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

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.

13/128 (page 5)

$The witi'.esses would explain how they came to the conclusio!! that the height was 5 feet 10 1-2 in- ches, and tliey should show that that was his height precisely. But then, they should i)ut in evidence in this case that, of the bones Ibuwd in this furnace, not a frag- ment was found hut duplicated that found in the vault and tea chest, showing that all constituted portions of one liiiuian hody. There wouhi also be some evideuct that would indicate the probabihty that some of the l)oi]es found in the furnace were fractured before tliey were put into the furnnce. Then, they would liave sidimitted to them seme mineral teetii found so near the bottom of the fur- nace they took the cold air, which would be identi- fied as the same that had been made for Dr. Vark- man by a dentist in this city in 184li, and he would state the grounds on which he identified them. It would be shown that Dr. Keep had in his pos- session a mould of the moutli of Dr. Parkman, which he had taken at the time of making those teeth, which would show the peculiar conformation of Dr. P.'s jaw. It would appear also that these mineral teeth must have been cast into the furnace in connection with the head. Beyond this, they would have exhibited to them the bones of the right lower jaw, in fragments; and when these were put together they would be found to correspond exactly with the mould. This would be the character of the testimony that would be given to identify the body tound in the Medical College. The thorav found in the laboratory would be shown to liave been perforated near the heart. It w^ould also be shown that to these remains had been made a cheniical ajjplication of strong alkalies. It would also be demonstrated that these were not the remains of any subject for dissection, first by the fact that there were no injections into the veins of any preservative substance, and in the second, that the Janitor was required to account for all such bodies. If Dr George Farkman was murdered, then the question ai-ose, who murdered him.' In respect to this question, the governr.ient would offer testimo- ny to show the relations between the prisoner and Dr Parkman since 1842, when certain pecuniary transactions commenced between them. It would he. observed that the prisoner was so much embar- rassed that all his personal property was under mortgage to Dr. Parkman. Dr. P. was a man of large property, accustomed to make loans. He was liberal but e^act. In 1842 he loaned the prisoner §400, and took his note, which remained unpaid at maturity, when Dr. P. took a mortgage of all the prisoner's property, including a cabinet of minerals, to secure the note and further advances made. It would appear that after this, the prisoner had made a projiosal to Mr. R. G Shaw, to advance him money on the cabinet of minerals, because he was in distress. iWr. S. did advance $1200. Sub- sequently Dr. Parkman learned of the conveyance of this cabuiet of minerals to his brother-in-law, and he wbs highly incensed, regarding it as a fraud, and that, from this time, he pursued the prisoner as a debtor in whom he had lost confidence. It would iipitcar also that the prisoner had obtain- ed from the deceased delay, under the promise that he would i)ay him, when he had obtained pay for the sale of tickets to his chemical lectures. The Professors of the Medical College had made ar- rangements with a gentleman to aid as collector of their dues from the students. The lecttires com- menced on tlie seventh of Nov., and on the ninth, Dr Parkman caHed on Dr Webster, and insisted on the payment of liis debt. Dr WeJjster requested him to wait, as he had not received the money for his tickets. It would aj>pear that Dr Webster had received a coiislilerable part of his pay. On the 12th, Dr Parkman called onthe.paymg agent, to ascertain how matters stood. He called again on the 14th, and threatened a trustee process, and sent a message to Dr Webster that he was a dishonest man or a dishonorable man. On the 19th he called again on Dr W., and declared with great decision that something must be done. The next day Dr W. wrote him a note. On the day previous to the alleged murder, Dr P. rode out to see Dr W. at Cambridge. On the 23d of Nov. Dr. W. called at the residence of Dr. Parkmarf, and made an appointment to meet Dr. P. at the Medical College, to come to his rooms at 1 o'clock, and to receive his pay. He returned about 9 o'clock to the Medical College, and had an interview with Mr I'ettey, wlio was anxious to get out of his hands any money that he had, and paid him about $90. He there informed him of Dr. P.'s threatening, to which Dr. W. rejilied that he would ave no furtlier trouble with Dr. P., for he had seti tied with him. From the beginning to the end it would appear that Dr. Webster had represented to Dr. Parkman and others his intention of ajiplying the money re^ ceived from sale of tickets to the payment of his debt; but they should be able to show that not one dollar of it went to Dr. Parkman. The §90 was de posited in the Charles River Bank. The lectures of Dr. Webster were Tuesday, Wed- nesday, and Friday; and therelbre the longest leisure that he had was from Friday to Tuesday. It would be shown that he remained at his rooms on Friday till a late hour, and that he was there again on Sat- urday and Sunday, and that the doors that were usu- ally left open, were fastened. Dr. Parkman's friends were making an anxious search for him, on Saturday, and made publication in the evening papers. It would appear that Dr. W. held peculiar relations to the friends of Dr. P. Dr. Francis Parkman was his pastor; and the first disclosure that Dr. W. made to the friends of Dr. P. had been on Friday in his company, was in the af- ternoon of Saturday. He left the family in suspense this time, although it would be shown that he had seen the notices on Saturday. This excited the surprise of Dr. Francis Parkman. On that day he made the statement to several others. The genera! statement was that Dr. P. came to the Medical College about half-past one, to receive his pay; that he did come in; and that he paid him the m,oney; that he seized the money and started to go, without leaving any evidence of his having received it. That he called his attention to the fact, and that Dr. P. turned back, and dashed his pen across the signature of the note, and said that he wouU attend to cancelling the mortgage. Dr. W.'s statements respecting this transaction had been very contradic- tory. When culled to hear the testimony, their attention would be called to papers found in his possessioa that would contradict this statement. There they would have occasion to consider a va- riety of facts—that Thursday,the 29th,was Thanks- giving day—that after Tuesday there were no lec- tures; and yet Dr Webster was present at the col- lege; that he wanted no fires; and yet it would be shown that he had fires of more intense heat than he had ever required before. It would be sho\vn that he had purchased a num- ber of large fish-hooks; and that there was found on his premises a grapple made offish-hooks, fas- tened to a staff with twine, and that a piece of the same kind of twine was found around the tea-chest; that the rooms were searched on Monday and Tues- day; and his rooms were passad through by certain of the police on Monday; that on Tuesday, Mr Kingley went there with the police, with the inten- tion of making a thorough search; that at that time the oflicers went through these rooms; the fact that ollicers suffered themselves to be led off from that privy, and that the janitor, in reply to a question said, in presence of Dr W., that that was the pri- vate privy of Dr Webster. That a fire was in the furnace, and that the ofH cers sunered themselves to be led oflf from that por tiun of the room. The tea chest was seen there by Mr Kingsley. It would appear also, that, on the 26th, the ex-$