According to JTA the jewish actor made famous by his role as ‘Harry Potter’ in the film versions of J. K. Rowling’s children’s book series of the same name has been doing some research on his ancestors. One particular piece of this ‘research’ is highlighted by JTA as follows:
‘The “Harry Potter” actor’s relative, Samuel Gershon, had been ruined by a 1936 robbery at the family’s jewelry business in the London neighborhood of Hatton Garden. But police accused the Jewish businessman of faking the raid to claim insurance cash in what may have been anti-Semitic treatment by the officers. Gershon took his life at age 42.
The insurance company eventually paid the claim.
Evidence suggesting that detectives were anti-Semitic and reluctant to properly investigate the crime include a police report that said, according to The Sun: “Jews are so frequently responsible for the bringing down of their own business premises.”
Radcliffe said it was “very jarring to see being a Jew to be taken as a piece of evidence in itself.”’ (1)
This sounds pretty cut and dried: doesn’t it?
Well it isn’t the whole story and conveniently leads out a lot of detail as is typical in such ‘oy vey ist mir’ – the Yiddish equivalent of ‘woe is me’ – pieces as is evident from the additional details provided by ‘Jewish News’ which are as follows:
‘In Monday’s episode, the Harry Potter star learns that his great- grandfather, Samuel Gershon, was an apparent victim of a night-time heist on his Hatton Garden business, amounting to a loss of £250,000 in today’s money – but without evidence of a break-in, police accused him of faking the crime for an insurance payout.
Gershon, who ran the business with his brother, Edward, had twice successfully claimed insurance for two previous break-ins in 1922 and 1932, while the company was in debt for the same amount that had been stolen, heightening police suspicion.
Whether an inside job or not, Daniel – who bears more than a striking resemblance to his great-great-grandfather, Louis – is visibly stirred by the suggestion that police were reluctant to carry out a full investigation because of antisemitic attitudes.’ (2)
It also turns out that the ‘anti-Semitic comment’ was actually from a police informant not a police officer and it reads in full that:
‘Dear Sir, one hopes the criminal investigation unit is taking into account the hypothesis that Gershon committed the robbery himself.
In general terms – that he is a Jew – and that Jews are so frequently responsible for the bringing down of their own business premises and theft, so-called, committed in their offices.’ (3)
‘The robbery attracted intense media scrutiny, with one newspaper report featuring an image of Gershon fainting and an accompanying article suggesting that he was “too ill to see the police”.
A fortnight later, still suffering from shock and anxious over whether the insurance company would pay out, Gershon tragically took his own life, aged 42.’ (4)
So in other words; Samuel Gershon repeatedly made large insurance claims after alleged robberies – two being in a four year period – and the second of these two in 1936 just so happened to be exactly the amount he was in debt to his creditors for. Gershon also refused to talk to the police citing ‘illness’ and a police informant – not a police officer – reported that he was using a fake insurance claim as a remedy for his obvious commercial difficulties only for him to commit suicide when the ‘stress’ got too much.
So where is the ‘anti-Semitism’ here?
All I can see is the British police acting with a sceptical eye about Gershon’s claims of a robbery and then sudden demand that the insurance company effectively settle all of his debts leaving him in a great business position.
Yet we are supposed to ‘feel sorry’ for Gershon and Radcliffe because the former ‘committed suicide’ because the nasty goyim wouldn’t pay his insurance claim as they sceptical about it.
Oy Vey ist mir!