This day occupies pages 161 through 172 of Volume I of the
transcript.
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