such works] has its good reasons. One does not seek to destroy trial documents if one is innocent of the crimes which they contain. . .”(Henri Desportes: Le mystère du sang chez juifs de tous les temps, Paris, Savine, 1889, page 189).

Of what further dangerous things there are in the Jewish books of law, the Jews themselves know very well. (9) A Lemberg Jewish paper (2) wrote thusly: “To promote a translation of the Schulchan aruch(3), is a base thing and a forgetting of God. For this translation, should it occur (which may God prevent!) will necessarily bring down upon us the misery of our brothers 300 years ago in Spain.” — Let it be noted: “necessarily”!

To the Orientalist Johann Andreas Eisenmenger, who died totally impoverished in Heidelberg in 1704 in a “sudden death,” 10,000 Taler were “bid,” if his work were left unpublished — according to the valuation of money at the time, this was a sum from which he could have lived comfortably. But since he assessed truth higher and his book Entdecktes Judentum [Judaism Discovered], despite repeated attempts at bribery, nevertheless did appear, it was confiscated by the political pressure of World Jewry.

Another scholar, Raabe, who translated the Mishnah, the basic text of the Talmud, completed about 200 A.D., received from a Mannheim Jewish middleman an offer of 3000 Taler together with a beautiful villa on the Rhine, if he gave up the publication of his work. . .At the beginning of the 19th century the revelations of Neophyte concerning the Jewish blood-practice appeared. Behind this name was concealed, as could first be determined many decades later, the former Rabbi Noe Weinjung. His work was extirpated by his racial comrades, and it would have been completely lost to the future if some Greek and Italian translations, which also have again become very rare, had not been done. Weinjung himself was rescued in a Romanian cloister from the death threats of the Jewish mob, which was scared off. But subsequently, in order to defame his revelations, which totally agreed in their frightful details even with future blood-practice committed by Jewry, the Jews declared in all places of the world that the work of Neophyte had been generated in a “drunken-delirium”(!)

Brafmann(4), to whom one owes informative revelations about (10) the rabbinate, was poisoned in accord with Talmudic murder-laws at the end of the previous century — just as happened to a Chevalier Gougenot des Mousseaux, who was so “incautious” as to also mention some ritual-murders in his work: Der Jude, das Judentum and die Verjudung der christlichen Völker [The Jew, Judaism, and the Judafication of the Christian Peoples].

A “sudden death” overtook Doctor Pinner at the moment when he had translated the first part of the Talmud. . .Others, who could not be immediately eliminated for one reason or another, were nonetheless slowly harried to death with the same end result, with the support of authorities belonging to the Jews and by “Christian” theologians; such was the case for Justus-Briman, who published his Judenspiegel oder 100 neuenthüllte, heutzutage noch geltende Gesetze der Juden [Jewish Mirror or 100 newly discovered and still currently valid laws of the Jews], and also for the Orientalist at the University at Münster, Jakob Ecker, who completed and wrote commentaries for the Jewish-Mirror, and even beyond his death in 1912 — he died as a highly respected Professor at the Bishop’s Priest Seminary at Trier; he was slandered in shameless fashion by the Weimar Regional Rabbi Wiesen. About the treatment which was accorded to the Prague University Professor August Rohling, a book hardly laudable to the situation obtaining in the Royal and Imperial Monarchy could be written, and even in the most recent times, 1933, the hospitality of Leiden University was withdrawn from Johann von Leers by the old Huizinga, because the German scholar had also written about Jewish ritual-murder. . .

With these names only a few striking examples have been emphasized — they will be dealt with yet in another connection.

Jewry knew why it persecuted these men with downright satanic hatred, Maimonides knew why he taught: “If an unbeliever reads the Talmud, so has he deserved death . . .”: Ritual-murder exists not just in the “hysterical fantasy of out-worn superstition,” the confessions of ritual-murderers can not be subsequently devalued as “extracted by torture,” on the contrary, they are documentary and authentically evidentiary records of Jewish murder, which prove as factual the occurance of ritual murders up to our own time, for Jewish ritual crimes will be committed as long as the Chosen People are at all able to encyst themselves in Gentile humanity, and as long as the (11) true reason for these satanic crimes is not shown in all sharpness: as a lawfully dictated, repeated with strange regularity, tied neither to place nor time, and conscious profanation of the non-Jew who is considered the equivalent of cattle; crimes which because of this have never been totally fought against because their secret motives remained unknown and the non-Jew, confronting these facts in stunned bewilderment, still seemed inclined to submit himself to the blood-monster of the Jewish desert-god.

During the course of the centuries, in warding off these Jewish crimes and their perpetrators, the people oftentimes grasped at self-help, though no lasting success attended it, since the protection of those to whom the blood and honor of the people was entrusted, faltered. But the people nonetheless emotionally and correctly recognized what their spiritual or secular authorities in nearly all cases either didn’t want, or were not allowed, to see — that the Jew and his crimes are constantly and unalterably the same, or, as a chronicler plainly and rightly says in his description of the martyrdom of a child kidnapped for ritual-murder in the year 1724: “The Jews are still Jews, and not one hair better than they were before this” (Ignatius Zach von Wilthau: Das heilige Kind Andreas von Rinn, Augsburg, 1724) [The Holy Child Andreas of Rinn]. Two centuries earlier the great adversary of Luther, D. Johann Eck of Ingolstadt, in his book: Ains Judenbuechlins velegung [Publication of a little Jewish Book], Ingolstadt, 1541, establishes the same thing: “. . .Thus there is no more blood-thirsty a people on the earth than the Jews, for they are blind, constipated, and of a hardened heart. . .not even a miracle is of help to them. . .”

What is to follow is not a matter of issuing a list of documentarily proven Jewish ritual-murders which has any claim to completeness. Such a list would be endless.

We wish to make clear that the cases before us represent only a tiny fraction of that horrifying murder which has replayed itself before our terrified eyes in centuries and millennia.

In this investigation, according to opportunity, only those cases should be collected which in the course of time were intentionally placed ad acta, (12) or which have been retained as especially typical and informative in regard to this type of Jewish murder-plague and its accomplices.

One question naturally occurs: Are ritual-crimes still possible today?

As mentioned at the beginning, they are still possible anywhere, even today, and are actually committed where Judah believes itself to be unobserved, and can bleed a people, as we can prove by means of unerring evidence, for the Jewish blood-intoxication is as old as the Jewish tribe itself and is commanded by the blood-god Yahweh.

The New Germany would have the right to be freed from Jewish murders; the representatives of the “Chosen People” living among us know that the mere attempt or the mere preparation for such a murder would unleash measures against it which would put Judah in an even greater state of shock.

In 169 B.C., the Temple of Jerusalem was plundered. The King Antiochus Epiphanes of Syria discovered a hidden chamber in which a Greek was found, who implored the king for rescue: he said that he had been lured into the Temple by Jews and held prisoner. In response to his questions, his guards had told him that a secret law existed with the Jews which commanded them to sacrifice a human being each year at a certain time. (Apion in his — as is typical — vanished book Gegen die Juden [Against the Jews]. The above passage is cited in the counter-argument of the Jew Josephus: Josephus contra Apionem, II, 8) [Josephus against Apion]. Among other things, Josephus asks: “. . .Why should the Jews have chased after only the Greeks, when other strangers still travelled through Palestine!” We can only respond: They took the very men whom a favorable opportunity placed in their hands! It is conspicuous that Josephus, among the very feeble arguments in his “defense,” did not introduce the very ones which are brought up first and foremost today by the Jews, that in particular it is strictly forbidden to the Jews to consume blood, that the “heathens” are held to be “unclean”, and so forth. (See Ghillany: Die Menschenopfer der alten Hebräer, page 545 and following.) [Human Sacrifice of the Ancient Hebrews].

In the old voluminous Socratic Church history from the 5th century A.D., it says among other places in the 16th chapter of (13) the 7th book, that in the year 418 on a Jewish feast day, several Jews in the Imnestar region (which lies between Chalcis and Antioch) where they were accustomed to arrange their “comedies,” stretched out a Christian boy on a cross to mock Christians and finally scourged him to death — an early prelude to the many later, carried-out-according-to-plan, bloody acts, as here a boy in his tenderest years is tortured to death while his limbs are stretched out in the form of a cross — so, too, a thousand years later at Trent. What an endless chain of Jewish blood-murders, though, lies between the two!

In the year 614 the Jews purchased from the Persian King Chosroës II, 90,000 prisoners for an insignificant sum after the conquest of Jerusalem, in order to then sacrifice them all in the cruelest way (Cluverus, Epitome hist., p. 386; Hosman, p.92).

At Easter time of the year 1144 (Bollandists, März III, 588/91) [March III] the Jews at Norwich in England took prisoner a twelve-year-old boy William, chained him and pierced the body of their victim with sharp instruments. The blood flowing from out of a wound near the heart was collected. In order to retard the rate of blood flowing out, the sadistic murderers basted the child’s head with hot water. The corpse was put into a sack and thrown outside of the place into the shrubbery. The chief official of the place, who had been bribed by the Jews, held back a detailed announcement. Finally, however, the murder was atoned for. The victim was canonized by the Church. England had still further blood-crimes to record in the 12th century, as in 1160 at Glouchester (Mon. Germ. hist. Script. VI, 520; Boll., März III , 589). [View image of William from Norwich Cathedral here]

In 1181, under the government of Henry II, the chronicler reported a completed ritual-slaughter of the boy Robert at Easter time in London (Boll., März III, 589).

According to the Monumenta Historica Germaniae [Historical Records of Germany] (Scriptores, vol. VI and also Acta sanct. März III, 591) during the Easter feast of 1171 a boy from Blois was crucified and thrown into the Loire in a sack. Count Theobald of Chartres had the leaders burned. Those who converted to Christianity were pardoned.

In France, furthermore, in the cellar of the castle of Pontoise (14) on the 25th of March of the year 1179, a boy was scourged by Jews and stretched on a cross to be bled to death under the mocking shouts from a raging mob of Jews. The child has entered the roll of martyrs as “Holy Richard of Paris” and is highly revered by the people (Boll., März III, 591) . His body rests in the Church of the Innocents at Champeaux. [What a contrast there is between 1943, when this was still true, and the Paris of 2001, where a Jew is “Minister of Culture” and of course doing his utmost to annihilate and miscegenate every last trace of genuinely French/European culture from the country.]

D’Arbois de Jubainville reports in his Geschichte der Herzöge und Grafen der Champagne [History of the Dukes and Counts of Champagne] (Paris, 1865, Part I, page 72) under the date of April 15 of the year 1192, the following facts: The Jews of Braisne had crowned a Christian with thorns, led him through the streets with hands bound behind his back, whipped and crucified him; this happened under the eyes of the Countess Agnes von Dreux who had been bribed by the Jews. “The outrage was universal. King Philipp August, just returned from the Holy Land, went in person to Braisne and had 80 Jews burned.” The king had the firm conviction that annually during Holy Week the Jews secretly sacrificed a Christian. Although the Jews in his kingdom, but especially in Paris — the “Jewish Athens” of that time — had great influence, this king found the rare courage to take draconian retaliatory measures. The Jew Caro in his Sozial- und Wirtschaftsgeschichte der Juden [Social and Economic History of the Jews], I, page 362, speaks however of a “cruel procedure in Bray-sur-Seine (1192), when 80 and more (Jews) met their death,” but prudently omits statements which approach the reasons for this “persecution of the Jews”!

In the 13th century this terrible custom seems to have spread more and more. In Zaragoza the Jews made a law among themselves that anyone who delivered a Gentile child into captivity should be free from all debts and fees. During the long reign of King Alfonso X the “Wise” (1252-1284) countless ritual crimes, in part judicially and historically attested, occurred on Spanish soil. Alfonso X of Castile was finally so convinced of the fact of blood-murder, that in the 24th volume of the penal code Las Partides (named after the the seven divisions) authored by him, he enclosed the following regulation in his own hand: “Since it is legally proven and established that the Jews (15) annually murder Christian children before their feast of Easter for the mocking and humiliation of Christianity and likewise for the goal of blood-sacrifice , I command that every Jew who is convicted of such a crime, or who even, for the purpose of of the symbolic mockery of Christendom, crucifies a figure representing a Christian copied out of wax, will become a child of death!” Jews were not allowed to leave the house during the Eastertime. The sexual intercourse of the Jews with Christian women was made punishable by death. Truly, a wise king, but unfortunately an exceptional phenomenon in terms of his conduct. (Géza von Ónody, p. 79; see also G. Caro II, 239). In the year 1220 at Weißenburg in Alsace the child Heinrich was killed by Jews (Acta sanct., April II, p. 505). Jews in Munich extracted from a small child by means of piercings and incisions all the blood, “while they made use of their customary criminal practices” (H. Desportes, p. 65). The crime was discovered by accident: 140 Jews were condemned to a fiery death (see Meichelbeck, Geschichte von Freising, II, 94)[History of Freising].

