A person of interest in the slaying of Detroit synagogue leader Samantha Woll is in custody, police said Sunday.
The person was not publicly identified, and police declined to explain why the person was a focus. They also declined to say whether the person of interest was the same person whom they initially arrested but then released in the slaying.
“In an effort to ensure the integrity of this ongoing investigation, no further details will be released at this time,” Detroit police said in a statement late Sunday.
…
It happened just two weeks after Hamas militants attacked Israel on Oct. 7, sparking a war. In the wake of the fighting, antisemitic and anti-Arab attacks in the U.S. have been on the rise, and leaders in Jewish and Arab American communities have condemned domestic violence and hateful speech.
As I’ve argued before: She was stabbed multiple times inside her home, in a moderately densely populated area that seems like it would have lots of Ring doorbells.
If it was an attack on Jews in general, why didn’t they target an area with multiple victims? If it was a targeted attack on her, why not in a place with less people, less potential surveillance, and a better weapon? This reads more like a spur of the moment attack, a crime of passion. And sadly, most women are killed by men that they know, and the majority of the killers are current or former partners of the victim.
This is what the article says:
Woll’s body was found on the morning of Oct. 21 outside her home, with a trail of blood leading inside. Police have emphasized that they have no specific information suggesting her slaying was an antisemitic hate crime.
She was not inside her home and there is no way to know right now whether or not this was a hate crime. I’m not sure why you’re assuming it isn’t when the police are saying they don’t have that information right now.
She wasn’t inside her home when she died but the blood trail going into the house indicates she was inside when the attack began and tried to escape, so we’re at either a break-in or someone she knew and trusted enough to invite into her home as the culprit.
Assuming it isn’t is the default position of agnosticism.
Okay? There’s still no reason to make that assumption at this time. The person I replied to made a false claim in the above post where they said she was killed inside her home, which she wasn’t, and another false claim below where they said the cops said it wasn’t antisemitic, which they didn’t. So I don’t think they’re being agnostic here.
I don’t know if it’s really assuming anything to say it isn’t. The negative position seems more neutral to me.
A negative position derived from falsehoods is hardly neutral.
That would be true for the guy who said “the cops said it wasn’t anti semitic” but that was in a different thread from ours.
But that was the same guy I initially replied to…
You put a lot of faith in the investigative capabilities of US police…
I wouldn’t be surprised if they got the blood trails direction backwards, and even if not, I don’t know why you think domestic abuse only occurs inside a house and never in a backyard.
There’s absolutely zero releases evidence that points to a hate crime. Just like there’s zero evidence she was really a John Wick style assassin.
So why should people act like either is what happened?
As soon as she died people started screaming hate crime despite literally no indication that’s what this was.
So why should people act like either is what happened?
That is specifically what I was saying.
Edit: And it’s not that I trust the police’s investigative powers, it’s that I trust it over an armchair detective who got the most basic detail wrong.
The police aren’t saying it wasn’t a cartel hit orchestrated by Santa Claus either…
Like, you get the point right?
Cops (even if we could trust what they say) don’t hold a press conference and start listing all the things they don’t think caused every murder.
So the cops not saying it wasn’t a hate crime doesn’t mean anything at all.
It means that we don’t know whether or not it was a hate crime so you shouldn’t assume it wasn’t a hate crime. Which was my point.
Yeah, but there was months when everyone was claiming it was a hate crime with no evidence…
So it seems disingenuous to make this argument when someone points out there isn’t a single reason to think this is a hate crime.
The person you replied to didn’t even outright say it wasn’t a hate crime like your acting…
Did you just read it wrong because it’s early?
If not I really don’t see a point in continuing this exchange.
The killing happened a month and a half ago, so no there were not ‘months’ where everyone was claiming that. Much like the original person’s incorrect claim that she was inside her house when it happened.
And, yet again, I am saying, and I don’t know why this is not clear to you, that there’s no reason to assume it is a hate crime and there is no reason to assume it is not a hate crime.
Also, I read nothing wrong. OP said “If it was an attack on Jews in general, why didn’t they target an area with multiple victims?” which clearly implies that it was not a hate crime.
I mention it because every time this came up, people were eating it was antisemitic, even after the cops said it wasn’t.
The cops didn’t say it wasn’t. I literally pasted the quote to you. Why are you lying?
Read the fucking article
