The Final 5 Days of My Parents’ Lives: June 15th

Have you ever wondered why anniversaries that are multiples of 5 or 10 are more significant milestones than those that are multiples of other numbers? I wonder if we had six fingers, instead of five, whether a 24th wedding anniversary might be a bigger deal than the 20th, and if we had seven fingers a 49th might be much more important than a 50th.

This week will mark 56 years since my parents’ executions on June 19th, 1953. I expect that unlike the 50th anniversary in 2003, the day will pass with very little public notice. But this week will resonate more powerfully for me because for the first time in 11 years the days of the week track the weekdays of 1953. In other words, my parents’ executions took place at sundown on Friday the 19th, and the 19th will also fall on a Friday this year.

To mark this echo, I’ll recall in daily posts to this blog, the events of the final five days of my parents’ lives and my feelings at the time.
------------
56 years ago today, on Monday June 15th, 1953, the Supreme Court denied my parents’ request for a stay of execution by a 5 to 4 vote. This was the 8th time my parents had asked the Supreme Court to review their case and the Court had refused them all. With this denial the Supreme Court adjourned for the summer. The Federal Bureau of Prisons scheduled the executions for that Thursday, June 18th, on my parents’ 14th wedding anniversary.

My brother, Michael, and I were living with acquaintances of my parents, Ben and Sonia Bach, in Toms River, New Jersey. I had just turned 6 and my brother was 10. The previous Friday had been the last day of school, so our summer vacation had just started. I have no specific recollection of the Supreme Court’s denial that Monday, but I do remember attending a big demonstration to save my parents in Washington DC the day before. Here’s what I wrote in my memoir about that event:

“We went to New York or Philadelphia and got on a bus with many others going to Washington. I peered out the window as we drove south on Route 1 apparently racing a passenger train I believed was filled with people going to the same place; it was exciting to observe and imagine everyone rushing to a common destination. But once we got off the bus and became part of the commotion, it wasn’t fun anymore. Then I was a small person amid crowds of milling adult legs. I observed the process of getting to the demonstration so closely because I wanted so much to understand what was happening. I could see how we got there with my own eyes, but no one told me why we were doing this or what was happening once we got there, and incomprehension left me anxious.”
------------
(Check back each day this week for a new posting leading up to Friday, June 19th, the 56th anniversary of my parents’ executions. To be notified whenever there is a new post to Out On a Limb Together, subscribe to the blog here.)

The Final 5 Days of My Parents’ Lives: June 16

Early Tuesday morning, June 16th, Ben Bach drove us to meet our parents’ attorney, Manny Bloch, in Manhattan. From there Manny took us to Sing Sing prison, 30 miles to the north, for what would become our last visit with our parents.

This was the only prison visit where we saw both our parents together at the same time. My brother wrote in We Are Your Sons, “[T]hey sat at opposite ends of the table. Robby and I wandered around the room, hugging them and listening” while they talked strategy with Manny.
I did not understand that with the executions scheduled for Thursday, it was probable that we would never see them again, but Michael did, and at the end of the visit he started to wail, “One more day to live. One more day to live.” They hurriedly said goodbye before we all broke down.

While we were all visiting at Sing Sing, unbeknownst to us, two attorneys who had not been involved in the case previously presented a petition to Justice Douglas as he left for vacation. The new lawyers claimed my parents had been tried under the wrong law, and that under the correct law the death sentence was illegal. Douglas decided to postpone his vacation one day to consider the request.

------

(Check back each day this week for a new posting leading up to Friday, June 19th, the 56th anniversary of my parents’ execution. To be notified whenever there is a new post to Out On a Limb Together, subscribe to the blog here.)

The Final 5 Days of My Parents’ Lives: June 17

On Wednesday morning, June 17th, Justice Douglas announced he was staying the executions and left for vacation. He did not rule on the merits of the new lawyers’ claim, but rather said that the petition must be considered by the District Court and then the Court of Appeals. This would add months, if not years, to my parents’ lives.

Michael recalled in We Are Your Sons that we were playing our usual game of Monopoly when Michael heard a commotion in the kitchen: “[Sonia Bach] burst in on us and starting hugging us. ‘The Douglas stay! The Douglas stay!’ … As the news sunk in, we became wildly happy, Robby included.”

This was, without a doubt, the best news we’d had since my parents’ arrest. Although I couldn’t read newspaper articles, I saw reports on TV and heard them on the radio. My interpretation was that at the hearing on Monday, the Supreme Court’s Justices had asked Manny to give them ten reasons why my parents should not be killed, and he had done this, so they stayed the executions.

But we didn’t know that, according to FBI files forced into the open twenty years later by our Freedom of Information Act lawsuit, late on the previous evening the Attorney General of the Unites States had met secretly with the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. They agreed that if Douglas issued a stay the following morning, the entire Court would be called into special session to vacate Douglas’ action. They conspired to do this knowing neither the legal reasoning behind the request for the stay nor the contents of Douglas’ ruling, which had not yet been written.

So our good news only survived about 8 hours. By late afternoon the Attorney General had asked that the Supreme Court be called into special session and by evening the Chief Justice had scheduled a hearing on Douglas’ stay for the following morning.

------

(Check back each day this week for a new posting leading up to Friday, June 19th, the 56th anniversary of my parents’ execution. To be notified whenever there is a new post to Out On a Limb Together, subscribe to the blog here.)

The Final 5 Days of My Parents’ Lives: June 18th

Thursday, June 18th, was my parents’ 14th wedding anniversary, but I have no recollection of knowing that fact as a six-year-old. In fact, I have no memory of this day whatsoever other than my belief that the Supreme Court was reconvened to ask Manny Bloch to provide an eleventh reason why my parents should not be killed. I think I confused everything I heard about “eleventh hour appeals” with giving an “eleventh reason.”

For Michael and me this was a day of waiting. Manny Bloch and the two new lawyers, Fyke Farmer and Daniel Marshall, argued before the Supreme Court in the morning that Douglas’ stay should be upheld. The Justices retired to their chambers after the argument and had not announced a decision by the end of the day.

Our parents were in limbo. For all they knew the Supreme Court could overturn the stay at any moment and their executions would go forward as planned at 11PM that very day. They drew up their wills and wrote what would be their last letter to Manny Bloch. In what for my brother and me turned out to be a momentous decision, they insisted that Manny become our legal guardian if they were executed. But the Supreme Court remained silent that day and so they lived to see the sun rise on Friday, June 19th, 1953.

------

(Check back for my final posting tomorrow, June 19th, the 56th anniversary of my parents’ execution. To be notified whenever there is a new post to Out On a Limb Together, subscribe to the blog here.)

The Final 5 Days of My Parents’ Lives: June 19th

Friday June 19th, 1953 was a warm, sunny, slightly-humid day.

In the morning the Supreme Court denied the stay by a 6 to 3 vote and the executions were set for 11PM that evening. Manny Bloch and several other lawyers spent the day filing a variety of appeals to judges and the President, but it was all to no avail. When they pointed out that it would be improper to carry out executions during the Jewish Sabbath which started at sundown on Friday, the government obliged by moving the executions forward to 8PM so they could be carried out just before sunset.

