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.
56/68 (page 50)
![ucated circles—has been the associate of men of wealth and standing. His position lias been eminently elevated, far ditfereiit from that of the poor felon who is usually seen in the prisoner's dock. We are now to learn by the verdict which the jury shall render, whether the law alike regaids the weak and the powertul. The Arroniey General next took up the question of the improbabilities that a false charge had been made against the prisoner. It had been urged by the defence that the government had introduced no direct evidence to show that the prisoner did commit the crime of murder. In answer to this it may be said that individuals do not usually take witnesses to crimes like the one charged. The nature of the evidence from which the jury are to draw their conclusions is circumstantial, and must of ne- cessity be circumstantial. We are to use all the means that lie in our power, to determine the point of the guilt or innocence of the prisoner. It has been urged that circumstantial evidence is much less powerful than direct evidence. But direct evidence does not depend alone upon the veracity and integrity of the witness, but upon his intelligence and his powers of observation. And here the Attorney General re»l from the case of the Commonwealth vs. Harmon, tried in Penn- sylvania, Chief Justice Gibson presidiug. He read from the remarks of the Jud)?e upon the nature of circumstantial evidence. The Judge declares that there is hardly any such thing as positive evidence. As for example : a gun may be discharLCd, and a man may fall, and die. A third per- son may witness the act, and testify to it. There is a pos- sibility that there may not have been a bullet in the gun, but this is inferred because there is no other inference which can be drawn, upon which the death can be ac- counted for.. Justice Gibson admits that innocent per sons have been convicted and hanged on circumstantial evidence—so have persons been convicted and punished on positive evidence. The cases, of the conviction of in- nocent persons, however, are few, and the individuals who have fallen, have done so for the common good, as much so as soldiers who have fallen on the battle lield. Mr. Clifford next considered the points of law bearing upon the question of malice aforethought. He contended that if any thing is found by the jury to show express malice; then the crime is murder. But implied malice must be inferred, if nothing is shown to the contrary. If exasperating language was used, and a blow was given by the defendant, and with an instrument likely to cause deatli, then is he justly charged with murder. Exaspe- rating words alone were not sufticient to reduce the crime from murder to manslaughter. It was a somewhat sin- gular spectacle that the Counsel in the opening for the de- fence should spend some two hours in a nice discussion cf points of law, and only some five minutes upon the facts to be presented. The Attorney General next considered the objection of the defence to the fourth count in the indictment. He thought the objection was not well grounded. He thought that the Court would demand strong authorities to sus- tain the objection. If a prisoner were keen enough to conceal his means, a conviction could never be secured,— however strong the proof of th^ murder. It had been suggested that Dr. Parkman had fallen from the use of the lasso,—or from some other means. But is there one particle of proof going to show that this suggestion has any foundation in fact ? The Attorney General read from Hawkins the authority for the form of indictment, where- in it is declared the government is bound to set forth the fact as accurately as the nature of the circumstances will admit. If the authorities cited by the defence show conclusively that the law is as they contend in regard to the form of indictment, then it is time the law was alter- ed. If the Jury doubt, as well they may doubt, whether Dr. Parkmau came to his death by a blow or a hammer, the Attorney General still hoped to show that Dr. Webster had liad such conuect'on with it as to convince them he was guilty of the miu'der. It has been gravely urged that Dr. Parkman may not now be among the slain; and this, notwithstanding all the evidence upon this point. Can this be so? It has been said that when the brains were out, the man would die. But under the invocation of the learned counsel, the man revives, and rises w ith more than a thousand mortal mur- ders on his crown—to push us from our stools—to push the Jury from their solemn convictions in Hie case. The next point review'ed was the alibi attempted to be proved by the defence. Dr. Webster started it ;tt the out- set, in saying that the remains were no more those of Dr. Parkman than his own. Could not the defence have put in lifteen witnesses as well as five? But if this were done, would not the witnesses have proved Dr. Parkman to have been ubiquitous? The testimony of Mrs. Hatch is perfectly reconcilable with the testimony of the government—the hour and place all show he might have been where she states he was. But she speaks of chin —may she not, as her on- ly recollection is confined to tiiis point, have been mistak- en—have deemed some other man as Dr. Parkman. As to Thompson, it has been proved that the clock on the Court House, at East Cambridge is notoriously inaccu- rate. And it was from tbis clock that he took the hour when be