The Minneapolis journal. [volume] (Minneapolis, Minn.) 1888-1939, 1905-01-18
started his argument when recess was
taken until this morning.

started his argument when a recess was
taken until this morning.
GEN. oH1LDs CLOSES ARGUMENT
Pronounces the Defendant Guilty Be
You'd a Reasonable Doubt.
New Ulm, Mimi, Jan. lS.General
Childs, for the state, spoke about five
hours, closing his argument about q
O clock yesterday afternoon.
Addressing himself to the poison
theory, General Childs said that the de-
Tense might argue that there was not
enough poison in the blue bottle sent
Or. Gerhard to make thoro test.
But, suppose, for the purpose OF
argument, that the man who put up the
poisonous substance made mistake
and did not get poison enough in7 Does
that make any diferenceq The point
to kill DR.. Gerhard, but whether he
sent him any poison at all.
8 But, said the counsel for the de,
Tense, in his opening address, why in
the name OF goodness should this de.
PENDANT steal DR.. Strickler's strych
nine tablets when he had enough ar.
senic in his own office to kill fifty
men's
elf I was ever astonished in my life
it was when counsel asked that ques.
ton. Doesn It every dentist have ar
senic in his office? Doesn t every den.
fist use it in his practice7 Would this
defendant be fool enough to take ar
senie out of his own office to aid him
in removing DR.. Gebharda Would be
want to have proof clear on the part
OF the state, should anything come up
that he was in possession Of large
quantity of arsenic9 Why, that would
be too easy for the prosecution, and
so he took the sulphate Of strychnine
tablets instead.
49, No Reasonable Doubt.
We come now to the main question in
the case. Did the defendant do the
murder9 Was it this young man who
assembled the stairway and with hammer
and knife robbed Louis A. Gebhard OF
that sweetest Of all possessions, his
mortal ifes The evidence which we
have furnished, unless explained away:
establishes the, fact-the fact beyond
a reasonable doubt that this defendant
killed Louis Gebhard.
You are, OF course, the judges OF
that. It is not what I think-it is not
what counsel for the other side thinks
it is what you think. Now, the
evidence establishes that the defendant
was near the scene of the murder 3
short time before it occurred.
cit is proven that at about 9:23 OF
9:25 he was in the barber shop. I'm
mediately thereafter he passed the win
dow Of the Review office and immedi
ately after he, did that, the boys in the
Review office heard footsteps ascending
the stairway.
Gentlemen of the jury, the testi
mony of those boys has not been contro
verified in any respect.
If that testimony be true, and some
body else was lurking about that stair
way to commit that crime, then this
defendant must have met him on the
street. Did he9 Is there any evidence
that he dds No. - 50 Fl
How It Was Planned.
"Now, bear in mind that the mar
who committed the murder intended
that it should be a quiet affair. You
the murder on the sidewalk, the Heintz
boy is standing out in front of the bar
Der shop and he sees this, defendant e
by. In what directions Going north
He walked up the street as far as the
hardware store and stopped, looked int
the window, turned around, came Out
and inquired about people in the bar
Der shop. How particular he is. TIL,
defendant was walking north on the
street, the defendant says that is no
trne-he says that instead of his walk
ing north he was walking south. All
gentlemen, is not the testimony of tina
boy to be preferred to the testimony o:
the defendants T..
Traces the Time.
eve know pretty accurately that tn
card game in Hoidale & Somsen s offic
broke up at about $3.50 or 9:35 o'clock
We know that when the defendant lef
the barber shop it was not much afte
9:20 o'clock. So it is clear to assum
that the man who went up the stairs di
so at about 1924 o'clock. +.
CHOW the time Brooks left the car
game and the time he reached his offic
could not have exceeded five minutes, s
that when he. looked over the transor
| it could not have been later than 9:3
or GAS at the most
General Childs here referred to tn
| number of witnesses who, on the stand
had placed the time at about 9:35 Q
9:45. III.
that fba nrd 5sstiW Wag cgg ou m9y info
later than 9:45. This exact time has n
value except as it bears on the prison
er's alibi. Now, gentlemen, you do no
know what time the defendant arrive
home except Of that from the testimon
Of the family and Paul Hippauf. It ma
have been 10 0 CLOCK or later when b
entered his fathers Kitchen
CHOW, I have said that the assailan
did not necessarily become badly co!
cred with blood. Now; a dentist
| familiar with blood stains. r1Y (
The Lost Overcoat.
;>"You do not know Just how DR.. 3Koc
was dressed that night. You do not kno'
whether he had an oyercoat on or no
except as you received it from the test
mony Of Koch.
ri wish I had that cravenet coz
here. Where is it? The defendant say
that q week or 50 after, the murd Ter som
one stole 1T. 81. ~ z I 40 s::.s
"pid he publish. that fact to til
vised to keep STILL s5
IT wish we had that coat here to sho'
you how easily blood, stains migE
hags en beer Mafdsd LIFT off IA The
tunity the defendant had for washin
his hands that night in the slough {
water that he passed on his way hom
Continuing he said: s* Is fss.s
/ cit did not follow that there VIZ
anybody in DR.. Gebhard's room whe
|Weisenborn said there was a man
there.
/ AS to the Hammer.
i stIt was because the old hamme
j which Dingler saw was very unusua
i that he remembers it. When the d
PENDANT was suspected Of the crime an
{ it became known that an old hamme
with one claw had been used in til
bloody deed, Dingler remembered tt