This day occupies pages 402 through 433 of Volume I of the
transcript.
Today old Mr. Vyshemirsky creates trouble for the
prosecution. Called by the defense to
talk about the hauling at Zaitsev’s, he gives Beilis a character
reference. He also tells a story the
prosecution apparently knew nothing about.
Vera’s chums Adele Ravich and her husband got 300 rubles from Vera to
skip the country in May 1911, but did so only toward September. Adele supposedly saw Andrey’s body rolled up
in Vera’s carpet in her parlor.
Ekaterina Dyakon will tell more about this on day 15.
The prosecution apparently didn’t even know that Fenenko
deposed Adele in April, coincidentally on the 23rd, the same day as
Vera gave her first deposition. But on
that day Adele only spoke about believing the Jews murdered Andrey. For the prosecution not to know about this
deposition suggests a combination of poor preparation, and the government
withholding from its own operatives information that is inconvenient to its
theory that the charge of ritual murder grew out of the evidence instead of
driving the case.
Remember that on day 1 of the trial it came out that the
government refused to contact the Russian embassy in the U.S. to find the
Raviches. They had two years to do that,
as it turned out; meanwhile, in 1914, Margolin and Krasovsky and others managed
to find them and get an affidavit from them in only six weeks.
Today three prosecution myths get their death sentences: the
“Ettinger and Landau” myth; the “milk” story; and the idea that Beilis needed
Andrey’s blood in 1911 to bake matso for the Zaitsev family. This Saturday session closed a very bad week
for the prosecution, starting with Sunday, day 5, when the Shakhovskys recanted
the depositions forged over their marks, and continuing with Wednesday, day 8,
when the Cheberyaks’ lies were exposed.
The team of Ettinger and Landau is demolished by factual
testimony and official documents, the passports of the two men concerned. Neither was in Kiev when Andrey was
murdered. Also they were not Chassidic,
and therefore not tsadiqs; and they were secularly educated, not rabbis.
Yakov Ettinger inadvertently brings out a problem with the
prosecution. They assume that the
definitions and concepts they have based their theory on, are fundamental and
well-known. Ettinger, through a
translator, first shows that Vipper obviously has a specific definition in mind
for the term tsadiq, and finally forces Vipper to connect it with Chassidic
Jews and with a specialized religious function before questioning can proceed. Vipper gives up that line of inquiry.
In this part of the trial the judge specifies the right of
residence in Kiev.
Jews must have a
higher education, despite 5% quotas for Jews at the realgymnasium required to
prepare for university and the additional 5% quota at university. In Moscow and St. Petersburg the quotas were
3% each. After 1888, Jews could no
longer attend law school. Oscar
Gruzenberg was kicked out after his first year and had to serve as a sort of
apprentice attorney for 16 years before being admitted to the bar.
Or Jews must belong to the First Guild of merchants. This was the case with Yona Mordkovich and
Mark Yonovich Zaitsev, but not for Mark’s sister who had been named a
hereditary honorary citizen, on her father’s account. Her son and Mark’s cousin did not have the
right of residence. (The Shneerson dynasty were also hereditary
honorary citizens, awarded for R. Shneur Zalman’s work in the Napoleonic War,
see R. Mazeh’s day 28 testimony.)
Or Jews must have other grounds for the right. Faivel Shneerson qualified on the grounds of
being a veteran of the Russo-Japanese war, but he still had to be registered
and at one point, as you remember, the city authorities messed with his
registration.
Today the prosecution brings in one more of their hapless
witnesses who has forgotten his testimony.
What sets this witness apart is the inadvertent evidence that he
cooperated in the arson at the stables.
He did not live on the factory property at the time, he didn’t even work
there, and he wasn’t on the grounds when the fire burst out – says he, and yet
the prosecution insists on asking him whether it was arson. All right, Zamyslovsky asks him, and this is
a foretaste of the stupid question he will ask Pyotr Singaevsky on day 17 or
18.
If Dikusha didn’t actually light the fire, he was supposed
to suggest that it was arson. Since he
wasn’t on the spot at the time, the only way he could suspect that is if somebody
told him it was. Dikusha has been taught
a story he has forgotten. Once again,
it’s these inconsiderable little witnesses whom the government didn’t train
well enough, who give the jury a reasonable suspicion that perjury is going on
or, at best, the evidence isn’t persuasive enough of guilt.
Another thing that happens this day is that witness
Zelensky, about whom the prosecution has questioned other workers, comes to the
stand where he is supposed to give evidence supporting the government
timeline. In fact this is one more
illiterate person who doesn’t know from dates, only from holidays, but worse
yet, he has forgotten what day of the week he was supposed to say he arrived. Vipper has to answer all Zelensky’s
questions, the way the prosecution has to do for all their false
witnesses. Except Vera who had her own
way of proving the government case was false.
Judge: Fyodor Boldyrev
Prosecution:
Criminal
Prosecutor, Oscar Vipper
Civil
Prosecutor Georgy Zamyslovsky
Private
Civil Prosecutor Aleksey Shmakov
Defense:
Oscar
Gruzenberg
Nikolay Karabchevsky
Dmitry Grigorevich-Barsky
Alexandr Zarudny
Vasily Maklakov
Page
|
||||
Witness
|
Notes
|
Transcript
|
Translation
|
Statement
|
Bykovaya
|
Blows “milk” story, Beilis had no cow
|
402
|
924
|
1
|
Vyshemirsky
|
Blows milk story
Outs Raviches as knowing that Vera killed Andrey
|
403
|
926
|
41
|
Mark Yonovich Zaitsev
|
Blows Ettinger & Landau “tsadiq” team; secularly
educated, not Chassidic, not devoted to prayer
|
410
|
939
|
405
|
Topchienko
|
Zaitsev footman
Testifies to non-observance
|
416
|
952
|
641
|
Samoil Izraelovich Landau
|
Produces passport to prove his visit was Nov. 1911
|
417
|
954
|
670
|
Ehduard Sharlaman
|
Writer, naturalist
Insubstantial testimony
|
418
|
957
|
737
|
Yakov Ettinger
|
Produces passport to prove his visit was Dec-Jan 1911
|
421
|
965
|
932
|
Chernobylsky
|
Beilis’ assistant and lodger
Testifies Grebenki workers were working March 12
|
424
|
970
|
1026
|
Pritsker
|
Moved away from Zaitsev’s
Feb. 1911, didn’t live there March
|
426
|
975
|
1155
|
Dikusha
|
Forgot his testimony
|
427
|
978
|
1219
|
Zelensky, Yov (?)
|
First of Grebenko workers to testify
|
429
|
982
|
1327
|
Usenko
|
Zaitsev groom, questioned about stable fire
|
431
|
987
|
1472
|
Sharleman
|
Contractor, prepared foundation for hospice
Testified to date
|
432
|
990
|
1538
|
Dr. Tarnovsky
|
Zhenya’s doctor; testified by deposition; not fully
recorded
|
433
|
991
|
1579
|
© Patricia Jo Heil, 2013-2018 All Rights
Reserved
No comments:
Post a Comment