Michael and I tried to play outside but the Bachs’ front lawn was now swarming with reporters. To get away from the press we were whisked to a friend’s house in the next town. I don’t remember leaving the Bachs’, but I do recall playing ball with my friend Mark that evening, while my brother played with Mark’s older brother Steve. Earlier we’d been watching a baseball game on TV when the news flashed across the screen that plans for the executions were going forward. I do not recall Michael’s reaction, but he remembers moaning, “That’s it, goodbye, goodbye.”

Michael’s reaction, which was followed by the adults’ deciding to send us outside, gave me the sense that something terrible was happening. We came back in only when it got too dark to see the ball. I remember that Michael was distraught, but I doubt I fully comprehended that my parents had just been executed. However I do remember thinking that Manny Bloch had failed to provide the “eleventh reason” and that’s why my parents’ were killed.

Throughout that evening upwards of 10,000 people had gathered on 17th Street off Union Square in New York City. The rally was originally planned to celebrate Justice Douglas’ stay, but it turned into a death watch. Hundreds of thousands, perhaps more, demonstrated against the executions throughout the world that Friday. They promised never to forget, and even now, many communicate with me and describe what they did that day.

The 56th anniversary may not be a marker of great note and a long chunk of my life has passed since then. But this week that leads up to today has brought the memories very close.

------

To commemorate the 56th anniversary of the Rosenbergs’ executions by supporting the RFC, the organization their son Robert started in their honor, click here to donate now.

To watch a video and view the text of the Rosenbergs’ final letter to their sons (read by David Strathairn and Eve Ensler), click here.

To view a video message and letter from Robert Meeropol about how the RFC’s work honors his parents’ legacy of resistance and nurtures the children of today’s targeted activists, click here.

To be notified whenever there is a new post to Out On a Limb Together, subscribe to the blog here.)

Ethel, Julius, their friends, and the Grand Jury

On September 11th, 2008 my email inbox was flooded with files containing almost 1000 pages from the National Security Archive. This material was the long-awaited release of the testimony of 43 of the 46 witnesses subpoenaed by the Grand Jury that investigated my parents’ case. The mainstream media focused on Ruth Greenglass’s testimony, which contradicted her trial testimony that my mother was involved, and upon Morton Sobell’s statement that he and Julius engaged in non-atomic espionage. My brother and I have shared our perspective on these bombshells in many venues, so I won’t cover that ground again here.

Instead, I’ll focus on information in the transcripts that provided valuable insights into my parents’ personal lives and the investigators’ objectives. Perhaps the most interesting testimony of all came from an unlikely source: Helene Elitcher. Her husband, Max, agreed to cooperate with the government in order to escape a perjury sentence. At trial Max Elitcher provided the key testimony that condemned Morton Sobell, his long-time friend and college classmate, to 19 years in prison.

Helene agreed to cooperate as well, but her testimony focused on the social lives of my parents and their friends, rather than on illegal activity. She talked about their friends’ involvement in various Communist Party cells. She also described how she and Max stopped by my parents’ apartment in the summer of 1945. Ethel had taken my two-year-old brother “to the country” and Julius was “batching it.”

The apartment was a mess, missing a woman’s attention. They went out to a restaurant with Helene’s pregnant sister-in-law, along with William Perl (the government said he also was engaged in espionage, although he was convicted only of perjury) and his brother. My father called Joel Barr, another alleged conspirator who fled the country before my parents’ arrest, who joined them. After dropping off Helene’s sister-in-law they trooped over to Alfred Sarant’s apartment at midnight (Sarant also left the country before my parents’ arrest). Apparently he’d been asleep, but he cheerfully let them in and played Spanish guitar for them. I got the impression of a group of boisterous 20-somethings having a good time bopping around Manhattan.

Helene told of another visit to my parents’ apartment in December 1946. This time the group consisted of my parents, Max and Helene, Helen and Morton Sobell, Joel Barr, and William Perl. My parents’ Christmas tree sparked a heated controversy about what to tell your children about Christmas and Chanukah. The women with children were very concerned about what to say, but the bachelors with no child-rearing experience or concerns, were adamant that you could tell the children whatever you wanted and it wouldn’t make any difference.

I was fascinated by these glimpses into my parents’ lives. But you might wonder, what does this have to do with stealing the secret of the atomic bomb?

Check back on Thursday (Aug 27) for Part II of this story.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(To be notified whenever there is a new post to Out on a Limb Together, subscribe to the blog here.)

Part II- Ethel, Julius, their friends, and the Grand Jury

I ended my last post (Aug 25) by posing a question about why the Grand Jury investigating my parents’ case was so interested in Helene Elitcher’s recollection of the social lives of my parents and their friends: what did this have to do with stealing the secret of the atomic bomb?

The Grand Jury wanted to link all these people, at least some of whom denied knowing each other, to one another and to the Communist Party. A picture emerges of Ethel and Julius Rosenberg and their friends at the hub of an energetic and politically engaged community of Communist Party members and their allies. Many of them were recent college graduates, starting careers and families. They’d grown up in poverty during the Depression, sometimes even going hungry and cold. Yet they rose to the top of their classes in high school, some became the first members of their families to attend college, and all aspired to bring economic and racial justice to the world.

They were in some ways the 1940’s equivalent of my friends and me in Students for a Democratic Society (SDS) at the end of the 1960’s, although none of my friends grew up in poverty. Just as the Grand Juries of the 1960’s and 70’s, in the guise of investigating violence and bombings, sought to infiltrate, intimidate and isolate radical young activists, this one in 1950, in the name of uncovering espionage, sought to do the same to my parents’ generation. This doesn’t mean that none of the Grand Juries' targets committed crimes, but rather that the investigators’ political agendas went miles beyond preventing illegal acts. Destroying such activist communities was a key objective of these agents of repression.

These witch hunts continue to this day. We do not have access to recent Grand Jury interrogations of radical environmental activists, but a similar scenario has played out around activists caught up in the Green Scare cases in the Pacific Northwest and elsewhere. Once again the targets are energetic and politically engaged communities of radical young people. And once again, the Grand Jury’s object has as much to do with destroying these communities and their activist impulses as it does with preventing illegal activity.

In my parents’ case, it is telling that less than a half-dozen of the 46 witnesses interrogated by the Grand Jury were called to testify at my parents’ trial. This indicates not only how little evidence of espionage was uncovered, but also what a fishing expedition it was. However, the 40 or so witnesses who were not called to testify at my parents’ trial still had their lives thrown into turmoil, their careers disrupted or even destroyed, and many of their relationships severed.

The Grand Jury minutes revealed some specifics of my parents’ lives I had not known, but I must have intuitively sensed the importance to them of activist community. That makes it all the more fitting that one of the central aims of the RFC’s program has always been to protect and develop progressive networks under attack from repressive forces.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(To be notified whenever there is a new post to Out on a Limb Together, subscribe to the blog here.)
 

Exoneration: The Rosenberg-Sobell Case in the 21st Century

This past July I read the pre-publication manuscript of a new book about my parents’ case, Exoneration, the Rosenberg-Sobell Case in the 21st Century by David and Emily Alman, and was moved to give this endorsement:

"Join David and Emily Alman on the front lines battling to save the lives of my parents, Ethel and Julius Rosenberg, at the height of the McCarthy era hysteria. David and Emily, polished authors with an engaging literary style, were co-founders and leaders of the National Committee to Secure Justice in the Rosenberg Case. This is the only first hand account by people who were immersed in that momentous struggle, and it is a revelation."

