The Mankato free press. [volume] (Mankato, Blue Earth County, Minn.) 1879-1924, 1905-08-04

when she ought TO have spoken with all
the eloquence of her soul that it was
not her brothers handkerchief Did she
say that it was not her brothers? No.
Her silence was more eloquent than her
spoken word.
To make a mistake such as the de
PENDANT made Is the lot of criminals. 1t
may be that an all-wise Providence has
decreed that criminals shall leave evil
dence of their guilt, and by this means
be traced down.
The defendant. according to his own
witnesses, had one handkerchief that
was not cotton 1t is of slight import
ance whether they were linen or cotton.
Ii the one that was not cotton, accord
inc to their own witnesses, had been
found in DR.. Gebhard's office they would
not now be disclaiming the owner
ship Of il?
General Childs took up the matter of
the hammer and dwelt upon each of the
witnesses and what they said. Speak
mg Of the effort of the defense to inn
peach Edgar Dingler, Gen. Childs said
that the duel between the learned coun
sci for the defense and that poor, inlet
tered boy had reminded him of the shep-
ard boy who had gone forth to meet the
giant with triple brass armor and had
slain him. Edgar Dingler slew the giant
lawyer because truth was ON his side.
Reinhold Dahms is teacher of us
all. 4 tempter met him and lured him
to the lower paths. but he had returned
gTandly to sense of duty and had
come into court and told that the ham
mer was that of his former employer
and the old friend and neighbor of his
father
The defense may refer to Mrs. Kasz'
testimony as manufactured. but who
would do that? That person would be
of the lowest moral status, worse than
the criminal. She identified the hammer
in November, but whether she was able
to identify it at this or the other trials
sinks into insigniticance compared with
her testimony that she saw such ham
mer in DR. Koch's office. The defense
denies that there ever was such a ham
mer there Were there two old hammers
in the Koch family, one possessed by
the father and the other by the son?
Miss Wedemans testimony regarding
the defendant wearing SLOUGH hat in
his office the night of the murder is
only important i'll this respect, that it
demonstrates that she was telling the
truth Had she been telling story she
woad have made it conform to the re-
quirements OF the states case. The
defense realized the Importance of her
testimony and shaped defense to meet
it. We have the remarkable fact of
the defendant going ON the stand and
testfying to something that he had
never testified to before-to turning on
and off the light in his laboratory. Sup
pose that she saw him when he says
he turned the light on and off, that is
the important fact.
There can be no question but that
the assassin's hands and clothes must
have been greatly smeared with blood
and there was work for him to do; not
merely the question of getting away
from the officers, but of cleaning those
hands and disposing of those telltale
garments When last seen the evening
of the murder, Dr. Koch was wearing a
cravennette oyercoat, but the states
evidence shows that he had none on the
next morning.
The assassin had intended to have a
pom He intended to kill his victim with
the hammer without cutlery and carry
away with him all evidences of guilt
He did not intend that the murder
should be discovered until next morning
and when the city rang with it he
could walk eomplacently and unsuspect-
ed. 1t may be said that DR.. Gerhard
was an athlete and that the defendant
is of slight build, but a man armed
with a hammer is armed with something
that wonld more than counter balance
physical discrepancies.
it is singular that the defendant
should lose his overcoat shortly after
the murder, as he says, and just as
singular that he has produced no old
hammer. There was plenty of hot and
cold water in the creamery, and a fire
was burning in the furnace. Dr. Koch
assuming that he was the assassin, had
time to Rave gone to the creamery.
burned his overcoat and washed his