“A FRAME UP”

Poverty Bay Herald, Volume LX, Issue 18065, 17 April 1933, Page 5

“A FRAME UP”

RUSSIAN ALLEGATIONS DECLARATIONS IN COURT WITNESSES TERRORISED SUPPRESSION OF STATEMENTS (British Official Wireless.) Rec. 10 a.m. RUGBY, April 16. When the trial of the Metro-Vickers’ engineers was resumed in Moscow yesteiday, Alan Monkhouse asked to be allowed to make a statement. Ho was three times interrupted by tho president, but succeeded in stating in English that Shukhoruchkin’s evidence showed conclusively that the “whole case is a frame up” against Metro-Vickers, busod on the evidence of terrorised Russian prisoners. He got as far as saying that he knew front his own experience in being sub jected to 18 bouts’ uninterrupted in terrogation—when the president requested hint to postpone his statement till the proper time. Another of the Russians who pieadec gu.lty, Krsashenimikov, then gave evidence for the prosecution, alleging that he had been bribed by Thornton fot machine wrecking at Moscow electrical station, and also for espionage and con cealing defects in plant supplied by Metro-Vickers.

Tho prosecution secured similar evt dence from Zorin and Oleinik, who also ■leaded guilty, and the latter tried to incriminate Monkhouse as well,

In questioning Krsashetnimikov, Thornton was able to show that all the defects to which he referred were well known to the management of tho electrical station. * PERJURING THEMSELVES At one stage of the examination by the prosecution of tho witness, Krsashetniimk.>v was asked if lie understood tho difference between a Soviet citizen carrying out wrecking activities and a foreigner doing so, and he said he understood it was treason in the former case John Cushny was then examined. The prosecution questioned him in detail about his acquaintances among Russians, endeavoring to obtain admissions oi sspionage. Cushny answered fully, not ■.cceptiiig the apparent implication of the prosecution that his extensive acquaintance amongst his fellow Russian engineers was, prima facie, evidence of guilt. Cushny said the Russians who wero giving evidence against him were perjuring themselves, and repeated this phrase when the prosecution suggested that he meant that they were not telling the truth.

At the end of his examination, Cushny requested permission to make a statement, but was told by the president that xt must be postponed. The latter part of the session was spent in a further examination by the prosecution of Oleinik, again directed agiainst Thornton, who, according to Oleinik, arranged for part of the latter’s salary to be paid to him in England. His statement that 2000 roubles was transferred to an English account was difficult to reconcile with the amount of his salary. He continued his allegation against Thornton of bribery for machine wrecking at lots of places, but was only able to quote one of them. He also stated that he provided military information, but when questioned, it trans pired that the information was based on an observation that troops were travel ling in one train while he was travelling in another. * REASON FOR ESPIONAGE The session was closed by Oleinik explaining that his espionage work was i» the interests of a certain group, and not in the interests of Metro-Vickers. At yesterday evening’s session Lebedev, another Russian accused who pleaded guilty, was examined. The prosecution obtained from him a similar story to that told in the morning session by his fellow accused, Lobanov, aimed at incriminating Nordwall. ; Nordwall, giving evidence in a con fident, decisive manner, emphatically denied Lebedev's allegation of bribery for machine wrecking, and also subse quant allegations of the same kind made bv another Russian accused, Oleinik, who had been in the employ of MetroVickers or its associates for 20 years. The prosecution then took the evidence of another Russian accused, Ziveii, who said Thornton bribed him for providing information and delaying erecting work, and also accused Gregory of propaganda. As Zivert’s evidence concluded. Gregory insisted upon making a statement on the ground that his professional efficiency had been impugned, and, describing his work at Dnieprosroi, he challenged anyone to show that it could have been done better, or more quickly. STATEMENT IN COMMONS The latter part- of the session was devoted to an examination of Shukhoruemkin, who told the prosecution that Thornton bribed him for providing secret information, machine wrecking, and concealing defects in Metro-Vickers’ machinery at Moscow power station, statements which Thornton emphatically denied.

The session concluded with an examination of the history of Shukhoruchlan's political views, which ended in the latter stating that he had been working in the interests of the workers and peasants’ enemies. This statement was obtained as a result of putting to Shukhoruchkin the distinction between himself and Thornton, the latter of whom, in desiring the concealment of defective mach.nery, was said by the prosecution to be working in the interests of his firm.

The Foreign Secretary, Sir John Simon, has issued the following state mcnt supplementing that made by him n tho House of Commons on Thursday: Mr. Richards, who has been referred to in the Moscow trial, and who is now a director of Metro-Vickers, never has been an agent of the British Secret. Service. He served in the British army from May, 1918, to November, 1919, as lieutenant and captain, and was posted at Archangel as an ordinary officer. It is true that there he acted as an army intelligence officer on general service during these operations, but lie has had no connection whatever with any branch of the British service for the last 14 years."