Thursday, September 12, 2013

Mendel Beilis -- Vera

With the investigation at an end and the new indictment in the process of being written, the government had one last loose end to tie up before it re-indicted Mendel Beilis.  That loose end was, at its other end, tied to Vera Cheberyak and her family, whom the government had chosen as its co-conspirators in the plot against Mendel Beilis.

Vasily and Vera Cheberyak had been married something like 15 years by the time they became the focus of government attention.  Vasily was an employee of the postal/telegraph office, a government department, making 45 rubles a month.  They had four children: Aleksandr, who died in 1902; Zhenya, who died in 1911; Lyuda, who was 8 to 10 in 1911; and Valya, who also died in 1911. 
Vera was the queen of an active and violent gang of robbers.  One witness at trial noted that she changed her hats frequently.  Throughout history, women’s hats have been notoriously expensive.  How could Vera feed three children, keep up a four-room flat, with a large carpet and a piano, on 45 rubles a month and still “change her hats frequently”?

She had help from her brother, Pyotr Singaevsky, who had been committing robberies almost since his family realized he was never going to learn anything between the covers of a book.  Pyotr had two friends, Boris Rudzinsky and Ivan Latyshev, also robbers.  Vera’s gang included Nikolay Mandzelevsky, “Shurka” Lisunov, Vikenty Mikhalkevich, and a man named Mosyak who died before the trial began.
In December, 1911, the story that Vasily Cheberyak signed up to tell at trial was that Zhenya and Andrey had been on the factory grounds, Beilis and his two sons had chased them, Zhenya got away and nobody knew what had become of Andrey.  When Vasily Fenenko took this deposition, Georgy Chaplinsky was present and Fenenko made an extra perfect job of recording Vasily’s words – including contradictions like the event happening “three or four days before the corpse was found” instead of more than a week earlier.  It was not going to be a stellar performance but Chaplinsky could always whip out Kozachenko’s letter.

The story about “Beilis and his two sons” arose about the point when Vera got out of jail on 7 August, now under Chaplinsky’s protection, and went to the hospital to have Zhenya discharged.  She took him home to a new apartment on Lukyanovka Alley; the Cheberyaks were evicted on 6 August from their luxury apartment on Upper Yurkovskaya Street, by a coalition of their landlord and the other residents on his property.  The landlord kept the carpet as part payment of a debt.  On 8 August, Zhenya was given last rites by Father Fyodor Sinkevich, a member of the Black Hundreds, who was not the parish priest for Lukyanovska Alley.  Zhenya died within 24 hours of his discharge from the hospital.

In August, when Vasily signed his first deposition, he expected a promotion that would take him to a new town.  In November, he was fired.  The Cheberyaks became poorer and poorer.  They were paid nothing in consideration of their cooperation with the government, and the robbery business had dried up.  In July 1911 Rudzinsky was in jail like Vera, and Pyotr and “Red Vanka” Latyshev were out of sight. 
Lt. Col. Ivanov of the secret police was assigned to check out Brazul’s January 18, 1912, submission; on 14 February his superior, Col. Shredel, wrote a letter saying Vera’s gang was back in the cross-hairs.  This letter disappeared; Tager knows about it only from a later letter by Shredel that refers to it.  The government didn’t want Vera’s gang in the cross-hairs.  That would make it impossible to try and convict a Jew, the same as the year before.

On March 7, 1912, Lt. Col. Ivanov interviewed Boris Rudzinsky.  When the interview was over, Rudzinsky had signed a confession to a robbery that he had committed a year earlier.  He had cased the Adamovich optical store on Kreshchatik on 9 and 10 March, 1911, planning to rob it about midnight of 11 March.  He and Singaevsky went there and Latyshev met them.  The job didn’t come off; a guard was posted.

They went home and told Vera, and that night, as soon as the last patron was out the door, they tried again.  They took binoculars, lorgnettes, and knives, worth up to 2500 rubles according to Krasovsky.  They also took the cashbox, and back at Vera’s, they broke it open.  It was empty.

Vera went a couple of kilometers to her parents’ house and got money so the boys could take the 11 a.m. mail train, Sunday March 13, for Moscow where they could sell the stolen goods.  They netted 300 rubles.  On March 16, Latyshev changed a 100 ruble note at the bar where they were drinking.  A detective saw him and they were arrested.

