To Kill Rasputin: The Life and Death of Grigori Rasputin (Revealing History) (29 page)

There were bloodstains, which Yusupov wanted to disguise, leading from the outer door along the wall and along the fence. There is a police scene of crime photograph that purports to show blood traces in the snow. It is possible that Rasputin somehow escaped, and, dripping blood, collapsed in the yard and was left there, with nobody quite daring to brave the watching police and approach him.

It was this shot or shots from the window that resulted in the first visit by the police. It was as a result of this occurrence that Yusupov invented the shot-dog story. According to Yusupov, he knew there were bloodstains in the snow, and, in order to confuse forensic analysis, he decided to have a dog shot and drag its body over the bloodstains. This is frankly ludicrous. Blood does not stain snow. Even in sub-zero temperatures, blood in snow can be shovelled into buckets and flushed down the nearest drain. It is more likely that Yusupov was making excuses for the presence of a dark shape near the snow-heaps by the fence. Either that, or he was too drunk to think straight. Furthermore, his claim that, on his instructions, a servant then shot a dog makes little sense either. No one in the vicinity claims or recalls hearing this shot, which would, according to Yusupov’s story, have occurred sometime after the shot or shots heard at half-past two or three o’clock, but a good while before the shots heard just after six o’clock.

There is a hiatus of at least two hours, possibly three, between the original shot or shots in the courtyard, which had brought police to the palace, and their six o’clock roll call which was interrupted by the ejection of the women. The roll call is the only reliable timing we have between the departure of Rasputin from Gorokhovaya Street and the finding of the body. At the police station, the night shift was going off duty and the much bigger day shift was coming on. There were policemen to spare, and they saw what happened: two women, drunk, were forcibly bundled out. The most likely explanation is that these women knew the men were going to commit murder and they wanted either to stop them or to participate. And the men wanted them out of the way. Another, and not a contradictory, explanation, is that they were deliberately distracting the police from a rumpus in the courtyard.

Somebody had to have the nerve to go out and drag Rasputin back in. Daylight was approaching and he had to be got away from the building and finally disposed of. Shooting was the only way to finish him off properly, but it would cause damage in a confined space like the stairwell.

An unspecified time later, four shots were heard ‘in rapid succession from the forecourt’. This does not necessarily mean that the shooting took place
on
the forecourt, but it is most likely. And we can treat ‘rapid succession’ with scepticism too. Had the reports alleged that the shots rang out over a five-or ten-minute period, or in the course of the women’s departure, they would have seemed incompetent. But by this stage they did not
want
to see anything. A diligent policeman or Okhrana agent getting mixed up with Romanovs and Princes was likely to offend the wrong person and find his career at an end.

The group of early-morning shots, fired with a brief interval between them, came from different revolvers, according to the Autopsy Report. This view is backed up by the 1993 review led by Dr Vladimir Zharov. In 2004, Zharov told BBC Timewatch that microscopic measurements of the entry wounds proved that the three bullet-holes were of different sizes.
¹¹
The report considered that the chest wound was most likely caused by a 6.35mm Browning handgun, the type used by Yusupov and Dmitri Pavlovich. The right-hand back wound was slightly larger, therefore consistent with Purishkevich’s 7.65mm Savage pistol. These two shots were, the Autopsy Report says, Fired from a distance of about 20cm, when Rasputin was
standing up
.
¹²
One bullet ‘penetrated the left-hand side of his chest and passed through his stomach and liver’ and the other ‘entered the right-hand part of his back and passed through his kidneys’. Had these shots been fired simultaneously while Rasputin was sitting or standing, the assassins would have been at risk of wounding each other, diagonally through Rasputin’s body.

There must have been an interval between shots. But how would Rasputin have remained standing? It seems most likely that he was carried out with his wrists bound and propped in a sitting position against a snow-heap; two people fired at him, and one bullet hit him as he fell forwards. Both these wounds would have, in themselves, been fatal within twenty minutes.

