Deviant Criminology
Dr. Richard Weaver Jr., Heather Kenney, and Rachel Czar take listeners on a journey through the world of true crime. With their unique careers in the criminal justice and academic world; they work to provide an entertaining and educational experience for listeners. This podcast examines many areas of true crime including; the formation of laws, cases that defined caselaw, and crimes that impacted the world. Please join us on this journey as we transition from professionals in criminal justice and academia to budding podcasters.
Deviant Criminology
The Harvard Medical School Murder: Dr. Webster's Deadly Debt
We delve into the notorious 1849 case of Dr. John White Webster, the Harvard professor who murdered fellow academic Dr. George Parkman over a $2,400 debt and dismembered his body at the medical school.
• Boston in the early 19th century provided the backdrop for a shocking academic murder
• Webster, educated at Harvard with further training in London, struggled financially despite his prestigious position
• Dr. George Parkman, worth approximately $370 million in today's currency, loaned Webster money which he couldn't repay
• Harvard janitor Ephraim Littlefield discovered human remains in Webster's laboratory after breaking through walls and a privy floor
• The sensational trial attracted 60,000 spectators with courtroom seating rotated every 10 minutes
• First US case to use dental evidence for identification in a murder trial
• Webster was executed in 1850 despite questions about the fairness of his trial and possible alternative suspects
• The case continues to fascinate crime historians due to its academic setting and forensic significance
If you're enjoying our podcast, please follow, rate, and subscribe wherever you listen. Visit our website at www.deviantcriminology.com for background information, show notes, and references. Find us on social media at Deviant Criminology on Facebook and @deviant_criminology on Instagram.
www.deviantcriminology.com
So, as we welcome you to another episode of Deviant Criminology, I wanted to say that this case interested me as an academic just because we always hear about like the general professors or, like you were saying a moment ago, like the absent-minded professor and all this, but this kind of comes down to like a, a horribly money managing professor who also becomes like a brutal murderer, which just in academia sometimes like I get, like I can get that type of frustration, but this is a very unique case. So, to start this off, I'm Richard.
Speaker 3:I'm Heather.
Speaker 2:And today we're going to be talking about Dr John White Webster. So he's a man whose career spanned through medicine, chemistry, an academic at a prestigious university and finally kind of a dash to this mysterious and murderous side of himself. Who we are talking about, like we said, is Dr John White Webster. So he was born in May of 1793, on the 20th, in Boston, massachusetts. So specifically he was born on Fleet Street, which is kind of on the north end of Boston, and at that time Fleet Street was kind of part of this growing, bustling urban environment, predominantly inhabited by the English, which wouldn't last horribly long after this because the Irish would come and take over Boston for the rest of history. So this was largely a homogeneous area influenced mostly by Puritan ideology, which kind of makes sense at this time period, and we're looking just two decades after the revolution itself. So the racial and ethnic makeup of the community was mostly white, but at this time there were a few ethnic groups and a small African-American population.
Speaker 3:Economically on the North End, including Fleet Street, was a mix of commercial and residential areas. Boston was a major trading port and its economy was heavily reliant on maritime trade, shipbuilding and fishing. The city's merchants played a significant role in international commerce and many families in the area were involved in these industries. However, the economic status of residents on Fleet Street varied, with some families enjoying prosperity from trade and others living more modestly.
Speaker 2:So kind of how it is today as well. So kind of a little bit more about Boston at this time period. The general population around 1793 was approximately 18,000 people, which I think is like one neighborhood now and these numbers would slightly have grown, but the 1790 census had it marked at about 18,320 people and again was this kind of booming economic center in urban development. The city's role as a hub for trade and commerce made it vibrant but then again created diversity, especially with growing influx of immigrants and movement of people throughout the United States.
Speaker 3:So Webster's family specifically had deep roots in Massachusetts and his great grandfather arrived in Boston about 1662, and his mother's family settled in 1632. His grandfather was a successful Boston merchant who owned an apothecary in the North End and later in Emmesbury, massachusetts. His lineage continued and connected Webster to influential figures in Massachusetts history, including Thomas Leverett, the father of Governor John Leverett I can't talk today and the grandfather of Harvard. President John Leverett and you're going to see Harvard come up in the story over and over and over again.
Speaker 2:I also think like apothecaries at the time were kind of like the marijuana dispensaries of now.
