The Minneapolis journal. [volume] (Minneapolis, Minn.) 1888-1939, 1905-01-18

! They say that they can identify The
writing OF one machine among 100000.
!, Now this typewriting testimony is
all bosh. Two experts have told you
that there are only two ways to identify
!, typewritingg-o by a Clipped or de-
fective type and by a letter being off it's
feet
s'Then this typewriter has different
roller than it did before it was sent
back to the St. Paul office. This has
new roller, one that has not been used.
now we come to the word on the bottle,
| which is said to be in Koch hand
writing. You have heard expert testi-
mony on this matter, and you will have
samples Of DR.. Koch handwriting and
the bottle in the jury room and you can
compare them.
Doubt Cast on initials.
tsNow we have come to the matter
Of the handkerchief: It bears the
You say that the letters are not 1G. r.
Rs You can compare it with these.
You will find that the marks do not
| compare with those of these handker-
| chiefs. The texture is different and the
mark is different.
"The state says that the lead pencil
is that of DR.. Koch. DR.. Koch has the
pencil now. He might have denied that
he carried the pencil away from Hoidale
g. Sonsen g office. If anybody furnished
him with pencil after the murder that
man is an accomplish after the fact.
Where the pencil came from we don't
| know. It may have fallen from the
assassin IS pocket and yet DR.. Koch be
not guilty.
Not Manufacturing Evidence.
| "And now I want to talk to you
about that hammer. They say that it
is old man Koch Is hammer Why, there
| is a hammer like that in every junk
pile in Minnesota. If we were manu-
| Featuring evidence we could have
brought hammer into court and lden-
titled 1t as Mr.. Koch g hammer. But
we are not criminal lawyers and we
are not defending criminals.
/ Then Dingler comes in and swears
that it is old man Koch Is hammer. He
saw it over a year ago. What man of
you can swear year from now that
this is the. hammer that was used in
this trial? When we went to impeach
Dingler we brought in his own asso
ciates. You saw what they were. He
is a card from the deck, and showed
you the rest of the pack, and he looked
like dirty deuce. Then we brought
in Captain Steinhauser, who swore that
! Dingler' IS reputation for truth was
bad.'
Testimony Should Be Discarded.
/ Mr.. Brown then took up the testi-
mony Of DR.. G. F.. Reinecke, who swore
at the coroner's inquest that the ham,
mer belonged to Gebhard, and in this
i trial as not belonging to Gebhard. He
said the least the jury can do is to
throw the testimony out of all consid-
i Grafton.
The injuries to DR.. Koch's hands
were dwelt upon at great length by Mr..
Brown, who pointed out the contradic-
i tory statements of witnesses. The
clothing that DR.. Koch wore on the
night Of Nov. / was also discussed
States Case Boiled. Down.
1 "Now, gentlemen, I have talked to
i you about the state g case alone. What
\ is there left of it? There is the mo-
i tive, based only upon the statement of
4 Ole Ulen. There is the poison theory,
4 which is based upon DIR. Stricken s own
i story. There is the typewriting testi-
mony, which is not thoroly substan-
4 tiated There is the mailing of the
j poison, not proved. There is the hand
/ writing, not positively identified. There
is the ownership Of The hammer, based
upon Dingler' 8 story alone. We have
showed you what he is
4 1Then there is the lead pencil, whose
4 ownership has not been proved We
have shown you DR.. Koch's pencil.
4 There are the handkerchief You can
examine them for yourselves; md there
I ii the burning of Tho hando, purely Sc-
Il