The foreigner, who was working here in Germany was to the German State not in the relationship of loyalty. Moreover, as far as his views are concerned, he comes from another world and is subject to the opposite propaganda. Therefore, in all Malicious acts cases against foreigners much lenient sentences were pronounced than against Germans.
JUDGE HARDING: I am trying to get what happened in your court. Since I have not been answered, I want to ask further. As I understand it, German juveniles were subject to certain exemptions, certain protection under the law. This protection was not given to a Pole, as I understand it. Is that correct?
THE WITNESS: Yes, that is correct.
JUDGE HARDING: Was there ever a case in your court in which a Polish Juvenile was punished as an adult where such punishment could not have been imposed upon a German juvenile?
THE WITNESS: I do not recall such a case.
JUDGE HARDING: That is what I wanted to find out.
THE PRESIDENT: I should like to pursue that same question a little. You said that when the act of the Pole violated the same law, that a German violated by a similar act, that the punishment would be the same in general. In other words, you were taking illustrations from the German Penal Code: arson, for instance. You did not mean to say that the ordinary German penal code covered every act which was covered by the law against Poles and Jews, did you?
THE WITNESS: No, no.
THE PRESIDENT: There were additional acts which were made crimes if committed by Poles and Jews which were not crimes under the penal code?
THE WITNESS: Yes. We wanted to go into that in the next question about the legal situation.
THE PRESIDENT: But your answer was that that was not a matter for the judges to determine?
THE WITNESS: Yes, yes.
JUDGE HARDING: That brings me back to my question, if I may repeat it. Then in your court there were cased in which punishment was imposed upon a Pole which could not have been imposed upon a German. Is that correct?
THE WITNESS: These cases in effect never happened in our court because one has to take into consideration, to come back to the question asked by the Presiding Judge, that this additional possibility of punishment against Poles took effect in Poland, whereas we exclusively had to sentence crimes by which German penal laws were violated at the same time and in such a case the application of the law against Poles was only a question or order. As a rule the sentence was determined on the basis of the German law.
JUDGE HARDING: Do I understand you to take the position that the decree against Poles and Jews did not apply in the Reich?
THE WITNESS: No. The law, of course, was applied but in its Part I it was not applied as extensively as it was applied in Poland. This is how matters were: primarily, the law was supposed to be applied in Poland to Poles and was extended later on to Poles who worked in the Reich. The facts of a crime which were threatened with a sentence in this law are such which were caused by the needs in Poland itself.
THE PRESIDENT: But the law against Jews and Poles was applied in your court; is that not correct?
THE WITNESS: Yes, yes. It was also applied. The sentence, for instance, read as follows: "So and so, by applying Roman Numerals II, III and XV, is sentenced for a crime against the law protecting the war economy, for example."
THE PRESIDENT: You were saying that the law against Poles and Jews was applied in your court.
THE WITNESS: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: But the illustration you gave did not refer to that law. Did you mean that the section numbers were section numbers of the law against Poles and Jews?
THE WITNESS: Yes, yes.
THE PRESIDENT: I see.
THE WITNESS: Yes. I did nay sentenced under application of the law against Poles and Jews, article this or that number.
THE PRESIDENT: Now we understand. Go ahead.
BY DR. KOESSL:
Q: Witness, will you now please comment on the question of the scope of penalty in the war time laws and in particular on the question of the threat of penalty in the law against Poles?
A: I have already stated, in answering the previous questions, that the German judge within the scope of the penalty has no free discretion but here, too, has to comply with the generally recognized legal principles. Now, we have discussed this free discretion and, among other things, we have also discussed that it was after all in the hand of to judge to avoid the most severe consequences. In that connection we also discussed the laws which provided for the absolute death penalty.
The main laws which were applied by us during the war and which have been mentioned here in part by the prosecution and in part by the defense are the following I only am going in to this in order to demonstrate by what formulation from the very beginning the judge is under a binding condition regarding the question what sentence do I have to pronounce. The law for the preservation of legal peace is of importance here, the law of the 13 of October 1933 and of the 24 of April 1934. This law is important in the Schlamminger case which will be discussed here concretely. Here it says the death sentence will be pronounced or, unless a more severe penalty applied previously, a penitentiary sentence up to 14 years. The principle applied here is that if the law mentions the death penalty as the first threat, then the legislator thereby expresses that the death penalty is to be pronounced if no overwhelming mitigating circumstances exist. Thus, it was not up to the discretion or to the free choice of the court whether they pronounced one or the other sentence. The will of the law required primarily the death sentence.
