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
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.
66/128 (page 58)
![thnu^h the bi^r'y <.f Dr Prfikm.in bad been Vironght in hpip iinmiiililted ! lefsr now o tlJe tesii- roony ot I)rs Kf-ep, Nobltt ami Wjin=in. Wbea tl'is ev.deiK-f! «as given die leartieil i oiiusel must have felt, and did tVel tliat ih' ir roiiiiilauon vvaa crombling like eund anf wKgiii.g awav That l>r Ker-p CDuld tf-11 the tepllv made by Lim, a' rl tli^t heNond a dr.ubt. yiiii have the tes- tiiti'jii} of ihe exuerts puf up' n he stand jeste.r- day. Tl.e peculiarities of the j^w were niH'ii Test to Di K-^ep, wnii t^'e renaiufi ofR poriion of it iveie puked mu of ihe a^h=8, put tugethfr by a |-iire lover of r^cience. iii siicli a manner as to wake It clear tlia: the jnw tn which they belong- ed, was. of the sarue peutdiar characier assigned to the ja- ot D' Parkmqn Put g-ntlemen, I come to consider another proptsiti'.n that there were found in the pre- mises of Dr. Web.st^r the remains of Dr. Park- man. This proposition was met by the suppo- sition on the part of the defence, that the de- ceased might have come to his death in a natural way, or might have come to his death by his own hands. The circumstances under which the body was found, go to show that violence must have been useit in connection with its death. I now come io consider the hypothesis set up in behalf of the defendant. You mu^ t have been struck with the manifest contradictions into which the case of the counsel for the defence led him. He said first that Dr Webster admitted that he had an interview with Dr Farkmaii.— On this the counsel cotiteiid for their hypothesis. They in the first place oisclaim all imputation upon Mr Littlefield in relation to being the per- petrator of this crime. In the first proposition, the doubt is expressed that these are the remains of Dr Parkman; and if so, it is contended that he might have died by suicide, nr in some other manner, or thit he was killed in some other place, and then placed by some means in this building. If Dr Parkman was killed elsewhere, the proposition involves anolhei absurdity. On this hypothesis we must suppose either that the re- mains were carried there for the purpose of des- troying them, or else with the expectation of ob- taining the reward. The preposterous story is, that Dr Parkman went out if the College iti a ptate of excitement, with the money in his hands, went to Mr Ho'- Jand's store, retmned to the College, was after- wards waylaid and killed. You are to remember, gentlemen, that who ever the murderer was, he was no unskilful an- atomist, and had some knowledge of chemistrv. But, then, we are trdd, that suspiiions were whispered against Dr Webster. I ask ynu to consider whether, in the case of sii'h a man, puspicion should ripen'into accusation, accusa- tion into indictment, and a conviction should settle down into the public mind, that Dr Web- ster was guilty, when there was no gniund for Buch a belief. [In this connexion the Counsel remarked up- on Dr Wel)ster's having been seen by a .suxlent going out of the College, and the fact that neither of his rlau^jht I's recollected of seeiirg him at breakfast the next morning; also wkh the fac of the door of the College being found open in the morning.]} I understand by the defence that he connects the finding of the remains by Littlefield, with the offering of the reward. This is otit of the case, as Littlefield did not find more than a portion of the body. It is a remarkable fact, that the daughters of Dr Webster CJiifirm the evidence of Littlefield in his absence from home at the time when Liitlefiell eajs he was at the Col- lege. L-iok at the abaiirdity of the propositli n that some one ebe pi iced the remains in Dr W 's premises, and a pinion iif them laiint wiiho t the kBOAle'lg« of Dr Webster. How could there be such a fire as would be required, and vet Dt Wehsei not know it 1 It the murder was comniiiri-fl in the buiioing it lnu.^t h;>ve been either within the knnwledge of Dr Web ler or Mr Littif field Ni> <e-s absurd is it to suppose that the body was carried there for the puipm-e of ciitirealmeiit cr i.uiinng. The burning of the fire so long, consuming of the kindlings, tunning of water, breaking into the private room, and also the fact of obtaining twine to tie on the thorax, how absurri is it to suppose that a stiatsger would have dosie all these things, and vet they could be kept from the knowledge of Dr. Webster; or sunpose the ob- ject was to fix the suspicion on Dr. Webster, is it not probable that the body would have been carried there and left unmutilated'? W hy would the peison in such a case have taken such pains to place the remains in so many places'? The defence have not atcenipied to impeach the testimony of Mr Litilefieli!. Why bhould he not be belisvedl And here I have some- thing to say of Mr Litilefield. Why is not his reputation as dear to him and to his family as is that of a College Professor? [The Attorney General now called attention to the rigid examiiiation to which Mr Little- field was subject, the seanh tnade in his rooms, the watch over h>m, and the confidenco still re- posed in him by the facul y of the Medical Col- lege, all as tendiiig to show that his testimony was worthy of confidence.] Mr Littlefield remains entirely uncontradicted, unimpeached. If this be so,gendemen, than are you bound to believe it. In answer to the obli- gations of the defence why he did not act upon the suspicions he entertained, it is siifiicieiit to say, that the^ie suspicions were entertained against his superior, one from whom he was 'n a measure indebted fur his bread ; that these sus- picions were not ripened intoconvictioi>, and that when he did commence his digging through the wall, it was whtit there wa^-- danger that the building might be torn down by a niiib, if some- thing was not done. That he did not break in- to the privy, it was enough to say, he did'nt know he should find an;^, thii.g there, and he was unwilling to fic.k his b'-ing detected in the act by Dr Webster, whose appearance there at any time mig' t have surpiised him. If Litilefiedd is to be denou'ced for entertain- i;ig suspicioiis, why should not also Dis Bigelow and Jackson, who encouraged him to break through the wall. Suppose <t were true, as Dr Webster stihe©- quently asserted, that Littlefield could exp'ain how those remains came in the College, vihy did](https://iiif.wellcomecollection.org/image/b21083617_0066.jp2/full/800%2C/0/default.jpg)
