The Parkman murder : trial of Prof. John W. Webster, for the murder of Dr. George Parkman, November 23, 1849 : before the Supreme Judicial Court, in the City of Boston with numerious accurate illustrations.

  • John White Webster
Date:
1850
Catalogue details

Licence: Public Domain Mark

Credit: The Parkman murder : trial of Prof. John W. Webster, for the murder of Dr. George Parkman, November 23, 1849 : before the Supreme Judicial Court, in the City of Boston with numerious accurate illustrations. 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.

    47/128 (page 39)
    was one of fhe cTiecks put upon tliern. The prisoner v.-as taken from his family and locked up, and he was told to prepare for the defence. But meantime, ex parte proceedings were had, and with all this accumulation of public opinion against him, he was placed at the bar, his mouth was shut, witnesses were let loose against him; and who were they? Oftentimes malicious witnesses, interested, per- haps, in swearing off some old grudge, oi for obtain- ing a reward. Now tills reasonable doubt was a check upon this. If the government cannot pi'ove it without reasonable doubt, the jury must acquit. This was the only defence they had. This was every man's privilege. This matter of reasonable doubt, so far from being a mere gratuity, it was his RIGHT. And although guilty men sometimes es- caped, yet the very maxim of the law was, that it was better that a hundred guilty men should escape than that one innocent man should suffer. Mr Sohier read from Starkey, Vol. I., p. 514, the authority on this subject. It must be neaiiy a certainty that they would so act upon it as if their lives depended upon it. They should be convinced, and convin<;ed beyond a reasonable doubt. This brought him to the natureof the government's evidence, and the law in relation to it. Evidence was divided into d bfct and circumstantial.— Direct evidence was where the testimony vyasfrom persons who had actual knovifledge of the transac- tions, concerning which he testified. But circumstantial evidence was where a fact was attempted to be proved by proving in advance cer- tain other facts and circumstances, and then by drawing inferences, prove that certain other facts existed. For instance, the Governtnent attempt to prove that a murder had been committed, and they prove certain other circmnstances, and make the inferences that this fact existed. There was no comparison between these two Idnds of proof. In the latter all we could do was to approximate to the fact. If a man came and testi- fied to a fact directly, the chances of error v/ere few. But where a fact was to be established by circumstantial testimony, there were a great num- ber of circumstances to be proved. Here were so many different chances for error; but the greatest of all was the fallibility of human judgment in drawing inferences. We were always drawing in- correct inferences; and the number of those who iiad lost their lives from circumstantial evidence, was from drawing incorroctj inferences. For in- stance, a man and his niece lived together, aiwi she was heard crying out to him not to kill her, and she disappeared. He, in his fright, procured another girl to represent his niece; and this was construed as an evidence of his guilt, and he was hanged. Af- terwards his niece returned. She had absconded from fear. Several other cases he also cited. Another great cause why circumstantial evidence was not to be relied upon, was of a moral nature— the tendency of men's minds to prejudice, and the anxiety to determine, which often led witnesses to exaijgerate facts, and tribunals to misjudge them. So much in regard to the nature of the govern- ment's evidence. It consisted entirely of circum- stances. And in many cases, it was attempted to show circumstances by other circumstances. The law pointed out rules to govern such testimony- The first was, it was an established rule of law, that every circumstance that was relied on must be proved beyond all doubt. That meant this: that they must find it was proved beyond a doubt when all the evidence was in. If, in a long train of cir- cumstances, there was one that failed, there was an end to the case. 2. The circumstances which were proved, must establisli to a moral certainty the particular hypoth- esis attempted to be proved. Wills on Circumstan- tial Evidence, p. 187. 3. The circumstances which were proved must not only support the hypothesis alleged, but must exclude every other hypothesis. If they would sup- port the hypothesis of the defendant's innocence as well as his guilt, there was no ground for hesitation which to choose. (Starlces's Eviderice, p. .577, 2d edition. Also, Wills 187. All the authorities re- ferred to in Best. 195.) [He read as part of his argument facts taken from Best.] The evidence must be such as wonld not sustain any other hypothesis than the defendant's guilt. Cases of the innocent sutFering had occurred by inattention to this fact. Various examples were cited. A servant girl was charged with m.urdering her mistress. No other persons were in the house, and the doors and windows were fastened. She was executed on the presumption that she must have committed the murder. But it appeared by the confession of the real murderers, that they entered by placing a board across from another building, and entered the upper part of the house. Take the Government's evidence. What was it' It consisted of one great chain of circumstantial evidence. This consisted of two great parts—first, that George Parkman came to his death by violence: second, that Professor Webster produced that death, and in the manner charged. How did the government start.' They said that Dr. George Parkman was murdered. How did they undertake to prove this.'' By one great circum- stance, that being in the Medical College, he never came out. They started with another link, that Professor Webster destroyed him by violence, because he was the last person who was with him. But suppose it was shown that be had been seen out of it. That destroyed the whole cf that presumption. Then another circumstance was the identity of the body, which depended upon the identity of certain teeth. But suppose it should be shown that there w;ts no great peculiarity about these teeth, after all. What then must be the line of defence taken up.' It must consist simply in this, that the circumstan- ces relied on by the government were not establish- ed beyond reasonable doubt; and second, that these circumstances did not establish the hypothesis of the defendant's guilt. He came then to state very briefly the heads un- cer which the defence intended to introduce testimo- ny. They did not intend to introduce any. direct testi- mony as to the means by which those remains came in Prof. Webster's apartments. They put that where Prof. Webster himself put it: Those are the remains of a human body, but how they came there, I have no knowledge. Then in regard to the interview between Professor Vv'^ebster andDr George Parkman, no direct testimo- ny could be introduced. The parties were alone.— There could be no direct proof brought. The evi- dence in regard to this must consist, in a more or less degree, of circumstances. Prof. Webster stood charged with committing a certain act. In regard to this they should introduce his character and standing. The law did not admit so much weight to this kind of testimony where the testimony was direct, but where it was circumstan- tial it was entitled to great weight. And a man had a right to be judged of by his char- acter. It was a rule that a man should be allowed to introduce his traits of character, so far as they related to that particular offence with which he was charged. In this particular instance. Prof Webster was charged with having committed a violent and cruel act; and he should introduce testimony to show that he was not the man to commit such an act. Again, they should endeavor to show what Prof. Webster's conduct was in the ir.terval between the alleged murder and his arrest. And also, in regard to Dr Parkman having left the College. Professor Webster was a man who had all his life been devoted to the profession of Chemistry. He was a nervous man, but a very harmless, timid man, not likely to be engaged in deeds of blood.