Mendel Beilis -- The Psychiatrists

This is the summary of the 24^th day of the Mendel Beilis trial, which occurred on 18 October, 1913 on the Julian calendar, 31 October, 1913 on the Gregorian calendar.

This day occupies pages 252 through 293 of Volume II of the transcript.

 See the translation of the transcript for day 24.

 

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

 To "What does scripture say?"

		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

Mendel Beilis -- "I didn't look at the body"

This is the summary of the 23^rd day of the Mendel Beilis trial, which occurred on 17 October, 1913 on the Julian calendar, 30 October, 1913 on the Gregorian calendar.

This day occupies pages 219 through 252 of Volume II of the transcript.

 See the translation of the transcript for day 23.

 

Statements 555-569 show the questions that the psychiatrists will testify about on day 24.

Today an embarrassed Kosorotov opens the session with a nasty tirade about the fact that he belongs to a certain imperial organization that gives him status and credibility.  This is supposed to be a hit back at Dr. Pavlov who made him look like an idiot the day before.  The problem is that in it he says things about anatomy and medicine that are factually the opposite of the truth.  Then watch the defense attorneys turn him upside down, getting him to agree with Drs. Pavlov and Kadyan, and contradict hmself.  It’s a beautiful performance and ought to leave him shamed and humbled.  See particularly statement 151 in which Kosorotov admits to Karabchevsky that the heart injury was not fatal, although the rules and regulations of forensic medicine say all heart injuries are fatal, and his example of a similar situation he was involved in.

One thing to remember during Kosorotov’s peroration is that he is speaking in 1913.  One hundred years later, doctors can do things Dr. Pavlov couldn’t dream of, let alone the less factually informed Kosorotov.  The real problem is that he has been paid only half of what has been promised him for testifying in this case and he may have reason to suspect that he won’t get the other half unless he vigorously defends the second autopsy and the conclusions the government wanted to support from it.

Kosorotov knows absolutely of statistics that 1% of heart injuries are NOT fatal if the right measures are taken at the right time, and another 9% need not be fatal under a lesser standard of care.  He is not capable of seeing past his rules and regulations to say that maybe Dr. Pavlov is onto something and that more heart injuries should be survivable.  Dr. Pavlov, at his age, is pushing the envelope.  Kosorotov doesn’t even see the envelope despite the fact that it restricts his movements to the point of inactivity.

Tufanov makes an absolutely stunning statement, look down around 413.  The question about 13 vs. 14 wounds on the right neck is fundamental to supporting Pranaitis’ claim about the features of ritual murder.  Tufanov was involved in the second autopsy which was supposed to open the door to this kind of proof.  He also signed the autopsy report imported to Kiev by Chaplinsky for that purpose.  In an argument about the accuracy of the photos Tufanov took on March 23, not only does it turn out that the photos do not qualify as official records, they don’t even match the specimen.  Boldyrev goes back to the corpse but since the autopsy report signed by Tufanov does not provide a count of these wounds, Boldyrev has to ask Tufanov whether he remembers how many wounds were on the corpse.  And Tufanov says he didn’t look at the corpse.  It is one more step in a chain of admissions and statements that prove Tufanov had no clue how to do his job, either technically or in the issue of following protocol needed to assure a chain of custody and protection of evidence against tampering.

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 "The Psychiatrists" 

		Page
Witness	Notes	Transcript	Translation	Statement
Kosorotov	Contradicts himself	219	2006	1
Tufanov	Brought back due to discussion about photos versus specimens	235	2040	238 348*
Pavlov	Rebuttal to Kosorotov	240	2048	422
Obolonsky	Written conclusions Read out	245	2058	518
Questions for the psychiatrists		248	2064	555
Zhenya Cheberyak	Discussion of his death	248	2065	570
Proposals for later scriptural testimony		252	2072	705

* The discussion starts at statement 238, and then Tufanov is called in for a tie-breaker at 348.

 

© Patricia Jo Heil, 2013-2018 All Rights Reserved

 

 

 

OB rant WAKE UP WOMEN

Listen, you do not have to put up with violence in your life but you also have some responsibilities.  Evil men do not have a mark in the middle of their foreheads or wear some special ring.  But if "he changes" when he drinks or he tries to limit your life, pay attention.  If he starts blaming everybody else for the results of what he does, start thinking: I'm probably going to have to leave him.

He hits you the first time, walk away.  DON'T GO BACK NO MATTER HOW MUCH HE BEGS, PLEADS, OR CRIES.

