That the explanation was nonsensical did not seem to occur to him. Apparently I had brought along an extra set of maps just so I could destroy them.
We came now to the watches and gold coins: Q. All these things were for bribing Soviet people?
A. It was to help me in any way to get out of the Soviet Union.
Q. I ask, for bribery?
A. If I could have done it, I would have resorted to bribing. If I could have bought food with the money, I would have bought it, for I would have had to make a fourteen-hundred-mile walk. In other words, the money and valuables were to be used in any way to aid myself.
Q. But you, of course, found that you were unable to use the money for bribing Soviet citizens. The very first Soviet citizens whom you met disarmed you and handed you over to the authorities.
A. I didn’t try to bribe them.
Rudenko had no further questions. I was not finished testifying, however. It was now the turn of the presiding judge to examine me. I was getting a course in Soviet courtroom procedure, one which I could very well have done without.
PRESIDING JUDGE VIKTOR V. BORISOGLEBSKY: Defendant Powers, I ask you to answer my questions. What was the main objective of your flight on May 1?
A. As it was told to me, I was to follow the route and turn switches on and off as indicated on the map.
Q. For what reason?
A. I would assume that it was done for intelligence reasons.
In the transcript this was edited to remove Borisoglebsky’s second question and revise my reply as follows: “As it was told to me, I was to follow the route and turn switches on and off as indicated on the map. It stands to reason that this was done for intelligence reasons.”
Q. You testified in this court yesterday that Colonel Shelton was particularly interested in rocket-launching sites.
A. Yes, he did mention one place on the map where there was a possible rocket-launching site.
Q. Would it be correct to say that the main objective of your flight on May 1 was to discover and register on the map all rocketlaunching sites?
A. I can only express my opinion on this matter. I feel sure that the experts who studied the film from my camera know what interested the people who sent me, but in my own opinion Soviet rockets interest not only us but the whole world as well. And I assume a flight like this would be to look for them, I suppose. But I repeat, I do not know, and I’m only expressing my own opinion.
As previously mentioned, the rocket-launching site, Tyuratam Cosmodrome, was not a primary target on this particular overflight but had been thrown in since I would be in the vicinity. I had emphasized it in the interrogations in the hope, successful I felt, that the Russians would focus on this rather than our major objectives.
Q. Defendant, did you realize that by intruding into the airspace of the Soviet Union you were violating the sovereignty of the USSR?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. Why did you agree?
A. I was ordered to do so.
Q. Do you think now you did your country a good or an ill service?
A. I would say a very ill service.
Q. Did it not occur to you that by violating the Soviet frontiers you might torpedo the Summit Conference?
A. When I got my instructions, the Summit was farthest from my mind. I did not think of it.
Q. Did it occur to you that a flight might provoke military conflict?
A. The people who sent me should have thought of these things. My job was to carry out orders. I do not think it was my responsibility to make such decisions.
Q. Do you regret making this flight?
Grinev had warned me the question was coming. I had expected it from him or Rudenko, not the presiding judge. If I had entertained any doubts that they were working as a team, this settled them.
A. Yes, very much.
I didn’t add that I regretted it only because it was unsuccessful.
Another of the judges, Major General Alexander I. Zakharov of the Air Force, now had his inning. As might be anticipated, his questions dealt with my flight training, details of the May 1 mission, instrumentation, and so forth. Except for a query about the granger, in which I managed to make clear it was designed for air-to-air rockets, none were loaded questions. Most of those which followed, from Major General Dmitry Z. Vorobyev of the Artillery, were. Vorobyev tried to trap me into saying I was familiar with the special equipment, but failed.
It was interesting how the questions dovetailed. What Rudenko left out, Grinev or one of the judges put in.
Finally I was allowed to sit down. Counting the previous day, I’d been on the stand nearly six hours.
Looking exceedingly uncomfortable in suits and ties, and obviously nervous about appearing before such a large audience, the four men from the state farm (who were later decorated by the USSR for heroism) related the details of my “capture.”
Something was missing from their testimony, but not until the last one had finished did I realize what it was. None of the four had mentioned the second parachute we had seen.
Why?
At the time, I had assumed the parachute was in some way connected with the rocket. Now I began to wonder if, in addition to the U-2, the Soviets had also shot down one of their own planes.
With that same “first shot.”
Asked if I had any questions for them, I said, “I want to express my thanks for the help that was shown to me by all these people on that day. This is the first opportunity I have had to thank them. I am happy to thank them.”
Since “voluntary surrender” was one of the mitigating circumstances, I wanted it clearly established that I had not resisted capture and felt no antagonism toward them.
It was now the turn of the “expert witnesses.” Functioning as a committee, each group had been assigned for study a certain portion of the evidence.
The first group, after examining the various documents found on me or on the plane, concluded that “the pilot Francis Powers belongs to the Air Force of the United States of America.”
Grinev didn’t object. But by now I had given up expecting him to. The court seemed to accept their finding as fact.
The next group had been given the task of examining the wreckage and determining whether there were identification marks on the aircraft. They concluded that there were not and had never been.
I knew better. Given a chance to question their spokesman, I asked whether the identification marks could have been placed on top of the paint and then removed. Though he conceded the possibility, the presiding judge made clear that he accepted the original testimony. I realized it was useless to persist.
Other witnesses, after lengthy examination of the special equipment—cameras, exposed film, radio receiving instruments, magnetic recorders, etc.—concluded that they had been used for reconnaissance and that the purpose of the flight was espionage.
After this, there was a break for lunch. This time the guards kept me surrounded. Apparently they had sensed that I was ready to bolt and were determined to give me no second chance.
With the start of the second session at 4:30 P.M. there was no longer any doubt as to why Rudenko had earlier emphasized the pistol.
The expert witness, a lieutenant colonel in the Engineers, stated:
“The pistol is designed for noiseless firing at people in attack and defense.”
I was now to be made a potential assassin, even though my weapon was only a .22.
But he didn’t stop at that. Examining other portions of my survival equipment, he observed: “The above-mentioned vials represent an incendiary means consisting of a packing, combustible substance and a friction-type ignition device. On the exterior surface of the packing there is a brief instruction for use of the vials written in English. Such vials are manufactured for special use when it is necessary for flame to act for a comparatively long time on the object to be set on fire.”