Another law which was applied and is important is the law against undermining of military morale. In Article V in the special War-Time Penal Code of 17 August 1938, under figure I the wording is somewhat different than in the proceeding law. In this law it says simply for undermining of the military morale the person will be sentenced to death. In Article II, it is laid down that in less serious cases penitentiary or prison sentences can be pronounced. It was generally recognized that if the law is phrased in that way the legislator wanted to express that the death sentence was to be pronounced as a rule.
That is to say, that the ordinary, usual case that came before a court had to be punished with the sentence and only if in addition to this normal case overwhelming mitigating reasons exist, then the judge has the right not to impose this usual sentence.
In the law against extraordinary measures regarding radio, in this so-called public enemy law, in the order to supplement the penal regulations for the protection of the fighting force of the German people, the concept of an especially serious case is important. In this law, the jurisdiction developed from the very beginning the following practice, that the especially serious case as a concept was no reason for pronouncing a certain sentence, but that it was a characteristic of the facts of the case. This meant, in other words, that in an especially serious case the judge had either to give his reasons for regarding it as such or for rejecting it; and that if he regarded it as an especially serious case, the death sentence in accordance with the facts was mandatory. So that, for example, in the law against enemies if it was assumed that it was an especially serious case, two facts were contained in the regulations; one, the scope provided for the sentence, and another one, mandatory sentence, and that is the death sentence.
JUDGE HARDING: The legislative authority that you speak of was, after 1933, basically Hitler, is that not correct?
A: I did not have an exact insight into how matters were at the top, but since 1933 we had to work extensively with the so-called government laws, so that already before that time, the method of the so-called government law was practiced very extensively; and after 1933 this method, of course, and it was suitable for this system, and was practiced extensively so that most laws which were promulgated after 1933, which are important here, especially those laws regarding war time conditions, wore such war time laws.
Hitler himself did not issue any laws, at least, I did not know any law that he issued; but by law I mean the law in the usual meaning of that word. Beyond that, as is well-known, the view was represented that all expressions of Hitler's will or opinion had a certain force of law in themselves. The so-called Fuehrer order.
BY DR. KOESSL:
A: Did you, witness, ever make, for example, the Fuehrer Order a basis of a judgment?
A: Of course, that was out of the question. Ye exclusively had to apply the usual law that was published in the Reich Law Gazette, and we had to do nothing but to examine whether the law was promulgated in the regular manner. Everything else was none of our business. As far as the scope of the sentence is concerned, it is of particular importance. There were also laws which made the death sentence mandatory as for instance the order against violent criminals, as the law of 4 September 1941, the law about the collection of metal, but what arouses particular interest is the law against Poles. Here this question is discussed in Article Roman Numeral One under first, the factual material penal law, which the judge has broached. This is the question which Your Honor has broached. It is laid down there that Poles and Jews in the incorporated Eastern territories have to comply with the German Laws and the Laws and the orders that were issued by the German authorities for them. They have to refrain from doing anything which is derogatory to the sovereignty of the German State and the reputation of the German people. That is the general formulation which imposes the so-called general duty to obey.
This principle did not apply in Germany.
THE PRESIDENT: Didn't Article 14 extend that rule, too, to Germany?
A: Yes. I meant to say something else by that. I meant to express that the creation of a system of penal law on that basis and with that method did not exist with us in Germany. In addition to the mandatory death sentence, the sentence which is always primary as the test of the law shows, is the death sentence. And of importance is Article 2 where it says Poles and Jews will be punished also if they violate the German penal code or commit an offense which violates the basic principle of German penal law. This is of importance because the violation of German penal laws almost exclusively was important in our court.
In the sentences under Article Roman Numeral Three, Section 2, it is emphasized expressly that the death sentence will be pronounced wherever the law provides for it. Beyond that, also in cases where the law does not provide for the death penalty, it will be pronounced if the offense is evidence of especially base mentality or for other reasons is particularly serious. In those cases, the death sentence is also admissible for juveniles. This merely is to elucidate the question which I have broached on what basic scope the law moved in regard to the scope of the sentence, and that the law in imposing a sentence cannot avoid this basic tendency which is expressed here. The judge has to judge in accordance with that tendency through the legal system, and he is bound to a very large extent; and therefore one cannot say at all that the judge, might have judged in accordance with his free will.
