No-one taking the bait? Damn. Here goes anyway. I started off thinking the medical evidence was flawed. Apart from not liking the relish Moyle seemed to take in his amateur sleuthing (which could have led to a hanging let's not forget) they only proved the blow could have been made by the hammer, not that it was, and didn't - I thought - provide convincingly that it could not have been made by a stone or stones. But having had a good think, I believe they were right, even though the evidence wasn't up to much. The problem was the narrow view taken of the case. Either Elijah is telling the truth or he murdered his step father (father in law as they said then). No-one else could have done it because he was the only one present. I think the jury thought it through more thoroughly, but it was not their place to say what really happened, and their sympathies might have kept them quiet as well. Their job was to acquit Elijah for the very good reason that he did not kill the victim. The first key to it all is Elijah's claim that he dragged Kendall to the house. The fact that no marks were visible proved him a liar. This appeared to throw the blame on him and no-one seems to have voiced the obvious question - how then did Kendall get to the parlour? No-one seems to have disputed the location of the crime or injury, and he was not capable of walking there himself. Well, obviously he was carried. He was a small man (not sure where it says this) and Elijah might have claimed to have carried him fireman's lift style, but he did not have much time to construct the story and overlooked the issue of the dust. No, Kendall was carried by two people. Elijah and his mother. The second major clue was the hammer. A single murderer would have got rid of it on the way to Chacewater. But two people - one in such a state that she might give the game away at any minute - might easily overlook it. Thirdly, Mrs Kendall's alibi depended on her not being present at the relevant time. But Maria Groce contradicted it - this is from the report in the paper, so must have been stated pretty close to the events: "On Saturday evening, Mrs. Kendall came to our house about seven o'clock, and stopped between half-an-hour and an hour. She then went home, but returned again a little before nine. I am sure it was not past nine. She was then very much frightened, and told us she believed that the mare had thrown the deceased, and she did not know whether he was not dead. She asked us to go up." If the witness who saw Kendall on the road is to be believed, he died no earlier than 8.25 pm. Elijah and his mother stated that they started for the Groce's house at about eight, with Elijah returning to deal with some sheep. Mrs Kendall later returned, was told of the accident, and left again. But according to Mrs Groce, Mrs Kendall's first visit was much earlier and she would have been at home no later than 8. She then returns before nine, in a distressed state. So what did happen and why? Mrs Kendall was much younger than her husband. Interestingly, the newspaper preamble has none of the usual stuff about him being well respected or liked in the neighbourhood. Victorian men were supposed to be the lords of their homes - the law supported them in this. Was he something of a domestic tyrant? Elijah moved away to take the burden off his mother, but close enough to keep an eye on things. He was running a school but also doing chores for Kendall - quite a lot of work. If he is the Elijah I found in the 1841 census he was the youngest of a large family and his mother had some money of her own. With all the siblings out in the world (we assume) was there any need to submit to a marriage to this old man - an old man who exploited Elijah's concern for his mother in order to get work out of him. There's no mention of any other workers at the farm. Kendall arrived home at about 8.25. There may have been a row between the two men. Did Kendall come back after a few drinks and criticise Elijah for not working harder? Did he start bullying his wife? The careful construction of the alibi suggests it was Mrs Kendall who struck the blow, perhaps to protect her son. Remember her husband was small and elderly and she was considerably younger. They carried him into the house together. Mrs Kendall then gets to the Groce's before 9 - possibly by the short cut that she apparently used on the way back. There is another inconsistency here. Elijah is supposed to have dragged the old man 80 yards after killing him, arranged him in the parlour, and kept his mother out, after which she walked back to the Groce's - and all that in no more than half an hour. Why was Elijah not more insistent on his first visit to Moyle? At this point the pair know Mrs Kendall has injured her husband. Given the state of medicine at the time, he was probably going to die. But if a surgeon saw him too soon, he might manage to say