In the State vs. Rehberg we the jury find Mr. Edward Rehberg not guilty of the murder of Clara Rehberg but we find him guilty of child negligence. The main evidence that we base our verdict were from Dr. Von Holzchuner’s and Dr. Steele’s expert testimony.  In the twentieth century scientific evidence is considered more valid then any other type of witness testimony.The other evidence that supports Edward Rehberg’s innocence was many of the other witnesses’ testimonies about Edward Rehberg’s physical location during the times Clara was beaten.

Dr. Van Holzschuher’s testimony revealed many facts about Clara’s injuries and supported that “the defendant did not and could not have inflicted the injuries.”
His testimony established that the causes of Clara’s injuries could have only been committed in a facility of the Rehberg house with hot water. This includes the family’s kitchen area but excludes the barnyard area as a possible place Clara was injured at.

“The surface of the skin was red and looked to me as though there had been hot water thrown on her.”   

His testimony also revealed that her injuries were caused by an assailant with long fingernails.

“I thought I saw fingernail marks on the neck.”

Dr. Van Holzschuher’s testimony lastly revealed that her abuse had been occurred for a long time and she died from “gangrene”, this supports Mr. Edward Rehberg was an irresponsible parent negligent for the failure to treat his child sooner. [1]

Dr. Steele’s testimony further supports the argument that Clara was abused by an assailant with long fingernails typically non-male.

“There were also marks on the child’s neck, which in my judgment were produced by fingernails.”

His testimony reaffirms the fact that Clara’s death was from the continuous accumulations of wounds she had received.

“The immediate cause of her death was septicemia and piemia produced by the condition of these wounds”

Although Mr. Rehberg is not guilty of murdering his child he is guilty of her negligence and for allowing such cases of chronic child abuse that he knew about to continue.
Clara’s deathbed declaration cannot be accepted as enough evidence to convict Louis Rehberg her mother or prove that Edward Rehberg was not guilty.

In the 19th century Edward Rehberg may have been judged as not guilty from the contextual evidence provided by the witnesses supported by expert testimony.  A 19th century jury would have also interpreted Clara’s death bed declaration as their main evidence because during 19th century “religion was still a parliament concern of the government” [2].
In the 19th century Louis Rehberg may also not have been convicted for crime of killing Clara Rehberg because family limitation considerations may have excused her. 
Louis Rehberg may have married Edward Rehberg to take advantage of the “Homestead Act which allowed married women to claim territory in the Western frontiers but didn’t allow unmarried women to.” [3]
Louis Rehberg had killed Clara Rehberg with Edward Rehberg’s consent because of family limitation issues.

[1] Reader, State v. Rehberg (1885) p.21-22.
[2] Petrik, Paula. “State v. Rehberg” GMU Innovation Hall, Virginia. 27 Oct. 2004.
[3] Frauger et al. Out of Many, p 335.

Comments

[Mona Rafi]

Justin your post is very strong and informative, you have a strong thesis that exemplifies the theme of your post. However, there are a few things that you could do to improve the quality of the post. Your thesis should be bolded so that it is clear to the reader. Your post would be stronger if you changed the first sentence and made it less wordy. Through out your post your change verb tenses your post would be a lot better if you stuck to one tense. Overall it was a great post, good job.