New Ulm review. (New Ulm, Brown County, Minn.) 1892-1961, 1905-05-10


through passion as not to be recogniz-
able, but that lie did not think that
Koch could do this. At the New Ulm
trial witness had testified that DR..
| Koch has a scar on his left cheek that
The could see across the street. Do not
recollect testifying that | heard crie&
lof anguish proceeding from Gebha9d's
office. thought that perhaps a dental
| operation was going on when hel look
ed over the transom, was only5a fash
Immediately dismissed from his mind
Witness said that the type of man he
saw was that of Henry 'Somsen and Al
fired Keller. The man was not a dis
tinct type, and in general appearance
resembled a number of men known tc
the witness. He did not want to init.
mtae that it was either Somsen, Weller
or Koch. He was certain that it was
not Dir. Koch. This was quoted from
testimony given by Brooks at the Hen.
nlngsen examination
Have You ever had any doubt in
your mind sinfe the time you looked
over the transom that the person YOU
saw was not Dr. Koch?" asked Mr.
Someryildle.
NO, sir replied Mr.. Brooks.
Have you ever stated that you evei
had any doubt?"
''No, sir"
| Mr.. Brooks denied ever having had
any conversation with Sheriff Julius
about Koch, as referred to yesterday
on cross examination.
Il want to say right here that the
name of God never has passed my lips
in any other way than in sacred refer
ence, and l defy Mr.. Childs or Mr.. Ju-
lius to point to any time when it has, y
emphatically declared Mr.. Brooks.
Witness denied having talked with
Mr. Somsen alone at the time of the
funeral. Had never met J. E. Reynolds
but once until this week That was
the Sunday following the homicide or
later. Never had telephone commune
cation with him i'll which | said that I
saw a man pull knife out of Geb-
hard's neck and that he made move
to draw gun. I never made such a
statement to anybody. Witness gave in
formation about the homicide, and the
boy in the office had Instructions to
answer the telephone calls of these
papers. He himself, had had considerable
difficulty in being understood when he
was talking to st. Paul once [ did
not see any cutting of the deceased. but
saw a movement, and have sometimes
talked about it. that the person might
have been doing cutting. Knew Martin
Pennmg. Had no such conversation
with him as referred to by the state.
Had conversation early in September
with him, but | never said to him OF
anybody that | saw the knife drawn
into the bone, or that I did not think
| that it was Koch because I did not
believe that he would do such a thing.
Witness denied having the conversation
with Mr.. Mather referred to yesterday
Mather has taken very deep interest
III the prosecution. Did not tell Math-
er that | couldn't tell whether the muir
derer was Koch or not until had look
ed into his eye. Mather told me that
the best way for me to do, to save
trouble, would be for me to say that
couldn't tell who the person was,
and let the circumstantial evidence de-
eide the case. This was about Nov,
Ist Mather spoke to me repeatedly.
He said that later on Matner claimed
that witness had said that he would
have to look Koch in the eve to be GER
tam whether he was not the man, 7
never told him that. | have been inter
rogated about this matter by many
thousand people. Did not tell Mr.. Dills
OF GAINESVILLE That | would not know
whether it was Koch until I looked him
IN the eyes. Know Mr.. Nunes, who is
dentist at GAINESVILLE Mather, Dills,
Miner and l had conversation about
the matter one night. There was moth
ing said by me like what has been quoted
They argued between themselves that it
was impossible for me to tell, etc. Did
not tell DR.. Reinek that I didn't know
whether it was Koch because he could
not have washed blood off of his brown
nat. Never examined the brown hat
and over coat. Had a conversation with
Mr.. Zelle Sunday morning He told me
fhoW | was being prosecuted and people
were turning against me. and how I
was going to lose all my business and
friends, and asked me if I could not be
mistaken. | told him that if it was
possible for a man to be changed by
vengeance or passion that his features
would be so distorted that would not
recognize him, then | might be mistak-
en-, but that I knew Dr.. Koch so well
that L did not think that he could be-
come unacceptable to me- w. T. Eek
stem and | are not on speaking terms,
and had not been before the murder,
Met Judge Webber one morning. I had
been stopped so many times by people
asking questions that l was provoked.
He asked me a number of questions and
was in a hurry and wanted to oct
away from him. [ gave him a partial
description of the man. He asked
whether he had a beard, and l said no.
| did not mean by this that he might
not nave had a mustache. Know Mr..
Murfin and saw him in Minneapolis.
He did not ask me whether | had not
testified at the inquest that | could not
say that it was not Koch. and I did not
answer ''no." He argued that I couldn't
under any condition know whether it
was Koch or not. | told him the cir
Icumstances and asked him what he
would do if he was in my place. and
he replied: 81 would swear that it was
not George R. Koch" / had told him
that L was sure that it was not Koch
Witness said that he was sent for at