VERDICT People v Nicholas Alexandrovich (Count 1)

[VERDICT IN RE PEOPLE V NICHOLAS II ALEXANDROVICH]

VERDICT IN RE PEOPLE V NICHOLAS II ALEXANDROVICH

The Court as Trier of Fact does make the following FINDINGS OF FACT:

1.  Emperor Nicholas II on the date in question Sunday 9 January 1905 (Bloody Sunday) was the ultimate authority in the Military Chain of Command with respect to the St. Petersburg Military District.  While actual authority had been delegated to Grand Duke Vladimir and thence by Ukaze to General Prince Vasil'chikov, such delegation of authority does not sui generis remove the Defendant from culpability for the actions of subordinates.  The Ukaze granting such authority itself provides the evidence that Defendant did ultimately possess such authority in the first place.  Further evidence is provided by the subsequent "assumption of all military control" during World War I.  This act is seen by the Court as the ultimate military authority merely removing the a priori delegation of such authority to others and subsequently resuming direct control and authority for himself.  We reject Defense counsel's assertion that because Defendant did not himself somehow assume "actual" military authority until 23 August 1914 that he somehow was not a superior authority to those to whom Defendant had delegated that authority.  We refer Defense counsel to the Nuremburg trials for crimes against humanity where this same defense ("I wasn't actually in charge, a subordinate was...") was rejected on numerous occasions.

2.  Prosecution states: to prove murder in law the prosecution must prove:
(a) Mens rea,  (the mental side of making a decision to unlawfully kill and individual,

This Court finds no evidence presented that Defendant Nicholas II Alexandrovich did in fact have Mens Rea to unlawfully kill any individual or group of individuals.  We find no evidence submitted to substantiate any notion that Defendant Nicholas II Alexandrovich personally ordered his subordinates to "Shoot to Kill" during the period of Martial Law declared, nor specifically on Bloody Sunday.

3. This Court finds that Defendant Nicholas II Alexandrovich did not fail to exercise control properly over any person under his effective command and control or his effective authority and control, which led to the events in question.  Rather, both sides have provided evidence that Defendant received regular reports and information of events, and was in fact under the genuine knowledge and belief that his subordinates were performing their duties properly.  There was no evidence introduced that it was somehow forseeable that Defendant should have known of or expected a failure in the regular and routine lines of communication to him from subordinates.

4.  Since Defendant was in reality mistaken in his perceived knowledge and belief about the performance of the duties by subordinates, was Defendant Nicholas II criminally negligent in failing to know that his subordinates were about to commit, or were committing offenses?  There is no evidence introduced to indicate that Defendant had done anything less than he could reasonably be expected to do.  He received regular reports, satisfied himself reasonably that peace had been restored to St. Petersburg.  The cancellation of Martial Law is telling evidence that Defendant was in fact genuinely satisfied that St. Petersburg was again peaceful and unrest was quelled.  The actions of Gapon and the demonstrators were obviously unforseeable at the time.  Had Gapon telegraphed the Defendant in advance to request an audience, this may have been different, but Defendant could not reasonably know what was to occur.  We find no evidence of criminal negligence on the part of Defendant Nicholas II Alexandrovich.

5. Did Defendant breach his responsibility as a Superior? The law cited by the Prosecution states:
a superior commits an indictable offence if
(d) the superior subsequently
(1) fails to take, as soon as practicable, all necessary and reasonable measures within their power to prevent or repress the commission of the offence, or the further commission of offences under section 4 or 6 or
(2) fails to take, as soon as practicable, all necessary and reasonable measures within their power to submit the matter to the competent authorities for investigation and prosecution.

The evidence clearly demonstrates that Defendant Nicholas II Alexandrovich did nothing whatsoever after the events of Bloody Sunday with respect to the subsequent investigation of the actual events to determine the causes thereof; that Defendant did nothing to take any reasonable measure to prevent further commission of the offenses; nor did Defendant take any measures whatsoever to prosecute those actually responsible for the offenses of Bloody Sunday.

Therefore, the Court finds and rules in this matter as follows:

As to Count I of the indictment, the charge of  the Capital Crime of "Murder in the First Degree, for the events of Sunday 9 January 1905 in Palace Square, St. Petersburg Russia,
the Defendant Nicholas II Alexandrovich is NOT GUILTY.

As to the lesser-included Crime of "Breach of Responsibility as a Superior", for the events of Sunday 9 January 1905 in Palace Square, St. Petersburg Russia,
 the Defendant Nicholas II Alexandrovich is GUILTY.


29 May 2006

Rob Moshein
Presiding Judge

The participants and public are hereby invited to use this thread to discuss and/or comment upon this verdict and the underlying events.

The participants and public are hereby invited to use this thread to discuss and/or comment upon this verdict and the underlying events.

Thank you Your Honor.

The Defense should appeal on the ruling "Breach of Responsibility as a Superior", but shall respectfully defer to the public for their discussion.

Margarita Nelipa
retiring Counsel for the Defense

Your Honour Judge Rob and my esteemed opponent Counsel for teh Defence Margarita

Thank you for this although I would argue that the mens rea was possessed by the soldiers who fired the shots at the time I am happy as is Counsel for the defence to let this matter lie with the Court.

It would be good to open up the debate around these issues because someone may have some knowledge of the events that Margarita and I do not possess.

Rob thank you for the e-mail I really have enjoyed this as a means of self learning.  It will be good to get other views from members and it would be interesting to consider, maybe not in this format, issues like the pogroms of the Jews.

Thanks to both of you.  Hope one day we can meet up and share a post trial bottle of champagne together.

I am afraid I haven't been around too much lately as my mother died suddenly on 12 March so with both parents dying within 9 months of each other and having to deal with the estate, probate, etc., (real legal stuff) it has been a very difficult time.

