This day occupies pages 252 through 293 of Volume II of the
transcript.
It is unethical for doctors to give opinions on people they
have not examined. Clearly the person
the psychiatrists should have examined was Beilis. Instead, they were assigned to examine the
physical evidence from the autopsies – reports and specimens that Dr.s Pavlov
and Kadyan called inadequate and faulty – and derive their opinions from that.
Upon coming into court, Prof. Bekhterev announces that the
psychiatrists have not come to a unanimous conclusion because Prof. Sikorsky
refused to take part in the discussions.
Sikorsky, the only psychiatrist called who believes in
ritual murder, has a different definition from both Archimandrite Ambrosius and
Justinas Pranaitis. His definition also
contradicts the government theory of the Yushchinsky case. Finally, I realized as I read it that when
tied up with the fact of exsanguination, Sikorsky might as well have been
talking about accusing somebody of being a Count-Dracula style vampire. Read it and see.
Then Prof. Bekhterev comes to the stand and takes Sikorsky apart
like a Tinker Toy. Bekhterev shows that
Sikorsky’s claims have absolutely no basis in the record of the autopsy or in
medical science, either surgical, forensic, or neuro-pathological. Bekhterev also supports Pavlov and Kadyan in
saying that if collecting blood had been a goal, the murderers did everything
that most contributed to NOT obtaining blood.
He says the people who did it might have been insane, but they weren’t
perverts because they didn’t touch the sexual organs. In other words, the government theory is a
bust from start to finish, when it comes to any sort of a
factual basis.
The defense makes an objection here which will have
consequences later. Sikorsky brings
notes of the blood libel information he wants to present and the defense
insists that the court take possession of them and attach them to the case, so
that upon appeal it can be proven what Sikorsky said. This is in lieu of the judge having
Sikorsky’s entire harangue put on record exactly as it was said, which the
judge doesn’t immediately agree to do because the prosecution doesn’t want him
to do it. On day 26 Pranaitis therefore
will deny that he needs notes to speak, he will do it from memory. With devastating results for his own
credibility.
The real reason for not putting Sikorsky’s remarks on
record, and also refusing to attach his notes to the case, was that without one
or both of these actions, the defense could not appeal based on Sikorsky’s
remarks or use those remarks in any appeal.
The transcript was insufficient as a government record that could be
used on appeal.
Shmakov's words sound almost tearful as he
tries to get Bekhterev to say things that support Shmakov’s obsession and
Bekhterev refuses to play along. Shmakov
consistently questions witnesses as if he believes that they really know what
he knows and they really believe what he believes, they’re just playing along with the
various sides, including the defense.
Sikorsky claimed to be repeating material from a book by the
great Russian lexicographer and mythographer, Vladimir Dal. But there’s a problem: Dal produced a report
in 1844, 100 pages long, in 10 copies, for official consumption only. Sikorsky claims all the copies
disappeared. The question then becomes
how could he quote from it. So a little
later he contradicts himself and says maybe 2-3 copies survived.
That is because probably Sikorsky is actually quoting from a
book published anonymously right before the trial opened. Later academics disagreed on whether this was
a copy of Dal’s book or not. So far I
can’t find an authenticated copy of Dal’s book in existence; a 172-page composition posted on
the Petrozavodsk University server is not authenticated as Dal's work, let alone as a copy of the original, and there is no email
address to write to for authentication.
The material on the website uses exclusively Western European sources and espouses the Chassidic responsibility for
ritual murder that was part of the government’s theory.
In any case, to use the book at trial, a forensic
investigator should have examined it for relevance to the case, written a
report on the examination, and officially attached it. Without these actions, the book should not
have been used at trial. But once it
was, refusing to put Sikorsky’s remarks on record precisely as they had been
spoken, shut off the other avenue for putting those remarks in an appeal.
At the end of the day, Kosorotov comes back on stage and
tries to swing the evidence the government way. He is barely comprehensible. Just like with the issue of which wounds
should be considered fatal, he says that just because the shvaika was
used to stab Andrey, doesn’t mean it should be called a stabbing weapon, since
it does not have the shape dictated by the definition of a stabbing
weapon. And therefore Andrey’s wounds
should not be called stab wounds. Clear? Kosorotov keep saying “I don’t understand,” particularly how the
anatomical data could lead to such different views. Well, his views were handed to him by the
government, which was not true for Pavlov, Kadyan, Bekhterev and Karpinsky, and
that is the real explanation of their differences. Was he threatened with
losing his job, or his membership in that organization he was so proud of?
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
|
Ivan Andreevich Sikorsky
|
Psychologist who contributed to
indictment
Irrelevant or unfactual testimony
|
252
|
2075
|
4
|
Bekhterev
|
Psychologist
Disagreed on every detail with
Sikorsky
|
264
|
2116
|
195
|
Karpinsky
|
Psychologist
Agreed with Bekhterev
|
283
|
2136
|
486
|
Kosorotov
|
Back to try to re-establish his
expertise
|
285
|
2144
|
552
|
Kadyan
|
Surgeon
|
290
|
2150
|
645
|
© Patricia Jo Heil, 2013-2018 All Rights
Reserved
No comments:
Post a Comment