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.
52/68 (page 46)
![ical College. Mr Thompson testifies that at 20 minutes af- ter 2 P. M. he met Dr Parkman in Causeway street Mr Thomp-^on testilies that he knew Dr Parkman perfectly well. The hour at which Mr Thorapson met him wa-; confessedly long after Dr Parkinau entered the Medical College. The witness explained how he had made a written state- ment to Mr. Andrew.s, Clerk of the Coroner's Inquest. The paper is not produced, and the defence therefore con- tends that there is nothing in it to invalidate the evidence of Mr. Thompson. Mea have stranse systems of beliel but it does not follow from the adoption of such systems that they are insincere in their belief or that they are not to be relied on in statements which they may make. No attempt has been made to impeach the witness; no attempt has been made to prove that his powers of vision are im- paired, and he himself swears thev are not. If, then, Mr. Thompson saw Dr. Parkman in Causeway street, he saw him long after the time at which the government contends Dr Parkman held his last interview in the Medical College Mr. Weiitwofth testifies he saw Dr. Parkman in Court street on Friday afternoon, between 2| and 3J P. M. He gives all the particulars wliich fix the rime and event in his memorjr. Mr. Russell testities that he was with Mr. Wentworth when lie spoke of having seen Dr. Parkman. But Mr. Russell does not recollect the time when Mr. Wentworth told him this. He has a most extraordinary memory—he cannot fix the time within months. The matter was so unimportant that the time was not fixed in his memory. He recollects that mention was made of it by Mr. Wentworth But Mr. Wentwortli recollects the time—has recollected it ever since. His testimony is nnimpeached and unimpeaciiable. Mr. Cleland testified to important matters. The busi- ness upon which he was engaged is of such a character as to entitle him to confidence. He produces t<undry notes to fortify his recollection of matters, to which he testifies. He testifies that at an hour which could not vary much from 20 minutes after 3 P. M, he saw Dr. Parkman in Washington street. He declares that Dr. Parkman and ue passed side by side. Of the time and place there can be 1.0 question. It was on Friday, the 2.3d of November, at 20 minutes past 3 o'clock, in Washington street. Mr. Ckland knew Dr. Parkman perfectly well, and he men- tions the circumstance to an officer of the Police, and is told that it is of no consequence to mention it to the Po- lice. Then there is the testimony of Mrs. and Miss Ehodes. They testified to going out shopping on Friday, Novem- ber 23d. Mrs. Rhodes testifies to the purchase which she made at Hovey & Co 's, in Winter street. A clerk of Ho- vey & Co.'s proves that a sale, of precisely the same amount as testified to by Mrs. Rhodes, was made on that day, and no other sale of asimilar character and amount. It is rot contended that Mrs. and Miss Rhodes were not In Winter street on that day. Mrs. Rhodes knew Dr. Parkman, and bowed to him as she passed him in Green street. She knew perfectly the whole family, and was a parishioner of the Rev. Dr. Francis Parkman. Miss Ehodes testifies that her mother bowed to Dr. Parkman as they passed him. Mrs. Rhodes is certain that she met Dr. Parkman at the time and place to which she testifies. She has taken every effort in her power to be correct as to time and place Mrs. Greenough testifies that she saw Dr Parkman in Cambridge sti eet, at 10 minutes before 3 P. M. She is confident, though perhaps not quite so certain as some other witnesses. This is tie evidence upon which the defence relies to show that Dr. Parkman and Dr. Webster did separate on Friday at 1^ or 2 P. M. We know that responsible per- sons did see Dr Parkman abroad after the hour fixed by the government. It may be suggested that they are mis- taken. But is this beyond a doubt? Can the life of a fellow man be put in jeopardy upon such a suggestion ? It may be claimed that witnesses were mistaken in the face —in the living man. But compare this with the evidence as to the identity of the naked limbs ! The counsel next proceeded to an examination of the testimony introduced by the government. The Hon. gen- tleman declared that he would treat it in all fairness; the parties were not there to contend for victory, but to learn truth and to vindicate justice The counsel took up the evidence as presented by government. The prosecution was bound to prove the murder, as the law presumes that the defendant is innocent until the murder is proved; and more, the proof must be beyond a reasonable doubt. They must first prove the deatli, and secondly, prove that it was the result of the agency of another person. It must be admitted that considerable evidence has been introduced to show that Doctor Parkman is no more It is conceeded that Dr. Paikman entered the Medical College on Friday, Nov. 23d. Bones and remains were found in the College. Dr. Wyman testifies that he found parts of a head, arms, left leg and feet. The question ari- ses were these the remains of Dr. Pai-kman? Important circumstances are introduced to show the strong proba- bility that ttie lemaiuB werethoseof Dr, Parkman. The Counsel reviewed the circumstances—as the size of the re- mains, the color of the hair, and the finding of mineral teeth, to which a skilful dentist testifies. If