I was still a baby when I first met Emily and Dave, and by the time I was five years old they were two of my favorite people. Emily died in 2004 at the age of 86. She’d chaired the Sociology Department at Douglass College of Rutgers University, before “retiring” to practice until she was 80. David, a novelist, businessman and social activist is still going strong at 92. I first became close to them in 1952 after they founded and helped run the National Committee to Secure Justice in the Rosenberg Case.

Advance copies of the book are now being sent to reviewers, and the final version will be published on June 19th. I can hardly wait.

My brother wrote in the introduction, “Read this book for its story of courage and action. Read it for the surprises. (Did you know Senator Joseph McCarthy was in favor of clemency for the Rosenbergs and that the Committee had indirect contact with him to explore whether he should make a public statement?) Read it for the drama of those last incredible months before June 19, 1953. Read it to discover some truly unsung American heroes."

Howard Zinn commented shortly before he died, “Exoneration examines the Rosenberg Case on the basis of meticulous research, and comes to conclusions which are provocative and persuasive. More important than questions of guilt or innocence are the challenges this book makes to the justice system in our country. There are many studies of this historic case, but the Almans bring fresh insights and raise troubling questions.”

You can’t order this book yet, but I’ll make sure you know when it becomes available as I think it will be of great interest to many RFC supporters.
 

[Update 05/21/10- The book will be published in June 2010.  It is now possible to order advanced copies by visiting www.greenelmspress.com.]
----------------------------
To receive a notification whenever there is a new post to Out on a Limb Together,
subscribe here.

Rosenberg Case Panel at Left Forum, Part 1

On March 20th at 3:00 pm, I will participate in a panel discussion at the Left Forum, (to be held at Pace University, One Pace Plaza, across from City Hall Park in lower Manhattan- click here for directions via car or public transportation), entitled, "Exonerate The Rosenbergs? Robert & Michael Meeropol React to Morton Sobell and Other New Developments." This panel is sponsored by the National Committee to Reopen the Rosenberg Case (NCRRC).

I will be joined by my brother, Michael; Miriam Schneir, co-author, Invitation to an Inquest; and David Alman, President of the NCRRC, founding Member of the original Rosenberg defense committee, and co-author of the forthcoming book, Exoneration: The Rosenberg-Sobell Case in the 21st Century (see my 3/3/10 blog post about this book). Gerald Markowitz, Distinguished Professor of History at John Jay College of Criminal Justice and the CUNY Graduate Center, will chair the panel.

2008 was a momentous year in Rosenberg case history. That summer Miriam and Walter Schneir had several conversations with Morton Sobell that led to Mort’s September admission (to a New York Times reporter) that starting in World War II he and my father provided non-atomic military industrial information to the Soviet Union. Miriam will detail these conversations and provide insight into Mort’s motivations.

Next my brother will describe his reactions to Mort’s revelations and his subsequent conversations with Mort, as well as analyze the impact of the release of Ruth Greenglass’ Grand Jury testimony, also in September 2008, on our understanding of the case. Then I’ll share my take on Mort’s statements and how reading the testimony of dozens of Grand Jury witnesses deepened my understanding of my parents’ lives and political community, exposed outrageous abuses of the witnesses’ constitutional rights and revealed that the Grand Jury was not just about uncovering illegal activity.

Finally, David Alman will outline how anti-Semitism focused the spy-hunters on Jews and explain why my parents, and even Morton Sobell, deserve to be exonerated despite some of the defendants’ participation in illegal activity.

I am very excited about this panel. Its makeup is unprecedented. It is composed of four of the world’s leading experts on my parents’ case. We have our differences but share a progressive prospective, and none of us are insisting that both my parents were innocent.

I suppose at least a few readers are wondering how we can simultaneously acknowledge that Morton Sobell, Julius Rosenberg and others engaged in illegal activity, yet still call for their “exoneration.” More than one person I know has proclaimed hotly, “How can you exonerate people who are guilty!”

Go to Part 2 of this blog topic, where I explain this concept; and read my post-panel update here.

See videos of the Left Forum panel on the RFC's YouTube channel at www.youtube.com/wwwrfcorg.  Click on the "UPLOADS" button and look fora series of  videos with titles starting, "Left Forum...".  (Thank you to videographer Joe Friendly for making this footage available.)

---------------------------------
To receive a notification whenever there is a new post to Out on a Limb Together, subscribe now.

Rosenberg Case Panel at the Left Forum: Part 2

In Part 1 of this blog topic, I described the panel I’m on at the Left Forum at Pace University in NYC, on Saturday, March 20th at 3PM, entitled, "Exonerate the Rosenbergs? Robert & Michael Meeropol React to Morton Sobell and Other New Developments." [For links to maps, directions, and other details, see Part 1.] I concluded the first part with this question, “How can you exonerate people who are guilty?”

While many people equate the word “exonerate” with “innocent,” the two words are not synonymous. I have been trying to explain this distinction for decades. I am very sympathetic to those who don’t get it because it took me years to figure it out.

In the late 1970’s I gave a talk about my parents’ case at the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute. The hall was packed with scientists. Afterwords, Dr. Henry Linschitz, the scientist who headed the part of the atomic bomb project where David Greenglass worked said to me, “The question is not whether they were guilty. The question is, ‘guilty of what?’” I nodded politely, but I didn’t understand.

It wasn’t until 1985 that I got it. There was, and remains to this day, no credible evidence that either of my parents helped steal what the prosecutors called “the secret of the atomic bomb.” Despite that fact, Judge Kaufman told my parents that, “your conduct in putting into the hands of the Russians the A-bomb years before our best scientists predicted Russia would perfect the bomb,” justified the death sentence he imposed. In effect, Judge Kaufman sentenced them to death for atomic treason, a deed they did not commit, when they had only been accused of conspiracy to commit espionage.

Even if my father and others conspired to commit espionage, they did not “steal the secret of the Atomic Bomb,” and they did not commit treason, and the U.S Government was aware of this distinction all along. Yet the FBI, prosecutors, Judge, and even the President, intentionally propagated the “atomic espionage” and “treason” façade in my parents’ case, and knowingly used these embellished and inflammatory allegations to justify killing them. My parents should be exonerated because their prosecution and execution were a result of a government orchestrated conspiracy to falsely enhance the charges against them.

Some say that this distinction is too subtle for people to comprehend. I don’t think that’s the case. I’ve found that most people grasp this concept readily when I’ve taken the time to explain it. And I admit being surprised when left wing folks, who state that they hold common people in the highest esteem, make this assumption. These individuals are concluding that the average person is too dumb to see beyond guilt/innocence, good/bad, all/nothing, etc. I fervently hope that such an elitist attitude is unwarranted.

It may also surprise people to learn that this kind of exoneration has a precedent. In August of 1977, on the 50th anniversary of Sacco and Vanzetti’s execution, Massachusetts’ Governor Michael Dukakis issued a proclamation declaring that because of the unfairness of their trial, “any stigma and disgrace should be forever removed from the names of Nicola Sacco and Bartolomeo Vanzetti.” Dukakis’ proclamation did not claim that either of these victims of wrongful execution was innocent, but it nevertheless exonerated them.

Similarly, just as my brother and I can admit our earlier mistake in proclaiming our parents’ total innocence, it is past time for the Executive Branch of the Federal Government to both acknowledge that it was wrong to execute two people for a the crime they did not commit, and also to remove from my parents’ names all stigma that is associated with their commission of that act.

