The trial of Prof. John W. Webster, indicted for the murder of Dr. George Parkman, at the Medical college (North Grove street) on the 23d of November, 1849 : Supreme judicial court, before Chief Justice Shaw, and Associate Justices Wilde, Dewey, and Metcalf. Counsel for the government, Attorney General J.H. Clifford, and George Bemis, esq. Counsel for the defence, Hon. Pliny Merrick, and E.D. Sohier, esq. / Reported for Boston journal.
- Webster, John White, 1793-1850
- Date:
- 1850
Licence: Public Domain Mark
Credit: The trial of Prof. John W. Webster, indicted for the murder of Dr. George Parkman, at the Medical college (North Grove street) on the 23d of November, 1849 : Supreme judicial court, before Chief Justice Shaw, and Associate Justices Wilde, Dewey, and Metcalf. Counsel for the government, Attorney General J.H. Clifford, and George Bemis, esq. Counsel for the defence, Hon. Pliny Merrick, and E.D. Sohier, esq. / Reported for Boston journal. Source: Wellcome Collection.
Provider: This material has been provided by the Francis A. Countway Library of Medicine, through the Medical Heritage Library. The original may be consulted at the Francis A. Countway Library of Medicine, Harvard Medical School.
44/68 (page 38)
![Under these circumstances, there would be no chance for acquittal, unless checks and balances were provided, one of which is, this very reasonable doubt. It is no gratuity to the prisoner, but it is his right. What is a reasonable doubt? According to Starkie, it is such a certainty as you would act upon in matters of the highest con- cern; as, for example, in the preservation of your life. If you would not risk your own life on a doubt, how dare you to risk that of a prisoner at the bar? 1 come now to my fourth head, which is an examina- tion of the government's evidence, and the rules of law which apply to it. Evidence is divided into direct and circumstantial proof. There is no direct proof in this case. Direct proof is derived from persons who have an actual knowledge of tlie affair in dispute, as if a per- son should swear that he save some particular act or ot- fence coruaiitted. Circumstantial evidence is where an act is attempted to be proved when no one has been a ■witness to it. A series of facts is proved in advance, and then a conclusion is drawn to establish the main fact, to wit: A murder is committed, but no one sees the crime perpetrated. But a series of circumstances are proved, touching a party indicted, and then a summing up of these circumstances leads to the conclusion of his guilt— the main fact which was to be tried. There is no com- parison between direct and circumstantial proof Cir- cumstantial proof is weak, as the chances of error in this kind of proof are gieatly multiplied. [Mr. Sohier again read from the books quite a number of cases going to show how great had been the evils inflicted through the admission of circumstantial evidence.] There may be scores of facts to be testified to; men may mistake as to them; or they may lie. and so on. Circumstantial proof is exposed to en or ,from beginr.ing to end. A watchman discovers a man murdered on the side walk, and sees a man running from him and entering a house not far distant; another watchman enters the bouse and arrests a man who appears to be out of breath as it from running; a third watchman takes the man to the watch-house and discovers what he supposes to be blood upon his clothes How are the chances fur error multi- plied in this chain of circumstances. In the flrsf place,t the tirst watchman may have been mistaken as to the house which tlie man entered; the second watchman may mistake the house also, or he may lie; the thiid watch man ma}^ not know what blood is, or lie may lie. The man arrested may nor be !;lie party who ran away—or he may have been a friend of the party killed, and iiave run to avoid trouhle. How ditiicult then to draw a right conclusion, but we are always liuble to draw wrong conclusions. An uncle and neice lived together, and she was heard to cry out oh ! don't kill me. The next day the girl was missing. The uncle tinding himself suspected procured a girl to personate his neice, but the trick was discovered ; the man was tried and hanged for the muider of his neice.— After his dealii she returned. She had absconded IVom fear ot yunisliment. This case was no doubt proved by u conscientious witness, and decided by a conscientious ju- ry. A man stole a horse and meeting a countryman iu the road, askea liim if he would not hold him for a moment. He did so, when a pos^e of olticers coming up arrested him as being iu cha; j»e oi a horse but recently stolen. -He was tried and haijgf.i. 'iliere are certain notions preva- lent in the conimuiiity that circumstantial evidence is as strong as direct; circumstances do not lie, says one, but witnesses lie, and the conclusions we draw from circum- stances may lie. [Extracts from Best's work on Presump- tions of Law were read b> the Counsel to sustain the pu sitions.] i But there is a moral cause which shows that presump tive evidence is not to be relied on—and tha; is the iiat- i ihing for him to be locKed up ni his laboratory days and The government say that George Parkman came to hig death. But how does the government prove it? By var rious circumstances—to wit, that George Parkman being in the Medical College, on a certain day, which it is &£■ mitted he was, never came out again. The second division in the chain is, that Prof. Webster destroyed him by violence, because he is the last person he is known to have been witli. Suppose it should be shown, by the evidence for the defence, that Dr. Parkman did come out again, the whole case lalls to tlie ground. Take another point. The government say that it has prov- ed the identity of the body found, by some peculiarity in the mineral teeth found Suppose it should turn out that there is no gieat peculiarity alter all, in these mineral teeth. What becomes of this, circumstance, forming a connecting link? Now. what is the line of defence that must be adopted? The prisoner is tried by circumstantial