• Everyone else would be set free for lack of incriminating evidence.45
Consisting of a stiff thong of rawhide fastened by a bronze ring to a
braided leather whip and attached to a wooden stick of two and a half
feet in length, the knout was the harshest instrument of corporal pun-
ishment used in Russia. By the standards of the time, punishment of fif-
teen to twenty blows was not deemed particularly severe. Nevertheless,
knouting was a highly symbolic public spectacle, traditionally carried
out in the town square. As a penal instrument, the knout was reserved
for the most serious crimes committed by the underprivileged masses.
The flogger would strip the convict to the waist, bind their hands and
feet with leather thongs and iron rings to posts, and apply the knout to
the back with enough force to remove a layer of skin with every stroke.46
Exile also played a central role in judicial punishment. The journey
to Tomsk, Ufa, and other provincial Siberian towns was especially ardu-
ous, and fewer than three- quarters of the exiles made it to the destina-
tion, where they lived their lives along military lines, lacking sufficient food, supplies, and other essential resources.47 Senator A. N. Khovanskii
was convinced that exile would prevent Jews from committing similar
heretical acts, but he did not think that the knout or the lash was the
appropriate form of punishment. As far as the question whether a sect
of child murderers was operating within the Jewish community, he sug-
gested that the Department of Spiritual Affairs of Foreign Confessions
look into the matter. If it established that such a sect was in existence,
the senator thought that it was important for the imperial government to
create special institutions where all Jews, regardless of religious differences and beliefs, would be able to come together. Senator Khovanskii felt that
public religious gatherings needed to take place only at fixed times in
schools or synagogues, and always under the supervision of local police
bOunDaries Of the law
147
officers or trusted Jewish communal elders. Among other things, this
would prevent Jews from carrying out “malicious ritual crimes.” If Jews
were caught in schools or homes at night or at other inappropriate times,
the senator wanted them exiled immediately to Siberia.48
Senator V. I. Gechevich did not doubt the existence of Jewish ritual
murder, and was concerned only by the pressing question of whether the
alleged crime could be proved at law. He emphasized that none of the
key Jewish witnesses in the case confessed to the murder, while the three
primary accusers transgressed the law by renouncing their Christian
faith. Furthermore, the interrogations and face- to- face confrontations
revealed several unresolved discrepancies; he did not think, for instance,
that the inquisitorial commission had gathered sufficient evidence to
convict the Jews. For all these reasons, Gechevich was skeptical that
they were guilty as charged and proposed instead that their actions and
behavior be closely monitored, especially during the ritually charged
time of the calendar season, when suspicious acts could result in more
troublesome accusations.49
When the Senate failed to reach agreement, the criminal case, as
required by law, was forwarded to the Department of Civil and
Ecclesiastical Affairs of the State Council. Standing between the tsar
and the Senate, the council deliberated over cases not covered by exist-
ing law or involving a textual interpretation.50 It met five times in 1834
(on May 23, 25, 30, June 6, and October 19) to discuss whether the
inquisitorial commission compiled enough solid evidence to prove that
Jewish child murderers had killed the little boy. Admiral Count Nicholai
S. Mordvinov reviewed the Velizh files for the State Council. Born into
a distinguished noble family, Mordvinov spent the early years of his life
in England. There, he served on English naval and merchant vessels
and took an extended tour of France, Germany, and Portugal. Upon
his return to Russia, Mordvinov socialized with the highest circles of
Petersburg aristocracy. His career was filled with rapid promotions,
scandals, and intrigues.51 Tsar Alexander I nominated Mordvinov vice-
chairman of the Admiralty College, where he participated in reorga-
nizing the Senate and emerged as a dedicated follower of economic
liberalism and a most passionate defender of property rights.52
In July 1821, Alexander appointed Mordvinov head of the Department
of Civil and Ecclesiastical Affairs, a position he held until his retirement
148
148
the Velizh affair
from service in 1838. This post, which in fact was a demotion in ret-
ribution for his long- standing feud with the finance minister, gave
Mordvinov an opportunity to voice his views on a broad range of top-
ics concerning law and human rights. Inspired by the classical penal
reformers Cesare Beccaria and Jeremy Bentham, Mordinov insisted on
careful handling of evidence and the abolition of unnecessarily harsh
punishment.53 In cases adjudicated at the State Council, he repeatedly
questioned evidence presented by secret inquisitorial commissions as
unequivocal truth. He opposed the practice of holding a person under
suspicion if the court could not come to a rapid decision as to his or her
guilt or innocence. “The purport of the law,” Mordvinov explained, “was
to protect the innocent, not to punish the guilty.”54 The spectacle and
