|
67
Know call your attention to other points. There are two other eireumatanvee
introduced In evidence. v'x ; cer-
!tin articles found in the possession of the detondant-and first I come to
the tin box. Now I should x;sk, how
that connected with the defendant in the case? But they say it was for the
purpose of putting tire romaina ho.
Dr. W. denies the charge, and says that this box was intended for certain
purposes, and that it was going out to
Cambridge for the purpose of putting some small articles in it. Attorney
General-No, no. Mr. Merrick-Yen,
Now Prot W. goes and orders the box which was to be sent to another place.
The Government say, yes, yes it
is going for the purpose of concealing some of the remains. This isall very
well, gentleman, but it must be proved be-
yond reasonable doubt, and yet the life of Webster depends probably upon
this circumstance alone. Webster
says that he gets the box to put these small things in The Government say,
no-it is for the purport of putting
fragments of the body En. Well, all I have now to say is, let them once
come an,] l,mve and leap
over it if they can, for these facts must he proved beyopd reasonable
doubt. Everything here forms a
distinct issue, and then each fact must be establi=hed by proof. ( have
only to say it is next with respect to the
fish-hooks, which were found in the possession of Prof. W., his ideas of
matters belonging to his own businesss,
are known only to himself; but he distinctly says that they had nothing to
do with these remains and if the
Government deny it, we put them to the proof' on the fact. The Government
say that it was for that purpose;
that is the conjecture. Did Prof. W. ever say that they would? Then. take
you, gentlemen, any statement from
them? Prove all things. and hold fast that which is good. They must show
the actal applicaion of the attempt 11
apply these articles, or the testimony in this respect falls to the ground.
After these remains were found in the la-
boratory, we must have the proof of the particular place in which they are
found. The bag of tan was found on
. 'the Tuesday morning left outside. which excited no attention, and was
left untouched.
Court.-You do not state what bag of tan it was
Mr. M There is no proof of any bag of tan-there was but one--still there is
no evidence it was there for
the purpose left there, as being an article which chemists had to use. I
don't know, but at one time we should be
to danger if a bunch of keys were found--that Prof. LX., in other
connections. migt be placed in jeopardy; but in
this connection, I cannot see that they have any thing to do with prof. W.
If Dr. Webster was to be tried as a
burglar. the introduction of these keys would be proper evidence here. The
keys would touch the burglar, but a.
deadly weapon can' only touch the murderer ; and these keys were found in
the possession of Dr. W. as well as
the fishhooks. Next we come to the fish-books. Upon the theory upon which
the Government establish
their case, that all these things had a connection with Prof. W. in the
murder of Dr. P., We aaume that Prof.
W. had a right to place the strings around these hooks as he pleased. And
what does it amount to? Nothing We
are next told something in relation to the $20 bill. Prof. W . came arid
inquired about it, and we find him stating
that he know nothing about it. '
We now come to the testimony of Mrs. Coleman. She testifies that W. called
upon her, and asked her if' she
had seen Dr, f., every one of the times inquiring about Dr. f., which while
passing from the College, to
and from, Dr. 'Webster simply asked her for personal information, and after
that, left. I now refer to the! testi-
mony of Littlefield in relation to the blood, and I will call sour
particular attention to thin fact. In the tIrst'.piace,
`in respect to the blood. i'rof W. naturally had occasion to use it in his
capacity as lecturer. He asked Littlefield to
go to the Hospital and get him the blood in order to enable him to deliver
his chemical lecture, and on that very
morning in his laboratory he was exhibiting some chemicsal experiments.
