No. 8 A Matter of Perception

The case regarding Edward Rehburg in the 19th century was very complicated. Edward was charged for the beating and eventual death of his daughter, Clara Rehburg. There were several testimonies given by the Rehburg’s family, friends and doctors in the area. Due to the beliefs held and ideas valued, a jury in the nineteenth century would come to a different decision about Edward Rehburg’s innocence than a jury in the twenty-first century.

As a jury in the twenty first century, we would have found Edward Rehburg not guilty. Based on Edward Rehburg’s testimony, the medical evidence presented by the doctors, and Clara’s dying declaration, we clearly believe Edward Rehburg is innocent. Edward Rehburg claims that he was working on the haystacks all day, except when eating breakfast and dinner; his hired workman, Joe Tiebow, confirms his alibi. Emma and Bertha, Rehburg’s daughter, also testified that their father was not even in the house except to eat breakfast and dinner with the family. Louisa was with Clara in the kitchen and house the day the injuries occurred. Dr. Van Holzschuher claims that the “surface of the skin was red and inflamed and looked to me as though there had been hot water thrown upon her.” Burns like these would have most likely been produced in a kitchen, where Clara and her step mom Louisa worked all day together. Even though dying declarations do not hold as much weight in today’s society, Clara, on her deathbed, clearly names the abuser. She does not show signs of being delusional or irrational; she competently and rationally tells the doctor what happened to her and who abused her. In her declaration she states “She whipped me (my step mother) with a stick of wood and with a stove lifter, and then she went to the corral and for a strap, and whipped me with that on the face and all over. She had new shoes on when she came back from town; she took them off, put on wooden shoes, and kicked me
with them”.

As a jury in the nineteenth century, we would have found Edward Rehburg guilty. Even though his alibi of working on the haystacks checks out with Joe Tiebow and his other daughters, the dying declaration of Clara negates everything. Dying declarations in the nineteenth century held more weight than they do today because of the closeness of church and state. Religion was held in higher regards so a person was bound to tell the truth right before they die out of fear they might not go to heaven. Clara names her step mom, Louisa, as the abuser, but this doesn’t hold any value because she does not demonstrate understanding of the concept of oath and she is not very religious at all. When Dr. Steele tells her she is going doing to die, she responds by swearing, which makes Dr. Steele think “Clara did not know anything about a future state.” Dr Steele admits that he does not know if she is telling the truth and adds that he does not believe she shows any” great moral or religious training.” Even though the declaration clearly names the abuser, people’s perception of women at that time as the nurturer and the caretakers are not going to let them believe that a woman is capable of abuse. So even though all the evidence in the trial suggests Louisa is the abuser, it is impossible for a mother to do this to a child. The blame has to be placed on someone, so the only possible alternative is Edward Rehburg.

Comments

[Dan Cianciolo]

The pictures in the album were crisp and easily viewable and they added to the story line of the album very well. The first thing that caught my attention was the spelling mistakes in the introduction. The words “remains”, “organize”, and “vulnerable” are misspelled and they detract from the reading of the album. Also in the second picture, the paragraph seems choppy and is a little unclear. The sentences read: “Taken in February 1861 of Columbiad guns of the Confederate water battery at Warrington, Florida. The men in the look like they are getting ready for war. They are loading their cannons and cleaning up everything around them.” The paragraph would flow better if it were written as follows: Taken in February of 1861, this picture shows the Columbian guns of the Confederate Army water battery at Warrington, Florida. The men in the photograph look like they are preparing for war by loading their guns and cleaning up around them. By writing the paragraph like this, the point is more easily understood and is clearer. Furthermore, in the fourth picture of the letter, there is not much substance in the writing. The paragraph is just restating what the letter has written on it. There is no explanation of the letter or any specific point addressed about the letter. Further explanation of it would have been beneficial to better understand the reason of why it was included. Maybe a little background story of the letter would have been good to have added in. Overall, I liked the idea of the album and the pictures that were used to explain the Civil War in Florida. With these corrections, the album would be very good.