From: owner-ammf-digest@smoe.org (alt.music.moxy-fruvous digest) To: ammf-digest@smoe.org Subject: alt.music.moxy-fruvous digest V14 #7263 Reply-To: ammf@fruvous.com Sender: owner-ammf-digest@smoe.org Errors-To: owner-ammf-digest@smoe.org Precedence: bulk alt.music.moxy-fruvous digest Wednesday, August 18 2021 Volume 14 : Number 7263 Today's Subjects: ----------------- Performs Better Than Big-Brand Drones but Costs Far Less ["DronePro 4K" <] Did you forget? Your $50 Lowe's reward Is Waiting ["URGENT Notification" ] New Study: This Is What Herpes Can Do To Your Brain ["Cold Sore Virus" Subject: Performs Better Than Big-Brand Drones but Costs Far Less Performs Better Than Big-Brand Drones but Costs Far Less http://pottytraining.buzz/FTAB9ULGG0nZPV0AwZHO1H6MuyoUqD9ax29vaboY1wC3op-9 http://pottytraining.buzz/58C-TqvLJLI7yi_FQF7e39U8cFoHnRul1V9lx9-eCZBbZXv8 he Court of King's Bench convened in Lincoln on 29 September 1375. Once more Kydale presided. Usually in medieval indictments the accused ranged from "unknown felons notorious robbers"; the accusations against 15 members of de Cantilupe's household, Maud herself and an important local figure such as Sir Ralph Paynel were exceptional. Both the indictments of the peace sessions and Maud's June allegations were presented to the bench, and Gyse and Cooke were arraigned. Whereas the juries which presented their conclusions to the peace commission believed the crime was committed around the Feast of the Annunciation, it is with the juries presenting to the bench that a dating disparity is introduced. The King's Bench juries suggested, between them, ten different dates spread over two months. Sillem suggests that this may be explained by the fact that, by the time they came to consider the evidence, they could only rely on memories to an event which occurred at least six months previously.[note 16] When the case was eventually heard, it was not as murder, but as petty treason, since it involved either household servants rebelling against their master, or a wife against her husband, and was the first time the 1351 Treason Act had been used against members of a household in the death of their master.[note 17] The King's Bench juries deliberately used the language of treason rather than felony: tradiciose, false et sediciose, seditacione precogitata: treason, lies and sedition, seditious aforethought. All of which, argues Sillem, suggested to observers this "conveyed that most heinous of crimes, treachery to the lord". Maud withdrew her allegationsbpaying a fine for doing soband Gyse and Cooke were therefore acquitted on her charges. The jury indictments remained, however. Most of those she had accused in June had never presented themselves to courtbthey seem to have disappearedband apart from Cooke and Gyse, only she and her husband's seneschal stood trial. De Cletham had only been charged with aiding and abetting by the peace sessions juries but, at the bench, he was also charged with murder, as Maud had been. They were acquitted on both that charge and one of aiding and abetting Gyse and Cooke. Maud and de Cletham were released on a bond of mainprise on the charges of aiding and abetting those other principals who had failed to appear.[note 18] Paynel was charged with harbouring Maud, Lovel, Gyse and Cooke on his Caythorpe manor, and also released on mainprise until Michaelmas the following year. The only accused to be found guilty before the bench were Gyse and Cooke. Westminster sessions The case moved to the King's Bench at Westminster in September 1376. Members of the de Cantilupe household who had failed to appear in court were by outlawed as felons.[note 19] Maud and the seneschal, though, were acquitted on the charge of having aided and abetted them. Paynel was again indicted for harbouring criminals. Kydale, Paynel and Lovel The sheriff, Kydale, was also suspected of complicity in the crime due to his standing surety for Maud during her appearances. He was already associated with Paynel, and this may have hardened suspicions against him. One of Kydale's duties as sheriff was to select the juries that sat on the case, and by extension, that would decide Maud's guilt or innocence. Diagram illustrating the relationship between medieval common-law courts in England and Wales and how justices could nisi prius intersect with them.[note 20] The longest trial to take place was that of Paynel. Indicted at Lincoln in 1375, he was released on mainprise until September. He was then not tried for another six months. At the Easter term King's Bench sessions held at Westminster in 1376 he was released nisi prius.