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