Post #8- We the Jury

  Modern-day Jury:

      After reviewing the many collaborating testimonies of the witnesses, for the murder of Clara Rehberg, we the jury find the defendant Edward Rehberg not guilty due to their failure to eliminate reasonable doubt. The following is a review of each testimony.

      Emma Rehberg was the first to testify, and stated that the defendant was “working at the haystack”[1] throughout the Sunday in question. According to Ms. Rehberg’s testimony, the defendant had not had an opportunity to spend any significant length of time with the victim until that evening, when the said victim complained of feeling unwell, upon which the defendant brought his daughter into town to seek the help of a physician.

      The testimony of Bertha Rehberg followed, and concurred with Emma Rehberg in stating that the defendant had spent the entire day by the haystacks. Furthermore, we quote her testimony as stating, “I would have known it if my father had beaten the child Sunday forenoon.”[1] Whether or not this exonerates the defendant from any previous beatings of his daughter, according to Bertha Rehberg, such a beating did not occur on the Sunday in question. In addition, her testimony placed Clara Rehberg, the victim, in the kitchen helping Louisa, her stepmother, with chores throughout the day. This supports the defendant’s alibi and separates him and his daughter for much of that Sunday.

      The following witnesses were four doctors, Dr. Holzschuher, Dr. Brown, Dr. Steele, and Dr. Hunter, who attested to the condition in which they found the victim. Each of the four agreed on the extent of her bruises and wounds, as well as the presence of a high-grade fever. However, the testimonies of these doctors, especially Dr. Hunter, are questionable. Dr. Hunter claimed that the child had been “so beaten and bruised as to superinduce a condition of piemia or septicemia.” However, septicemia, or sepsis, is an “inflammatory state resulting from systemic bacterial infection.”[2] A beating which only induced bruising, though certainly painful, could not have caused the “systemic bacterial infection” which Dr. Hunter claims to have caused Clara’s death. This leads to some doubt of the validity of these “expert” witnesses, as well as their motives.

      The defendant, predictably, denied his involvement in his daughter’s death. He also reiterated his alibi, which the following witness, Joe Tiebow, confirmed. He had worked for Mr. Rehberg and testified that the two of them had worked together all day at the haystack.

      Finally, Mr. E.D. Weed gave testimony of Clara’s dying declaration. He made very clear that although Clara did not seem to have a strong religious upbringing or a understanding of rewards and punishments in the afterlife, “she knew it was her duty to tell the truth and that her statement was made under the sense of that duty.”[1] The child was witnessed as denying any accusation against her father, repeatedly saying that he did not do it. Furthermore, she refused to see her stepmother, Louisa, unless accompanied by her father. Having been asked multiple times who beat her, she finally replies, “I told you my step-mother did it. My father didn’t hurt me at all.”[1]

      Although we can not make any presumptions pertaining to the guilt of the defendant’s wife, after reviewing the collaborative testimonies of Emma Rehberg, Bertha Rehberg, Joe Tiebow, and Edward Rehberg, as well as the questionable testimonies of Dr. Holzschuher, Dr. Steele, Dr. Brown, and Dr. Hunter, we cannot find, in our good conscience, Edward Rehberg guilty of the murder of his daughter, Clara Rehberg.

Would a 19^th Century Jury rule differently?

      The modern-day verdict relies heavily on the testimonies of Emma and Bertha Rehberg, as well as the dying declaration of Clara Rehberg. Furthermore, it takes into account the gross misdiagnosis of Dr. Hunter, which significantly damages the credibility of all four of the doctors. However, it is probable that in a 19^th century court, these factors would have played very different roles.

      The striking difference would be in the credibility of the women witnesses. The 19^th century woman, although seen as the moral guardians of the nation”[3], were not taken very seriously in the court of law. The 19^th century woman was “They were kept out of most jobs, denied political rights, and given only limited access to education beyond the elementary grades.”[4] Therefore, although women may have been seen to be morally superior to men, they were viewed as uneducated and impressionable; they might not have lied willingly, but could be easily misled to believe a falsehood. This would only count doubly in Clara’s case.

      In fact, Clara’s testimony is severely damaged with the revelation that “She did not display any great moral or religious training.” [1] and would “swear” often. Moreover, the witness had stated that he was uncertain as to whether “she would not tell the truth.”[1] These would be enough to dismiss the child’s testimony that her father was innocent.

      Thus, though unfortunate, it is very likely that a 19^th century jury would have found Edward Rehberg guilty of the murder of his daughter, Clara Rehberg.

[1] "State vs. Rehberg (1885)" Reader: History 120 Fall 2006 (1885): 17-32. 1 Nov. 2006
[2]"Sepsis and Septic Shock." The Merck Manuals. Nov. 2005. Merck Medical. 1 Nov. 2006
[3]Davidson, Heyrman, Lytle, Stoff, and Gienapp. 4th ed. New York: McGraw Hill, 2006. pg 320
[4]Davidson, Heyrman, Lytle, Stoff, and Gienapp. 4th ed. New York: McGraw Hill, 2006. pg 333

      After reviewing the many collaborating testimonies of the witnesses, for the murder of Clara Rehberg, we the jury find the defendant Edward Rehberg not guilty due to their failure to eliminate reasonable doubt. The following is a review of each testimony.

      Emma Rehberg was the first to testify, and stated that the defendant was “working at the haystack”[1] throughout the Sunday in question. According to Ms. Rehberg’s testimony, the defendant had not had an opportunity to spend any significant length of time with the victim until that evening, when the said victim complained of feeling unwell, upon which the defendant brought his daughter into town to seek the help of a physician.