Q. The witness Gross says in Exhibit 227, "Dr. Rothaug was faught against from many sides, but die to his brutal nature, and his intrigues, as well as by his excellent political connections, he also again and again knew how to prevail and to apply his much feared methods. One can speak of a terror which he exerted on us, his assistants, and by which he kept us under pressure." Please comment briefly.
A. During the 6 years during which I was working in Nurnberg, in only two exceptional cases which I have mentioned already, did I have arguments with other persons. Nowhere did I say anything about my person being faught against; and therefore, there is no cause in regard to my brutal nature to go into intrigues and political connections. Gross too, and I had a very good and peaceful relationship.
Q. What could happen to a judge if he should make a judgment which would arouse the displeasure of leading political authorities?
A. Until the well-known special authority granted by the Reichstag in the session of 25 of April 1942, in my opinion on account of a decision of a judge which aroused displeasure in leading political offices, nothing could happen to a judge. The Civil Service Law protected him to such extent that nothing could happen to him unless he defeated the law; but I never experienced it neither before nor after 1933, or that ever in Germany any judge was punished at all for defeating the law. Of course, it was a matter of course, that through decisions that aroused displeasure one could get into disfavor in the political offices and that one was demoted. In the case of promotion one was not promoted and one had to count with that and other chicanery; but after all, a. judge has to accept that. Already before 1933 if his judgments were not in accordance with the wishes of the legislature, he was attacked in the Reichstag and the press, and the effect that this had on his professional advancement within the meaning of the system of promotion of the German Civil Service was not pleasant.
THE PRESIDENT: The question that was asked you was not what had been done to a judge who aroused political hostility.
The question was what could be done to him, and you made the distinction between the time before and the time after 1933. Why did you do that, as to what could be done?
A. Your Honor, I did make the distinction before and after the 34th of April 1943, and I then only pointed out that the activity of the judge, if it was unpleasant to certain political offices, could have personal consequences for the judge, which, however, would not endanger his position. And that in Germany before 1933 such consequences were possible, too.
THE PRESIDENT: You didn't have in mind Hitler's address in which he stated that he desired the right to remove any judge, did you, and which was confirmed by the Reichstag?
A. Yes, I was thinking, however, less of the speech than of the special authority which was supposed to be the basis for such measures. In conclusion on this subject, may I perhaps state in one more sentence that not in a single case this special authority as far as I know was ever used. It was generally considered from the very beginning something that was not to be taken seriously.
THE PRESIDENT: However, some of your co-defendants have assured us by their documents that the effect of it was truly devastating from the state of mind of the judges.
A. There is no doubt about that, but I only discussed whether this special authority was used. It was a most serious threat, and as a law it was probably the elimination of the independence of the judge altogether; but for now, it was no longer a court that had to decide about the legal basis of the offense, but a political office or even the most political office in the Reich altogether, and this was the end of the administration of justice.
BY DR. KOESSL:
Q. Dorffmueller sited a phrase which you are supposed to have used toward him.
"Who contradicts me arouses the tyrant in me." And you are alleged to have pronounced that sentence outside of your official business on a business trip in Amberg. However, in a connection which Dorffmueller does not remember exactly anymore.
A. I know nothing about this affair. I could not remember every joke that I made.
Q. This witness Dorffmueller alleges that you were the main instigator for the hundred percent application of the Nazi Penal Law. Please comment on this charge of being the main instigator.
A. I always in every word within the sphere of my competence represented my point of view, and as long as I considered it to be correct -- even where I had the competence under the law -- I always endeavored to convince others of the correctness of my own conviction, but not in a single case did I in regard to this conviction of nine influence any person whatsoever in an illegal manner. However followed which is always being objected to repeatedly in this very same way was followed also at other places and regarded to be correct, and in offices which I could not influence at all because about those occurrences I simply didn't know anything.
Q.- The witness Dorffmueller further more says due to the influence of your extraordinary forceful personality, you exerted mental influence on the prosecutors even though they, and I quote: "Were not directly subordinate to you; in sessions and at lectures, also on official trips, however, you had publicly and in private propagandized the National Socialist administration of penal law and defended it." Dorffmueller also mentioned a dissemination of a certain political position of power. Please comment about this theory of radiation, and about these charges of political propaganda and influencing of prosecutors.