I hope to be able to get back to something like my normal input.

Regards to you both

Richard

I am afraid I haven't been around too much lately as my mother died suddenly on 12 March so with both parents dying within 9 months of each other and having to deal with the estate, probate, etc., (real legal stuff) it has been a very difficult time.

Regards to you both

Richard

Dear Richard,

Although belated may I extend my sympathy to you and your family at this time.

Best regards,

Margarita

Richard,
Please accept my deepest sympathies and condolences at your horrible news.

As for the mens rea issue, please remember that as Judge I could not look outside the evidence presented.  There was no evidence presented to tie the mens rea of the soldiers who did the shooting actually TO Nicholas, either by means of actual knowledge of the soldiers state of mind nor by negligence.  Mere "actual" authority alone is not enough under the law as stated.

Your Honour

I am quite chilled about the verdict.  Thanks for your condolences.

Richard

It seems to me to be a rather fair verdict, but split decisions have the effect, I am afraid, of making no one happy. Personally, I entirely agree with what the Judge is saying. Nicholas II was not responsible for the murder of his subjects because there is no evidence whatsoever that he ordered the troops to fire on the crowd. It is uncomfortable for me to agree with the second count, but in the sense that no one but the autocrat could have been responsible, and due to the loss of life, I can somewhat accept this, but like Belochka, I would like to appeal.

Richard, I am so very sorry for your loss. My father died on August 28th, and it's been very difficult for all of us.

[but like Belochka, I would like to appeal.]

It seems to me to be a rather fair verdict, but split decisions have the effect, I am afraid, of making no one happy. Personally, I entirely agree with what the Judge is saying. Nicholas II was not responsible for the murder of his subjects because there is no evidence whatsoever that he ordered the troops to fire on the crowd. It is uncomfortable for me to agree with the second count, but in the sense that no one but the autocrat could have been responsible, and due to the loss of life, I can somewhat accept this, but like Belochka, I would like to appeal.

[size=10]Perhaps we can review this course of action after my return in mid August?

What is the procedure in "this jurisdiction" to lodge an Appeal on the second verdict your Honor?

Margarita[/size][/color]

Well, there are two possible routes for an appeal.  First, we can find a willing volunteer with experience as an atttorney or judge to hear the appeal and rule. It would be an easy matter then to open a new thread for the appeal argument.

Failing that, both sides could agree to allow me to hear the appeal and rule, and then just open the new thread.

Up to you.

Your Honour Judge Rob, Margarita and Lisa,

I think your decision is so well crafted it should not be subject to an appeal.  I think Lisa sums it up 'who else but the autocrat could be ultimately responsible'.

It would be good to pick one of the other issues up, but with a broader spectrum of members feeling they can contribute.

I personally think you are all 'appealing'.

Thanks very much for your kind words and life moves on, once probate is over we will be able to lay some ghosts and move on to a different phase in our lives.

My sympathy goes to you also Lisa in respect of yuor father's death.

Your friend

Richard

Your Honour Judge Rob, Margarita and Lisa,

I think your decision is so well crafted it should not be subject to an appeal.  I think Lisa sums it up 'who else but the autocrat could be ultimately responsible'.

It would be good to pick one of the other issues up, but with a broader spectrum of members feeling they can contribute.

[size=10]I am inclined to agree with you Richard. It is best to move onto other contentious issues, in the hope that other forum members can participate as well.[/size][/color]

I personally think you are all 'appealing'.

Your friend

Richard

[size=10]You are so sweet! Thank you.

Kind regards,

Margarita [/size][/color]  

Your Honour Judge Rob, Margarita and Lisa,

I think your decision is so well crafted it should not be subject to an appeal.  I think Lisa sums it up 'who else but the autocrat could be ultimately responsible'.

It would be good to pick one of the other issues up, but with a broader spectrum of members feeling they can contribute.

I personally think you are all 'appealing'.

Thanks very much for your kind words and life moves on, once probate is over we will be able to lay some ghosts and move on to a different phase in our lives.

My sympathy goes to you also Lisa in respect of yuor father's death.

Your friend

Richard

Richard: Thank you for your sympathy. I find that each holiday or anniversary without dad is tough. This month, it will be my first Father's Day without him and what would have been his birthday is the day our oldest daughter is graduating from high school. I think this is a way to handle grief in smaller pieces.

I think that you have been terrific on this trial and with your involvement on our Forum. So, you're appealing, too!

If my dear Belochka, who did 99.99% of the defense's work is now fine with the verdict, I am too!

On to the next thing! How about prosecuting Dmitri Pavlovich for the murder of Rasputin?

Lisa

I know the feeling dad died when we were on holiday in Kenya last year - 29 June and this year we will be in Barbados on the anniversary.  With everything else that has happened it has been a long year and his death seems light years away but we are getting over it.

I think anyone would struggle to make a case against him.  I am not even sure he was there when the fatal shots were fired?  Of course the problem is so much rests on the unreliable evidence of Y, P and a bit of Lazovert.

I must finish off the paper on the murder but have yet again been distracted, (greg and Joe helped me a good deal) all I need to do is deal with some of the wrong conclusions that Andrew Cook has come to in repsect of the sequence of shots and how they occurred.

We could try all of the alleged conspirators, I think it would stimulate debate?  I would guess there would be loads of people interested in defending felix and maybe Dimitri - we could have indpenedent Councsel for each 'conspirator'.

Richard

We could try all of the alleged conspirators, I think it would stimulate debate?  I would guess there would be loads of people interested in defending felix and maybe Dimitri - we could have indpenedent Councsel for each 'conspirator'.

Richard

[size=10]Hi Richard,

This idea appeals to me immensely. Lisa what do you think about this new direction?

Best regards,

Margarita [/size] [/font]