      The testimony of Bertha Rehberg followed, and concurred with Emma Rehberg in stating that the defendant had spent the entire day by the haystacks. Furthermore, we quote her testimony as stating, “I would have known it if my father had beaten the child Sunday forenoon.”[1] Whether or not this exonerates the defendant from any previous beatings of his daughter, according to Bertha Rehberg, such a beating did not occur on the Sunday in question. In addition, her testimony placed Clara Rehberg, the victim, in the kitchen helping Louisa, her stepmother, with chores throughout the day. This supports the defendant’s alibi and separates him and his daughter for much of that Sunday.

      The following witnesses were four doctors, Dr. Holzschuher, Dr. Brown, Dr. Steele, and Dr. Hunter, who attested to the condition in which they found the victim. Each of the four agreed on the extent of her bruises and wounds, as well as the presence of a high-grade fever. However, the testimonies of these doctors, especially Dr. Hunter, are questionable. Dr. Hunter claimed that the child had been “so beaten and bruised as to superinduce a condition of piemia or septicemia.” However, septicemia, or sepsis, is an “inflammatory state resulting from systemic bacterial infection.”[2] A beating which only induced bruising, though certainly painful, could not have caused the “systemic bacterial infection” which Dr. Hunter claims to have caused Clara’s death. This leads to some doubt of the validity of these “expert” witnesses, as well as their motives.

      The defendant, predictably, denied his involvement in his daughter’s death. He also reiterated his alibi, which the following witness, Joe Tiebow, confirmed. He had worked for Mr. Rehberg and testified that the two of them had worked together all day at the haystack.

      Finally, Mr. E.D. Weed gave testimony of Clara’s dying declaration. He made very clear that although Clara did not seem to have a strong religious upbringing or a understanding of rewards and punishments in the afterlife, “she knew it was her duty to tell the truth and that her statement was made under the sense of that duty.”[1] The child was witnessed as denying any accusation against her father, repeatedly saying that he did not do it. Furthermore, she refused to see her stepmother, Louisa, unless accompanied by her father. Having been asked multiple times who beat her, she finally replies, “I told you my step-mother did it. My father didn’t hurt me at all.”[1]

      Although we can not make any presumptions pertaining to the guilt of the defendant’s wife, after reviewing the collaborative testimonies of Emma Rehberg, Bertha Rehberg, Joe Tiebow, and Edward Rehberg, as well as the questionable testimonies of Dr. Holzschuher, Dr. Steele, Dr. Brown, and Dr. Hunter, we cannot find, in our good conscience, Edward Rehberg guilty of the murder of his daughter, Clara Rehberg.

Would a 19^th Century Jury rule differently?

      The modern-day verdict relies heavily on the testimonies of Emma and Bertha Rehberg, as well as the dying declaration of Clara Rehberg. Furthermore, it takes into account the gross misdiagnosis of Dr. Hunter, which significantly damages the credibility of all four of the doctors. However, it is probable that in a 19^th century court, these factors would have played very different roles.

      The striking difference would be in the credibility of the women witnesses. The 19^th century woman, although seen as the moral guardians of the nation”[3], were not taken very seriously in the court of law. The 19^th century woman was “They were kept out of most jobs, denied political rights, and given only limited access to education beyond the elementary grades.”[4] Therefore, although women may have been seen to be morally superior to men, they were viewed as uneducated and impressionable; they might not have lied willingly, but could be easily misled to believe a falsehood. This would only count doubly in Clara’s case.

      In fact, Clara’s testimony is severely damaged with the revelation that “She did not display any great moral or religious training.” [1] and would “swear” often. Moreover, the witness had stated that he was uncertain as to whether “she would not tell the truth.”[1] These would be enough to dismiss the child’s testimony that her father was innocent.

      Thus, though unfortunate, it is very likely that a 19^th century jury would have found Edward Rehberg guilty of the murder of his daughter, Clara Rehberg.

[1] "State vs. Rehberg (1885)" Reader: History 120 Fall 2006 (1885): 17-32. 1 Nov. 2006
[2]"Sepsis and Septic Shock." The Merck Manuals. Nov. 2005. Merck Medical. 1 Nov. 2006
[3]Davidson, Heyrman, Lytle, Stoff, and Gienapp. 4th ed. New York: McGraw Hill, 2006. pg 320
[4]Davidson, Heyrman, Lytle, Stoff, and Gienapp. 4th ed. New York: McGraw Hill, 2006. pg 333

Comments

[Miguet Schwab]

To start with I see a general problem across your group's blogs, and that is that you forgot to bold or underline your thesis somewhere in this essay. That's easily fixable of course.

I like how this was written though, good use of language and of footnote, although some more variety in sources would have been better(seeing [1] way too often, but it can't be helped since most of what we had was the reader).

I do disagree with the statement about Sepsis being impossible, but that's based on my limited medical knowledge. Does your statement have any backing or was it an assumption? (only my curiosity)

[Sara]

I think the body is well-writen, however, the introduction could be stronger to go along with the strength of the body. Mainly, the thesis could have been reworded better and been more specific about what exactly you were dealing with that led to eliminating the reasonable doubt. This could have helped because of the number of supporting reasons you had.
I think the other major issue is just the organization of the paper. The material you had was strong and worked well. However, the second part of your essay ( based on the 19th century jury) was a great deal less explained and concentrated on. It could have been improved to make your reasons for the 19th century as developed as the first part.
Your attention to integrating quotes was very good for your argument. It made it interesting, but also made for a better argument.