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

 
To Day 6, "The Field Trip"

		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