Back to the Beginning of Grover Mill...XX EDIT XX Unfinished
THE GROVER MILL - SOQUEL
The name Soquel comes from an Indigenous Ohlone place name, although its exact meaning has been lost to history. Its existence long proceeded the lumber mills, roads, and homes that emerged later upon these mountains. Before the Santa Cruz Mountains were filled with roads and houses, these hills were covered with enormous coast redwoods. This creek and the surrounding valley were home to the Indigenous people whose name would eventually become Soquel.
But as the years passed, the landscape began to change.
It was a wild and heavily forested place, where grizzly bears still roamed the California wilderness, and in 1861, two brothers by the name of Grover established their lumber operation along Bates Creek, about two miles above Soquel. The area would eventually become known as Grover’s Gulch.
The redwoods they were cutting were not small trees. Some of these magnificent coast redwoods could reach 200 to 300 feet in height—roughly the height of a 20-story building. Imagine standing at the base of one of these trees and looking straight up. These were some of the giants of the forest, and they were being brought down and turned into lumber.
The first mill was built in 1866. Then, as the operation grew, a much larger mill was constructed farther along the creek in 1877.
This wasn't some small operation tucked away in the mountains. The Grovers owned roughly 800 acres, with about 500 acres of it covered in timberland. Their mill was capable of producing nearly 25,000 board feet of lumber a day.
Think about that for a moment.
Those enormous redwoods that had stood in these mountains for generations were being cut down, hauled to the mill, and turned into lumber. What had once been a quiet forest was becoming part of the growing lumber industry of Santa Cruz County.
And the Grovers' operation didn't end up in the mountains.
They also operated a lumber yard and planing mill in Santa Cruz, near what is now lower Pacific Avenue and Center Street, in an area that became part of the historic railroad freight yards. The rough lumber coming down from the mountains could be finished there, prepared for construction, and then loaded onto the railway for shipment. The trees came out of the mountains, and the lumber went into the growing towns.
This is where our story begins...
The search for josie thompson...
It was the spring of 1884, deep within the redwood forests of the Soquel Mountains.
The great trees towered above the small creekside cottages, their enormous trunks rising toward the sky while the waters of Bates Creek quietly made their way through the forest. It was a place where families lived close to the wilderness, and where children could wander among the trees and play along the creek.
On this particular afternoon, five-year-old Josephine Thompson, affectionately called “Josie,” was playing with two other children near the cottages. Her father, Joaquin J. Thompson, known as Jo, for short; was away at work at the nearby Grover Lumber Mill, while her mother, Mary Edna Thompson, remained at home tending to the household.
Josie was a cherished little girl, but there was something especially tender in the way her father loved her. Joaquin worked hard at the mill to provide for his family, spending long hours among the men and machinery. But when the day's work was finished, he would return home to his family—and to his little girl.
Josie was his darling.
For Jo, she was more than simply his daughter. She was his little girl, the child he would have expected to see waiting for him when he came home from the mill that afternoon. He had no reason to believe that when he returned home that evening, everything would be different.
As the hours passed and the afternoon began to grow late, Mary went looking for her little girl. She found the children Josie had been playing with, but Josephine was nowhere among them. Mary asked where Josie had gone. The children led her back toward the place where they had last been playing, into the forest beneath the towering redwoods. Mary searched the surrounding area, expecting at any moment to see her daughter's familiar face appear between the trees. But she didn't, she called her name.
“Josie!”
But the forest gave no answer, again she called.
Still nothing.
Perhaps Josie had simply wandered farther than she was supposed to; maybe she was hiding somewhere nearby and suddenly would pop out and yell, "Boo!".
But the minutes passed and then the hours. Josie did not come home. By the time Joaquin returned from the mill, Mary's concern had turned into fear. His wife rushed to meet him.
“Jo, Jo! We can't find Josie. I've called and called for her, and she is nowhere to be found!”
For Jo, those words must have been terrifying. His little girl was missing. And as the father who adored her, he would have understood immediately that every passing minute mattered, especially in the merciless wilderness. There was no time to lose; the sun was beginning to disappear behind the trees, and the forest surrounding the mill stretched deep into the wilderness.
Word quickly spread among the mill workers, and soon the men joined the desperate search. They moved through the trees calling Josie's name, searching beneath the towering redwoods, through the brush, and along the creek. But there was no sign of her. The men searched until darkness made it nearly impossible to continue. Eventually, they had no choice but to return home. But for Mary and Joaquin, there could be no real rest, the night must have seemed endless, knowing their five-year-old little one, was out amongst the elements in the cold and alone.
