Friday, October 11, 2013

Mendel Beilis -- "Fonarshchik"

This is the summary of day 5 of the Mendel Beilis trial, which occurred on 29 September, 1913 on the Julian calendar, 12 October, 1913 on the Gregorian calendar. 

This day occupies pages 161 through 172 of Volume I of the transcript.
 
See the transcript translation for the fifth day.

 
This was a Sunday, and it began what I like to call Hell Week.  The little glitches before this were minor.  This week, every facet of the government theory in the Mendel Beilis case is held up as false, and some as faked by the government.

Today Kazimir ("Fonarshchik") and Ulyana Shakhovsky, the lamplighters, recant their depositions and give testimony showing that Polishchuk and Vygranov forged the depositions while getting both of them so drunk they didn’t even know what they were signing.  They actually recanted in 1912, but the indictment doesn’t tell about that.  The related piece of evidence is contradicted by Nikolay Kaluzhny, who liked to go around with Ulyana while she lit lamps.  The prosecution thinks he heard what Volkivna said . He says there was nothing to hear because Polishchuk came up and started listening.

One tiny piece of evidence suggests more forged depositions.  Grigory Matveevich Zhukovsky says he didn’t see Andrey’s things at the grotto.  His deposition said he did.  This resembles Yelansky saying, the other day, that he didn’t see the “papers with punctures” at the grotto, but testimony by other witnesses discusses seeing them.  Likewise, the fact that the police don’t have their story straight, either means they were incompetent, or somebody tampered with their depositions.  Much later I will point out one more piece of evidence about possible deposition tampering, that points to the probable tamperer.

The prosecution has two problems this day.  One is Vasily Yashchenko identifying the man he says he saw at 7 a.m. 12 March.  Andrey was seen alive after that time and so this is irrelevant.  Further, Yashchenko contradicts his description of the man’s features and motions.  Finally, it comes out that the grimirovka described by Luka Prikhodko when he testified, was an attempt to make him look like Yashchenko’s description of the unknown man.  There will be more about this on days 14 and 15 which prove that the police had no good reason for abusing Luka like this.

The other problem is that Vasily’s brother, whose first name is Prokofii, I believe, turns up with a piece of paper that might be a copy of the flyer which Moguchevsky said on day 2 was stolen from his house.  The prosecution doesn’t even want to look at it.  Zarudny makes an impassioned speech about how wrong that would be since it deprives the accused of even a chance to show that somebody else was guilty of the murder. 

In American law, this paper would never be allowed into evidence since there is no chain of custody proving where it was in the 2 1/2 years since the funeral and it could be forged.  In Russian law, the forensic investigator has had no chance to examine this paper, write a report on it, and attach it to the case.  The prosecution is right on both counts.  But this is the next step in the crisis that develops out of Dmitry Moguchevsky’s day 2 testimony about these flyers.

In statement 440 Shmakov gives evidence of what a handicap he is to the prosecution.  After Shakhovsky’s testimony at four separate interrogations is read from the record, Shmakov tries to pretend that the first interrogation occurred before Shakhovsky met up with Zhenya Cheberyak either 15 or 22 March (depending on which of Shakhovsky’s accounts you believe) when the interrogation occurred in June.  Shmakov is talking nonsense and apparently does not realize it because he is so set on the concept of the black beard, even after Yashchenko blew that out of the water, and after Luka’s beard was shaved to make him look like Yashchenko’s description.  There is no valid reason for this line of questioning. 

There are references here to two of Beilis’ children, David, and Pinchas.  Mr. Jay Beilis tells me Pinchas was about Andrey’s age; David was 3 years younger.  That means David was no older than 11 at the time of the crime, making nonsense of any claim that he could substantially help his father control an older, taller boy.

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
Aleksandr Dobzhansky
Bar owner in Lukyanovka
161
334
5
Grigory Matveevich Zhukovsky
Andrey’s friend
Exposes possible deposition tampering
164
341
147
Vasily Yashchenko
Lukyanovka furnace repairman
Sought by Nezhinsky as last person to see Andrey
166
345
272
Prokofii Yashchenko
Brings in a flyer distributed at Andrey’s funeral
170
355
463
Kazimir Shakhovsky
Lukyanovka lamplighter
Deposition was forged against Beilis
172
359
508
Balashev
Shakhovsky’s employer
185
388
1064
Troitsky
Questioned about Golubev
185
389
735
Osadchy
Lukyanovka police official
185
389
1088
Vyshinsky
Lukyanovka bailiff
186
392
1139
Ulyana Shakhovskya
Lukyanovka lamplighter
Deposition was forged against Beilis
189
399
337
Nikolay Kalyuzhny
Helped Ulyana light lamps
197
418
1697

 

© Patricia Jo Heil, 2013-2018

No comments:

Post a Comment