|
152 TRIAL OF JOHN W. WEBSTER.
I have read this by way of illustration, as a case in which the cir-
cumstances were proved. The error was in the inferences. Such cases
occur in almost every man's life-time; and hence, these rules are con-
sidered most essential for every citizen's protection; and cannot be lost
sight of without endangering the accused party, and every other person
who may be placed in the same situation.
The text-writers I have cited, state these rules so clearly, that there
is no occasion for me to enlarge upon them; I will, however, detain you,
on this subject, a few moments longer, for the purpose of showing, by
way of example, the application of the first of these rules to the Gov-
ernment's evidence.
The evidence introduced by the Government, consists of one great
chain of circumstantial testimony, with which they have endeavored to
surround the defendant and by the weight of which, they hope to crush
him. This chain consists of two great sections,-
First, That George Parkman died by an act of violence.
Second, That Professor Webster perpetrated that act.
Each of these sections consists of numerous links. Now take the
first section of this chain as I have called it,-namely, that George
Parkman came to his death by violence,-and you will find the first link
in it to be the alleged circumstance, that Dr. Parkman, being in the
Medical College, on the 23d of November last, never came out; to this,
they add other circumstances, and argue, that the body found, was his,
and so on, to various conclusions.
Take the second section of the chain; that Dr. Webster committed
the murder:-you will find the first link here, to be the alleged circum-
stance that Professor Webster was the last person, into whose com-
pany Dr. Da.rkman can be traced; other circumstances are added, and
then argue, again, that the act was committed by Professor Webster.
Suppose, when you retire to consider the case, upon the whole evidence
introduced by both sides you do not feel satisfied beyond reasonable
doubt, that Dr. Parkman did not come out of the Medical College, after
his interview with Professor Websterr, on the 23d of November, the
defendant is entitled to an acquittal; for here is one link, one material
circumstance,. not proved.
Suppose, again, that, upon all evidence, you are not satisfied, that
Professor Webster was tie last person, in whose company Dr. Park-
man was known to be in, that same 23d of November, then, likewise, the
defendant is entitled to an acquittal:-and this, upon the strength of
the rule of law I am now applying.
The manner in which the Government attempts to prove the identity
of the body, found in the laboratory, furnishes another simple illustra-
tion of the operation of another of these rules. The first circumstance,
on which the Government rely for this, is the peculiar form of the block
of tenth, found in the furnace: but, suppose it should appear, that many
other blocks have been cast for other individuals, with the same
peculiarity, then, the identity of the body cannot be legally inferred
from the supposed peculiarity, for it would support the hypothesis, that
the teeth might have been those of another individual, as well as it
world support the hypothesis, that they were Dr. Parkma.n's.
The great points, therefore, to be borne in mind, are, First, That
every circumstance relied upon, must be proved beyond reasonable
doubt: Secondly. That these circumstances must establish, to a moral
certainty, the wilt of Professor Webster:-and for this, the Third rule
must be complied with; that is, these circumstances must not support
any other hypothesis.
Now, what must be the line of defence taken by any man, who is
indicted and tried upon circumstantial evidence? In the nature of
things. it must consist simply, in denying, that the circumstances relied
on by the Government are, or can be considered, when all the evidence
19 in, as established beyond all reasonable doubt. And this is the
|