On March 7, 1912, Rudzinsky signed a confession to this crime, as an alibi for Andrey’s murder on the morning of March 12, 1911.  In May, the case against him for the robbery was dismissed.  He was then sent to 2 years 8 months hard labor in Irkutsk on a false charge of armed robbery.  In December, 1912, Singaevsky signed a confession to the Adamovich robbery.  The case was dismissed April, 1913 before the investigation was complete.
On March 29, 1913, Ivan Latyshev was brought into the chambers of Vasily Fenenko and signed a confession to the same robbery as the other two.  Fenenko testified that Latyshev came in very upset.  After signing, Latyshev looked into the next room and saw Nikolay Mandzelevsky being led in.  Latyshev went nuts.  He grabbed the confession and tried to tear it up.  The guard drew his sword part way.  Latyshev ran to the window and climbed out, then fell three stories onto the cobblestones.  He died at the hospital that same day. 

That was the last loose end.  The other two murderers were neutralized.  How did the government do it?  Possibly by threatening all of them using the text of Shredel’s letter, which later disappeared and was never brought into court, nor did Lt. Col. Ivanov give any of its contents, though he knew what they were.  At trial, the surviving murderers were raked over the coals as to how a nighttime robbery could be an alibi for a morning murder.  It couldn’t, but they had been told that the government would accept it as such if they didn’t reveal the con.  Once again, the purpose was to make sure the government could try its Jew.

Was Vera grateful?  You tell me.  Between April, 1911 and August, 1912, she told a different set of lies every time some official questioned her about the case, and some officials questioned her more than once.  When she got on the stand, she told another whole set of lies, until even the judge told her, “You’d better tell the truth.”  Nobody with half a brain could believe anything she said in court.

So they put Vasily on the stand and what did he do?  He told an entirely different set of lies.  For one thing, he claimed that Zhenya had run home from the factory grounds and told him about what happened to Andrey as soon as it happened – about 11 a.m.  Vasily was at work between 9 a.m. and 3 p.m., left home at 8:30 a.m. and did not get home until 3:30 p.m. – if he did come home and not go straight to some bar, like Dobzhansky’s on the corner. 

Then he said that Zhenya told him it was Beilis and two rabbis who grabbed Andrey.  That is not what he said in either of his depositions.  Both of the adult Cheberyaks blew the government case to smithereens on day 8 of the trial, a day I like to call Liars’ Day for a number of reasons.

Vera’s lies discredited her, but they also discredited the testimony of her daughter Lyuda, given earlier in the day, and that was the real problem.  Because Lyuda was the only one who told the entire story the government was using as the basis for convicting Beilis.

The government theory

© Patricia Heil, 2013-2018 All Rights Reserved

Wednesday, September 11, 2013

OB rant

Yeah I'm awake at 4 a.m. but it's not ordinary insomnia.
It's a cricket.
Charles Dickens was a moron.
A cricket in a tiny house like mine is a nightmare, literally.
I don't know why he's looking near my house.  No lady crickets in here.
But he sits outside my back storm door where the sound goes right up my stairs.
I went to bed early last night and I did get some sleep before he started up.  It was about midnight, I think.  Two pillows over the head don't help, especially as I have nightmares when my head is too warm at night.
So I got up to interfere with the cricket's looking for a wife.
I'm going to booby trap the back porch with boric acid tonight.   Let him feel cheery in a soup of water-molecule-ripping chemicals!

© Patricia Heil, 2013-2018 All Rights Reserved

Tuesday, September 10, 2013

Garden -- sun

If you're thinking of gardening, now is the time to test where to plant what.

I know you, you're not like me.  You can take pictures with your cell phone or your smart phone or you have a digital camera.

When the sun is out, go to the side of your house with the longest shadow at noon because that's the side that will get the least sun in winter.  Now take a picture looking toward that side of your lawn.

Do this once a week for the next three months, make sure the picture shows the date, and load them to your computer.

In the middle of winter, run a slide show.

If that edge of your lawn still gets sun at noon in winter, you're golden.  You can plant hardy vegetables there in March and again in September.

In the Washington D.C. area I can plant as early as 1 March most years, and still be picking until about Thanksgiving.  In a warm year I can let things stay in the ground in the winter, especially kale and mustard greens, and start picking before the new seeds have sprouted.

© Patricia Heil, 2013-2018 All Rights Reserved

Monday, September 9, 2013

Outdoors -- little rewards

So I went out yesterday to water my carrots and basil and the tomato plant that still has green cherry tomatoes on it.

There were a few drops of very light rain falling.  I kept going.  Emptied the birdbath -- an old garbage can lid turned upside down -- and refilled it.