the jury are not satisfied that the remains were those of Dr. Parkman, then the case fails. But if it were proved that the remains were thfise of Dr. Parkman, then the Jury musf; decide whether the person came to his death bv violence. Dr. Wyman thinks that a portion of the bones of the skull were fractured before calcination. But of this he was not entirely certain. Dr Holmes testifies that he is of the opinion that the same appearance might be pre- sented if a bone was fractured after calcination. He slates that he has tried the experiments and knows. In this particular Dr. Hoimes dues not defer his opinion to that of Dr. Wyman. Take the testimony of the two to- gether and there must be doubt upon this point. Is it proved that there was a blow upon ttie head? Now as to the cut in the breast. Several respectable gentlemen testify that the cut was not a clean one, but it was ragged. Three witnesses testify that whenever the stab was made it was not done with a sharp knite. One witness (Dr. Strong) testifies that the cut was a c ean one. Here again there is doubt—discrepancy in testimony. Is it clear that life was lost by a stab? The parts are divided. Though this body is found mu- tilated, distressingly' mutilated, there is not one who be- lieves that this mutilation was the cause of death. How the man died is still a matter of mystery and doubt. Is it a necessary conclusion, because the remains are found, that a violent death took place? A man is seen to run from a house with a bloody sword. Persons enter and find a bleeding corjjse The inference is plain. But how in this case ? The man was missing on the 23d, but the re- mains were not found until the 30th, seven days after. Can it be said that Dr. Parkman did not die a natural death, in some of the many forms in which death comes upon us? or that he may not have fallen by his own hand ? Can it be certain, under such circumstances, that a vio- lent death took place—that Dr. Geprge Parkman died by the hand of a fellow-man? Lord Hale said he would not recommend a conviction, under circumstantial evidence, except the body had been found. The same caution must be applied to the means of death. And if there is left doubt of the means, tlien a violent death cannot be as- sumed. Dr. Webster does not pretend to say how tlie remains came in the Medical College. Some one may have placed the remains in th-^ College after suspicion had fallen up- on the College. Can it be said that is not so? Suppose we arrive at the conclusion that those were the remains of Dr. Parkman, and that he came to his death by violence, what is the crime committed ? Dr. Webster denies that he took the life of Dr. Parkman. But his counsel cannot rest the case here. They do not feel it right so to do. We contend that the evidence shows that if a homicide was committed by Dr. Webster, it was done under such circumstances of extenuation as to reduce the crime from murder to manslaughter. The Court will instruct as to the law bearing upon the ques- tion of malice aforeihought. [Some remarks were addressed in a low tone of voice by Mr. Merrick to the Court, upon its ruling in the case of Peter Yorke, to which Judge Shaw rep led.] If the jury is satisfied that Dr. Webster killed Dr. Park- man, and did it by design, then the Homicide, by the law, becomes murder; but if it was not done by design, but with provocation, or in the heat of combat, then the homi- cide is only manslaughter. The government contends that there was express malice—that Dr. Webster enticed Dr. Parkman into the College, and then murdered him. The government denies that a business interview took place, aa Dr. Webster has admitted—denies that he paid the money to Dr. Parkman, as he says he did, because he had not the money about him—therefore the government concludes that the visit of Dr. Parkman was in conse- quence of the enticements of Dr. Webster. As to the evi- dence of Mr. Pettee and Mr. Dana, in relation to Dr. Web- st'er's cash accounts, the counsel were authorised to say, that this was not the money which Dr. Webster was to pay to Dr. Parkman. It is true that he drew a small check on Mr. Hench- man. But the money he deposited in the Bank,—the money he obtained from Mr. Henchman,—were only for his every day use. No attempt has been made to show where the money came from, to pay Dr. Parkman, for this is utterly impossiljle, under the ciicumstances.— But the government has no right to contend that malice is expressed, because proof lails on this point. It is well known to all that business arrangements had taken piace between Dr. Parkman and Dr. Webster. The counsel went into the details of the morigages, the bill of sale of the cabinet, &c. Dr. Webster -Avell knew that the claim of Dr. Parkman must be satisfied—the time was near at hand, and Dr. Webster was saving up the money to meet tlie claim. Of the *195 paid to Dr. Webster by Mr. Pettee, and deposited in the Charles Riv- er Bank, abou' the middle of November, Dr. Webster on- ly checkeul out $150—leaving f40 for Dr. Parkman's claim. It is true that Dr. Webster did not desire to pay the money as speedily as he might—there w.re no li-iendly relations between the parties. But still he was saving up the sum necessary to discharge the claim, and was ex- pecting the day when eueh discharge would take place,](https://iiif.wellcomecollection.org/image/b21083629_0052.jp2/full/800%2C/0/default.jpg)