who had struck the blow. Mrs Kendall was daft enough to bring the Groce's to the house but Elijah had locked the door. He only let Henry Groce see Kendall when he was sure the old man was dead, or at least well past any communication. That then is my analysis of the case, based on the printed records. Interested to know what others think. Have I missed something obvious? Judy On 19 Apr 2010, at 12:51, judy olsen wrote: > Poor lad, of course he didn't do it. But he knew who did. > > > > Judy > > > > > On 19 Apr 2010, at 09:16, Jan wrote: > >> Ah, but there must be more to learn...in a quick search purely out of >> curiosity, I couldn't find Elijah Teague in subsequent censuses, or >> a death >> for him. In a time-wasting frenzy, I found all players in the 1851 >> census, >> confirming their evidence! And there are a few deaths that could be >> Mary >> Kendall, his mother, but no Elijah. >> >> Did he change his name, did he emigrate? Did he come to South >> Australia, >> like my ancestors? Did he make good...you can't convince me he was >> innocent! >> >> I wish I had time to find out! I suppose I could justify it by >> calling it >> background research, as my direct Sandoe line farmed at Three >> Burrows, where >> the Kendalls had their farm. >> >> Jan >> South Australia >> > > > ------------------------------- > Listmom: ybowers@gmail.com or CORNISH-GEN-admin@rootsweb.com > > Visit the OPC (Online Parish Clerk) web page for transcription > information http://www.cornwall-opc.org/ > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to CORNISH-GEN- > request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes > in the subject and the body of the message

i believe neither of them did it he really was kicked by his horse the shape of a horse shoe where it meets the front of hoof there is usually a triangular shape with the peak cut off, by the description of the head wound could very well be the instrument of death ----- Original Message ----- From: "judy olsen" <copywriter@tesco.net> To: <cornish-gen@rootsweb.com> Sent: Tuesday, April 20, 2010 9:47 AM Subject: [CORNISH-GEN] Why Elijah Teague was innocent. > No-one taking the bait? Damn. Here goes anyway. > > I started off thinking the medical evidence was flawed. Apart from > not liking the relish Moyle seemed to take in his amateur sleuthing > (which could have led to a hanging let's not forget) they only > proved the blow could have been made by the hammer, not that it was, > and didn't - I thought - provide convincingly that it could not have > been made by a stone or stones. > > But having had a good think, I believe they were right, even though > the evidence wasn't up to much. > > The problem was the narrow view taken of the case. Either Elijah is > telling the truth or he murdered his step father (father in law as > they said then). No-one else could have done it because he was the > only one present. I think the jury thought it through more > thoroughly, but it was not their place to say what really happened, > and their sympathies might have kept them quiet as well. Their job > was to acquit Elijah for the very good reason that he did not kill > the victim. > > The first key to it all is Elijah's claim that he dragged Kendall to > the house. The fact that no marks were visible proved him a liar. > This appeared to throw the blame on him and no-one seems to have > voiced the obvious question - how then did Kendall get to the > parlour? No-one seems to have disputed the location of the crime or > injury, and he was not capable of walking there himself. > > Well, obviously he was carried. He was a small man (not sure where it > says this) and Elijah might have claimed to have carried him > fireman's lift style, but he did not have much time to construct the > story and overlooked the issue of the dust. > > No, Kendall was carried by two people. Elijah and his mother. > > The second major clue was the hammer. A single murderer would have > got rid of it on the way to Chacewater. But two people - one in such > a state that she might give the game away at any minute - might > easily overlook it. > > Thirdly, Mrs Kendall's alibi depended on her not being present at the > relevant time. But Maria Groce contradicted it - this is from the > report in the paper, so must have been stated pretty close to the > events: > > "On Saturday evening, Mrs. Kendall came to our house about seven > o'clock, and stopped between half-an-hour and an hour. She then went > home, but returned again a little before nine. I am sure it was not > past nine. She was then very much frightened, and told us she > believed that the mare had thrown the deceased, and she did not know > whether he was not dead. She asked us to go up." > > If the witness who saw Kendall on the road is to be believed, he died > no earlier than 8.25 pm. Elijah and his mother stated that they > started for the Groce's house at