Verdict in Moscow Trial

Hawke's Bay Tribune, Volume XXIII, Issue 107, 19 April 1933, Page 7

Verdict in Moscow Trial

No Death Sentences Passed

Thornton Gets Three Years

Gregory Acquitted

[United Press Association—By Cable—Copyright.] (Received 19, 11.40 a.m.) MOSCOW, April 18

None of the accused was sentenced to death. Thornton was sentenced to three years’ and Macdonald to two years’ imprisonment. Cushny, Nordwall and Monkhouse were ordered to be deported within three days. Gregory was acquitted. Mlle. Kutusova was sentenced to eighteen months’ and Guesev and Lobanov to ten years’ imprisonment; Sukharoutchkin, ten years’ imprisonment; Sokolov, Yorin and Kotlyarevsky, eight years’ imprisonment; Krasehenninikov, five years’ imprisonment; Oleinik, three years’ imprisonment; Lebedev, two years’ imprisonment. Seibert was acquitted.

FINAL SCENES. .

SPEECHES FOR DEFENCE. | (Received 19, 11.15 a.m.) MOSCOW, April 18. Newspapers signalled the last day of the trial by whipping up a tremendous spy scare, copiously referring to BruceLockhart, O’Reilly, Colonel Lawrence, and other alleged British spies. The newspapers generally demanded death penalties in order to demonstrate the Soviet’s strength. “Pravda” declares that the Vickers’ employees were preparing for war. The Court was packed and excited. At the resumption, Ilya Braude, who has been the defending counsel in many Soviet trials, said that any bribes that Thornton foolishly gave were for economic information and not for espionage. Braude spoke for forty-five minutes, but was generally unconvincing. On the other hand, Dalmatovsky, defending Gregory aud Nordwall, immediately made good points. For instance: “Lobanov, Oleinik and Thornton gave evidence against Nordwall, but the prosecutor had called them ‘abject immoral types,’ so that their evidence is discredited as worthless.” He demanded Nordwall-’s acquittal. Dalmatovsky’s plea emphasising Nordwall’s attachment to his Russian wife and his family life, also his pro-Bolshevist sympathies, strengthened Nordwall’s prospects. Counsel decided that it was unnecessary to plead for Gregory, whose release was regarded as certain. Cushny’s counsel, Lidoff, declared that there were insufficient documents to incriminate the prisoner. Moreover, the charges were based partly on the breakdown at Baku in 1928, concerning which testimony was only now forthcoming. Cushny was alleged to be guilty of bribery because he lent small sums to workers, who sometimes failed to repay them. Cushny received political and economic, not military, information. He was interested in everything Russian, but not from a spy’s viewpoint. Kodomox, defending Monkhouse, opened unconvincingly, like Braude, causing a frown on Monkhouse’s lined and careworn face, and an expression of profound pessimism. Kodomov said that though long residence in Russia formed a bond between Thornton and Monkhouse, the evidence showed that Thornton did not tell Monkhouse all about his activities. Monkhouse could not have been the central figure of the group, as the prosecution alleged, because Sokolov and MacDonald did not name him, though they implicated Thornton. Kodomov pleaded with the judges not to confuse Monkhouse with Thornton, who was himself clearly the central figure, and who had attempted to implicate Monkhouse. Kodomov’s omission to ask the judges to acquit Monkhouse and his failure to mention Monkhouse’s sensational charge that the trial was a frame-up caused surprise. ACCUSED ADDRESS COURT. At the conclusion of counsel’s speeches the prisoners were permitted to address the Court. Cushny said: “My counsel has torn to shreds the accusations against me. Whatever the verdict, I shall leave the Court an honest man. ’ ’ MacDonald, speaking in a dull monotone, said: “I have acknowledged my guilt, and I have nothing to add.” Nordwall said: “It was painful to hear the remarks of the prosecutor. I always did my work honestly and did all 1 could to help the Soviet. The Ogpu have treated me fairly, and the trial has been most fair. I am not guilty, and remain a friend of the Soviet Union.” Thornton said: “I pleaded not guilty at the beginning of the trial, and still do. The evidence against me is unreliable, that’s all.” Monkhouse said: “I am absolutely innocent. lam certain that Thornton did not voluntarily sign the confession implicating me in the spying. I don’t believe that the documents would hold good iu any Court abroad. Regarding the wrecking, I never knew a mother to plunge a dagger into the heart of her children. I have never bribed, and I never will. The Ogpu found no bribe in the firm’s books.” Gregory declared his innocence. All the Russians, including Mlle. Kutusova aud Sokolov, pleaded guilty. JUDGES RETIRE. The judges then retired to consider the verdict and those with experience | of Anglo-Saxon courts ruefully reflected how a first-rate British lawyer would have annihilated the prosecution’s case and devoted the whole day, not 45 minutes, to tearing the Ogpu to shreads. The obvious inhibitions upon the Russian counsel and the Soviet’s different conception of their duties and liberties remain the most unconvincing ‘ aspect of the trial.