The Autopsy Report is equally adamant that the third bullet, which was immediately fatal, was fired at point-blank range while the body was supine. The most likely scenario is that, having shot Rasputin twice, the conspirators wrapped his body in cloth and carried it across the courtyard to the waiting car. This is consistent with the scene of crime photograph taken by the police showing a straight line of blood from the doorway across the courtyard. Had Rasputin staggered across the courtyard, as claimed by Yusupov and Purishkevich, one would expect to see an irregular trail of blood. As the killers approached the gate, either a spasm or a sound from the body indicated that he was still alive, if only barely. It is at this point that the body was then put down, and someone, with a handgun of a different calibre to the ones that had fired the first and second shots, delivered the
coup de grâce
that ended Rasputin’s life.
¹³
The third shot is therefore the most crucial in determining the identity of Rasputin’s killer. Professor Derrick Pounder, in his review of the ballistics evidence, observed that,

At the centre of the forehead there is a gunshot wound of entry comprising a central defect and a very prominent abraded margin with two lines of radiating accentuation at 8 o’clock and 10 o’clock which likely represent radiating lacerations. The presence of the lacerations would allow for the opening up of the central defect and the passage of a much larger bullet than might be anticipated from the size of the central defect alone. The abraded margin reflects the grazing of the stretched skin by the bullet at the moment of bullet entry.
¹⁴

Turning his attention to identifying the bullet, Professor Pounder calculated that

the central defect of the wound is about 6mm true diameter and the abraded margin between about 12 and 15mm true diameter. The overall size of the wound and prominence of the abraded margin suggests a large lead non-jacketed bullet.
¹⁵

Full metal-jacketed bullets for handguns were the norm by the outbreak of the First World War. These were completely encased in a hard metal jacket to prevent expansion upon impact. In fact, the use of expanding, unjacketed bullets in small arms ammunition had been limited and proscribed by The Hague Accords of 1899 and 1907. Britain, however, was unique in using unjacketed bullets for its standard-issue officer’s revolver, the .455-inch (11.56mm) Webley, arguing that the design was compliant with the Accords.

In considering which handgun out of the range available at the time of the murder was the one compatible with the ballistics evidence, Professor Pounder concluded that, based upon calibre,

the Webley is the likely culprit… the Webley was a revolver firing non-jacketed lead bullets while the other weapons [used by Dmitri Pavlovich, Purishkevich and Yusupov] were pistols firing jacketed ammunition, a contrast which would also favour the Webley since lead non-jacketed bullets produce the more prominent abraded margin.
¹⁶

Dr Zharov’s 1993 review supported Professor Kossorotov’s opinion that the third bullet went straight through the head, exiting from the back, although they point out that there are no photographs of the back of the head, so this cannot be established with absolute certainty. A tell-tale clue, however, is a pool of blood in the snow which is evident in the police scene of crime photograph, close to the second courtyard gate. This is consistent with an exit wound to the back of the head while the body is lying on the ground. Dr Zharov’s team also agree with Professor Kossorotov’s view that, although Rasputin’s body was removed from the courtyard and thrown in the river, he was already dead and did not, therefore, drown.

The cause of death was not drowning… the lungs were not swollen and there was no water in the respiratory organs.
¹⁷

Although the lungs contained a small amount of water, Professor Derrick Pounder also agreed that,

since the diagnosis of drowning is one of exclusion based upon all of the evidence it is clear that he did not drown, given the presence of a prior lethal injury. The fluid on the lungs is a common non-specific autopsy finding which is not a diagnosis of drowning.
¹⁸

The above reconstruction of events is based upon a best-fit scenario taking into account the timings, reports and statements made in contemporary documents.

Whether the shots were indeed fired inside the building or outside in the courtyard, at whatever time of the night, it is clear beyond doubt from the forensic evidence that the following is true:

The first and second shots were fired at close range in quick succession to each other,
¹⁹
by guns of different calibre.