the instrument of torture were cruel forms of punishment. “The knout,”
he observed, “is a monstrous instrument that rips the flesh of the human
body from the bone, sprays bloody droplets through the air, and spills
blood over the body of the man. This [instrument of] torture is more
powerful than all other known instruments. . . . It takes an entire hour to administer twenty lashes of the knout, and it is well known that when a
tormented criminal receives a large number of lashes, sometimes when
he is not even guilty, this beating can take from sunup to sundown.”55
Borrowing freely from Beccaria, Mordvinov posited that the certainty
required to declare a person guilty of crime was life’s most important
undertaking. The judge had only one task before him and that was to
use common sense when assessing the facts. Leafing through the volu-
minous paperwork, the elderly statesman quickly realized that the Velizh
case was no ordinary occult crime, but concerned the timeless question
of whether Jews practice the ritual of blood sacrifice of young Christian
children. In a lengthy legal opinion, Mordvinov noted that spiritual
and secular authorities had taken up the question for hundreds of years
and always arrived at the same result. In the thirteenth century, Pope
Innocent IV issued papal bulls condemning blood accusations. Three
centuries later, Polish rulers made similar pronouncements on several
different occasions. In the eighteenth century, after a lengthy investi-
gation of ritual crimes in Poland, the Vatican characterized the charges
against the Jews as baseles
s. Even the Russian government instructed
provincial officials, as late as 1817, to rely on strict documentary evidence when prosecuting the alleged crime of ritual murder.56
bOunDaries Of the law
149
To the average observer, the inquisitorial commission had compiled a
solid case against the Jews based on a wealth of evidence.57 Mordvinov,
however, belonged to a select group of men in the imperial establishment
who were well educated, adored firm precision in the law, and insisted
that official matters be dealt with quickly and accurately.58 Having rejected archaic creeds in favor of science and civilization, he showed no tolerance, either in his personal or professional life, for anything that smacked of
mysticism or irrationalism. Mordvinov believed that Governor- General
Khovanskii “paid no attention to past juridical opinions, and did every-
thing in his power to make the case that the Jews, having spilled Christ’s
blood, are enemies of Christendom.” Furthermore, the statesman had a
hard time comprehending how “in this day and age a blood libel charge
could make its way up the juridical ladder to the supreme institution
of the empire.” But with more than forty Jews under arrest, and many
more feeling the inquisitors’ assault on their community, the head of the
Department of Civil and Ecclesiastical Affairs saw no choice but to give
his complete and devout attention to the complexities of the case.59
Under the inquisitorial system, to convict a suspect required two issues
to be proven: that the crime was in fact committed ( corpus delicti, or, in Russian legal terminology, sostav prestupleniia), and that the accused in question was the perpetrator. In Nicholaevan Russia, as in continental
Europe, forensic- medical testimony took on an influential role in the
decision- making process. Although the physician’s conclusions did not
always bind the judge, expert testimony could and often did influence
the outcome. To establish a firm case against the Jews, the inquisitors
would need to have perfect proof: a complete and sound voluntary con-
fession from the perpetrators, and a medical report that unequivocally
corroborated the fact of the crime. In cases of crime involving the human
body such as ritual murder, medical testimony took on an especially
important role, standing second only to the confession.60
Mordvinov first took issue with the veracity of the confessions.
Terenteeva and Maksimova had every opportunity to explain the most
important circumstances of the case, but Mordvinov felt there were
too many gaps, contradictions, and inaccuracies in their stories. They
had a hard time remembering or agreeing upon, for example, where
the murder allegedly took place or where exactly the boy’s body was
buried. At one point, they blamed the murder on one Jewish man, but
150
150
the Velizh affair
then changed their minds and called out the entire Jewish community.
How was it possible, Mordvinov asked, “after twelve long months of
interrogations, for both women to remember so many intimate details
of the crime— at a time, no less, when they were supposed to have been
intoxicated?” And why did no other Jews, outside of Fratka Devirts and
Nota Prudkov (two of the more problematic Jewish suspects in the case),
voluntarily confess to the crime? For Mordvinov, one of the more trou-
bling aspects of the investigation was that so many Jews continued to
deny their role in the murder conspiracy, while emphasizing, under the
most trying circumstances, that Jewish religious law explicitly forbade
the consumption of human blood.61
Medical Report
Witnesses’ Testimony
In various places on the body, the skin
The soldier’s son was swung from side
turned a burnt yellow or red color
to side in a barrel. The naked body was
from a strong fricative force; and then
completely red, as if it was burned.
hardened, as usually happens when
the body is rubbed too harshly for too
long.
