CULMINATION PHASE

Northern Advocate, 19 April 1933, Page 5

CULMINATION PHASE

ADDRESSES BY COUNSEL WEIGHTY ARGUMENTS. ON BEHALF OF ACCUSED. (British Official Wireless.) (Received 2.J0 p.m.) ' RUGBY, April .IS,

The morning session of the Moscow trial was opened by the speech of Mr Thornton 's counsel, who-cast doubt on the evidence of the other accused against Mr Thornton. He also pointed out that, ‘•wrecking is not a new crime in Russia, and it is unnecessary to assume that Russians were guilty of wrecking or were under Mr Thornton's control."

As far as Mr Thornton’s own admissions were concerned, Mr Gregory was as much implicated as Mr Thornton himself, yet the prosecution was not proceeding with the charge against Mr Gregory. He then discredited Madame Kntosova’s evidence, suggesting the unlikelihood of Mr Monkhouse and Air Thornton “discussing information and planning wreckage.’ ’

He added: “What in Britain is considered as economic information is here, in the Soviet Union, covered by the law regarding military espionage.”

■ He concluded by stating- that outside the '.Soviet “so-called commissions * were taken as a mattoi of course, and the “bribes” given by Mr Thornton were not inducements to wrecking. These facts should be considered in Mr Thornton’s favour.

Fur Coat Transaction. Mr Nordwall’s cmfnsel described the transaction in which Mr Nordwall is .alleged to have given a fur coat as a bribe, as one which Mr Nordwall had considered of no importance and therefore had forgotten it. This accounted for any contradictions in his statement. There was no evidence that the undo--fined information given by Mr Nordwall regarding the Red Army was in any way incriminating. Ho recommended acquittal.

Mr Cushny’s counsel said that his client’s large acquaintance among Russians was no evidence that ho had been Collecting information. There was in particular" no evidence that he was collecting military information. Turning to the fact that Mr Cushny had refused to answer questions during the examination, counsel said that this, did not imply guilt. The fact that lie could not -explain defects and machinery, breakdowns would not show that he was responsible for wrecking.

• Mr Monkhouse’s counsel said that all foreigners in Russia were interested in the development of the country. This was no evidence of espionage. Mr Monkhonse had denied participation in espionage or machinery wrecking and his admission involved only a bribe. The only evidence against him was provided by Oleinik and Madame Kuiosova. The former denied supplying information before 1928, while since 1928 she was not connected with Mr Monkhonse. Madame Kntosova’s evidence did not contain any concrete facts.

Honest Intention. Discussing the likelihood of Mr Monkhonse being guilty of any charges, he described him as “one of the majority of foreign specialists who gave instructions to us in an honest straightforward and''conscientious way.” Counsel dealt with what Mr Monkhonse de-scribed-as a present given to M. Dolgov, and urged that Mr Monkhonse could not have, considered'it as a bribe when given. It was a transaction between Mr Thornton and M, Dolgov, sanctioned by Mr Richards, the British Charge d’Affairs.

He asked the court to judge the case only on its merits, and this would mean acquittal.

■ After counsel for the Russian accused had made their speeches, pleading extenuating circumstances for their. clients, the final statements of all the accused were made.

Mr. Monkhouse made a statement at some length. He repudiated the prosecutor’s allegation, that he • had misinformed the British Embassy regarding his interrogations In prison, and ho showed complete inaccuracy in the prosecutor’s calculations of the period of examination;

Mr. 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.