Arguments of the Defence

Manawatu Times, Volume LVI, Issue 7136, 20 April 1933, Page 7

Arguments of the Defence

“BRIBES FOR ECONOMIC INFOR-

MATION.”

THORN-TON REGARDED AS CENTRAL FIGURE

MOSCOW, April 18. The Court was packed and excited at its resumption.

Ilya Braude, who has been the defending counsel at many Soviet trials, said that ar.y bribes which Thornton foolishly gave were for economic information, not espionage.

Braude spoke for forty-five minutes, but was generally unconvincing. On the other hand, Dalmatovsky, who was defending Gregory and Nordwall, immediately made good points, as, for instance, 4 'Lobanov, Oleinik and Thornton gave evidence against Nordwall, but the prosecutor called them abject, immoral types, so their evidence is discredited and worthless.” He demanded Nordwall’s acquittal.. Dalmatovsky’s plea emphasising Nordwall’s attachment to his Russian wife, his family life, also his pro-Bol-shevik sympathies, strengthened Nordwall’s prospects. Counsel decided that it was un- , necessary to plead for Gregory, ■whose release was regarded as certain.

■Cushny ’3 counsel, Lidoff, declared that there were insufficient documents to incriminate the prisoner. Moreover, he submitted, the charges were based partly on a breakdown at Baku in 1928, concerning which testimony was only now forthcoming. Cusliny 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, but not military, information. He was interested in everything Russian, but not from a spy's viewpoint.

Kodomov, who was defending Monkhouse, opened unconvincingly, like Brande, causing a frown on Monkhouse’s lined, careworn face, and an expression of profound pessimism.

Kodomov said that, though long residence in Russia had formed a bond between Thornton and Monkhouse, tho evidence showed that Thornton did not tell Monkhouse all about his activities. Monkhouse could not have beeD the central figure in 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.

[Russian Press Propaganda

WORKING UP A SPY SCARE. MOSCOW, April IS. Newspapers signalised the last day of the trial by whipping up a tremendous spy scare, copiously referring to Bruce Lockhart, 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 Vickers employees were preparing for war.