The Minneapolis journal. [volume] (Minneapolis, Minn.) 1888-1939, 1905-01-14

!. WOu0QeQ. .....-. =
ing upon the outlook for the new year,
arms. f..
but when it was attempted to show that
he went home at that time and arrived
there at 9:38, the case was different.
The state would not admit that he was
at home at the time he said he was.
That would mean that he was not guilty,
for the murderer was still in Gerhard s
office at the time DR.. Koch said he
Preached home. =
= State Says Alibi Is Weak.
! DR.. Koch g alibi is said by the state
to be weak. They say that because
the elder Koch could not remember
what time he came home Sunday, Mon
Eday or Wednesday nights, it is unrea'
the exact minute the time he came
home the night of the murder. The de-
Tense says that this does not weaken
the aibi and the attorneys are we'll
pleased with it.
Who owned the hammer with which
Gerhard was killed2. This is question
which will probably long !ema in IN Hn,
| duSW cIous kOluCo Uuo OpOl1uS VI CAAS
case, the jury have heard that hammer
identified as the property Of three diff
ferent persons. Testimony has been
introduced to show that it belonged to
DR.. Koch; to DR.. Gebhard, and Fred
Schwede swore that it looked like an
old hammer that he had about two years
ago. The state has denied that it be-
the Koch family have denied that it
ever belonged to them. This means
puzzle for the jury. If the hammer be-
tonged to Gerhard, it is possible to lay
aside the poison testimony and decide
that Gebhard was killed in the heat of
passion. Again, if the hammer be-
longed to Koch, it indicates that the
murder was committed by Or. koch anu
was premeditated. ~
No Motive Shown. !
- One thing that has caused a graet
deal Of comment in New Ulm is the fact
that the state attempted to show no
motive for the murder. Especially, is
the absence Of motive important when
the circumstatial evidence is opposed to
such direct evidence as that OF Asa +.
Brooks. who saw the murderer at Work
land Whnswere THAI it was not DR.. Koch,
and the alibi of the defendant which
is backed by strong direct evidence. II
there was a. motive for DR.. Koch s kill
ing DR.. Gebhard, then the jury might
,helieve the circumstantial evidence, but
It is hard to expect them to SEND
man to the gallows without proof OF a
:, motive. q
cuiture at the Turner hall, was sworn
as the first witness yesterday after
4 noon. Both DR.. Koch and DR.. Geb'
, hard had been members Of his gymna
: SUM class. DR.. Gebhard, he said. was
almost perfect specimen OF phys1cal
manhood, we'll muscled, agile and g
quick thinker. DR.. Koch IS not: wei
: muscled, altho he is quick and active.
l. Sheriff Julius testified to examining
Koch's clothing for bloodstains three
| or four DAYS after the murder. Ht
D. found no trace of blood on the clothing
3 nor any traces Of the clothing's having
!, been washed or cleaned.
Confused as to Time.
>, T. J. Memo, who was with Franz
1 Behnke and Joseph Weisenborn, the pc
liceman, when they broke in the doc
to Gebhard's office, testified that i
8 was 9:45. On cross examination MI
9 Pfaender asked him If it WASH It neare
1885 than 9:45. He replied that h
< could not swear positively as to thu
time. - =
9 Dr.. g.. B. Weiser and Miss Antoni,
/ Crone, both of whom had had teet]
treated the, day after the homicide
r swpre that they saw no injuries on d.
r Koch's hand at that time. - :.
n Miss Ida Koch said that when d.
Koch came home to dinner Wednesda,,
g she noticed that he wore a rubber co
}. on one Of his fingers. She asked hir
9 what was the matter and he said tina
e he had spilled carbolic acid upon hi
n hands. She did not see him the nigh
L L H.
g saw him the next day.
d Miss Emma Koch did not see d.
s Koch burn his hands, but heard hi
ordinations. She was in the dinin
. room, while he was in the kitchen.
- William Koch was not at home Whe
:. y the hand was burned, was down tow1
o DR.. Vogel called him by telephone an
told him to bring home some medicin
for Georges hands. He took the mec
suffering from the burn, u
!, Louis Buschaard, John Hnelbact an
!. Charles Stuebe saw no. injuries upo
= his hands, tho Huelbacht had fair
y recollection OF a sore on one finger. II
= thought it was on the big finger Of .th
IS right hand.
e Paul Hippauff saw a cot on; one {
y I, his fingers on Wednesday and saw til
'p hands of the defendant after they wel
M burned on Friday night.
to Somerville Takes Stand.
n Senator George SomerviNe, chi,
n council for the defense, was sworn an
! told Of examining DR.. Koch $ hands {
:, the afternoon Of Nov. 3. All that l
- found was a scratch on the palm
% % the right hand and scab on the thil
u, finger of the right hand. Around IL
- 81 scab was a discoloration, caused, D
~ Koch said, by splitting carbolic acid {
- his fingers.
az as "When were you retained in h
y caseY'' asked Mr.. Pfaender.
10 Well, you might say that I was +
" tanned that day, altho lawyers seldo
IL consider themselves retained until thu
y see the color of%sthe conn.,
Senator Somerville's story was &c
r1oborated by Henry Somsen, Koch
brother in law 81 ,4 u I. (
p. Ct. Koch had seen no injuries uni
IS Friday night, when the accident Z
cured. At that time he was IN t
dining room, while DR.. Koch was in Il
ifah