Finally, by now some of you may also be wondering what planet I live on. I’m calling for bold federal action from an administration that has been, to put it kindly, timid. I’m arguing that my parents deserve an exonerating proclamation rather than proclaiming that it is politically feasible. I hope that I’ve effectively demonstrated that my parents’ should be exonerated, and cleared up some confusion in the process. Getting this administration to act will doubtless be very difficult, but its impossibility is only certain if we don’t try.

Read my post-panel report on the Left Forum event here.

See videos of the Left Forum panel on the RFC's YouTube channel at www.youtube.com/wwwrfcorg. Click on the "UPLOADS" button and look fora series of videos with titles starting, "Left Forum...". (Thank you to videographer Joe Friendly for making this footage available.)
---------------------------------
To receive a notification whenever there is a new post to Out on a Limb Together, subscribe now.

Lessons of the Rosenberg Panel

Last Saturday I joined a panel at the Left Forum at Pace University in NYC entitled, Exonerate the Rosenbergs? Robert & Michael Meeropol React to Morton Sobell and Other New Developments. (See my previous posts about the rationale for exonerating my parents: Part 1 and Part 2.) I undertook this task, not as the Executive Director of the RFC, but in my new capacity as a board member of the recently reconstituted National Committee to Reopen the Rosenberg Case (NCRRC). I believe it was the first panel made up entirely of progressive experts on my parents’ case who were willing to accept the accuracy of Morton Sobell’s claim that he and my father engaged in illegal activity to help the Soviet Union during World War II.

I admit that I had some concerns that the left-wing audience of more than 70 who packed the small room, would either have trouble accepting our stance, or find it disheartening. After a lengthy and lively question and answer period, almost everyone in the room had no trouble understanding that the crime committed by the government in executing my parents for stealing what was called “the secret of the atomic bomb,” was much worse than anything Julius Rosenberg and Morton Sobell did. Moreover, the people I spoke with agreed that it was past time to exonerate my parents of stealing the secret of the atomic bomb and mount a public campaign to achieve that end.

After the presentations and the question period, we turned the floor over to Morton Sobell to make a statement. He reiterated that he acted with my father to aid the USSR during World War II, but stated emphatically that Germany was the enemy he sought to harm, not the United States.

This reminded me of something Jeff Kisseloff, one of my new NCRRC Board colleagues, wrote in The Nation in October 2008, in reaction to Mort’s initial statement that September:

“Imagine if [Morton] had said fifty years ago: ‘We came of age in the 1930s, when as Americans we suffered under the bankruptcy of capitalism and as Jews we experienced the evils of anti-Semitism. While GM was making engines for the Nazis, you bet we aided the Russians. Someone had to.’ Maybe a few million GIs with vivid memories of places like the Ardennes and Arnhem wouldn't have disagreed.”

Morton Sobell’s admission does nothing to diminish our government’s wrongdoing in executing my parents, and we on the left should move beyond our defensive denials, and instead, assert the positive reasons why communists helped the Soviet Union in the 1940s.

A .pdf of the panel's transcript may be downloaded below.

See videos of the Left Forum panel on the RFC's YouTube channel at www.youtube.com/wwwrfcorg. Click on the "UPLOADS" button and look fora series of videos with titles starting, "Left Forum...".  (Thank you to videographer Joe Friendly for making this footage available.)

----------------------------
To receive a notification whenever there is a new post to Out on a Limb Together, subscribe now.

Surprise Ending

I don’t consider myself the world’s foremost expert on my parents’ case. For one thing, my brother, who has a better head for details and more patience for pinning them down, can recount more of the finer points than I can. Still, there are very few people in the world who know more about my parents’ case than I do.

One of them, Walter Schneir, perhaps the world’s greatest expert on the case, died in April of 2009. He was in the midst of writing a political memoir about his 50-year career as an investigative journalist. This book contained several chapters on what he’d recently discovered about my parents’ case. After his death, his wife Miriam, also a Rosenberg case expert, extracted these chapters from the larger work, edited them, wrote a preface and an epilogue and found a publisher. The new book, Final Verdict: What Really Happened in the Rosenberg Case, will be published on October 12th.

It was a humbling experience to discover that despite my expertise, and after 40 years of reading, research, discussion and thought about this major historic event, I was wrong about some of what actually happened. I’ll set the stage, before exploring what this new book has taught me. This requires a brief précis of my parents’ case.

Because the charge against them was Conspiracy to Commit Espionage, my parents’ conviction required no tangible evidence that they had stolen anything or given it to anybody. David and Ruth Greenglass, Ethel Rosenberg’s brother and sister-in-law, testified that Julius with Ethel’s help recruited David into an atomic spy ring in 1944. At that time David, an Army sergeant, worked as a machinist at Los Alamos in New Mexico where the first Atomic Bomb was being built. The Greenglasses swore that David provided a sketch and an accompanying theoretical description of the bomb to Julius Rosenberg in New York City, in September 1945, and that Ethel was present and typed up David’s notes.

David also testified that he gave another set of sketches to Harry Gold who had used the recognition signal “I come from Julius” to identify himself to David when they met. This signal was the only connection drawn between Gold and my father at the trial. Gold swore he was a spy courier transmitting information from atomic scientist Klaus Fuchs to the Soviet Union, but that on this one occasion he received information from Greenglass.

FBI documents first made public in the late 1970’s show that Greenglass originally claimed Gold identified himself as “Dave from Pittsburgh” while Gold said he identified himself to Greenglass as “Ben from Brooklyn.” One FBI file shows that after several months in prison, but before the trial, prosecutors brought Gold and Greenglass together to iron out this discrepancy. It was at that meeting that they suddenly “remembered” the name “Julius” was the recognition signal, rather than “Dave” or “Ben.”

On September 11, 2008 almost all of the Grand Jury transcripts that led to my parents’ indictment were made public. David Greenglass’s was not released, but Ruth’s was. Under oath, in front of the Grand Jury as a cooperating witness, Ruth did not mention the September 1945 meeting described above, the atomic bomb sketch, any hand-written notes, Ethel Rosenberg’s typing, or Ethel’s presence at the alleged meeting.

This revelation caused even the mainstream media to question the veracity of Ruth Greenglass’s trial testimony about Ethel’s presence and typing. Yet this was virtually the only evidence presented against my mother at trial. The absence of evidence meshed with material released by the National Security Agency in 1995 (The “Venona” Transcriptions) that indicated Ethel did not engage in spying.

On the same day that the Grand Jury information was revealed, Morton Sobell acknowledged for the first time that he, along with Julius Rosenberg, passed non-atomic, military-industrial information to the USSR. The primary purpose of this work was to help the USSR defeat the Nazis during World War II.

So up until the publication of Final Verdict I would have summarized my parents’ case as follows: Julius Rosenberg engaged in non-atomic espionage during World War II with Morton Sobell and several others. David and Ruth Greenglass were not atomic spies. The Greenglasses were a cowardly couple who committed other illegal acts and under government pressure invented the sketch of the atomic bomb and the September atomic espionage meeting in order to save themselves by helping the government “prove” that Julius Rosenberg was a master atomic spy who organized the theft of the secret of the atomic bomb. Despite the Greenglass’s testimony, neither Julius nor Ethel Rosenberg was a member of an atomic spy ring that stole the secret of the Atomic Bomb. The United States government knew all along that Ethel Rosenberg was not an espionage agent, but executed them both anyway.

