Tisza-Eszlár

In the year 1882 there occurred in the little secluded Hungarian village of Tisza-Eszlár a ritual crime which so closely corresponded to the one committed in Damascus in 1840, that it was as if a witness to that crime had been present who was able to observe the horrifying event of that ritual-slaughter of a human being from beginning to end and gave an account of it again to the protocol.

At the time, Tisza-Eszlár was described as the great turning point in the Jewish Question of Hungary and of Europe in general -- that it did not become so is attributable to a not insignificant degree to the methods of the AIU (Alliance Israélite Universelle), which had relatively simple work in the already vastly Judaized Hungary.

In the second half of the past [19th] century, Hungary was glutted with a flood of the worst type of Jewish sub-humanity, the fanatically Orthodox Chassidim [2], who were immigrating from the "European mass-warehouse of Jewry [1]," Galicia. Political upheaval made an inconspicuous penetration possible for this riff-raff; how these circumstances affected that village on the Theiß, is still to be dealt with.

On 8 April 1875, the Representative Victor Istóczy put an Interpellation to the Ministry [i.e., an objection on question of policy, etc.] in the Hungarian House of Representatives, the gist of which was that in all of Europe no State existed in which the Jewish element possessed a greater influence and a greater power than in Hungary. Istóczy asked the following question:

The Hungarian Minister-President Baron Bela Wenkheim thereupon replied: "The government is no opponent of any sort of movement which pursues a constructive trend; but it would be compelled to adopt a hostile position toward any movement which aims at disturbing the peaceful understanding between the churches and [religious] denominations existing in the nation or the citizens who belong to them and the mutual respect for civil rights.

Since the law of 1867 declares the equality of rights of the Israelites with all other citizens of the nation, the government recognizes no such thing as a Jewish Question and is unable to recognize such a thing, and thus takes no position toward it whatsoever..." [3]

President Koloman v. Tisza, his successor who came into his own in this year, adopted the way of thinking of his predecessor, to the complete satisfaction of World Jewry.

First of all, the facts should be established that an entire chain of similarly featured crimes preceded the blood-sacrifice of the year 1882 in that region -- crimes which came off as secretly and unpunished as the general and nearly hopeless Judafication of Hungary which was beginning already in this period. According to the report of Ónody, the following blood-murders preceded the ritual-murder of Tisza-Eszlár:

1. On the eve of the Jewish Feast of Atonement (15 September) of the year 1875, there were numerous, mostly foreign Jews assembled on the property of their racial comrade Horowitz at Zboró (in the Sároser Comitat), and the ritual slaughterer was already called in. They fell upon the unsuspecting sixteen-year-old serving maid Hanna Zamba, threw her to the ground, undressed her and began, under the murmuring of Hebrew "prayers," the rite of butchering. (137) At this moment, a carter stopped before the house of the Jew and demanded admittance in order to conclude a delayed transaction.

The Jews scattered. The girl, nearly frightened to death, escaped by wading through a highly swollen stream and thus shook off her pursuers. At her cries for help two women rushed to her side, who later affirmed under oath the statements of the girl. As a result of the fear of death she had endured, the girl became critically ill and in April 1876 this victim of an attempted ritual-crime succumbed to her suffering.

On her deathbed the girl took an oath once more to the statement she had given earlier, before her father, the mother-in-law, the Catholic sacristan and several inhabitants of the place, that on the eve of the Jewish Festival of Atonement in the year 1875 in the house Number 165C at Zboró, the ritual-slaughterer of the Jewish religious congregation there wanted to slaughter her in the presence of several Jews.

The complaint was presented at the judicial bureau. The sitting judge Winkler, who had full responsibility but who was friendly to the Jews and had already been either bribed or intimidated, tried at first to appease the complainants with fine words and to keep them from any further steps to go forward with the proceedings; since this attempt failed, he moved on to threats that he would have the "slanderers" locked up because they weren't able to prove their accusations.

In this simple manner, the investigation petered out. As the Hungarian parliamentary representative v. Ónody determined, this famous lord did not think it at all necessary to give the documents to the district court at Szwidnik, as it should have been his duty to do.

2. Two years later, in 1877, in the village of Szalacs in the immediate vicinity of the Pér region, where in 1791 a ritual-crime likewise occurred [4], there was a double ritual-murder of two children. In the registry of deaths of the Szalacs Roman Catholic church, one reads under the date of 13 June 1877, on page 70 of Volume II:

Behind these matter-of-fact words no one expects a ritual-crime, yet that is the case: The foster-parents had to work at their fields on 13 June and left both children with their Jewish brother-in-law Josef Klee until their return. The latter presented the children with a few Kreuzer with the instructions to buy something sweet for themselves at the small store of the shopkeeper Jew Ehrenfeld. Toward evening the siblings set out for the Jew's, and from thence onward, despite desperate searches, they remained missing.

When the sexton of the place walked to church the next morning, he noticed at the house of the Jew Alexander Ehrenfeld conspicuous traces of blood in the sand, which extended along the wall of the yard to a wagon shed perhaps 50 steps distant. Furthermore, the coachman of Ehrenfeld stated that on the evening before (13 June) he had seen the two children playing together as they sat in the archway of the door of his master; at the same time he related that on the same evening and all through the night approximately forty strange Jews were making quite a spectacle of themselves and unceasingly went in and out.

After three days a penetrating odor was spreading from the coach-house. The bodies of both missing children were discovered jammed into a large equipment case, no longer in use, for a fire-engine.

The Jews managed, through some sort of subversion, that the autopsy was performed not by the physician of the region, von Székely-Hid, but by a Jewish doctor. The children's bodies had gaping stab wounds on the neck and all blood had been withdrawn from the bodies.

When the foster-mother, Anna Szabó, was led to the bodies, she was seized by convulsions and later died insane. The brother-in-law Josef Klee said to his wife on the night after the bestial crime:

"I pity the poor children; the girl did die right away, but the boy had a long death-struggle."

These words were heard by the stable hand sitting on a bench under the opened window of the Klee residence. Josef Klee was arrested but soon set free again without the judicial authorities making further inquiries. (139)The Protocol composed by the Jewish doctor was kept secret; yet the judge said quite openly to anyone who wished to hear it, that the necks of both children had been cut through leaving gaping wounds and all blood had been withdrawn from the bodies.

3. Not fewer than three similar cases occurred with the same role of the Jewish doctor in 1879 at Tállya in the Zempliner Comitat, in 1880 at Komorn, and in 1881 at Kaschau, where the daughter of the master binder Josef Kocsis suddenly disappeared under mysterious circumstances and was found after two weeks ritually butchered in a well and without any volume of blood.

Géza v. Ónody determined that:

Thus in the years 1878, 1879, 1880, and 1881, in the western Hungarian city Steinamanger, four girls disappeared, one after the other in regular fashion before the Jewish feast days or before the Passover festival, namely, two girls, in service with the Jews to do cleaning, whose parents lived in the country, the daughter of a poor shoemaker and the small eight-year-old daughter of a coachman working as servant to Jews, all of whom no trace was ever found. In all four cases the judicial investigation was immediately initiated, well-founded suspicion directed against the Jews, but the investigations were just as quickly dropped again as "groundless"!

4. In the year 1879 the following case was reported from Piros in the Bátsch-Bodrogher Comitat: The Jewish owner of a large estate, Herman Großmann attempted (as could be proved) for months to lure the fifteen-year-old and strikingly pretty and robust daughter of the farmhand Peter Sipos into his employ with every kind of suspicious promises, but the parents flatly refused.

Since (140) Großmann, with Jewish obtrusiveness brought up his request over and over again, and the parents of the girl feared the vengeance of the Jew, they finally consented under the condition that their daughter Lidi at first should join the Jewish household as a maid only for one month. That was on 11 October 1879. Four days later, the parents learned by chance that their daughter had disappeared.

When cornered, the Jew Großmann suddenly declared that the body of the girl was "possibly" to be looked for in a branch of the Franzen-Canal, the Türr-Canal; on 21 October, thus a week after the disappearance, the girl was actually pulled from the designated section of the canal by means of a long iron rake.

The body was clothed only in a short slip. The findings of the autopsy yielded the information that the body could not possibly have lain in the water for six days and death by drowning was excluded. Those present came to the conclusion that Lidi Sipos had died an unnatural death. Thereupon the conducting of the investigation was proposed for district judge Peák at Neusalz, which the latter flatly declined! Further, the issuing of a copy of the physician's autopsy results to the parents was denied .

The coachman of the Jew stated before witnesses that his master had ordered him, on the day in question (15 October), to Neusalz on a flimsy pretext. When he was about to harness the horse in the stall the night after his return, he heard suspicious noises and rumbling in the cellar underneath the stable building. When he communicated his perceptions to Großman that same night, the latter was startled and instructed him to go to his sleeping place immediately.

A few days later the coachman was discharged from service. The country doctors who had performed the post mortem examination, stated the following concerning the death of the girl: Above the navel was a taler-sized circular wound, under the nose a wound which went very deep was discernable; the victim had probably been hung up on a hook which had been driven into the flesh at the latter place [i.e., the nose] and the blood had been siphoned off from the strange wound at the navel

(141) No sort of slaughtering cut could be discovered -- that this was again a ritual-crime nevertheless, was confirmed by the case of a Budapest girl, from whom blood had been tapped off, still before the Tisza-Eszlár case had become known; the only difference was that this victim got away with her life.

The girl, employed as a servant by a Jew in the Budapest Jewish Quarter, Theresienstadt, reported that directly before the Purim festival (14 February) she had been drugged unconscious [5], so that she first reawakened after an entire day. After she came to, she felt so "smashed" that she could barely stand up, and felt strange pains in her limbs.

When she inspected her body, she found on her right upper arm, on her left thigh, and above her navel similar round, blood-red spots, in the middle of each of which was a small opening. She assumed that the Jews had sucked out a large quantity of blood during her death-like sleep and she left their service because of this.

The hair of the corpse of Lidi was disheveled and tangled and so mixed with straw from bedding, that the two female attendants [preparing the body for burial] had difficulty arranging her hair in order. All of this led to the conclusion of a desperate struggle of the girl, attacked in her bed by a band of Jewish murderers. The district judge Peák prevented a judicial investigation.

The report issued by the authorities, concerning the disappearance and the discovery of the body of Lidi Sipos reads: "The undersigned authorities hereby officially attest: that the fifteen-year-old daughter, Lidi, of the local resident Peter Sipos, after she had entered on 11 October 1879 the service of Jew Hermann Großmann, a resident here, disappeared on 15 October of the same year and that the body of the girl was found, after a long search, on 21 October on the ground of the so-called Türr-Canal. -- Piros, 31 May 1882. Johann Fehér m.p. Judge, Julius Zsigmond m.p. Notary, Georg Mayer m.p. Sworn Witness."

5. Directly before the Jewish Easter of the year 1882, (142) the Jew Leopold Grünwald, who lived in the Kovácsi Comitat in Barser, sent the seventeen-year-old Barbara Kleeman, a Zipser Saxon girl who was in service to him, late in the evening to the neighboring village of Peszér, on the pretext that she might fetch back home a bag of money he had left there in the inn.

In the taproom of this remotely situated house, there were only two guests present: the brother of Grünwald and the local ritual slaughterer. The girl, who sensed a trap, made to turn around to leave, but her master, who had followed right behind her, blocked her exit.

