The Mankato free press., 1905-08-04

sat in the court room at the New Tim
trial and didn't know the hammer until
he heard +. G. Koch admit that he had
an old hammer and couldn't find it, He
deliberately lied at the second and third
trials. "He committed moral suicide
on the witness stand in your presence,
said Mr. Brown. Mrs. Kasz is of low
order of intelligence. Mr.. Brown read
her testimony given at the second trial,
when she denied that the hammer was
the one that she had seen in DR.. koch's
Office. When she left the stand. Chief
Klluse went TO her and said: That is
the hammer. why didn't YOU say sO?'
That statement was absolutely shock
ing. Mrs kasz was seen at the depot
by Superintendent klause, and was met
at the depot at New Tim by c. A.
Zelle. and was brought back to Man
kato. but was not put on the stand for
the jury would not have listened to her.
Mr. Brown quoted Dr. Reinecke's tes-
timony given at the cOroner's inquest
to the effect that the hammer was DR..
Gebhard's. He said that the evidence
of the witnesses for the defense was re-
liable and should be believed
The matter of the handkerchief was
next touched upon. Mr.. Brown com
Al
the others. and said that it was not
like or marked like any of them. He
measured the blood stained one with
those marked SC. r. k and it was an
inch shorter one way. This had escaped
the notice of the experts, he said, and
Court Reporter Davies was the one
who noticed it.
of the clothes. DR.. Koch had worn the
same clothes the dav after the murder
that he did the night of it, and continu
cd to wear his cravennette Overcoat for
several weeks. until it disappeared. Il
the coat was here it would be a noun
tain of strength for the defendant. If
he had been preparing for trial, he would
have locked the coat up in a vault. But
he had no dream of trouble. He would
not have allowed the coat to get away
after it had been examined by the of
ficers, as it was Mr.. Brown referred
to Mr.. Somscn's purchasing a coat in
Minneapolis. and explained that there
was nothing suspicious about that, as
the matter had been shown up thorough
ly.
The subject of the burns on the de.
fendant's hands was taken up next
and Mr.. Brown said that his hands had
not been burned or injured because of
suspicious. but that he had been sus
picioned because his hands were burn
ed "if he had been guilty. would he
have done the monumental foolish thing
of burning his hands ?" asked Mr..
Brown. Il call to the witness stand the
people of New Tim, who would have
noticed his hands if they were injured"
Mr.. Brown said that DR.. Vogel had
prescribed alcohol for the carbolc acid
burns. The speaker referred to the tes-
sides. as to the burns and injuries. Ac-
cording to the state, Senator Somer-
vile was an intentional and cold blooded
perjurer. when he corroborated the
seventeen witness who had said that
there were no injuries on the defend
ants hands Wednesday, Thursday and
Friday after the homicide. Mr. Som
erville represents Brown and Redwood
counties III the state senate and is chair
man of the judiciary committee, and is
not the man to commit perjury.
The defendants hands being unin-
Jured, what purpose would he have for
burning them? He could not have con
ceaied injuries by the burns.
Mr. Brown referred to the hunting
incident on the Sunday prior to the
homicide, and said that the state had
abandoned its attempt to disprove this
and conceded that the scratches were
received in the brush as the defendant
and Miss Fitzpatrick said. The state
also sneers at the rabbit story. but
what purpose could this story have to
aid the defendant?
The murderer was seen by an eve
witness. What are you going to do with
that? Asa p. Brooks has been crit
cized for what he did and didn't do.
but he must be Judged by the circum-
stances as he saw them on the night
of the murder and not by what we
know now. He was not excited until
after he got down from the transom.
or he would not have been able to de
scribe the scene as he did He has
testified on the stand six times and
his story has always been the same
No man in New Ulm thought of criti-
cizing Brooks until after the second
trial. He is in the way of the prosecu-
tion. The jury must judge him as he
appeared on the stand and not take the