Speaker 3:I think they had everything like pharmacy, drugstore, miracle. Yeah, they had it all.
Speaker 2:Like it was. It was definitely a different time, like you know. Hey, I'm not feeling great. Here are three leeches and a little bit of opium. You'll feel fine tomorrow. I'm not feeling great. Here are three leeches and a little bit of opium. You'll feel fine tomorrow.
Speaker 2:Anyway, so Webster's early development was marked by a tight allowance from his father, and he later claimed that this kind of hindered his understanding of money, which kind of to me in a way isn't a really good defense.
Speaker 2:Like if you were given a small allowance to live off of, you think you'd have a better understanding of money and how far it could go. But according to him it couldn't, and he didn't understand how money worked. Which is even more interesting because he would go on to attend Harvard College, graduating with an AB degree in 1811 and an MD in 1815. So in 1811, attending Harvard College to pursue a medical degree required kind of different set of prerequisites than we see today. Like today, you'd have to go through and get your undergrad in some type of medical field and then you would go on to medical school. Here there was no really prerequisites, you just would have some type of education before you went on for that MD. So Harvard itself was founded in 1636. And by the early 19th century it had established itself really as like this prestigious institution for higher education in the United States. However, the medical program was not formally established until 1782, when the Harvard Medical School was founded.
Speaker 3:Yeah, there's no MCATs or anything. You can just walk right in and get into medical school, Like what's up with that?
Speaker 2:Yeah, I mean, not too long after this, doc Holliday would go on to get like a medical degree in his field and had tuberculosis. So crazy, right, kind of lower at that time.
Speaker 3:Just a wee bit. So in 1811, harvard College did not require the bachelor degree for admission to medical program, and students instead typically attended the lectures and completed apprenticeships under practicing physicians and things like that. So the curriculum for obtaining a medical degree was less structured and did not include any type of rigorous scientific prerequisites or the standards that we have today requisites or the standards that we have today. Students would attend a lecture on various medical subjects, including anatomy, surgery and pharmacology, but the program was not as comprehensive or scientifically grounded as modern medical education and one of the things that when I was reading I don't know exactly how this worked, but they were talking about tickets for the lecture and I guess as a student, you would buy a ticket to go to a lecture and then turn in your ticket at the lecture hall when you came in, and then the professors would redeem those tickets for their salary.
Speaker 2:You know what that sounds horrible, right, like that is really a way to side say if you're a good professor or not. Like well, how many tickets did you sell? Right, I always have joked, like over the summer I took an improv course because I was like, hey, this might help me a little bit with my teaching and podcasting which I don't know if that's paid off yet but like because it is kind of performative. But now you look back like almost 200 years ago and it literally was performative theater. Like we're selling tickets, tickets. Come here, professor weaverure this week about how to do a lobotomy. Like I just like, how many tickets did you sell? We had like three. Like you suck, I know right.
Speaker 3:Well, and that ends up being one of the things, like you know, about the money problems that Webster has. He ends up saying part of that is because of his lectures, Because, like you're saying, to sell these tickets and make it theatrics, he started doing these chemical because he's doing chemistry, chemical experiments and like was known to set off fireworks and all kinds of things in his lecture. And so one of the things he said is I can't make money like the other professors because I have to spend so much more money to do these experiments in my lecture that the other people don't have to do. And they did say that he sold a lot of tickets but they were not well attended, which I thought was also interesting, because if I'm paying for a ticket, you'd think I'd show up.
Speaker 2:But you know I'm as somebody that works as a professor, that is a hundred percent not true, because even today you have students that pay for the class but don't show up sometimes. So I just also think that it's very funny that even like 200 years ago, faculty were complaining about not getting enough money. It's like we still talk about that today. So it's just very interesting to have read about him and kind of read this. It'd be like these same conversations we had 200 years later, like it's all right, but kind of talking more about Harvard. At that time student attending Harvard in 1811 would have been relatively small compared to today. It is a massive university. It takes up blocks inside of the city. The first class had nine students and that was in 1642.
Speaker 2:So just the thought that this school has been around almost 400 years is just perplexing to me, because very little of the United States has been here more than 200 years. So still as Americans, 400 years seems mind-blowing. Just perplexing to me because very little of the United States has been here more than 200 years. So still as Americans, 400 years seems mind-blowing. When I traveled overseas you'd go to places they're like this was built 2000 years ago and you're just like holy shit, I have no comprehension of this. So the student body had grown a lot by time Dr Webster got there, even though it's not well documented how many students were attending around that time period.