And I turned around and there was a rainbow, high in the western sky. 

The early bird catches the rainbow!

© Patricia Heil, 2013-2018 All Rights Reserved

Sunday, September 8, 2013

DIY

And we're back.  This week's DIY plan is noodles, pasta, pierogies, maybe a kugel for Shabbes.

I have about a cup of whole wheat flour from the last bag I bought; with an egg, that will make half a pound of egg noodles at about half the price of what you get in the store.

I also have a bag of buckwheat flour and I plan to make soba.  The brand of soba my local store carries always sticks when I cook it.  Mine don't.  I got the recipe off an urban homesteading site.  It's about 20% the price of the store stuff.

My niece found a pierogie recipe I didn't have in my recipe collection until we made it at her house.  That might be for Friday.  I'll have to try it some time with some of my homemade sauerkraut.

It will be great upper-body exercise rolling out the noodles, whether I do it by hand with an old-fashioned wooden rolling pin, or run it through the rollers of my hand-cranked pasta maker. 

I also found a couple of websites for making Chinese hand-pulled noodles.  The videos are way-cool but I think I need to do more pushups for a while before I'll have the energy to try them.
Making Noodles in Lanzhou
Beijing Noodle-Making Class
Jen making noodles and a recipe

© Patricia Heil, 2013-2018 All Rights Reserved

Wednesday, September 4, 2013

Fact-Checking -- Your OWN Ideas

Fact-checking Torah, like fact-checking any other urban legend, means going back to the source.  Besides finding the source, you have to read the source.

Besides reading the source, you have to think about the source and what it means.

What it means may be different from the urban legends you are used to.

There are lots of reasons for that, including that your urban legends use a fallacy called “quoting out of context” in a number of ways that turn into the urban legend instead of tracking the actual meaning of the source.

This thread started with my research that let me answer questions on an Internet discussion group.

The research turned into a mass of material that will take three years to post, at the rate of one post a week.

Here’s how you can deal with that.

I keep saying that to avoid urban legends, you have to go back to the source.  But the source is in Hebrew, and maybe you don’t read Hebrew. 

That’s why I give the link to the Hebrew language text below.  In three years, almost anybody who is willing to do the work can learn a foreign language to some extent. 

When you look at that text, you may decide it says too much about Hebrew and not enough about Torah to let you learn to read Torah.

When I finish the MENDEL BEILIS thread, I will start posting answers to this thread, FACT-CHECKING.  I will also start posting lessons on reading the Hebrew of Torah.  In three years, I should be able to teach you how to understand the first 100 verses at least, and you will be able to take it from there.

Why can’t I just teach you the letters and show you the link to an on-line dictionary?  Because it wouldn’t help. 

I’ve been studying languages and using their dictionaries for 40 years, and that won’t cut it.  There are dictionaries which say they are Bible-oriented dictionaries of Hebrew and English, but they are really dictionaries of a specific set of urban legends about the Hebrew parts of the Jewish Bible.  I’ll bring this up again when it becomes important.

For now, trust me when I say that teaching you the Hebrew alphabet and turning you loose with an on-line dictionary won’t help you.

Again, when you get upset with my contradicting your urban legends, you’re going to hit back by saying that making you learn Hebrew is me trying to brainwash or convert you. 

And I go back to what I said before.  I can’t hold a pistol to your head to make you read this thread.  If you do, you will be exposed to what I think.

You are free to label that as just another urban legend, but I want you to do something else.

It’s easy to start a blog.  I want you to start your own blog.  I want you to document what you think. 

You can keep referring back to my blog and what you disagreed with that I posted.

But that’s going to be self-defeating because other people will say, maybe they shouldn’t be reading your blog; maybe they should be reading my blog.

So if you’re going to blog your ideas, blog your own ideas. 

But if you’re going to blog your own ideas, blog YOUR OWN IDEAS.  Not the urban legends that you’ve been accepting all these years.

And to do that, you’re going to have to read the material and decide exactly what are YOUR OWN IDEAS.

Either way I win, because I will be blogging my ideas, and you will be reading the source.

 

If you don't have a Bible and don't read Hebrew, you can go here and get a copy in English.


You can learn about fallacies and how to find them here.


