Indiana State sentinel. [volume] (Indianapolis) 1841-1853, 1850-05-02
The Webster Trial.


oi Dr. Parkman, is in all respects extraordinary
haPs, in snme sense wrongful and unjusihabe one
At this distance from the Of crime and trial, with
out knowledge of persons sympathy for pares we
fancy this result the operation Of
feeling, prejudices fixed belief and foregone concu
sion-whch not suspected on the spot, although
apparently extending to and affecting almost every
son-ludge, jury, and witnesses, the cnunse Tor the pro-
section, and the counsel for the accused-engaged on
the trial. Every body TO have taken il for granted
that Dr. Webster was guilty; his own legal friends
the insuicency of whose efforts aud the indiscreon of
whose virtual admissions Of guilt could but have been
counted as testimony against him. Every word from
them, in this about manslaugher, argument
on the side OF murder; but cannot perceive how,
with this additional weight thrown upon the pris
oner, humane aud conscientious jury could find
dict against him, th face Of evidence, which,
apprehension, irum first last, expressed but the
meaning, and produced but the one resul;,-doubt-
doub-ever and consistently doub,-nothing but doubt
Every thing doubt here but here, this remarka
BILE trial. find the first instance If what appears to US
TO have been universal disposition deny the accused
the right to its benefit. Court and jury, prosecution and
Defence all seemed equally unwilling to allow the prs
the protection OF that refuge, which the law, ITSELF
ordains the shield inerposed by mercy between hu
man life and the possible injustice Of human
We do not say that Prof. Webster not guilty Of
the murder of DR.. Parkman but IT does appear TO us
that he not Prored guilty. And the more we pom
der on the testimony, the more struck with its
utter nadequacy either to establish the crime or 10 den
,ify the criminal. That strong-very strong-circum
stances brought against the accused is undenabe
but in our calm judgment, they prove nothing against
him-absolutey nothing They fail in every thing,
sential establish a Of murder with that precision
which the law demands and ought to demand. They do
prove that Dr. Parkman dead they do not p,ove
that he murdered; they do not prove that Prof.
Webster murdered him. All that results from the evil
dence is simple probability 1t pobable from this evil
dence, that Dr. Parkman is dead-probable that he
killed-probabe that Prof Webster killed him. But can
man be found guilty of murder upon probability
What is probable is also doubtful II is something new
in the world, ln this country, TO adJudge man to
death upon doubtful probability.
Every thing, in this trial. turns the Identification
or the found in and under Prof. Websers lab
oratory for, if they not Identified the remains
of DR.. Parkman, then there proof of DR.. Park
man 8 death murder Now the Identification OF these
remains only probable, not positive Ii was Tar
from being concusivey established that those calcned
fragments OF Jaw and those altered false teeth the
only pretended be identified, belonged TO DR.
Parkman. Ii is only probable they were; but It is also
doubtful And if the identification had been even posi-
tve-had been actually certain that those parts
Of the body Of Dr. Pakman, all that could have followed
logical legal sequence, would have been proba-
6ity, not certainty, that P5of. Webster killed hum
gaows has been built, which rests upon nothing bet
ter than a sunposiiion.
Is there importance whichever be attached to the
evidence OF those witnesses who swore that they saw
Dr. Parkpan in the after the allotted moment OF
| murder Was this evidence rebuued? Was it dis.
proved Was il in any other way met or counieraced
the prosecution? Did all the circumstances show
that &c DR.. Psrkman murdered by the prisoner II
must have been before two O'Clock! And was IL not a
fact speaking trumpeongued, that if he was alive
after that hour he could have been killed by the lat
ter If the evidence this point did not prove cer
tain fact, did not at least create probability And
probability only be admitted evidence against
the accused, and not also in his favor!
Assuredly, whatever the merit or the wrong OF that
kind of procedure, the appearance that was the
principle Of this trial to admit and to allow undue force
be given to- all the probabilities that told against Prof.
Webster and disregard, Of no force or vaue all
the probabilities that told in his favor And, IN this
view, cannot but condsder his conviction as the
suit OF an nquson in which everything oil law, nearly,
forgotten except lis forms, and verdict hurried
into with blind reckIessness and nauaton heretofore
| unknown to courts and jury-boxes
We cannot but opinion that, in the first
place. great and unparalleled injustice done the
prisoner in making ligi-or, rather, in making moth
ing a-of those probabilities which should have ope-
rated In his favor growing out ot his age bis am'able
and respectable character and his position IN society
Men who have lived tor sixty years devoted to the pur-
suits Of science, surrounded by aAectionaie families,
known to the community, and esteemed by its wohest
members for good qualities and bameless lives, not
usually the who commit murders, and especially
murders of hod premedtaion for the grossly base and
piilfu purpose of wipng out debt oil lew hundred
dollars escaping the disgrace of bankruptcy IL Is I'M
probable that such in such circumstances should
commit murder; and mprobabiIities of this character
should always be counted in their favor until destroyed
| by the overpowerng evidence of guilt
But there far more important improbabtes-
and numerous ones-which should have been considered
in Prof. Websters favor but of which account what
ever was taken by court or jury, and little or~none by
4 his counsel.
II is improbable that Prof. Webser-ihat any inlei-
| gent cunning man-desgning murder, would have
proceeded about il IN way, and by means, and, IN
place SO public; that he would have gone his victims
house, invite him his laboratory in institution o
learning thronged by students and professors To
visitors and aendants-in broad day, io"-there mean
ing tn kill him. while exposed 10 nterruption 10 preven
ton, detection in the very act This implies an auda
city of murderous courage worthy of veteran criminal
Ia and fooIhardiness of mingled malice and
istics were easness and midy OF temper. Ii held
be of the worst circumstances against Professor
W., il certainly most important one, that he was
not able prove his having provided the money where
with to pay DR. Parkman this appointed visit but
does the idea of his appointing such visit, without
having the money readiness il only to be used
degree of cool and desperate reckessness wholly ou
| Of character both with the man and the object.
Ii is also improbable, in the highest dogree that Prof
Webster, having killed his victim aud meaning TO de-
stroy the evidences Of his guilt, should not have en-
l pioyed those well known to him a chems
FOR dssoving the body Of sight il is also improb
able that, having resolved upon the murder beforehand
he should not have prepared and had IN readiness hs
having Of these at hand, and being reduced
the necessity of destroying the body by fire. it is i'm
probable he should, after first making away with the
head hands, arms and legs, have then omitted the burn
ing of the easily ndenti6abe parts the thorax
pevis, and thighs, in order first to destroy the intens
viscera-the brain, heart, lungs, liver, aud bowels
phfs, IN themselves, uuefy incdpnoto VI oehuncdtion
and be remembered paris too from their very nature
far difficult to be destroyed by rs than the thora,
and pevis. What became Of the victims clothes, ans
the metallic relics of buttons, watch, knife, and ohe
things such usually carry about their persons
We believe that Professor Webster curried away
all these ihings the last button? And is il 4
be believed, that, alter taking such care OF them, HI
would leave behind him set of false teeth, which h
could have taken away easily IN his pockets W.
believe that the accused was engaged during
whole week in destroying this body; that he sbou'
have commenced, naturally enoush by DESTROYING th,
most ideniihabs parts; that he should have then ad
dressed himself to parts at all denifable aud
ceedingly difficult, almost impossible 10 be burned
during the ,xhnla of this tune In the