Presiding Judge Ullrich opened the court, and his first order of business was to identify the defendants officially. Then he loudly announced that the defendants all refused to hire lawyers and could therefore defend themselves.
One might wonder: Why did all sixteen defendants refuse the help of a lawyer when they knew that the court would decide their fate? You know, the lawyer could at least say a few words for them – it is the lawyer’s duty. In fact, there is a reason for this strange phenomenon, and it is quite simple: before the trial, all the defendants were forced to give an assurance to the Ministry of Internal Affairs that they would refuse to hire a lawyer. What’s more, they were forced to promise that they would never say a word in their own defense in court. Sure enough, in court, whenever they were asked if they had any questions to defend themselves, they always answered in unison: no.
After the state prosecutor read out the indictment, the court began questioning the defendants. Over the course of three days of inquisitorial questioning, the defendants recounted a terrorist plan that appeared to have been conspired for years. However, neither the prosecutor nor the defendants were able to give any examples of this plan being carried out. The exception, of course, was the assassination of Kirov, but we already know that Kirov was assassinated by Stalin himself, organized by Yagoda and Kompolojets.
After this trial, Stalin blamed another group of old Bolsheviks for Kirov’s murder. In 1937 and 1938, he put them in the dock at the Moscow trial. In short, the Kirov case became one of Stalin’s “winning” and secretly marked Trump cards in this despicable and protracted game of cards.
Although the prosecutors could not produce any evidence that Zinoviev, Kamenev and the other old Bolsheviks had participated in Kirov’s assassination, the defendants themselves confessed to the crime one by one. Smirnov was the only one who dared to tease the public prosecutor. In reply to Vyshinsky’s questions, he said, without mockery, that in his opinion there was only one thing that was not in doubt, namely, that all these charges were false. More than once he implied with bitter irony that the story of the so-called conspiracy was a forgery through and through. His words made Wisinski storm. Of course, Smirnov had to concede to each specific issue raised by the prosecutor, but before he did so, he always made a “difficult” case about the whole charge, to cast doubt on it, and only then magnanimously conceded to the specific issue, saying.
“Well, let’s say that’s the case. ……”
Smirnov’s “confession” statement was full of such bitter and sarcastic tones. In response, Vyshinsky, in his prosecution statement, specifically emphasized.
“Smirnov is the most intransigent, the most obsessive. He admits only the crime of being the leader of the Trotskyist counter-revolutionary underground. Yes, he admitted his guilt. But the attitude is extremely cynical.”
When Vyshinsky accused Smirnov of being the leader of the underground “United Headquarters”, and when Murachkovsky, Dretsel and Par Vaganian stood up to testify to this accusation, Smirnov’s answer to them drew an outcry of laughter, despite the fact that the audience had been strictly selected and trained beforehand. At that moment, Smirnov turned to face Murachkovsky and Dretsel and said, “What, you still need a leader? Well, choose me!”
Although the defendants fulfilled their “obligations” in the preliminary hearing, Wisinski stressed that they “did not finish the sentence” in many details. But what they were hiding, Wisinski avoided saying. In addition, Wisinski was very satisfied with the performance of the five impostor defendants. Among Reinhold, Pickel, Ollie Berger, Fritz Dawid and Berman-Yu Cup, he particularly admired the first two and repeatedly incited them to slander the other defendants more viciously. Wisinski did not seem to notice that Reinhold, by selling himself too hard, had overplayed the role of the defendant.
“Comrades of the judges,” said Vyshinsky, “you must have no difficulty in finding out that Reinhold and Pickle’s confessions were sincere, and that in this courtroom they had time and again exposed Zinoviev, Kamenev and Yevdokimov, the ten most vicious criminals. “
Indeed, Reinhold deserved the compliments of the prosecutor, who had been fawning over Vyshinsky from the beginning to the end of the trial. To attack the other defendants. He showed an amazing enthusiasm and a superb memory. No matter which defendant, as long as his statement is slightly different from the predetermined lines, Reinhold will rise from his chair to make some corrections, as if his companion is deliberately trying to hide something from the court out of fear. Even when the prosecutor got it wrong on one point, Reinhold would fidget. He jumped at the chance to ask the court to allow him to “add a little bit” to Wisinski’s words. And Wisinski always listened to the defendant’s additions with a broad, kind smile on his lips.
Pickerell, on the other hand, repeated Reinhold’s every word like an answering bug. No, he spoke with indifference, lacking the righteous indignation and passion that Reinhold did.
It was not difficult for Wisinski to expose the defendants and deliver a rousing prosecution speech, despite the absence of physical evidence, because the defendants not only did not refute or complain about the charges he had brought in the prosecution, but found ways to admit them. Therefore, he could describe the horrific conspiracy in graphic detail, without taking into account many well-known facts, such as the fact that a significant number of the defendants could not have participated in the alleged conspiracy at the time it was carried out, since some of them were in prison and some were in distant exile. Wisinski concluded his indictment speech by shouting, “I strongly urge that all these mad dogs be shot, and that none of them be left behind!”
Recent Comments