either Stavsky or Rosenblatt except as far as Stavsky’s figure is concerned.
Fourthly, Mrs. Arlosoroff is mistaken, though in good faith, in her evidence of identification of the accused.
Fifthly, the alibi of the accused is sufficiently established.
Sixthly, the prosecution failed to prove any relevant connection between Stavsky and Rosenblatt.
Seventhly, the motive suggested by the prosecution is not proved.
Under these circumstances, looking at the case broadly. I arrived at the following conclusions:
Firstly, the crime was not political but most probably a banal attack for sexual purposes.
Secondly, none of the accused had any connection with the murder.
(Signed) M. Valero.
Dated, June 15, 1934.
SOCIALISTS DETERMINED STAVSKY MUST NOT HANG
Expressing complete faith in the legality and impartiality of the Stavsky verdict, the United Jewish Socialist Party, Poale Zion-Zeire Zion, in a statement declared that Stavsky must not be considered guilty until all legal recourse is exhausted and that, in any event, the death sentence must not be executed. Charges that the Revisionists are engaged in harmful propaganda were also contained in the statement.
Stating that only the naked truth can clear the air in the Palestine political life, the statement says that the verdict came as a shock but that the quality of British justice must not be condemned as a result nor must the verdict of guilty, should it be upheld, be construed as a blot on the national honor of the Jewish nation.
“As long as the defense has not yet exhausted every legal recourse granted it under the law,” the statement reads, “and as long as there is even the faintest ray of hope that a higher court may bring more clarity into the case, and that the defense will thereby be enabled to establish the innocence of the condemned, the defense must be given every assistance in order that it may be able to present its arguments and proofs before a new trial.”