Supplementary Deposition on the July 2 Hearing

Add a subpage to this text

Read the help page for usage.

 

I feel it necessary to make the following supplementary statements to attorney Pavon Flores's questions.

Around the beginning of the investigation, when I could only deal with questions of hypothesis, I expressed suspicions about one of Mr. Flores's political friends, who had arisen as one of my severe accusers. In the same hearing, however, it seemed possible to him to express the suspicion that I had been warned of the crime beforehand by one of the supposed participants, specifically by Robert S. Harte, and that I hid this during the investigation. In other words, Mr. Flores brands me publicly with suspicion of a very grave crime, and does this, not at the start of the investigation, not in response to the police's questions, but at a time when the general nature of the crime has been completely clarified, and after which I, in the presence of Mr. Flores, have supplied detailed explanations of the particulars in question. It must also be borne in mind that Mr. Flores acted in his capacity as the attorney of one of those accused of a grave crime, while I acted from the vantage point of the victim of that crime.

But if Mr. Flores doesn't have, and cannot have, even a shred of proof, one would have to suppose that his monstrous charge contains at least logically or psychologically convincing arguments. Unfortunately, even from this point of view his charge is completely ridiculous.

Mr. Flores's question about whether my house has "habitable" cellars led one to suppose that I generally spent my nights in the cellar. From what followed, however, it became clear that Mr. Flores's idea was totally different: having been forewarned by Robert Harte, according to him, I spent only a small part of the night of May 23-24 in the cellar. But for this it wouldn't be in any way necessary to have a habitable cellar: to avoid death it would even be possible to spend half an hour in the hen house or the firewood box.

The internal inconsistency in Mr. Flores's schema would not even, nevertheless, lie solely in this. Following the reasoning of the attorney, the only use I made of this warning about the impending attack consisted in my taking refuge in a "habitable" cellar (wouldn't it, nevertheless, have been a little less stupid to hide in an uninhabitable and therefore probably less accessible cellar?). That is to say, I abandoned all the inhabitants of the house to their own fate, including my grandson, whom the assailants intended to kill. Is there a shred of common sense in any of this? Isn't it obvious that if I really had been warned by my close collaborator, I would naturally have adopted totally different measures? I would have immediately informed General Nunez, mobilized my friends, and with the help of the police prepared a closed trap for the GPU's gangsters. In that case my poor friend Robert Harte would have been able to save his life. Naturally this is the way any reasonable person who had been warned would act. However, Mr. Flores prefers to attribute not only criminal, but also irrational behavior to me; dangerous to me and my friends, but favorable or at least less unfavorable for the GPU. In all truth it would be unjust not to recognize that the condition of this theory is reality pitiful.