SPEECHES BY COUNSEL.

(British Official Wireless.! RUGBY, April 18. The morning session of the Moscow trial was opened by a speech by Thornton’s counsel, who cast doubt on the evidence of the other accused against Thornton, pointing out: “Wrecking is not a new crime in Russia, and it is unnecessary to assume that the Russians guilty of wrecking were under Thornton’s control.” As far as Thornton’s own admissions were concerned, Gregory was as much inculpated as Thornton himself, yet the prosecution was not proceeding with the charge against Gregory. He then discredited Mlle. Kutusova’s evidence, suggesting the unlikelihood of Monkhouse and Thornton “discussing information and planning wreckage.” He added: “What in England is considered as economic information is here in the Soviet Union covered by a law regarding military espionage.” Ho concluded by stating that outside the Soviet “so-called commissions” were taken as a matter of course and the “bribes’’ given by Thornton were not inducements to wrecking. These facts should be considered in Thornton’s favour. i | Nordwall’s counsel described the transaction in which Nordwall was alleged to have given a fur coat as a bribe as one which Nordwall had considered of no importance, and therefore had forgotten it. This accounted for any contradictions in his statement referring to it. There was no evidence that the undefined information given by Nordwall regarding the Red Army was in any way incriminating. He recommended his acquittal. Cushny's counsel said that his client’s large acquaintance amongst Russians was no evidence that ho was collecting information. There was in particular no evidence that he was collecting military information. Turning to the fact that Cushny had refused to answer questions during his examination counsel said that this did not imply guilt. The fact that he could not explain defects and machinery breakdowns would not shop that he was responsible for wrecking. Monkhouse’s counsel said that al! foreigners in Russia were interested >n the development of tho country and this was no evidence of espionage. Monkhouse had denied participation in espionage or machinery wrecking. His admissions involved only a bribe. Tho only evidence against Monkhouse was provided by Oleinik and Mlle. Kutusova. The former denied supplying information before 1928, while since 1928 ho had not been connected with Monkhouse. Mlle. Kutusova’s evidence did not contain any concrete facts. Discussing the likelihood of Monkhouse being guilty of any of the charges, he described him as “one of a majority of foreign specialists who have given instruction to us in an honest, straightforward and conscientious way.” Counsel dealt with what Monkhouse described as the present given to Dolgov and urged that Monkhouse could not have considered it a bribe ♦hen given. It was a transaction between Thornton and Dolgov sanctioned by Richards. He asked the Court to judge the ease only on its merits, and this would mean acquittal. After counsel for the Russian accused had made speeches pleading extenuating circumstances for their clients, the final statements of all the accused were made. Monkhouse made a statement at some length. Ho repudiated the prosecutor’s allegations that he misinformed the British Embassy regarding his interrogation in prison and showed the complete inaccuracy of tho prosecutor’s calculations of the period of his examination. Monkhouse claimed that he had always valued his association with the development of Soviet industry and it was inexplicable that he should be accused of wrecking it. BRITISH POLICY. IMPORTS PROHIBITION BILL. (Received 19, 11.5 3a.m.) LONDON, April 18. The “Daily Telegraph’s’> political correspondent says that a hurriedly summoned Cabinet meeting decided that if sentences of imprisonment were passed on th,? British prisoners, swift action would be taken in accordance with the Russian Goods Import Prohibition Act. Authority In the matter was delegated to Sir John Simon. It was stated that th,e accused men have no right of appeal if convicted.