In the year 1235 the population of Germany grasped at self-help against this murder-plague after a series of bestial murders: From 1 – 3 January of the year 1235 (Aronius, Regesten z. Gesch. d. Juden in fränk. u. deutsch. Reich, page 206)[Collection of Documents for the History of the Jews in the French and in the German Kingdom] as a result of the murder of a boy there, a persecution of the Jews took place at Lauda and the neighboring Tauberbischofsheim (Baden), at which houses and property of the Jews were destroyed by the enraged crowd and eight highly placed Jews were burned. At the beginning of December of the same year the population of Wolfesheim (at Straßburg) also resorted to self-help: after the murder of a citizen 18 Jews are supposed to have been killed in the course of the persecution.

A general wave of outrage moved over Germany when two Fulda Jews on Christmas Day 1235 attacked five boys in the mill of a miller who lived in front of the gates of the city and had gone to Holy Mass with his wife, miserably killed the boys, collected their blood in a prepared pouch and finally had set fire to the mill to cover the tracks of their bestial atrocity. But the bodies of the children were brought as corpora delicti into the Reichspfalz to Haganau to the Emperor (16) Frederick II; their arrival set the population into terror and outrage. But the Emperor, after shortly before having received a high sum of money from Jewish hands, merely gave the answer: “If they are dead, so go and bury them, since they’re of no use for anything else” (Si mortui sunt, ite, sepelite eos, quia ad aliud non valent. — Aronius, page 208).

The citizens of Fulda nonetheless took another position, understandable to us: with the cooperation of crusaders who were present there, they slew 32 Jews of their city, men and women. Since a general persecution of Jews loomed, the Jew-owned Frederick II summoned an assembly of clerical and secular princes to Hagenau in July 1236. But after he had again been successfully bought off with large sums from the Jews (accepta tamen a Judeis magna pecunia, Aron., page 217), he appeared convinced of the innocence of the Jews. The Jews achieved acquittal and beyond that, an imperial letter of protection. Everyone was forbidden to express further accusations against Jews. “For tracking down the truth” from the lands of all the lords “baptismal candidates (thus baptized Jews) experienced in the Jewish law” were summoned, who “did not tarry long at court” and who reached the result that “neither in the Old or the New Testament is it found that the Jews are greedy after human blood. . .We allow the fact with very firm acceptance, that those very people for whom the blood of even permitted animals is forbidden, could have no thirst for human blood, because of the terribleness of the thing, because Nature forbids it and because of the kind of relationship which associates it with the Christians. . .” (5)

Ten years later Pope Innocent IV based his decision upon the Imperial pronouncement of judgment from July of that same year, which delivered the nation up to even future Jewish murderers and child-desecrators. With explicit reference to the events of Fulda, this pope acquitted the Jews from the suspicion that they made use of the blood for ritual purposes after the commission of a blood-murder of a twelve-year-old girl on Tuesday of Easter week of 1247 in Valréas (Department Vaucluse); (17) he [stated that he], the Pope, did not want Jews, whose conversion was awaited by the Lord, to be unfairly (!) persecuted. The bishops in Germany received an express papal directive on 5 July 1247, to show favor and mercy to the Jews and “to legitimize their status” (Aron., p. 242) (6). In this position of “legitimized status” sanctioned by Emperor and Pope, the Jews were able to continue to lead their victims to slaughter; the defenders of the slaughterer Buschhoff at his blood-murder trial in Xanten in 1892, were still referring to the Enquette of 1236!

The historian Matthias Parisiensis reports, according to the account of the Hungarian diplomat Géza von Ónody(7), that during the reign of King Henry III, the Jews of Norwich kidnapped a Christian child in 1235, kept him locked up and fed for a year in order to slaughter him as sacrificial lamb for the celebration of the Passover festival. The execution of the crime was prevented through a betrayal, and the Jews who were brought before the King confessed the intended ritual-slaughter in all of its details. Henry III imposed a lenient punishment, allegedly out of charitableness. The Jews showed their thanks by committing an entirely similar type of crime hardly a year later. In this case a child was held prisoner in a shack belonging to the estate of a rabbi.

The Bishop of Norwich brought criminal charges against the murderous pack. After several fruitless attempts at bribery, the four main culprits were condemned to death and were broken on the wheel. The French historian Basnaye, who describes in all his works the accusations against the Jews as “malicious inventions,” makes an exception in his mention of this case, for he writes: “It seems that the Jews of Norwich were incorrigible, since within five years they were condemned for the same crime four (18) times.”(8) — A similar crime occurred on 1 December 1235 at Erfurt (Desportes, page 66).

In 1239 a general uprising of the people broke out, caused by a murder committed there secretly by the Jews. In 1240 — again at Norwich — the Jews circumcised a non-Jewish child and kept him hidden in the Ghetto under the alias Jurnim with the intention of crucifying the victim later. The father found his child after a long search in the Jewish Quarter and filed charges with the Bishop William of Rale. The latter had four of the Jews who were convicted of the crime hanged on the gallows, “where they gasped out the rest of their miserable lives.”

In 1244 in the cemetary of St. Benedict in London, the corpse of a boy was found which showed areas of ashen-paleness and cuts as well as Hebrew characters in several places. Baptized Jews were forced to explain these characters, found the names of the parents of the child and read that he had been sold to the Jews when very young. The wealthiest Jews secretly left the city at this time (9).

In the year 1250, in Aragon, at the end of August Moses Albay-Huzet (Albayuceto) delivered the seven-year-old Dominicus del Val to the Jews for crucifixion (Acta sanct., 6th Volume of August, pp. 777-783). The victim had been nailed to a wall; the stabbed body was deposited on the banks of the Ebro River. In the same year a rabbi sacrificed a Christian child in his own house at Orsona in Castile (Henri Desportes, Le mystère du sang chez les juifs de tous les temps; Paris, Savine, 1889, p. 67).

The most awful crime of English Jews which was judicially established, is reported by Géza von Ónody according to authentic court sources, in his book about Tisza-Eszlár. Before the feast day of Sts. Peter and Paul in the year 1255, the Jews in Lincoln kidnapped the eight-year-old (later canonized) boy Hugh and brought him into the house of the Head Rabbi there, (19) Copinus; after the child had been held prisoner and flogged daily for twenty-six days, his executioners formed a law court and brought the innocent creature before it. A Jew played the role of Pilate and condemned the child to death on the cross. The rest of the Jews present functioned as executioner’s henchmen. The child was nailed to the cross and made to bleed to death. When the guiltless victim had finally expired under the most terrible torments, the Jews ripped the bowels from out of his body and prepared various talismans from them (10). The mutilated corpse was thrown in a well, which led to the discovery of the crime. The chief perpetrator, the Head Rabbi, was dragged to death by horses, while the accomplices died on the gallows; the threads of the crime extended back to London, and in total 91 Jews were imprisoned. But the judicial investigation further brought the following to light: The Jews of Lincoln had “invited” to this horrible spectacle of the crucifixion four participants from every city of England which had a Jewish community; they confessed that such sacrifices occurred annually in the Jewish congregations, that most remained undiscovered since they “happened in secret in concealed locations”. Schudt (IV, Chapter 11, p. 140) wrote in 1714: “A cruel and Jewish wicked abomination was was practiced among them, every year around the time of Easter, although it is not known generally, of stealing a young boy, to circumcise him and after a “solemn” condemnation . . .to crucify him, out of their devilish malice. . .”

On the 14th of September (at the time of the Jewish “festival of Atonement”) of the year 1279, the Jews at Northhampton likewise put a child to death on the cross. This beastly crime was also discovered and punished. On the 2nd of April of the same year a crime of entirely the same kind occurred in London; here the murderers were tied to horse tails and dragged to death through the streets of London and their bodies hung on the gibbet (Henri Desportes, Le mystère du sang, p. 67).

In this century ritual-murders were repeated at all (20) parts of the British island; in May 1287 all the Jews of England were arrested and thrown into prison; in 1291 the Council in London under Edward I finally drew the necessary conclusions and by command of the King banned “for all time” this murder-plague from England. From then on, until the year 1657 there were no Jews in England (The Letter of Instruction, VI, 4, p. 167). According to a document of 1 July 1267 (Aronius) the Jews in Pforzheim placed a seven-year-old girl Margaretha upon a several-times folded piece of linen, wounded every joint in her body, and with their combined strength squeezed out her blood, which was carefully gathered into the linen. The corpse of the child was weighted with stones and cast into a body of flowing water, where it was found after a few days by fisherman, who noticed a hand sticking out of the water. The Jews convicted of the crime were first broken on the wheel and then hanged. Two of the murderous culprits mutually strangled each other in order to escape the revenge of the people (Aronius, p. 306). The stabbed and cut-to-pieces body of the girl was buried in a stone casket in the castle-church at Pforzheim. The Dominican nuns at Pforzheim reported in their chronicle, that the grave was opened in the year 1507 in the presence of Cardinal Bernhard and the little corpse was found still uncorrupted. In 1647 it was transferred to Baden. The gravestone, still present in the castle-church at Pforzheim, declares explicitly, handed down under the exact date, that the child was killed by Jews: “Margaretha a Judeis occisa ob. feliciter Anno Domini MCCLXVII. Cal. Jul. fer. VI” (Sachs: Geschichte der Markgrafschaft Baden-Carlsruhe[History of the Margravate of Baden-Carlsruhe], II, 1767, p. 15 and following — Also briefly mentioned in the Zeitschrift für die Geschichte des Oberrheins [Magazine for the History of the Upper Rhine], IX, Karlsruhe, 1858, p. 271, Nr. 17).

In a later report the question is raised in connection with this crime, as to why the Jews had the custom in every (!) nation in which they were living, of shedding Christian blood. So one should surely know that every year in each nation the relevant city or region would be chosen by lot, which would have to supply the Christian blood necessary for ritual purposes to the Jews (Thomas de Cantimpré: De vita instituenda, II, Chapters 29, 23)!

Likewise around this time (1270) a Jew at St. Dié, who (21) had violated his Christian servant-girl after previously rendering her unconscious in order to gain her blood — the Jewish compiler of this document speaks of an “operation” — was brought before the court of the Duke of Lotharingia and condemned. His execution was done in this manner: tied to the tail of a horse, he was dragged to the gibbet and hanged upside-down. The contemporary report, however, brings out the following extremely typical turn of events: As the Jew, preparing himself at the place of execution, wanted to speak once more, to confess the reasons (!) for his crime, he was prevented from doing so by the executioner, so that nothing to the disadvantage of his racial comrades could be said (ne forte aliquid in opprobrium Judaeorum loqueretur)! Obviously the executioner had been bribed beforehand, although his corruption is called into doubt by the Jewish publisher of the report(11).

In Mainz a child was sold to the Jews by his nurse and slaughtered by the former in April of the year 1283 (Athanasius Fern, Jüdische Moral und Blut-Mysterium [Jewish Morals and the Blood-Mystery], Leipzig, 1920, p. 23 and also Annales Colmariensis [Kolmar Annals]).

In Munich in 1285 a small boy was stabbed all over his body and made to bleed to death (Raderus, Bavaria sancta, II, p. 331). The enraged populace is supposed to have locked 180 Jews — unless this number is based upon an error in writing — together inside the wood-built synagogue and have burnt them by laying a fire around it. Yet these measures of retaliation made no impression upon the Jews there: already, a few decades later a Johann Aventin reports in his Annalen Bajorum, Book VII, again from Munich, that a small boy named Heinrich was slaughtered; all his veins had been opened and countless piercing wounds had been inflicted.

