The Mankato free press. [volume] (Mankato, Blue Earth County, Minn.) 1879-1924, 1905-05-19

this at the examination of Koch's hands
at HOidale & Somsen's office Thursday.
Koch held out only the palms of his
hands for DR.. Stricken to look at A
scratch under the eye was seen on the
defendants face the day after the muir
der. The defendant says he was nurs-
ing his sore fingers Friday evening. No
sane doctor would say that these would
be sores Friday night where carbolic
acid had been on Wednesday, when he
had at once washed it off with water
and brush. The burns are only on
the backs of the fingers, whereas the
alcohol had run between his fingers and
his little finger was most exposed. We
contend that the burns were not made
accidentally, as the defendant says, but
purposely, to conceal the injuries on his
hands. No one saw him do it, as he was
You have the testimony of the de-
PENDANTS collapsed condition after sus-
picion was directed toward him. There
is evidence bearing on the defendant S
clothing, and it must be considered in
the light that other testimony is that
depends upon the memory. We do
know that the cravenette OvercOat dis
appeared, and if we would know where
it is we must seek the ash heap where
it was burned. The defendant claims
that it disappeared three weeks after
the homicide, but we may well doubt
that. Tine evidence of many witnesses
is that he wore no overcoat next day.
There is evidence that the defendant
wore another coat next day. The de-
Tense, of course, wants to leave the
inference that some detective employed
by the state stole it.
Roasts Asa P. Brooks.
And now we come to Asa p. Brooks.
He is no simpleton. He may be a knave,
but he is no fool. If Brooks stood for
| five seconds on the banister and took
in what was going on in the room,
without offering to interfere, he ought
to be indicted as accessory to the
murder. He knew by the flashing eye,
| ha .ln hat of
DR.. Gerhard whom he saw bending
there. He says that DR.. Gerhard was
his dearest friend. He sees the pros
trate form, the working of the right
arm, the blood, the pale face and flash
ing eye turned to him, and yet ne
stands there as silent as Sphinx and
as speechless. Any rational man would
have cried out, CDR. Gebhard, what is
the natter" Instead of that, he went
quietly down stairs. He said he stood
on the banister to attract attention.
Well, he did attract attention-the at
tention of a murderer in the midst of
a feast of blood, whose eyes met his
|
and pierced MIN to his very soul. He
says that the man had the expression
of dog that had been caught doing
something that it ought not to. But
he gets down quietly and goes down
stairs. | tell you, he saw the brother
n-law of his friend Somsen, the son
of prominent citizen. He says that
shortly after the murder he was in
doubt. He told people that he could not
tell whether it was Koch, that it look
ed like him, that he could not tell until
he saw him. Doubts filled his soul then.
He is positive now. What weight
should you give mis- testimony?
The state has proved that the defend
ant, that the handkerchief and hammer
were his, that he was seen going by the
office just before the murder, that his
hands were injured These facts apply
to only one man in this entire world
You don't care what time the murder
was committed, only so far as it re-
lates to the, family alibi of the defend
ant. You have testimony illustrating
most remarkable memory on the part of
the father and sisters. They can swear
to the precise minute when the defend
ant came into the house. This very
thing stamps their testimony as unre-
liable, for people do not know the exact
moment when things occur.
The defendant came home and want
ed to kill rabbit that night. He want
ed blood that night, there is no doubt.
There is also no doubt that he wanted
to be out of the sight of his family
while he destroyed the evidences eff his
crime-while he washed the Grim
son marks off that were crying out,
you, DR.. Koch, committed that muir
der" The alibi rests upon the testi-
mony of the family alone. They are