Speaker 2:But we've kind of talked about what it took to obtain a medical degree. It did mark a significant development in the institution's medical education when they created the doctor of medicine. However, the curriculum again was not as systemic or systematic or scientifically rigorous as it is today. I mean, we are talking about the time of still kind of using leeches and lobotomies and things like that. Psychology was well in its infancy. So it's really interesting just reading what he would have gone through, what medicine was considered back then and then how he would kind of develop on his journey to get the experience he felt he wasn't able to get while he was attending Harvard.
Speaker 3:So after his graduation, webster traveled to London for further medical training at Guy's Hospital, where he served as a surgeon's pupil, a physician's pupil and a surgeon's dresser. What a surgeon's dresser is I'm not exactly sure, but it sounds like that could be an interesting job.
Speaker 2:I just kind of imagine it's the person that like holds the the scrubs or something. Puts them over them in like the theatrical manner, almost like the Rocky Horror thing, when he puts the gloves on and everything. That's kind of what I imagine.
Speaker 3:Something like that right Of course, then it would have been to protect the surgeon's clothing, not for disease control.
Speaker 2:Yes, yes, like if you think back to the films of, like, all the surgeons coming out just coated in blood and the little white like outfit they had on.
Speaker 3:That's kind of what I imagine. So Guy's Hospital is in London, which is of course in England, and it was founded in 1721 by a philanthropist named Thomas Guy and by the mid-19th century it had become a significant teaching hospital. But in the period from 1815 to 1817, it was well established as a major medical institution. During that time, Guy's Hospital was known for its expertise in surgery and anatomical studies, particularly through its affiliation with St Thomas Hospital, collectively referred to as the United Hospitals, which I thought was interesting that they have like this little conglomeration of hospitals over there working together, and those hospitals were renowned for their innovative approaches to medical education and care. Now, that was, of course, despite the challenging conditions at the time, which included lack of anesthesia and infection control, which that just sounds fantastic. I want to go there.
Speaker 2:Yeah, and again, like I'm kind of a movie person so it just makes me think of those movies where they would put like the piece of leather in the person's mouth after making them drink whiskey and just be like bite down, it's going to hurt. So in terms of patient numbers at Guy's Hospital, it was designed to accommodate a substantial number of patients just because of where it was located, kind of in this more urban area of London Particularly, it was made for those who were considered incurables and had been discharged from St Thomas Hospital. They would be sent over to Guy's Hospital. So, specifically, patient numbers from the period of 1815 to 1817, which is when Dr Webster's over there there's not well documented of how many patients would have come and gone, but would again been substantial. Like disease curing wasn't.
Speaker 3:God damn it. How much would have bet. Amazon is here. Maybe Thunder has now scared off the Amazon delivery driver. They are leaving promptly, as she always forces them to leave.
Speaker 2:Protected you from another murderer.
Speaker 3:Right.
Speaker 2:Look at that, Doing what the cops can't do Proactive in their protection of their family.
Speaker 2:So the number of patients that would have gone from St Thomas Hospital to Guy's Hospital or that would have been in Guy's Hospital at this time isn't well documented.
Speaker 2:But again we know the medical cures back then weren't really at the level they are now by any means, and especially at that time with just lack of hygiene. There were water issues that would eventually lead around this time period to the creation of sewer systems in England. So they were seeing a lot of incurable diseases and a lot of people that couldn't afford the next level of health care. So the hospital provided a range of medical services, including surgical procedures, care for patients with various conditions, from just kind of like the ER visit for like cutting a finger off or whatever happened inside of factories this was kind of that growing period as well as incurable diseases, what would later be known as cancer, and then mental disorders that weren't understood at the time, just more known as like being hilarious or dementia or things of that nature. So it was also a hub for medical education, attracting students like John Keats, who trained as a surgeon's apothecary during this period and would go on to be a well-known physician in London.
Speaker 3:So the area surrounding Guy's Hospital, which is located in Southwark, is notorious for its squalid conditions. It has open ditches, dilapidated tenements and high incidence of crime. But despite those challenges, the hospital remained a center for medical innovation and learning, with prominent surgeons like Sir Ashley Cooper contributing to its reputation. Cooper's emphasis on observation-based knowledge had a lasting impact on students, including Keats, who was influenced by his teaching during his time at Guy's.