The three Jews threw the girl to the floor, undressed her and bound her. Yet before they could stick a gag in her mouth, the girl gave out a piercing shout for help. Her elder sister, who was in service at this inn, pushed the door in and tried to set the unfortunate girl free. During the scuffle, the victim dragged herself out into the street, where she was found by the inhabitants running up; the rescuers immediately fell upon the Jews, who were beaten within an inch of their lives.

The district court at Aranyos-Maróth acquitted the gang, since the accused Jews had all stated under oath that they had only wanted to subject the girl Barbara to a body-search, since she had pilfered the money bag from her master!

Four days after this failed attempted murder, the ritual-murder sacrifice in Tisza-Eszlár occurred.

In Tisza-Eszlár was the wealthy Hungarian Reichstag representative, Géza von Ónody; it is to him we owe the precise notes which he was able to make right on the spot. But the work of Ónody is especially valuable for still another reason: in his capacity as representative it was possible for him to be able to inspect the documents of the preliminary examination. He did, indeed, make generous use of it, so that he was able to utilize the protocols in their complete text, even with indication of the reference numbers.

His writing, which brought to light irrefutable material, should have called the attention of the entire civilized world to the monstrous Jewish danger. It appeared in the Hungarian language in December 1882 under the title: (143)Tisza-Eszlár in the Past and Present -- and in the shortest time was bought up by Jews and disappeared.

The same fate befell the German translation, which was taken in hand by his personal friend and liaison officer to German comrades-in-arms, the knight Georg von Marcziányi and already in 1883 appeared in Budapest. In fact, only a few copies remain of even this translation, which possess the cultural-historical value of rarities.

Incidentally, Georg von Marcziányi himself published in the summer of 1883, during the judicial preliminary examination, a treatise about this blood-murder: Esther Solymosi. This publication had the task of uncovering the Jewish machinations and intrigues, in order to bring about orderly judicial proceedings; this broadside has also been translated into German (M. Schulze, Berlin, 1882).

The Jews were not able to do anything against the publications of both the Hungarians -- thus the Jewish press worked all the more intensively to weaken their effect.

Exactly 50 years later, in 1932, the then judge of the investigation, Dr. Josef Bary, who later became President of the Hungarian Supreme Court, published in Budapest his recollections of this trial in a volume of 612 pages. Unfortunately his Tisza-Eszlár Criminal Trial could not be included in the composition of this chapter, since the notes of Bary are only available in Hungarian ("a tiszaeszlári bünper" -- Budapest, 1933). A German translation would be very desirable, since without a doubt there would be very informative material there!

The Jewish smoke-screen artist, Paul Nathan [6] -- we have (144) have already introduced him in the foreword and will still have to deal with him in detail -- disposed of this "case" too -- to be on the safe side, though, some ten years afterward. He counted on the memory of non-Jewish humanity, insofar as it pertained to its own most innate interests, being a bad one, for the accounts of Ónody and Marcziányi were pushed aside -- and the articles of a veritable forest of Jewish newspapers overgrew and smothered every national impulse opposed to the Jews.

In 1892 there appeared in Berlin Der Prozeß von Tisza-Eszlár [The Trial of Tisza-Eszlár] of this Paul Nathan. This concoction, numbering 400-pages, is a sophisticated Talmudic master-performance; one cannot suppress a smile now and then, at how this young Talmudist, who moreover had been distinguished with the highest dignity by a German university (Heidelberg), begins to additionally adulterate the impact of the documentary and factual material and at the end has gone so far with this that the honest reader, who has no notion of these disgraceful intentions and, after all, is not even able to have any such notion, can take note of one more example of how the poor and innocent "fellow-citizens of the Mosaic persuasion," of whose restless urge toward activity he could convince himself daily, had to suffer under the suspicions of "anti-Semitic hotspurs." Thus does Paul Nathan bluster, also -- one sees him, speaking almost with his hands:

But we will keep to the judicially and historically certified facts of the case, even if we run the danger, in so doing, of being by no means convinced of Jewish innocence, because our (145) "mental disposition prevents this" (Nathan in his "Preface," p. vi!).

Tisza-Eszlár, a modest little village of the Szabolcser Comitat situated on the upper Theiß, had hardly a dozen Jews to show before the year 1848, but a few decades later there were already 200, most of them elements fleeing from military service and smuggled across the Russian border with the aid of the Jewish secret organizations (Kahal) -- elements which now "work with tireless industry and never-slackening perseverance at the labor of exploitation and for the material as well as moral ruination of their non-Jewish fellow-citizens" (Géza v. Ónody).

As already mentioned, the region of Hungary lying between the Danube and the Theiß and including the nation's capital [7], had been flooded with the most disgusting sort of kaftan-draped Galician Jews. J.G. Bogrow, himself a Jew, describes in his Memoiren eines Juden [Memoirs of a Jew] [8], which appeared in 1880 in St. Petersburg, his own view of this type as follows (p. 313):

"In the gloomy, filthy antechamber... stood a ragged Jew of low stature with a puffy, wrinkled face, with a red beard mixed with gray, and long, glued-together red peyes (earlocks). The folds of his over-sized kaftan, with holes and tears of every size and shape, were bordered with a broad crust of dried excrement from the streets, which formed an entirely unique fringe and tassel on the torn edges [of his garment].

At first glance one would take this man for a beggar of the basest type" -- but he was a person distinguished with positions of confidence!

(146) Tisza-Lök, which is located in the direct vicinity of Tisza-Eszlár, had developed into a kind of Little Jerusalem, in which the non-Jewish portion of the populace was menaced -- in the full meaning of the word -- in its physical as well as mental existence.

The Jews of Tisza-Lök had the reputation among their co-religionists of "holiness" and maintained continuous and very active ties with the Polish- Galician Chassidim.

But the threads of all ritual-crimes in that region stretch beyond the Carpathians, toward Galicia, and just as the command-posts of the Polna (1898/99) and Konitz (1900) blood-murders are also certifiably to be sought in that dark and horrible ghetto of Europe, one can indeed simply speak of an organized Jewish secret service, which determines the time and location for the ritual slaughter of a human being, puts together a detachment of Jews, instructs the ritual-slaughterers of various Jewish communities and arranges for the murder gang to vanish again without a trace.

If, due to unforseen circumstances, this plan does not go off without problems, as, for example, at Tisza-Eszlár, then the World organization of Jewry, the AIU, whose specialty became the quashing of trials, steps forward into action all the more successfully. In any event, the carrying out of the murder and the non-punishment of the murderers seem to be sufficiently secured.

After the failure at Kovácsi in the Barser Comitat, Tisza-Eszlár had been designated to furnish the blood-toll.

Esther Solymosi

On 1 April 1882, in the early afternoon, the peasant woman Andreas Huri was hurrying through the long stretch of the village street and turned in every direction, as if she were looking for something.

She had sent the fourteen-year-old Esther Solymosi (whose mother, a widow, lived in her immediate neighborhood) to a shop located at the opposite end of the village, between eleven and twelve o'clock, to buy paint.

The road to the store-keeper Kohlmayer led the girl past an uncultivated, larger area, the village meadow, on whose western side, near the dam of the Theiß, rose the synagogue, a spacious building which stood isolated. This Jewish temple was not located, therefore, (147) within the enclosed row of village properties, but stood on open country and was thus never closely observable from the direct neighborhood. This circumstance is important and was one of the determining factors in the selection of Tisza-Eszlár for the slaughtering-place.

The girl made use of the street for her path home, until the point of the dam turn-off; from there onward she used a field path, which led hard by the back of the synagogue -- probably so she could reach home faster. She paid for this with her young life.

According to the statement of the Christian shop-keeper Josef Kohlmayer, Esther very much urged him to hurry while she was making her purchases, "because she had to get back home quickly, for the house must be given a fresh coat of whitewash before evening." The girl packed up her paints and immediately set out on the road home.

Shortly before the branch-off, Esther met her seventeen-year-old sister Sofie and happily told her that Frau Huri, her god-mother, had promised to buy her a new dress and give her five Gulden, so that she might be able to still buy herself a pair of shoes for the Easter holidays... Then she greeted the local magistrate, Josef Papp, who was standing in front of his mill and exchanged a few friendly words with him; he was still watching the girl as she made the turn onto the path.

These named here, and a few other witnesses besides, gave their accounts later under oath.

Esther had disappeared as if gone from the surface of the earth -- and stayed that way. Frau Huri started to worry, she assumed at first that Esther was still on her way to the store and then stopped in at her mother's. The old lady Solymosi reported to the court on this point: "Toward two in the afternoon Frau Huri came and said: 'Has her god-mother had anything brought from the vault (of the store) by the girl?' The mother was taken aback: 'Is she gone?' Frau Huri: 'She's gone! I sent her to fetch paint..." (protocol statements). With that, began the tragedy of a mother who was crushed by the horrible end of her daughter.

The Murderers

The mother, sobbing loudly, searched for her daughter. Her sister, Frau Gabriel Solymosi, helped her; they searched until sunset...(148) In the direct vicinity of the synagogue the wife of the temple servant Scharf addressed them hypocritically: "What's wrong with you?" and without waiting for an answer continued: "Has Esther become lost? She isn't lost. Possibly a fever took hold of her and she's lying about, somewhere."

Now Scharf himself put in an appearance and got involved in the conversation. The mother of Esther made the following declaration about this on the second day of the hearings: "Scharf, the temple servant, asked me what was wrong with me; I couldn't speak a word, but my sister, Frau Gabriel Solymosi, told him that Frau Huri had sent the girl into the village and that no one could find her since then; to that he replied there was no reason to be so sad, and there was a similar case in Nánás when he was still a child, and that then, too, the Jews were suspected, even their ovens were searched..."

But these Jewish "words of comfort" -- one can still picture the cunning Jewish faces today -- had the opposite effect: the women became increasingly alarmed, and a terrible suspicion tormented them. The Jew Nathan also knew quite well that the Scharf couple had committed a major piece of stupidity with their thoughtless chattering.

That's why, when he comes to this part in his book about Tisza-Eszlár, he becomes downright sentimental, which has always been an effective means of fooling one's fellow-man, in this case the non-Jewish reader: "This scene, which played itself out at twilight so peacefully in front of the house of the temple servant Scharf, was the was the kernel for the most dreadful conflicts, conflicts which were supposed to disturb the peace of thousands. Both Solymosi women went homeward; what was going on in their souls, we know..."

Indeed, this Jew, all Jews knew it, only one entity did not know -- the Hungarian state, which let many precious weeks go by until the judicial investigation, as time unused! But this intermission was exploited all the more zealously by the Jews, to take defensive measures -- i.e., to disseminate slanders to the effect that Esther, who (they said) was a flighty creature [9], just took off on this day. Consciously or unconsciously, Nathan (149) grasped at this "valuable" line of thought and wrote further: "Finally, the disappearance of Esther was not a rare event; it happened frequently, that Hungarian girls secretly went off for even years..." [10]

Later, Jewry became more aggressive; the customary tactic was employed of turning the accusers into the accused, and efforts were supposed to be made to bring suit against the widow Solymosi and the spreaders of the news of the murder of Esther, on the grounds of "offense against honor"!