[note 20] Kydale was the sheriff who appointed the jury that released Paynel on mainprise, but Kydale's term ended in September 1375. As Paynel had been appointed sheriff in September 1376, he was in charge of overseeing the transfer of his own case to London. In the event, Paynel was acquitted in the last few months of his shrieval term, which expired in Octo ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 17 Aug 2021 06:44:11 -0400 From: "URGENT Notification" Subject: Did you forget? Your $50 Lowe's reward Is Waiting Did you forget? Your $50 Lowe's reward Is Waiting http://productory.us/COEm3acrJCXWyzQsV8VabNFGqTSOSOmay4ExVwFYSTkpRRQP http://productory.us/OMfVCs09G72sDTuqr-BE_ELgcuEDtacp0e6Q36nckiyRHKGc he Court of King's Bench convened in Lincoln on 29 September 1375. Once more Kydale presided. Usually in medieval indictments the accused ranged from "unknown felons notorious robbers"; the accusations against 15 members of de Cantilupe's household, Maud herself and an important local figure such as Sir Ralph Paynel were exceptional. Both the indictments of the peace sessions and Maud's June allegations were presented to the bench, and Gyse and Cooke were arraigned. Whereas the juries which presented their conclusions to the peace commission believed the crime was committed around the Feast of the Annunciation, it is with the juries presenting to the bench that a dating disparity is introduced. The King's Bench juries suggested, between them, ten different dates spread over two months. Sillem suggests that this may be explained by the fact that, by the time they came to consider the evidence, they could only rely on memories to an event which occurred at least six months previously.[note 16] When the case was eventually heard, it was not as murder, but as petty treason, since it involved either household servants rebelling against their master, or a wife against her husband, and was the first time the 1351 Treason Act had been used against members of a household in the death of their master.[note 17] The King's Bench juries deliberately used the language of treason rather than felony: tradiciose, false et sediciose, seditacione precogitata: treason, lies and sedition, seditious aforethought. All of which, argues Sillem, suggested to observers this "conveyed that most heinous of crimes, treachery to the lord". Maud withdrew her allegationsbpaying a fine for doing soband Gyse and Cooke were therefore acquitted on her charges. The jury indictments remained, however. Most of those she had accused in June had never presented themselves to courtbthey seem to have disappearedband apart from Cooke and Gyse, only she and her husband's seneschal stood trial. De Cletham had only been charged with aiding and abetting by the peace sess ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 17 Aug 2021 08:11:41 -0400 From: "Cold Sore Virus" Subject: New Study: This Is What Herpes Can Do To Your Brain New Study: This Is What Herpes Can Do To Your Brain http://prayrmiracle.us/LcGH7GcmwGbyMrNGyMpgOyg79-Gvzcwy1Rlse77LuKqhEco http://prayrmiracle.us/QuPxDpnYUStK2xIhn64YMHZuU1svaphFkmLEuiyAIhqx2ks illem says that "a certain amount of mystery surrounds Agatha" the maid. Both she and Maud had been accused as both principles and accomplicesbcourt records describe her as "notoriously suspect" in the crimebbut "like so many of the accused, she failed to appear in court". Nothing is known of her as a person outside the de Cantilupe case, and her surname alternates in the documents between Lovel and Frere. In her case, thoughbunlike so many of her comradesbher reason for not appearing has been established. On Monday 27 August 1375 she escaped the immediate dispensing of justice by bribing her gaolers in Lincoln Castle, where she had been imprisoned awaiting trial.[note 22] The castle bailiffs, Thomas Thornhaugh and John Bate, were later arrested and tried for allowing Agatha to escape justice. Thornhaugh produced witnesses who swore he was innocent of the offence; he was acquitted of felony but fined for dereliction of duty. Pedersen reports that Bate "provided a somewhat more unusual defence". Accused in July 1377 of accepting B#10 to allow Agatha to flee, he produced a pardon from the new king, Richard II, absolving Bate from any malfeasance of office, and a second pardon, dated the 8th of the same month, from the late king Edward III.[note 23] Cooke and Gyse Cooke and Gyse were charged of having with sedicioni precogitale ... interfecerunt et murdraverunt ("sedition aforethought ... killed and murdered") their master.[note 24] As such, they were tried and subsequently convicted of petty treason. No motive was ever established for their role in the killings. The archivist Graham Platts notes that "the affair was so complicated that no convictions for murder were made". Although they had disappeared following their escape to Paynel's, in 1377 they were apprehended for the murder and executed for the crime (by being drawn and hanged). It is possible that they expected protection that never came. Pedersen suggests they may have been promised a form of insurance by their social betters against capture and conviction, or that if that occurred, they would be treated leniently and their families "looked after in case [Gyse and Cooke] were not able to flee the country". Motive Although no motive was established by the courts for the killing, historians have generally consider ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 17 Aug 2021 06:32:53 -0400 From: "Walmart Shopper Feedback" Subject: The New Walmart Reward Has Finally Arrived.. Details Inside! The New Walmart Reward Has Finally Arrived.. Details Inside! http://dripwatt.co/EDXuwrSos3DOx_1S4K33X5_0gh4F3pdijKAiMn6L7K_i20r0 http://dripwatt.co/1DntLbVA2xQQWQnoPon072xaejVDKII3-XYCyjs5oCztda2L urder of William de Cantilupe From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Jump to navigationJump to search The murder of Sir William de Cantilupe by members of his household took place in Scotton, Lincolnshire, in March 1375. The family was a long-established and influential one in the county, traditionally providing royal officials to the Crown both in the central government