|
~3
aaot proposedin this stage to comment in detail on the government
testimony. Nor did they propose to show
flow the remains came in and under the laboratory. They did not know. They
could not explain it and
more than the government could., They explained it by hypothesis and
inference. The defence had nA
other mode of explaining it. We ave our hypothesis, he said, and they have
theirs. W e can produce no
direct proof of the interview'between Dr. Parkman and the deendant. The
whole case goes on the ground
that it was an unwitnessed interview. Our evidence like theirs, will be
circumstantial a±.m
ay control
theirs. Our circumstances must be considered with theirs. The jury must
take the wholeot a part.
We shell produce evidence of his character which pnust weigh in a doubtful
case of merely circumstantial
testimony. Whenevera man is oppressed,by doubtful appearances, the law
says, his ,good character shall
-weigh in his favor: In cases of positive testimony, character is less
thought of. A positive case can only
be made out by the perjury of a witness or witnesses, which is supposed to
be more rare than the commis-
sion of an offence by a person whose character had peviously stood fair.
But character must weigh where
there is danger from the resentment of witnesses, or where there exists the
disturbing influence of :a pros-
pective reward, although there may be no intent to commit perjurv, -and no
ground fer assuming such in-
tent. They may give a stronger color and consistency to circumstances in
the minds of witnesses than they
would otherwise possess, and character should weigh much against
circumstances so proved and exaggerated.
The ~cbarge is that he has committed a violent and most cruel and inhuman
act; but when his character
should be shown, the jury would see whether he would be likely to commit
such an act. It would be shown
that his demeanor and course of life that week was not compatible with the
idea that he had committed
such ,,a deed. The circumstance of keeping his rooms closed would be
entirely neutralized by proof, that it
had been his habit for years to pursue his operations in secrecy, by night
and by day, in the goof, Col-
lege, and in his laboratory>at Cambridge. The mason for closing his door
had already pretty distinctly
app eared.
We shall, said he, have some evidence .'tending to show that Dr. Parkman
did come out of that college.
This fact may have nothing to do with the identity of the body ; but it
will relieve Dr. Webster of all
countability in relation to it, for there is no proof that they met
afterwards either within or out of tv®
':college.
It would be shown when he left the college that evening, :at rather an
earlier hour than Usual, and it
'would be shown how And where he passed the night. There would also be
evidence of contradictions on
the part of one or more of the government witnesses, which should have much
weight in depriving the cir-
°onmstances rtdlied on of that full confidence which the nature of that
species of testimony required before it
call be made the basis of.judicial action.
EVIDENCE FOR THE UEFENCEe
The defence now proceeded to call testimony in its own behalf.
First witness-JOHN 13. BLAKE, called.-Have known Prof. W. for 30 years;
have lived near hint in
Cambridge fibr 17 years; never knew him to be guilty of anyact of violence
or cruelty. Cross•examination
of this witness declined.
Second witness-Hon. 5. G. PALFREY Called.-I went to dive in Cambridge in
1821, and lived near Prof,
W. 8 years; have known him since that time; he was a man of some temper,
but of a good heart. Cross.
examination of this witness declined.
7dtird witness-JAmEs C. BLAKE, ccalled. -I have known Prof. W. for 25 years
; was in his laboratory
during the first year of my acquaintnce with him; he was esteemed ads a man
of good feeling and princi-
ple • never heard of any act of violence or ~eruelty imputed to him.
Cross-examination of this witness
.declined.
Fourth uritneas-Prof. JAMES WALKER, of Cambridge, called.-Have known Prof.
W. since I resided 14
'Cambridge; never heard any sect of violence or cruelty imputed to him.
Cross-examination of this witness
declined.
Fifth witness-FRANchs BOV.EN, called--Have known Prof. W. 20 years; he hag
the reputation of being
.a timid, but hasty and irritable man ; never heard any act of violence or
cruelty imputed to him. Cross-
examination of this witness dedlined.
Sixth toitxiass-JesEaa LoVERINQ, called.-Have known the accused 20 years;
always been esteemed as
a man of prinei le ; never knewany act of violence or cruelty imputed 6o
b1m. Cross-examination of this
witness decline
Seventh witness-GEORGE P. SANGER, Called.-I reside in Charlestown; have
known Prof. W. 12 years;
he is universally esteemed as a good man; never knew any-set of cruelty or
violence imputed to him. Cross-
-examination declined.
Eighth witness-Rev. Dr. C0NvERsE FRANOIS, called.-Have known Pref. W. 8
years; never heard any-
thing against the Prof. ; nevor'heard any act df violence or cruelty
imputed to him. Cross-examination off'
this witness declined.
Ninth witness-ABEL WILLARD, called.-Have known Prof. W. several years; am
45yearsnld; t$e
reputation of Prof. W. has always een good. Cross-examination declined.
Tenth witness--JOHN CHAIABRRLAND.-I reside in ; have known Prof. W. for 20
years; he has
..always had a high reputation as a peaceable, humane, and good man; never
heard any acts of violence or
,cruelty imputed to him. Cross-examination'of this witness declined.
Eteverth tvltnesa-JOEL GILES, Esq.,-called and sworn.-Am a lawyer by
profession; have known Prof. W,,
~sinoo 1835 ; he has always borne he reputation of being a good and humane
man; never heard any acts of
,cruelty imputed to him. Cross- evamination of this witness declined.
Twelfth witness-WILLIAM RASTINGS, called.-I reside in Medford; have been a
merchant; known
Trot W. since 1823; lived in Cambridgeat that time; -sold him some land in
~Camkridgc an 1834 ; never
nbeard of any act of crueltyvr violence imputed to him. Gross-examination
of this. witness declined.
Thirteenth witness-JOHN ft. FULTON, called.--Reside in'Gambridge ; am4
painter' by occupation; have
`known Prof. W. for 14 years; he has always had the reputation of being a
quiet, peaceable, and human
`mean ; never beard any, act of violence or cruelty imputed to him.
' Cross-examined-Never saw him commit any act of cruelty or inhumanity;
never heard that he was 8.
~oetulant and irritable man; I remember the decoration of the Hall
in(Cambridge, and of Prof. W. :bell tj~
°ordered to desist; did not see him manifest any irritation on that
occasion; never beard that he did- so,
Fourteenth-winess-JAMES B. (*RESNE called.--.,reside dn~Cambritlge ; .am
,acquainted with.Praf.1IIIV.;
|