THE PRESIDENT: This again is one of those generalized charges which can receive a generalized answer only. Make it brief, It is just a general opinion expressed by some witness. -- No specific charge in it.
A.- I merely feel the need to say that I neither have a powerful personality nor an a person who has special mental powers, and in regard to the question that such personalities have corresponding effects in life, that isn't my fault; that is a matter that God has created in the world.
Q.- With that I have concluded the general questionnaire so far, and in the subsequent time I shall speak about individual cases. However, I would like to request to reserve me the right to discuss one or the other group of problems which cannot be discussed sufficiently in the discussion of individual cases -- to be able to go back to it when the occasion arises.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Koessl, it has been suggested -- and I think very well suggested -- that the Tribunal here sometimes, owing to mechanical difficulties, has some difficulty in understanding the names of these various defendants. If you will make that very clear, or when in doubt spoil them to us, it will help us to recall the case which has come before.
DR. KOESSL: Yes, Your Honor.
Q.- Witness, I herewith submit to you a file of the special court Nurnberg, in Seiler case. S-e-i-l-e-r. Seiler-Ehrhard case. In exhibit 234 the former prosecutor Kurt Hoffmann writes, and I quote: "It is certain in regard to the Seiler case that the defendant had previous convictions, and because of his frequent robberies had to count upon a severe sentence. However, one has to establish that many of his robberies did not yield him anything important, and that already on account of his youth alone (20 years) he was absolutely able to improve. Rothaug, as usual, made derogatory remarks during the session and stated that persons like the defendant are attacking the fighting soldier from the back, and, therefore, should be exterminated. Seiler was sentenced to death and executed." Fitness, please first five the closer description of the files.
A.- They arc the penal files against Seiler Ehrhardt from Nurnberg because of crimes against Article 2 of the Law Against Public Enemies.
Q.- Now please turn to the passage of the clemency proceedings that is marked and tell me what document you find there and who signed it?
A.- This is a report which the senior public prosecutor, alter the sentence had been pronounced, sent to the general public prosecutor in Nurnberg.
Q.- Who wrote the report, and who signed it?
A.- This report was written by Kurt Hoffmann, and it was signed by Wilhelm Hoffmann.
Q.- Wilhelm Hoffmann, is that the witness about whom Dorffmueller said that he as deputy of the senior public prosecutor, he followed an absolutely lenient tendency?
A.- Yes, that is Wilhelm Hoffmann who was examined here as a witness.
Q.- And the report was written by the affiant in Exhibit 234?
A.- Yes, Kurt Hoffmann.
Q.- In the Seiler case, the file of which you have before you, is the same twenty-year old robber whom Kurt Hoffmann mentioned in Exhibit 234?
A.- Yes, that is the robber.
Q.- From what can you see that? Please look at the first sentence of the clemency report.
A.- Yes, it is single assistant, Ehrhard Seiler, from Nurnberg, born 24 April, 1921. The report was written in 1942, so that Seiler is twenty years old.
Q.- Now please read what the affiant of Exhibit 234 said on page 2 of the clemency report, regarding the total value of the booty stolen by the defendant and the damages he caused.
A.- He says the total value of the property that he has stolen is more than one thousand marks; beyond that the condemned person damaged a considerable amount of material because in order to achieve his aim he utilized the most varied tools and thereby damaged doors, windows, desks and other furniture; and he damaged it seriously. In 12 cases he exploited the black out.
Q.- In Exhibit 234 Hoffmann says that Seiler alone because of his youth absolutely was able to improve. What does the same Hoffmann say in his clemency report? Please read the third passage -- the last paragraph.
A.- The large number of offenses of the condemned person, especially in the case which we have before us here, his repeatedly reoccurring criminal inclinations through unscrupulous advances to obtain foreign property, to make a living in that manner, the thoughtless manner of the methods he applied, and in particular, the repeated exploitation of the black out, show that the condemned person is a public enemy and war criminal, and that prison terms can no longer deter him from his criminal inclinations.
Moreover, it would not be tenable toward a criminal -
Q.- Just a moment. Witness, in Exhibit 234, you are further more being charged with having made the statement that persons like the defendant are attacking the fighting soldier from the back; and, therefore, have to be exterminated. What does the witness say in the clemency report in regard to that point?