about eight, with Elijah returning > to deal with some sheep. Mrs Kendall later returned, was told of the > accident, and left again. > > But according to Mrs Groce, Mrs Kendall's first visit was much > earlier and she would have been at home no later than 8. She then > returns before nine, in a distressed state. > > So what did happen and why? > > Mrs Kendall was much younger than her husband. Interestingly, the > newspaper preamble has none of the usual stuff about him being well > respected or liked in the neighbourhood. Victorian men were supposed > to be the lords of their homes - the law supported them in this. Was > he something of a domestic tyrant? Elijah moved away to take the > burden off his mother, but close enough to keep an eye on things. He > was running a school but also doing chores for Kendall - quite a lot > of work. If he is the Elijah I found in the 1841 census he was the > youngest of a large family and his mother had some money of her own. > With all the siblings out in the world (we assume) was there any need > to submit to a marriage to this old man - an old man who exploited > Elijah's concern for his mother in order to get work out of him. > There's no mention of any other workers at the farm. > > Kendall arrived home at about 8.25. There may have been a row between > the two men. Did Kendall come back after a few drinks and criticise > Elijah for not working harder? Did he start bullying his wife? > > The careful construction of the alibi suggests it was Mrs Kendall who > struck the blow, perhaps to protect her son. Remember her husband was > small and elderly and she was considerably younger. They carried him > into the house together. Mrs Kendall then gets to the Groce's before > 9 - possibly by the short cut that she apparently used on the way > back. There is another inconsistency here. Elijah is supposed to have > dragged the old man 80 yards after killing him, arranged him in the > parlour, and kept his mother out, after which she walked back to the > Groce's - and all that in no more than half an hour. > > Why was Elijah not more insistent on his first visit to Moyle? At > this point the pair know Mrs Kendall has injured her husband. Given > the state of medicine at the time, he was probably going to die. But > if a surgeon saw him too soon, he might manage to say who had struck > the blow. Mrs Kendall was daft enough to bring the Groce's to the > house but Elijah had locked the door. He only let Henry Groce see > Kendall when he was sure the old man was dead, or at least well past > any communication. > > > That then is my analysis of the case, based on the printed records. > Interested to know what others think. Have I missed something obvious? > > > Judy > > > > > > > > > > On 19 Apr 2010, at 12:51, judy olsen wrote: > >> Poor lad, of course he didn't do it. But he knew who did. >> >> >> >> Judy >> >> >> >> >> On 19 Apr 2010, at 09:16, Jan wrote: >> >>> Ah, but there must be more to learn...in a quick search purely out of >>> curiosity, I couldn't find Elijah Teague in subsequent censuses, or >>> a death >>> for him. In a time-wasting frenzy, I found all players in the 1851 >>> census, >>> confirming their evidence! And there are a few deaths that could be >>> Mary >>> Kendall, his mother, but no Elijah. >>> >>> Did he change his name, did he emigrate? Did he come to South >>> Australia, >>> like my ancestors? Did he make good...you can't convince me he was >>> innocent! >>> >>> I wish I had time to find out! I suppose I could justify it by >>> calling it >>> background research, as my direct Sandoe line farmed at Three >>> Burrows, where >>> the Kendalls had their farm. >>> >>> Jan >>> South Australia >>> >> >> >> ------------------------------- >> Listmom: ybowers@gmail.com or CORNISH-GEN-admin@rootsweb.com >> >> Visit the OPC (Online Parish Clerk) web page for transcription >> information http://www.cornwall-opc.org/ >> ------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to CORNISH-GEN- >> request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes >> in the subject and the body of the message > > > ------------------------------- > Listmom: ybowers@gmail.com or CORNISH-GEN-admin@rootsweb.com > > Visit the OPC (Online Parish Clerk) web page for transcription information > http://www.cornwall-opc.org/ > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > CORNISH-GEN-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the > quotes in the subject and the body of the message >

Good point. Of course it doesnt mean the shoe was attached to a horse at the time.... Judy On 20 Apr 2010, at 23:43, thomas veale wrote: > i believe neither of them did it he really was kicked by his horse > the shape > of a horse shoe where it meets the front of hoof there is usually a > triangular shape with the peak cut off, by the description of the > head > wound could very well be the instrument of death