He stalks you, tell the police and don't let them off the hook until they make him leave.

He breaks in, call emergency services and FILE THE DAMNED CHARGES and GO TO THE DAMNED HEARING.

DO NOT lose control of your paycheck; if he is supposed to pay half the bills and he doesn't, start planning to leave; put a lock changer on speed dial; keep a pack full of clothes, IDs, money and so on where he can't get at it.  NO JOINT ANYTHING -- accounts, credit cards, car loans, apartment leases.  Put them in your name.  Let him get his own and pay for it himself.  CHECK YOUR CREDIT REPORT to make sure he isn't hijacking it.

If you go to court to get paperwork to make him let you alone, DO NOT LEAVE the court until you know how long it will take to renew the paperwork, and notify the authorities every time he violates it even in the least.  Make sure it covers phone calls and the Internet as well as physical location.

Pay attention to the calendar and do whatever is necessary to keep the paperwork in force, using the records you have left with the authorities about all the violations.

If you have an injunction against him, NEVER meet him alone, always in a crowded place during daylight.  NEVER take the children to these meetings.

Yes, I know, you're in love, he makes you feel like nobody else does, fairy tale, happy ending, yadda yadda yadda.  Just make sure yadda yadda yadda is not a cover term for "she went back to him, he killed her, the funeral is today."

Inspired by Sir Patrick Stewart's 38degrees petition tweet.  Sir Patrick grew up in an abusive household and has spent his life speaking out against violence.

Mendel Beilis -- What Does It Prove?

This is the summary of the 22^nd day of the Mendel Beilis trial, which occurred on 16 October, 1913 on the Julian calendar, 29 October, 1913 on the Gregorian calendar.

This day occupies pages 173 through 218 of Volume II of the transcript.

 See the translation of the transcript for day 22.
 

Today the doctors begin giving their conclusions.  Note that Drs. Pavlov and Kadyan had no access to information about Yushchinsky’s corpse until yesterday, 15 October.  Kosorotov and Tufanov were both present on 26 March, 1911, as Kosorotov will later reveal. 

The people speaking for the government represent various situations: paid by the government (Kosorotov); demonstrably inept (Tufanov); hysterical (Sikorsky); and a vainglorious idiot (Pranaitis).  Their counterparts are immensely educated and experienced in their fields, and they demonstrate it on the stand.  The result is a general discrediting of an already self-defeated government, and also of a jury which would accept a verdict that Andrey died by ritual murder despite the medical and scriptural evidence on the other side, and the factual testimony that four non-Jews murdered Andrey. 

Kosorotov reveals today the other side of the story.  Krasovsky said he showed the shvaiki of Berko Gulko, found by Mishchuk on Yurkovsky Hill, to Tufanov, who said it wasn’t the ones that fit Andrey’s wounds.  So those are not the murder weapons.  The ones that were used to test Andrey’s wounds and found to fit, were bought by an employee of the St. Vladimir University in the market.  They are inadmissible evidence.  They were not examined by the forensic investigator and there is no record of examination attaching them to the case as relevant.  Further, unlike the autopsies, there is no record that the tests were performed in front of the investigator and witnesses. 

Kosorotov holds a dog and pony show, pretending that the Yurkovsky Hill shvaiki might have been the murder weapons.  The jury knows better.  So does Kosorotov; he has been in the courtroom since day 1.  I don’t know what this was in aid of. 

Dr. Pavlov goes through every question in the list and shows that Kosorotov is at best poorly trained and poor in experience.  This will have consequences tomorrow, but slight ones.  The consequence today is that Zamyslovsky gets mad because Dr. Pavlov changed his mind on some of the answers. 

Karabchevsky makes a small remark which nobody notices but which points out a flaw in the Russian system – or at least Boldyrev’s system – for classifying witnesses.  Kosorotov talks about some conclusions he drew, not from the evidence provided to the forensic medical experts, but from experience.  That is the kind of thing only a factual witness should do.  Boldyrev does not call Kosorotov on it.  But he refused to allow the non-expert Dudman to talk about his experience of what denomination ran his synagogue, he called it expertise.

Shmakov shows why he is such a handicap to the prosecution and cuts his own throat on his own special hobbyhorse of ritual murder.  His pet expert, Pranaitis, will claim that a direct and incontrovertible sign of ritual murder is 13 blows, no more, no less, in the neck.  Today Shmakov asks Prof. Kadyan to explain why there were 13 blows in the neck.  Of course, the professor can’t explain that any more than he can explain any of the other 34 wounds, and he is not an initiate into the folklore of ritual murder so he doesn’t even try.  But factually there is no support for Pranaitis, because the first autopsy record shows 14 stabs, and the second doesn’t refer to it at all; Gruzenberg asks the court to confirm this.  Then Shmakov makes an admission that there are 14 stabs. 