I will explain how Final Verdict alters this picture in my next blog next week.

(Read Part 2 here and Part 3 here.)

Listen to a public radio interview with co-author Miriam Schneir, and Rosenberg son Michael Meeropol, here.

-------------------------------
To receive notification whenever there is a new post to "Out on a Limb Together," subscribe now.

 

Surprise Ending – Part II

I concluded my blog last week, "Surprise Ending," with an overview of how I would have summarized my parents’ case prior to reading Walter and Miriam’s Schneir’s new book Final Verdict, and promised in my next blog to report on how the new book altered my beliefs. I also reviewed the two key events that led to my parents’ conviction and execution:

1. The Greenglasses swore that David provided a sketch and accompanying notes explaining the sketch to Julius Rosenberg in New York City in September 1945, and that Ethel was present and typed up David’s notes. The prosecution called this “the secret of the atomic bomb.”

2. The June 3, 1945 meeting between David and Ruth Greenglass and spy courier Harry Gold in Albuquerque, during which all the parties agreed Gold had used the code phrase, “I come from Julius.” I neglected, but also should have mentioned, that the three witnesses concurred that at that meeting Gold presented half of a Jello box top, which the Greeneglasses matched to their half. The Greenglasses testified my father had cut a whole box top and given half to Ruth months earlier. This was the only connection between Gold and my father, and implicated Julius in arranging this meeting where a set of sketches related to the triggering device for the atomic bomb were exchanged for a payment.

This is virtually all the evidence implicating Julius and Ethel Rosenberg in atomic espionage that was presented at the trial. Prior to the publication of Final Verdict, I knew from the FBI files that Gold and Greenglass had substituted the name “Julius” for the names “Dave” or “Ben” at a meeting arranged by the FBI while they were in prison awaiting trial. I knew the Jello box presented at trial proved nothing because the only Jello box introduced into evidence was cut by David in the court room as a demonstration model. I also suspected the September 1945 meeting was invented by David and Ruth. Final Verdict sheds new light on all of this.

In 1997 my brother and Walter Schneir discussed the new book, Bombshell, which had just been published. The authors, Albright and Kunstel, were focused on the actions of Theodore Alvin Hall, the youngest atomic scientist, but they also addressed the Rosenberg case. While reading the book Walter realized that Albright and Kunstel had discovered that the original spy reports on atomic espionage from the 1940’s still existed in the Russian Ministry of Atomic Energy. The authors referred to “document 464” and commented “This one corresponds to what Greenglass confessed he handed to Julius Rosenberg in September 1945.”

My brother was concerned that if the KGB really had a sketch from David, then our previous belief that David and Ruth had made up their atomic spying under government pressure was false. My brother had obtained from the authors an “inventory” of each document’s contents and shared it with Walter. From this Walter discerned that the sketch described in document 464 contained the same telltale errors as the sketch David presented at my parents’ trial.

David had testified he drew the second sketch from memory in his cell shortly before the trial took place. Could David really have been an atomic spy? And if our father put him up to it could our father have been one as well, even though so much else in the known record of the case made this unlikely?

Walter, in the meantime, went off on another tangent without telling us. He realized the KGB files appeared to cover three sets of incidents relating to atomic espionage. The first two involved Hall and German born atomic scientist Klaus Fuchs. Information provided by Hall and Fuchs was transmitted to the Soviet Union within a week, but the third - document 464 - did not arrive in Moscow until December 27, 1945. This date confounded Walter. He could not figure out why there should have been a three-month gap between the September meeting and December delivery. The answer, once he found it, shocked him.

Walter was stymied for years.  But after carefully reviewing what the authors of another book, The Haunted Wood, reported the KGB files recorded about atomic espionage, he finally pieced together what actually happened.

In January 1945, the FBI discovered that Julius Rosenberg, who had been working for the Army Signal Corp of Engineers was a member of the Communist Party. As a result, in early February he was fired from that government job. As reported in The Haunted Wood, a KGB file dated February 23, 1945 stated: “The latest events with [Julius Rosenberg], his having been fired, are highly serious…” The KGB memo concluded that the FBI had probably discovered Julius’ work for the Soviets.  In response, the KGB immediately terminated Julius Rosenbergs’ career as an active agent and had all his contacts turned over to others.

In Walter’s words, my father was given a pink slip by the KGB in February 1945. Therefore, the supposed September 1945 espionage meeting described above between the Rosenbergs and Greenglass could not have taken place because my father was no longer actively working for the KGB when the meeting was supposed to have occurred.

Instead, Walter discovered that the Greenglasses, ON THEIR OWN, without the Rosenberg’s involvement, met with Soviet agents on December 21, 1945 and delivered the sketch the government called “the secret of the atomic bomb.” That’s why the Greenglass sketch was not delivered to the Soviet Union until December 27th of that year!

I’ll discuss the impact of this startling new information on the phrase “I come from Julius” and the Jello box top in my next blog.
 
(Read Part 1 here and Part 3 here.)

Listen to a public radio interview with co-author Miriam Schneir, and Rosenberg son Michael Meeropol, here.

--------------------------------------
To receive a notification whenever there is a new post to Out on a Limb Together, subscribe now.

Surprise Ending – Part III

I left off my last blog by promising to discuss the impact of this new information on the phrase “I come from Julius” and the Jello box top.

Walter Schneir notes in Final Verdict that the KGB files as transcribed by The Haunted Wood’s authors “puts the Jello box affair in a startling new perspective.” A KGB file dated February 17, 1945 stated that a recognition signal for that fateful future meeting between Gold and the Greenglasses had not yet been decided upon. The KGB removed Julius from active duty six days later and cut him out of the loop.

Instead, Ruth Greenglass was given the task of creating the recognition signal. In others words Ruth created the Jello box, not Julius! Imagine how my parents felt sitting in the courtroom listening to David and Ruth Greenglass swear that Julius cut the box top in half, gave one half to David and said the courier would have the other half, knowing that they had not been involved in any of this.

No wonder Gold and Greenglass had to be brought together to invent the code phrase “I come from Julius.” Julius was no longer involved when Gold and the Greenglasses met, no one was coming from him, and the KGB would never have permitted either Gold or the Greenglasses to use a code phrase with the first name of an agent they believed had been compromised by the FBI.

These new insights demolish the government’s case that Julius Rosenberg was an atomic spy. All connection between Julius Rosenberg, and the Gold - Greenglass June 1945 meeting at which the sketch related to the bomb's triggering device was supposedly transmitted, has been severed. The September 1945 meeting never took place. And neither of my parents had anything to do with the December 1945 rendezvous at which the Greenglasses – not Julius – gave the sketch the government called "the secret of atomic bomb" to the Soviet Union.

I find this new information staggering. First, it changes my view of my parents’ attorney Emanuel Bloch. His defense at the trial was that the Greenglasses were trying to pin what they did on my parents to save themselves. For decades I thought this was absurd. I was convinced in 1965 by Walter and Miriam’s first book on the case, Invitation to an Inquest, that the government had forced the Greenglasses to make up a crime that never happened, and that Manny Bloch missed the enormity of the fraud perpetrated by the government.

