THE SOVIET TRIAL

Hawke's Bay Tribune, Volume XXIII, Issue 105, 15 April 1933, Page 9

THE SOVIET TRIAL

TERRIBLE ORDEAL FORCING OF ADMISSIONS, CONFLICT OF EVIDENCE. British Official Wireless Service. RUGBY, April 13. Ln view of the nature of the charges mado against six British subjects at the Moscow trial, Sir John Simon made the following specific statement in the House of Commons. “None oi these men has ever been employed directly or indirectly tn connection with any branch of our intelligence service. None of them has ever supplied any information to any such branch. None of them has ever been paid or promised any reward for such information, or has been supplied with any money to obtain it. None of them has ever made any report to or on behalf of our intelligence service. “All the above statements are equally true of the MetropolitanVickers Company itself. The company has not and never has had any connection with our intelligence service whatever. It follows that any suspicions entertained or allegations made in any quarter to the contrary effect are, in fact, without any foundation whatever.” This morning the proceedings at the Moscow court opened with au examination of Sokolov, another of the Russian accused, who produced a similar story and confession to Guesev’s. TORTURE OF MACDONALD. MacDonald, however, when questioned, denied giving Thornton instructions for wrecking and espionage, and on the defence pointing out that he had admitted doing so in his depositions made in prison, he replied that it was convenient to make that statement at the time. He then retracted his plea of guilty which he made at the opening of the trial. Thornton was then called and said that he made false admissions in prison because he “lost his courage.” After the president of the court had endeavoured unsuccessfully to persuade MacDonald to revert to his plea of guilty, the court adjourned. This adjournment, during which MacDonald left the court in the hands of his Ogpu guards, was followed by a change in his behaviour, which was remarked by all observers. On resumption he was again questioned as to whether he admitted espionage, and replied in low tones in the affirmative. He also stated that the collective information involved was suggested by Thornton and that he presumed the other Metro-Vickerites engineers were implicated. He also admitted giving instructions for machine wrecking. The prosecutor then examined Thorntiun in reference to MacDonald obtaining information regarding the productiou of munitions. Thornton stating that this suggestion was an “absolute lie.” He also repudiated any part of his previous depositions admitting “any kind of espionage activities.” Alternately the examination of MacDonald and Thornton continued. MacDonald was accepting almost all suggestions put to him by the prosecutor, which, however, were strenuously denied by Thornton in his turn. At one stage a specific list of planned breakdowns was read to MacDonald from depositions made by him in prison and confirmed by him into the mouth of a microphone. Thornton again refused to confirm “accusations which he had read and signed” before leaving the Ogpr prison, and explained that the confessions which he had made were given in different surroundings, which frightened and influenced him into making statements which he wished to change. The president of the court observed: “Tou are sure that you are not getting this from somebody else?” THORNTON ANSWERS CHARGE. Thornton and MacDonald were further questioned regarding monetary transactions and the former was abls to produce documentary evidence that a large sum for which he bought roubles privately at a rate representing their greatly depreciated value and lent to MacDonald had been repaid by the latter. MacDonald, however, yielded to the prosecutor’s suggestion that this was not the only sum involved, and tho prosecutor succeeded also in obtaining an admission that even Monkhouse might have been concerned in payments on account of his illegal activities, since if one member of the firm was so occupied, perhaps others were. At this stage, shortly before the court adjourned, MacDonald was giving his evidence almost in a state of collapse and had already answered in reply to the prosecutor that he macle a certain petition jointly to the Ogpu and the prosecutor when in prison. Ho statefl riuri kc ma act wish to etetv i*

contents to the court at the present moment. The court then adjourned until tho evening. The proceedings yesterday continued until 10 o’clock last night. The morning session was devoted to moulding evidence in support of the charges of espionage, wrecking and bribery at Zlatoust and was occupied by the examination of Guesev, chief of the Zlatoust power station, one of the Russian accused, who made a complete ■ confession. He gave a history of his life, explaining that he fought with the White Army and subsequently retained his anti-Soviet views. In these views he said he met with the sympathy of MacDonald, who discussed with him among other things the deplorable living conditions in Russia. After a time ho said that MacDonald asked him to supply information about the production of munitions, and also stated that he had on MacDonald’s instructions arranged breakdowns, which he described at length, and that MacDonald paid him 3000 roubles for this work. FURTHER CONFLICT OF EVIDENCE There was further conflict of evidence when Thornton declared that he did not know that MacDonald was occupied in sabotage and spying or he would have kicked him out. MacDonald interjected; “Yes, he knew about the spying”, and then limped out of the box in whiefi he had been accommodated in a chair diving to lameness and exhaustion. Thornton denied asking engineers to supply secret information. He could not remember whether ho asked Guesev for it MacDonald, intervening, admitted collecting information through Guesev and transmitting it to Thornton, who thereupon repeated the declaration that he received only information interesting to the company. Monkhouse corrubrated, saying that we collected political and economic information for the company. Mlle. Kutusova contradicted Monkhouse’s evidence, giving numerous sources whence information allegedly was obtained. She declared that Monkhous and Thornton had secret books and documents which Thornton took to London. Viyshinsky then read Thornton’s deposition declaring: “All our espionage was performed through Richards and myself. Monkhouse was under Richard’s instructions All the British personnel, totalling twenty-eight, were engaged in spying.” Thornton, in evidence, said he wanted to retract the deposition as untrue and written under moral pressure after long interrogafton. He added that the Vickers men were collecting only harm, less information. V yshinsky asked: Have you any desire for sabotage? Thornton; I always build up, never destroy. Monkhouse, in evidence, said: 1 am not guilty of any crimes except giving Dolgov 3000 roubles which I regarded as a bribe to advance the firm's interest, Dolgov being a member of the commission of experts. I did not write the document which I signed coneeruing the transaction. The trial was adjourned, the Brito.is returning to the Embassy tu a mob. r car flying the Union Jack PROBECUTION METHODS. MacDonald's evidence created a bad impression in the court on account of discrepancies. Thornton said he had admitted paying for secret information, bribing employees to overlook defects in Metro-Vickers machinery, because he was afraid. Asked why he gave untrue testimony, he replied: “Because I had lost my nerve while under arrest and the serious charges made a heavy iniprcwwu upon ww,”