And finally prior acts of violence, including crimes, are evidence of motive as well as of design: “(3) Prior acts of violence by the defendant against the same persons, besides evidencing intent, may also evidence emotion or motive, i.e., a hostility showing him likely to do further violence; * * *. “(4) Threats of violence are in themselves expressions of a design to injure, and are accordingly dealt with elsewhere * * *.”[61] Certainly, when we shall offer so many cases of death of Poles and Jews, no one of these defendants will have the temerity to say we cannot show proof of their own prior utterances, as well as those of others of which they had knowledge, as a clearly inferred ultimate fact, demanding death to Poles and Jews, and also that haste and more haste must be made to turn the Nazi judicial system into a headman’s axe, for the purpose of showing their motive when they killed Poles and Jews with their so-called “judicial” system and processes. It would be a strange law, indeed, which would say that if a man killed the Pole or one Jew, his prior threats to and assaults upon that Pole or Jew were relevant evidence of the motive with which he acted, but would deny the same proof, when the same man, or in this case men, killed millions of Poles and Jews. Of course, the law is neither so blind nor so callous. The accepted rules of proof in an objective system of law justify every offer of proof of prior statements, acts, and crimes of these defendants, and of those others of which they had knowledge, as an ultimate fact, which we should make in this case. We need not, nor shall we attempt to, evade or circumvent those salutary rules. These defendants can and should be convicted, but only under law. Because we believe that, we have not been afraid to predeclare our understanding both of the substantive law and the rules of evidence under which just convictions shall be asked, and which we believe will be rightfully rendered under the proof adduced. Although the matter is not related to the theories under which evidence will be offered by the prosecution, there is one other matter relating to the evidence which the prosecution feels it is entitled to discuss at the opening of this case.