The Worthington advance. [volume] (Worthington, Minn.) 1874-1908, 1905-05-19

$1,000 - --- nv. ------ \
HE KOCH CASE.
q They seem to get bold ofsa queer
!, lot Of jurors up in Minnesota. q
Mankato jury has followed the ex-- exr-
ample OF the New Ulm jury il fail
ing to agree in the case Of George
/ r. Koch, accused Of the murder Of
Dr.. L. "a. Gebhart, 4 New. Ulm dent
/ ist. The details of the two: trials
have received wide attention and
there will be general wonderment
over. the second jury g failure to &C
quit. The case made by the prose
cution in both trials was practically
the same, and it is putting it mildly
to say there was no convincing evl-
denoe OF the defendants guilt. It
| is hard to understand how any jur7
| or. If he confined his attention to
the evidence, could fail to have q
a.sonable doubt Of the defendant g
guilt. Doubt existing, it should be
the jurors duty to vote for acquit-
tai. DR.. Gebhart was killed in
his Office early on one evening
while people we're still astir in that
vicinity. Sounds Of q scufae We're
heard, and a number of passersby
climbed the stairs to investigate.
The Office door was locked. One
man had the nerve to get stool
and peep over the transom. It was
almost the very moment Of the muir
der. He saw a man, knife in hand,
bending over the prostrate body OF
the dentist. The murderer and the
man on the stool gazed in each
others eyes for a few moments
Then the peeper dropped to the
floor in a panic, and during the sub
sequent confusion the murderer es.
capped by a rear window. Suspicion
was directed to Dr.. Koch by the dis
covery near the body Of q handker-
chief bearing his initials. At first
there was little belief that DR.. Koch
could be the murderer, but local
|sleuth got to work on the case and
proceeded to find circumstantlal evi-
dence to fit the only theory in sight.
A number OF suspicious details we're
unearthed, and prosecution was de-
termined upon. & t...4 Z. ....-4 Y
at the outset the pro ecution met
q couple Of obstacles which it never
succeeded in surmounting, In the
first place the important matter of
motive was lacking. The prosecu-
ton supplied this want by alleging
professional jealousy as the motive.
The mot ve is painfully weak. Then
there was the vital matter Of the
eve witness. The eye witness posi-
lively declared that the man whom
he saw bending over the body and
into whose eyes he looked was not
DR.. Koch. Nor was the prosecution
able to show that the eye witness,
q reputable citizen, had any possible
motive, for perjurng himself to
shield the defendant. To add to the
embarrassment of the prosecution
DR.. Koch advanced q complete fam
lily alibi.' DR.. Koch, both during
the days of suspicion and afterward
when he was on trial, deported him
self like an innocent man. The pro
secution directed it's whole effort
to proving that Koch went to the
rival dentists Office that night for
the deliberate purpose Of murder,
carrying an old hammer with him
for q weapon. Could anything be
more absurd than to suggest that q
sane man would plan such murder
for the early evening in the b.si-
ness section Of the town7 -: =, /
These are the main points in the
case in which jury No. 2 Is reported
to have stood seven for conviction
and five for acquittal. Apparently
most of the jurors voted on suspi-
cion. 1t is not difficult to work up
a case against Dr.. Koch by that
route. ae might have gone to Dr..
Gebhardt's office that evening to
thrash out some professional dis.
pute. In the heat Of the argument
a quarrel might have arisen, result
ing in the killing. The eye witness
-. = .o--,~n 81.