MOSCOW TRIAL

Poverty Bay Herald, Volume LX, Issue 18066, 18 April 1933, Page 6

MOSCOW TRIAL

ACCUSATIONS DIVIDED PROSECUTOR’S OUTLINE ‘CONCLUSIVE PROOF OF GUILT’ THORNTON’S TRANSACTIONS (British Official Wireless.) Rev. 2 p.m. RUGBY, April 17. At the Moscow trial i\l. Vyshinsky said that Monk Souse, in endeavoring to discredit the preliminary examination and the court, was following a line extracted from the first White Paper. The court would do a great service to humanity if it showed British public opinion the way it had been so cruelly hoodwinked. The first liar in the campaign for mobilising British public opinion was probably Monkhouso. M. Vyshinsky divided the accusations under three headings—wrecking, military espionage, and bribery. He said the crime was well understood as far as espionage was concerned. The provisions of the law did not apply to persons who informed themselves of such facts as the crop yield or the difficulties experienced in socialist construction. Ho contrasted the foreign Jaws relating to espionage with the Soviet Jaw, which, he said, was drafted in accordance with the peculiarities of the Soviet State, just as the laws of other countries were drafted iu accordance with their own peculiarities.

Dealing with bribery, M. Vyshinsky cited the English Acts, and reminded the Soviet accused that according to English laws bribes were punished both in the case of the giver and receiver. The Soviet's law was even more severe. “In the whole of our criminal code bribery is the biggest crime, as it is ail attempt of the enemy to disorganse our country,” he declared. Discussing the breakdowns, he said it would be, necessary to take into account the fact that “we have before us such facts as the confessions of some, of the accused.”

lie discussed the legislation in different countries iu tiiis respect, stating that “in England a confession obviates the necessity of proving charges. Proof in tlie present case had been so irrefutable that the court’s attitude towards only one person had changed since the indictment was read.

“Wo have never had in any other case such conclusive proof of guilt.” he exclaimed. “It is a brilliant ease from the prosecution’s point of view.” Dealing with MacDonald, he said that MacDonald had told him he had been overcome bv the. weight of the evidence against him. ACCUSED OF WRECKING ACTS

M. Vyshinsky turned to Guesev, and, accusing him of wrecking acts at Thornton's instigation, said that Thornton bad explained that his object in using a “network” of spies was to obtain information regarding defensive and offensive capacities of the army. “He admitted that the information which he alleged Thornton had requested from MacDonald was “not exactly defined,” but claimed it included information regarding military enterprises. If MacDonald’s confessions were not true, what had he to gain by making them. Referring to Thornton’s notebooks regarding monetary transactions. M. Vyshinsky said : “After we have, finished dealing with Thornton here he will also have to give an account of his crimes over there when he goes back.” M. Vyshinsky admitted that MacDonald’s confessions were “not absolutely straightforward,” explaining this was because lie was ail experienced spy and had burnt his correspondence, which might have been useful to the Ogpu. After a short adjournment M. Vyshinsky resumed with an attack on Nordwall, stating: “If wo are asked whether our grounds are sufficient to charge Nordwall, wo can answer with the firmest conviction that they are more than sufficient, lie was obviously in touch with wreckers and concealed defects in Metropolitan-Vickers’ equipment, gave bribes, and supplied information to Thornton.”

After a long discussion regarding the sum with which tho prosecution claimed Nordwall had bribed Lobanov, M. Vyshinsky said : “Nordwall cannot get away from this coat and will have to wear it himself. Tt is a warm coat and he will need it.” lie concluded with an attack on Nordwall, referring to him as “one of those mentioned in the statement to which the prosecution secured Thornton’s signature (since repudiated), which gives a list of 27 past and present employees of Metropolitan-Vickers in Russia and described them as members of an organisation for espionage.”

DEATH SENTENCES UNLIKELY DANGER OF IMPRISONMENT PROSECUTOR’S BITING PHRASES ATTACK ON THORNTON (Elec. Tel. Copyright-—United Press Assn.) (Received April 18, 2 p.m.) MOSCOW, April 17. The general impression among the correspondents is that death sentences on the Englishmen are unlikely, but that there is a grave danger of imprisonment. Tho British United Press’ correspondent adds:—“From conversations with well-informed Soviet economists .1 gather that the Government does not intend to use the trial as a pretext for denouncing the debt, to Mctropoli-tan-Vickers. My informants believe that the Soviet is most unlikely to impair its record for the 'punctual payment of foreign obligations.” It is understood that two of the Vickers’ employees, Buckle and Burke, are ready to continue in Russia to fulfil outstanding contracts if the firm so desires. As for the court scenes, tlie only laugh of the afternoon was when Vyshinsky said that .the Englishmen not only paid the Russian prisoners for espionage and sabotage, “but paid them stingily.” The prosecutor’s most biting phrases were reserved for Thornton and Millie. Kntusova.

Of Mildle. Kutosovn lie said: “Rolling in a luxurious motor ear lietween Moscow and Perlovka she sold herself for money and her ambitions to make a foreign career, but her full confession must be considered in passing sentence.”

Millie, Kutusova’s face twitched as M. Vyshinsky made insinuations as to her morals i am! she was near to tears. *‘ WORSE THAN COWARDICE”

The closing speech was devoted to an attack on Thornton, Turning to the dock, lie said. “You coward by nature, within ?4 hours you confessed, betraying mid endangering the heads of 27 fellow countrymen. That is not a lie. It was worse than