The third shot, fired at point-blank range to the forehead, was the fatal shot that killed Rasputin.

None of the shots was fired from a distance, which completely negates Purishkevich’s story. His claim to have fired the fatal shot is further discredited by the fact that his gun, a Savage, fired jacketed bullets which do not match the ballistics evidence for the fatal wound.

The wound made by the fatal third shot is compatible with an unjacketed .455 bullet from a British officer’s .455-inch Webley revolver.

Rasputin did not drown – he was dead before he was thrown in the river.

With these facts in mind, we now need to establish who was actually present at the scene of the murder and, more significantly, who fired the third and fatal shot that ended Rasputin’s life.

It seems clear that Rasputin was tempted to the Yusupov Palace on the Moika by the prospect of female company – specifically, a young and beautiful Romanov married to a well-known homosexual transvestite. The implication is that he was enticed by a possible seduction. He may have seen her photograph, but he had never met her. Invited, as he was, to meet her after midnight on a Friday, he could reasonably have expected to find a private party, and indeed to meet her in the company of others; but she was not there.

Yusupov told General Popov that two women had left with Dmitri Pavlovich. But by the time he related his account to Stopford on 6 June 1917, it was already coherent from repetition, and the women were left out. He contradicts Purishkevich’s ‘diary’ published the following year by denying that any women were present at all. But the police saw two. Madame Derfelden was held under house arrest for forty-eight hours after the murder, and Okhrana snoopers reported on Vera Koralli’s stay at her hotel. Early correspondence between Yusupov and Irina – who at one point fully intended to be present – refers to other women being invited.

At least two women were there.

There is also some confusion about Yusupov’s servants. He had a batman and a house steward. His batman could have been wearing military uniform, but Purishkevich had seen Yusupov’s servants before, and knew that only two of them were going to be on duty; and he is adamant that the two men on duty that night, the one who let him into the palace and the other ‘dressed in a soldier’s uniform’ sitting on the bench, were ‘soldiers’, not identifiable by rank. He is equally clear in calling Pavlovich’s batman a ‘servant’ and voicing strong disapproval of his having been let in on the secret. Frankly, Purishkevich didn’t approve of servants at all; ‘impudent’, he thought a chauffeur would look, and they were all a security risk as far as he was concerned.
He did not think that the two men who opened the door to him and helped with the general clearing-up were servants.
The Okhrana agent Tikhomirov witnessed a ‘man in military field uniform’ in the courtyard earlier in the evening. Yusupov, in his statement to Major Popov, uses the same description as if prompted. This could not have been Nefedev (Yusupov’s batman) or Byzhinski (the butler) or Yusupov, Purishkevich or Sukhotin, who would have been wearing tunics, i.e. formal uniform. Field uniform was worn on active service.

Yusupov says they took a soldier with them to help dispose of the body. Had Yusupov’s servant gone with them, he would have reported back to Yusupov on his return. But it was not until lunchtime the following day that Yusupov knew for sure from Dmitri Pavlovich where and how the corpse had been dumped. This implies that the ‘soldier’ was not Nefedev or Byzhinski. It is possible that there were two other people in military uniform. British officers in Petrograd wore Russian army greatcoats over their tunics as they considered their own coats inappropriate for the extreme cold of the Russian winter.

Oswald Rayner was in the palace that night. He was part of Yusupov’s intimate circle. A reticent man, he nevertheless confided in later life to his cousin Rose Jones that he had been in the palace on the night of the murder.
²⁰
He had, like John Scale, been ‘involved in the planning’. We know this because the diary of William Compton, Rayner and Scale’s chauffeur, records visits to the Yusupov Palace by Rayner and Scale on (British dates) 26 and 29 October, 3, 4, 9, 16 and 28 November and 2 December. (The corresponding Russian dates are 13, 16, 21, 22 and 27 October and 3, 15 and 19 November – five days before Purishkevich made his electrifying speech in the Duma.) The only date for which there is no entry in the diary is the day of the murder.
²¹