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

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

Mendel Beilis -- The Finding

This is the summary of the third day of the Mendel Beilis trial, which occurred on 27 September, 1913 on the Julian calendar (“O.S.” which stands for Old Style), 10 October, 1913 on the Gregorian calendar (“N.S.” which stands for New Style). 

 

This day occupies pages 81 through 121 of Volume I, part 1, of the transcript.

 

See the transcript translation for the third day.

 

 

When you start today’s transcript, you see prosecutor Vipper declaiming against stenographic accounts of the proceedings in newspapers.  Remember, this is 1913.  Reporters have to take information down in shorthand or longhand.  They have to get it to the office.  Somebody there writes it out longhand.  The editor fixes it for space and match to editorial policy.  It goes to typesetting; a full-size page of newspaper takes up to 16 hours to typeset by hand, a tabloid half that time.  A galley is printed to check up on the typesetting and a proofreader has to go over it and all the mistakes have to be fixed in the set type.  Only then can it be turned into a newsstand edition.

 

But on day 3 of the trial, the morning newspaper had the previous day’s testimony printed, exactly as it occurred, except possibly with notes for gestures and raised or lowered voices.

 

Now understand this.  The jury was sequestered but the witnesses were not.  What’s more, the witnesses were crowded into one area of a packed courtroom.  They were there from the start of day 1 until the judge specifically released them, with the agreement of the parties.  The witnesses had the opportunity to see the newspaper accounts and discuss them in the streets although they weren’t supposed to talk about them in the witness room where they gathered before being marshalled to their seats.

 

Maybe you thought Vipper was talking about censoring the newspapers.  In fact, journalist Vladimir  Bonch-Bruevich, who covered the trial, said in the 1919 edition of his book that the statutes Vipper referred to deal with witness tampering, not the government right to censor the news.

 

In reality, it was a case of sour grapes.  Newspapers that supported the Tsar, like Kievlyanin, might be printing material about the trial that the government handed to them – although Dmitry Pikhno, the editor, fought the ritual murder charge.  Newspapers with a centrist or left slant, like Kievan Thought, Latest News, and Pravda (which started publishing in 1903 and evolved into the main paper of the Communists), published what they wanted.  Probably they were the papers Vipper was complaining about.  This sour grapes issue will pervade the case, getting worse and worse as the government theory disintegrates.

 

The prosecution’s image of the Prikhodko/Nezhinsky/Yushchinsky clan as a close-knit family that takes care of each other crumbles a bit.  The mother said on the first day of testimony that Andrey was never out of sight of one of the family for more than a few minutes.  Her sister Natalya’s deposition (she has died in the interim) says that Andrey liked to stroll among the monuments and memorials on the west bank of the Dnepr, and that clearly is at least 15 minutes’ walk from Slobodka where he lived.  From the time Andrey supposedly went to school at 6 in the morning on 12 March until 8 that night, none of his family knew where he was or worried about him.  Everybody assumed that he was at the other person’s home. 

 

On the other hand, we begin to get a picture of the sort of abuse the police inflicted on the family, their first suspects in the murder.  If Fyodor Nezhinsky’s testimony about the furnace repairman seems to be disjointed, remember a couple of things.  It has been two years since the murder.  He has forgotten most of what he knew then.  Second, he is suffering under a certain amount of guilt.  The furnace repairman, Yashchenko, gave a description of a man he saw in Kiev early on the morning of March 12, that could have fit numbers of Christians as well as Jews in Kiev.  In fact, it will turn out about day 15 that it could actually have been one of the murderers.  But the police arrested Fyodor’s brother-in-law, subjected him to forced shaving of his beard and head, blacked and curled his moustache, and presented him to Yashchenko to see if the description matched.  If Fyodor hadn’t gone chasing after the furnace repairman, maybe none of that would have happened and the real murderers would have been arrested earlier.  It doesn’t mean Beilis would have escaped trial.  But at least Luka Prikhodko wouldn’t have suffered police abuse.

 

The government’s attempted identification of all Jews as having black beards begins to break down today.  Fyodor Nezhinsky is questioned by Durasevich, Shmakov’s subordinate, in an attempt to move to this topic, but he says “black moustache” which is the exact translation of the Russian, when it should have been “black beard.”  Further, either he wasn’t in court the night before or he didn’t read the newspapers reporting on the trial from stenographic records (he is probably illiterate), and he didn’t realize that the schoolboys have given Beilis an alibi. 

 

Vipper’s taunting of Nezhinsky is distastefully disingenuous; it proves that Vipper has no concept that historical class differences in the way he and the rest of the system deal with people involved in the legal system has produced the attitude Nezhinsky displays on the stand.  And then, hypocritically, the judge criticizes Nezhinsky for lying when the government theory of the murder is a lie from beginning to end.

 

The “papers with punctures” issue will turn up over and over during testimony.  The answer will come on day 15, but for now, the important thing is that Ehlansky is one of two boys who found Andrey’s body – and  Ehlansky says the papers were not at the crime scene when he found the body.

 

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 4, "Lyagushka"

		Page
Witness	Notes	Transcript	Translation	Statement
Hershke Arender	Andrey’s friend in Slobodka	82	162	6
Moishe Arender	Hershke’s father	82	163	34
Olimpiada Nezhinskaya	Andrey’s grandmother, Aleksandra Prikhodko’s mother	83	164	69
Natalya Yushchinskaya	Andrey’s aunt, Sister of his mother	87	173	279
Fyodor Nezhinsky	Andrey’s uncle, Half-brother of his mother	93	185	317
Vasily Simak	Held bill of debt To Andrey’s biological father	102	204	636
A. Nezhinskaya	Fyodor’s wife	106	211	738
Luka Prikhodko	Andrey’s stepfather Twice suspected of the murder	110	221	963
Ehlansky	One of two boys who found Andrey’s body. Note the “papers with punctures” issue	115	231	1118
Sinitsky	Reported the body to Lukyanovka Police Station, medic at that station	117	237	1300

 

© Patricia Jo Heil, 2013-2018 All Rights Reserved

OB and a short rant

What do you call somebody who moves to a more expensive area and can't learn to make ends meet, can't drive the speed limit and racks up tickets, brings a car that keeps breaking down and blames it on the new city, had a bike stolen and pretends that nobody ever steals bikes back home, gets hurt and thinks it has something to do with the new location?

A child who expects everybody else to make life perfect and resents having to do anything that was somebody else's idea.

Did I mention that this person has been in a relationship for 9 years without pulling the trigger and getting married?

S'what I'm talking about.

Not somebody I know.  Not somebody I want to know.

© Patricia Jo Heil, 2013-2018 All Rights Reserved