“LOST MY NERVE”

Poverty Bay Herald, Volume LX, Issue 18064, 15 April 1933, Page 7

“LOST MY NERVE”

CONFESSIONS EXPLAINED .ABNORMAL PRESSURE DETAILS OF THE EVIDENCE MACDONALD LAME AND EXHAUSTED #J (Elec. Tel. Copyright—United Press Assn.) (Received April 15, 11 a.m.) MOSCOW, April 13. When the trial-of the-British-pri-soners was resumed the court was half empty, as to-day is a full working day. MacDonald’s care-worn face again contrasted strongly with' the confident appearance of the other Britons.

The first witness, Sokolov, assistant director at Zlatoust, said he started sabotage alone in 1927, but MacDonald and Guiscv in 1930 became members of a counter-revolutionary organisation.

MacDonald interrupted: “I did not tell Sokolov to commit sabotage.” The prosecutor: Why did you say so i.n the indictment? . .

"MacDonald “replieflr - “T‘ Considered it convenient in the. circumstances, and with no translation of my statement made in my presence, I admitted I was guilty yesterday.” Tho prosecutor: And do you say so to-day? MacDonald: No, T actually am not guilty. MacDonald’s denial of guilt caused a profound sensation, in the midst of which the microphones failed, and the public were unable to understand what happened. BAD IMPRESSION CREATED Standing straight, MacDonald, in cool, calculated, terms, denounced the statements contained in the indict-, mont written in his own hand. He denied paying Sokolov for information but said he paid Guisev and others 2500 roubles- for overtime partly from his own pocket. Cross examined, he said ho had admitted systematic wreckage, and military espionage, and had obtained information about guns and aeroplanes. The prosecutor asked, “Why?” Tho reply was: “I was merely personally interested.” This caused a stir and laughter. MacDonald added that ho understood Thornton ‘ was head of the espionage group, and Monkhouse and Cushny wore also spies. M. Ulrich interposed: “Why do you make yourself look foolish in the eyes of the public?”

MacDonald: I don’t think I’m foolish. • . .

MacDonald’s evidence created* a bad impression on the court on account of discrepancies.

Thornton was called and said he had admitted paying for secret information and bribing employees to overlook defects in the Metro-Vickers machinery, because he was afraid. Asked why he gave untrue testimony, lie replied: “Because I had lost my nerve while under arrest, and the serious charges made a heavy impression upon me,” NL Ulrich: When did your nerve return? CONFLICT OF EVIDENCE

Thornton (emphatically): On .April 4, at (J o’clock, when I was released from prison. Continuing, he denied that MacDonald gave him secret information concerning military plants, aeroplane engines and gun testing. During the cross-examination .of MacDonald and Thornton it was revealed'that the alleged testimony of each had been read to tho other. MacDonald said: “I was affected by Thornton’s testimony in which he said he used me to collect information. I considered it useless for me to deny it.” Thornton said: ‘‘They read me the evidence of Monkhouse and MacDonald, which affected me very much.” The question as to whose evidence came first was not cleared up

There was a further conflict of evidence when Thornton declared that he did not know that MacDonald was occupied in sabotage or spying, or he would have kicked him out.

MacDonald interjected: ‘‘Yes, he knew' about the spying.” He then limped out of the box in which he had been accommodated with-a chair, owing to lameness and exhaustion. Thornton, denied asking engineers to supply secret information. He said he could not remember whether he asked Guisev for it, ‘‘ALL ENGAGED.IN SPYING”. MacDonald, intervening, admitted collecting information through Guisev and transmitting it to Thornton, who thereupon repeated his declaration that he received only information interesting to his company. Mile Kutuzova contradicted Monkhouse’s evidence, giving numerous sources whence information had been allegedly obtained. She declared Monkhouse and Thornton had secret books and documents, which Thornton took to London. ‘‘All our espionage was performed through Richards, myself and Monkhouse, under Richards’ instructions,” she said. All tho British personnel, totalling 28, were engaged m spying.” Thornton, in evidence, said he wanted to retract his deposition as untrue. It was written under nbnor mal pressure, and after long interrogation. He added that the Vickersites were collecting only harmless information.

M. Vyshinsky asked: “Have you any desire for sabotage? ’ ’ Thornton: I always build up, never destroy. Monkhouse, in evidence, said: ‘‘l am not guilty of any crimes exmopt giving Dolgov 3000 roubles, which might be regarded as a bribe, to advance the firm’s interest, Dolgov being a member of tho Commission of Experts.” Ire added: ‘‘l did not write the document which I signed concerning the transaction.” Tho proceedings were adjourned, tho Britons returning to the Embassy in a motor car flying the Union Jack. A GOOD FRIDAY SITTING The court sat to-day. Good Friday not being recognised as a holiday by Soviet Russia. Dolgov, a middle-aged controller of the Electrical Inspection Department, gave evidence that Thornton on July 12, 1932, gave him a bribe of 3'ooo roubles. “Thornton opened a drawer exposing money,” he said. “The blood rushed to my eyes. I then decided to take the money, but the same day informed the authorities and handed the money to tho procurator.” Thornton, when questioned, admitted that he gave Dolgov the money, but insisted that it was only a loan in response) to Dolgov'# entreaties as

Ire wanted to buy a flat. “I categorically deny that It was in any way a bribe.”

Dolgov admitted that Thornton had not asked him to perform any service for the money. “I understood that I was expected to conceal defects found In Vickers’ machinery,” he said. "Nobody else employed by Vickers ever offered me money.”