A.- He says in the clemency report that moreover it would not be tenable toward a criminal who attacks from the back the community of the people who are fighting the war and exploits war time measures for his criminal acts, while the other men of the same age are giving their best efforts at the front. Therefore, it would be untenable to lot leniency prevail. I, therefore, as for the execution of the penalty that has been pronounced.
THE PRESIDENT: It is so near to our closing time that we will not start a new case. We will recess until 1:30 this afternoon.
(A recess was taken until 1330 hours, 19 August 1947.)
AFTERNOON SESSION (The hearing reconvened at 1330 hours, 19 August, 1947.)
OSWALD ROTHAUG - Resumed DIRECT EXAMINATION - Continued
DR. KOESSL: May I continue?
THE PRESIDENT: Proceed.
BY DR. KOESSL (Attorney for the Defendant Rothaug) Q.- hat was the point of view of the general public prosecutor in the case Seiler concerning the clemency question?
A.- That point of view can be seen from the letter by the General public prosecutor of the 6th January, 1941, to the Reich Minister of Justice.
Q.- May I point out to you, witness, that it is of the 6th of January, 1942; apparently there is a misprint in the file.
A.- Yes, that must be a mistake. "The point of view of the general public prosecutor is the following: The legal requirements for the death sentence were justified according to the sentence by the special court beyond any doubt. There is no point of view which could be taken into account in favor of the defendant in deciding the mercy question. Therefore, I am in favor of the execution of the death sentence.
Q.- Who signed that report from the general public prosecutor?
A.- It says here Dr. Engert, deputy.
Q.- Is that the witness, Dr. Engert, who in Exhibit 156 said that you were mainly responsible for the bad reputation of the special court Nurnberg?
A.- That is possible.
Q.- Were you ever concerned with the question as to what point of view the prosecution had concerning the mercy question?
A.- Not in a single case. Their point of view to the clemency question was expressed only within the sphere of the prosecution itself.
Those were internal matters which were not accessible to the court.
Q.- What material was submitted to the Reich Minister of Justice when a case was submitted for the clemency decision. Will you please tell us from the file which you have before you?
A.- The cover of the criminal files, that is the court files, and the cover of the file concerning the clemency appeal show the same file number of the Ministry of Justice -- ZU III, G-23 72-42; and from that one can see that together with the clemency plea all the files concerning the case, including the court files, were submitted to the Reich Ministry of Justice for examination and evaluation.
Q.- What possibility did that afford?
A.- That afforded the possibility to examine the sentences in every direction, particularly in consideration of the facts established by the trial; the conclusions, as a consequence of the facts, the legal maxims and principles that had been applied, reasons why they had been applied, also reasons which were decisive for the final decision concerning the sentences. The police files which were contained in the court files made it possible to find out to what extent the facts revealed throughout the main trial may have deviated from the result of the previous investigations.
Q.- I want you to look at a different special court file now. Will you please give us the designation of that case; that is the case, the files of which I just gave you.
A.- These arc the files concerning the penal case against Christian Ketterer for fraud -- repeated fraud and other offenses.
JUDGE HARDING: What is the exhibit number.
DR. KOESSL: I will explain that right away. The case mentioned in Exhibit 154, in the affidavit submitted by the witness, Markl -- m-a-r-k-l.
Q.- What is the file number?
A.- SG-230-42.
Q.- About that case Ketterer, the witness Markl says in his affidavit, Exhibit 154, the following: "The case Ketterer was the case of a man with previous convictions, who for embezzlement of forty reichsmarks and for falsification of a document had been indicted. His last act was the falsification of his mother's signature of a letter which could have advanced him money, but it was without any success. If one assumes that the defendant had been previously convicted and sentenced to penitentiary, that therefore he had to be sentenced more severely, then if for no other reason than the one reason that the value of the object was very low, it was not advisable to pronounce the heaviest penalty. The Ministry in this case was of the opinion if Ketterer should not be found a public enemy, according to paragraph 4, that the death sentence should not be demanded. That instruction was not passed on to me, but Rothaug made me understand that he would sentence Ketterer to death even if I would not demand the death sentence. Ketterer was executed." Witness, will you please show us first what the point of view of a prosecutor was who had experiences with criminal cases in general, but had nothing to do with penal cases before the special court?