left East Cambridge. Wentworth saw Dr. Parkman under peculiar circum- stances, but he mentions seeing him only to his wife, for the whole time. Mr. Russell does not corroborate Went- worth—his testimony is therefore entirely unreliable. As to Oeland. How is it certain that the notes upon which he lelies were dated on the day which he alleges? Mr. Cleland had not spokon to Dr Parkmau for years. He did not speak to Dr Parkman at the time he passed. Now, as to Mrs. Uhodes' evidence. The sunset occurred on November 23d at thirty-two minutes past 4 P. M. It was near daik. Mrs. Khodes says the gentleman did not bow first, which would be quite a diflerent thing. Sup- pose she had bowed to astranger resembling Dr Parkman, would he not have returned the bow? She hears of the disappearance of Dr. Parkman on Sunday, but does not mention the meeting to Kev Dr Francis Parkman until Tuesday. Mrs. Rhodes speaks of a gentleman being with Dr Parkman. But where is he? Mrs. Rhodes, it is clear, must be mistaken. Mrs. Gieenough is not certain, by any means, that she saw D)-. Parkman. If it is shown that Dr. Webster had to do with the murder of Dr. Paikmau,then must the jury consider the testimony of these witnesses in connection therewith, and weigh the two. How does it appear?—that Dr. Parkman was roaming about the city—now in one place, now in another. A computation show-s that 30,000 persons pass through Court street in 12 hours. In this great city would not more than five persons have seen Dr. Parkman if he had been abroad on Friday afternoon after 1^ P. M. ? But it is a fact that a gentleman was in the city at the time, to whom persons addressed themselves as to Dr. Parkman. How often have persons been mistaken in this particular. The Attorney Genera! said that he had been mistaken, for Mr. Train, the Disti'ict Attorney for Middlesex, [and the counsel related the circumstances under which the mis- take occurred.] The Attorney General supposed that the individual w-ho made the mistake would have gone upon the stand and sworn that he had talked with Mr. Train in the street, instead of Mr. Clifford who it really was. It was sometime before the man would believe that he was mistaken. [Another example in point was cited by the Attorney General.] He urged that the testimony of the defence in relation to Dr. Parkman's being seen on Friday afternoon, was not entitled to any weight whatever—certainly not sufli- ' cient to call up a reasonable doubt in their minds. But if Dr. Parkman was seen, as testified to, and Dr. Webster is connected with the murder of Dr. Parkman, and this connection is fully proved, the fact is of no material weight in the case. The day or the hour are not material. Where was Dr. Webster on that Friday afternoon—where did he dine ? Is it not shown that Dr Webster was dinner- less and alone at the laboratory on that Friday afternoon? Could not Dr. Webster have shown where he dined if he had been so minded ? The Parkman alibi, as it is cal- ed, is therefore of no weight in the case. Now as to the identity of the body. Something has been said as to the negative side of the argument. The evidence shows that all the remains found in the privy, tea chest, and the furnace, were parts of one human body. The testimony shows that the remains were not used for the purposes of dissection. It is not contended that any other person had been killed and was missing at the time except Dr. Parkman. The remains all afford points of resemblance, and none of dissimilarity, to Dr. George Parkman. Under these circumstances can it be possible that there should be any mistake? The chances for mistake cannot be calculated—they are millions to one. One single point of dissimilarity would be fatal to the question of identity. The re- mains were identified before Dr. Keep had examined the teeth. His friends were satisfied that the remains were those of Dr. Parkman upon the first examination. The points of resemblance are in size, general configuration— length and quantity of liair, &c. It may be said that the traces are slight. But they all tend to one point. The demonstrative testimony was next reviewed; the testimony of Dr. Keep, Dr. Noble, and Dr. Wyman. It is a singular fact that a set of teeth was made for Dr. Park; man, that he might be present at flie opening of the Med- ical College—a still more singular fact that this same set of teeth should be found in that same College, to preserve his memory, and to vindicate justice. Such a fact direct- ly points to the overruling hand of Providence. The agi- tation of Dr. Keep, when upon tlie stand, proves how re- luctantly he gave the testimony which he knew went so forcibly to fix the charge of murder on Dr. Webster.— Dr. Keep knew his work, and fully recognised it. Drs. Harwood and Tucker testified that the dentist could recog- nise his work as readily as the sculptor his productions. But here comes the testimony of Dr. Wyman, who finds the lower jaw, or fragments of the lower jaw of Dr.Park- man, in the contents of the furnace. Amid the ashes of the furnace, science detects and reconstructs, so as to bo recognized, the remains of the deceased. [And here a beautiful tribute was paid to the cause of science, to the medical profession, and to the memory of the late Dr. Gay.] The counsel considered the matter settled that the re- ' mains of Dr. George Parkman were ibuud in the rooms](https://iiif.wellcomecollection.org/image/b21083629_0056.jp2/full/800%2C/0/default.jpg)