proof, and the line of defence must follow this course. In the tirst place I insist that the circumstances relied on by goverijment are not proved beyond a reasonable doubt; and secondly, hat they do not sustain only the hypothesis of guilt, but, to a certain extent, sustain the hypothesis of the prison- er's innocence. I will briefly name the heads under which we shall in- troduce the evidence, but I shall not go into the particu- lar circumstances advanced by the government. That must be reserved for another part of the trial. We shall not produce any direct proof to show how the remains were found in the laboratory of the College; we cannot doit; we shall rest it where Prof. Webster has left it— These are the remains of a human body, but how in the world they came there, I don't know. Prof. Webster stands as anybody else would stand, who should find the remains of a human body beneath his building. In re- gard to the interview between Dr. Parkman and Prof. Webster, we shall produce no direct proof. The circum- stances under which the interview was held, admit of no direct proof Seeing, then, that we have no direct proof, the evidence must consist of circumstances. Prof. Webster stands charged of commiiting a violent, (/ruel and inhuman act. As to his being a person capable of committing such an act, we shall intioduce his charac- ter. I am aware that under certain cases this kind ot evi- dence would avail very little perhaps. But in a case ad- mitting of doubt, where the proof is circumstantial. I think character is perfectly admissible, and should have its weight with the jury.' In a case of direct proof, char- acter might avail nothing. It is a rule of law to introduce traits only so far as they bear upon the offence charged—to wit: if a man were on trial for peijury, it would avail him very little to say that he was a good and loyal citizen We shall under- take to show, .so far as proof is accessible, what Dr. Web- ster's conduct WHS, and how he spent his time during the interval between the disappearance of Dr. Parkman, and his airest. We hope to offer you convincing proof that Dr. Paikman did come out of the College on Friday, the day of his disappearance. Though this tact may have Jitile to do with the fact of the revtiains being found in the College, whether Dr. Parkmait's or not, still it has much to do with the question whether Professor Webster killed him or not. Prof Webster has devoted his whole life to the study of Chemistry. He is a man of nervous disposition ; of harm- less and peaceable habits; petulant and irritable as all neiv'ous men aie; a timid man, and not a man to engage iu deeds of strife, tie has devoted his days and nights to the study ami practise of his profession. Whatever other knowledge he may have gained, he is certainly not ;> man of the world. He is far from it. It is no new liral prouenesr, of jieifoii.s to exa.ii^^erate, witnesses tc over-state, am-: n ibiruals t,i mi.';judge from tiic samecau-e The best citcii;!;.-;l;:!iCc's relied ou are still jiroved by otiji^! Circurastasjce'- 'ihe 11; st iiiie which fhy law has aaupfeh j to guard agjiu-t eiror, as far as p(.;.-<sibie, for it is iiu'i.ov- sible fo prbveut, v altDgether, is this;—1st. Ei'ery circuio- stance ; 'Ued ou must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt;—il .-Hows, tiienif'.j-e, that if in a long train of circumsiauces .. ',,,(_■; one fails, the case fails with it. 2d. Such c.::- ;i. ; as are proved must estab- lish, to a mora! cei i..,;i ' \, u e hyjiothesis attempted to be proved by them.—(Wilis oi. Circumstantial Evidence.) 3d. The circumstances which are proved beyond a doubt must not only support the hypothesis set up, but they Liigiiis; It is his conimoii and ordiiiaiv practice, both at his laboratory at the iMedical College and the one at Cambridge, and it is a very proper course for him to pur- sue when engp.ged in woik. Uc; for a time, aih?wed access to his rooms, and per- mitted the water to be used. But, for good reasons, he c,.t oil this access, and here is the wlKjie liead and front of his offending. We shall attempt to prove, as I said be- fore, that Dr. Parkman did leave the College on that Fri- .day after he entered it—tiiat Dr. Webster went to his own home ut quite a seasonable hour, on that same day, and that tie was at home to dine and at tea, almost every day during tiie week. These are all the points upon which we shall introduce evidence, except it n^y be some col- must not sTistaiii 'an'y other hypoUiesis.—(St.^'rkie's Evi- i latei al points to contradict the g6vernuTent. And this is deuce.) all the stfitement that we feel called upon to make at the If they go, for example, to a certain extent, to sustain I present time, boththeguilt and innocence of a.party under trial, then [I'^e address was two hours and twenty minutes in the party mu-t be acquitted. [Mr. Sohier again read from | length, aid was listened to with the closest attention by Best, to .<usfaHi this positio.u Hut, the Attorney GenevHl |ti,e l.i;>'e as,-embly present. After Mr. Sohier closed, the objected to the authority. Mr. ,S.)hier then referred Mr. following witne.s.ses were introduced for the defence :] Clifford to Sfarkie, to whom Bt' i refers.] ! Take riie govern.iK-iifsevideiiCe, gentlemen. It is one^ Joseph T. Bockinguam, called and sworn. I.reside in gi'eat chain of en cuaislantial proof, which the govern-1 Cambridge. X am acquainted with Prof Webster. I ment has thrown round Prof Websier, and by uhich it; huve known liim, I think, thirty years. I have lived in has attempted to crush liim. The chain coiisi-ts of two Cambridge for 17 ) ears. I never heard that he was ever great divisions. First it consists of the corpus </,7ui/, or „;uilty of anj act ot outrage or inhumanity. I have nev- the fact that George Parkman came to his death- secono, v.v heard him charged with these acts. We have been on that Prof. Webster was the party who produced his death. • familiar terms, and met irequeutly, though jjerhaps 1 am](https://iiif.wellcomecollection.org/image/b21083629_0044.jp2/full/800%2C/0/default.jpg)