Manny was right and the Schneirs, as well as my brother and I, were wrong. Even my parents’ co-defendant Morton Sobell, who repeatedly said he didn’t really blame the Greenglasses because they were weak, was wrong.

It also changes my view of the Greenglasses. Now I realize that they were much more active spies than I had ever dreamed. They actually did it, and pinned what they did on my parents! The Greenglasses are even more reprehensible than I had imagined.

The Greenglasses greater villainy does not absolve the government. The government played an active role in inventing evidence against both my parents. The government knew the Greenglass sketches were of little value, yet continued to portray my parents as master atomic spies, and knowingly executed two people for a crime they did not commit.

(Read Part 1 and Part 2 of the "Surprise Ending" blogs about this shocking new book.)

Listen to a public radio interview with co-author Miriam Schneir, and Rosenberg son Michael Meeropol, here.

------------------------------
To receive a notification whenever there is a new post to Out on a Limb Together, subscribe now.

Sixty Years Ago Today

Sixty years ago today, Federal Judge Irving R. Kaufman sentenced my parents to death. He justified the death penalty for their “Conspiracy to Commit Espionage” (planning to commit espionage) conviction by saying their “conduct in putting into the hands of the Russians the A-bomb years before our best scientists predicted Russia would perfect the bomb has already caused, in my opinion, the Communist aggression in Korea, with the resultant casualties exceeding fifty thousand.”

The hoopla about Morton Sobell’s recent statements that he and my father engaged in non-atomic espionage to help the Soviet Union both during and after World War II serves to distract attention from Judge Kaufman’s towering lie: that the government of the United States knew that neither Ethel nor Julius Rosenberg stole the secret of the atomic bomb, and that Ethel Rosenberg did not actively participate in any illegal activity. Nevertheless, the government arrested, charged, tried, convicted and ultimately executed her, solely to put pressure on my father to acquiesce to the lie that he stole atomic secrets.

Judge Kaufman’s statement remains as false today as it was in 1951. The FBI, the Justice Department and Judge Kaufman were guilty of a much more serious conspiracy than any my father was involved in. The formers’ involved the fabrication of evidence, the subornation of perjury, the manipulation of the jury and the wrongful execution of two young parents. It subverted the rule of law, violated the constitution and damaged our democracy. Sixty years later, the government still refuses to come clean, and most of the corporate-controlled media continue to ignore this scandal.

I’d be less than honest if I did not admit that the latest news that Morton Sobell, my father and two others provided aeronautical information to the Soviet Union in 1948 gives me pause. My parents wrote in their last letter to me and my brother: “Always remember that we were innocent and could not wrong our conscience.” My father, at least, doesn’t seem quite so innocent anymore.

Right-wing cold warriors trumpet that Sobell’s recent statement proves that my parents were lying manipulators, but it is much more complicated than that. Neither Julius nor Ethel was guilty of the crime for which they faced the executioner. Ethel was not a spy and Julius was ignorant of the atomic bomb project. They were innocent of stealing the secret of the atomic bomb and they were fighting for their lives. It would have been next to impossible for them to explain to their children and supporters the subtle distinction between not being guilty of stealing atomic secrets and blanket innocence. Given that, I can understand the course of action they took from a political standpoint

But how does this impact me personally? How could they engage in such high-risk activities that could potentially leave their children orphans? When I wrote An Execution in the Family, I thought my father might only have engaged in helping the Soviet Union fight fascism during World War II and I asked, “How many tens of thousands of American men with young children willingly went to fight during World War II knowing that they might not survive the conflict? Was my father, whose poor eyesight disqualified him for military service, taking a greater risk by choosing this role in the battle?”

I disagree with my parents’ uncritical support for the USSR and the strategy my father employed to aid it after World War II. And knowing the terrible toll parents’ activism can take on the family, I believe parents should always take their children into account when they engage in risky activity. But I do not believe it axiomatic that all parents of young children should refrain from such activity. The RFC helps parents who engage the world and take courageous actions even though they have children. Our best chance of building a more humane and just society rests on the activism of ordinary citizens with family concerns.

Still, I question my parents’ actions more than I used to. I’ve had the luxury of living a much longer life than they did and hopefully I’ve learned from many experiences that were foreclosed to them. I may question my parents’ judgment, but I remain proud of them, even if my father did what he could to aid the Soviet Union throughout the 1940’s and my mother supported him. Despite the awful consequences of their choices and of Judge Kaufman’s lie, my parents acted with integrity, courage and in furtherance of righteous ideals, and passed their passion for social justice on to me and my brother.

-----------------------
To receive a notification whenever there is a new post to Out on a Limb Together, subscribe now.

A John Sayles Film About the Rosenberg Case!

Ever since I first saw John Sayles’ film Lone Star in the late 1990’s I’ve dreamed about getting him to make a film about my parents’ case. One reviewer captured the essence of that film, which is set in a small Texas border town: “Sayles ingeniously sets this mystery against the backdrop of a developing, multicultural community losing its economic base while haggling over a history of racism. The overall effect is of a complicated American tragedy mitigated by the possibility of personal redemption.”

I’d never seen a film in which the filmmaker handled political and personal complexity with such a deft hand. As I developed a more nuanced view of my parents’ case and my understanding of my parents as people deepened, I could think of no better person to do justice to their case and their lives than John Sayles.

As fate would have it, several years ago a dear friend’s sister, who handles John’s legal affairs, invited Elli and me and John and his partner, Maggie Renzi, to her New Year’s Eve party. Afterwards I arranged for my brother and me to meet with John to discuss the possibility of his doing a film about our parents’ case.

Since then, despite his remarkably full schedule, John has written a screenplay about the case that my brother and I are very excited about. In January my brother and I joined with John and Maggie to form JERO Films, LLC. The purpose of the company is to secure financing so that John Sayles’ screenplay can be transformed into a full-length feature film.

Of course the biggest hurdle is still before us: securing the millions of dollars necessary for this production. This is doubly challenging because it is difficult to raise funds for serious films with progressive themes. It is my hope, however, that by 2013, the 60th anniversary of my parents’ execution, the film will be a reality.

In the meantime, my family and the RFC staff have been imagining the cast. Who would play my parents, the Greenglasses, Manny Bloch, Roy Cohen, Judge Kaufman, etc.? I’d love to hear your ideas about this, keeping in mind that my parents were between the ages of 19 and 35 in the time-period covered by the film.

Who do you see as Ethel and Julius?

-----------------------------
To receive a notification whenever there is a new post to Out on a Limb Together, subscribe now.

The Dreyfus Case of Cold-War America?

The 40th anniversary of the Attica Prison rebellion earlier this month transported me back to 1971 in a flash. I’m amazed at how the decades have flown by. It seems like we just commemorated the 50th anniversary of my parents’ execution, but already the 60th (June 2013) is coming into view on my temporal horizon. The 60th anniversary of my parents’ arrests, trial, sentencing and even my first visit to them at Sing-Sing prison are already behind us.

We are now passing another major milestone in my parents’ deadly journey from Manhattan’s Lower East Side to the electric chair. This one will never be marked by the mainstream media, but it is one which those of us who stand in opposition to the corporate state should note.

Between August 15th and the beginning of October 1951, the independent, left-wing newsweekly, National Guardian, published a seven-part series of articles on my parents’ case by William A. Reuben. The first installment was entitled: “The Rosenberg Conviction: Is This the Dreyfus Case of Cold-War America?”

