Just A Serious Question

[Georgiy]

Maybe we could work on this collectively? (excuse me for that word in a Romanov forum).

That was a good one! I almost laughed out loud. (Please excuse a frivolous post on a serious topic.)

[AlexP]

That was a good one! I almost laughed out loud. (Please excuse a frivolous post on a serious topic.)

Glad you caught it, Grisha....

[Belochka]

That was a good one! I almost laughed out loud. (Please excuse a frivolous post on a serious topic.)

It appears we all know what we are discussing here. Now to define the Law into simple English ...

Who shalll begin this task?  

[Richard_Cullen]

Hello all,

Sorry I haven't been around for a while but now I am back I find this topic very interesting.  A very close friend of mine is the Rector of the MVD University in St Petersburgh.  He is an expert on Russian law and I might be able to convince him to contribute to any debate - but I cannot promise.

From my perspective as the prosecutor, I accept fully that Nicholas could not have been prosecuted using the law that existed up until his abdication.  Trotsky also expounded that view.

The challenge of the exercise in my mind is to allow those of us who are participating in the exercise to understand more of the history that surrounded Nicholas II's reign.  Hopefully those who read the theme will also be able to have a better understanding of the history of the period.

Whereas I am a monarchist - a constitutional one - I should add, I think Nicholas was a poor Tsar.  I have really enjoyed putting the prosecution case together.  Of course no absolute leader, monarch or dictator could be found guilty under the laws that existed at the time of their 'alleged crimes' as they determine the law.  That is why 'crimes against humanity' legislation is so important.

History judged Nicholas and his family severely - regicide on a grand scale and without the decency of a trial even a show one.

I look forward to a debate on the laws of the time but I am now champing at the bit to resume the prosectuion.

Richard Cullen

[Belochka]

Welcome back Richard!

The Defense Team is ready.

Margarita

[Finelly]

WOO HOO!

<sorry>

<sitting down demurely, hands in lap, waiting for the trial to continue......>

[Forum Admin]

May I suggest the following?
We will continue the trial as planned using modern law.  Perhaps those who are skilled enough in Imperial Law would start a separate thread to "Comment" on the trial using Imperial Russian Law for their own conclusions?

[Belochka]

May I suggest the following?
We will continue the trial as planned using modern law.  Perhaps those who are skilled enough in Imperial Law would start a separate thread to "Comment" on the trial using Imperial Russian Law for their own conclusions?

Perfect solution!  

[Richard_Cullen]

Hi,

I fully support the suggestion, although I am not sure we would get anywhere under Imperial Law.  Trotsky was of that view as well!  Of course this highlights why 'crimes against humanity' legisaltion is so important.  It is its ability to override the laws of an individual country that may have laws that protect dictators and absolute monarchs.

I am happy to restrat proceedings now - although there is ONLY me on the prosecution side.  So it may take me some time to research responses etc.

I think where we are is that the Defence needs to respond to your last set of directions is that correct?

Richard

[Belochka]

Hi,
I think where we are is that the Defence needs to respond to your last set of directions is that correct?

Richard

The Defense has already submitted its rebuttal Opening Statement including our challenges.

I am unaware that there were further matters??? because the Court is still in recess.

Margarita
(First Chair for the Defense)

[Forum Admin]

Mr. Prosecutor,
The Court is standing in recess until you may provide us with a date at which you yourself wish to resume trial. The Defense and Court granted your request for recess until you could return. If you may review the file online, the Defense has presented their opening argument. You had written a memo about their response, and I ruled accordingly. We now await the Prosecution to request trial resume and your next steps.

FA
Acting Judge

[Richard_Cullen]

Rob et al,

I am back but I need to be sure exactly how you wish me to proceed.  Obviously we don't have live witnesses and might the trial not descend into me reiterating the facts in the opening argument but adding more detail.

Clearly all I can rely on are the extracts of eveidence that are found on the web and in books.  Or would you wish me to call witnesses - if they gave testimony and the defence cross examined them, I would be replying to that cross examination?

I hope I am not being stupid here but I have some difficulty in understanding how we proceed.  It really can only be a statement of the evidence available - can't it?

I will move forward however you wish on this but might we not be in a situation where I call 'x' as a witness who says this and that happened and then the prosecution calls 'y' who contradicts what 'x' says.  The problem it seems to me having read so much around the events of 'Bloody Sunday' as part of this exercise that none of us know what really happened.  We base our arguments, however objective they might be, on what is on both sides I would suggest tainted evidence.  For the citizens - enhanced by revolutionary fervour - for the Tsar - the defensive mechanisms of an autocracy.

So in short I am looking for some advice how I might realistic proceed and so that all of us who are participating in this (Judge, prosecutor (and there is only one of me) and the defence obtain the most learning from it - and we provide an interesting debate for all the other Alexander Palace members interested in the topic.

I personally have learnt so much - but how we expose that learning in the 'trial' is another question. If we had live witnesses I have no doubt I could prove my case, because I would be able to paint a live picture for the jury and then to challenge the defence's version of accounts.  At present if questioned my witnesses, because it would be answering would have to either say 'I don't know' or 'I disagree' to challenges from the prosecution because if 'they' - my witnesses change their evidence my case is lost.

Hope no one sees this as negative because I want this to be a success just finding a route through it is shrouded in fog at the moment.

If I don't get back to you quickly after a posting please feel free to e-mail me at home.

Richard

[Forum Admin]

certainly there can be no "witnesses" they are all dead and gone. You should  produce your evidence, citing your sources. The defense may then challenge or obect (specifically please) and then you may rebut. What I suggest for simplicity sake is that you not produce everything all at once. Perhaps one source at a time or one "theory" at a time and then we move on until you rest. The same then goes for Defense. If either side has questions or suggestions, feel free to voice them.

[Belochka]

What I suggest for simplicity sake is that you not produce everything all at once. Perhaps one source at a time or one "theory" at a time and then we move on until you rest.

The Defense has no objection with your "Honor's" suggestion.

To be fair, the Defense understands that the Prosecution is working alone on this case.

For that reason we are willing to accommodate the Prosecution; whereby the Prosecution submits one "theory" at a time. That way both the Defense and Prosecution can allot their time to this "trial" with more comfort and enjoyment.

Margarita for the Defense

[Richard_Cullen]

Acting Presiding Judge and leading Counsel for the Defence:

Thanks very much I will try and get my first submission in later this week or certainly over the Bank Holiday weekend.  I will try and deal with the Tsar's responsibility for the armed forces as the Head of State and hopefully also get one of the 'live' witnesses on record.

Richard