Defendant Rothenberger: Whenever such Fuehrer Informations were sent out—and I cannot see that that was the case—then they were afterward brought to my attention.[430]
*******
EXTRACT FROM THE TESTIMONY OF DEFENDANT OESCHEY[431]
DIRECT EXAMINATION
*******
Dr. Schubert (counsel for defendant Oeschey): I am now coming to the subject of violent criminals and the first case I want to refer to is the case of Kaminska and Wdowen. The prosecution introduced Exhibit 201, which included extracts from the official files.[432] The prosecution also introduced affidavits, Prosecution Exhibits 229, 235, and 635.[433] Finally there is the witness Gros[434] who was heard on those cases (Tr. p. 2828). Please comment on it.
Defendant Oeschey: The account given of that case by the witnesses who were heard on it gives the impression as if Kaminska had been convicted merely for having thrown that stone, but that was not the case.
What was of great significance were the events which had preceded that attack which are not mentioned by the witnesses, but which were the factors which made that case so grave that led to its being evaluated as the crime of a violent criminal.
The witness, in giving an account of that case, omitted to mention that the offense began with an act of blackmail committed by the two defendants for they approached their employer, whose name was Gundel. He was an old weak man. They asked Gundel for money to which they were either not entitled at all or to which their title was extremely doubtful. And when Gundel asked that they should give him some more time, they tried to force him to give them the money by attacking Gundel, that is to say, the defendant Wdowen attacked Gundel and slapped his face. That explains why Private Wanner appeared on the spot and intervened. That factor, too, was omitted by the witnesses and that is why it was not made clear that Wanner came to the aid of Gundel and in doing so Wanner limited himself to asking the two defendants to leave Gundel’s room. But the witnesses omitted to mention that the two defendants now assaulted Wanner who after all had behaved absolutely correctly, and Kaminska when Wanner had been able to ward off the first attack took up a hoe and tried to attack Wanner with that hoe, and Wanner was only able to evade that blow by showing presence of mind and closing the door which happened to be between him and Kaminska. Shortly after Kaminska threw a stone—
Presiding Judge Brand: Wait a minute. If I remember correctly, you are merely reviewing now the findings which are contained in the transcript of the case and which is in evidence. We have examined that.