But it remained only a threat; something else happened: to wit, when strangers unexpectedly came into the village, as for example in one case imperial officers, to carry out administrative tasks, the Jews immediately took violent fright, put their heads together, whispered among one another in Hebrew, fearfully looked over the new arrivals and ran to the community office in order to discover there the reason for the arrival of the strangers.

On their faces fear and panic were clearly evident! (Géza v. Ónody in his book about Tisza-Eszlár.) Finally, Nathan called the mother of the victim, in public, "bought" for the purpose of "making ill-feeling against the not insignificant" Jewish portion of the population:

"The woman had been poor, anemic. When a sad fate had overtaken her daughter and anti-Semitism with happy heart made the mother's cause its own, then the destiny of its valuable protégée also changed. Charitableness and party interests brought about collections for the poor widow...From somewhere or other, certain benefits flowed in to the old Solymosi women."

The mother, questioned about this before the court, at first did not understand what was wanted of her, but then she spurned these infamous slanders with outrage -- Nathan knows better, however: "These statements (of the mother) do not correspond to the facts. In truth, the living situation of Frau Solymosi has improved considerably.

She no longer needs to work for her daily support...She was well-dressed, far better than a Tisza-Eszlár peasant woman otherwise usually dresses; in her pot meat is no longer absent and as the surest symptom of (150) a change in her circumstances, the envy of the other peasant women of the Theiß village has already begun to be directed toward her...thus one sees how even the reasons of external advantage captivate the peasant women -- thus does worldly advantage triumph!"

Only a Jew can write like that! A widow, whose fourteen year-old daughter was literally butchered, experiences "a visible change in her exterior circumstances" -- the death of of one's own child was therefore turned into a "business," to "external advantages" for those left behind! That comports fully with the "offer," composed as a business letter, made to the father of the likewise ritually-slaughtered Ernst Winter of Prechlau- Konitz [11], who was supposed to be "compensated" for the blood of his son with 20,000 Marks -- the death of a child as business!

On 3 April, two days after the disappearance of Esther, the mother reported to the community judge Fárkas at Tisza-Eszlár; she asked that the synagogue be searched. Fárkas declined -- which no longer surprises us -- with the argument that he was not empowered to do anything like that and referred the mother to the sitting judge Eugen Jármy. The latter again answered Frau Solymosi, when she repeated her suspicion about the Jews: "Good woman, how can you think such a thing? That sort of thing can no longer happen in this day and age!" [12]

He finally issued a circular letter in which the following appears: "On 1 April, between 10 and 11 o'clock, Frau Solymosi's 14 year-old daughter disappeared, whose further description is given below." That was all at first! The family of the temple servant Scharf, however, became in the following period the enfant terrible of the Jewish community.

A few days after the disappearance of Esther, the six year-old son of the temple servant, Samu Scharf, told his playing companions of a special murder case which he had heard about from his older brother. The eleven year-old Elisabeth Soós repeated in a protocol this tale as follows (Samu said to the children he was playing with):

With that, Samu pointed toward the cemetary! The mother of little Elisabeth Soós, Frau Andreas Soós, a few days later than her daughter, heard from Samu himself the following (protocol):

That was a few days after Esther Solymosi had disappeared. Later, the Scharf couple came to hear of the chattering of their offspring. they cautioned him. On 2 May (1882) Samu called out: "Now I'm saying nothing about what my father did with the girl." [13]

Concerning this 2nd of May, the 23 year-old Elisabeth Tanyi also spoke in the public hearing [14]:

"I was driving the geese home toward evening, when the little Samu, out of the temple, set himself down in front of us. I said to him: 'Get out of my way, else you'll catch a smack!' Then Samu said: 'Then I definitely won't tell you what Father did with the Hungarian girl!' I asked him, what it was, then? He said to me: 'Now I won't tell you at all'" --

On 4 May, therefore over one month after the loss of her child, the mother again spoke before the community judge of Tisza-Eszlár, Gabriel Fárkas. "On the 4th of May, the Solymosi woman came again to me and said that she had no peace of mind..." [15]

She made reference to the statements of Samu Scharf. Fárkas again declined to do anything. He was [he said] not responsible. Finally, the sitting judge instructed the local magistrate to question the witnesses once more. Thus, a full 36 days after the disappearance of Esther, the first authorized investigation was begun!

The protocols were sent to the state prosecutor's office at Nyiregyháza; In mid-May, this office made application for introduction of (152)the investigation; the entire documentary material up to this point was sent to the Court of Examination. The Notary of the Nyiregyháza Court of Justice, Josef Bary, was entrusted with the conducting of the criminal investigation, after the examining judge originally appointed for this task, who found himself in financial embarrassment and had Jews as his chief creditors, had come under disciplinary investigation and had taken his own life.

On the 19th of May, Bary arrived at the scene of the crime. Preventive detention was imposed upon the Scharf family. On the same day, the six year-old son Samu blabbed away before the examining judge (protocol): "Father called Esther inside, and she came into the place. Father stuck a white piece of linen in her mouth, then they washed her in the trough and a large Jew cut her in the neck with a long knife, so that her head fell away. He had made just one single cut on her...they they grabbed Esther and carried her through the hallway to the temple. They had hold of her by her hands, her feet, and her head, and they were: Abraham Braun and his son, Samuel Lustig and his son, and Moritz. There were many there... !

On 20 May, Bary took up the first interrogation with the sixteen year-old Moritz, the brother named by Samu. Moritz Scharf declared by way of an introductory statement, that on the Sunday evening before the Jewish Easter, on 1 April, an election of the new ritual- slaughterers had taken place at the house of Jacob Süßmann. He did not want to admit knowing Esther by name; his performance appeared, in this first interrogation protocol, to be so artificial and contradictory, that he was held in custody. The examining judge had a number of Jews arrested besides [Moritz Scharf].

Since the space of the modest community house did not suffice for a separate accommodation for the arrested persons, the security commissar Andreas Recsky declared himself prepared to temporarily lodge the youngest, Mortiz Scharf, in his office space at Nagyfalu.

Separated from his co-religionists, Moritz suddenly broke down in the surroundings which were foreign to him, and stated that he was ready, still on that very evening, to make a full confession; He gave an account of the ritual-crime and the murderers in every single detail; on the basis (153) of his testimony, four Jews could be charged with the murder and five others with complicity.

The confession of Moritz Scharf, which was made on the evening of the 21st of May before Commissar Recsky and the protocol chief of the examining judge, Koloman Péczely, reads exactly [16]:

This protocol, which had been concluded toward ten o'clock in the evening, was delivered to the examining judge Bary still that night, by means of a messenger on horseback; shortly after midnight Bary entered the rooms of Recsky in Nagyfalu. Mortiz Scharf was questioned for a second time. Since the Jewish press wants to take note of contradictions in the protocols and from them construe the statements of Moritz Scharf as baseless, the second protocol, taken by the examining judge himself in the same night, also ought to be published in its complete text again. [18]

On the 22nd of May, Moritz Scharf, as witness before the examining judge in Tisza-Eszlár, stated the following in addition: "About 1 o'clock the foreign beggar (Wollner) came and said to me that I should close the synagogue. When I was about to do this, I saw the three foreign ritual-slaughterers Lustig, Braun, and Weißstein walking to the house just then. Then the body was no longer in the entrance hall, also there was no trace of blood to be seen. I don't know where they concealed the girl. It wasn't in the synagogue, (155) because they would only have been able to hide it by the Torah.

But when I looked for it in the cabinet in the afternoon, there was nothing there to see. They would not have been able to bury it in the courtyard, because there I would have had to see it, so they could only have carried it into the Theiß. During the afternoon and the evening I saw no wagon near the synagogue, perhaps there was one nearby after 10 o'clock at night, when I lay down to sleep.

Then there were, still in the synagogue: Lichtman, Rosenberg, Süßmann, Romer, Einhorn, and my father. When they went away I don't know. I believe that the corpse was carried out, not through the door, because geese are herded in the vicinity, but through the window of the entrance hall." [19]

Finally, in the protocol taken on the 23rd of May 1882 before the Nyiregyházar Court of Justice for authentication of the confession, after his attention had been drawn by the President of the Court to the consequences of a false statement by a witness, Scharf declared that he upheld, in their full compass the confessions made on the night of 21/22 May in Nagyfalu and on the same day (22 May) before the examining judge Bary in Tisza-Eszlár, that he confirmed them and stood ready to take an oath on them. His confessions [he said] he had made without any psychological or moral force, and the fact that he had not so stated the facts on 20 May before the examining judge, or had denied them, was out of fear of the members [of the Jewish congregation].

If we examine the grave statements of Scharf, whose plainly monstrous significance Bary immediately had realized -- for not only this blood-murder, but countless others of that region finally found their solution -- the following aspects, with which the public court hearings then had to deal, emerge:

1. On the day of the murder of Esther, the schächter-election took place.

2. The girl was lured into the house of the temple servant next to the synagogue, as she was returning from her shopping at about twelve o'clock in the afternoon.

3. The child was led out of the house by a Jewish beggar into the synagogue situated in the direct vicinity.(156)

4. Several ritual-slaughterers who were already present there overpowered the girl.

5. The schächter from Tisza-Eszlár, Salomon Schwarz, slaughtered Esther.

6. In the synagogue still several other Jews were present.

7. The parents of the witness Scharf were accessories.

8. After the crime, still numerous other Jews appeared toward five o'clock in the afternoon.

9. The body of the girl was removed without leaving a trace, and probably sunk in the Theiß.

10. Three foreign Jews were had come to Tisza-Eszlár already on the day before the crime and had found a hiding place in the house of the temple servant.

So far we are taken by the observations of the young Scharf. We must now determine what the court did with this.

As mentioned, old Frau Solymosi had reported to the community judge on 3 April; when he did nothing, the mother repeated her report a full month later on 4 May. On the 19thy of May -- therefore now a month and a half after the loss of her child -- the examining judge Bary appeared, who embarked upon the case all the more energetically from now on. This tactic of dragging things on, which became endemic in all the nations where Jewry had already spun its threads, was the topic of an interpellation of the Representative Istóczy, which the latter directed toward the Justice Minister Dr. Pauler on 24 May 1882 in the Hungarian Reichstag:

Since Istóczy in the argument of his interpellation speaks of a Jewish race, he receives a sharp rebuff from the Minister President and Leader of the ruling Jewish-Liberal party, the freemason Koloman from Tisza, whose machinations substantially influenced the course of the trial. Tisza replies: "My first comment is this, that it is totally inadmissable to speak of any race or [religious] denomination in our fatherland, that it is base and deserving of full contempt..." So far had the Judafication of Hungary already progressed in the eighty years of the 19th century, that a corrupt Jewish race was not permitted to be spoken of!

We now understand the following events better.

In the beginning, the state's attorney Melchior Both was in charge of the Office of Public Prosecutor. On 18 May 1882, the proceedings were put under the charge of the responsible court, on 3 June of the same year Both shot himself. Georg Ritter von Marcziányi interprets this incident, which caused the greatest sensation in its time, as follows in his book (page 19):

That was Both.

Ladislaus Egressi-Nagy functioned as the second state's attorney; he was soon relieved of his duties in this trial as a result of a difficult falling-out with the examining judge Bary, who was as incorruptible as he was energetic.