The historian Papebroch industriously collected in one volume of the Acta Sanctorum, (April II, p. 697/740) all documents which refer to the slaughter of the Werner from Oberwesel by St. Goar and thereby gives us valuable material. In the middle of April of the year 1287, this young victim of satanic Jewish blood-thirst was (22) slowly tortured until he bled to death. To his memory and as a memorial of this atrocity the (uncompleted) St-Werners-Kapelle was later erected above Bacharach. Gougenot des Mousseaux (in the translation by A. Rosenberg) covers the death of Werner of Wesel from the Bollandists, “the mighty researchers in the field of history,” as follows: “It was a poor day-laborer 14 years old, named Werner. The faithful of the Talmud took him into service and used him to shovel out the dirt in a cellar. His landlady, uneasy about this, said to him: ‘Be careful of the Jews, Werner, for Good Friday is approaching!’. . .The Jews dragged him into the cellar and gagged him. . .then they bound him head downward to a wooden stand. Then they began to strike the boy with a lash, opened his veins with his very own knife that he carried with him, and squeezed the blood from his body. They let the body hang, until all the blood had been gotten from it.”

The judge of Oberwesel, who “was not averse to money,” was successfully bribed and let the murderers go free with their “Rabbi.”

In the following year, 1288, the Jews of Bern at Easter, on the 17th of April, kidnapped a boy named Rudolf, put him through terrible sufferings, and finally slaughtered him in a cellar by cutting his neck. The main perpetrators were broken on the wheel, and the accomplices driven away. The council of the city decided from thence forward not to suffer Jews and the victim was later canonized by the Church (Acta sanct., 2nd Volume of April, p. 504).The grave of the child in the parish church in Bern was a place of pilgrimage for several centuries, “until the new Gospel [i.e., Lutheranism or Calvinism], as those who believe differently like to say, came into fashion, and the original reason of all this taken away. . .”(H. Murer, Helvetia sancta, p. 299).

During these years, in Oberwesel, Bacharach, Siegburg, and numerous other places, persecutions of the Jews broke out as a consequence of repeated murders or attempted murders of children. Emperor Rudolf I (1273-1291) von Habsburg received from Jewish hands 20,000 Marks and commanded the Archbishop Heinrich of Mainz to solemnly announce in a sermon that the Christians had done the Jews the greatest injustice, and that the corpse of Werner should (23) be burnt and the ashes scattered to the winds! “At this sermon of the Lord Archbishop, more than 500 armed Jews (!) sat there so that, in case a Christian wanted to raise objections, they could immediately kill him with their swords” (see Chronik von Kolmar, II, Pabst, Berlin, 1867, p. 158). Later, Rudolf von Habsburg tried to impose a tax on the Jews but was unable to put it through. . .” (Das., p. 163). The Jew Caro cynically remarks in his Sozial- und Wirtschaftsgeschichte der Juden (II, p. 196):”. . .The King finally stepped in. Total calming of the aroused crowd did not, at any rate, take place and for 1287 and the following years the names of martyrs of a not inconsiderable portion of the community are handed down [to us]. . .”

In 1288, on the 24th of April, under the reign of Philipp IV of France, 13 Jews at Troyes in Champagne were delivered to the stake after a ritual crime. (Caro II, 80).

In 1292 in Kolmar a nine-year-old youngster was murdered by Jews (Annal. Colmariensis, II, 30); in the same year there was a ritual-murder in Constance, in 1294 in Bern, in 1302 in Renchen (Baden). . .”There is an endless murdering” (Desp., p. 70, and also Annales Colmariensis).

In 1303, at Easter, Jews from Weißensee in Thuringia caught the schoolboy Conrad and gave him a gruesome death, as they cut into his muscles and opened his veins to squeeze out the blood. The desecrated corpse they hung up to mock in a vineyard. Soldiers under the leadership of Friedrich, the son of the Landgraf Albert of Thuringia, raided the murder-band and quickly despatched them to their deaths. (Tenzel, Monatliche Unterredungen[Monthly Discussions], July 1693, p. 556).

A Bohemian chronicle reports from the same year (see Dr. E. Bischoff in Juden und Christenblut, Berlin, Dewald) [Jews and Christian Blood]: “After the envoys of Otto had withdrawn from Prague, the Jews resolved to commit a horrible crime at the holy Easter celebration against a Christian man; they dragged him to a concealed area, hanged him naked up on a tree, and while they stood around, some would spit on him, others struck him blows with their fists, and still others did to him (24) everything which Christ once had suffered from that hideous and infamous people.”

Two years later, in 1305, Prague Jews again at Easter nailed a youth, who had been forced through poverty to become their servant, naked upon a cross and flogged him so long that he bled to death. The aroused people did not wait for the return of the King, Wenceles II, but fell upon the Jewish Quarter and “applied a radical remedy, in that they slew the entire Jewish population of Prague” (G.v.Ónody, p. 81, as well as Tentzel, Monatl. Unterr., 1693, p. 556).

In 1306 — therefore during the reign of Philipp IV, all the Jews of France were driven out — “for all time.” But already in 1315 a royal ordinance of Louis X of 28 July proclaimed their recall: soon afterward the Baille ([royal]official) of Tours had to bring charges against a Jewish ritual-murderer of Chinon, and two of the murderers were hanged (Caro, p. 104); in 1321 the Jews at Annecy murdered a young cleric for ritual purposes and in consequence were expelled from the city by a decree of Philipp V (Denis de Saint-Martin, Gallia christ. II, 723); a year later they were expelled from all of France — again “for all time. . .” “But the Jews are like the flies, one chases them away and soon there they are again. . .” maintained the honorable Frankfurt vice-headmaster of Classics Schudt in his Jüdischen Merkwürdigkeiten [Jewish Oddities](I, p. 115), who was by no means hostile to the Jews per se but was resigned [to this] as being their racial peculiarity!

In the County of Savoy several children disappeared, again at Easter time, and so also at Geneva, Rumilly, Annecy and elsewhere. A Christian, Jaquet of Aiguebelle, confessed that he had sold the children by arrangement with the Jew Acelin from Tresselve to other Jews. Acelin, for his part, admitted that he resold the children to his religious comrades. The latter had killed the children and from their brains and bowels had prepared a salve or aharace dish (i.e., charoseth, a sauce in which the bitter herbs are dipped on the first evening of the Passover) and given of it to all the Jews (H.L. Strack: Das Blut in Glauben und Aberglauben der Menscheit [Blood in the Religion and the Superstition of Humanity], Munich 1900, p. 144).

In 1331 the Jews of Überlingen (Baden) threw the son of a (25) citizen named Frey into a well. The countless incisions which were later discovered on the corpse allowed the determination to be made of the occurrence of a preceding withdrawal of the blood. Without first first waiting for the approval of the Emperor, known to be a friend of the Jews, the judges of the region executed sentence of death upon the authors of the crime (Chronik des Joh. Vitoduran).

According to the same chronicle of Vitoduran (covering the years 1215-1348 and preserved in its original textual form at the monastery of St. Gall in Switzerland and cited by Sigismund Hosmann in his Judenherz[Jewish Heart]), in 1346 in Munich a small child was murdered by Jews and [the body] deposited outside of the city. The body displayed more than 60 piercing wounds! Emperor Ludwig IV (1314-1347) gruffly rebuffed the parents of the child and forbid even the pilgrimage of the populace to the place where the body was found; “bombarded by their gilded arrows and blinded and corrupted by Jewish money. . .there was no lack of people who looked out for the interests of the Jews. . .” (Hosmann, p. 109)

Around the same time, in the region of Cologne, a small boy — “Hänschen” [This is the diminutive and affectionate form of the name “Hans”] — was taken by Jews on the way to his monastery school of St. Sigbert and in a “secret location” cut to pieces with knives until he expired (Acta sanct., März III, 502).

On Good Friday of the year 1347 the Jews of Messina crucified a child (H. Desp.: Le myst. du sang, p. 73).

On 2 March 1349 Jews stole the four-year-old son of a Zurich shoemaker and cut up his body; the blood was collected. The body was thrown into the so-called Wolfsbach [literally: Wolf’s Creek] where it was soon discovered in the mud. An altar was erected in Münster, “through which devotion increased by the day, until the city renounced the old Catholic faith; thereby the devotion of all their old forebears vanished and was entirely extinguished. . .” (H. Murer, Helvetia sancta, p. 312).

In 1380 at Hagenbach in Swabia some Jews were caught in the act at the moment when they were slaughtering a child kidnapped from his parents. They were burned (M. Crusius, Jahrbücher von Schwaben Teil III, Buch 5) [Yearbooks of Swabia, Part III, Book 5)].

According to the decree of 15 July 1394 the Jews under the government of Charles VI were expelled from France because of repeated ritual-murders of children (26) and other intrigues injurious to the community; in the actual Kingdom of France, there was no longer one single Jew for a span of a century; only in the enclave of Avignon belonging to the Pope did a Jewish community maintain itself.(12)

In 1401 in Diesenhof in Württemberg, the four-year-old Konrad Lory was slaughtered; his blood was supposed to be delivered to the Jew Vitelmann by a groom [i.e., stable hand] for three Gulden; the former was burned and the latter broken on the wheel (Acta sanct., 2nd Volume of April, p. 838).

The Acta sanctorum [Deeds of the Saints] (II, April, p. 838) and H. Desportes (p. 74) list further ritual-murders — all at Easter time — for the year 1407 in Crakow, 1413 in Thuringia and for 1420 in Tongern in Limburg. The Judenbüchlein of Johann Eck of the year 1541 reports that in the year 1420 Archduke Albrecht of Austria had 300 Jews burned at Vienna, because these men had murdered three children.

In Ravensburg in the year 1429 between Easter and Whitsunday [=Pentecost] the Swiss student Ludwig van Bruck was tortured to death by three Jews with many torments and a horrible sexual violation (Acta sanct., 3rd Volume of April, p. 978/980).

On Good Friday (!) of the year 1442 or 1443 — due to difficult external circumstances the date given varies — the four-year-old girl Ursula Pöck disappeared in Lienz (in the Tyrol). After “a search was carried out for her on land and in the water over many days with diligence and industry with no success, the body was found in a creek: it was covered all over with piercing wounds and totally emptied of blood (Corpusculum punctis ubique confossum, sanguis ex corpusculo elicitus et effusus). On the basis of further inquiries the Jews of Lienz were brought in as suspects in the murder. At first they denied [involvement] persistently; but when faced with the body and as a result of strong admonitions — of torture or the coercing of confessions there is not the slightest suggestion — they unanimously admitted the crime. A Christian woman, Margareta Praitschedlin, had decoyed the child into their hands (27) in return for gifts of money! She, too, confessed her crime in full compass. “She has told how she had found the child at a place and had picked her up kindly with sweet words and matched the aforesaid Jews in her violence.” The Jew Samuel, “who was first to put his hands on the child and had committed the greatest unchristian murder and torture” was, as emerges from the documents published by George Tinkhauser in Number 10 of the Katholischen Blätter aus Tirol [Catholic Paper of the Tyrol], broken on the wheel and with him a dog. Another Jew, Joseph, was condemned to the gallows and hanged with a dog at his feet. Praitschedlin was tied together with two old Jewesses at her back and burned. Five Jewish children were baptized! To all Jews entry to the city remained forbidden. At last, in the year 1494 the nobles of Kärnten repeatedly requested of the Emperor the expulsion of all Jews from their lands. The Emperor Maximilian I finally ordered this in the well-known Edict of Schwäbischwerd of 1496 (on the Wednesday after the fourth Sunday before Easter). As reason for the expulsion was given, among other things, “that they (the Jews) have pitifully tortured even Christian children and used their blood for their damnable substance” — “There is almost no land, and in each land, hardly one region to be found, in which the Jewish cruelty has not washed its murderous hands in the blood of innocent Christian children. . .” wrote Jacob Schmid in his Ehrenglanze der gefürsteten Grafschaft Tirol [Honorable Glory of the Princely County of the Tyrol] (II, p. 141, new edition of Innsbruck 1843).

The devotion to this slaughtered child is not yet extinguished today [i.e., 1943; and now ?] in Lienz. The father of the child had a tablet erected in 1452 at the grave of the little martyr, originally to be found at the cemetary of the city parish church with the inscription: “Thomas Pöck had this made to the memory of his daughter Ursula, whom the Jews tortured on Good Friday and who lies buried here.” (According to Dr. Jos. Deckert: Vier Tiroler Kinder, Opfer des chassidischen Fanatismus, 1893 [Four Tyrolean Children, Victims of the Hassidim Fanaticism]).

