|
., 49
guise bleiid6d in the °' Civis" letter ; I cannot describe the whole of the
points of resemblance ob-
served by me in these letters and the writing known to be that of Professor
Webster's without
sitting down and looking at my notes. '
The letters were then read by Mr. Bemis, junior counsel for the Government.
We give them
verbatim
Directed to Mr. Tukey, City Marshal.
(VERBATIM COPY.)
BOSTON, Nov. 31st, 1849.
" MR. T ugEY-Dear Sir :-I have been considerably interested in the recent
affair of Dr.
Parkman, and I think I can recommend means, the adoption of which may
result in bringing to
light some of the mysteries connected with the disappearance of the
fore-mentioned gentleman.
In the first place, in regard to the searching houses-and I would recommend
that particular at-
tentiou be paid to the appearance of cellar-doors-do they present the
appearance of having been
freshly. covered by the piling of wood? Have the houses and necessaries
being carefully examin-
ed ? Probably his body, was cut up into small pieces and placed in a stout
bag, and thrown
into the river from Cralgie's Bridge, and I would recommend the firing of
oaunon from some of
these bridges, and various parts of the harbor and river, in order to cause
the body to rise to
the surface of the water. This, I think, would be the last resource, and it
should be done effeo-
tually, and I recommend that the cellars of the houses in East Cambridge be
examined.
Yours respectfully, CIVIS."
Postmarked, °1 Boston, November 24th"-directed to '° Francis Tukey, City
Marshal"-..the en-
velope also contained the name of Francis Tukey inside,
VERBATIM COPY.
°f DEAR SIR-You will find Dr. Parkman murdered on Brooklyn Ifights.
Yours truly,
°` CAPTAIN OF THE DART."
The following is a verbatim copy of the letter deposited in the Cambridge
Post Ofe, and
brought by Mr. Kingsley, Postmaster, to Marshal Tukey
" Dr. Parkman was took on board the ship Herman and this is al I dare to
say or I shall be
kilid. Est Cambridge one of a men giv me his- watch but I was feared to
keep it and throwed it
in the water right side the road to the long bridge to Boston.
Verbatim Report of the Argument of Counsel touching the Recognition of the
Handwriting of the Letters.
Mr. Sohier objected to the line of direct examination by the prosecution in
endeavoring to show, through
Mr. Gould that the hand-writing in some of the letters submitted to him was
that of the prisoner's in dis-
guise.
Court. The Court are of opinion that this testimony is admissible.
Mr. Sohier. This, your honor, is a kind of testimony not admissible, we
submit, at all. The position
assumed by counsel at the opposite side, is that a genuine hand-writing may
be given in evidence to com-
pare with other hand-writing, in order to rove the same • it is admitted to
be similar hand-writing,
but that proves it to be the hand-writing o nobody. What they now want to
prove, is that this writing
was the band-writing of Dr. Webster, by comparing it with other
band-writing ; hat would be the ex-
tent of it, and no more. Counsel here cited authority in support of his
position, contending that this kind
of evidence was inadmissible.
Attorney General. We think your honor, that counsel misapprehend us. We do
offer to prove that
this is in the hand-writing of Dr. W., and writen in the same manner in
which he was accustomed to write;
now in order to prove this, we offer certain doonments here, which we say
are in the hand-writing of Dr.
Webster, and we show it y the similarity of his hand-writing, to be the
save! When we undertake to
show that a man has attempted to disguise his own hand-writing, this
description of testimony, it cannot
be contended, is admissible. If a man is setting down to attempt to
assimilate the hand-writing of another,
he has two processes by which to assimilate in his own mind. Now, upon
which of these two propositions
will the testimony of an Expert bear ? An Expert says, ";I am acquainted
with the hand-writing of the
defendant; he has attempted to disguise it. I am satisfied that this must
be written by him." And f un-
derstand that in undertaking to introduce the testimony' of an Expert, he
may take the stand and prove
whether certain hand-writing was disguised or not. It is not competent,
then, for such a witness to explain
the peculiarities of certain characters. Counsel here cited authority in
support of his position.
Mr. Merrick. The only question competent for them to prove is, whether this
is the natural hand-writing
of the defendant or not, and that is all. It is not contended or suggested
by. the government, that these
papers can be put forth as the hand-writing of ProŁ W. The proposition is,
that an Expert may take
these papers, and from them show whether they are in the band-writing of
Dr. Webster, by tracing the
form of a particular letter or character, to see if they would correspond
with his general hnd-writing. This
was the entire extent of the rule fntended by the Court to apply to this
kind of testimony.
Attorney General--I find my friends at the other side misapprehend me, from
the application of their,
remarks. W e expect to show in relationpo this document, (a letter which
counsel produced) that it was
not written with, a pen. It could not. have been written by such an
instrument, but only by this, (showing
a brush which was found in the rooms of Dr. Webster.)
The Court, after a brief consultation, ruled in the testimony of the
witness. [See p. 48.]
Sixty-third Witness-DR. FISHER M. BOSWORTH, called.-Am a resident of
Grafton, Wor-
cester county; knew Dr. George Parkman, and am acquainted with Prof. W.; I
attended lec-
tures at the Medical College, in 1849; was in Boston on Friday, the 23d Qf~
November, 1849;
went to the Medical College to meet a student ; went there at half-past one
or two o'clock ; I went
into the College from the east side, and found that the lectures were going
on at the time, and
4
|