The Chief state's attorney von Kozma also seemed to be no longer sure of the case; things must have been going on here which have never been fully explained. Characteristically, the Chief state's attorney in his critical situation turned, not to the Justice Minister Pauler, known for his incorruptible and unbiased attitude and on that account slandered and avoided by the Jewish gang and their helpers, but to a Jewish-inspired and therefore influential clique of journalists in Budapest, the so-called "Jókai-Club," which delightedly rendered its expert opinion concerning the Chief state's attorney; in this opinion we read: [20]

"Considering that the Herr Chief state's attorney Alexander Kozma never has given grounds in his past life, spent in view of the public, during a public career of many years, which could cast even the remotest suspicion of corruption (!) upon him, the Court of opinion rules that: Herr Szabó has impugned the Herr Chief state's attorney with such an unworthy suspicion, which the Court [21] condemns decisively and declares to be perfectly groundless."

The situation: A chief state's attorney has to allow the public (159) reproach fall upon him, that he, too, has been bagged by Jewish gold. Now [his] attacker is not put in his place, but rather [Kozma] seeks assistance from this assuredly influential society of Jews which designates itself a "Court," and he allows himself to be exposed to an endorsement of his incorruptibility by this Jewish Areopagus!

This could have served as material for the funny papers, had not these matters not become so disheartening; for this rehabilitation was trumpeted forth in the Jewish press -- and the struggle against the "anti-Semitic leprosy" received a new impetus, and this in turn had a decisive effect upon the course of the trial!

In the full consciousness of the power of universal Jewry, Paul Nathan commented in [his] extremely informative way: "In a nation with a parliamentary government (!), the Press is an outstanding power, and in a country such as Hungary, the word of certain men has a significance which is not to be compared with the findings of a royal Court of Justice, even be that [a verdict of] of conviction...such (!) men are, in fact, able to ultimately stigmatize a slanderer for the entire nation and to restore honor where it has been impugned without cause.

After this happens, the entire Hungarian Press hesitates not one instant in expressing its disgust for those attacking that honor. The matter is settled (!) and, with the exception of a small group of outcasts of the nation, nobody dares [to do] anything further. There are attacks whose purpose is clear, but whose goal, however, remains unreachable."

Under these auspices the trial could now begin. But, contrary to expectation, there was again a halt in the proceedings -- the scenario, as the saying goes, did not go over well.

Kozma remained, but he committed a tactical error. The vice state's attorney Koloman von Soós, a creature of the Chief state's attorney, became the successor of Nagy; but the reputation of being all too friendly to the Jews preceded him, so that he was not able to stay long in Nyiregyháza. He likewise went.

On 11 October and on the 25th of November, the matter of delegating a new court of Justice was discussed in the Hungarian parliament. The government refused this.

Now there appeared the state's attorney Emerich Havas. Meanwhile, it had become (160) winter. On 29 November, the court was supposed to open. On this date chief state's attorney Kozma received an urgent petition from Havas, in which the latter asked for his "withdrawal from the state's attorney functions in the affair of Tisza-Eszlár," because the Herr Justice Minister had instituted against him a "criminal investigation because of suborning false witnesses and abuses of the power of his office". We shall not go more deeply into the matter of the proceedings against Havas here. Their course was likewise very murky. His successor, Eduard von Szeyffert -- thus the fifth state's attorney -- was dispatched [in his place]!

A great deal of water had flowed under the bridge by the time the actual trial began. This time of intermission appears filled with incidents which throw such a delineating light upon the tactics of the Jewish struggle, that at least the most important ones, arranged in their chronological sequence, should be resurrected from the oblivion to which they have been intentionally consigned.

The Intrigues up to the Time of the Main Hearings

Already, before the beginning of the trial, there was a series of complaints about insults and duels which we will pass over because of their unimportant nature.

In April 1882, the greatest variety of rumors were surfacing already in every region of Hungary, such as: Esther Solymosi had been seen here or there -- the [possibility of] a mistake was eliminated; since no one could produce the girl despite these claims, the Jews let a large number of dead Esthers pop up. Even this disinformation campaign did not catch on; the most that it accomplished was that inquiries went in circles.

As later, in 1891 in Corfu and 1900 in Konitz, these clumsy maneuvers brought about unrest and strong anti-Semitic disturbances in the populace, which could at first be suppressed by military presence; but the local Jewish manipulation had miscalculated this time. From now on, the "Alliance Israélite Universelle" considered the situation of the Jews in Hungary to be so critical, that something most be done for its exoneration. Jewish Gold was supposed to prepare this offensive, in that a "premium" [reward] of 5000 Fl. (161) was subscribed for producing the girl.

The Jew Josef Lichtmann in Tisza-Eszlár received the commission of "offering" the mother Solymosi a sum of 1000 Fl. if she would accept another girl instead of her daughter.

This transpired with the words: "If the girl should make an appearance, how nice 1000 Fl. would be for you, and you could receive this sum from us right away."

When this Jew was called to account for his attempt at bribery, he naturally denied everything and admitted only this much, that he had spoken not of 1000, but of 300 Fl., which the woman would receive in case she succeeded in bringing the missing Esther back home.

A Jewess undertook a similar attempt at bribery, when she approached the mother of Esther with the words: "Dear Frau Solymosi, how much money would you not receive, if your daughter should again appear." -- Eight years later, a father whose eighteen-year-old son had been bled to death under the ritual-slaughtering knife of Polish Jews, received a written offer that he should be "compensated" with 50,000 Marks: "... Be reasonable at last, it is to your advantage." [22]

But old Frau Solymosi was likewise "unreasonable," angrily kicked the Jews out of her modest little house and made a report. Both bribery attempts allow us to recognize the plan, hatched early-on, to plant a false Esther. Sometime around the middle of June, the schächter left Tisza-Eszlár, after he had asserted with certainty several times that in three days the body of Esther would appear. Thereby was staged the most foolish fraud which International Jewry has ever undertaken in these kind of trials.

On the 18th of June 1882 -- therefore 79 days after the disappearance of the girl, perhaps 20 km below Tisza-Eszlár, a female body was thrown on land by the current of the Theiß. Raftsmen who were moored in the vicinity pulled the corpse, which had become entangled in willow bushes, onto land and buried it without making a report of it to the authorities.

But the news (162) spread from here by a ranger more quickly than was expected, from village to village and even reached the ears of Bary. The latter had developed sharp ears. With the same resolve with which he examined witnesses, he arranged for the district physician Dr. Kiß to go to the place where the body was discovered on the evening of 18 June; Kiß presided over the immediate opening of the grave; at a depth of 2.5 fathoms the body, which had been pulled from the water, was in fact discovered; it was superficially inspected without being taken from the grave.

The thorough examination and autopsy was delayed until the arrival of the Court of Justice. Guards were posted at the grave site. Already in the midday hours of the new day, before any of the authorities had arrived, "crowds of Jews converged on the banks of the Theiß from all directions of the compass, from far regions at distances of 15-20 miles, and triumphed over the most recent success of Israel, under loud curses at Christians and especially at evil anti-Semites, like a swarm of ravens assembling above the corpse of a mole. This scene was very interesting and would have been worthy of being immortalized by the brush of a painter." [23]

-- The Budapest and Vienna Jewish papers teemed with telegrams, which bore the signature of Dr. Heymann-Levy, one of the Jewish defenders. [24]

Still before anyone was able to view the body, which was guarded by armed police officers, and before the judicial pronouncement had been made -- the first protocol, composed on the morning of 19 June at 1 A.M. by the district physician, was still on its way to the Court -- "Jewish sentries, posted in every direction like telegraph poles, triumphantly trumpeted the news that: Esther Solymosi's body had been discovered in unwounded condition.

Great was the joy, the jubilation, the malicious enjoyment, the mockery and contempt, which was poured over the shamed friends of anti-Semitism, over whose presumed disgrace Israel now thought itself able to celebrate its shameless orgies." [25]

(163)It is important and must be kept firmly in mind: The Jewish news service "knew" that the body found at least 20 km distant from Tisza-Eszlár was that of the fourteen year-old Solymosi!

On the 19th and 20th of June a new inspection was held at the place of discovery under consultation of the court; the body, covered over with a crust of mud, was flushed with water and a female person appeared, which had been carefully dressed with the garments of the missing girl. Piece by piece, each was identified by Mother Solymosi as belonging to her daughter; what appeared beneath the clothes, however, was not the fourteen year-old girl. It is shocking to read how Frau Solymosi attentively regarded this planted body, as if she were hoping to have her daughter before her again, but then tersely and definitely declared: "That is not Esther!"

Separated from one another and under supervision, the siblings, the close relatives, the neighbors, the pastor, the local teacher, and finally the mother was once again, in turn, led past the body: Their statements all agreed: what was lying there was a complete stranger!

The medical surveys paralleled these perceptions of the witnesses; at the scene of the finding of the body appeared simultaneously the physicians appointed by the court: Dr. Trajtler, Dr. Kiß, Dr. Horváth and Géza v. Kéri. These four expert witnesses took on the job of making a protocol -- still on the 19th and the 20th of June -- concerning the internal and external findings [from examination] of the body.

We learn the following important details from the exterior findings (Autopsy protocol of the afternoon of 19 June 1882):

1. The hair appears to have been shaved off.

2. The face is hollowed, there is no sort of abrasions present, nor are there any kind of signs of exterior wounds to be found.

3. The neck is not wounded.

4. The chest is emaciated.

5. The hands are strikingly small and beautiful. The nails are especially conspicuous for their fine development and the fact that they have been carefully tended.

(164) 6. The feet are small and delicate. Their shape allows us to conclude that they have always been shod. [i.e., that, unlike most peasant women, the subject never went barefoot.]

The interior examination (Autopsy protocol in continuation of the morning of the 20th of June, 1882) yielded, among other things, the important determination that the lungs were covered on their surfaces with strongly projecting, bumpy air vesicles and were anemic. In the upper apex of the right lung were tubercles and a cavity (cavern) the size of a musket ball, filled with pus.

The expert witness physicians composed an expert opinion in response to the questions of the examining judge Bary, which were important for further investigation. The result of their examinations, which would indicate the direction of Bary's inquiries, can be finally summarized with the setting forth of these comprehensive arguments:

1. The body is not the victim of death by suffocation in the water; it was thrown into the water already dead.

2. The body is, at most, ten days old. (If one accepts the statements of Moritz Scharf as a basis, Esther Solymosi had been murdered over eleven weeks before!)

3. The body has not been in the water for more than three or four days.

4. The body is that of an eighteen or probably even a twenty year-old.

5. The body is not that of a girl, but of a person who has led a dissolute life.

6. The direct cause of death was consumption. [i.e., tuberculosis]

7. The body shows no traces whatsoever of external wounds which could have caused bleeding. The loss of flesh on the right arm indicates that the body was dragged by means of a rope.

8. The shape of the feet and hands, and the meticulous care of the same, shows that this person followed no kind of rough labor in her lifetime, but belonged to a class "which did not occupy itself with coarse manual labor."

On the basis of these findings, on whose composition four physicians had taken part, (165) Bary determined his further investigation. He began with the assumption that a corpse-smuggling as clever as it was shameless took place -- and he had full success with this assumption! Already, on the following day, he had all the raftsmen taken into custody; a great number of them were immediately released again because they could not, from the beginning, be considered possible accomplices due to the position of their vessels.

