“Trent 1475: Stories of a Ritual Murder Trial,” by R. Po-Chia Hsia, Essay Example

Yeshiva University Museum came upon the transcripts of the holistic ritualistic murders in hopes that these manuscripts would share the word and the records would be heard throughout the world freeing the history of the Jewish community. After the trial of 20 June 1478 when Bishop Johannes Hinderback was exonerated from any immoral conduct against the Jews in Trent, Italy, the manuscript was copied at the Yeshiva Museum. The transcript was transported various places including Vienna until it came to the Yeshiva University Museum.

Andreas’ son Simon had been missing since about the hour of five in the evening and “the father feared the young lad had fallen into a ditch.” (1) It appears three years after the initial events the Jews testimonies and confessions to the crime were taken under torturous events. There were allegations that Simon was killed by ritualistic killings. The manuscript shows many inconsistencies and is totally anti-Jewish in nature and is motivated by hate and legends of Jew rituals that may not even existed.

What raised the rendition to accuse the Jews was on 25 of March there was no word of who had taken the young Simon so the father bearing much political power in the town ordered the podesta to search the homes of the Jews in the town illegally and secretly kill Christian children in the process. Andreas said that a person named Zanzeus had given him inside information that the child might be inside the homes of the Jews and nothing was found. Two days later on Easter Sunday the young lad was found dead in Samuel’s house. There is no mention in the manuscripts that the Jews were the individuals that found Simon and turned the murdered body into the podesta. Six men of Jewish decent were arrest in conjunction with the murder. They were brought to the throne and palace of Johannes Hinderbach prince and bishop.

This is what sparked the Blood Libel of 1475 in Trent, Italy. The blood libel was commenced that the Jews murdered innocent Christians of Trent out of pure hatred and out of pure religious ritual desires. “These blasphemies were perpetrated against any form that threatened the eclectic order.” (4).

More political controversy arose in 1419 when the Jews were accused of attempting to overthrow the Roman Catholic Church of Rome, Italy. The Jews were further accused of desecration of the Holy Ghost and as a result were arrested and imprisoned. “On 12 March 1421 Jews refused baptism and were burned at the cross.” (13).

Jews including Samuel were accustomed to having Christians in his home on a daily basis taking business loans, loans and daily pledges. Even though he remained on intimate terms with the Christians the family remained an outsider or an outcast in the community because of their religious practises.

Giovanni repeated a tale of prior seven years when asked if he thought the ritual practises were used for killings. Margaritha claims that her son was found in Samuel’s home a prior fourteen years earlier. She further claims though her child was not hurt at the time, he died two months later.

The Jews were totally dependent upon the good win and nature of the local authorities. The Jews lived by honour, decency and morale and they would never confess to a crime they did not commit. Simon was always being looked at in various matters of indecency and corruption even to at murder. He always had to clear his good name. The Jewish community was strong and serene but they had to fight against the podesta which was very tough and had the political power. Giovanni de Salis would often make formal arrests of one or more Jews to expand his political power over the Jewish community. The police would use force of attorneys to enforce their power against the Jews then bring in after the fact testimony to support their claims. Israel, son of Samuel, Old Moses, Mayer, Solomon, Lazarus of Saravall and Moses the tutor were often privy to these unlawful and unconscious able arrests.

Trent 1475: Stories of a Ritual Murder Trial reveals the testimony of another woman named Margaritha the wife of Hans Lederer clinched the case for the podesta. She testified that she recalls hearing the voice of a young boy opposite of Samuel’s home and said it could be the voice of Andrea’s son. She did not know exactly where the voice was coming from only the proximity of the voice. “Upon further questioning she insisted she recognized the distinct sobbing of Simon’s different from other boys.” (32). This is classic of knowing the case after the accused is on trial. My question is why did not the Defence bring up the fact that she did not report the situation when it happened since the child was already missing? This is a classic framing because of political religious beliefs.

Throughout the book there is a disarray of perplexed testimonies that appear to have been coerced by the podesta and framed by the townspeople after the fact ruining the name of the Jewish people and framing Mr. Samuel for the murder of Andrea’s son.  Blond Gretchen recalls from an earlier statement on page 32 of the book, “I did not remember any of Samuel’s prior servants only the voice of the young boy and Brunnlein my son” (98) which did damaging testimony towards the conviction of Mr. Samuel.

The Jews were maliciously framed and they had little to no support from the townspeople and the police because of their religious beliefs which were maliciously and calculatingly misunderstood.

Works Cited

Po-Chia Hsia, R. Trent 1475:  Stories of a Ritual Murder Trial London, England Yale University Press, 1965.