In 1452 several Jews at Savona (near Genoa) killed a two-year-old child; they perforated the body in every direction, caught the blood in the vessels in customary use at the circumcision of their sons, and cast the blood-emptied corpse into a (28) cesspool. The blood, mingled with pieces of fruit, was eaten in ritual Form (A. Spina, de bello Judaeorum III, 7) [Concerning the War of the Jews]. The young son of the physician Salomon of Genoa stated the following as an eye-witness of this bestial murder: “They led in a Christian child of two years: one Jew took him by the right arm, the other by the left arm, the third by the head — thus cross-like — the fourth had a sharp and long needle or graving tool and he pierced the child in the belly and then the heart, quickly drew it out and then quickly stabbed again, the blood flowed out copiously into the basin until the child died, and they threw [the body] into a hidden room, and they dipped berries, apples and other fruits into the blood and ate them.”

The witness had also eaten of this “and such a horror at this came over him, that he wasn’t able to eat for two days and it was all the same to him, if they wanted to pull out his bowels and guts” (from the Judenbüchlain of Dr. Joh. Eck).

In 1453 Breslau Jews enticed a child to them, fattened him for some time and then stuck him [inside] a barrel with nails, which they rolled back and forth until the blood was withdrawn from the victim in this manner. (H. Desportes, le myst. d. s., p. 76).

In July of the year 1462 ten Jewish merchants, returning from the market in Bozen which in earlier times had four markets, passed through the Inn valley. They had already “come to terms” [i.e., in a business agreement] in advance a month before with the farmer Hans Mair from the village of Rinn near Innsbruck: he, the godfather and uncle of the three-year-old Andreas Oxner, who had been entrusted to the protection of his uncle after the early death of his father, resolved to deliver his ward to the Jewish gang without the knowledge of the boy’s mother in return for a hatful of Jewish gold pieces. “The mother of little Andreas had hired herself out as a harvester at Amras which was about two miles distant, but wasn’t able to take her child along that far away. That is what the betrayer had counted on. Thus she gave the child over to the protection of his godfather and urgently recommended him to his protection. It was not without misgiving that she took leave of her child.

When the mother had gone some distance, the farmer gave the Jews an agreed-upon signal from his house. . .Two of the Jews now secretly entered the house of the farmer, filled his hat with the agreed-upon quantity of gold pieces (400-600 Ducats) (29) at which he led them up the wooden stairs to the room where the child still softly slept. He awakened the child, dressed him in his clothes and handed him over to the strange men. . .” (from Dr. Jos. Deckert: Vier Tiroler Kinder, etc.). As a precaution, the Jews had brought along a Rabbi. In a birch forest not far from the village of Rinn, the child was slaughtered: the rabbi placed his sacrificial victim on a stone block, which survives in historical tradition today [and now?] as the “Jew-stone” in the pilgrim church under the same name, founded by Emperor Maximilian I; on this the child was circumcised according to Jewish rite. The veins in his arms were opened and the blood carefully collected in copper bowls. Every single one of the Jews committed exceptional atrocities on the victim, even the dead body was further profaned and then hung up on a tree, which was supposed to represent a cross. The murderers got away unpunished. The farmer Mair of Rinn, the guardian of “Anderl [diminutive of Andreas] of Rinn” succumbed to madness and had to be restrained in chains in his own house. The victim of the ritual-sacrifice was buried at first at the cemetary of Rinn, but later buried in a special niche. Around this niche the story of the martyr is immortalized in image and inscription. Pope Benedict XIV in the Bull Beatus Andreas [Blessed Andreas] took the occasion of February 22, 1755 to deal with the Jewish ritual-murder at some length. Further, before this, there were the notes of the Bollandists (Acta sanct., II, July, p. 462) as well as the Beschreibung der Marter des heiligen Andreas von Rinn of Ignatius Zach (Augsburg, 1724) [Description of the Torture of Saint Andreas of Rinn]. The cult of the child martyr has lasted up until our own day; The Diocese of Brixen on July 12th celebrates the feast of the blessed Andreas of Rinn, its diocesan patron. Dr. Jos. Deckert writes in addition (Vienna, 1893): “The child of Rinn was thus really the victim of fanatical Jewish hatred and is rightly revered as a martyr by the Catholic Church.” The church in the Diocese of Brixen has, among others, a prayer which says that “the blessed Andreas was killed by disloyal Jews in the cruelest fashion”.

Around Easter time of the year 1468 the Jews in the small Spanish city of Sepulveda, at the behest of their Rabbi (30) Salomon Pecho, nailed a young girl to a cross and pierced her all over. By order of the Bishop Juan Arias de Avila, the convicted Jews were brought to Segovia. Following the judicial process the main perpetrators were condemned to death at the stake, the remaining Jews who had taken part in the torture were, for one group, condemned to the gallows and the wheel, while those of the other group were strangled in prison. The rest were expelled from the city (Colmenares in Historia de la insigne ciudad de Segovia and Synopsis episcoporum Segoviensium, p. 650).

A comprehensive literature treats the infamous case of the Trent boy-murder of the year 1475, which in its time aroused the greatest sensation in the entire cultural world of the West. This ritual-murder and its accompanying circumstances are even in our day extraordinarily informative in more than one respect.

Probably the first person who was able to report this crime to his countrymen authentically and in detail was the first Saxon Landrentmeister [Master of Revenues for Saxony], Johann von Mergenthal, who in the year 1476 under the leadership of Duke Albrecht of Saxony undertook a pilgrimage to Jerusalem in the retinue of the latter. This journey led him also through Trent, “where Germany ends and Italy begins.” Here the populace still was feeling the impression of the wicked deed one year after the bestial murder, and Mergenthal was able to set down his written report, as it were, “on the scene,” in his travel book which was later published by a D. Hieronymus Weller at Leipzig.

Because the objection to this record could be made of [being] a belated account — inexact because the report did not provide documentary evidence — we will not base our own account on it, any more than upon the pictorial representations of this murder made by contemporaries, such as (for example) the extremely instructive woodcuts in the Judentum [Judaism] of Georg Lieb (Volume II of the Monographien zur deutschen Kulturgeschichte [Monographs for German Cultural History], p. 17/20.)

In the Vienna Hofbibliothek [Court Library] however, there still today is incontrovertible evidence: the comprehensive trial documents composed in medieval judicial Latin of the Trent child-murder from the year 1475! These are not disputable. The 613 folio pages of the Vienna Codex come from the hand (31) of the recorder of the Trent trial, Johann v. Fatis Furthermore, the library of the Vatican at Rome possesses a Latin handwritten codex from the years 1476-78, composed following the Trent ritual-murder trial from the year 1475/76. Pope Sixtus IV charged a commission of six cardinals and outstanding jurists in Rome with the task of re-checking once again the trial documents. The most important Italian legal scholar of his time, Franz Panvino of Padua, held the chairmanship of this commission. This was the context in which the codex was composed. This interesting manuscript was made use of on many occasions, as emerges from the frequent marginalia, but was then missing again for centuries. In a special Bull of 20 July 1478, Sixtus IV had declared the court procedure to be faultless and bestowed the highest praise upon the conscientiousness of the judges — and Pope Benedict XIV designated the codex as authentic. In 1881 this old manuscript was rediscovered and published in excerpt form in the Italian newspaper Civilità cattolica. In the governorship archive at Innsbruck the Catholic vicar Dr. Jos. Deckert was in charge of over 200 document files (interrogation protocols), letters and drafts relating to Simon of Trent, originally preserved in the Consistorial Archive of Trent and originating in the year 1475; Deckert published the result of this in the framework of his 1893 treatise : Vier Tiroler Kinder, Opfer des chassideischen Fanatismus, which had as consequence, that today there still exists but one copy of this “dangerous” work in one single public library of Greater Germany! [and today??]

In 1588 [the year of the Spanish Armada] and in 1593 a so-called Relatio italica was printed at Trent. The historiographers already mentioned several times, the Bollandists (Acta sanct., Martii, tom. III, p. 494 etc.) worked from it and, what is of most significance for us, they included in their report a detailed letter of the famous physician Hans Mathias Tiberinus, who had to examine the body as expert witness and already 14 days later communicated his findings to the city council at Brixen. In addition, the indisputable and fully objective findings from the examination of the body, determined by three Trent physicians still before the arrest of the villains, have been handed down to us! They convey to us in the most precise way the horrible (32) manner of death of the 28 month-old, who was later beatified by the Church.

The confessions of the eight main accused, held in solitary confinement and also separately questioned, which coincided in the smallest details, however, yield the following shocking picture: In the first days of Holy Week of the year 1475, in which the Passover feast fell on Holy Thursday, the heads of the Jewish families of Trent arrived at the house of the most respected of them, by the name of Samuel, on whose property the local meeting place of the Jews, the synagogue, as well as the Jewish school were situated. They were complaining about the fact that the Easter baking of the matzos could not be prepared because the blood from a Christian child was lacking. Samuel offered a “prize” of 100 gold Ducats for the procurement of the sacrificial victim. The Jew Tobias betook himself into the streets which were nearly empty of human traffic around the time of the evening Mass on Holy Thursday. Before the house of his parents a 28-month-old child was at play, Simon Gerber. He was lured away with games to the house of Samuel and there locked within until full darkness.

The eldest of the Jews, an old man of 80 years, Moses “the Old One,” began the slaughtering by ripping out a piece of flesh from the child’s right cheek with pincers; the other Jews followed suit. The down-flowing blood was caught in a tin platter. In a similar manner the right leg was mutilated. The remaining parts of the body were punctured with long, thick needles (acum a pomedello), in order to obtain the last of the blood. Finally the circumcision was performed. At the conclusion, the executioners imitated the crucifixion, in that they held the convulsively jerking creature stretched in the four directions with the feet extended uppermost (in modum crucis), as the rest of the Jews again pierced him with needles and sharp instruments. The murderers screeched: “That is what we did with Jesus, to [such an end] may all our enemies come forever.” The still weakly breathing child was killed by smashing his skull bones; at this, the Jews joined in a hymn of praise to Yahweh. The child’s blood was collected into a pot and divided among the individual Jewish families. The Easter banquet could be prepared.

(33)The child’s corpse, displayed upon the Almenor (altar) of the synagogue on Good Friday and befouled, mocked and profaned by all of the Jews residing in Trent, was — after it had temporarily been hidden under the straw of a storehouse — finally thrown into a watery ditch which flowed past in the vicinity of the house. In order to divert from themselves the suspicion which was growing ever stronger, the Jewish criminals believed themselves to be especially cunning when they were first to give report to the Bishop of Trent of the horrifying discovery of a mutilated child body, after the parents, supported by numerous inhabitants, had vainly searched and the city gates had been closed as a precaution. Yet they thereby delivered themselves up [to justice]. The type of wounds, never before seen, and the tender age of the victim brought the authors and instigators [of the crime] before the court. Here they finally admitted — separately questioned from one another — all details of the shameful crime. The wives of two of the main accused gave the informative statement that already, in earlier years, similar child-murders had been performed which had all, however, remained undiscovered.

During the trial three attested documents were presented concerning four Jewish child-murders, which all occurred in the Diocese of Constance, and two blood-murders in Endingen, another in Ravensburg (1430) and one in Pfullendorf (1461). Moreover, two of the accused admitted to the Protocol their complicity in the child-murders in Padua, where in earlier centuries several children were slaughtered, and at Regensburg, where a child had been bled to death.

The trial, conducted by the Trent authorities with extraordinary thoroughness, extended over three full years; just under the date 7 July 1478 there appears in the documents the note (Rome): causa contra Judaeos finita! There were good reasons for this long duration of the proceedings!

The rich Jews of Italy, although in their social standing still held within certain limits, exercised a great influence already at that time by means of their money and their physicians at the courts of Italian princes and even at the papal court. Supported by their well-off racial comrades living abroad, particularly in the commercial regions (34) of South Germany, they set heaven and hell in motion to suppress the Trent trial or at least to salvage what was still to be salvaged — “for the golden calf bestirred itself: and the Jews from all nations pooled much money and accomplished much with it.” (Judenbüchlein of D. Joh Eck!)

