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.
58/68 (page 52)
![He argued from the evidence of his bank acconnt, from 3ir. Fettee's account of tbe sale of tickets, ai^d iiis own sources from whicli he says lie obtahied the money, tiuit it is out of the question he could have paid the amount to Dr. Parkman. fie has never attempted to show from what sources he obt;iiued the money which he paid to Dr. Parkman. Not a jiarticle of evidence lias been proditoed to show wliere tlie money came from. The prisoner has liad the whole treasury of tlie Common- wealth at his command wherewitU to summon an\ num- ber of ivitne.sses to te-tify to tlie money—vvhej'e he obtain- ed it. He might Iiave summoned every medical student to testify for him. The government liad come to the un- happy conclusion that Prof. Webster had no money to pay to Dr. Parkman. Mr. Pettee calls on Dr. Webster on that fata,] Friday morning—conversation was held, and Dr. Webster tells Mr. Pettee that he would have no further trouble with Dr. Parkman, as he had settled with him. And tliis was Said after lie had called and made the appointment to meet Ur. Parkman at 1^. Why not pay the money in the mornini;? Tliere is no evidence that he obtained it in the interval between 9 A. M. and l^^ P. M. 'If Dr. Web- ster did not pay the money to Dr. Parkman, and that he did not puy it, is clear, how came he by the notes found in his dwelling? On the marj^in of one of the iSotes is written S4S3 was paid Nov. 22d, 1849. Was this an after- thought? Liow comes it that he requested his wife to keep the package just as she found it? How came the Holes in his possession? it was asked again. On Friday evening, Di'. Webster did receive from lUr. Pettee a check for $90. Ou the 24th, we find from his bank-book that he did deposit this sum in the Charles Kiver Bank. Towels were found with the remains, marked with Prof. Webstei-s name. Some of the towels were nearly new. Dr. Webster was not a man to throw new towels away. There was a i:nite in the tea chest. That knife was seen in Cambridge ou the 17th. It must have been brought over afterwards. The tea chest was not covered up with miner- als when seen at tir.st. but it was afterwards covered, as was noticed. The knife was there, with no blood upon it. Is it natural that there should be? The sledge was gone. The sheathknile and the murderous instruments are all there—all connected with Prof.'Webster, and no one else. Why was that tan there, in that suspicious manner? Why not let Mr. riawiu carry the tan into his laboratorv. The bag of tan was taken into the laboratory by Prof. Web- ster. The boxes and grape-cuttintrs were left outside. A great part of the pitch-pine kindlings were gone. It was a slow operation to consume the clothes. And this accounts for the consumption of the kindlings. There- port shows tliat there was among the remains in the fur- nace a shirt button. Then there are the drops of blood on the clothes and slippers. Dr. Wyman's testimony has a peculiar signiti- cance on this point. Th. spots on the stairs are noticed bv Dittletield; he tasted them—tbund them acid. Dr. A\^yniaH nuiiced tisem. Xiie spots were fresh—of nitrate of copper—a destroying agent of the traces of blood. Dr Wyiu'jn tells us that water is good—quite as good as ni trute of copper; water was used there in great abundance all the week. How then are we to expect to find traces of blood under such circumstances? Blood does not nee essarily flow externally from a stab. ]5ut in removing the body, on the stairs are left traces of blood. The gov' ernraent did not make use of the overalls. The skeleton ke3 s were tiled. Is it supposed that a key lit.'fug the door of thedisseciing room and Dr» Webster's room was found attached to a.bunch picked up in the stieet.— We iiiid .grapples made of'fishhooks, purchased on the preceding Tuesday. One grapple had been used —this is clear—it did not answer, and lilhers wert' purchased. Around the thigh is found a jjiece of twine. I5ut the bail of twine is found only in the iiivateroom of Prof Webster, to which he alone has access. Dr. Webster carried in hi, pocket the key ot that privy ill which the remains were found. Is it likely that so cumhersome a key would be carried by a gentleman of refinement like Piofesfor Webster, unless he had an object in so doing? Here are the lemaius found in a rilace to which tiie prisoner always had access—the key of which he kept continually in his pocket. It must be conceded that Dr. Webster murdered Dr. Park- man, and that hid mutilated remains were Ibund in ilie College. During the wetk Dr. Webster was locked up in iris laboratory in an unusual nianiitr. A large iiuniber of witnesses testify to this fact. The Cochituate water was running—no fires were wanting—and yet there were liot tires kept up, and in a pUce where none had been kept before. The te-fimoiiy of Dittletield and Dr. Webster's daughter.' does not conflict. Ko trace of Dr. Wi-:ii.s!:_'r (?x- ist.i from 1 o'clock on Saturday morning until Saturday afternoon at 1 o'clock. So it was asfairan argument that Dr. Webster came over that night, as that some one mys- teriously entered t!ie buildiug. Ou Saturday morning he do'.'s ):ut permit Dittleiield to pass th.ough the lower lab- oratory. Oa Sunday he was at the College—an unusual occur- rence. How does Dr. Webster know that the servant of