One of the rafting business owners who had been held in custody was Yankel Smilovics, a Jew. Having been cornered and not up to the methodology of the judge, he resigned himself on 26 June 1882 to making statements with the following contents: On 6 June Yankel Smilovics met another sponger, Amsel Vogel. The latter opened up to him the possibility of "earning a lot of money" if he would take on the job of taking a corpse down below Tisza-Eslár with his raft. As a further accomplice the Jew David Hersko was involved -- the cloverleaf was complete!

On the 10th of June (on the 20th of June, the doctors declared that the body was, at most, ten days old!) Smilovics took the ferryboat to Tisza-Eszlár, according to arrangements made; there two Jews, Martin Groß and Ignatz Klein, were waiting for him with a wagon, and handed over to him a female body dressed in a slip. Smilovics shifted his strange freight over to David Hersko, together with the instruction that below Tisza-Eszlár a peasant woman was waiting and would give him clothes for the corpse.

-- Everything went according to plan. The body was dressed with the help of the "peasant woman," who later turned out to be the Jewess Großmann from Tisza-Eszlár, and was then cast into the water. The non-Jewish raftsman Csepkanics was on the last of the rafts. Below Tisza-Eszlár, he suddenly noticed how a body, which he did not recognize and which the Theiß was driving down against his raft, disappeared under his boat and then surfaced again and now was being taken by the wind toward the far shore. There the object remained hanging in the willow bushes and now could be recognized as human.

The possessions of the slaughtered Esther had therefore been carefully preserved at the scene of the crime. The mother of the child was actually able to identify every single piece of clothing of her daughter on the 19th of June.(166) If we visualize the witness statements of the young Scharf, the victim was undressed down to her slip ("...I saw that Esther lay in her slip on the ground, while her clothes were on the table").

The slip was naturally deeply soaked through with blood and was therefore no longer of use, if they did not want to betray themselves. In some way or other, a new slip must have been procured; a Talmud-brain managed to dig up the information from one of the statements made to the court by old Frau Solymosi: a certain Roth (a Jewess) came to her and importuned her for a slip of Esther or even a strip from one of them; for these things would be necessary (she told her) in order to get information concerning the whereabouts of the girl from a fortune-teller! This is how this Jewish-Galician gang behaved to this old woman!

Unfortunately it was not possible to determine the origin of the strange body; various hypotheses have been proposed. If one examines all the clues which the statements of the Jewish smugglers as well as the condition of the dead body have yielded, this body came either from a dissection room or from a Jewish cemetary. It is known that the orthodox Jews have the ritual custom of meticulously shaving off the hair of Jewesses not only at the time of marriage but also after their death, and this had been done thoroughly with the body.

The body, externally and conspicuously well-groomed (cosmetic treatments) but otherwise all the more strikingly uncared for in every respect, would support the final surmise -- that, in any case, this was not the body of a blooming, virginal fourteen year-old peasant girl!

Actually, by the end of June 1882, the investigatory court was able to establish that at the least the tracks of this recent crime were leading to the national capital city of Budapest. Action was supposed to be taken, with the arrest of perhaps 30 of even "highly respected Jews" -- among them a Jewish medical "authority" -- so that the final proof of this monstrous, entangled Jewish criminal organization would thereby be supplied -- at the end, even connections to Viennese Jews could be established -- but the Minister President Tisza, who specially interrupted his vacation at his country home at the last minute, (167) prevented the Justice Minister Dr. Pauler from giving the necessary instructions to the court of Justice at Nyiregyháza...

Thus, these final connections remain just as unclear as the question of what happened to the body of the girl after the butchery of 1 April. Yet even here we have at least a clue: Still prior to the staging of the smuggled corpse, below Tisza-Eszlár fishermen drew a headless, well advanced in decay and thus unrecognizable female body from the river. The Hungarian magnate Ónody, resident in Tisza-Eszlár, was later able to determine that these fishermen, as soon as the rumor of their discovery spread, were bribed by provably Jewish parties not to hand over the body to the rangers, but to bury it at an exactly agreed-upon location.

But something of this must have leaked out, for the Nyiregyháza Court of Justice decided to dispatch an exhumation commission to the relevant location on a certain day. The Jewish intelligence service had smelled a rat, for even before the commission reached the site, the Jews Heymann-Levy, Flegmann and Lichtmann had already appeared. What they were up to at this extremely critical moment remains unknown; all that was known was that the deputies of the high Court of Justice were standing before a freshly excavated empty hole...

But the Jewish stage-managers were not content with this success, from now on they wanted to "officially" -- i.e., journalistically -- refute the blood-accusation. In the year 1891 on Corfu, the correspondent of the Berliner Tageblatt [Berlin Daily], Dr. Barth, took over this handsomely paid "mission," which, thanks to the fire-break of the Kreuzzeitung, did not succeed.

The same thing was tried in Hungary. The editor of the Jewish Prague Politik [Politics], with the revealing surname of Puffke-Lipnitzki, was given the task of writing a series of articles about Tisza-Eszlár in the Cracow (likewise Jewish) Csas. In his book (page 179), Representative Ónody formed this judgement of these effusions: "The series of articles is a masterpiece of an exquisite sort, a masterpiece as only a brain refined by the shrewdest malice of Talmudic morality is able to produce."

As the starting point of his arguments, Lipnitzki (168) makes use of "information" as if he received it: "It is impossible to suppose of the Jews, that they, in the midst of the 19th century, cleansed by the winds of the Enlightenment and of cultural progress, could have committed such a murder as they are accused of: Esther Solymosi probably has been murdered by the anti-Semites!"

There we have it -- constantly repeated as weapons in Jewish hands are: "Enlightenment," "culture" and -- as often as possible -- "humanitarianism," all for the purpose of imputing to non-Jewish peasants the most hideous crimes!

Like his colleague Barth, this Prague "editor" appeared at the scene; with this difference only, that the Berlin colleague was received by an archbishop with every formality, but Puffke achieved access at the door of an "uneducated" peasant woman! Puffke-Lipnitzki attempted to draw Mother Solymosi into conversation. He gave her to understand that, if she were ready to make some statements desired by him, she could "make some money."

His shamelessness went so far that he "bid" 5 Fl.. for some stalks of straw from the bed of her murdered daughter! The devilish intent was obvious: his "press" would then have delightedly trumpeted to the entire world that the mother was selling as "souvenirs" even the straw from the bed of her child for sinful money in order to enrich herself even more by the death of her child -- we recall that Paul Nathan had already determined "that in truth, the living conditions of Frau Solymosi have markedly improved..."

But the old Solymosi woman, who, "directly at the entrance of the same man (Puffke-Lipnitzki), recognizing with the instinct of a mother's heart who and what kind of individual was confronting her," [26] threw the Jewish bearer-of-19th-century-culture out; for this, in his article she was then given a very high recognition of her stainless character, by being described as "without honor and an evil woman"! In order to be protected from further Jewish importuning, the property of the Solymosis had to be kept under police surveillance. These scandalous events were echoed even in Germany.

(169)On 4 July 1882, Dr. Henrici, who had already aroused enormous interest [27] in a great number of gatherings as one of the first anti-Semitic speakers (in 1881 he had called the first racial anti-Semitic people's assemblies in Berlin), also spoke in Berlin in the "Sozialer Reichesverein" [roughly, "Social National Union"]:

In another assembly, Henrici demanded, to thunderous applause, the immediate removal from office of Jewish judges -- "even in Berlin what has come to light in Hungary can happen! One need only examine once the statistics of those who have disappeared and see at which time of the year most of the children were lost! (Shout: Passover!) Come hell or high water, we will not yield or waver until we have pushed the foot from the back of our necks, until we have cast the Jews, together with their bloody ritual-slaughter knives down into the dust where they belong..."

In a petition directed to the government, police supervision over the Jewish populace, but particularly over the synagogues, was supposed to be requested. In order to enlighten the population and shake it from its apathy, a large number of handbills about this blood-murder were circulated, since the "German" newspapers had refused to accept the explanation relating to this!

(170)So strongly did these "extra editions" affect the nerves of the "Chairman of the Jewish community of Berlin," the banking Jew and "Royal Advisor for Commerce," Meyer-Magnus, that he complained to the Prussian Minister of the Interior von Puttkamer. The text of the letter of reply from the latter should be reproduced as simply a symbolic document of its time:

A few days later Ónody spoke in Berlin in the first mass gathering of the anti-Semites over Tisza-Eszlár. On 16 September 1882, the Deutsche Tageblatt gave the following atmospheric report:

The appearance of Ónody in Germany -- as even Nathan had to concede -- had achieved two things:

1. "The previously varying tale of the murder took on solid shape -- anti-Semitism again surfaced" and

2. "Ónody had committed himself personally in Hungary as in Germany, and with him the anti-Semitism of both nations, to [justice for] the ritual-murder."
With these successes, which even a Jewish "intellectual" stressed, the Hungarian could feel satisfaction for the first time.

How had things been developing in his home country? In Hungary as well, the anti-Semitic currents had been swelling. Whatever decision the court might make, the people were convinced that they were being bled to death by the Jewish foreign body -- not only economically but in the literal sense of the word. One knew what to expect from newspaper reporting -- indeed, Jews and editors had already become identical concepts in Hungary!

But the Alliance Israélite, that parent company of World Jewry, must have given a signal; for at the same time as anti-Semitic speakers were appearing in Germany and fliers were being circulated, there suddenly assembled in Budapest on 5 July 1882, contrary to all other practice in secrecy and silence, a general meeting of the Rabbis under the chairmanship of the Head Rabbis Menachem Hatz and Leopold Lipschitz.

No resounding "resolutions" were composed (an exception for such a meeting!) but something totally cunning was cooked up! The Rabbis wrote letters -- this "quiet propaganda" was already practiced at that time -- but not spontaneously to this or that (174) person abroad -- but to very well-known international "authorities," who almost without exception belonged to the theological faculty of their universities, and they asked these men to render their expert opinions about the possibility of ritual-murder and/or to "historically elucidate" this subject.

With great adroitness, they knew how to discover, next to the freemasons, their baptized racial comrades among the "Christian" theologians! These scholars, to whom this request suddenly came, had in all probability never been able to examine a ritually-slaughtered human body which had been drained of all its blood, as their former colleague, D. Johann Eck had done in the 16th century -- perhaps [this was the occasion when] they were first told about what is meant by a ritual- or blood-murder -- with the exception of their baptized [Jewish] colleagues!

Their letters of reply are consequently composed in an occasionally very evasive manner and one soon gets the impression: the "colleagues of the Mosaic persuasion" should get the kind of exposition which would not further upset them and besides: it is flattering and at the same time an honor to be approached by a learned assembly of foreign Rabbis for a letter of expert opinion, and therefore the bearer of an apparently quite well-known name is not permitted to disappoint them in any way. These letters of reply, written for both the above-named rabbinic Head Swindlers and also, really, for their agents, are to be evaluated with this perspective in mind!

The theological faculty of the University at Amsterdam writes: "The theological faculty owes it to the decision of the assembly of Rabbis, held on the 5th of July of this year in Budapest, that your friendly invitation was also issued to it, as well, to give its statement in relation to an old accusation made once again against the Jews...agreeing with the judgement of all experts in the field, it also is thoroughly of the conviction that a lawful instruction to use human blood acquired by murder for ritual purposes is not contained anywhere in the religious books of the Jews. . "

The theological faculty of the University of Copenhagen refuted "this foolish invention, proceeding from blind fanaticism" by recalling (175) "with what great severity the Mosaic Law forbids men the consumption of blood; according to this law, anyone who would commit the above atrocity which is charged to the Jews [in Tisza-Eszlár], would be excluded from the community of the Jews and incur heavy punishment(!) Fully justified is the complaint and the indignation of the whole of Jewry over the fact that this accusation has been raised against them - an accusation which, as often as it has been raised, yet never has had the slightest basis in fact..."