Bill (as we knew him) Reuben’s article was based upon a careful reading of the trial transcript. He concluded that my parents and their co-defendant Morton Sobell did not receive a fair trial, and that they were innocent of the charges brought against them. Up until that point newspapers, radio and then fledgling television marched in lock-step to the government’s tune. Not one media outlet questioned that my parents had been master atomic spies who were justly convicted. Even the Communist Party newspaper, The Daily Worker, was silent.

Reuben’s series, published in a newspaper with a circulation that was well under 100,000, sent a jolt through America’s progressive community. Within a month a courageous couple, Emily and David Alman, founded the National Committee to Secure Justice in the Rosenberg Case. They joined with a few others who had neither money nor organizing experience. “We agreed … that we were God’s second choice to save the Rosenbergs’ lives. We agreed that God’s first choice was anyone but us. On the other hand, all there was, was us.” (Exoneration, Emily and David Alman, Green Elms Press, 2010, p. 162.)

From this humble beginning, the movement to save my parents ultimately involved millions worldwide. You won’t find it described this way in high school history books, but it was by far the largest progressive movement in this country in the early 1950’s. It is safe to write that the National Guardian stories, published 60 years ago this month, were the spark that ignited a global protest.

As I survey today’s grim political landscape, I’m keeping in mind that a series of articles by a little known reporter in an obscure newspaper energized a few political newcomers. They built a mass movement that, at the height of the McCarthy Period, came within a hair’s breadth of preventing the most powerful political entity on earth from executing two communists convicted of giving the secret of the atomic bomb to the Soviet Union.

--------------------
To receive a notification whenever there is a new post to Out on a Limb Together, subscribe now.

Fitting New Pieces Together

Last week I made a quick trip to Southern California. My busy schedule did not permit me to see Hunger: In Bed With Roy Cohn, a new play that recently premiered in L.A. Yet while I was there, I was able to meet with the playwright, the producers and some of the actors after one of the performances.

The playwright, Joan Beber, is a distant cousin on my mother’s side of the family. I’d met her twin sister in Chicago several years ago. Joan wrote in her playbill notes: “I had no idea that my father was Ethel’s distant cousin and that he had risked his career to try to help her. His involvement was a closely held family secret.”

Joan told me that her father, an attorney who was well connected to major Republican politicians in his native Nebraska, engaged in a stealth campaign to have my mother’s death sentence commuted. Joan learned through her brother that their father had visited my mother in prison a few weeks before the executions took place. Neither of my parents ever mentioned this visit, and there is no evidence in the record that it occurred, so I can’t verify it. However, since her father was a relative he could have been allowed to see her.

Joan also said that after the visit her father used his political connections to convince Mamie Eisenhower to intervene with her husband, the President, to commute the sentence. Unfortunately, no one listened to Mamie, and the executions took place despite her efforts. While I have no way of confirming this story, it meshes well with a letter President Eisenhower wrote to his son explaining why he did not commute Ethel’s sentence: “It goes against the grain to avoid interfering in the case where a woman is to receive capital punishment. Over against this, however, must be placed one of two facts that have greater significance. The first of these is that in this instance it is the woman who is the strong and recalcitrant character, the man is the weak one. She has obviously been the leader in everything they did in the spy ring.”

Of course, we now know that my mother was not the leader, did not actively engage in any spying activity, and that the portrayal of my parents’ as having an unnatural “strong woman, weak man” relationship was concocted out of nothing to demonize them. I think it is most likely that the President was suckered into repeating lies presented to him as fact by underlings, rather than knowingly refusing to commute the death sentence of a woman he knew was not a spy… but we’ll never know for sure.

I’ve spent a lot of time over several decades trying to fit together who my parents were, what they did and what really happened in their legal case. It is like trying to assemble a multi-dimensional jigsaw puzzle without clear edge pieces. I’ve written here previously that many of the pieces have come together recently, revealing a much clearer picture than I had even a few years ago. After talking with Joan Beber last weekend I feel a couple more may have slipped into place.
 

60 Years Too Late

February 25th will mark the 60th anniversary of the United States Appeals Court’s affirmation of my parents’ conviction for Conspiracy to Commit Espionage. As I have explained before, my parents were convicted of conspiracy- not spying, espionage or treason as the mainstream media usually reports. Prosecutors like conspiracy charges because the law in this country holds everyone involved in the conspiracy responsible for all the acts of any of the conspirators in furtherance of the conspiracy. And all the prosecutors need to show to prove that a conspiracy exists is that two or more people got together, made an illegal plan and took one overt act to move that scheme forward. It could be as simple as agreeing to make a phone call or arranging a meeting.

In order to prove a conspiracy the prosecution must demonstrate that the defendants joined together in a common plan. This is sometimes referred to as the chain of conspiracy. In appealing their conviction, my parents’ attorneys attempted to sever the government’s chain of conspiracy at its weakest link.

This is how they did it. Although my parents’ denied that they conspired with chief prosecution witnesses David and Ruth Greenglass (my mother’s younger brother and his wife) to steal atomic secrets, they could not deny that they knew and met with the Greenglasses on many occasions. After all, they were family. Moreover, my parents’ attorneys did not contest the testimony of a third government witness, Harry Gold. Gold stated he was an espionage courier who transmitted a great deal of material to the Soviet Union about the construction of the atomic bomb from Klaus Fuchs, one of the top atomic scientists working on the Manhattan project. Gold also testified that on one occasion he obtained secret information at David and Ruth Greenglass’s apartment in Albuquerque, not far from Los Alamos where David, an Army sergeant, worked as a machinist fabricating pieces of the atomic bomb. In their appeal, my parents’ attorneys acknowledged that while the Rosenbergs and Greenglasses were connected, and Gold, Fuchs and the Greenglasses were connected, no one testified at the trial that Gold or Fuchs knew my parents or vice versa. In other words, the defense claimed that the government had not established the chain of conspiracy that connected the Rosenbergs to Gold and Fuchs.

The Appeals Court disagreed. The Justices pointed out that the Greenglasses testified that my father had given Ruth a half a Jello box-top as a recognition signal and kept the other half. David testified that when Gold came to his doorstep in Albuquerque he presented the half of the Jello box top that matched the one Ruth had kept. David stated further that my father said the person who came to collect the secrets would use a code phrase with Julius’ name in it. Gold and David both testified that Gold used the name Julius at the meeting to prove his bona fides. Thus, the Appeals Court concluded the jury could infer the connection between the Rosenbergs and Gold through the Jello box top and code phrase.

Of course, we now know a lot more than the Appeals Court did 60 years ago. Over 20 years after their decision, my brother’s and my legal action forced into the public eye secret government files detailing Gold and Greenglass’s initial confessions. Gold first said he used the name Ben in the code phrase, while David testified Gold used the name Dave. Another government file reported that after several months in custody Gold and Greenglass were brought together to iron out this discrepancy, and it was at that meeting that Greenglass “proposed” that “possibly” Gold used the name Julius. Gold responded that he was “not at all clear on this point,” but none of this came out at the trial three months later and both testified that they were certain the name Julius was in the code phrase.

