Your Honour Acting Presiding Judge and Leading Counsel for the defence thank you for your kind comments. How you assessed my height previously is a matter of some interest, mind you I am taller than the last Tsar, Rasputin, Felix etc. A giant amongst men. 5'9.5"
However back to the theme:
On behalf of the prosecution on this limb only of our argument, because even if the court rejects this limb there are a number of others set out in my opening statement as to the Tsar culpability, I have to say that the defence have failed to address the fundamental issue of the defendant's control over the Army. He was at the time the de facto head of the armed forces of Russia.
The defence must remember that we are trying the defendant under 'Crimes Against Humanity' legislation which overrides the laws of an individual country. Neither is it reasonable to rely on the precedent of law as it existed in Imperial Russia at the time.
The prosecution does not disagree that General Dyer committed a crime against humanity at Amritsar. I cannot comment on the American case but if the killings were unlawful ie not in self defence then those who fired the bullets that killed, and their commanders should have faced trial in a court of law. Whether it was a crime against humanity i cannot comment. Of course we are not having a mock trial in respect of Dyer as this case is about the Tsar of Russia and not a British Army General.
Nor is it right to consider the position of King George V who was a constitutional monarch and therefore only technically the head of the armed services. he could not commit the army to a course of action without Parliament's approval.
The defendant in this case and we must focus on the this defendant was an AUTOCRATIC ruler, he could appoint and dismiss Ministers as he frequently did, without recourse to anyone else.
There was no Parliament he could declare war without the agreement of Ministers because if he didn't like their advice he could sack them.
It is clutching at straws for the defence, and I do have sympathy with them tryng to defend this serial abuser of human rights and perpetrator of crimes against humanity by suggesting that the obvious powers he uses in his October Manifesto are not relevant because they post date Bloody Sunday. This has to be, by any reasonable measure nonsense, this man had the power to direct the police, the gendarmerie, the army and the navy to do his bidding.
It is a ruse to say that he only took personal control of the armed forces during World War 1. He took operational control away from others far more competent because he thought that was waht was required of him. he had always exercised control over the armed forces.
Hos power was such that he could have stopped Russia's involvemnt in the war altogether. He was the complete autocrat and by his total controlled every organ of state especially those engaged in the security of the country.
He was paranoid about revolution, baout dying and he was prepared to do everything in his power to prevent a revolution in 1905, before and after.
He had persoanl briefings, he knew exactly what to expect.
This is the preliminary to examining the actual offences that took place in and around Palace Square on that fateful day. The defendant, and this is all you have to be satisfied about at this tage, was the head of the army and the police on duty that day. he knew what the arrangemnets were and you must find in favour of the prosecution. We can then move on to the evidnce, you are finding him guilty of nothing you are just saying he commanded the army and police on that day.
We the prosecution have then to prove the crimes against humanity
I thank you and know you will come to what is the only right and just decision that the defendant was to all intents and purposes as the complete authocrat the de facto head of the troops on duty in St Petersburg that day and from his briefings must have known what the contingencies were.
Richard Cullen
