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
Catalogue details

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.

    57/68 (page 51)
    of Dr. Webster. The condition of the remains negatived, and without argument, the pvopositicns that Dr. Park- man died by his own hand, or by the visitation of God.— There was crime connected with those remains—in their concealment. All the circumstances connected with the concealment prove this. The Attorney General took up the consideration of the hypotheses set up by the defence. The counsel contend- ed, as inconsistent as wei'e the hypotheses, the defence had done all that could be done for them—simply from the reason that the truth was against the defendant. The defence admits that Dr. Parkman was at the College on Friday. But Dr. Webster did not admit this except for the purpose of turning otf suspicion from himself— The hypotheses were: first, there was no direct evidence that the remains were those of Dr. Parkman; secondly, they might have been the remains; thirdly, that Dr. Park- man did not die by violence; and, fourthly, that Dr. Park- man was killed out of the College, and his body was taken into the building. Mr. Clitford reviewed the testimony of the defence that there liad been a separation of the parties—Dr. Parkman and Dr. Webster; and then contrasted this with the liy- pothesis that Dr. Parkman had been killed out of the Col- feg^e, and the body was taken in and treated in the man- ner it was. He pronounced the whole matter a mass of absurdity. After 1 o'clock on Saturday morning, and 1 o'clock P. M., where was Dr. Web.ster? It does not ap- pear from his own evidence that he was at home. The dissecting room door was lound open by Littletiekl on Saturday morning, although he bolted it on the inside the night before. How does this bear upon tlte point that Dr. Webster is not proved to be at home on Friday night or Saturday forenoon. It has been suggested that the of- fering of the reward was coincident vvith the commence- ment of Littlefield's search, iiut this is not so. Besides, the remains were in such a condition as not to be easily identified, in case any one, in finding them, should claim the reward. If Dr. Parkman was killed in the College, either Di-. Webster or Ml'. LittJefield must have known it. There is no escape from this proposition. The proposition that an assassin lurked in that entry and killed Dr. Parkman is perfectly absurd—tliat he was killed outside, and his body taken into the building without the knowledge of Dr. Webster is equally as absurd. If taken in for purposes of consuming by fire, Dr. Webster must have noticed the operations. All the other facts, as testified to, about the appearance of the rooms , go to show this. The person who is supposed by the defence to have placed the re- mains in tlie College, acted a most inconsistent part, if he wished to procure a reward, or to cast suspicions on Dr. Webster. Now as to the tesimony of Mr. Littlefield. The de- fence admits that his testimony, if believed, bears hard ujion the delendant. The defence did not dare to call his character in question. The government could have sustained it, and shown that he liad the confidence of as honorable men as any in the community. The Attorney General deemed it unjust that after Lit- tledeld had passed such an examination as he had under- gone, that the defence should charge him with telling an improbable story. That the remains were in the College must have been known to Webster or to Littlefield. This is clear, and it can be shown that Littlefield did not know it. Littlefield was not placed on the stand as a man of refinement, or nice moral sense. His rooms were searched throughout, and no evidence of guilt was de- tected. He lias been retained in his place ever since the arrest of Dr. Web~ter. The attacks made by Dv. Webster on Littlefield demand that justice should be done to him. His testimony is entirely uncontradicted. The old man Green could not recollect, or was not certain of the con- versation held on Craigie's bridge. The Attorney Genej-al contended that the Jury was bound to receive the evidence of Littlefield as true. The falsity of the argument for the defence, lies in the fact that they consider 1 he suspicion of Littlefield, as a settled conviction—at the time, too, when he mentioned it to his wile on Sunday evening. It was not a conviction in Lir- tlefield's mind—it was not an expectation even—but a mere suspicion. And he is accused of acting inconsistent- ly with euteitaming this suspicion. Did not a slight sus- picion cross the minds of more intelligent men earlier in the week? Littlefield did not dine at home on Thur.sday —so all the pathos abbut the turkey is lost. Is there any thing improbable in the heat upon the wall ? Certainly not He would not risk everything by going into tlie labora- tory or the privy. It is for this tliat he digs through the privy wall. Dr. Jackson exacted secrecy tromLittieiield. The defence do not charge Littlelield, but they atteuipt to try him. They have all along contended for specific charges. Is this justice—christian justice? Littlefield lias spoken out every thing—Dr. Webster nothing. The tes- timony of Littlefield and his wife corresponds. Througli all the cross