The judge has to ignore Shmakov’s statement because the ritual murder charge, though illegal in Tsarist Russian criminal court procedure, is the only one the government still hopes to win.
 

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 "I didn't look at the body"

		Page
Witness	Notes	Transcript	Translation	Statement
Kosorotov	Present at autopsy	173	1915	7
Tufanov	Performed autopsy (?)	183	1936	139
Pavlov	Leib-surgeon and professor emeritus	185	1939	168
Kadyan	Surgeon	210	1980	489

 

© Patricia Jo Heil, 2013-2018 All Rights Reserved

 

Mendel Beilis -- The Medical Questions

This is the summary of the 21^st day of the Mendel Beilis trial, which occurred on 15 October, 1913 on the Julian calendar, 28 October, 1913 on the Gregorian calendar.

This day occupies pages 170 through 173 of Volume II of the transcript.

See the translation of the transcript for day 21.

 

 

This day’s activities are very brief.  The questions for the forensic medical experts to answer are presented to them, along with the specimens and photos of Andrey’s corpse.  They then go aside for a private conference, which was anticipated to end that evening.  It didn’t end when the court thought it would but continued late into the night. 

There’s a reason for that.  Supposedly Tufanov was present at one autopsy, and he alone.  His partner in that autopsy had died and a Dr. Kosorotov was brought in to speak for the prosecution side.  I don’t know who knew this, besides Tufanov, but Kosorotov was also present at the second autopsy, which will come up on day 24, if I remember correctly.

At any rate, Drs. Pavlov and Kadyan have not seen the photos and specimens before and the only time they have is the rest of this day to develop their opinions about them.

It should be noted that all the forensic-medical experts and psychiatric-psychological experts refused to have even their expenses paid, except for Kosorotov.  He received 4,000 rubles from the government for testifying, and the archives contain his two receipts each for half of the sum.  Professor Bekhterev suggested a contribution to a psychiatric institute but that was not for himself.

To "What Does It Prove?"

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

 

© Patricia Jo Heil, 2013-2018 All Rights Reserved

 

 

 

 

Mendel Beilis -- The Doctors

This is the summary of the 20^th day of the Mendel Beilis trial, which occurred on 14 October, 1913 on the Julian calendar, 27 October, 1913 on the Gregorian calendar.

This day occupies pages 142 through 169 of Volume II of the transcript.

 See the translation of testimony for day 20.

 

Here begins the testimony on the ritual murder charge.  The setup that comes out over the next three days is this.  After the first autopsy on 22 March, the government sent Kosorotov to Kiev.  Kosorotov had a new autopsy report written on 26 March.  Ostensibly Tufanov was involved in the autopsy, but eventually he will admit that he didn’t look at the body.  Dr. Obolonsky, who died in 1912, was the other prosector on 26 March, but his individual report has significant errors.  Kosorotov finally admits that he was there, and that what is in the report reflects what the handbook of forensic medicine authorizes prosectors to say when they testify in court.  Kosorotov believes that this authority supersedes the need to actually eyeball the body being autopsied.  I’m not a prosector so I don’t know what the rules in America are, but as far as I can make out from what he’s saying – while he happens to be in a state that apparently is near hysteria – that is what he means.

Gruzenberg immediately notices a problem with the photograph of the corpse.  The date is 23 March, but the autopsy report from the day before that says the top of the skull was removed and sent for examination.  The photo shows a whole skull.  The answer is, first, that some other corpse’s skull top was substituted for purposes of the funeral.  The second answer is that the photos weren’t taken by a forensic photographer; they were taken by Dr. Tufanov, the prosecutor, as a private individual.

The problem is that at the time he took the pictures, Tufanov had not been assigned to the second autopsy team.  What’s more, the forensic investigator was not present when the pictures were taken, and neither were any witnesses.  Finally, the photos were not submitted to the forensic investigator for examination and they were not attached to the case as being relevant, nor do the files contain a record of their examination.   Under these conditions the photos should have been rejected as inadmissible evidence.

Notice that the second autopsy in some places uses metric measurements and in others uses something called poperechny palets, a phrase I can’t find anywhere.  Maybe it means a finger’s width.  That’s extremely imprecise and should never be used in a scientific investigation.  Russia didn’t formally adopt the metric system until 1924, but obviously medical personnel used it.  The first autopsy does. 

