Pierre weekly free press. (Pierre, S.D.) 1889-19??, 1905-01-19
MEMBERS OF KOCH FAMILY TIES.
TlFY TO TIME DENTIST AR
RIVED AT HOME.
HAMMER is STRONG FEATURE
DEFENSE ATTEMPTS TO CREATE
REASONABLE DOUBT AS TO
OWNERSHIP.

New Ulm, Mimi, Jan. Is. = AT the
close of court yesterday Senator Som
erville announced that G. R. Koch will
go on the stand as q witness in his
own defense in his trial for the muir
der of DR.. l.. A. Gebhardt. DR.. Koch
may 90 on the stand to-day to close the
testimony of the defense.
His testimony is not expected to be
sensational, and the supposition is that
the defense will produce him as wit
ness more as an exhibit id the case
rather than for the purpose of proving
any material facts.
May Limit His Testimony.
What DR.. Kochs testimony will COW
er is a matter of conjecture. He may
be asked to testify only as to his move
ments on the night of the murder. In
that event he cannot be cross exam
ined by the state regarding his alleged
However, should his direct examina-
ton cover all phases of the case. it is
likely that DR.. Koch will be on the
stand full day or more. The state
has practically two cases to prove,
first the sending of the poison by DR..
Koch, and, second the actual murder
of Dr. Gebhardt on the evening of Nov
/. It is quite certain that if the at
torneys for the state are given the OPP
portunity to cross-examine the defend
ant on both charges no phase of the
case will be left untouched
Strongly Arrays Testimony
Yesterdays proceedings in court
can be separated into three phases
the attempt Of the defense to prove its
alibi; to prove that DR.. Koch conduct
ed himself in the ordinary manner at
ter the murder. and to establish that
the hammer found in DR.. Gebhardt's
Office after the murder did not belong
to the Koch family and may have be-
longed to the murdered dentist.
The hammer evidence was the most
striking produced by the defense yes
terday. First. there was an attemDt to
create reasonable doubt in the minds
of the jurors as to the ownership of
the hammer, and, second, an attempt
to prove that the hammer did not be-
long to the elder Koch. as claimed by
the state.
Gebhardt Had Hammer.
A. p Brooks was the first witness
called by the defense in regard to the
hammer testimony.
Brooks testified that Gebhardt had a
hammer resembling the one in evil
dence, but could not positively identi-
~ it.
G. w. Murdn testified that Gebhardt
had an old hammer, but could not
identify 1t.
William E. Koch, the brother of the
defendant, was recalled to the stand to
testify as to an old hammer about his
fathers place. He said there was an
old hammer there.wflen he was a boy.
els this the hammer?' Senator Som
e...,:lle asked .e.le- ~
The witness examined it long time
and finally answered:
mo. sir
The witness then explained wherein
the hammer in evidence differed ma
terially from the one that had been
about his fathers place.
How long since you saw the ham
mer r.. x
81 have not seen it for over year
e. g. Koch. the father. was recalled
and testified substantially as had his
son. He said his hammer disappeared
about a year ago.
Several witnesses who were treated
professionally by DR.. Koch the DAY
after the murder testified that no
| scratches or injuries were seen on the
defendants hands, and that there was
nothing strange or unusual in his con
duct or appearance.
Build Up Strong Abb,
Members OF the Koch family took up
most of the morning session in giving
the testimony which, IL uncontro-
Iverted, will 80 a long way toward saw
ing Dr.. Koch from the gallows. With
out contradiction they told their
stories and stood by them, even when
iiercely assailed by the oss-examina,
ition of the state.
The father. brother and sisters OF
the defendant testified as to the time
ed home the night OF
the murder. and as to his appearance
and conduct, which they all agree. was
4 calm and nruffied.
The alibi was exact in every partic-
ular and was composed Of SO many
separate parts that 1t viii be difficult
task for the state to shake
lks Firm Structure.