DEFENSE OPENING STATEMENT
Team for the Defense:
Margarita Nelipa
Lisa Davidson
James Hogland
If the Court Pleases, Ladies and Gentlemen of the Jury.
This is a case of extraordinary magnitude. Some may contend that historically this case has little relevance today. The question whether our client had done anything to justify his being consigned as a criminal is a matter of interest for us today, but it should interest all of humanity. The Defense Team shall establish before you that the Defendant Nicholas Alexandrovich was a kind and compassionate Emperor who adored the Russian people, his family and above all revered his faith. He faithfully lived under the Laws which governed his Empire. The Defense maintains that Nicholas Alexandrovich has never committed an offence against his people and is entitled to be discharged without reservation.
Nicholas Alexandrovich sincerely believed that he served the Russian Empire in good faith, for the common good, and under that personal belief, whether right or wrong, according to the laws of Imperial Russia he is not guilty of any crime. This principle will be maintained with a clarity and force that shall leave no doubt upon the mind of the Court or upon your minds as members of the jury. By maintaining this proposition here, then the only question which, in our judgment, can come before you today is a question of fact, and that is, whether or not Nicholas Alexandrovich acted in good faith, believing that he did indeed have that right to act as a monarch of his people.
When Nicholas became Emperor in 1894 he was committed to administering his sovereignty in a manner so as to preserve and maintain political, social and economic order. This was his right. Nicholas clearly understood that he was the guardian answerable only to God, an understanding which was reinforced by his oath at the time of his coronation.
Few figures in history have been so misunderstood and maligned as Nicholas Alexandrovich, the last Emperor of Imperial Russia. On March 13, 1881, when Nicholas was only thirteen years of age, a tragic event occurred which shook the sensitive soul of the youth. This was the assassination of his beloved grandfather, Emperor Alexander II, the "Tsar-Liberator," who was responsible for freeing the serfs in Russia. Since that day, the activity of hateful revolutionaries was to plague Nicholas and his family throughout their lives, and ultimately he, his wife and children all fell under the fire of revolution.
From that day, the revolutionary movement became a conscious concern for Imperial Russia. As this trial proceeds, we shall demonstrate that because of this unprecedented and tragic event, the government enacted laws in 1881 designed to facilitate the declaration of martial law in emergency situations. It was this power which was used to stem the tide of unprecedented revolutionary fervor in January 1905.
By the dawn of the 20th century, assassinations became more pronounced, marking the beginning of a new level of social unrest and political agitation. Revolutionary intent was designed to hurt the Russian government. The first victim to this new revolution was Nicholas’s Minister of the Interior; Dmitrii Sipiagin in April 1902. Within two years, his successor, Vyacheslav Plehve was brutally assassinated when a bomb was hurled into the minister’s carriage shredding him to bits. Both these men represented the Imperial government and for that privilege they were sacrificed. Dozens of government officials were assassinated during this period, including the Governor-General of the Russian Grand Duchy of Finland.
The year 1904 was a portentous one for the Emperor. Russia went to war against Japan. Russia was now forced to contend with not just internal security matters, but with National Security. All industry swung into the war effort, including the manufacture of war materiel by the Putilov Iron Factory located on the outskirts of St. Petersburg. It was the largest industrial plant in the Empire employing thousands of workers.
We shall demonstrate that there was good reason why the Emperor chose to reside outside of his capital. On the eve of the January uprising, a single preceding event caused attending dignitaries to believe that an attempt was made on the Emperor’s life. We shall provide witnesses who will attest to this fact. From that moment on, Ladies and Gentlemen; it would be unreasonable for any of you to presume that the Emperor’s life was anything other than endangered. A contingency especially heightened with the War against Japan.
The upheaval of 1905 was the start of an illegal campaign of disorders all over the Empire. We shall provide evidence that the disruption contravened not only internal security, but the upheaval was also a deliberate attempt to usurp the authority of the Russian monarch. It also impeded the Russian war effort. A reasonable person would have the expectation that war with any foreign power would cause Russia to be on full alert against all foreign insurgents who could attack Russia’s sovereignty at any moment.
With the war in the background, Russia was experiencing a situation it had never confronted in all hundreds of years of the Romanov Dynasty. Imagine, Ladies and Gentlemen, what it was like to live in St. Petersburg. Rampant assassinations were occurring on public streets while political unrest was increasing by the day attempting to disrupt life in the city. In the first week following the New Year celebrations, the Emperor was facing strikes by worker elements that brought the War industry to a grinding halt. Such reckless abandonment of duty to the State during war time was an unconscionable act. We have evidence which will clearly demonstrate that by their own actions the revolutionaries were compromising Russia against her global enemies. This insidious intervention by the Social Democrats ensured that Imperial Russia became more vulnerable than at any time in her history.
The Prosecutor assumes that Nicholas Alexandrovich was culpable by an act of omission and failed to prevent the unforeseeable events that transpired on Sunday 9 January, 1905. We have evidence which will show that the Emperor took comfort in the knowledge, after his Minister came to see him on the eve with assurances that everything was under control in the city. We believe it is erroneous for the Prosecution to suggest despite the implied trust and positive assurances given, the DEFENDANT could be held in any way responsible for unpredictable events. Such a proposition to us is absurd, and we believe it will be equally absurd to your judgment.
We firmly believe Nicholas Alexandrovich acted according to his God given right as the anointed Emperor of Imperial Russia abiding by the Laws inherited under his care and protection. He acted in good faith. If he made a mistake, it is not a reason for damning his name, and by extension the entire Russian dynasty, as a criminal against humanity because of a mistaken error of judgment committed by those he trusted. He acknowledged he made mistakes during his reign, like any human being, but he does not deserve to be vilified because of his failure to control events which were unpredictable and without precedent.
Ladies and Gentlemen, may we remind you that Father Gapon must not be viewed as the innocent, caring individual which history has portrayed. In fact in real life the picture is quite the opposite. He was not the benevolent priest which so many of you have been led to believe. We have evidence which will show that Gapon was not only a revolutionary who went against the Church’s doctrinal teachings that he claimed to represent, but by his sheer arrogance, he organized the demonstration knowing that blood would be spilt. He chose to fight against his own Sovereign and used his ‘flock’ whose interests he claimed to enfold so dearly. With malice and aforethought Gapon ensured that the march would go ahead, knowing it was illegal. We shall show the Court that his decisions precipitated all the unfortunate consequences which ensued that Sunday.
Father Gapon tested government authority to the very core. It was by his own civil disobedience when Russia was at war, that the DEFENDANT and the Russian State were held to ransom on that Sunday. We shall present evidence that the purported reason that precipitated the Sunday Uprising was absent on that day. The illegal march went beyond workers grievances.
Who amongst you, Ladies and Gentlemen, are aware that there was only one dismissed worker about whom the events of the day continued to spiral towards the abyss? One single worker - not hundreds, not thousands, only ONE who refused to attend work. You may ask: why did this insubordinate worker refuse to attend to his paid employment? It was not because of any specific grievance that he held against his employer, but it was because he preferred to be politically indoctrinated on work time. We contend that but for Gapon’s reckless and complete irreverence, using his priestly cassock as his shield, he ensured that his revolutionary cause would receive global publicity, irrespective of the human consequences. Gapon knew there would be bloody consequences!
The Defense will show that on the eve of the uprising all workers “swore to die for a just cause”! Ladies and Gentlemen how can such oaths be seen as anything other than revolutionary? The Defense finds it abhorrent that Gapon would permit blood be spilt upon the stone. On this one fact alone, you should clearly identify that our DEFENDANT is innocent.