New Ulm review. (New Ulm, Brown County, Minn.) 1892-1961, 1904-12-21

ping SO wash at The creamery, where
blood stains were found on the door.
Reaching home painting he had to
give some explanation and told the
rabbit story. The state will endeavor
to show that it was not necessary for
! the murderer to get covered with
blood excepting on his hands.
DEFENSE HAS STRONG CASE.
On the other hand, the defense has
an equally strong case. In the first
place it will try to show the jury that
there is no possible motive which
could force the accused to do the
crime. He had a fair practice, enough
for a living. and as he was unmarried
and was living at home his expenses
were light. Moreover his father is
well fixed and would have helped him
ii necessary
He was a young man who has borne
an excellent reputation all his life and
his past record shows nothing which
would lead anyone to believe him cap
able of any crime, much less the one.
charged. He is of an amicable dis
position, inoffensive and never seek
ing quarrel.
The defense will also seek to con-
vince the jury that his abb is i'm
peccable. His father and sister testify
that he was home on the night in
question at $40, and his roommate, a.
young man attending DR.. Martin
Luther college, testifes that he was in
the bedroom which he and Koch
occupied in common by 9:45. This
latter is the time at which the crime is
supposed to have been committed.
The Koch home is a good ten-minute
walk from Gebhardt's Office and if a
man ran most of the way he could
make it in scarcely less than ten
minutes
BROOKS TESTIMONY IMPORTANT.
Then Mr.. Brooks swears. that he
cannot identify Koch as theman he saw.
The defense will show that Brooks did
secure a good, straight look at the
murderer and had it been Koch would
surely have recognized him.
1t will be further argued that the
murderer must have been we'll covered
with blood, not only his hands. but
his clothes, or at least parts of his
clothes. DR.. Koch, it will prove, wore
the same suit of clothes, the same hat
and overcoat, after the crime that he
did before, and it would have been
impossible for him to have eradicated
all signs of blood from his garments
without someone discovering it.
The general line of argument in
connection with the evidence which
seems to point to the prisoners. guilt,
the defense will explain by showing
that evidently the murderer had
everything planned to lay the crime
on Gebhardt's business rival. The
handkerchief could easily have been
secured and the fact that it was con-
siderably soiled and not such a one
as Koch was in the habit of carrying
will be dWelt upon.
HANDKERCHIEF PURPOSELY LEFT.
Then it was left in a place and I'm
der such circumstances that it appears
to have been dropped with purpose.
Itwas spread out and dropped in the
most conspicuous place in the whole
room; the place where it would be
seen first and picked up as evidence.
Whatever else the murderer was, he
was cool, lingering long time in
the room after the deed, and free from
excitement as he apparently was,
he would scarcely have dropped a
handkerchief unless with purpose.
The superstition will be that the
criminal was waiting around the
building knowing that Koch would
soon pass that way. He saw him go
into the barbershop, saw him pass
and then soon after the murderer went
up the stairs, not as Koch would with
I a light, springy step, not as man
ordinarily would unless he wanted to
/ attract attention, but with a heavy,
stamping tread
MADE ALL NOISE HE COULD
i He slammed the door as he entered
| the reception room and walked heavi-
! ly across the rooms with the evident
intention of attracting the attention
of the people below who had seen
Koch but a few minutes before and
making them believe later, after the
deed was discovered. that it was the
! young dentist who had gone up. Had
it been Koch, the argument will be.
he would have taken particular pains
to have walked softly.
| AS concerns the hammer and the at
tempt which will be made to identify
it as belonging to Koch. it will be
l shown that its ownership is a matter