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.
55/68 (page 49)
![Dr Webster in his kitchen, wUile he (Littlefield) was at breakfast. After this peciod it does not appear that he soutrht Dr Webster again during the day. In the after- noon lie goes to work again. But during the week he does not mention his suspicions to any proper aiithorit}'. On Friday morning he mentions his suspicions to Drs Bigelow'a'nd Jackson, wlio desire him to go on and clear up the matter. He jokes with the Fullers when he bor- rows tlieir tools. And yet he was expecting to find the body of a respected citizen, and in tlie finding to accuse another respected citizen of his murder. Mr. Starkweather asks if every place has been searched. All except the privy, is the reply. Let us search it, now, says Starkweather. Not now, replied Little- field; Dr. Webster has the key, aud has gone home. He does not tell Kingsley, his friend—and that too, when he has already perforated the wall; his friend Trenholm comes, and he puts him off—tells him that in twenty mi- nutes he will get through the wall; and the remains are found, just opposite the hole made in the wall, and soine distance from a line let fall perpendicularly from the privy hole. Can it be supposed if Professor Webster is guilty of the murder, that he would have changed his whole conduct so as to furnish grounds of proof against him ? This is utterly improbable. The Counsel next proceeded to speak of what he deem- ed as favoring the theory of the innocence of the prisoner. Where are the traces of blood? Only minute spots on the pantaloons and slippers—none on the knife—none on the sheath knife—none though pavements are taken up—an^ everj-thiug examined. The overalls have no trace of blood on tiiem. So says Professor Horslbrd. Littlefield says he could never find the overalls after tbe discovery of the remains. And yet Prof. Horsford says they were there after he took possession of the rooms—the police had used them, apoarenily, for a pillow—that he sent them out to Prof Webster's house. Could not Prof Webster have destroyed every vestige of the body? How comes it, with all his chemical knowledge, that it is left scattered all over the rooms, to be used as evidence against liim? There are no traces of a violent deed. These im- probabilities render it utterly impossible that Prof Web- ster could have been guilty of murder. An unknown and a mysterious agency must have arranged those matters. Professor Webster, at home on Friday evening—at Pro- fessor Treadwell's the same evening, exhibits no ner- vousness of manner—no marked exjjression of counte- nance. The children of his bosom discover nothing to indicate that anything unusual had happened. To ap- pear as he did, if guilty of murder, he must be more or less than man. On Saturday Prof Webster reads that Dr Parkman was missing—that he had an appointment with an unknown man on Friday. On Sunday Dr Webster comes in to an- nounce to the family that he was the unknown man. AVhat necessity for this if he was a murderer? He meets Mr Blake first, and then visits Kev Dr Francis Parkman; with one he is too warm, holding him by the hand—with the other he is too cold and formal. How is this? It is a matter of some difficulty to know how to treat afflicted friends, at such interviews. On go- ing home, Dr. Webster calls on Mr. Page to ascertaiu if the mortgage was discharged. During the week he ap- pears as natural and collected as ever. Nothing whatev- er in his manner to indicate that he had gone through such scenes as he must have gone through if he murdered Dr. Parkman. On rriday,Nov 30,he appears perfectly unsuspicious when Mr. Clapp and the officers went out to arrest him. He of- fers to go, in the most collected manner, to search the Medical College—makes no objection whatever. Could he have sustained himself as he did if he>had been guilty of murder? Is it possible that this could be? He asks vVhat does it mean, that the driver goes up the wronj: street. He appears calm and collected all the while. Arrived at the jail, he is shown into the inner room, and there asks, What does all this mean? He is told that he is arrested as the murderer of Dr. Parkman. In the utmost alarm he asks, VVhat! me?—aud there his voice falters. He attempts to speak, and Mr. Clapp tells hira not to speak of the crime; he then asks for his friends, Messrs. Dexter and Prescott; is told he cannot see them to-night, and he then sinks under it; he exclaims, My children! my children! No matter whether for good or not, he was deceived ■when taken from his house. In the midst of his anguish, ■while overwhelmed with the enormity of the charge, he utters some half broken sentences, which Mr Starkweath- er takes down at the moment, and repeats in Court. He says, however, that the porter alone has the keys—has ac- cess to his rooms. Prof Webster is carried to the College. His rooms were broken open—he was nearly helpless all the time. He was most composed in the ujjper labor- atory, and that, too, when the key ot the privy was asked for—the very place wlieie, as the government alleges. Professor Webster had deposited the remains. And this was belore the remains