Search JTA's historical archive dating back to 1923

Widow Urged Rosenblatt to Confess

May 6, 1934
See Original Daily Bulletin From This Date

A dramatic story of the first meeting between Mrs. Sima Arlosoroff, widow of Dr. Chaim Arlosoroff, and Zvi Rosenblatt, one of the three Revisionist Zionists accused of his murder, was related in court today by Police Inspector Jehudah Tenenbaum, who has been on the witness stand since yesterday.

Tenenbaum told how Mrs. Arlosoroff, brought face to face with Rosenblatt in the office of Chief Investigator Rice, shouted “this man killed my husband.” As Mrs. Arlosoroff had spoken in English, Tenenbaum translated the phrase into German for Rosenblatt’s benefit. He was then ordered to leave the room.

When Rice recalled him half an hour later. Tenenbaum testified, he heard Mrs. Arlosoroff saying to Rosenblatt in German, “I am sure you killed my husband. I know that you didn’t do it voluntarily, but because you were ordered to. Why shouldn’t you tell me who sent you? You are young, you had better say now who sent you. If you will tell, I shall do my best for you.” She said nothing more, Tenenbaum declared.


Tenenbaum produced in court a plan drawn by him the day after the murder at the seashore showing the position of Dr. and Mrs. Arlosoroff and the two murderers at the moment the shots were fired. On the basis of the plan he concluded for a time that the murderer was left-handed, a supposition which led to the arrest of the Revisionist, Schneiderman, who was left-handed. Schneiderman was later released by the police. Tenenbaum discussed the matter with Chief Investigator Rice and with Prosecutor Behor Shitreet. Mrs. Arlosoroff declared, however, that she could not remember whether the murderer was left-handed or not.

When Tenenbaum was asked by the prosecution to read the contents of documents confiscated from Aba Achimeier’s desk, defense counsel Horace Samuel objected strongly, particularly against the reading of a manuscript written by Achimeier and entitled, “Megiloth Hasikarikin,” in which he allegedly justified murder if national interests were benefited. Samuel pointed out that Achimeier’s views might have been changed since the manuscript was written.


The court recognized the force of Samuel’s argument and upheld his contention, ruling that all testimony regarding the contents of Achimeier’s private papers be stricken from the record.

Cross-examined by Samuel, Tenenbaum admitted that he had called Stavsky “murderer.” “This was due to the fact that I had been without sleep for ninety hours,” Tenenbaum explained, “also because Rice told me that Mrs. Arlosoroff recognized Stavsky as the murderer.”

“Was the spirit of the other police similar to yours?” Samuel asked him. The court ordered the question stricken from the record.

Tenenbaum also told how he had secured a photograph of Stavsky from the Polish Consulate in Tel Aviv on the Sunday after the murder.

Osher Chasan, Stavsky’s landlord in Tel Aviv, testified that Stavsky had rented a room three months before the murder in his residence located in the Caucasian Jewish quarter of the city. Stavsky, he said, worked two or three days a week. On the night of the murder, according to Chasan, he saw Stavsky, Achimeier and three others in Stavsky’s room about six o’clock. He next saw Stavsky and Achimeier about ten o’clock on Saturday evening. They talked in their room, shook hands gaily, and discussed the £1,500 reward offered by the police for the capture of the murderers. Chasan declared he overheard Stavsky say that the government may add another £1,000 to the reward. Several days later Achimeier was arrested, but was released and returned home.


He asked Chasan whether the police had visited the house and inquired what the landlord told them. When he heard Chasan’s story Achimeier remarked, “It is too bad you told the story to the police.”

A few days after this incident Chasan’s wife found a note in Stavsky’s room in Achimeier’s handwriting reading, “you did well in the murder case. Weinshall was against it.”

Chasan took the note to the Histadruth leader, Dov Hoz, who read it and advised him to take it to the police. “Why did you go to Hoz first with the note?” Samuel asked Chasan. Chasan replied that he didn’t remember who told him to see Hoz and declared that he was not aware that Hoz was connected with the Histadruth. “Did you go to the police because you wanted to receive the reward which had been posted?” he was asked by Samuel. “Every Jew wants a reward,” Chasan answered.


When he was asked whether he had attempted to purchase Stavsky’s revolver, Chasan denied knowing of any such deal. He admitted, however, that in 1926 he had served a one-month jail sentence.

Recommended from JTA