Notice that both autopsies find over 40 injuries and neither one identifies which of them are copies of the stigmata; in particular, the hands and feet were not injured at all.  If Archimandrite Ambrosius was right, this was not a ritual murder.  Notice the statement about 13 injuries to the right temple (statement 303).  This contradicts Pranaitis’ later statement that the wounds have to be in the neck, and if Pranaitis is right, this is not ritual murder.  Furthermore, Gruzenberg will point out later that there are actually 14 wounds in the neck.

Also notice that the examination of the internal organs signed by Obolonsky and Tufanov is an exact copy, except for one numeral, of the report signed by Karpinsky. 

Dr. Pavlov, with 47 years of surgery and teaching behind him, makes a reasonable request based on his experience.  Doctors always compare the positive print with the negative.  Prints may include a smaller area and miss what’s on the edges of the negative; they are prone to mistakes of printing including dust and weak chemicals, as well as flaws in the paper.  So  Dr. Pavlov asks that they be allowed to see the negatives the way they do in practice, even with X-rays.  "Then this would be complete expertise,” he says.  But he doesn’t realize that the court doesn’t want real expertise, it just wants a rubber stamp of what it plans to present as proven.  So the request is denied. 

Vipper’s first tactic today is to pretend that the experts have provided exhaustive conclusions and therefore few questions will be needed.  However, the only conclusions provided to date went to the forensic investigator, Mashkevich, more than a year ago.  The experts did not have before them the actual photos and specimens, as will be shown when the judge tells the medical personnel to start studying them as a basis for their remarks.  The result of Vipper’s tactic would be to hold to year-old conclusions that have nothing to do with the information generated during the “witness to fact” phase of the trial.  Thus the conclusions can be – and will prove to be – false because they are ill-informed. 

The defense, once again, is actually trying this case instead of just standing there for window-dressing, and they intend to treat all experts alike.  This will turn out to be devastating for the prosecution because the judge will refuse to let the attorneys argue against the information presented.  Boldyrev only lets them ask the experts to clarify.  The only true opposition to one “expert” witness is the statement of another “expert” witness.  The attorneys will have to try to get the experts to talk down for the muzhiks on the jury who at best have sixth grade educations, not tell the experts that they have misstated something.  So the prosecution cannot argue with the experts they believe favor the defense, and they will be caught in the trap they think they have set to ruin the defense case.

Archimandrite Ambrosius’ deposition opens with the fact that he is reporting, not eyewitness accounts, but anecdotal evidence which was taught to two Jewish cantonists after their conversion to Orthodoxy.  Of course, the Jews would not teach such things.  Journalist Vladimir Bonch-Bruevich, in his 1919 book, claims that the Orthodox church did not teach about ritual murder, but these two cantonists could have obtained the information no other way and throughout the trial, Russian Orthodox priests preached against Beilis, according to the American Jewish Yearbook. 

Notice that the court waited from March to November to take samples of wallpaper from Cheberyak’s apartment.  In the meantime, she had washed the carpet; are you telling me she didn’t also wash the walls in the 4 ½ months before she was evicted?  And then did the apartment stay empty for three more months, losing money for Zakharchenko the whole time?  I believe on day 17, Balavin said a Loshkarev moved in and I believe his description suits the idea that he took the Cheberyaks’ place.  At any rate, I don’t believe that the apartment walls remained uncleaned the whole time.  Or that damp and other effects wouldn’t make the marks fade.  Spectrographic analysis of blood goes back at least to 1892, according to my research, but the test description is general.  Given other results later on this day, we cannot be sure all possible tests or even those most likely to produce results were run.

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 "The Medical Questions"

		Page
Witness	Notes	Transcript	Translation	Statement
Archimandrite Ambrosius	Testified by deposition	144	1856	13
Zhenya Cheberyak	Autopsy report	145	1858	35
Tarnovsky	Zhenya’s doctor Testified by deposition	146	1860	48
Nikolay Aleksandrovich Krasovsky	Scolded about rumors of poison he helped spread	147	1862	61
Karpinsky	Andrey’s first autopsy	151	1870	220
Obolonsky/Tufanov	Andrey’s second autopsy	153	1875	255
Tufanov	Photographs discussed Vera’s carpet record of examination	160 168	1888 1905	319 478
Second parts report	Identical to first	163	1894	408

 

© Patricia Jo Heil, 2013-2018 All Rights Reserved