had been exposed. He went into into the lower laboratory, but no infesenoe can or should be drawn from anything which he might say under such circumstances. He was taken back to the jail and his cell, whare ho waa most kindly cared for by the jailor, Mr: Andrews. Aud here a few half broken sentences escaped him. In the morning when a little recovered he opened-his whole de-. fence—I do not think that those are the remains of Dr Parkman, but I cannot tell how they came there. All classes come before the Court and testify to wliat Prof. Webster has been. And it is a rule of law that in all doubtful cases, character shall be weighed in the scale. Judge 3Ierrick, in closing, urged upon the Jury the aw- ful responsibility that devolved upon them. All that his client demanded was that they should carefully weigh the evidence in the case, and render such a verdict as would leave their own consciences free from all reproach. [The Hon. gentleman occupied some six hours and a quarter in the delivery of his argument, which was most ably arranged, considering the depressing aud over- whelming evidence of the government in the case. Judge Merrick's manner was impressive and earnest, and his de- livery energetic. The Court room was densely crowded; the utmost silence prevailed, and the closest attention was paid to fhe Counsel while he was addressing the Court and Jury.] At 25 minutes past 7, P. M., the Court t\djourned to the next morning. ELEVENTH DAY. Saturday, March 30, 1850. The Court came in this morning, at the usual hour, the attendance of spectators being very large. The appear- ance of the prisoner was in no wise different from what it has been since his trial commenced. The Attorney General, Hon. J. H. Cliffori), at 10 minutes past 9 o'clock, commenced the closing argument for the prosecution. In a cause of as much magnitude as the present, the At- torney General said, he expected, aud doubtless the Jury expected, that every thing that could be advanced would be advanced, to show the innocence of the defendant at the bar. In that expectation he had not been disappoint- ed. All that could be done had been done by his counsel; the transcendant ability that marked the closing argument for the defence, showed that all had been accomplished that could be accomplished. The Attorney General, in his opening, had expressed the hope, a sincere hope, that the prisoner would^ be able to show his inno- cence of the crime, which is charged to him. But in this hope he must say, and say it, too, with regret, he had been disappointed It was not true that the prisoner had been the lonely inmate of a cell—unassisted and un- friended, as his counsel had asserted. He had not been alone and without friends. Every facility had been af- forded to him to prepare his defence. Nothing had been withheld by the government; it had aflbrded every op- portunity to the prisoner and to his counsel, to examine and inspect every thing that might bear against him. It ill became the prisoner, or his counsel, to complain of the prosecution in the case. Complaint had been made against the government in relation to the seeret proceedings of the Coroner's Jury. But the prisoner had an opportunity to open his lips be fore he came to his present trial, if he had been so dis- posed. But the prisoner had chosen, with or without ad- vice of counsel, the Attorney General could not; say which, to keep silent, and offer no explanation of the deep aud damning evidence which had accumulated against him. The Attorney General would ask the Jury if they thought that an innocent man would have thus conduct- ed? Would he have suffered himself to be icicaicerated in a felon's cell, and the good name upon which he had been building for sixty years to be consigned to infamy, and his family to sutler the most excruciating agony ?— Was this reasonable? The evidence of the defence applies only to four propo- sitions, and upon these propositions the counsel li:id founded four hypotheses. The first proposition of the de- fence is as to the character of the prisoner. That he did bear an outside character was never denied by the gov- ernment ; how well grounded that character was,the event of the trial must determine. The second proposition of the defence is, that Dr. Webster's beinglocked ujj in his rooms was not an unusual thing by any means. This was only shown by one single witness, and had signally failed. The third proposition is the attempt to show the conduct and whereabouts of the prisoner during tlieweek after the disappearance of Dr. Parkniiin The i'ourtii pro- position is, the attempt of the defence to show that Dr. Parkman and Dr. Webster separated after the lirst inter- view at the Medical College. The hypotheses founded ou these propositions must be considered in another connec- tion. The constitution aud the laws have for their highest object the protection and safety of human life. And if there ever occurred a ca.se in which the majesty of the law was to be vindicated, it is the one now under trial.— The defendant, Dr. Webster, has moved all his life in ed-](https://iiif.wellcomecollection.org/image/b21083629_0055.jp2/full/800%2C/0/default.jpg)
