Friday, October 11, 2013

Mendel Beilis -- "Lyagushka"

This is the summary of the fourth day of the Mendel Beilis trial, which occurred on 28 September, 1913 on the Julian calendar (“O.S.”), 11 October, 1913 on the Gregorian calendar (“N.S.”). 

This day occupies pages 121 through 141 of Volume I of the transcript.

 See the transcript translation for the fourth day.

 
Today Defense Attorney Grigorevich-Barsky remarks that the forensic investigator, when taking a deposition, has the authority to leave out whatever he considers unimportant.  Grigorevich-Barsky considers it a normal procedure.  Later, a detective named Krasovsky will testify that he saw investigator Mashkevich doing exactly that, and he didn’t fight over every little thing.  That doesn’t explain everything in his deposition but I’ll deal with other issues as they come up.

You can see the problem.  The investigator can use his own theory of the case to shape what he writes down.  If he turns out to be wrong, the witness has to be recalled and may have forgotten precisely what the investigator should have written down before.  She may also be dead or out of the country, both of which happened over the course of the investigation.

That assumes, of course, that he is conscientious enough to recall witnesses.  If he is arrogant, stupid, lazy, or prejudiced (or bribed), he might not recall witnesses.

One third or more of the witnesses on the stand up to about day 12 were illiterate.  Although the investigator read the deposition to them before they signed, they couldn’t challenge the gaps because they couldn’t read for themselves to make sure the information wasn’t hidden somewhere.  They couldn’t be at all sure they said a given thing, especially if the interrogation lasted a long time, or over many days.  These people usually were intimidated by authority as well, and for that reason the witnesses would not challenge an apparent gap. 

Now, the investigator can only know at any point what he knows, but using that to reject witness information voluntarily offered will leave potholes in material the attorneys need to conduct the trial.

In the Beilis trial it had another effect.  When a witness’ testimony differed from the deposition because of what the investigator left out, the prosecution did one or both of two things. They accused the witness of lying on the stand, or they asked the witness why the investigator – Fenenko or Mashkevich – left the information out.  It comes down to witness abuse. 

It wasn’t their fault, but the prosecution behaved as if it was.

The key witness today is Mr. Nakonechny, whose "street name" was "Lyagushka".  He blasts four important parts of the prosecution case: the Shakhovskys and their depositions; the ability of children to get onto the factory grounds; what time of year children rode the pugger; and the idea that only the Cheberyaks would have known of Andrey being grabbed.

A truly unbelievable thing happens in the middle of Nakonechny’s testimony.  Vipper suddenly brings the name of Cheberyak into it and, given the grammar, specifically Vera Cheberyak and still worse, in connection with the murder but, worst of all, suggesting that the murder happened in her apartment.  No witnesses, so far as the transcript has recorded, have said anything about her involvement in the murder. 

But the indictment does point fingers at Vera over her carpet, over wallpaper in her apartment.  It takes the word of Zinaida Malitskaya that she heard suspicious noises in the morning from Vera’s apartment on the date of the murder.  It repeats a story Vera’s daughter Lyuda supposedly told a woman named Ekaterina Dyakon that Andrey was murdered in the Cheberyak apartment.  In other words, the indictment sets the trial up to ask lots of questions of all of the Cheberyaks, the results of which you’ll see on days 8 and 9.

Another issue that comes up which probably went under most people’s radar, is Vipper’s summation of Evdokia Nakonechnaya’s testimony from 1912.  He gets things wrong.  He elides the fact that she said the fence went up before Andrey disappeared; he mixes up the details from the 1912 testimony with a phrase she uses in court in 1913 because she can’t remember any more; and he claims that Zhenya agreed to a play date with Andrey when Evdokia says Zhenya didn’t go.  These are the exact things the defense was afraid of when they objected to the absence of Sikorsky and other expert witnesses from the court room during the sessions: for the prosecution to give them incorrect summaries of what went before and having the experts testify based on incorrect information.  Vipper will continue to make such mistakes as the trial proceeds.

And then there’s Chekhovskaya’s bombshell.  On September 25th, before the witnesses were administered the oath, she was sitting next to Vera Cheberyak, who tried to get one of Andrey’s friends to lie on the stand.  Vipper tried to have Chekhovskaya sent off but the defense and the judge tell her to stay and point out which people heard this, since she doesn’t know any of their names.  The boy involved testified on day 10.

Viktor Ordynsky testifies today about meeting Vera Cheberyak.  He can’t remember many of the details but on day 10 they will be confronted with each other.  The meeting occurred in the posh Rootsa restaurant on Kreshchatik in January 1912.  On day 10 they will bicker about this meeting like a couple of nuts for half an hour to an hour.

Notice that the police screwed up by the numbers. 
They didn’t get to the crime scene in a timely way.  That let a crowd develop, who were curious and looked into the grotto, disturbing tracks in the snow. 
They didn’t protect the crime scene.  They swept snow away, destroying tracks.
They altered the crime scene.  They dug around the entrance to let in Bailiff Rapota, who was fat.
They handled the evidence or let the crowd handle evidence.  That wiped out fingerprints.
They can’t agree on the timetable of events.

If this is a true account of what they did, it may have been normal for them.  On March 20, 1911, nobody knew that a Federal case was going to be manufactured from Yushchinsky’s murder.

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
 

To Day 5, "Fonarshchik"
 
 
 
Page
 
Witness
Notes
Transcript
Translation
Statement
Leshchenko
Policeman, Lukyanovka
district
121
246
1
Pogorsky
Policeman, Lukyanovka
125
254
162
Barshchevsky
Staff writer for Kievan Thought
130
264
336
Viktor Alekseevich Ordynsky
Writer for Kievan Thought
Met Vera Cheberyak at Rootsa in January 1912
132
269
407
Kleiman
Questioned about her charwoman’s gossip
137
279
568
Anna Zabudskaya
The Prikhodkos’ landlady
138
282
631
Maria Makshilova
Involved in finding the furnace repairman, Yashchenko
139
284
706
Konon Zabudsky
The Prikhodkos’ landlord
141
288
752
Mikhail Nakonechny
Vera Cheberyak’s neighbor
Crucial to disproving material parts of the government theory
142
292
872
Evdokia Nakonechnaya
Mikhail’s daughter
Disproves two key points in Lyuda’s testimony
152
313
1258
Simonenko
Mrs. Kleiman’s charwoman
156
322
1417
Nechaeva
Minimal contribution
157
324
1439
Petrenko
Minimal contribution
157
324
1455
Chekhovskaya
Witnessed Vera Cheberyak suborning testimony in witness room, see also day 10
157
324
1461
Kolbasova
Widow of Luka Prikhodo’s boss
158
327
1540
Ruban
Natalya Yushchinskaya’s employee
159
329
1567
Tolkachev
Minimal contribution
160
331
1611
Stepashkina
Minimal contribution
160
331
1627
Zhukovsky
Matvey?  Friend of Fyodor Nezhinsky
160
332
1641
  
© Patricia Jo Heil, 2013-2018 All Rights Reserved

No comments:

Post a Comment