The uprisings against the Jews of Italy up until then had been caused, as in other nations, mostly by their inhuman usury, which even many princes favored for various reasons — “loans” at 80-100% [interest rates] and more were the rule. Now however, through Trent, “things were coming to light which the Jews wished to be covered by eternal night” (Deckert). A thirst for blood, a satanic fanaticism was revealed which surpassed any capacity of the imagination; rumors which till then had been constantly nourished by bad experiences, had found their confirmation, that in human society racially alien individuals, with complete consciousness, murder and slaughter in order to obtain blood for ritual purposes, and that all this is grounded in tradition kept with strict secrecy! What wonder, that no means was left untried — from gold to poison. . . According to Deckert, one passage (p. 15) in the documents reads exactly: “The people of Trent would like to preserve the honor of their paternal city according to their powers against the Jews, who would have set heaven and hell into motion in order to obtain in Rome (!) one commissioner favorable to their case. They procured many patrons for themselves with money. . .“

We begin with the prince in charge, Duke Sigismund of Austria: he had the trial stop for the first time, just a few weeks after its start, during the interrogations. The second interruption was caused by Pope Sixtus IV, who gave the curt justification that the arrival of his authorized Legate, whom he had advised beforehand, should be awaited; Bishop Hinderbach of Trent, who was conducting the investigation, received a papal letter, according to which he might not further proceed against the Jews, because some princes disapproved of the whole case!

The announced Papal Legate then made his appearance in the person of the “Commissar” Bishop Baptista dei Giudici (35)von Ventimiglia, referred to in the documents in the abbreviated form of his place of birth. He was a favorite of the Pope, his countryman and most intimate confidante. In the letter already cited, he is most enthusiastically recommended by the Pope as “Professor of Theology,” as “vir doctrina ac integritate praeditus” [i.e., “a man gifted in doctrine and with integrity”], and therefore a man “outstanding” in scholarship and honesty. If we have the right, considering “our mental disposition” (Paul Nathan), to doubt the first quality, then it is all the more worthwhile to examine more closely the second when it comes to the matter of excerpts from the documents!

On his way from Rome to Trent, he appeared in Venice in the company of three Jews, but had to “withdraw from there unwelcomed” due to the prevailing mood of the populace, which was hostile to Jews. “There can be no doubt that the Jews, through their influence at the Papal Court” — so wrote the Catholic Vicar Deckert — “managed to get Ventimiglia [appointed] as Legate, as a man favorable to their interests.”

In Trent the Legate was — as he himself admits in a letter — received in the friendliest fashion by Bishop Hinderbach; the latter put at his disposal his magnificent castle as living quarters and supported him in the most willing way in the investigation of the entire affair. But shortly after his arrival, Ventimiglia — who had openly shown his friendliness to Jews — entered into close relations with the Jewish spy “Wolfgang.” After barely three weeks he found his quarters in the bishop’s palace too damp and unsuitable, complained about his affected health and withdrew to Roveredo — in truth, Hinderbach would have been able to keep too close an eye on him: “In Trent no one could have come to him without jeopardy (that is, unseen!) for fear of the bishop (Hinderbach) and the people; but there [Roveredo] he would have a more secure place.” There, in Roveredo, in the Jewish headquarters, the wealthy Jews had assembled with their lawyers; already on the 24th of September, Ventimiglia could report to Hinderbach that “the advocates of the Jews have appeared before him, in order to defend their case. . .” Moreover, they put forward the proposal that the trial documents be turned over to them; they, the Jews, had given him to understand at the same time that they would procure the remedies for the restoration of his, the Legate’s, health!

(36) On the 1st of October 1475 Hinterbach complained that he has seen through “the intrigues of the faithless Jews and bad Christians,” who “having been bought by money and presents, win over the minds of the princes and of some prelates and draw them to their side. . .The Jews and some doctors [= university scholars] sit at Roveredo where the Legate also is staying under the pretext of poor health. They are seeking to diminish the documents and make them disdained (extenuare et floccipendere). They consult on a daily basis in Roveredo. . .they seek to win influence with the Doge (Mocenigo of Venice – we will yet have occasion to return to his machinations!), so that he will intervene for the release of the Jews still imprisoned. The Jews were looking to bribe all, and already, so one hears, they had managed to obtain much from the Pope and some cardinals at Rome; but one could hardly believe it. . .”

The priest (!) Paul de Novaria, a Jewish spy, had slipped into the Bishop’s castle and for two months copied the trial documents, since Hinderbach had not delivered these to the Jewish attorneys. In a trial convened in connection with this [i.e., the copying of the documents by de Novaria], this “priest” admitted to having been in negotiation with the Jews of Novarra, Modena, Brescia, Venice, Bassano and Roveredo for the freeing of the imprisoned Jews. He had advised removing the grating from the ditch so that the witnesses could say that little Simon had fallen into the ditch and been swept away. . .He had received funds from the Jews with which to bribe the valet of the Bishop, so that the former would poison the Bishop; 400 Ducats had been promised to him, should his plan succeed.

The Bishop’s Secretary, Gregor, had been assigned the leadership of this part of the trial. At the beginning of the trial the accused priest refused to confess orally, he would only do so in writing. In an unguarded moment, he cut off his tongue “scaplro liberario — thus, with a pen-knife — and threw it into the toilet. . .The same priest Paul had still been hired to poison the city magistrate of Trent, Hans v. Salis.

To give the trial against the ritual-murderers yet another twist, through a shameful maneuver (37) (promises of money, a hoax involving a letter of safe-conduct) a completely unsuspecting incorruptible Trent citizen by the name of Anzelin was lured to Roveredo, held prisoner in his quarters by Ventimiglia against all law and tortured daily so that he would accuse a Trent couple (Zanesus Schweizer) of the child’s murder! Later, this unfortunate man stated that the Papal Legate inflicted upon him a “painful interrogation” (= torture) so that he would say what he knew nothing about. . .For the most part he was hidden under a bed; only when Jewish visitors had come was he allowed to emerge. Every evening Jews came to them to consult with the Legate. The Jews had often counted out money. Finally, because nothing could be gotten from him, he was released on condition that he would say nothing about the incident!

Since this scandal, too, had proven ineffective, Ventimiglia grasped at a final remedy: on the basis of forged instructions ostensibly from the Pope, he attempted to pull the entire trial illegally into his own hands with the removal of the Trent authorities, indeed, his presumption went so far as to forbid the Trent Bishop any further proceedings against the Jews, under the threat of excommunication and being denied entry to the church; Ventimiglia encouraged the Jews to admit nothing, and told them that they would soon all be at liberty!

But “in these long, hard struggles for truth and justice” (Deckert) Hinderbach, who was surrounded by German men who were impervious to Jewish bribery, finally came off the victor. Through his energy a trial procedure had been made possible, which can stand as a laudable exception before history and its research and which can still, centuries later, supply us with the most valuable material.

At the end of October 1475, Hinderbach gave a report about the exact investigation, the capture of the guilty, their consistent confessions, and their just conviction to all eligible princes. He possessed the courage to designate the “investigation” which the Papal Legate had begun, concisely as well devastatingly in his accounting, as curruptam inquisitionem.

(38)Ventimiglia had finally dug his own grave: his “mission” had taken on such a scandalous shape that the Pope had to leave him to his fate, good or bad. The populace had risen against the Legate and mocked him in derisive songs as Caiaphas [i.e., the High Priest who plotted Christ’s death] and as “pseudoantistes Judaeorum” [antistes, the Latin term for a temple overseer or priest; thus: a pretended high priest of the Jews] much to the anger of the Pope. “But it has displeased the Pope that his Legate has been everywhere convicted [i.e., in the judgement of the people] of injustice, that satires and epigrams have been published against him and that he has also been mocked pictorially. Hinderbach would like to put a stop to this in his diocese” (documents). At the end of 1477 in an energetic letter, Hinderbach asked the Pope “to make an end to this scandal at last. . .all are rebelling against this, and he (the Pope) might want to appoint another man Commissar, who would be a friend of the truth.”

“Rarely has a Legate so deeply damaged the papal prestige in Germany…” (Deckert).

Baptista dei Giudici von Ventimiglia withdrew grudgingly to Benevento. In order that their valuable ally not completely drop from their sight, the Jews leased a garden behind his house, “to have easy access to him,” according to a letter of 23 March 1481. No successor was named; apparently Rome had no one whom it could hold as immune to Jewish attempts at bribery.

Hinderbach, born in Hesse (born 1418 at Rauschenberg in Hesse) in observance of his governmental duties conducted the trial to its just conclusion despite indescribable difficulties. He had spurned at repeated intervals high sums of money from Jewish bribery (as can be concluded from his own letters), which was all the more to his credit since he often had to struggle with financial embarrassment. He did not even fear death by poison, which had been threatened for him.

“With him stood courageously in the battle the German men, Podestà of Trent, Hans v. Salis, and the city chief Jacob v. Spaur, who bowed neither to Jewish nor to Italian intrigues, as is provable from repeated documentary protestations” (Deckert).

Because of the threatening danger of plague, the approbation of the trial documents in Rome was delayed. (39)Finally, on the 20th of June 1478, the Bull of Pope Sixtus IV to Bishop Hinderbach confirmed that the trial against the Jews had been conducted ad normam veri juris [= to the standard of true or valid law]. The children of the executed Jews were supposed to be baptized.

According to the Judenbüchlein of D. Eck, Trent cost the Jews 120,000 Gulden. “For the Jews, according to their practice, have exerted themselves with gold and money so that [their] misdeeds be suppressed; they offered Duke Sigismund many thousand Gulden if he would let the Jews off; they wanted to build a new castle for Bishop Johann v. Hinderbach. . .”

Those who had been convicted of the crime of child-murder had died the most shameful sort of death: after having been broken on the wheel they were next tortured and burned. Moses “the Old One,” the head of the Jewish community, had already killed himself in prison. Four of those who were complicit or accomplices were baptized and pardoned.

The synagogue-house of Samuel was torn down and Hinderbach had a chapel for the victim erected on the site, which was enlarged in 1647 through donations of the citizens of Trent. Since attacks by Jewish rabble were feared, Emperor Maximilian gave orders for the guarding of the grave of the martyr, whose name was accepted into the Roman Martyrology under Gregory XIII. In 1480, Hinderbach had to address the bishops of Italy in a circular due to misuse by mendicant friars of the collection for the holy martyr Simon! To the present day, Simon of Trent is the patron saint of the Diocese of Trent and his feast day is celebrated on the fourth Sunday after Easter. In the 19th century, no Jew dared to spend a single night in the city of Trent (13). A special brotherhood had [instituted] a watch over it, so that the old edict of banishment against the Jews was upheld and executed.

On the altar of the church of San Pietro of Trent stands the sarcophagus of the child, which holds the still extraordinarily well-preserved body in a crystal casket. The body rests naked on a pillow and the countless wounds, according to the report (1893) of (40)Deckert, for whom it was made possible to view the relics of the “santo bambino,” are still clearly recognizable: “Whoever, though, expects today to see in the relics of the child merely a mummified skeleton, is totally mistaken. The body is still completely well-preserved. . .Held to the light, I even saw the fine hair of the head. The wound of the right cheek is clear to see; similar to it are numerous piercing wounds over the whole body. . .Over 400 years have elapsed since the death of the child, and that’s how well the relics are preserved. . .” Even the tools of torture, the pincers, knife, needles and a cup in which the blood was caught, are preserved in this chapel.

The Trent trial documents(14) from the year 1475 found a late so-called “revision” by the Jew Moritz Stern, in the Jewish sense of course, faithful to the principle: what is not deniable must be at least subsequently falsified and distorted, so that in the end someone not initiated must receive a totally distorted picture. Upon this irresponsible type of portrayal, a German researcher of world reputation, Dr. Erich Bischoff, whom no one could bring under the embarrassing suspicion of “anti-Semitism,” passed a devastating judgment in his foundation-making work in this subject of 1929, Das Blut in jüdischem Schriftum und Brauch [Blood in Jewish Scripture and Custom]. It may be taken as evidence of bad conscience that Moritz Stern occupied himself merely with the the already widely available, allegedly coerced-by-torture statements of his racial comrades — but simply held back the most important thing, the Protocol of the three physicians which was received before the interrogation! That Stern finally accuses the Trent Bishop Hinderbach, presiding at the time of the murder, without any indication of reason and proof, of “preparing” the trial documents after [the trial], serves only as a rounding out of what has already been said about these “researches” by competent experts.

The Trent pronouncement of sentence took drastic measures; one could almost have promised a lasting effect from it. Yet already, five years later, in 1480, in the (41) Portobuffole region, belonging to the Republic of Venice, the seven year-old boy Sebastian Novello of Bergamo is slaughtered by several Jews. Here too the case against the Jews could be made and their guilt proved beyond doubt in interminable hearings. On St. Mark’s Place in Venice, in front of the Doge’s Palace, the criminals were publicly burned.

