|
63
as if I was here to enter into a controversy with you, neither do I feel as
if I was in controversy with my friends
the Counsel, here. We come here to vindicate justice.-I speak to you,
Lentiemen, in the hope that I may aid you
in the great duty which we have ' before us. We sometimes speak earnestly,
and in deep conviction. We have
opposition to contend with. We know that you are our friends=the friends of
the prisoner at the bar,-as you
are the friends of your own brothers. Let us look, gentlemen, at the facts
in the order in which the Government
have proved them, and see how far their evidence, direct or circumstantial,
reaches. The Government must
prove the guilt of the defendant-the burthen of proof must I e conclusive,
ad if they do not establish beyond a
reasonable doubt, the several facts. they cannot claim or ask for a
verdict. The law presumes that the prisonerat the bar
is not guilty, unless it is forced upon the mind by a post consideration of
the evidence before us. I now come to
the proofs which the Goverement have brought forward. They are to
establish, first the death of Dr. P.-second that
his death was occasioned by the agency of a third person. First-have they
proved to your satisfaction that Dr. Geo.
Parkman is dead? They have much evidence certainly tending to establish
this and 1 shall but state that
evidence to you, with the single remark that it is for you to pause upon it
before you can proceed on
with the investigation of other and more important matters. Dr. P. entered
the Medical College on Friday,
the 23d of Nov.-since that day he has not been seen. To show that he is
dead subsequent to that day, certain re-
mains of a body were found, and some evidence has been proved tending to
show that body was the body of Dr. P.
In the first place there were parts of a human body found in the vault
beneath the privy, parts in a tea chest,
and parts among the cinders of a furnace. Respectable and most intelligent
gentlemen have been called here to
testify to each and all the parts there found. Dr. Wyman, who has exhibited
much science in his profession,
has stated to you that fragments of bones which he found in the
furnace.[correspond with the parts belonging to the
body1which were not found in the tea chest or in the vault; they constitute
the left leg, hands and feet, and there
were none of these fragments which could have existed in any but parts of a
human body. Now, on this testimony
you are to consider; and I have no doubt of the result at which you will
arrive; if all these fragments did not con-
atitute'.apart of one human being; the inquiry then is, was that body the
remains of Dr. Geo. Parkman or not;
and upon this you have very strong proofs. The testimony of medical
gentlemen is to the effect that the struc-
ture of Dr. P. was very peculiar, and that these remains corresponded in
every way with the body of Dr. P. The
form. size, color of the hair on the back, is certainly strong evidence
that this is probably the body of Dr.
George Parkman-and this is substantiated by the testimony of Dr. Keep. a
medical gentleman, who made some
mineral teeth for Dr. P., and who has proven sonic of the teeth found in
the furnace to be his own. He has not a
particle of doubt but tat they were the teeth of Dr. P. These circumstances
are certainly very strong, tending to
establish the identity of this body. ~We have called your attention to the
testimony of Dr. Morton, who has given
to you all the information on the subject that he could. We called him for
the purpose of letting you understand
the nature and the character of these teeth. It has enabled the Government
to bring in the most skilful
dentists there are in this city. I have only to say in reference to this
question of the identity of the
body, if the Government cannot say this is Dr. P.'s body, this is an end of
the case. Second, the cause
of the death. Have the Government satisfied you beyond a reasonable doubt
that Dr. Parkman died by vio-
lence ? I shall not now call your attention Ito any part of the Government
testimony implicating Dr. W. as the
criminal. 1 suppose the Government will rely on two circumstances, which
are quite insufficient to justify the
Jury in coming to a determination that the deceased came to death by
violence. i refer to the fracture of the skull, `'
and those portions ofthebonea which have some tendency to show that death
was caused by fracture of the skull
before it had been subjected to the action of the heat. There was nothing
which would enable them to deter-
mine whether the fracture was before or after death but even in the latter
case that it was a fracture before caloi
nation. We come next to~the perforation in the side.; It appears from the
testimony that it was discovered im-
mediately [after it was exposed to view. I shall not dispute about its
being there before or after death. Now,