It was not until the 2010 publication of Walter Schneir’s book, Final Verdict, that we learned that Ruth Greenglass, not my father, was tasked with the job of creating the “recognition signal.” Thus, the two pieces of “evidence” upon which the Appeals Court based its decision to uphold my parents’ conviction, have lost their probative value. Harry Gold and David Greenglass inserted the name Julius into the code phrase just a few months before the trial, and Ruth Greenglass, not Julius Rosenberg created the Jello box-top recognition signal. But, of course, once the executions took place on June 19th, 1953, these fatal errors could not be undone.

----------------------------
To receive a notification whenever there is a new post to Out on a Limb Together,
subscribe now.
 

95 and Going Strong

I spent the 59th anniversary of my parents’ execution speaking at Midrash, a progressive Jewish cultural center in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. It was my intent to write about this trip immediately upon my return, but I’ve decided to let my reactions percolate a little longer and save them for next week’s blog.

I returned to the RFC office yesterday to the first flood of responses to our annual June 19th mailing. Many people include heart-felt notes along with their contributions, and I am moved to include one here.

“Dear Robert,

I’m sorry that I can’t give a greater amount for this good cause but there are too many causes to help now. I’m 95½ years young and have a limited income. I have never gotten over what our government did to your parents. It still breaks my heart, thus I still give at least a token gift for your good cause. I am afraid of what is happening in our country now. We must do what we can now. Best to you and your brother,"

M.G.

This note is not unique. I receive several like it every June 19th. But this one struck me because the author managed to convey so much so succinctly. I was also impressed by its spirit. This person’s response to things being tough is to persevere and become even more active.

She’s right, the political situation is indeed frighteningly bad. So bad that even some progressive people are supporting a candidate who has changed the foreign policy of his predecessor from occupying Iraq to killing civilians with drones in Pakistan, who gives away unimaginable amounts of taxpayer money to Wall Street crooks, and supports assassinating American citizens without due process. The progressives who support him do so because he’s made some positive changes, and because they feel the alternative is even worse.

But dark as things appear, those who can remember that terrible day of June 19, 1953, when many felt our nation was careening toward fascism, will also remember the progressive resurgence that followed. People did not give up because times were tough, they tried harder and some of their efforts bore fruit. The author of the note I quoted above inspires me to persist in working for economic and social justice. Yes, it is nice to win, but we work to make the world a better place because it is the right thing to do. That’s the attitude I take away from the 59th anniversary of my parents’ execution, and if I should live so long, I hope I still feel that way when I’m 95½.

-------------------------------
To receive a notification whenever there is a new post to Out on a Limb Together,
subscribe now.

60 Years Since the Supreme Court Ducked My Parents’ Case

On October 13, 1952, the United States Supreme Court denied certiorari - that is declined to review the record - in my parents’ case for the first time.  Under federal law, anyone convicted of a criminal offense has the right to have their appeal heard by the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the circuit in which the trial court sits.  Since my parents’ trial was held in the Federal District Court of the Southern District of New York (March 1951), their appeal was heard and denied by the Second Circuit Court of Appeals in February 1952.

Also under our federal rules, a criminal defendant has the right to petition the Supreme Court for review of the Circuit Court’s decision.  But with certain exceptions, which don’t apply here, at least four Justices of the Supreme Court must agree to grant certiorari before the review can take place.  Only one Justice, Hugo Black, voted to hear the case in response to my parents’ first application.  Ultimately, they applied for certiorari nine times, garnering as many as three votes from the Justices to hear the case, but they never obtained that crucial, and possibly life-saving, fourth vote.

The Supreme Court’s refusal to review the record in my parents’ case on nine separate occasions generated a controversy over 20 years later that might have been somewhat amusing if it weren’t about something so deadly serious.  In 1973, famed trial lawyer, Louis Nizer, published The Implosion Conspiracy, a book about my parents’ case.  His thesis was that my parents were guilty, but the sentence of death against them was excessive.  He reached his conclusion of guilt by answering just one question:  Was the evidence presented to the jury at the Rosenbergs’ trial sufficient to support their conviction?  He never even considered the possibility that the evidence was tainted.

Nizer also claimed that 112 judges had reviewed my parents’ conviction and none discounted its validity.  My brother and I had to chuckle when we found out how he had arrived at this figure.  Since my parents had applied for Supreme Court review nine times, and there were nine Justices on the Supreme Court, Nizer concluded that 81 judges had upheld my parents’ conviction.  In other words, Nizer counted nine judges who refused to review the case, several of whom had actually voted to review it, as 81 judges who upheld my parents’ conviction.   He also inflated the number of remaining judges (112-81=31) with similar counting shenanigans around each denial of my parents’ multiple appeals to three-judge panels of the Second Circuit.

The fact that Louis Nizer, a political liberal considered by many to be one of the great trial lawyers of the 1950’s, would stoop to such sleight of hand to “prove” that, for the most part, the courts functioned properly in the Rosenberg case, sheds a lot more light on one liberal’s apology for the system than it does on my parents’ culpability.  And, of course, the fact remains, the Supreme Court never reviewed the fairness of my parents’ trial or any other aspect of the record in the case.

-------------------------
To receive a notification whenever there is a new post to Out on a Limb Together, subscribe now.
 

"The Buck Stops Here" and Other Distortions

President Harry S. Truman was famous for the sign on his desk that read, “The buck stops here.” But when it came to my parents’ case this proved just as false as so many other truisms about our government - such as that all citizens be afforded due process before the law, be presumed innocent until proven guilty, or that our constitution’s “separation of powers” would prevent the judicial branch of government from conspiring with the executive branch to speed an execution.

My parents’ First Petition for Executive Clemency reached President Truman’s office on January 10, 1953, but he “vacated the Presidency on January 20, 1953, without acting on the Rosenbergs’ clemency appeals” (Invitation to an Inquest, Walter and Miriam Schneir, Pantheon, 1983, p. 192). In a few days we will reach the 60th anniversary of the day Truman passed the buck to Eisenhower.

Three weeks after entering office, the newly inaugurated President denied the petition. Eisenhower explained his denial of their request as follows:

“The nature of the crime for which they have been found guilty and sentenced far exceeds that of the taking of the life of another citizen: it involves the deliberate betrayal of an entire nation and could very well result in the death of many, many thousands of innocent citizens.” [This presumes my parents stole what prosecutors called valuable atomic secrets, but now we know that this was not the case.]

“All rights of appeal were exercised and the conviction of the trial court was upheld after four judicial reviews, including that of the highest court of the land.” [Another error, since the Supreme Court never reviewed my parents’ case.]

“I have made a careful examination into this case and am satisfied that the two individuals have been accorded their full measure of justice.’ [Eisenhower only consulted with those involved in my parents’ prosecution.]

Eisenhower received my parents’ Second Petition for Executive Clemency on June 16, 1953 just a few days before their execution. He denied that one as well. On June 16th he explained in a letter to his son, John, that although it might seem harsh to execute a woman, if he commuted her sentence it would only encourage the Soviets to recruit more female spies. Eisenhower’s rationale for executing my mother was that the Soviet Union would recruit more female spies because, if captured, they’d be imprisoned, rather than executed. This doesn’t make much sense, but as Truman’s “The buck stops here” plaque and Eisenhower’s statements denying my parents’ first clemency petition indicated, accuracy and logic were in short supply during the McCarthy era hysteria.

----------------------
To receive a notification whenever there is a new post to Out on a Limb Together, subscribe now.