Hebrew language: (two parts)

            http://www.archive.org/details/hebrewgrammarwi01kaligoog

            http://www.archive.org/details/hebrewgrammarwi00kaligoog

Aramaic language (for Talmud):

http://www.archive.org/details/AramaicLanguagehebrewDialectOfTheBabylonianTalmudByMargolis

Jewish Bible read out loud (mostly in Hebrew):

http://www.mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/ptmp3prq.htm

Babylonian Talmud audio and text

             http://www.dafyomi.org/       

Jerusalem Talmud audio

             http://www.yerushalmionline.org/    

Texts:  

Tannakh, Talmuds, Midrash Halakhah    http://www.mechon-mamre.org/index.htm 

Midrash Aggadah                                     http://www.tsel.org/torah/midrashraba/index.html  

Talmud in PDF                                         http://www.hebrewbooks.com/                    

There are audio lectures at the following sites which use a medieval commentary, famous among Jews, by Rabbi Shelomo ben Yitschaq, AKA Rashi.

Beta.chabad.org – find Rabbi Yehoshua Gordon’s Torah video lessons

www.dafyomi.org – find R. David Grossman’s Torah audio lessons

© Patricia Heil, 2013-2018 All Rights Reserved

Tuesday, September 3, 2013

Mendel Beilis -- Stage 3 investigation

The third stage of the Beilis investigation developed out of government knowledge that it had no valid direct physical or eyewitness evidence against Mendel Beilis, but that such an admission would make it impossible to shed Jewish blood and satisfy the Black Hundreds.  So it added a charge of ritual murder, which was illegal both on the grounds that the penal code included no such crime, and because the Senate had decreed that no charges should be brought in court for which the penal code had no definition. 
Krasovsky indirectly, at first, was responsible for the third stage of the investigation.  In September, 1911, before he left Kiev for a new post in Konotop, he told Sergey Ivanovich Brazul-Brushkovsky, “The devil is in it but they’ve accused an innocent man.” 

Brazul, as he is often called, was a contributor to the newspaper Kievan Thought, a competitor to Vasily Shulgin and Dmitry Pikhno’s Kievlyanin which took a monarchist line.  Brazul had watched an ordinary murder, that nobody thought was important, blow up into a Federal case with detectives and prosecutors shipped in from St. Petersburg to make sure things went the way the government wanted.  He was a long-time friend of Arnold Margolin.  All three of these men – Krasovsky, Brazul, and Margolin – thought too much attention was being paid to the case, but then all three had lived through the 1905 pogroms in Kiev and they knew that the government had to be forced to mount an investigation then about the Jews murdered in the riots.
Brazul latched onto Krasovsky’s assistant, Vygranov, now ostensibly at loose ends through official disgrace, for help with a private investigation.  Brazul had also latched onto Krasovsky’s idea that Vera knew more about the case than she would tell, and he hoped Vygranov would convince her to tell, now that he was no longer part of the police force.  For three months – no, four, because it went into January 1912 – Vygranov and Vera entertained Brazul with stories about Vera’s failed relationship with Pavel Mifle, whose eyes Vera burned with sulfuric acid in a quarrel.  In October or November, Mifle repaid the compliment by knocking Vera down and out, so that when she went to be questioned by Fenenko, she was wearing a bandage that she explained by saying she had eczema.  As she was leaving, Margolin saw her and asked Fenenko what was going on, getting the story of the eczema lie.

Brazul wanted Margolin’s input on what Vera was telling him; Margolin wanted nothing to do with it but finally agreed to meet up in Kharkov.  Brazul paid 100 rubles for second-class train fare to go 500 kilometers and stay one night at the Grand Hotel, on Vygranov’s claim that Vera could meet up with a prisoner she knew and find out where Andrey was murdered.  A police certificate read at trial showed that this man, Lisunov, had never been jailed in Kharkov.  Another co-conspirator named Perekhrist verified that Vera never left the hotel, although she claimed she sent her husband a postcard and bought a vial of glycerine.
In Kharkov, Vera spun Margolin her old monologue.  When they all got back to Kiev, Margolin told Brazul that Vera was not an innocent bystander but knew about the murder or was possibly involved.

But by that time Brazul had believed Vera’s claim that Mifle had committed the murder, with the help of three other men including Andrey’s uncle and stepfather, something she also told Margolin.  Brazul got a meeting with Fenenko, who brought in a prosecutor and the regional deputy prosecutor for witnesses, and told him this story.  Brazul came back later with Vera’s much younger lover, Petrov, who told the same story.  Fenenko believed it was a lie.
For almost a month Brazul checked back to see what was going on with the case, with the deputy prosecutor telling him to calm down, nothing was happening.  On 16 January, 1912, Mendel Menachem Tevyevich Beilis was indicted for the March 12, 1911 murder of Andrey Yushchinsky, and Brazul felt betrayed.

