UNDER PRESSURE

Northern Advocate, 17 April 1933, Page 5

UNDER PRESSURE

SIGNED IN PRISON THORNTON STATEMENTS. ' MACHINERY DEFECTS. KNOWN TO MANAGEMENT,

(British Official Wireless.) RUGBY, April .15,

At the trial of the Vickers Company’s employees, the prosecution obtained from Madame Kutosova, secretary of the Vickers Company’s Moscow office, and from other Russians who had pleaded guilty, general statements to the effect that Thornton had engaged in espionage. Madame. Entosova also alleged that Monkhouse and Thornton had not hesitated to discuss their plans for machine-wrecking in. her presence.

Thorn ton then admitted that Mr C. T. Richards, the Vickers Company’s London manager, also -was interested in information about' the Soviet Union. When the latter’s past as an intelligence officer in 1918 tvas mentioned a murmur of interest ran through the court.

The prosecutor, being unable to secure a desired admission of espionage from Thornton, showed him a ° / ’ statement inculpating ' himself and others signed by him in prison. He denied all the incriminating passages and pointed out that when he made it he was in such a state that he would have written anything. He wrote under moral pressure. The prosecution then turned to the question of money passed by Thornton to his English subordinates and to Russians. Madame Kutosova, questioned in this connection, confirmed all her depositions made in prison regarding Thornton’s monetary transactions.

Loan Written Off. The only transaction admitted by the. defence, however, was explained by Monkhouse as a loan to Dolgov, which subsequently was written off.. In questioning Krashetnimikov at the trial today, Thornton was able to show that all the defects in machinery ?o which Russia had referred, were well-known to the management of the electrical station.

At one stage of the examination by the prosecutor, Krashetnimikov was asked if he understood the difference between a Soviet citizen carrying .out (wrecking activities and a ...foreigner doing so. Ho said he understood it was treason in the former case.

John Cushhy did not accept the apparent implication of the prosecution that his extensive acquaintances among hie fellow engineers was prima facie evidence of his guilt. He said the Russians who were giving evidence against him were perjuring themselves, and repeated this phrase when the prosecutor suggested that he meant they were not telling the truth.

At the' end of his examination Gushny asked permission to make a statement, but was told by the president it must be postponed.

Bribery Accusation. The latter part of the session was spent in, further examination by the prosecutor of Oleinik. This was again directed against Thornton, who, according to Oleinik, had arranged for part' of the latter’s salary to be paid to him in England. His statement that 2000 roubles were transferred to his English account was .difficult to reconcile with the amount of his salary. He continued his allegation against Thornton of bribery for machinewrecking “at lots of places,” but could only-quote one of them. Oleinik also stated that he provided military information, but when, ho was questioned it transpired that-the information was based on his observation that troops were travelling in one train while ho was travelling in another.

■ Oleinik explained that, his espionage work was in the interest of a certain group and not in the interest of the Vickers Company. Another Russian accused, Zivert, said Thornton had bribed him for providing information and delaying erection work. Ho also accused Gregory, one of the British prisoners, of prppaganda, ■

As Zivert’s evidence Gregory insisted upon making a state? mont on the grounds, that his professional efficiency had been impugned. Dseribing his work, at Dnieproetroi, he challenged anyone to show that it could have been done better or more

quickly. Another of the accused Russians, Sukhorut.ehkin, declared that he sabotaged two turbines affecting Moscow’s electricity supply by Thornton V; orders. The court adjourned at .11 p.m.