examination of the parties, nothing was elic- ited to show an) discrepancy in testimony. Jiven Little- field, the janitor of the building, and accustomed to sights unusual, weeps when he discovers the remains of Dr. Parkman under the privy. The Attorney General went on to review the testimony going to show that no opportunity was afforded Little- field to commit the murder, or to dispose of tile remains. He concluded that not the slightest opportunity was af- forded. In relation to the destruction of the remains by the means of a chemical substance, the Attorney General snid that no certain inferences could be drawn touching the conduct of men engaged in criminal enterprises. This was a general answer to the suggestions of the defence. But tire suggests itself most readily as a mode of destruc- tion ; and this mode must have suggested itself to a man of as much intelligence as Prof. Webster. To dispose of the body of Dr. Parkman. Dr. Webster had two things to do. He had to keep up his natural conduct, to be prepared at all moments to speak or ans- wer questions in relation to Dr. Parkman. He has been seen during the trial, when others were in tears, to mani- fest not the slightest emotion, not even when his own daughters were on the stand. [Some excessively severe remarks were uttered by tiie Attorney General in this connection, to which Franklin Dexter, Esq., who was sit- ting beside him, replied in an under tone, addressed sole- ly to the speaker. The remarks were entirely inaudible to us.] Mr. Clifford commented upon the presumption set up tliat a man of Dr. Webster's attainments and position could not commit a crime like the one charged to him. His own evidence showed him to be a man of no very marked character—one who might, perhaps, be readily left to commit a crime. Although a man may not become sud- denly vile, he maybe overcome by sudden temptation; we can never knov^ what operations are going on in the miud. It is all mere cant tliat a man of education may not commit a crime. About a hundred years ago an accomplished scholar was tried in England for the murder of a man, commit- ted twelve years before he was indicted. It was Eugene Aram. It is idle to say tliat a scholar may not be led to commit crime. So with Dr. Dodd, a respected clergyman of the Church of England, who was executed during the last part of the last century. So with Robinson, who murdered Suydam, in New Jersey; so with (.ooiidge. In the case of the pris- oner at the bar, no reliance should be placed on character. The Attorney General next examined the facts going to show that Dr. Webster was connected with the murder of Dr. Parkman, and the first point was the relations which subsisted between the parties, and here Mr. Clifford used the description furnished by the Counsel for the defence. He also reviewed the relatioHs existing between the two men, as proved by different witnesses upon the stand. He spoke of the fact of the indebtedness of Dr. Webster to Dr. Parkman—of the efforts made by Dr. Parkman to se- cure his debt, and other particulars already given to the public. All the circumstances surrounding Dr. Webster showthat he must have had a strong motive to get rid of his creditor in some way, and at any rate. The remains were found on his premises—the property of Dr. Parkman in his possession,—of the manner of obtaining which he gives a false account. And more than all this. Dr. Webster makes no explanation whatever of the circumstances.— There is another kind of evidence in mute nature which goes to convict Dr. Webster. Mr. Clifford went over the history of the indebtedness of Dr. Webster to Dr. Parliman, the history of the mort- gages, and urged that Dr. Parkman never intended to cancel the mortgage, as other parties held interests under it. Dr. Webster's statement was entirely false. If Dr. Webster paid Dr. Parkman, he would have taken the notes to Dr. Webster, and Dr. Parkman would have turned over the mortgages to other parties. After Dr. Webster had got the iiotes from Dr. Parkman, he was then to dispose of the remains—and fire most readily sug- gested itself. Dr. Webster did not owe Dr. Parkman $483 in Novem- ber last. From the character of the memoranda found in Dr. Webster's pocket-book, the Attorney General argued that his statement as to his indebtedness to Dr. Pavkman could not be correct. Mr. Clifford also commented upon the little memorandum found in the pocket book.— Upon this was written in pencil, $483. This was done with a view to keep up a uniform story. In the letter to his daughter he tells her not to open the little bundle, &a., and in this little bundle are found tlie two large notes, and the memorandum account of Mr. Cunningham. ■fhe two notes are not crossed with a pen. An opportu- nity will be aflbrded the jury to make experiments, and see how the erasures were dbn#. At this point, 5 minutes past 2 P. M., the Court adjourn- ed until 3 P. M. AFTEBNOON SITTING. The Court came in at 3 o'clock, when the Attorney General resumed, and concluded his argument for the prosecution. Mr. Clilford referred to the various statements which Prof. Webster had made to Mr. Blake, Mr. Littlefield, and others, all of which he pronounced false. He declared that he hud never paid the money at all to Dr. Parkmun.