On January 18, 1912, Brazul-Brushkovsky submitted to the prosecutor a document that accused Mifle and the others of Andrey’s murder, and then he published it in the newspapers from Kiev to the capital of St. Petersburg.   The submission to the prosecutor meant that if there was a trial, Brazul would be called to the witness stand.
Lt. Col. Ivanov contacted Brazul and told him his article was nonsense.

Krasovsky came back to Kiev in February 1912 and raked Brazul over the coals, then began his own investigation which pointed in the same direction.  On April 5, he met up with his former subordinate Kirichenko, told him what was going on, and Kirichenko, who was working for Ivanov, said forget that, you want the Cheberyak gang.  Krasovsky started working with Brazul instead of against him, and at the end of April, Brazul told Ivanov what he had.
Ivanov said, if you publish now, you’ll ruin the case.  It will all be over with by 1 May.

Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me.  May 1 came and went and nothing happened.  Brazul submitted a new document to the prosecutor on 5 May.  Three weeks went by, the government dithered, the trial was postponed indefinitely, but no new investigation began although Beilis’ attorneys formally requested it.
On 30 May 1912, Brazul’s results were published in the newspaper.  No, not in Kievan Thought.  In Kievlyanin.  Somebody leaked his work.  Nothing daunted, Brazul still published, in Kiev and throughout the nation, and he added pictures: of Vera Cheberyak; of the house she lived in as of March 1911; of her brother Pyotr Singaevsky; and of his two mates Boris Rudzinsky and Ivan Latyshev.  I told you to remember that name, didn’t I?

On June 22, 1912, Shcheglovitov at Justice assigned Nikolay Mashkevich to conduct a pre-trial investigation into Andrey’s murder.  By August 31, Mashkevich was convinced that Vera and her gang were involved in it, and probably committed it.  Once again, the government’s flunky had proven that the Jew was not the prime suspect in the murder.  Mashkevich refused to obey orders to find a Jew who would help him prepare a charge of ritual murder against Beilis.  He held out until November 1912.  Then the government got him out of Kiev and made him sit down with Justinas Pranaitis and work out the subject of ritual murder for inclusion in a new indictment.

You probably know the name Pranaitis and I’m not going to go into his history or character very much.  What I will point out is that Pranaitis was a Catholic priest who was exiled to Tashkent after embroiling the Catholic church with the Russian government.  Why did the government not assign a Russian Orthodox priest? 
One possible answer is that between March 22 and 26, 1911, the Kiev metropolitan of the Russian Orthodox church issued a circular based on the first autopsy, saying that Andrey’s death was not ritual murder.  When the government contacted Ambrosius, vicar of the Kiev Lavra (monastery), he refused to testify except by deposition.  In general, the Orthodox church refused to support the government in any way on the ritual murder charge, and three academics with positions high in the lay side of the church hierarchy provided scriptural expertise specifically for Beilis’ defense. 

The government paid a prosector 4,000 rubles to testify to forensic medical evidence of ritual murder.  The archives contain two receipts he submitted, one before the trial and one after the trial, each for half of the sum.  All the other medical personnel who testified in this phase of the trial refused even to have their expenses paid, including two surgeons and two psychologists who testified for the defense, one of whom was the dean of Russian psychology at the time.
No, not Ivan Sikorsky.  Sikorsky was the only psychologist testifying for the government side as to ritual murder, and he had been through the mill.  In May 1911, he wrote an opinion, based on the authorized autopsy report, saying he thought it showed ritual murder.  He contributed to the January 1912 indictment, citing to a book by French academic Anatole Leroy-Beaulieu, Israel chez les nations, in support of the ritual murder claim.  Leroy-Beaulieu had a letter published in French newspapers in February 1912 saying Sikorsky had misquoted his book and that Jews did not commit ritual murder.  The German psychologists and others started an opposition campaign which brought Sikorsky to write a letter on April 7, 1912, trying to get out of testifying.  During the trial, in October 1913, a convention of psychologists held in London issued a formal announcement slamming Sikorsky’s views. 

On May 23, 1913, the government indicted Menachem Mendel Tevyevich Beilis for the March 12, 1911, murder of Andrey Yushchinsky, and for murder “upon grounds of religious fanaticism,” the blood libel.  The die had been cast.  The gauntlet had been thrown.  What happened from here on out depended on what the government did to support their case in court.  And that is mostly where the Cheberyaks come in.

The Cheberyaks

© Patricia Heil, 2013-2018 All Rights Reserved