This day occupies pages 317 through 342 of Volume II of the
transcript.
Justinas Pranaitis, today’s only witness, was a Catholic
priest, not Russian Orthodox; he was selected by the government because of his
anti-Semitic writings. His infamous
thesis of 1892 was rejected by the Catholic Academy in St. Petersburg for
misusing Christian Scripture. Pranaitis
copied most of this work, such as the list of sources and Article I, from
Johann Eisenmenger’s anti-Semitic Entdecktes Judentum, a work which Lutheran
Gustav Dalman called a compendium of everything “repulsive” in Christianity and
by no means an accurate representation of Talmud or Judaism.
In 1913 Pranaitis also published a pamphlet under the
auspices of the Black Hundreds, called “The Jews’ Blood Dogma” in which he cited
to an 1803 work by a probably fictitious monk named Neophyte. See the information about Neophyte on day 25.
When Pranaitis says almost in his first statement that he is
going to testify from memory, that is fallout from day 24. Prof. Sikorsky read an anti-Semitic diatribe
from notes he had in court. These notes
were never examined by a forensic investigator, so they were never passed as
related to the case and attached to the case.
This means they were inadmissible evidence. The defense made two petitions that the judge
never even ruled on, he simply ignored them: either put Sikorsky’s remarks on
the record exactly as he stated them; or get his notes and have them attached
to the case. Without the record or the
attachment, the defense cannot use Sikorsky’s remarks in an appeal. The transcript itself does not qualify as a
record that can be used in an appeal.
Apparently a conference was held between then and now and
Pranaitis was instructed to speak from memory so there wouldn’t be another
hassle about this. The prosecution realizes as soon as cross-questioning starts,
that Pranaitis doesn't know what he's talking about.
Pranaitis and Mashkevich worked together one-on-one
to outline the material that would be used to write the May 23, 1913,
indictment. Pranaitis is quoted in it as
providing certain information. If he and
Mashkevich didn’t create the exact wording of the 29 questions given to the
scriptural experts, Pranaitis was there when the subject matter was decided on
and the quotes chosen that the prosecution would use in this part of the
trial. Pranaitis had a year of lead time
to prepare and he failed utterly.
I footnoted extensively while translating, to record
information I needed to correctly translate or transliterate what all the
parties said during this testimony. The
footnotes illustrate Pranaitis’ ignorance and falsehoods. Whether he knew he was lying, I can’t
tell. His history of run-ins with
Russian and Catholic law suggests he was pathologically incapable of understanding
that what he wanted to do might be both wrong and stupid, so it’s easy to see
that he might not be able to distinguish truth from falsehood, as long as the
falsehood said something he wanted to believe. Despite the best efforts of the presiding
judge and prosecution to support Pranaitis, they could neither keep out
damaging evidence on cross-questioning nor make up for Pranaitis’
self-destruction as an expert.
The New York Times reported at the time that the judge
stopped all testimony about the Talmud because Pranaitis failed to support the
blood libel charge and the defense’s witnesses on the subject undercut it.
“P” is always Pranaitis.
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
No comments:
Post a Comment