On the hands, back of the legs, the
The entire body and head were
back, the head, the torso, and behind
stabbed with a sharp iron nail. After
the ears are small circular sores, no
the body was washed, little pea- sized
more than one-third of an inch in
wounds remained.
depth, as though the boy was shot with
a rifle.
On both legs, below the knee, the skin
Before the boy was stabbed, both of
turned a dark blue, almost black, color. his legs were tied together with a belt.
A strong rope was used to stop the
circulation of the blood.
The lips were pressed firmly against the When transferred to the Jewish school, teeth, while the nose was smashed in
the boy’s mouth was tied shut with a
violently; the dark crimson bruise on
kerchief, so that he would not be able to
the back of the neck signified that rope cry out; and his nose was smashed in.
encircled the neck.
The internal organs, both the stomach
While hidden in Khanna Tsetlina’s
and intestines, were completely empty,
home, it appears that the boy was
filled only with air.
not fed.
Source: RGIA, f. 1345, op. 235, d. 65, chast’ 20, ll. 305– 305ob
bOunDaries Of the law
151
In the hierarchies of official proofs weighed by the inquisitorial sys-
tem, medical testimony was accorded the prized status of complete
proof, “when it, having been conducted on legal grounds, contains clear
and positive confirmation about the examined subject and does not
contradict the reliable circumstances of the case.”62 Mordvinov observed
that there were three main discrepancies between the medical report and
the statements provided by the three primary accusers. First, the women
claimed that the boy was pierced “cleanly and effortlessly with an iron
nail,” but the forensic- medical report detailed that all fourteen wounds
on the boy’s body were made with a dull instrument, which would have
required “time and effort.” Second, the accusers claimed that more than
forty individuals took turns stabbing the boy, but the medical examiner
determined that there were no more than fourteen small bodily wounds.
And finally, they claimed that the body had turned completely white
after it was washed, but the medical report stated that the body had
turned a burnt yellow or red color, as though someone had vigorously
scrubbed it with a coarse cloth or brush.63
There were other troubling aspects of the case as well. Chief among
them was the timing of the murder. If the boy’s mouth and nose were
wrapped firmly, as Terenteeva had asserted, then he would not have
been able to breathe for very long, and he certainly would not have
been alive when the police searched Aronson’s home on May 4. Among
other things, Mordvinov also could not understand how so much blood
(more than three full bottles) could be collected from such a small
body. But even if it was possible that
so much blood could flow from
the boy’s veins, then it was beyond the realm of possibility for it not to
have spoiled in over twelve months’ time, especially during the summer
months, when the blood was allegedly distributed to Vitebsk, Liozno,
and other neighboring towns. The inquisitorial commission was obli-
gated to explain the truth of the events, to defend the innocent from
libelous claims, but the inquisitors, he wrote, had “intentionally over-
looked crucial facts and testimony.” For Mordvinov, the most troubling
aspect of the case was that dozens of innocent people were imprisoned
for so long based on flawed evidence.64
And so on January 18, 1835, nearly twelve years after little Fedor’s life-
less body was found in the thick woods on the outskirts of Velizh, the
longest investigation of ritual murder in the modern world was finally
152
152
the Velizh affair
concluded. Nicholas’s regime may have been preoccupied with rooting
out savage zealotry and doctrinal deviation, but it nevertheless coor-
dinated its operations in a spirit of juridical rationalism. In the final
analysis, Mordvinov did not establish corpus delicti or find substantial proof that linked Jews with the ritual crime. The most damaging evidence of all— the statements provided by Terenteeva, Maksimova, and
Kozlovskaia— did not stand the test of legal scrutiny. Furthermore,
although according to the rules of inquisitorial procedure, medical tes-
timony carried decisive weight in judicial proceedings, Mordvinov felt
that there was nothing in the forensic report that linked the Jews with
the murder conspiracy. Based on a thorough examination of the evi-
dence, Mordvinov recommended that the government dismiss the rit-
ual murder accusations, open all sealed synagogues and schools, and
free the Velizh Jews from further judgment and inquiry. For uttering
unsubstantiated libels against Jews, the three primary accusers would be
exiled to Siberia, and Anna Eremeeva was to be turned over to a priest
for admonition for masquerading as a fortune- teller.65
ePilogue
•
after carefully cOnsiDering the facts of the case, Nicholas I concurred
with the State Council that the claims against the Jews of Velizh could not be proved at law. “Owing to the vagueness of the legal deductions,” he
The Velizh Affair Page 23