The theologians of the faculties at Leiden and Utrecht are also "according to their knowledge of the Mosaic and Talmudic laws," completely convinced that both [i.e, the mosaic and Talmudic laws] do not in the least assent to a use of human blood, and still less do they prescribe it."

-- In such a manner were the expert opinions of the faculties procured!(174) Unfortunately, a Paul de Lagarde in all innocence became involved in this Jewish swindle maneuver and as a consequence had to let his name be abused even decades later by Jewish rats! In his letter of reply from Göttingen of 7 October 1882, he even thanks "the esteemed assembly of Rabbis for the confidence which it has shown me (P.D. Lagarde) by this request."

Further on, however, Lagarde makes it clear that he was unable to supply the "desired historical elucidation" of the (ritual-murder) accusation, due to lack of time..."Should it seem expeditious to the esteemed assembly of Rabbis, however, that I appear as a witness (!) for it in any sort of judicial hearing...I am prepared to do so."

The Ordinarius at the University of Straßburg, Nöldeke, obviously irritated, rants from his summer holiday in the Black Forest (10 August 1882): "It is sad that there is repeated cause for [having to] seriously refute the charges raised by malice and ignorance against the Jews, that they use human or Christian blood for some sort of religious celebration.

The accusation is entirely groundless; of course such atrocities are totally contrary to all the principles of Judaism (!) Jews, who would have committed such a crime would have been excluded unconditionally from the religious community of Judaism(176)..."

-- The same Nöldeke also then rendered his "expert opinion" in the Xanten ritual-murder trial -- thus we are prepared for that! Quite obviously, however, the "Licensed Theologian and titular Professor" August Wünsche, as a baptized Jew and (of all things) headmaster at a girls' school in Dresden, [30] knew what was in the interests of the Jews.

At the end of his rather cordial letter (31 October 1882) to the Head Rabbi Lipschitz in Budapest we read: "May a high court succeed in throwing light upon the Tisza-Eszlár affair and soon prove the innocence of the accused Jews, so that the evil spirit of the anti-Semitic movement may not draw new nourishment, to the misfortune of the common life of Christians and Jews!"

With these "Christian" credentials [i.e., from the theological faculties of the various universities], the Jewish taskmasters could be well-satisfied.!

These expressions of expert opinion, 22 in all, -- among them one also finds the opinions of the Professors Delitzsch (a Jew!), and Strack of Berlin -- were carefully collected and published [31] in Berlin in December 1882, thus before the start of the ritual-murder trial in Hungary, under the collective designation: Christliche Zeugnisse gegen die Blutbeschuldigung der Juden [Christian testimony against the blood-accusation of the Jews].

It is clear that Judah knew how to make necessary capital from the contributions of its honorary Christian colleagues. The Gießener University Professor Stade in his letter of response actually anticipates these Jewish goals -- without, perhaps, having been conscious of them -- when his letter reads: "The outcome of the affair in Tisza-Eszlár may be what it will: this much is determined in advance, that it will be allowed to be used neither against the Jewish religion nor against the character of the Jewish people. Deeds such as those of which the ritual-slaughterer there is said to be guilty, are foreign to the latter and loathsome to the former."

(177) In the time to follow, Jewish journalistic garbage was poured in bucketsful over Ónody. The Hungarian magnate made short shrift of one of these Jewish rats; to challenge a Jew [to a duel] would be to accord him too much honor. So Ónody got the correspondent of the Jewish Wiener Extrablatt out of his hotel room with the Karbatsche [a heavy-duty whip]. The press-Jew immediately preferred to depart with the fore-noon train...

"But the other pens kept writing...These modest men were the correspondents of the great (Jewish) Hungraian and Austrian papers, they were the organ by means of which civilization gazed down...People there took the Karbatsche to be the most powerful of weapons and they learned that the pen was still more powerful...The Press passed a sentence of death and the anti-Semites felt that a new, larger power than their own had moved in. These proud magnates had lost..."

So wrote Paul Nathan barely ten years later, and he had to know, of course, being, finally, an "expert in his field"!

The same tactic of wearing-down was used on the examining judge Josef Bary and the representative of the national press of Hungary, Verhovay in the intermission [before the trial]. Even the Justice Minister Pauler did not remain unscathed. The Minister President Tisza had adopted the habit of circumventing the Ministry of Justice by sending his instructions directly to the state attorneys...Ónody, Bary, Verhovay and Pauler held out. A cruder weapon had to be used on them.

Ónody was impervious to economic measures, but Verhovay, the editor of the national paper Függetlenség, was on the verge of ruin. His friends gave him further help. Bary, who had charge of the important documentary material and energetically kept on with his investigations despite all interventions and intrigues, and did not weaken or waver, could be finally be put out of the way, of course, with more radical methods. That too was attempted. From the account of Ónody's comrade in the struggle, the knight Georg von Marcziányi, [32] we learn (178) that already on the 14th of July 1882 an attack upon Bary was planned.

The coachman of the examining judge, sleeping in the wagon-shed and awakened by the ceaseless yapping of the watchdog, checked the premises. Near the main house, in the inner yard, he noticed three persons, who had apparently been positioned as watchmen; they were making signals in the direction of the street. In the corridor to Bary's room, the coachman came upon two Jews in kaftans, who -- armed with revolvers -- were conspicuously trying to get in the entrance door.

When challenged, the whole strange crew rushed to the yard gate. Two kaftan-garbed Jews, pursued by the dog which was at their heels, swung themselves over the garden fence and thereby a bunch of skeleton keys were dropped. At daybreak, in the vicinity of the doghouse, a piece of meat was found which the dog, however, had not accepted. A chemical analysis yielded the fact that it was poisoned with arsenic.

After this incident the examining judge was accompanied on his walks and travels by secret police and his house guarded day and night. -- So much for the essentials of the report of Marcziányi.

This assassination attempt on Bary failed -- further such attempts seemed hopeless. There still remained the main witness for the prosecution, the sixteen-year-old Moritz Scharf!

On a motion of the examining judge, Scharf junior had been taken into protective custody, since he himself no longer felt safe with his racial comrades! Later, before the court, this witness declared when questioned about this: "I was told that they would kill me, because I have spoken the truth..." -- In the decision of the examining judge of 27 May 1882, the text reads:

Scharf had therefore been brought into the Comitat House at Nyiregyháza; he even remained there into August of the next year, not as a prisoner, but as a witness standing under police protection, who was allowed to move freely besides, who mixed with the families of the court officials there, was decently clothed and cared for and who even received private tutoring!

What didn't the Jewish newspapers, the Pester Lloyd in the lead, fabricate: that Scharf had been lodged in a pig sty and sadistically abused and at the end had been nearly driven mad -- one recognizes here already the intention of designating the later statements of Scharf as those of one mentally disturbed -- which they [i.e., the Jews] certainly tried to do.

How necessary the police protection in Nyiregyháza was, emerges from the fact that attacks upon this witness were planned several times. The castellan [one in charge of a fortress or the security of public building] Henter, to whom Moritz had been handed over, had been able to make detailed reports also about this to the court. To go into detail about this here, however, would take us too far from the main narrative.

These living witnesses they had not been able to silence -- but the Protocol of the four physicians, of 20 June 1882, still remained, which helped to uncover the shameless subversions of the Jewish manipulators; it existed and could thereby still bring unfavorable and incalculable factors to bear against Jewry.

This danger had been thoroughly recognized, for already, five days after the first autopsy of the female body which had washed ashore, the Jewish attorney Heumann applied to the court for an exhumation and new dissection of the body, which this time was supposed to be performed by "authorities" since "apparently irregularities and violations of law" had occurred.

This impertinent petition was nevertheless rejected, and in the following period a struggle raged over the handing over of the body, in which the court was defeated. On 7 December -- thus nearly a half-year after the burial -- the exhumation actually took place, this time in the presence of the three Budapest professorial "authorities" Schauthauer, Mihálkovics and (180) Belki.

They declared that the scientific tools necessary for them were not available at the location and proposed the transportation of the body to Budapest. The Court of Justice finally consented that a portion of the body would be transported there.

Although the body, as is clear from the 7 December 1882 protocol itself, was found to be in a terrible state of decomposition, which excluded any pronouncement, and the "corpse, powerfully contracted at the knee joints and hips, fell into pieces at an attempt to straighten it out," [34] these wonder-doctors managed, "in a round-about procedure", [35] to produce a masterpiece of work "proving" the identification of Esther Solymosi with the body washed ashore after "long yet necessary digressions with a consulting of the earlier procedures". [36]

The expert opinion of the confidential agents of the court, therefore the word of four physicians, was supposed to be "refuted," in that these doctors were reproached with "lack of expert knowledge and carelessness in the investigation of the necessary facts of the case," as was further also written in the new expert opinion of the Herr University-professors, with, of course, the modesty characteristic of their race:

The comprehensive vision and finely-developed feeling of this committee were, to be sure, amazing attributes, which made it possible to reconstruct from a part of a split-open body, long gone over into decomposition, a fourteen-year-old and, even in addition to that, a definitely identified girl;

these unusual talents of the chosen authorities of a likewise Chosen People, made the hair of even the Court of Justice of the Hungarian provincial seat stand on end! It ordered the striking of a portion of the judicial documents simply in (181) those passages of this professorial expert opinion which were conspicuously deceitful and at the same time made the decision to deliver the report of the three professors and the remains of the exhumation which had been retained, to the Hungarian National Medical Council for verification, with no possibility of appeal.

This superarbitrium [literally, "above judgement/appeal" -- i.e., the findings of the Hungarian National Medical Council] repeated in essential points the results of the first expert opinion of the medical agents of the court and evoked, as Georg von Marcziányi was able to determine, "the greatest consternation in the circles of Jewry". Over the members of the Hungarian National Medical Council, the Jewish press poured a veritable deluge of insinuations and maledictions!

Nevertheless, after the conclusion of these investigations, these documents were delivered to the Head Prosecutor's Office; the head Prosecutor, Szeyffert, to whom certainly no anti-Semitic leanings could be imputed, took over setting down the charges in writing and transmitted them to the Court of Justice at Nyiregyháza.

The Concluding Hearing in Nyiregyháza

On 19 June 1883 began the great concluding hearing, after it had been postponed many times. The investigation had lasted over fourteen months. Accused were fifteen Jews, to wit:

a) on a charge of premeditated murder: the ritual-slaughterers Salomon Schwarz and Leopold Braun, the teacher (cantor) Abraham Buxbaum and the vagabond Hermann Wollner, "beggar without definite place of residence, who already has a police record";
b) on a charge of participation in murder: the temple servant Joseph Scharf, the estate owner in Tisza-Eszlár, Adolph Junger, the worker Abraham Braun, the merchant Samuel Lustig, the tenant Lazar Weißstein and the mohel [circumciser] Emanuel Taub;
c) on a charge of accessories after the fact: "because they have made an effort to frustrate the investigation against the accused by assisting them," the five Jews who took part in smuggling the body: the raftsmen Amsel (182) Vogel and David Hersko, and also Yankel Smilovics, Martin Groß and Ignaz Klein.