I>i-. (.'nrkinan would recognise him? Why does not Dr Webster come to the city earlier lliau he did? Ho dined at an early hour on Sunday, but he does not reach Dr. Parkmaii's house until 4 V. U. It was oul>' a business in- terview that he held. Then on Monday he braced himself ip to the interview with Samuel Parkman Blake. The defence complains that one party says Dr. Webster was too warm—another too cold, in his interviews. Then his tatements to Tliompson and Fuller, these are siguiticaiit. So tires ou Tuesday—-could not the deJence ask if a lire was unsuited to the subject of his lecture ? Then the hemists upon the stand could liave testified if this be true. There was a tire in the assay furnace on Tuesday— n Wednesday also, as Littlefield says. He did not get home until 11 A. M. ou Wednesday. He is in on Tuesday afternoiin. <<jr no other purpose as it appears than to give Mr. Littletield that turkey. Ou Thursday he was at home alter 11 A. M. On Friday he orders a tin bo.x ot Mr. Wa- terman. Could it be po.-'sible that he was going to send plants in an air tight box to Fayal? Dr. Webster tells the story about the mesmeric woman, at this time. This is singular, to say the least. But he tells the same story to Lui iulield and his wife. He buys the fish-hooks oa that afternoon. He has an interview with Mrs. Bet.se)' Beut Colem,i,n ou Friday—a singular interview. On some one night ot that week he went out to Cambridge, in the late theatre omnibus. That he played whist or went to see his friends is all consisieut with his subsequent conduct Mr. Cliflbrd referred to the anonymous letters, and claimed that tlie evidence ofl'ered upon them was enti- tled—eminently entitled to the consideration of the jury. The Civis letter is evidently written by a inau of iiitelligence^by a man who understood Latin. Ihe iiast Cambridge letter is written upon tine note jiaper, and with some other instrument than a pen. A peculiar uisicument is fuund in Dr. Websler's office, jxist fitted to make the crasines whicii are found upon the notes, and to write the letter in question. file Attoiiiey Cenuiai lh---u cummented upon the inter- view which tJok place between Dr. Webster and Mr. .Stiukweather, I he niglit of the arrest. The defence urges that no weight siioaiu be attached to the convejsation— con.-^idering the terrible condition in which Prof Webster was. But Prof. Webster had malevolence and intelli- gence enou,.;h then and there to accuse an innocent man of the murder. Did thej find the whole of the body ? asked Dr. Webster. How came this question ? Then -poke out the guilty conscience of the man. Could that rp.iestion have been asked by Prof Webster if he had not had some knowledge of the condition of the body ? The Attorney General also commented upon other portions of Ihe conversation. He tj-aced Prof Webster to the jail, and alluded to his appeaiance, and argued from this and his conversation thai, he hud the guilty knowledge. Dr. Webster writes a letter to his daugiiter : but does Uiis lecter indicate a frame of mind that should have been expected in a man situated as Dr. Webster vvas? The de- fence has urted that if Dr. Webster did cause ihe death of Dr. Parkman, it was done unaer such circumstances as to reduce the homicide from muider to manslaughter. But it is of no matter of oousequtnoe whetiier the ihurder was premeditated one day or one moment, provided the death was caused by an insmunent likeiy to cause death. The Attorney General iu\ ui-ea the uistruCLious; of Ihe Court upon the ouestion of wliat was a reasonable doubt. This uthcer allitdea to the family of Dr. Webster in touching ard aflectiug terms—also to the lamily of the late Dr. Parkman; lie asked that no false sentiment ot tenuer- ness should influence the jurors in the rendering of their verdict. There could be no doubt that the sentiment which has so prevailed, had opeiated most dangerous- ly tothe interests of the community at large. At one quarter to 5 P. M. the Attorney General conclu- ded his argument, having occupied six hours and three quarters in its delivery. It was decidedly one of the ablest efibrts that we ever listened to, and made a most impies- sive efiiiCt on aU present. Mr. Clitford is a most beautiful speaker, having an easy action and highly cultivated powers of elocution. When the Attorney General took his seat. His Honor Chief Justice StLiW, with a voice broken with etuotion, remarked to the prisoner tliat it was his pri^ ilege to add anything wiiich he might deem material to hid defence, to that which had already been advanced by his Counsel in his behalf He lelt it, however, his duty to state to him that he might avail himself of this privi- lege or not, as he pleased. The prisoner then rose in hia place in the dock, Ids whole frame trembling, but with a clear and distinct tone of voice addressed the Court and Jury substantially as follows : May'St please your honors, I am obliged indeed to you lor an opjiortuiiity to make a statement. 1 will not enter into any e.\planation of the complicated net-work of cir- cumstances which has been brought to bear against me._ it would require many hours to do so minuli-ly ; but if time were granted me, I could without a doubt explain I away uiue-tenths of the circumstances which have beeu](https://iiif.wellcomecollection.org/image/b21083629_0058.jp2/full/800%2C/0/default.jpg)