From the same year the Bollandists report (April II, p. 838) as the second case the murder of a small child at Motta in the Venetian region. A third case occurred at Treviso. Again, five years later, Jews slaughtered the child Lorenzo in the area of Vicenza, a sign that at that time these areas especially had been designated by secret instructions to “furnish” blood. At this time all Jews were banished — as it said, “for all time” — only to encyst themselves a few years later again as merchants, thanks to the support of the Jew-bought Doge Mocenigo of Venice, who was always in need of money(15). In the year 1487 the Franciscan Bernardin of Feltre closed a sermon at Crema (in upper Italy) with the words: “The usury of the Jews is so out of bounds that the poor are strangled. And should I, who eat the bread of the poor, keep silent when I see their robbery?” (16)

The same Doge Mocenigo, by the way, had issued the following order, which typifies the powerful influence of the Jews, on the 22nd of April 1475 — therefore before the investigation had unearthed the true facts of the case: “It is to be accepted that the news which has it that the Jews had murdered a Christian child, is only peddled for ulterior reasons; since the Doge wishes that the Jews might live peacefully and comfortably in his land, he hereby forbids that their standing in society be changed in any manner, and does not allow pastors to spread this information from the pulpit or for anyone at all to spread this news in such a way as to agitate against the Jews. . .” (Géza von Ónody, p. 84). Emanuel Baumgarten adds to this (in his defense of the Jews: (42) Die Blutbeschuldigung gegen die Juden. Von christlicher Seite beurteilt [The Blood-Accusation against the Jews, Evaluated from the Christian Side], 2nd edition, Vienna, 1883 — all in all, a weaker recasting of the notorious Chrsitlichen Zeugnisse gegen die Blutbeschuldigung der Juden [Christian Testimonials against the Blood-Accusation of the Jews], Berlin, 1882) the following supplementary letter of this Doge from that time: “How very much this affair displeases us, and is painful and unpleasant, you, with your cleverness, may be able to realize best. We at least believe that the rumor concerning the murder of the boy is a slanderous invention; for what reason, others may see. But we have always wished that the Jews in our lands live securely and without fear, that they be protected from any injury in a manner equal to the rest of our other loyal subjects (omnis inuria absit ab illis).”

Outside of Italy as well, the outgoing 15th century lists Jewish blood-murders of children. In the year 1486 — thus a decade after the Trent murder case, in Regensburg not fewer than six children were murdered by Jews in a subterranean vault. The remains of the dismembered corpses were brought to the town hall. In the vault was found a stone block, fixed up like an altar, whose blood-traces were covered with glue (Raderus, Bavaria sancta, III, p. 174).

In 1490 in Guardia near Toledo, a small child was nailed to the cross by Jews, after he had been stabbed and scourged. The child was canonized. In 1886 the history of his sufferings was published (II. Desp., p. 79).

In 1494 fourteen Jews, among them two Jewesses, dragged off a child into a Jewish house in Tyrnau in Hungary; after they had stuffed his mouth, they opened the victim’s veins. The blood was carefully collected “down to the last drop” and a portion preserved. The body was dismembered. At house-searching, spots of blood were discovered in one of the Jewish houses, which led to the arrest of the murderers. The Jewish women who had been questioned first confessed the crime in all its horrific details. The main culprits were condemned to death by fire (Bonfinius: Fasti Ungarici, III, 5 and Acta sanct., April II, p. 505)

In 1498 a bloody persecution of the Jews broke out on the Greek island of Zante because the populace (43) had been driven to self-help by a whole chain of ritual crimes, which without exception happened around the time of the Jewish Easter.

In the year 1503, as Eck was passing from Cologne to Freiburg “for his studies,” he had the opportunity at Freiburg to observe the body of a child butchered according to Jewish rites, which was discovered “in the woods”: “[I was able to] grasp and to touch the cuts of the child with my fingers, perhaps four weeks after the murder.” The blood had been smuggled into Alsace.

In the city archives of Tyrnau there is a document from the year 1529, which was composed on the occasion of the ritual-murder at Bösing (17). It reports that on Ascension Day 1529 in the market-town of Bösing, which today is situated in Slovakia, the nine-year-old son of the tenant farmer Gregor Maißlinger suddenly disappeared. Early in the morning of the next day, a peasant woman found outside the village a mutilated child’s body with the hands bound and lying on his face in a puddle among thorn hedges. She immediately brought her discovery to the court, which determined that it was the child who had disappeared the day before; the father was able to recognize his son in the mutilated child’s remains. The type of wounds and the circumstance of the body being empty of blood steered suspicion toward the Jews of the village, especially since an entire series of similar crimes from earlier years had remained unsolved. The entire Jewish population of the market town was “taken prisoner.” A court commission under the chairmanship of the Count of “St. George and Bösing” determined exactly the type of the wounds on the body and proceeded then to harsh individual interrogation of those arrested. The Jew David Saifmacher confessed that the Jew Michel took the child captive and got him into the cellar and after a while a great number of Jews showed up in order to torture the child. Jew Michel confessed how he lured the child into his house on Ascension Day and that “all tortured (44)the said child with each other, and he [himself] had struck the first blow on his head with a hook and then each Jew stabbed the child for a while.”

The blood was sucked out of the body by means of a quill and a little “tube,” collected in bottles and next hidden in the synagogue “where it was the occasion of much rejoicing.” The Jew Wolfl finally killed the innocent creature by stabbing him in the nape of the neck. With the agreement of all the Jews, the blood was handed over to various Jewish middlemen. The child’s body “was carried at night with bound hands out beyond the Hofner alleys and laid in a [patch of] thorn plants near a stand of some nut trees, where some Jews then stood watch.”

Jew Saifmacher was comfortable enough to still make the confession that just five years before, in 1524, he had been given the task of driving out of the city of Tyrnau [the body of] a “tortured” (= ritually butchered) Christian, hidden in a cartload of manure.

This statement was amplified by the Jew Szecho, who declared that “in Passion Week four years ago a Christian at Tyrnau had been tortured, but he [himself] had not been there.”

On the Friday after Pentecost of the year 1529, “in the several thousands, people from other cities, market-towns and villages” awaited the verdict. It corresponded to the sentiment of the people: the Jews of Bösing, thirty in number, were led out to a place far outside the market town, “set afire and burned to a powder.” The children of the Jews were divided among individual families and — baptized.

At the excavation site on the occasion of the construction of the Preßburg-Tyrnauer railroad in 1840, in the vicinity of the present railway station of Bösing, a walled cavity was stumbled upon, which still was filled with the remnants of bones and coal.

In 1540, at Easter, the four-and-a-half-year-old Michael Piesenharter from Sappenfeld, Kreis Neuburg (Oberpfalz) was kidnapped by Jewish merchants in the area of Ingolstadt, bound to a pillar, tortured for three days, his fingers and toes mutilated, finally cut with crosses all over his body and after death had occurred, hidden under dry foliage. A shepherd dog helped to trace the body. A Jewish child had reported to his non-Jewish companion that a child had been tortured (45) to death, “this dog has howled for three days long” — thus the Jewish child already received the conviction inoculated into him that anyone not Jewish had only the status of a beast. The blood was found later in Posingen (Raderus, Bavaria sancta III, 178 etc.).

The examination findings of the surgeons yielded the following: “the body pitifully torn to pieces, many piercing wounds, on the right shoulder a cross incised, circumcised. . .” (Johann Eck, Judenbüchlein). The Jewish criminals were supposed to be acquitted through a “letter of release” hurriedly arranged on the part of some indebted members of the nobility.

In 1547 at Rawa in Poland two Jews stole the son of a tailor and nailed him to a cross; the murderers were convicted and burned, their racial comrades expelled (Acta sanct., II, April, p. 839).

In 1569 at Witow in Poland the two-year-old son of a widow was sold by a down-on-his-luck subject for two silver Marks to the Jew Jacob and by the latter was slowly tortured to death in hideous manner. Ludwig Dycx, Gouverneur of Cracow, reports on this case, as well as the fact that simultaneously in Bielsko and also other places Christian blood has been shed by the Jews (Acta sanct., ibid.).

In 1574 the Jew Joachim Smierlowicz in Punia (Lithuania) killed a seven-year-old girl shortly before Palm Sunday. Inscription and image in the chapel of the Holy Cross in Vilna bear witness that the blood of the child was mixed with the meal which served for the preparation of the matzos (Easter bread) (Acta sanct., ibid.).

Around the same time in Zglobice the Jews stole a boy whom they carried off to Tarnów, where already another youngster was found in the hands of the Jews under suspicious circumstances; both children were still able to be freed in time (Acta sanct., ibid.).

In 1590 in the small town of Szydlow the Jews stole a peasant boy and withdrew his blood from him through opening the veins and numberless piercing wounds. The corpse was found in an isolated spot and bore all the signs of torture (Acta sanct., ibid.)

In 1592, in March at Vilna, the seven-year-old Simon Kierelis (46) was tortured to death by several Jews. Upon his body over 170 wounds were caused by knife and scissors, aside from the many cuts which they had inflicted on him under the nails of his fingers and toes. The body was later handed over to the monks of St. Bernhard. In the church of St. Bernhard at Vilna there is a marble tablet with the following inscription: “Memorial of the minor child Simon Kierelis, born at Vilna, who in his seventh year of life was horribly murdered by the Jews with 170 cutting wounds and was buried in this church. In the year 1592 after the birth of Christ” (Acta sanct., among other places, March III, p. 589).

In 1595 at Gostyn in Poland two Jews were strangled because of repeated blood-murders of children — “all of Poland was aroused at that time” (Acta sanct., April II, p. 839).

In 1597, again in the vicinity of Szydlow, Jews stole a peasant child and butchered him [in the Jewish manner]. The blood, having been tapped, was used, among other purposes, for the dedication of the new synagogue at Szydlow. The body, discovered in an open field, showed piercing wounds in the eyelids, in the neck, in the veins, the limbs, and in the sexual organs and was severely contracted due to the fact that tortures which employed fire had been inflicted upon the child (ab igne constrictum). “From gazing [upon the body] everyone was seized by horror.” According to the report of the Bollandists (Acta sanct., April II, p. 839) the wretched victim died under “choice tortures” (per tormenta exquisita); what was meant by that was clearly to be seen in the body which had been discovered.

In 1598 in the village of Woznik (Podolia) the four-year-old son Albert of the farmer Pietrzynin of Smierzanow, who had left his father’s side and lost his way, was kidnapped by two young Jews and butchered [in the Jewish manner: Whenever the verb schächten is used, it indicates butchering according to Jewish slaughtering rites.] under the most horrific tortures four days before the Jewish Easter, at which the most influential Jews of the region were present. The body was at first hidden under barrels, then thrown on marshy ground. The crime was soon discovered by reason of the features of the wounds; the Jews offered everything to bribe the judges of the highest Polish court at Lublin. They possessed the impudence to refer to “privileges,” according to which they could not recognize the court. (47) Nevertheless, the “Royal High General Court” decided that “the Jews could not be protected by their charters [of privileges] which they produced, in such an abominable atrocity and such a horrible crime. . .” The elders of the Jews of Lublin now attempted to obtain “postponement of the case,” in order to “carry the investigation a farther distance” according to their well-known practices, “to prove” their “innocence.” They had no success. One of the murderers, Isaac, stated that the child had been hidden at first in a cellar for several weeks. The Jewess Anastasia had gone to the child [he stated] when he whimpered from being afraid. . .,” . . . “after which Mosko and Selmann took the child and brought him through a chamber; but Isaac walked behind them with the knife with which they were otherwise used to using to slaughter cattle, and had killed the child in this manner. Moses had cut, or rather stabbed the breast, as did Selmann, but Isaac had cut the hand, after which they caught up the blood into a pot. . .” One of the Jews, who kidnapped the child, Aaron, suddenly wanted to be baptized. But when it was revealed to him that he would be condemned despite this, “the Jew fell silent and was very shaken” and declared that he would then die as a Jew.

The chief perpetrators were broken on the wheel; the Rabbi Isaac confessed before his death that the Jews required non-Jewish blood for ritual purposes, in part for Easter wine [i.e., for Passover wine; Whenever the author refers to “Jewish Easter,” the festival of Passover, Pessach, is meant; Easter and Passover occur during the same time of year, and in fact the date of Easter is determined (approximately) by the date upon which Passover falls.], and in part for Easter bread! (Acta sanct., April, II, p. 835; Hosman, Das schwer zu bekeherende Judenherz[The Jewish Heart, Hard to Convert], p. 121; Tentzel, Monatl. Unterr., 1694, p. 130). As we have seen, the Jewish plague simply had terrible free range in Poland; in every year countless children disappeared, most around the time of Easter! “All of Poland was aroused at that time.”

