| |
| [Ger
] many, being committed to work
there." Kaminska and Wdowen were lovers. They were both working for a farmer,
Gundel. They demanded pay from Gundel, which was refused, and they became more
insistent. "The defendant Wdowen actually gave the farmer a push." "In his
distress Gundel called for help of the Pfc. Anton Wanner who was in uniform and
happened to be spending his leave there." A quarrel followed. Kaminska slapped
the soldier's face, and the soldier slapped her face. During the dispute the
soldier's combat infantryman's badge fell to the ground. There were various
demonstrations; the soldier drew his bayonet, and Kaminska ran out of the room
and took a hoe, but did not get a chance to attack the soldier because he
closed the door. Shortly thereafter, the soldier was riding on his bicycle and
the Pole, Kaminska, threw a stone at him without, however, hitting him. The
next day a police official came out to the farm and arrested Kaminska who
followed him "unwillingly." Wdowen, contrary to the instructions of the police
officer, followed them. The policeman slapped Wdowen's face twice to force him
to turn back. Nevertheless, Wdowen followed to the door of the cell and
attempted to assist the Polish woman, Kaminska, in resisting imprisonment. The
very most that can possibly be said of the evidence, as stated by the defendant
Oeschey himself, is that there was a good squabble with mutual recriminations
and threats. It is to be understood that many of the statements heretofore
made, as quoted from the opinion, were denied by the defendants in that case
but, as before stated, we do not retry the case upon the facts. The court
argues at great length concerning the claim of the prosecution that the stone
weighed a half a pound and should be considered equal to a cutting or thrusting
weapon. The court said: |
| |
"The defendant had the insolence to
attack a German soldier; she took up an offensive position which would have led
to a great blood bath if the soldier had not evaded the stone which was hurled
at him." |
| The court said of Kaminska (NG-457, Pros.
Ex. 201) : "She thereby characterizes herself as a Polish violent
criminal," and then stated: |
| |
"As the defendant on 1 September
1939 was a resident in the territory of the former Polish state, she had to be
found guilty, in application of paragraphs II, III, and XIV of the Penal Law
against Poles, of a crime of assault and battery in coincidence with a crime of
threat, a crime under paragraph 1, section 1, of the law against violent
criminals, and of a crime of offering resistance to the authority of a state."
|
| The fact that the discriminatory law against
Poles was invoked in this case is established. The opinion signed by Oeschey
states: |
1160 |