Blood Libel in Late Imperial Russia: The Ritual Murder Trial of Mendel Beilis

4: Summation and Verdict

63 All members of the prosecution gave closing statements in support of the government’s claim that Andrei was the victim of a ritual murder in which Beilis participated. As one of the civil plaintiffs seeking damages for Andrei’s family, Aleksei Shmakov took an active role in court proceedings. For Shmakov, it was of paramount concern that the jury renderaguiltyverdictregardingtheritualnatureofthemurder.Afervent antisemitewhorelishedtheopportunitytopepperhisquestioningofwitnesses with mini-lectures about Jewish customs and beliefs drawn from his prodigious reading of obscure pamphlets and books, Shmakov laced his comments with bitter invectives about the evil nature of Jews and Judaism.EarlierintheproceedingsShmakovdeniedthatVeraCheberiak and her gang killed Andrei, but by the time of his summation, annoyed with revelations regarding Cheberiak’s lies and machinations, he offered the unlikely scenario that Cheberiak and Beilis were both guilty of murdering Andrei. According to Shmakov, Cheberiak lured the boy to her apartmentandthenhandedhimoverto Beilis,whodidthe actual killing. The other civil plaintiff, Grigorii Zamyslovskii, devoted much of his summation to bolstering the claim of ritual murder and countering the argument that Cheberiak was involved in the crime. He did not underscore the veracity of those witnesses who based their testimony on what fou r Summation and Verdict 64 Blood Libel In Late Imper ia l Russia Zhenia Cheberiak purportedly told them prior to his death; he simply ignored testimony that did not support his version of events. Zamyslovskii also hinted that Vera Cheberiak was afraid of Beilis and the owner of the brickfactorybecauseofwhattheyknewabouthercriminalactivities.According to Zamyslovskii’s fuzzy logic, Cheberiak’s innocence necessarily meant that Beilis was guilty (see Document 55). The prosecutor Oskar Vipper spoke for five hours when he summarized the case for the jury. He stated that all the defense witnesses had been bribed or frightened by a cabal of Jewish communal leaders. Like Zamyslovskii, Vipper asserted that Cheberiak was innocent, insisting that “international Jewry” had mobilized to secure the acquittal of Beilis at any cost. According to Vipper, it was Jews who raised the issue of ritual murder and blood libel in order to deflect attention away from Beilis and the murder itself. In his remarks he mouthed antisemitic beliefs that Jews dominated gentile society, particularly through their control of the press (see Document 56). Oskar Gruzenberg, who served as head consul and had defended a Jewofritualmurderchargesadecadeorsoearlier,believedthatthetrialof Beilis represented the clash of two cultures, one rooted in popular belief, superstition, and ignorance, the other based on reason and knowledge.1 Hestatedthatitwasamistaketoengagetheprosecution’sargumentabout the supposed need of Jews for Christian blood. In his mind, an individual Jew,notJudaism,wasontrial.Gruzenbergreasonedthatitwaspointlessto disputeapopularbeliefforwhichnoevidencehadeverbeenpresented.As hewroteinhismemoirs,“Incourtthereshouldbeonlyonegoal:toprove that the person charged with ritual murder did not commit the murder. It is imperative not to permit even one courtroom verdict convicting a Jew of ritual murder. This is the only thing that is important.”2 Consequently, he devoted most of his remarks to showing the weaknesses of the prosecution ’scase,particularlytheinconsistenciesinthetestimonyofvarious witnesses with regard to Beilis (see Document 57). Vasilii Maklakov also focused on demonstrating the innocence of the defendant in a stirring and moving summation. He confronted head on the case presented by the prosecution and pointed out all the absurdities in the government’s evidence. He maintained that Vera Cheberiak had manufactured the testimonythatincriminatedBeilis ,instructingherhusbandanddaughterto give false testimony against Beilis (see Document 58). 65 Summation and Verdict At the end of the summation on the evening of October 28th, Judge Boldyrev charged the jury, which then went into seclusion to deliberate . In his instructions, however, Boldyrev expressed his view that the prosecution had demonstrated to his satisfaction that a ritual murder had occurred on the premises of the brick factory, choosing to overlook the overt weaknesses of the testimonies of the government’s witnesses. ClearlyawarethatthecaseagainstBeiliswashopeless,thejudgefollowed the example of the indictment, which had divided the accusations into two parts, and the strategy of the prosecution. The splintering of indictments and charges to the jury was common practice in Russian courts, and allowed jurors to issue mixed verdicts that supported part of the prosecution’s case. In the Beilis case, jurors could conclude that a crime as outlined by the prosecution had been committed, but still claim that the defendant was innocent of committing the crime. In other words, splintering allowed the jury to avoid a straightforward guilty or innocent verdict. The first question posed by Boldyrev focused on whether or not the murder had the characteristics of a ritual murder, while the second concerned the involvement...