Speaker 2:And I think this kind of goes on like we don't talk about it a lot, but it's kind of well known that a lot of the best medical facilities and mental health facilities in the world are usually located in urban areas that are kind of unfortunately in these more impoverished areas just because the number of clients that you're seeing and things that are coming in, that's how you're getting access to these constant patients with disorders and a wide ranging compared to people with money usually have boutique doctors, especially at this time period, like the doctors would come to your house and you could afford that. The normal commoner and especially in these dilapidated homes and everything, the incidences are much higher just because of the concentration of people. You'd see this about 100 years later in Whitechapel In my mind. It's like when you go to the dental school to get your teeth cleaned or to get your fillings put in, as opposed to going to your family dentist, yes, the the medical school is usually like, well, we're going to do five fillings, but eventually we're going to have to pull that teeth, where other dentists will be like, well, we'll just do a quick crown. It's what you can afford and what you have access to.
Speaker 2:So in 1817, webster moved to Sao Miguel Island in the Azores I know, know I said that wrong, I'm not gonna apologize for that when he practiced medicine. He published his first book and he met Harriet Frederica Hickling, the daughter of American Vice Counsel on the island, and they married May 16th of 1818 and had four daughters.
Speaker 3:So when the family returns to Boston, webster entered private medical practice but struggles to achieve success, which prompts him to make his career change, and in 1824, he was appointed as a lecturer in chemistry at Harvard Medical College and by 1827, he had been promoted to the Irving Professorship. During his tenure at Harvard, webster published several chemistry books and translated von Liebig's Organic Chemistry. I'm not sure what the significance of that is, but it sounds like it was very important. I'm not sure what the significance of that is, but it sounds like it was very important. And he was also known for his collection of rocks and minerals and his interest in mineralogy. And he actually ended up prospecting for andazine in Sanford, maine, and I googled. Andazine is a mineral used for stress relieving. It's a grounding stone and it's supposed to melt your worries away. But apparently Dr Webster did not use enough of it in his life.
Speaker 2:So Dr Webster was kind of like the first, like American alchemists, and spirit shop owner.
Speaker 2:Something like that, like he would have been like the person that owned the rock shop today that would tell you like there are stones out there, man, that like have vibrations that if you hold it to your head will cure any type of stress you have.
Speaker 2:And you're like, dude, I'm just going to take some aspirin, like thanks, yeah, that's that's. I just think it's funny because we've got to remember this is the 1800s, so medicine was still way, way primitive compared to what we have today. But Webster's career transitions from medicine to chemistry was marked by significant contributions to both fields and it kind of showcased his intellectual curiosity and versatility. And you're seeing that he's published multiple books, which shows that even in the 1800s it was publish or perish, I guess. But unfortunately Dr Webster's life would have have it had a darker side that would lead to a heinous criminal acts. So now we're kind of going to focus on the crime that he's known for, which unfortunately really kind of overtook all his other accomplishments and would seal his fate which is life, takes that dramatic turn with his involvement in the murder of Dr George Parkman and Parkman is a wealthy Boston business and benefactor of Harvard Medical College.
Speaker 3:So let's talk about the details of this event.
Speaker 2:So Dr George Parkman was born on February 19th of 1790 into one of Boston's wealthiest families, 19th of 1790, and to one of Boston's wealthiest families. So one source that Heather was able to find said that he was worth half a million dollars at his death, which would have been roughly $370 million today. So very well-off person, very connected into the community, very well-known person at Harvard Medical School because he is a donor and universities have always thrived off donors and they usually have access and professors do interact with them just to kind of build those relationships, to try and get more funding for research and things like that. But his poor health as a child led to his pursuit in a career in medicine. So at just 15, which to me is astounding he entered Harvard University where he delivered the salutary orientation in 1809. So he was inspired by Benjamin Rush.
Speaker 2:Parkman, became interested in the treatment of mental illness and studied medicine at the University of Aberdeen in Scotland. And he furthered his education in Paris under renowned physicist oh, I'm sorry, under renowned psychiatrist Philippe Penel. And I'm not going to say that name, I'm just going to spell it out. You can look it up E-T-I-E-N-N-E-E-S-Q-U-I-R-O-L. Etienne Esquireiro. I should know that because it's a renowned psychiatrist, but I don't and then he also adopted their humane treatment methods for mental health. This was kind of like that growing time period of mental health. I've definitely heard of Philippe Penel I don't know this other individual, but they are kind of some of the forefathers of what would become known as modern psychology and psychiatry.
