SOVIET TRIAL

Hokitika Guardian, 19 April 1933, Page 5

SOVIET TRIAL

THE SUMMING UP

CHARGES BY PROSECUTION.

(British Official W^eless.)

RUGBY, Afpril 17.

At the Moscow trial M. Vyshin s ky .th e prosecutor, said that Monkhouse, i, n endeavouring to discredit the prelimin-

• ary examination, and .'also the Court, was following a line extracted from ' the first; British white . .paper;'• The Court would do a great service to humanity if it showed British public opinion th e way in which it had Been bo cruelly hoodwinked. Th'e first liar m the campaign, of mobilising. British public opinion' was probably ,Monkhou s e. ' .' . .

iVA * Vyshinsky., divided the accusations under three, headings : (1) wrecking; (2) military espionage, - and (3) bribery. He said that tlie crime 1 , was well understood as far as espionage' was concerned. The provisions 0 f the, law did not apply to persons who informed themselves of such facts as the " crop yield or the difficulties experienced in socialist constructioni He contrasted thp foreign laws relating to'espionage with the Soviet law, which;. -h, O said, Was 'drafted in ,accordancewith the peculiarities of the Soviet State, just the laws o,f , other countries were drafted in accordance with their o wn peculiarities. Dealing with the Bribery issue, Yyahinksy edited / English: - Acts and fie reminded t-hA Soviet '‘.accused that, according to the English laws, bribes were punished both in the case of the giver and;, of the receiver. The Soviet’s law was even.- more severe. Ha said; “In• the whole of our criminal code, bribery is-:the biggest crime, as it is an attempt pf n n enemy t 0 disorganise our country.” Discussing breakdowns, he srid that it would be necessary to tak, Q into account that “we have befor e us such facts as the confessions tof' of the accused.” He discussed the legislation of different countries in this respect, stating: “In Eng’and, confession obviates the necessity of proving charges.” . Proof, ip' 'theb Ipresent <c?se had been s 0 Irrefutable that the Court’s attitude toward only one person had changed since the indictment wa,s read. He continued: “We have never had in any other case such conclusive proof of guilt, It is a brilliant case from the prosecution’s point of view.”

Dealing with MacDonald’s case, Vyshinsky eMd that MacDonald had told him that he had been overcome bv the weight of evidence against him. (Vyshinsky turned to G-uesev; ' and, ■accusing him of doing wrecking. acts at Thornton’s instigation', s aid that Thornton had explained his object in Using “a network of spies’’ was to obtain information | regarding the 'defensive and offensive capacities of the Soviet, He continued: “Well, Thornton, we do not want war, but we are To dy for it! Let Thornton try, and then .he would find out what our delusive capacities are.”

The ,prasecuto r admitted that, the information which he alleged Thornton had Requested from ''MacDonald was “not exactly defined,” but claimed th 't it included- information regarding' military enterprises. I’f MacDonald’s confessions were not true, what had he gained by making them ? Referring to Thornton’s notebooks regarding monetary transacatiors, Vyshinsky said ; “After- w, 9 have finished dealing with Thornton here, he will also have to give an account of his crimes oyer there when he goes back.” Vyshinsky admitted that MacDonald’s 'confessions wer e “not absolutely straightforward,” explained that this was because he was an experienced spy, and had burnt his correspondence, which might have "been useful to the 0.G.P.T7.

After a short adjournment Vyshinsky resumed with an attack on NordiWia’ll. stating: “If w e are asked whether our grounds are sufficient to charge Nordwall, we can answer with the firmest conviction that they are more than sufficient. He wa« obviously in touch with -wreckers, and concealed defects in .Metro. Vickers' equipment, .gave bribes, and- supplied information to Thornton.”

After a. long discussion regarding the (sum- with which the prosecution claimed 'Nordwall had bribed Lobanov, f Vyshinsky said' “Nordwall vcannot get away from this coat, and will-have to wear it himself.- It is a warm coat, and he will need it,” He concluded his attack on Nordwall by referring- to him as one of those mentioned in the statement to which the Prosecution had .secured Thornton’s signature (since repudiated), which give's a list of twenty-seven past and present employees of Vickers ‘in Russia, and which described them a.s members of an organisation for espionage.