New Ulm review. (New Ulm, Brown County, Minn.) 1892-1961, 1905-05-17

stranger to DR.. Koch came to MIN, was
in mis- office few minutes, and received
la proposition to kill DIR. Gerhard for
Ipay. If the defendant had harbored de-
designs upon DR.. Gebhard's life, it is
unbelievable that he would say to an
absolute stranger what he is said to-
have said to Ulen. When a piece of evil
dence is considered, you will demand
that it come from a reliable source or
be surrounded by something reasonable.
When the first trial of this
case was in progress at New Ulm, when
morbid imagination was conjuling1 up
airy sensations, then and only then did
a Pinkerton detective go to Ulen and
get from him his weird, remarkable
story. You saw him on the stand,
stubborn and impassive. We ask why
did DIR. Koch make this statement to
Ole Ulen. The statement of Ole UIen
is naked thing that can give no rea-
son for it's existence.
But they say that in October Dr.
Koch said to Hjalmer Hoidale that Dr.
Gebhard was ''a double faced =
- He doesen't remember what the
conversation is about, what preceded it
or what followed it. The defendant ex-
planned the connection in which it was
used and admitted it. Upon "a motive
based upon this and Ole Ulen's state
ment, made sixteen months before, on
circumstantial evidence, they say that
you are to take step toward bringing
DR.. Koch, a splendid representative of
young American manhood who had edu-
Gated himself and entered profession,
refined and cultured, imbued with the
teachings Of that aged patriot, E. G.
Koch, to the felon's cell. If such evil
dence is given serious consideration, it
would put your necks and mine within
the power of such men as Ole Ulen.
Now, did this man actually Undue
his hands with blood, with no ade-
quate motive? The state weaves
webb of purely circumstantial evidence
about him upon which it asks you to
erect a gallows.
Why Does State Insinuate.
Why has the state insinuated that
if convicted, Koch might get a jail SEN
tence? The evidence in this case does
not rise to the dignity of circumstan-
tial evidence. Circumstantial evidence
must be admitted as facts, but
in this case we dispute every
circumstance. The court will instruct
you that the circumstantial evidence
must not only convince you beyond a
reasonable doubt, but exclude every
other theory. In this case there are a
lot of suspicious, some misfit circum-
stances, and speculation.
They say that the defendant was
near the premises that night. So were a
dozen other people that night. We do
not seek to acuse anyone. By brother
Pau was simply illustrating what
might have been the case. There is the
bogy pencil. The defendant has never
denied that he had such a pencil Who
has said that the pencil did not come
out of some one elses pocket, and is
there any proof that Dr.. Gerhard didn't
have pencil
The defendant could not nave gone
home that night with bloody clothes
without his family knowing about it. If
the plan is going to be adopted in this
county that a persons relatives are tc
be condemned as unfit to tell the truth
we might as well dissolve this little
clay government that we have and 90
back to primitive times.
The counsel said that the streets of
New Ulm were deserted during the hon.
icide, but we haven't been able to dis
cover that anybody was in bed except
the policemen.
You must not be concerned with the
dirty little POLITICAL existence of the
officers in New Tim, but must attend
! only to the proof, for we are interest
ed in the pencil.
1t is the profound, unfathomable mys-
terry that surrounds the Koch case that
makes it remarkable-the absolute and
unexplainable mystery.
Had the defendant dropped the pen
Gil from mis- pocket it would have
been covered with blood, whereas there
has never been anything but a little
streak of blood on the pencil. Does not
this fact tinge this pencil circumstance
with doubt-a circumstance upon which
it is sought to hang the defendant.
When the pencil falls, it generally falls
end up, and unless the blood was con-
oea led IL would have oottap covarod