At their disposal stood not less than five, for the most part Jewish/free masonic, "prominent" defenders; two defending attorneys were members of the Hungarian Reichstag, who had been designated for the "defense" on the basis that they had a mandate due to their connection to "high politics"!

"It is a matter of an affair which could be fraught with grave consequences for a few million human beings; under these circumstances, one can claim that the number of five defending counsel was too small rather than too large." [37]

-- Next, 80,000 Fl. were made available for taking care of the "smaller expenses" of the defense. [38]

At the Jew Guttmann's, the head man of the Israelite Alliance (A.I.U.) in Vienna, his own telegraphic equipment was set up. Between Nyiregyháza and the Viennese Jew, his own telegraph connection was thereby set up, so that the Jews were informed directly and as quickly as possible of every word that was spoken, without the world outside -- not even the authorities -- being able to learn anything. -- "A Christian ought to demand it at once! I ask you, Herr Minister, whether you would allow him this! I don't believe that you would..." (The Deputy Schneider in the Austrian Reichsrat on the 10th of November, 1899.)

The hearing had 138 prospective witnesses. The President of the Court of Justice was Franz von Kornis, and the state's attorney was the many-times mentioned Eduard von Szeyffert. He had picked up very definite instructions at Nyiregyháza. The Jewish press was full of the praise of this man; Paul Nathan as well gives him a good report card -- which already says it all! He writes:

The mother of the victim was represented all the more cynically by these Jews, and without a trace of sympathy: "The old woman Solymosi was a tall, gaunt, bony woman of angular body type. During the hearings she appeared in dark clothes, and a black scarf also framed her yellow, parchment-like and expressionless face.

There was something strangely sad in observing these mummy-like features. There was no emotion to be noted in her face and the single thing which seemed alive was a pair of small blue eyes, which simultaneously gazed out at the world stupidly and with a superstitious religiosity.

No doubt: the fundamental trait of character of this pitiable woman was a mixture of stubborn, unshakable devoutness to God and to superstitions. It must have been easy to awaken the imagination in her that she was an instrument of God. At least she believed herself to be in a quite special relationship to the Highest One. From God come the ideas about the end of her daughter..." [40]

-- That is what a Jew was able to write in the year 1892 in the Germany of Wilhelm, by the Grace of God.!

The charge was supported in its essential points on the basis of the protocol statements of the sixteen-year-old son of the temple servant Joseph Scharf, Moritz, of the 21st/22nd of May 1882. In the public hearing as well, Moritz Scharf repeated firmly and with certainty his account already given before the examining judge. On the first day of the hearing there was already a violent scene:

-- The old man Scharf suddenly tried to fall upon his son, but was pushed back again to the bench of the accused by the prison guards. Each of the accused was invited to comment on the statements of the witness.

The Jewish teacher Buxbaum raged:

These scenes repeated themselves in the following days of the hearing and took on an ever sharper tone. On the eighth day of the hearing, Moritz was questioned by the Jewish defense counsel Heumann about why he always walked about under guard; Moritz replied: "Because the Jews would kill me, because I have said the truth..." -- "If you had not "barked" [42] such lies, then we would not be here" confirmed father Scharf resignedly on another day.

-- "For an entirely different reason this (the investigation) could not be ended," the son said in defense of himself. To this the Jewish defense counsel: "I ask the witness, Moritz Scharf, why the investigation could not be ended and for what reason it lasted thirteen months." -- The Jewish youngster rebuffed him with: "For the reason that the Jews who remained behind in Tisza-Eszlár dressed a corpse in the clothes of Esther Solymosi!"

After he had become a witness to the horrifying events in the synagogue, Moritz ran to his parents, to report to them the things he had seen from his own terrible vantage-point. President Kornis: "What did you say to your parents sitting at the table?" -- Moritz: "I told them the situation which I'd seen." President: "What was the answer?" -- Moritz: "My mother said that I should be quiet!" But the small boy Samu had overheard something and blabbed it out, which is how the case was set in motion!

Paul Nathan comments about his tribal associate who had been struck from the race: "Good Heavens, a murder cannot, after all, ruin the midday meal for a man, when one has a good appetite...

Therefore the family consumes its meal in peace and as pleasant dinner conversation Mortiz reports (185) a little joke which he has just seen...Now the midday meal is over; Father, Mother and son have until this point no cause to get excited because of this little murder; they won't have any further disturbance of their Sabbath mood...

It is a truly idyllic murder, which has played itself out without anxious preparations, without cautious weighing things out, everything is entrusted entirely to the kindness of Providence. Were a braggart to describe at the proper point in an operetta a murder of the type which Moritz Scharf has, people would break out in clear laughter" -- This is the "writer" Paul Nathan!

At the remonstrance of his father ("he said to me that 'to you, pork sausage tastes better than kosher food'" [43] Moritz at last stated that he no longer wanted to be a Jew, that he had gotten a horror of the Jewish religion... He could only explain the murder of Esther to himself in this way, that the Jews had to do this according to the doctrines of their religion. [44]

The brother of the murdered girl, Johann Solymosi, remarked on the evening after the disappearance of Esther, how a large number of Jews, among them numerous foreign ones, came out of the temple and walked over to the Jew Lichtmann. Just after midnight they left his property again in a body and cautiously moved to the temple.

Frau Bátori and her daughter Sophie remarked that on the evening of 1 April light was burning in the synagogue [45] in the vicinity of which they lived, until late at night, which was otherwise unusual. Around midnight the rear part of the temple was still brightly lighted.

On the 16th day of the hearing, the peasant woman Cseres from Tisza-Eszlár gave her account to the Protocol: "In the night in which Esther disappeared, there was a great noise near us...I looked out of the window and saw many Jews come and go. Later the Jew Großberg came wringing his hands and called out: "God, what have we done, what have we caused to happen!" A strange (186) Jew, according to his appearance a Galician, answered Großberg: "Don't worry, nothing will come out of it!"

The witness Sipoß, who was in service with Großberg at the time of the disappearance of Esther, stated that on that evening numerous Jews were on the Großberg property who had conversed excitedly in Jewish dialect; she hadn't understood a word. When she stepped into the room, old Großman immediately showed her out again with the remark that they had "something" to discuss.

Furthermore, it was established without objection that the Jews Schwarz, Braun and Buxbaum had entered the locality already on 31 March, a day before the murder of Esther and had taken accommodation with the former ritual-slaughterers Taub and Jakob Süßmann respectively.

Moritz Scharf had repeated his statement before the court, that he had observed the murder through the keyhole of the inner synagogue door; to the question of the President about how long he had watched, the witness answered: "Three-quarters or even a whole hour." Examining judge Bary had put this to the test at the scene directly after the interrogation of Moritz, to see whether he had actually been able to see what he had testified: that was the case.

The result was recorded at the scene. Now the Court of Justice undertook the verification of this with the assistance of the state attorney and the defense counsel; Moritz and his father were brought along. And see -- there was almost nothing visible through the keyhole; only a narrow strip of perhaps a half of a meter in the middle of the room was visible!

The witness had stated in the Protocols that he had looked through the keyhole by bending only a little bit and had been able to see well. But now it was established that the keyhole was located only 85 cm. above the floor, which implied that Moritz could look through it only by crouching over entirely and only for a few minutes; he claimed, however, as we see in the Protocol from this local inspection, that when Bary had taken him there, he did not need to bend over that way then.

The basic result of this local inspection was: "...It was further determined that Moritz Scharf (187) did not see the scene at the [time of] the inspection." One of the Jewish defense counsel remarked: "With this inspection of the scene we should have opened the whole case, then we need not have had to hear [the case] for five weeks long!"

The defense had prudently been careful not to arrange a local inspection at an earlier date, for in the intervening time this ominous synagogue keyhole was repositioned in such a clever fashion that at the later examination even the Chief State's Attorney of Hungary, when he peered through it, according to his own expression, actually "saw nothing"! [46]

[This trick was echoed by the O.J. Simpson case, and the transparent nonsense of -- to anyone with common sense -- the well-remembered Jewish shysterism of: if-the-glove-doesn't-fit-you-must-acquit!]

There yet remained to refute the expert opinion of the National Medical Council about the body washed ashore, in order to be able to also set free the Jews imprisoned on the charge of smuggling the body.

In the search for a "European authority", whose name alone could cancel out all former expert opinions, they selected Rudolph Virchow, the Professor and Director of the Institute of Pathology at the University of Berlin, who had the additional advantage of functioning as a semi-official liberal-"progressive" Reichstag member.

In his "statement of expert opinion about the autopsy procedures in the Tisza-Eszlár criminal case" of 15 June 1883, Virchow, "the great friend of the Jews", [47] actually had the last word, in that he pushed the "unreliability of the autopsy protocol of the Drs. Trajtler and Kiß of the 19th and 20th of June 1882 into a bright light," although he had not even obtained one part of the body, but could base his opinion merely on the statements of the Budapest experts. (188) Thus fell the Superarbitrium of the National Medical Council from 16 March 1883.

In the arguments of the judgement of the first stage we read: "There is circumstantial evidence, which with respect to the fact that the Medical Council did not communicate the motivating factors which are the basis of its expert opinion, so that one cannot know on the basis of which anatomical data the Council deviated from the expert opinion of the professors in the determination of the probable age of the body, and furthermore, with respect to the fact that the body was found in the undoubted clothes of Esther (!), allows the acceptance [of the fact] that the body in question could be the corpse of Esther Solymosi."

All was in tidy order: The missing girl had gotten lost on her way -- although she of course, as a child of the village and on a clear day besides, was familiar with every hill and dale -- fell into the Theiß and after months was washed ashore as a well-preserved, well cared-for corpse in faultlessly arranged clothes...

But just as in the first days, the mother of the victim remained unswerving in [the midst of] these intrigues; she had answered in response to all questioning: "Gentlemen of the court, my mother's heart tells me that the Jews, who are sitting on the bench of the accused, murdered my daughter. The Jews came to me and have offered me a large sum of money if I would make this voice of my heart be silent -- I cannot do it..." (H. Desportes, p. 239)

The pronouncement of judgment was suddenly hurried into: All accused were acquitted and insofar as they had suffered economic injury by their long custody pending trial, the state had to pay everything! "After great mistakes and errors the Nyiregyháza Court of Justice lets justice rule, indeed, it scorns to throw even the shadow of a suspicion upon the innocent prisoners" [48]

The court President Kornis directed the following "conciliatory words" toward the mockingly smiling gang of murderers: "I must admonish you, that you, returning to your home hearth and (189) Christian fellow-citizens, bring along peace and modesty and refrain from any such provocation which could lead to the arousal of excited emotions and to the disturbance of [your] peacefully living together.

You would not wish to ascribe the suffering and vexation you endured (!) to the judge or to the court of Justice or, finally, to individual citizens, but to the coincidence of circumstances. You might make friends with the destiny which often interposes itself without mercy and heavily in the course of life and which is often impossible to avoid even with the greatest lawfulness and decency." [49]

For the mother of the victim, however, no one had a word of comfort; on the contrary, she was helplessly abandoned to Jewish scorn and imprecations still during the court hearing; according to her own statements, the Jews had even finally claimed that she had abused Esther, and because of that she had gone into the water...even ten years later Paul Nathan could spit out at her in the filthiest manner!