At the threshold of modern times, in 1650, on March 11, a child by the name of Mathias Tillich at Kaaden in Bohemia was “killed with a knife” by a Jew — on both hands the fingers had been cut off (Eisenmenger, p. 373). Thereupon all Jews of Kaaden were banished for the well-known “all time” by Imperial order. A memorial tablet was later erected for the victim (Hosmann, p. 47, Appendix).

In 1665, on the 11th of May, in the Jewish Quarter of Vienna, a woman was murdered in the most horrible fashion and the blood-emptied body, (48)in a sack weighted with stones was thrown into a horse-trough. The body was covered with countless piercing wounds, while the head, both shoulders and thighs had been separated by an expert hand.

Since the Jews in the following years committed a series of similar crimes, on the 4th of February of the year 1670 it was proclaimed in every public place in Vienna “that all Jews without exception take themselves away from there forever and on the evening of Corpus Christi that not one should let himself be seen there any more, on pain of the death penalty.” The fortunate city of Vienna straightaway lost 1400 Jews, one part of whom characteristically migrated to Venice, another portion of them to Turkey — thus into the regions in which they were able to go about the ritual-slaughter of human beings without being disturbed (Eisenmenger-Schieferl, Entdecktes Judentum [Judaism Uncovered], Dresden, 1893, p. 369).

The list of Jewish ritual crimes in the centuries of the so-called Middle Ages alone is endless. Even the most careful arrangement and sorting — as far as this is at all possible — of all the relevant document passages, documentary authentic examples, and reliable reports, will have to remain forever incomplete for the reason that most crimes of this type were not generally known or, respectively, recognized — that is, as ritual crimes commanded to Jewish murderers in accord with certain laws, and which therefore were not always penetrated because they seemed downright incomprehensible to non-Jewish humanity and were not comparable to any of the usual cases of murder — they could only originate in Jewish Talmudic brains! Moreover, there were, time after time, influential persons who were dependent upon Jews, at the head of some state organ — one recalls the Doge of Venice — who quashed most willingly proceedings against the Jews or warded them off and summoned back the once-expelled murder plague into the land again after a short time.

But Jewry is resolved, still, to adulterate documentary and authentic and unshakable evidence, as an example (Trent) has already demonstrated, or, if even these tricks misfire, to dispose of these murders from that time as regrettable “isolated cases” and to describe them as unquestionably unworthy of “modern,” “enlightened,” and “civilized” Jews. Also spoken of are medieval religious “aberrations” of individual fanatic (49) “sects.” Thus did the French historian Feller, a laudable exception of his time, recognize razor-sharp, this Jewish maneuver. He writes in his Journal historique et littéraire of 1778 on 18 January: “If one listens to the scholars of our day, it was pure fanaticism that could have ever [caused] the ascribing of such barbarous atrocities to the Jews at all. If one accuses them in the year 1775 of having again committed such an atrocity in Poland, the other side tries to make out the witnesses of the acts to be the viewers of apparitions and declares anyone of the sort to be half-crazy who gives any credit to the statements of the witnesses.”

These findings are all the more remarkable, when indeed in this 18th century the so-called Enlightenment ran its pernicious course through all of Europe and looked back with sovereign contempt, as if upon a conquered position, upon the “Dark Middle Ages,” which nonetheless showed instances of incorruptible righteousness, an attitude of mind which was only too happy to a priori reject anything which could be somehow laid to the account of supposed medieval prejudice! Even the mere possibility of believing in the existence of blood-murder or of listening to witnesses was condemned in advance — there must be a misunderstanding, the death a misadventure, some kind of accident, to be attributed to some sort of perverse and unfortunate inclination of a pathetic individual — under these circumstances it is at any rate understandable, then, that the thus “enlightened” 18th century was not prepared to solve any murders of the constantly exercised Jewish blood-practice — and, from pure enlightenment no longer recognized the closest-occurring and simplest case in its true essence, and above all in its deepest-lying motives.

So wrote the Hungarian Reichstag Deputy Géza Ónody on the occasion of the great ritual-murder trial of Tisza-Eszlár (1883)(18): “In the Age of Enlightenment and Tolerance we have happily reached the point at which we simply put aside these kinds of (ritual-murder) inquiries and investigations and, in short order declare the blood-accusation, repeatedly raised against the Jews afresh time after time (50)on the basis of new criminal facts, to be an absurd, dark superstition which belongs to the junk room of the intolerant, bigoted, and mentally limited Middle Ages — and the raising of which redounds to the shame and discredit for the progressive spirit of the times and the genius of humanity.”

How disastrously that attitude of mind consciously or unknowingly obliged Jewry, the following case might show: The thirteen-year-old Andreas Takáls was made to bleed to death by a [Jewish ritual] butchering cut on 21 February 1791 in the little Transylvanian village of Pér. The Jew Abraham was arrested, his five-year-old son was a witness to the slaughtering and stated before the court that his father, together with the Rabbi and still other foreign Jews had slaughtered Andreas: “At night Father came home with some other Jews, among whom was also the Károlyer Rabbi of the Jews. They took from Andreas his guba (fur coat) removed his shirt, and held his mouth (the impression of five fingers was still discoverable on the body), stuffed his mouth with clay, and Jakob tied his feet together, hung him up by a cord from a beam, and then (the head hung downwards) cut open the vein on the right side of his neck, while Father held a leaden basin to catch the blood.”(19)

The blood was taken away by the Rabbi. An eyewitness of the autopsy, the Reformed Pastor of Pér and “Chief Notary of the Reformed Church District beyond the Theiß,” the former Daniel Héczey, writes in his notes(20): “Following the exhumation which took place on 24 February 1791, the boy is now thoroughly dissected. I saw with my own eyes that upon the opening of the veins of the right arm, not one drop of blood appeared, because the blood had been drained off from the right side of the neck (ritual slaughter cut!) but on the other had, from the left arm two little drops of blood flowed out, the internal vital organs were entirely empty of blood, and the diaphragm and the sexual organs together with the bladder had been torn apart. . .”

(51)Although they had the cleverest attorneys, on the 27th of December 1792 all of the accused were condemned to death at the wheel by the Comitat Court at Zilah, but meanwhile an order had been issued from Vienna, according to which the execution of judgment in these trials was made dependent upon the approval of the Emperor. At the same time, a command reached the authorities [which ordered] that “anyone who would dare to make the slightest reproach to the Jews in this matter, would have to reckon with the severest penalty.”

This occurrence excited the highest outrage of the populace. The rationale for the order, however, read as follows(21): “The belief has spread among the people, that the Jews require Christian blood on certain feast days; that is an old deeply-rooted error and serves only to awaken undeserved hatred against the Jews in our homeland. His Majesty has deigned to command that the clergy and the civil authority might enlighten the people to this, for this opinion is only a fable. If it were true, surely it would have been betrayed long ago by the Jews converted to Christianity. If murders committed by Jews do happen, such murders are nothing other than the ordinary murders [also] committed by Christians and have no connection with the [Jewish] rite. . .”

“And have no connection with the rite” — one really smells the whiff of garlic of Jewish inspiration! In any case, the accused were set free!

In the old parish church of St. Paul in Eppan, in the Tyrol, a small sarcophagus stands at the left pier of the presbytery, and bears the following inscription: “Place of burial of the innocent boy Franz Locherer, who on 9 Aug. 1744 was found in the forest at Montiggl, slain in the manner of Simon of Trent. ‘Let the little ones come unto me, for such is the Kingdom of Heaven.’” Not far away, on the church wall is affixed a memorial plaque with the following inscription: “In the year 1744, on the 5th of August, the honorable Joseph Locherer and Anna Aberhämin lost their son, aged 8 years, 7 months, and 25 days, for whom they searched for most carefully (52) for 3 days with great sorrow: but just then. . .on the 4th day, a Saturday, he was found with the help of a shepherd boy by his father with great grief of heart, to have been murdered by an unchristian Jewish hand, with his neck stabbed through, the body and the bowels bound fast with his garters and the entire body so badly beaten that [the body] itself seemed to be a single total wound. . .” “(Renovatum[restored] on 23 July 1855).”

This plaque already conveys the most essential fact; moreover, a later protocol from the 17th of March 1802 reads: “a Judaeo immaniter occisi” — “inhumanely slain by a Jew. . .”

The facts of the case, based upon the interrogation protocols of 12 August 1744 at the Schloß[castle] at Gandegg are recorded in the parish archives of St. Paul’s in Eppan and are, briefly, as follows: The parents searched in vain for three long days for their child. A young herdsman finally reported that he heard a child cry out pitifully in the Kalten Forest; he indicted the approximate direction. The father actually found his child, murdered in the most horrifying way and lying on his back on a tree trunk. The neck was stabbed through, and besides this it showed red welts, as though the child had been strangled with a cord; the body was cut up so that the intestines hung out; moreover, the child had been circumcised. The whole body was so beaten that it seemed like one single wound and — it was emptied of blood! Various circumstances suggested that the murderer or murderers had been disturbed during the act of slaughter.

While the judges of Eppan and Kalten argued about [matters of] allegedly offended jurisdiction and squabbled over the court fees, a Jew who had been discovered by several witnesses to have behaved suspiciously and who had been noticed in the area for a long time, escaped. When the instructions finally came that both judges should investigate the perpetrator together, it was naturally too late! The opinion that a Jewish blood-murder had occurred in this case also, has been maintained to this day among the people and finds unequivocal expression in documents and memoranda. The murdered child was viewed as a martyr from the start. His veneration was tolerated (Deckert: Vier Tiroler Kinder, Opfer des chassidischen Fanatismus, Vienna, 1893).

(53)In Russia, not far from the city of Zaslav, on 29 March 1747 young herdsmen found the trampled body of an unknown man in a marsh. In Zaslav the inquest was conducted in the presence of the mayor and many deputies: all the fingers of the right hand had been amputated, the blood vessels opened up to the elbow, and the bones splintered. On the left hand three fingers were missing, the blood vessels and sinews were pulled out up to the shoulder joint, and the bones likewise smashed. Three toes of the left foot had been amputated, while the nails had been torn off the remaining ones; on the calfs, the blood vessels had been cut out and the teeth had been knocked out. The entire body was thoroughly stabbed all over.

Among some of the Jews arrested on suspicion was Soruch Leibowitz, who suddenly declared that he wished to communicate important perceptions to the deputy Starost [title which was used in the East and equivalent to Governor]; on the basis of his statements three more Jews were arrested — and the whole band of murderers was in custody! The long interrogations yielded the facts that the blood-murder had been performed as a decision of the Kahal of Zaslov; a lonely traveling journeyman had been gotten drunk in a Jewish gin-mill and then tortured in the presence of the elders of the Kahal, mutilated and ritually butchered. The tortures extended over several days. The blood was collected in basins and bowls, bottles filled with it and brought into the city of Zaslav to the Rabbi there. Each of the participants of the murder had taken a little of the blood, in order to add it to the matzos.

On 26 April 1747 the judgment was passed in accord with the Saxon Codex: the judges, in this case not made sickly by “humanitarianism” and “enlightenment,” proceeded from the basis of having the murderers bear the torments which they had inflicted upon an unsuspecting non-Jewish victim in systematic torture. The bodies of the executed were left to the birds as fodder. . .

This remained the last death sentence against Jewish ritual-murderers in Russian territory!

Other sources then report the butchering of the three-and-a-half year-old son of a Russian nobleman on Good (54) Friday (!) of the year 1753 in the vicinity of Kiev. The blood of the victim was collected in bottles, the corpse thrown into a nearby wood where the residents of the village found it on the first day of Easter. The documents concerning this case were located at the court in Kiev (v. Ónody). [Certain, like many other records, to have disappeared under Communist rule.]

Further cases occurred in 1764 in Orkuta (Hungary), where a child who was plucking flowers in a meadow was kidnapped by Polish Jews, in 1791 in Holleschau (Moravia), at the same time in Woplawicz (district of Lublin) and under the reign of the Sultan Selim III in 1791 in Pera, where 60 Jews were convicted of the crime against a young Greek and were hanged in tens by rope at the bazaar (H. Desp., le mystère du sang., p. 89). These few blood-murders which have become known show well enough that in the 18th century too, the blood-practice of international Jewry could be performed without interruption.