The Next Morning...
At the light of the morning dawn, the mill hands once again gathered at the Thompsons homestead; and returned to the forest to help search for the missing child. They spread out through the woods, taking different directions in the hope that someone, anyone would find a trace of her.
Jo joined the search, carrying a long pole with a hook attached. It was a grim precaution, born from a father's growing fear. If little Josie had wandered into the creek, Joaquin wanted to be prepared to search the water for her. U. Cronk, a close friend from the Mill; accompanied him into another part of the forest, away from where the mill hands were searching. Together, they continued deeper into the wilderness.
Jo followed the creek, carrying the hooked pole with him. He searched along the banks and watched the moving water, stopping from time to time to carefully move aside the sticks and debris gathered along the creek. Every piece of driftwood or debris must have caught his attention.
The morning was still young when Jo and U. Cronk reached the other end of the creek. Then, among a pile of driftwood, Jo saw something that stopped him dead in his tracks. There, lying upon the wood, was a small form. He moved closer, and in that terrible moment, he realized what he was looking at.
His little girl.
Josie lay cold and lifeless upon the pile of driftwood, the waters of the creek washing mercilessly over her tiny body.
The little girl had fallen into the creek and drowned. The search was over.
Jo reached down, his hands trembling, as he gathered his little girl into his arms—cold, stiff, and discolored. No life was left inside his darling Josie.
One can only imagine the father's painful scream echoing through the redwoods as he carried her lifeless body home.
The newspaper would later record the heartbreaking scene in only a few words:
“The father took his darling in his arms and carried it to the bereaved home.”
XX EDIT XX
The months that followed Josephine's death are uncertain. One can only imagine the toll her death must have taken on Jo and Mary's marriage. The pain, the guilt, and the blame were likely substantial. Losing a child under such tragic circumstances would have left a wound that neither of them could simply walk away from.
From the documents that are available, however, a chain of life-altering events did, in fact, begin to unfold for the Thompsons.
By August of 1884, only a few months after Josephine's death, Joaquin was seemingly employed by Dr. John Stewart in Scotts Valley. Dr. Stewart owned a sizeable orchard ranch known as Etha Hill, where his brothers also resided. He was a well-established man in the community and was closely acquainted with Judge James Harvey Logan, with whom he often shared business and agricultural interests. Logan himself had established an extensive berry orchard in the county.
There was also Ms. Katherine McKenzie, who was a resident on the Stewart ranch and had familiar ties among some of the wealthier families in the community.
It was into this world that Joaquin Thompson found himself only months after burying his little girl.
And then, in the midsummer month of August, an unusual chain of events began to unfold—events that would ultimately change the course of Joaquin Thompson's life.
The HorseBenjamin Stewart, brother of Dr. John Stewart, had entrusted a gray mare belonging to Ms. McKenzie to the care of the ranch. The mare, saddled and bridled, was later taken from Etha Hill by Joaquin Thompson, who was working there as a ranch hand at the time.
What followed would ultimately lead to his arrest.
It was charged that Joaquin took the mare and sold her to a third party for $30, apparently with the intention of leaving town. How the transaction actually came about remains uncertain. It is not known whether the person who purchased the mare recognized her, or what ultimately led authorities back to Thompson.
Regardless, Joaquin found himself in a rather unusual legal situation.
He was not simply charged with horse theft, as one might expect. Instead, because the animal had allegedly been entrusted to his care, the charge became embezzlement.
And the matter moved quickly.
Joaquin pleaded guilty.
On Thursday, August 21, 1884, Judge James Harvey Logan sentenced him to three years in State Prison. Before the sentence was handed down, District Attorney Hall had reportedly asked the judge for leniency, pointing out that it was Thompson's first offense.
But the three-year sentence was imposed nonetheless.
Joaquin was sent to San Quentin State Prison.
At that point, it would have appeared that the matter was over. Joaquin had pleaded guilty, had been sentenced, and had been taken into custody.
But something had been overlooked.
After the sentence was imposed, attorney Charles B. Younger, acting as amicus curiae, examined the criminal information that had been filed against Thompson. What he discovered would suddenly put Joaquin's entire conviction into question.
The document stated that Joaquin had unlawfully, wrongfully, and feloniously embezzled a gray mare valued at fifty dollars, appropriating her to his own use after she had been entrusted to his care by Benjamin Stewart.
But according to Younger, there was a serious problem.