"An uncanny shudder quietly creeps over a person when he views the behavior of Jewry in this cause célèbre : the Jews, who continuously throw out phrases about humanitarianism, enlightenment, human rights, tolerance, and so on, and who refer to the law with daring cynicism in all cases where they have been righteously attacked -- the same law which they for the most part hold in contempt and trample with their feet -- these Jews first commit an atrocious ritual-murder, cowardly deny it with snide brow, break out filthy obscenities about the pain of the grief-bowed mother, abuse her under hypocritical pretexts, mislead the court, cunningly cut the threads of the investigation, like hyenas dig half-decayed bodies from their graves, switch them around, dress the false dead body in the garments of the slaughtered one, mutually swindle each other for the sake of ill-gotten gains, send death threats to judges performing their duties, plan assassinations of the same, in order to get incriminating court documents into their possession and will finally, (190) if all this doesn't help them and the iron ring is contracting around them closer and closer, move on to corpse desecration in the most disgusting and repulsive sense of the word, in order to dispel the storm clouds drawing threateningly close above the Jews!

This is their humanitarianism, their enlightenment, their morality, which they proclaim so hypocritically, standing upon whose postulate -- built upon deceit and lies -- they have the presumption to strive for religious tolerance, for tolerance for religious rites like one of these rites which has come to the light of day in the ritual-sacrifice murder in Tisza-Eszlár..." [50]

Both of the higher stages confirmed the judgment of acquittal in full. As if on signal, the entire body of accused Jews disappeared thereupon from Hungary; Moritz Scharf, the "betrayer," went as a diamond polisher to Amsterdam; the defense counsel, however, remained in the country and nourished themselves "uprightly." One of the first "defenders," the freemason Karl Eötvös, already rewarded before the trial with payment on account of 80,000 Fl., became a great Hungarian landowner...

Epilogue

The acquittal of the accused set lose in the Hungarian people an enormous rage. Eötvös and his good friend, the Chief State's Attorney Szeyffert, had to leave Nyiregyháza shortly after the pronouncement of judgement in rash haste and in a closed wagon, under the curses of the populace and pursued by a hail of stones.

In all larger cities of the nation, especially in Preßburg, Kaschau, Ödenburg, in Budapest and in court locations themselves, serious clashes occurred, Jewish shops were stormed, and in the comitats individual Jewish properties went up in flames. Nevertheless, all these things only brought water to the mills of Judah...

On 11 September 1883, the already mentioned court preacher Stöcker spoke at a meeting of his Christian-social party in (191) Berlin about the outcome of this trial; there he said, among other things: [51]

"The trial of Tisza-Eszlár is decided, the accused were acquitted...virtuous jurists, among them two state's attorneys, have assured me that before the trial they had believed in the innocence of the accused, after the decision however, they believe in their guilt; they personally consider themselves fully convinced of the guilt of the accused."

"I was in the country some time after the pronouncement of judgement, and I have found no person who had the slightest doubt about the guilt of the accused..." wrote Edouard Drumont in his preface to the Geheimnis des Blutes [Secret of the Blood] of Henry Desportes!

The peasant woman Cseres said on the occasion of her interrogation in the public hearing that it "was being spread about in Tisza-Eszlár that the Christians are losing and the Jews are winning"; that the inhabitants of the village had banded together and angrily discussed the Jewish machinations and they were finally brought back to peace only by the military. -- Their instincts, not warped by miseducation, had told them that certain powers were at work to bend this judge's decision!

These rumors already took on firmer shape in an "open letter" which a later defender of the murder gang, the Jew Bernhard Friedman, directed to the large Hungarian newspapers. In a letter of 19 September 1882 the text reads, in part: "One sees two outcomes possible for this investigation. One says that the state attorney's office will study the case and after there is no acceptable proof, simply apply for cessation of the trial.

But then one says the matter will be taken from the vice-solicitor Bary and entrusted to cleverer (read: to Jewish! -- the author) and more experienced hands, so that the errors committed in the investigation can be repaired if possible." In another passage of this letter it further reads:

"One other issue which will now likewise be decided is this, whether, in case the royal State Prosecutor's Office should consider a supplementary investigation necessary, (192) Bary should also be entrusted with it despite the numerous errors which he has committed -- or another man?

But Bary had understood how to maintain his position with the same energy which he had employed during the preliminary investigation. Thus actually only the former of the two possibilities brought up by Jew Friedman remained open.

This was the road taken. Now, who is the great unknown "one" who already could know all this already, nearly one full year before the judicial decision? Paul Nathan can be consulted even for an answer to one part of this crucial question, in that he forgets his talmudic, fox like cunning in one passage in his treatment of the Jewish triumph in Nyiregyháza and writes: [52]

"There were in Hungary a number of people who took up the struggle with courage and genius; by themselves, of course, they would have been defeated; but in alliance with the public opinion of educated Europe, they triumphed, and the truth triumphed."

We know this "educated Europe" already from Damascus; the golden Internationale, which forms the "public opinion" and prepares the Jewish "victory"! But today we have concrete indications about it: the trial of Tisza-Eszlár became a financial-political power-struggle between Jewish High-finance and the nation of Hungary which was dependent upon it and which was already heavily in debt to international High-finance in the eighties of the 19th century -- and just at the time when the small village by the Theiß was making news, Hungary was in the process of negotiating with the house of Rothschild over settlement of its national debt, which was burdened with an excessively high rate of interest.

The completion of this annuity-conversion was supposed to bring an annual savings of 2.5 million Gulden in interest to the economically beleaguered country. A few days before the beginning of the main hearings at Nyiregyháza, the Baron Albert Rothschild sent a sharply worded dispatch to the Hungarian Finance Minister, Count Szapary;

the gist of its contents was that the money-market, (193)consisting overwhelmingly of Jewish elements, along with the means which stood at its disposal, would bring it to pass that "the Hungarian state notes would be depressed to a level which would correspond with that of the Hungarian pronouncement of law" -- This dispatch was also made known in the press!

The Budapest representative of the House of Rothschild, the Jew Goldschmidt, spoke in the days before the main proceedings of the criminal trial as the agent of the "Alliance Israélite" with the Hungarian Minister, Baron Bela Orczy -- after the "Anglo-Jewish Association" in London had already meddled into this in an unheard of fashion -- and stated to him categorically that they would like the charges against the ritual-slaughterers dropped.

Furthermore, he threatened him with bringing an interpellation in the English Parliament, and put to him the impertinent demand that the acquittal of the accused had to occur not at the first stage of appeal, but instead immediately at the first judicial hearing!

On 20 July 1883 Justice Minister Pauler received a telegram from Minister President Tisza, in which the latter asked his Justice minister "to strictly control and to threaten with dismissal if necessary" the Court President Kornis!

The paper of the Minister President took up this inspiration and wrote: "The Tisza-Eszlár case compromises Hungary! Other countries point their fingers at Hungary. The world press pillories us daily. The judgment of the outside world is sovereign, it cannot by appealed to anyone.

Who has brought this shame upon Hungary? Those very people who have created the Tisza-Eszlár trial! We therefore simply ask: Que usque tandem? [53] and hereupon demand from them an answer, not in words, but in deeds."

This battue then sufficed to cause the complete collapse of the Court President, who up until then had remained unbiased, and to acquit the already convicted Jews with words which were almost apologetic, and in a manner of what one might call unseemly haste. Jewry had gotten a "moral satisfaction" but the Hungarian state a Jewish state loan!

As emerges from the journal notes of Justice minister Pauler (194) of 26 September 1883, after the conclusion of the trial, the finance-Jew Goldschmidt, on the instruction of the Rothschilds, demanded that the Head State's Attorneys Kozma and Szeyffert receive honors.

Karl Holz wrote of this infamy:

And the Jewish paper Egyenlöseg still dared to write after the end of the trial: "Would it be a wonder, if after so much terror, Europe would turn from a nation which was so weak as not to resist anti-Semitism?!"

Sixteen years later, in 1899, a sensational incident occurred in the Austrian Reichsrat [state council]. The anti-Semitic Deputy Schneider claimed, in a long speech, in which he referred back to the blood-murder of Tisza-Eszlár among other things, that the Hungarian Minister President Count Andrassy, who died in 1890, had himself admitted to him at that time, upon being asked, that a Jewish blood-murder had occurred in Tisza-Eszlár.

A tumultuous scene ensued; the Jewish deputies wailed: "One can easily say that, since Andrassy is dead. To whom did he say it?" -- Then the Deputy Prince Liechtenstein arose and calmly maintained that in a conversation relating to Tisza-Eszlár between himself and Andrassy, the latter had stated the following:

"Indeed, the Jews murdered Esther Solymosi, but we could not admit that, otherwise 17,000 Jews would have been slain in Hungary the next day -- and from where should we have gotten [54] then?"

Since the Deputy Liebermann von Sonnenberg [55] reported this incident again in the German Reichstag on 7 February (195) 1901 as a political fact, concerning whose importance he wanted to be clear, we have no reason to doubt the historical genuineness of Andrassy's statement.

The responsible men of one state therefore preferred to look on as the children of their people bled to death unatoned for under the the ritual-slaughter knives of Galician Jews, than that they do without money credited from Jewish banks which these had first sucked out of their hosts!

According to the classification of Paul Nathan, this category of people is to be accounted part of "educated Europe". We will yet find rich opportunity to subject this Europe to thorough consideration!

In this connection one ritual-crime ought still to be mentioned as sequel, which happened in 1895 likewise on Hungarian soil. On the morning of 6 September of that year, in Honter Comitat in Garam-Kis-Sallo, the farmer Johann Balars sent his five-and-a-half year-old daughter Juliska with an errand to the gin-shop Jew Ignatz Adler. The girl did not return. On the 10th of September, thus shortly before the "great Day of Atonement," the horribly mutilated child's body was discovered outside of the place. The Jews had "reconciled" themselves with Yahweh!

A Catholic clergyman composed a report about this in which the German translation reads: [56]

"The skin of the head and chest of the girl was flayed off. Cuts from a long, sharp knife were recognizable The body was covered over and over again with piercing wounds. The autopsy showed that the child had been starved for several days; then the torture began which must have transpired in such a way that the little girl was hung up by the feet by iron hooks and had to go though the torment while alive!

In the body and heart of the victim was not a drop of blood to (196) be found. Neither on the body nor on the clothes were there any blood spots.

At the time when the girl disappeared, by the claim of many witnesses three wagons of Jews arrived at Ignatz Adler's place, among them a ritual-slaughterer."

The Jews remained, as always in Hungary, unmolested; the Jew Adler was merely questioned as to whether he had an enemy in the village, at which he named a rich farmer. This man and his son, a butcher, were arrested, the latter for the reason that at his place, as was normal for his profession, a bloody apron was found! The entire populace unanimously accused the Jews of the murder.

When the two men arrested had also been set free again, the incident indeed proved how far Hungary had come. Moreover, Ignatz Adler was so sure of himself that he was able to bring suit for libel against the clergyman as "Agitator-Chaplain" and against the Hungarian paper which ran his report! Further, in Skurz (1884) and in Konitz (1900) non-Jewish butchers had also been accused of this bestial ritual-slaughter crime; and these accusations became a tried and true method!

Copyright 2001 by R. Belser. Reproduction in whole or in part without express written permission of the translator is not permitted. All rights reserved.