CONFUSED STORY

Stratford Evening Post, Volume II, Issue 222, 18 April 1933, Page 5

CONFUSED STORY

—; . I Oleinik's Evidence EXAMINATION OF MONK- | HOUSE I British Wireless j Rugby, April 16.—At yesterday evening's session of the Mos- j cow trial Oleinik's evidence con- ; tinued. He was at first led by the j prosecution into accusations j against Monkhouse and then against Nordwall. ! Oleinik is somewhat confused in | his story ,at one moment referring j to Nordwall, for whom he expressed ; personal animosity, as a "very ex- I perienced spy," and afterwards stat- . lng that, he was afraid to give Nordwall spying information since be j suspected Nordwall of being likely j to report him to the Soviet author'!- j ties. Oleinik got into further d'fficultisa j when he challenged Nordwall to re I peat a conversation he had with Gre-

gory regarding wrecking, and then himself asked counsel to define the term "wrecking."

Monkhouse then gave his evidence in chief and was questioned by the president of the court about his activities at Archangel and his acquaintance with Richards there and elsewhere. He described details of breakdowns involving machinery supplied by his firm and admitted obtaining general information to give his firm data for determining its credit policy.

Further questions were then put to Monkhouse, and in the course of an argument with the prosecutor, he admitted that the time of uninterrupted question-

ing in prison, during which he

had been asked to confess, might have been shorter than 18 hours.

On the court reassembling this morning the prosecution asked for the inclusion in the documents of the. prison time sheets. This was permitled.

Monkhouse asked for the inclusion of correspondence rebutting Oleinik's evidence. This was refused. Eight questions by Monkhouse were then submitted to the expert commission attached to the court, and the court adjourned until the evening, when the concluding address by the prosecution is expected to begin. M. vishinsky accused Monkhouse and Thornton of attempting to insult the court in accordance with London instructions and ridiculed the allegations that they were subjected to third degree or a "frame-up."

M. Vishinsky added: "Oieinik and Madanio Kutosova are the most detestable of Russian enemies. The accused are natural saboteurs, but cannot be pardoned. The Soviet does not fear them. Monkhouse's and Thornton's crimes are too disgusting for word,,; they are worse than the Russian prisoners."