The information described what Joaquin had allegedly done—but it failed to actually specify a criminal offense.
In other words, Joaquin had pleaded guilty to something he had not, in the strict legal sense, been properly charged with.
It was a technical point, but it was a potentially powerful one.
The judge ordered a stay of the proceedings while the matter was argued. If the court agreed with Younger's interpretation, Joaquin would have to be discharged. The District Attorney argued that the information was valid under California's newly enacted Code, and if Joaquin were released, the District Attorney intended to take the matter to the California Supreme Court.
In the meantime, by the end of August of 1884, only four months after burring his daughter; Joaquin Thompson would be remanded to the custody of the San Quentin State Prison to serve a three-year sentence given to him by, Judge James Harvey Logan.
The months that followed Josephine's death are uncertain. One can only imagine the toll her death must have taken on Jo and Mary's marriage. The pain, the guilt, and the blame were likely substantial. Losing a child under such tragic circumstances would have left a wound that neither of them could simply walk away from.
From the documents that are available, however, a chain of life-altering events did, in fact, begin to unfold for the Thompsons.
By August of 1884, only a few months after Josephine's death, Joaquin was seemingly employed by Dr. John Stewart in Scotts Valley. Dr. Stewart owned a sizeable orchard ranch known as Etha Hill, where his brothers also resided. He was a well-established man in the community and was closely acquainted with Judge James Harvey Logan, with whom he often shared business and agricultural interests. Logan himself had established an extensive berry orchard in the county.
There was also Ms. Katherine McKenzie, who was a resident on the Stewart ranch and had familiar ties among some of the wealthier families in the community.
It was into this world that Joaquin Thompson found himself only months after burying his little girl.
And then, in the midsummer month of August, an unusual chain of events began to unfold—events that would ultimately change the course of Joaquin Thompson's life.
The HorseBenjamin Stewart, brother of Dr. John Stewart, had entrusted a gray mare belonging to Ms. McKenzie to the care of the ranch. The mare, saddled and bridled, was later taken from Etha Hill by Joaquin Thompson, who was working there as a ranch hand at the time.
What followed would ultimately lead to his arrest.
It was charged that Joaquin took the mare and sold her to a third party for $30, apparently with the intention of leaving town. How the transaction actually came about remains uncertain. It is not known whether the person who purchased the mare recognized her, or what ultimately led authorities back to Thompson.
Regardless, Joaquin found himself in a rather unusual legal situation.
He was not simply charged with horse theft, as one might expect. Instead, because the animal had allegedly been entrusted to his care, the charge became embezzlement.
And the matter moved quickly.
Joaquin pleaded guilty.
On Thursday, August 21, 1884, Judge James Harvey Logan sentenced him to three years in State Prison. Before the sentence was handed down, District Attorney Hall had reportedly asked the judge for leniency, pointing out that it was Thompson's first offense.
But the three-year sentence was imposed nonetheless.
Joaquin was sent to San Quentin State Prison.
At that point, it would have appeared that the matter was over. Joaquin had pleaded guilty, had been sentenced, and had been taken into custody.
But something had been overlooked.
After the sentence was imposed, attorney Charles B. Younger, acting as amicus curiae, examined the criminal information that had been filed against Thompson. What he discovered would suddenly put Joaquin's entire conviction into question.
The document stated that Joaquin had unlawfully, wrongfully, and feloniously embezzled a gray mare valued at fifty dollars, appropriating her to his own use after she had been entrusted to his care by Benjamin Stewart.
But according to Younger, there was a serious problem.
The information described what Joaquin had allegedly done—but it failed to actually specify a criminal offense.
In other words, Joaquin had pleaded guilty to something he had not, in the strict legal sense, been properly charged with.
It was a technical point, but it was a potentially powerful one.
The judge ordered a stay of the proceedings while the matter was argued. If the court agreed with Younger's interpretation, Joaquin would have to be discharged. The District Attorney argued that the information was valid under California's newly enacted Code, and if Joaquin were released, the District Attorney intended to take the matter to the California Supreme Court.
In the meantime, by the end of August of 1884, only four months after burring his daughter; Joaquin Thompson would be remanded to the custody of the San Quentin State Prison to serve a three-year sentence given to him by, Judge James Harvey Logan.
So, what happened?
Did Joaquin's attorney succeed in having the conviction or sentence overturned? Was he discharged because the criminal information was legally defective? Was there another legal proceeding that resulted in his release?
At this point, we do not have the final court record to answer those questions with certainty.