was it cut? Dr. Strong thinks that itfiwas made before death. Drs. Winslow,
Lewis, Gay and Holmes made an
examination, and found that it was not so. An examination made at a moment
iwhen all inquiry was of the ut
most importance, when every circumstance was looked at as a matter
momentous in relation to this great
calamity, and they came to the conclusion that there was no cut there, but
that it was a ragged opening; that a
clean cut could be made after death as well as before; you have the
testimony of three physicians that the
wound was not caused by a stab, or a short instrument; thus then gentlemen,
you are destitute of proof either
that George Parkman (if this was his body) came to his death by a blow on
his skull, or a stab in the side; and then
what next? how did he come to his death? how was he killed? You find upon
te person wounds sufficient
to destroy human life. Take a man's head off and it kills him. Take his
breast-bone out, and separate all the in-
ternal parts of the body, and it kills him. Put his head in the fire and
burn it to cinders, and it kills him; but was
Dr. P. destroyed in anyone of these ways? Do you think he was burned to
death? Do you suppose he was killed
by having his legs cut off with the knife? his arms were severed from the
shoulders by some dissector. Did
that kill him? Yet nobody believes that any one of these modes of
mutilation was the cause of death; but, when
was it? After all the investigation which has been made in this matter; it
is as dark as it was before liht went in-
to the cavern underneath the Medical College. How he died, we don't know.
How are the Government to say he
came to his death by violence, when they cannot prove it? When all the.
mutilation found upon the body is
discovered not to have. been the cause of his death. A man is seen with a
bloody sword in his hand running
from a house, and persons upon going into the house. Idiscover a man with a
wound in his side that corresponds .
with the size of the sword. Here is conclusive evidence-but in the
present;case the disappearance was on the 23d,
and the discovery of the body was on the 30th. seven days of erwards, and
there were no wounds or mutilation
found upon it biit what might have been inflicted after death. Death besets
the human family in ten thousand
ways; sometimes it approaches soul and body. Can you ray certain seven days
after the death of Dr. P. that he
did not die a natural death? Is there any thing remains to show that Dr. P.
did not come to a natural death?
Can you beat through this thick fog, and by ciioametaro.a almost
incredible, conclude that death came from vio-
lence? When a body has been found, and can be identified, the first care
should be to see that the proof is
clear that that body ceased to live in consequence of violence applied to
it. If this could not be shown by
direct, or indirect evidence, strong suspicions are excited, and 'the
greatest of jealousies may fill the
minds of men, and still there is a want of that judicial proof', of which
conscientious men are found
to be wanting; I do not undertake to say that Professor W. can account for
the appearance of the body there; but
we do pretend to say that the Government must prove this fact before they
can ask for a conviction; and when
we say to you that these marks might every one of them have been inflicted
loog after death, we will undertake to
demonstrate it. We do not attempt to show how those remains came there; a
midnight rober might have seiz
ed the body, and concealed it for a time for the sake of plunder which
could be had from it; but, suppose that
these were passed, and it were admitted that it was the body of Dr.
Parkman, and that he came to his death by
the agency of another: I submit it, gentlemen, to your calm inquiries if
the evidence on the part of the Govern-
ment goes only to create a strong probability, but does not come up to a
clear point, beyond a reasonable doubt,
that this body was placed there by Professor Webster; but. gentlemen of
the,-Jury, that you pass with me, and
come to the conclusion that this was the body of George Parkman and that
his death was caused by the violent
agency of Dr. W., what is the crime which was committed in taking the life,
I shall attempt to show how, if the
crime was committed by Prof. W., it was the crime of manslaughter. r. W.
denies that he did the murder.
But, gentlemen, his Counsel cannot know what effect the evidence which the
Government has produced may have
on your minds; and, therefore if you should arrive at the conclusion that
he is guilty, then, gentlemen of the
jury, we must ask you to say wIiat was it? Gentlemen of the jury, the law
was stated in a clear and moat distinct
manner by my colleague in this case. Homicide is divided into two kinds and
we come to the conclusion
that if a homicide is committed, that it was under circumstances of such
extenuation that it rsduoe3
|
