Jamestown weekly alert. [volume] (Jamestown, Stutsman County, D.T. [N.D.]) 1882-1925, 1911-02-09
JURY FINDS MRS
GATzKE NOT GUILTY
VERDICT IN THE MURDER CASE
REACHED AFTER LONG DE-
LIBERATION. CASE
STILL ENVELOPED
IN MYSTERY

IN MY SlER1
After an exhaustive trial and the
submission of all possible evidence
by the state and reviews Of testimony
and appeals by counsel, the jury were
given the case of the state against
Mrs. Gatzke charged with the shoot
ing of her husband, Carl Gatzke. The
jury took the case Saturday even
ing, and were out until Sunday night
about $3.50 when word was sent to
Judge Coffey, who remained in the
city, that verdict had been reached.
The verdict was not guilty.
The opinion of those who had fol-
lowed the course of the trial was
divided on what would be the jury
verdict. 1t is useless to deny that
the sympathy of the majority of those
who have learned of the case, was
in favor of the woman and her three
small children. Many believed that
there was reasonable doubt as to
the contention of the state that the
death of Carl Gatzke was due to
shots fired by his wife, and it is un-
derstood that this doubt largely in
f1uenced the jury in behalf of the
defendant. 1t is also understood
that the jurors as the first ballot
stood s to in favor of acquittal,
and on the next 9 to 3 and finally
all agreed.
The fact that Gatzke himself lived
for six weeks after the shooting and
took no step to prosecute his wife
for the crime, also had weight with
the jurors, it is said.
Attorney Buck made an eloquent
and stirring appeal for his client.
He maintained that the deceased be-
ing tall man over six feet high from
the position Of the bullet shots in his
body they could not have been fired
by his wife, unless she had been on
an elevation above him. The bullets
that went into the right shoulder
from above would indicate that they
were not fired by Mrs. Gatzke as
claimed.
Attorney Buck also dwelt upon the
evidence of the Clausen woman
which showed that Gatzke and his
wife were seen in the house, the
former pursuing her around the room,
and this was insisted upon as show
ing the frenzy of the man and his
intent to carry out the threat which
was testified to by the little girl that
he would kill the mother and then
shoot himself.
Whoever did the shooting, whether
it was Mrs. 'Gatzke, the victim HIM
self or some third person is yet a
mystery and may always remain so.
The jury simply declared that in their
view Mrs. Gatzke is acquitted of the
charge. Mr.. Buck was congratulate
ed upon his efforts in behalf of the
defendant and his conduct of the
case during the trial which has ex-
cited general local interest.
States Attorney Kneeland reviewed
the testimony in dispassionate and
logical manner. He attempted to
create no prejudice or i'll feeling a..
gainst the defendant, and placed the
evidence as brought out in trial fair
ly before the jury, leaving with them
the duty of determining the result.
The court charged the jury fully as
to it's duties. There were five pos
sible verdicts which could have been
rendered. The least punishment
which sentence could have imposed
would have been for manslaughter
In the second degree with imprison-
ment for year.
The case occupied the attention of
the court nearly four days.
The verdict, considering all the
surrounding the case
and the possibilities Of doubt as TO
the commission of the crime, the
fact that the woman has maintained
from the very first that
the shooting was done by her
husband and not by herself, and
the fact that the evidence was neces-
,arily circumstantial and not direct
will probably be received by most
,oor,o aa satisfactory decision.
Gatzke's failure to provide for the
family, and the frequent quarrels
with his wife did not improve his
with the court. or the jury
Is against the wife.