and at the local level. Among William de Cantilupe's ancestors were royal councillors, bodyguards, as well as, distantly, Saint Thomas de Cantilupe. William de Cantilupe's death by multiple stab wounds was a cause cC)lC(bre. The chief suspects were two neighboursba local knight, Ralph Paynel; and the sheriff, Sir Thomas Kydalebas well as William de Cantilupe's entire household, particularly his wife Maud, the cook and a squire. The staff were probably paid to either carry out or cover up the crime, while Paynel had been in dispute with the family for many years; it is possible that Maud was conducting an affair with Kydale, during her husband's frequent absences on service in France during the Hundred Years' War. The Treason Act 1351 laid down that the murder of a husband by his wife or servants was to be deemed petty treason. De Cantilupe's murder was the first to come within the purview of the act, as were the subsequent trials of Maud and several members of her staff. Multiple people were indicted for the crime, although only two were convicted and, in the end, executed for it. Others were also summoned but, as they never appeared, were outlawed instead. Other influential local figures, such as the sheriff, were accused of aiding and abetting the criminals. The last trial and acquittal was in 1378, although the case had long-term consequences. No motive has been established for de Cantilupe's killing; historians consider it most likely that responsibility rested with de Cantilupe's wife, her lover, the cook and their neighbour, with a mix of motives including love and reveng ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 17 Aug 2021 09:05:28 -0400 From: "Neuropathy Healing Trick" Subject: Take the Quiz: Which of These 3 Indian Tribes is Immune to Neuropathy? Take the Quiz: Which of These 3 Indian Tribes is Immune to Neuropathy? http://shedplanz.us/9Mpc3PFyFBwrsJLN_IhyT7li4yVNvamMyMr_QpXCqmwjV31A http://shedplanz.us/iFXZdcngQ1CpwJaNCXFP91z9OOVTK98YEmEK-4RFYrpA4q84 hough no motive was established by the courts for the killing, historians have generally considered that Maud was romantically involved with Kydale and that they had de Cantilupe killed to facilitate their marriage. Sillem noted the close connection between Kydale and Paynelbbetween 1375 and 1378, she says, they "must have practically controlled the affairs of Lincolnshire"[note 25] band argues that they both had a motive for de Cantilupe's death. Kydale's, she suggests, was that he wanted to marry Maud while Paynel wanted revenge for his perceived previous ill-treatment at the hands of the de Cantilupe family. De Cantilupe had been serving abroad in the years before his death, and it is possible that Maud and Kydale had begun a relationship in his absence.[note 26] But the others' motives are more obscure, argues Pedersen. Regarding Ralph Paynel, for example: The literature has accepted that he probably played a crucial role in the murder, and that he was pivotal in ensuring that most of the persons involved in the crime avoided the censure of the law. But his reasons for becoming involved in the first place have been unclear. b?Frederik Pedersen Paynel "was no doubt acutely aware of the multitude of insults he had received at the hands of the de Cantilupes", which went back to at least 1368. In that year de Cantilupe's elder brother, Nicholas, accused Paynel and his chamberlain of leading an armed force and attacking the de Cantilupe caput baroniae at Greasley Castle. He further accused Paynel of raping Nicholas's wife, Katherine. She, however, was Paynel's daughter, and far from ravishing her, notes Pedersen, Paynel was rescuing her:[note 27] de Cantilupe had imprisoned his wife in the castle after she launched an annulment suit against him. This was on the grounds of impotence, and was heard before the Archbishop of York.[note 28] Nicholas died in Avignon a few months later while lobbying Pope Gregory VII to annul his wife's case[note 29] and William inherited his brother's property. Nicholas's death was deemed suspicious, and William was arrested on suspicion of poisoning his brother with arsenic. William was on royal service in Aquitaine at the time, and Pedersen notes that "the suspicion had clearly been strong enough for the King to provide an expensive armed guard to ensure that William answered for his alleged crime in London". He was held in the Tower of London during the council's investigation, which seems to have concluded that Nicholas's death was from natural causes. William took livery of his lands in September 1370.[note 30] In December he also successfully claimed three manors from Paynel that had originally been Katherine's dower. This, combined with the insult to his daughter, may have been sufficient cause for Paynel to plot against William as he had his brother. Later events sepia scan of a 14th-century document 1382 petition, in French, of John and Maud Bussy to King Richard claiming Maud's dower lands which had not been released following the death of de Cantilupe[note 31] Cooke and Gyse have been described as "remorseless" in the planning of the killing and its execution. They were the only individuals to suffer punishment in connection with de Cantilupe's murder. Others escaped, either through complicated manipul ------------------------------ End of alt.music.moxy-fruvous digest V14 #7263 **********************************************