This could not be deemed so etrangb an
occurrence. We now come to the dissecting room. It has been said in
relation to the light there,. that it was
never necessary to use a lantern in order to look down into the privy, and
that as soon as the light was put down,
it would bo extinguished ;-the moment After-this inquiry about rite light;
then to this conclusion we mnpt
some that if he contemplated the nee of it at all, it wax to complete his
arrangements. I am sorry to engage your
attention so long. I did not think that upon the final adjudication of this
case unless all matters were elearly,
adduced before you in evidence, and 1 now coma to the consideration of the
evidence bearing directly upon Prof,
Webster, and mainly upon that point which holds that ~arkman never left the
building. The admission of Pro-
fessor 'Webster that Yarkmsn was there from Tialf past 1 to 2 o>cloek; and
now, the Government, we maintain, as
regards the time are inaccurate; and we also maintain that t)zese
premisesmust have been invaded by some un-
known form, first with respect to the, evidence of the fact tending to
establish a'n alibi. If Parkman at .the hour
you stated, was seen in Causeway street by Thompson, and by the most
accurate analysis it 3e proved that he Was
seen there, the Government have also proved an alibi fully and clearly and
unequivocally, for they eata)lish it. I
mean that the facts in the case will fully warrant the conclusion, and show
by the strongest possible evidence-that
Prof. W, should be exculpated from the charge, and that the charges would
be laid somewhere else-not, that I
want to fix It on any one else, but that there is a hypothesis in the case
which warrants me in drawing the em-
elusion that Prof. W. should be exculpated. My first proposition is that
the Government should establish, thCr
case so as to exclude all reasonable doubt, and whatever might have been
tot strong suspicions, the probability
for the bias of mind, a fact cannot be proved beyond a reasonable doubt.
First recollect that it was
1'% o'clock on the Friday when it was said that Dr. Parkman went into the
College. The Government witnesses.
Mrs. Morse, and her son George, say that when going down towards the
College abort 10 minutes before two
o'clock, they saw Dr. P, on the steps; at 12M o'clock, Professor IV. says
he was there, and Littlefield tells you he
was tho•re. about the same time. Now, then, we are h,ft to the statement of
Dr. W. upon the one hand, and to
that of witnesses upon the other, while some disparity as to the time is
small, yet they are two important facts.
Front the testimony of Patrick McGowan, it is likely that Dr. P. was there
at the time, and it is also likely, front the
testimony of the other witness, that he was there at the time specified by
themr foritis not to beforgottea that the
friends of Dr. P. invariably relied upon his general punctuality of manner
in his dealings generally, and it is re-
ally likely. because we have itq that he was pressing Professor W.
earnestly, and that he was punctual in his
attendance upon this occasion. So, therefore. the testimony of Mr. McGowan,
in all probability, must be true.
Now come to the testimony of Dr. Bosworth and Littlefield. Littlefield told
^ou that he was; standing at the
door, and looking at Dr. Bosworth, when Doctor P. passed by him and went in
; we have this fact then es-
tablished that Doctor P. came there"aid went into the College, when Dr.
Bosworth was there; that he crossed
the steps; that the dooS• did not stand ajar. Now the testimony, if taken
in connection with the well-known estab.
lished habits and manners of Dr. P., we put it, is it not &most probable
thing that he was there at the time ap-
pointed in order to finish his business. That interview was very short; and
when we have it in'evidenee that he
was seen at a later hour in t'anseway street, is it not prabablc that he
might then have left the College and turned
back, and efter some time had entered it again.
Now, gentlemen, this may strike you as strange, but is it not within the
range of probability.; and if you take facts
and circumstances into consideration, I do not see how you can avoid
tasriving at ouch a conclusion. The appoint-
ment with Prof. W. was at ly Cclock. He there meets according to his own
statement, Dr. P. Dr. P. leaves the
College and so does Prof . W., and I think when we are in a case like this.
surrounded on all sides with probabilities
weighing against the prisoner, that we are not wrong in coming to the
conclusion that Dr. P. had finished his bu-
siness at the College, and had come there again. Dr. Parkman stepped into
Holland's store he made no
appointment with this man. He finishes his business almost immediately, and
leaves in a very short time, has-
taning~to go on to Cambridge street,i;and there he is seen by Mrs. Hatch.
Who can explain it? But here are the
facts, they speak for themselves. If then, gentlemen of the jury, these are
strong probabilities, they must weigh
on one aide as well as the other. it struck my mind that the door was seen
open when Parkmaawas goingthrougb,.
at the same time that Prof. W. was there. Well, now, let us leave the
College, and trace farther that night up
to the hour of 10% dclock, to ascertain whether Prof. W. was with his
family. We find that a student sew him in
the College in the early part of the day; and a young lady paid she saw
him, and spent the evening of tyat night'
with him, at home.
fix.
|