In more recent times certain clerical currents [of thought] have accepted this phenomenon as [the Jews allege it to be]. They regard the Jews — if not with baptismal water immediately at hand — as lost lambs whose cause should be taken up all the more lovingly to the point of complete purification. To this dubious enterprise, the disastrous “Mission to the Jews” — in its time as removed from the world as it was close to the Jews — owed its origin as well as its inglorious end. It was never conscious of the physiological as well as psychological — and eternal — law involved, that blood is always thicker than water, even baptismal water, which indeed, as far as the Jews are concerned, is termed “whore’s water” (Majim kedeschim) or as “stinking water” (Majim seruchim), while baptism itself appears as an act “of uncleanness” and of “filth” (according to Eisenmenger), which can only be allowed to be done to deceive the Akum (non-Jews). But the Jew who lets himself be baptized in earnest, makes himself guilty of an offense worthy of death, according to the Jewish conception of the law (according to Rohling: Polemik und Menschenopfer, 1883, p. 20.21) [Polemics and Human Sacrifice]. In general, the Jewish baptismal candidates resemble those “honorable Jews” Heine and Börne, who, to use the words of a leading so-called Reform Jew, the Professor at the rabbinical seminary at Breslau, Grätz (22), (55) “outwardly break with Judaism, but only like warriors, who grasp the armor and flag of the enemy, that they might more surely strike him and more emphatically annihilate him” — indeed, that is said quite openly.

We shall still have opportunity to deal with this category of Jews.

Now, however, one cannot, with eyes piously uplifted, artfully shift (for example) the 19th century into the setting of the supposedly dark Middle Ages. Indeed, it is exactly this 19th century which is so rich in extremely revealing ritual-murder cases and their court procedures, that in the true sense of the word it makes a bloody mockery of any philosophical or theological attempts to improve upon it, and categorically demands for our time: the total elimination of the Jewish blood sucker from the body of the non-Jewish peoples!

The past 19th century took on the legacy of the centuries which preceded it in more than one respect. The already long yearned-for “Enlightenment” fell into the lap of Jewry in this century by itself — it meant: Emancipation. As such, it was “that result of legislative acts which, on the basis of the Enlightenment and its natural-right construction of human rights, first removed the status of exception of the Jews in the State, which was still medieval and bound to the Church, and then in a more or less long period of general domestic reorganization (!), elevated the Jews to the status of citizens of the State with equality of rights.” (23)

A truly Jewish era seems to be dawning: Jewish gold, and with it Jewish influence everywhere, the Jewish Press dictates public opinion and Jews occupy the seats of government ministries, professorships(24) and judicial benches, the fate of whole states is determined by Jewish organizations — a stroke of the pen from Rothschild, and a non-compliant nation will be delivered into state bankruptcy.

Under these conditions it is no wonder if we must draw the following conclusions in regard to our researches into this (56) century of Jewish emancipation:

1. The number of ritual-murders performed with unbelievable brazenness and self-confidence becomes frighteningly rampant;
2. when court procedures are initiated, they lead — when not immediately nipped in the bud — to no result, amidst scandalous accompanying circumstances.
3. The individual governments are not, by themselves, in any shape to confront the Jewish murder-plague, because they
4. are at the mercy of Jewish high finance.

For the 19th century there are over 50 attested blood-crimes, and the majority of the murder cases occurred — as in all past cases — around the time of the Jewish Purim and Passover!

We wish to put forward, as likeliest for consideration by chronological order, only the following ritual-murders:

1803 On 10 March the 72-year-old Jew Hirsch from Sugenheim seized a child aged two years and four months, in the hamlet of Buchhof, which lies in the outer environs of Nuremberg. When the child was missed along with the Jew, the latter came out of the adjacent woods across the field to Buchhof and helped search for the child. On the next day the Jew denied having been in Buchhof at all on the 10th of March! The father of the missing child wanted to prove the contrary with witnesses, but was rebuffed by the judicial authority with threats and abuse. On the twelfth day the child was found dead, wounded under the tongue, with a bloody mouth and, despite the dirty weather, with clean clothes. The Kreisdirektorium [local administrative governing body] then in Neustadt was besieged by the Jewish riff-raff for so long, till the case turned out to its satisfaction. The father was coerced by threats into signing a protocol according to which the child, who had still been warm at the discovery [of the body], had frozen to death! (Friedrich Örtel: Was glauben die Juden? [What do the Jews Believe?], Bamberg, 1823).

1805 The blood-emptied corpse of the twelve-year-old Trofim Nikitin, stabbed to the point of unrecognizability, was discovered in the dunes. Three Jews were made to answer charges before the district court at Velish, (57) among them a certain Chaim Tschorny, who came under strong suspicion of a similar crime in 1823. The entire affair had finally been left to “the will of God”! (Lyutostanski: Jüdische Ritualmorde in Rußland [Jewish Ritual-Murders in Russia], p. 17). Velish had a whole chain of blood murders to display!

1810 In Aleppo a poor Christian tradeswoman disappeared. Since she was not under the protection of any Consulate, there was never any trial, although public opinion accused the Jewish real estate broker Rafful Ancona of having killed the woman in order to have non-Jewish blood for the Jewish Easter (from a letter of the English Ex-Consul in Aleppo, John Barker, to the Count Ratti-Menton on 20 April 1840. — Achille Laurent, Affaires de Syrie, H. Desportes, p. 89).

1812 On Corfu three Jews who had strangled a child were condemned to death in October. A short time later, the child of a Greek by the name of Riga was stolen on this island and ritually butchered (Achille Laurent, Affaires de Syrie).

1817 The ritual-murder committed in this year against the minor girl Marianna Adamovicz at Vilna remained unpunished. The court proceedings were later quashed due to a “statute of limitation” (Konstantin de Cholewa Pawlikowski: Der Talmud, p. 280).

1817 Three ritual-murders in Velish, committed against two boys and the wife of a Polish nobleman!

1819 Two small beggar-girls were lured into a Jewish gin-mill and murdered. Numerous accused Jews were convicted of deliberately [making] false statements, but were released!

These years had been famine years for Russia. Countless children passed from place to place, begging, and the Jews exploited this catastrophe in still other ways than by usury. As two of the chief witnesses of the later Velish trial of the year 1823 stated before the court, hungry children were lured into, and then ritually butchered in, the cellars of Jewish houses. The witnesses (58) knew most of the guilty parties and were even able to describe the events of the ritual slaughterings in all details. One Jew had been so incriminated by these statements, that he called out: “If a member of my family will confess and tell everything, then I will also confess.”

But the other Jews stubbornly kept silent or screamed and threatened (!) in such a way that the Commission had to interrupt the interrogations. At a wink and a nod from a higher authority, the proceedings came to nothing. (Lyutostanski, p. 20).

1823 On the 23rd of April (!), at Velish, in the Russian government [district] of Vitebsk, the three-and-a-half year-old son of the invalid Yemelian Ivanov was kidnapped by Jews, tortured to death during the tapping of his blood, and dragged into evergreen shrubbery, where the blood-emptied body was discovered on 4 May. The autopsy, performed by a staff doctor in the presence of a Commission, had yielded, among other information, the fact that the skin on many parts of the body was scraped raw and inflamed as the result of forceful and continued rubbing with a brush-like object, that on the body numerous wounds, as if originating from a dull nail, were found, and that marks of throttling allowed the realization that the victim was strangled. The legs had been tied together beneath the knees. The intestines of the child were completely empty and without decay. From these circumstances, the chief examiner concluded that

1. the boy was intentionally tortured, that he
2. was left several days without food (inferred from the emptied intestines), that
3. the mouth had been strongly tied closed in order to keep the victim from yelling, that
4. the body of the child had been rubbed with a brush in order to bring the blood into lively circulation, that
5. the legs were tied off in order to direct the blood to the upper parts of the body, that
6. the victim had been stabbed in numerous places or had been drilled in order to tap off the blood directly under the skin, and that(59)
7. this outrage was perpetrated upon the unclothed child while he was still living — there were no traces of blood on the child’s things.

Despite of the many eye witnesses strongly incriminating the Jews, the trial was suddenly quashed and numerous charged Jews were “acquitted” (Pawlikowski). According to Lyutostanski, who treats the trial against the multi-branched, far-reaching and best-organized Jewish murder gang comprehensively and with greatest exactitude, three non-Jewish chief witnesses for the prosecution were banished to Siberia by decision of the Russian state council on 18 January 1835, therefore after twelve (!) years! Jewry had every reason to eliminate these very witnesses, for they had made corresponding statements to the effect that among other things, bottles had been filled with the blood of the child and sent on to other Jewish communities. Also [they stated], linen soaked in this blood had been distributed, while the remaining blood had dried up. These extremely important statements prove completely independently in a startling manner the correctness of the revelations of the former Rabbi Noe Weinjung (Neophyte), to which we shall return in another connection.

During the trial proceedings, however, yet five (!) other, entirely similar blood-murders came to light, which, aside from corresponding to one another in the same goal of gaining blood, also corresponded in the fact that all of the murderers remained unpunished, although they could be exactly identified. But on February 28, 1817, the Imperial Russian government issued the order that Jews were in no event to be charged with blood-murders! The files were simply made unrecognizable or held back and duty-conscious, uncooperative officials were discharged or deported. 1824 In Beirut the translator Fatchallah Sayegh was killed by his Jewish landlady. The investigation found ritual-murder (Henri Desportes: Le myst. du sang., p. 89).

1826 At Warsaw on a country road, a murdered (60) five-year-old boy was found, whose body showed over 100 wounds as signs of the withdrawal of blood, at which all of Warsaw fell into rioting. The Jews sought everywhere to prove their innocence, without yet having been accused. The report made to the court, together with the physician’s record, was soon placed ad acta (Pawlikowski, as above, p. 282).

1827 At Vilna, the body of the peasant child Ossyp Petrowicz who had previously (according to the statements of the sixteen year-old herdsman Zukowski) been kidnapped from an open field by the Jews, was found with multiple piercing stab wounds (Amtl. Mitteilung des gouvernemnts zu Wilna[Official communication of the government at Vilna]; see Pawlikowski, p. 282). Two Jews who had given incriminating statements were found dead shortly thereafter: the one had been slain [outright], the other had been poisoned. . .(Lyutostanski, p. 20).

1827 In Warsaw Jewish constables kidnapped a non-Jewish child shortly before the Jewish Easter (Chiarini, Theoria del Giudaïsmo, Volume I, p. 355).

1827 At about the same time the seven-year-old Jewess, Ben-Noud, born in Aleppo, saw from the roof of the house of her relatives in Antioch two boys who were hung up by their legs and had blood streaming from them. Horrified over this scene, she ran away crying. Her aunt said to her that the children had been “naughty” and had been punished for it. Later the bodies had disappeared, but she found on the floor of the room a large brass vase, which the Arabs call a laghen, filled completely with blood (Achille Laurent, Affaires de Syrie, tome II, p. 320. Paris, 1864).

1829 At Hamath in Asia Minor a young Turkish woman was frightfully mutilated by the Jews; the Jews saved their lives by means of high sums of bribery and were merely expelled (H. Desportes, p. 90).

1831 In St. Petersburg the Jews killed the daughter of an officer of the Guard. The ritual purpose of the murder was recognized by four judges, but designated as doubtful by the fifth. The guilty parties were merely banished (Henri Desportes, le myst. du sang., p. 91).(61)

1834 The Jewess Ben-Noud, who later converted to Christianity, was a witness in Tripoli when an old man was lured into an ambush by several Jews and hung up by his toes from an orange tree. They let their victim hang in this position for several hours. In the moment when the old man was near death, the Jews cut him through the neck with a ritual slaughter knife and left the body hanging until all the blood was collected in a basin. Ben-Noud learned later than the murderers had packed the body into a crate and had cast it into the sea. She confessed to the Orientalist Count Durfort-Civrac this fact besides, that the Jews mix the blood into the unleavened Easter bread (mossa = matzos) and this they call mossa guésira(25) — blood-matzos (Desportes, p. 42).

Some years later ritual-crimes took place which aroused enormous attention and, like a flash of lightning, threw illumination upon the internationalism of these Jewish crimes, as upon those responsible for them, only then to allow blindness to follow all the longer, because the non-Jewish world, which had taken the most active interest during the course of a trial, was permitted to see nothing for the future. All of Judah understood again, at any rate, how to stage-manage masterfully — and it should be discovered to their disgrace later, with the most accommodating support of the most important European cabinets.

SOURCE