A.- That case at first did not come before the prosecution for the special court, but came up with the general prosecution which dealt with so-called general criminal cases. On the 6th of March, 1942, the prosecutor who dealt with the case submitted these files to the prosecutor at the special court, with the request that it be examined and whether an application of Paragraph 1 of the law designed to modify the Reich Legal code an indictment dated 4 September 1941, was to be filed before the special court. Then, there is an exhaustive justification for that motion. The law which is referred to here required the death sentence -- provided the death sentence. The question of the death sentence, therefore, before these files ever reached us, was already stipulated -- was already decided in some way.
Q.- What was the evaluation on the part of the prosecution with the special court of the person and acts of Ketterer?
A.- That can be seen from the indictment of 16 Hay, 1942, which was filed with the special court. There, among other points, the defendant is classified as a habitual dangerous criminal; and a man who committed repeated frauds. Among other things his offense is designated as one falling under paragraph 1, and under Sections 1 and 10, Article 1 and 10 of the law for the modification of the Reich Penal Code.
Q.- This paragraph 1 of the law of 4 September 1942, what did that say?
A.- It provides for the death sentence -- the mandatory death sentence as I have already explained.
Q.- Did the prosecutor of the general prosecution have the Ketterer files before the main trial? bill you please look at the office files.
A. Yes, there is a letter of the 26th of May 1942 to the senior senior public prosecutor in which the general public prosecutor request that the files be submitted to him.
Q. Who signed that letter?
A. Dr. Krueb.
Q. What matters did Dr. Krueb handle in the office of the general public prosecutor?
A. As far as I know general criminal cases without any political end.
Q. Is that the same Dr. Krueb as the one who submitted affidavit Exhibit 179?
A. Yes.
Q. Will you please read. the statement which is to be found on the back of page 5 of the office files?
A. Here I find a notation which reads as follows: "First public prosecutor, senior public prosecutor Dr. Krueb was informed that the Special Court does not intend to pronounce the death sentence. He agreed that in this case the demand for punishment as intended should not be made."
Q. Who made that notation?
A. Public prosecutor Markl, who also has been heard here as a witness.
Q. What instruction, therefore, was given by Dr. Krueb concerning demand for penalty in the case Ketterer?
A. First instruction was given to demand the death sentence that I was asked what our position was in this case. I voiced misgivings. Krueb was informed about that and he modified his instruction and left the decision to the main trial.
Q. Can you find anything in the file to show how it came about that Ketterer, in spite of this point of view on your part and on the part of the prosecution, was sentenced to death?
A. The files do not show anything in answer to that question. Apparently the impression which was gained in the main trial of the offender justified the original point of view. That is to say, the opinion which existed before the time when I intervened in the direction of mitigation.
Q. Who were your associate judges in the main trial against Ketterer?
A. Dr. Ferber and Groben. Markl was the prosecutor.
Q. That takes care of the case Ketterer. We want to speak now about the case Gaishauser, which the witness Ferber has mentioned on page 1336 and following pages in the English transcript. The cross examination is to be found on pages 1699 to 1705 of the English transcript. I present to you the files on the case Gaishauser.
THE PRESIDENT: How is that name spelled, please.
DR. KOESSL: Gaishauser, spelled G-a-i-s-h-a-u-s-e-r.
Q. (By Dr. Doessl) Will you please ascertain, witness, what the number of that file is?
A. SG-175-39.
Q. Witness, pleas ascertain first what the offenses were with which the defendant Gaishauser was charged. You will find a brief description in the indictment. That is page 47 of the file.
A. Gaishauser was charged with having committed a crime under paragraph I, Article I, of the law to safeguard legal guarantees of the 13th of October 1933, coinciding with the crime of attempted murder according to paragraph II Article II. And then furthermore it was assumed that he had committed a crime according to paragraph 1 according to the decree concerning violent criminals, and 9 crimes coinciding with crimes of Sexual offenses against children. First, under figure 1 it is stated that the defendant repeatedly had committed indecent acts with a girl of eight years. Among others he also had tried to commit sexual intercourse. That happened eight times. A second offense - it is described how the defendant when he was arrested for these cases of attempted rape tried to attack with a knife the police official who wanted to arrest him, and that he actually injured him seriously with the knife.