But there is evidence.
The evidence establishes that Joaquin was sentenced to three years and was sent to San Quentin. The evidence also places him outside the prison by February 28, 1885, when he appears as a witness on Mary Edna Thompson's asylum admission record.
Somewhere between those two events, something happened to change Joaquin's circumstances.
The answer may lie in the legal proceedings that followed Charles B. Younger's discovery of the defective information. Until that record is found, the exact reason for Joaquin's release remains unsubstantiated.
But one thing is becoming increasingly difficult to dismiss:
Joaquin Thompson did not serve the three-year sentence as originally imposed.
Did Joaquin's attorney succeed in having the conviction or sentence overturned? Was he discharged because the criminal information was legally defective? Was there another legal proceeding that resulted in his release?
At this point, we do not have the final court record to answer those questions with certainty.
But there is evidence.
The evidence establishes that Joaquin was sentenced to three years and was sent to San Quentin. The evidence also places him outside the prison by February 28, 1885, when he appears as a witness on Mary Edna Thompson's asylum admission record.
Somewhere between those two events, something happened to change Joaquin's circumstances.
The answer may lie in the legal proceedings that followed Charles B. Younger's discovery of the defective information. Until that record is found, the exact reason for Joaquin's release remains unsubstantiated.
But one thing is becoming increasingly difficult to dismiss:
Joaquin Thompson did not serve the three-year sentence as originally imposed.
INTAKE DOCUMENT STOCKTON STATE ASYLUM 1885 - PROPERTY OF MARYANNE PORTER S.C.G.H
Mary edna thompson
By February of 1885, Mary Edna Thompson was reportedly experiencing a continued and alarming decline in her mental state. Family members and friends witnessed increasingly violent behavior, including fits of rage, hysteria, explosive outbursts, and episodes in which she would throw objects.
Her behavior had become more than simply erratic or emotionally distressed. Those around her were growing increasingly concerned that, in these violent episodes, she had developed a propensity to physically harm someone—or possibly herself. Her loss of control and unpredictable outbursts created a genuine concern for the safety of those around her.
For Mary Edna, the grief that had followed Josephine's death, compounded by Joaquin's imprisonment, appeared to have taken a devastating toll. By this point, those closest to her were no longer simply witnessing a grieving mother—they were witnessing a woman whose behavior had become increasingly violent and dangerous.
Whether the compounded grief of Josephine's death and Joaquin's imprisonment ultimately took its toll on Mary Edna is uncertain and a questionable news article made way for a new discovery. Allegedly Mary Edna Thompson was 'grief stricken over the loss of 3 of her 4 children." Naturally in light of this new information, historical researcher, Maryanne Porter, had to corroborate this new piece of information. And after some follow up research, a remarkable piece of evidence came to light and to Porters front door. The 1885 admission document from Stockton State Hospital.
On February 28, 1885, Mary Edna Thompson was admitted to the Stockton State Insane Asylum by order of the Santa Cruz Superior Court.
The surviving intake record provides a rare glimpse into the condition Mary Edna was experiencing at the time. She was only 23 years old, married, a housewife, and a native of California. She was committed from Santa Cruz County. The asylum record documents sleeplessness, boisterous and violent actions, and suicidal behavior. It further records a disposition to injure others, particularly relatives, arising from sudden passion.
The record also indicates that the episode leading to her admission had begun approximately a week earlier, but that it was not her first such attack. Previous episodes were said to have occurred at intervals of approximately nine months and lasted three or four days at a time.
Then, under the section asking for the “supposed cause of insanity,” the answer was recorded:
“Grief caused by death of 3 of her 4 children.”
Unfortunately, the record does not identify the other children or provide the circumstances surrounding their deaths, so those details remain outside what this document can establish. And then there is perhaps the most important detail of all. Joaquin Thompson was present as a witness for his wife's admission, confirming his prison sentence was likely overturned, after all.
THE THREE CHILDREN
But what of these three other children?
Extensive research has failed to reveal their names, births, or deaths. In fact, their existence as a group remains something of a mystery.
Perhaps this is one of the twists and turns our readers will enjoy unraveling.
As Porter continued researching the life of Mary Edna Thompson and the Thompson family, she was left with even more questions—particularly when confronted with the uncertainty surrounding the accuracy of some published historical records.
Were these three children truly lost to history, their lives and deaths simply never documented? Or is there something more to the story?
Perhaps there is a much darker and more twisted chapter yet to be uncovered.
continue xx EDIT xx