Speaker 3:So Parkman returns to the United States in 1813, and he serves as a surgeon during the War of 1812. He establishes a private practice in South Boston and advocated for more humane psychiatric care. Boston and advocated for more humane psychiatric care, publishing papers like Remarks on Insanity and the Management of Lunatics. Despite his efforts to establish an asylum, he faced setbacks and the McLean Asylum was eventually founded without his direct involvement. As a prominent businessman and philanthropist, parkman inherited his father's vast real estate empire which is going to be significant later and he was able to take that real estate empire and expand it significantly. He was also known for his frugal yet philanthropic nature, donating land to Harvard Medical College which was used to build the institution in Boston's West End.
Speaker 2:So in this connection to Harvard, would tragically become the site of his murder in 1849. So Parkman had loaned Dr Webster money which Webster struggled to repay, as we talked about a little bit before. He says he didn't really have an understanding of money and even though he was supposedly selling tickets to his lectures and making some funds, he was having to put so much money into his lectures and stuff that wasn't supported by the university that he just struggled with money, which again, also I think is interesting that here's a teacher and a lecturer talking about not having enough funding to be able to equip their classroom, so he's having to use his own money and using it as a justification for what would lead to this murder. So because of Parkman loaning Webster money and Webster struggling to repay it, it leads to this kind of strained relationship between the two men and on November 23rd 1849, parkman visits Webster at Harvard Medical College to settle a debt reported to be $2,400, roughly At some point during this meeting the two struggle and Dr Webster killed Dr Parkman ensues.
Speaker 2:But it wasn't until a week later, on November 30th, that a janitor for Harvard University named Ephraim Littlefield discovers human remains in the laboratory beneath Webster's office. Specifically Dr George Parkman's remains were found in the Harvard Medical School's building on North Grove Street in Boston, massachusetts. The remains were discovered in a tea chest, a furnace and a privy. The crime scene revealed a gruesome dismemberment and partial burning of the remains.
Speaker 3:So there's a couple things when we go into this, this investigation. When you're talking about George Parkman he's famous, he's wealthy, he's well off, he's worth that half million dollars, which, in my mind, I think it's crazy that in the end he lost his life over $2,500 essentially, and he had $500,000. And the day that he disappears he's going around. Remember, we said he's in real estate. He's going around paying rents and collecting the debts that are owed to him and on some level, I guess you can't just start letting people slide on those things, because if you don't let one person pay, then everybody doesn't want to pay and then you won't have your half a million dollars anymore. But at the same time, in the back of my mind, I'm like geez, if you just walked away and let him have his $2,500, like it would have been a much better day.
Speaker 2:Well, and I wonder, like and again, like we don't really know I think Park Webster kind of talks about it later in a weird way, but with Parkman having so much influence at the university if he may have threatened his job like hey, I'm going to report you to the university and you know this is his income.
Speaker 2:Like if I lose this job, what do I have income like if I lose this job, what do I have? It's very interesting what happens with masculinity when one man challenges another man, especially when you put them in this position. Was there something that happened, threatening his job, where he took that instance? Because I don't see parkman especially kind of the way they describe him being the aggressor in this situation at all physically, but I definitely could see, when he's got that much influence, him kind of I don't want to say being haunty, but being a little bit more like you know I'm rich, I have a lot of influence at this university. You're just a lecturer. I'm gonna put you in your place and maybe to some extent.
Speaker 3:but again, like in the back of my mind, I'm like you know, dr parkman, just walk away. Just walk away $2,400. It's pocket change to you, like it's not worth losing your life over this like little bitty debt that you know. In the grand scheme of things it doesn't matter. And it's not like people didn't know that Webster had money problems. He had already lost. Like he built a house for his wife and four daughters and they lost it, and at this point they're renting a house someplace else. So everybody knows they have money problems. If you lent money to him, you should probably like count it as a gift, cause you probably know you're not going to get it back, cause it sounds like he doesn't own anything and he's barely making it.
Speaker 2:And I have no knowledge whatsoever and this is all just me being me, but I do think he kind of even though people said he was a likable guy, um Parkman kind of even though people said he was a likable guy, um parkman kind of makes me think of ebenezer scrooge. Like here we are getting close to november, it's getting close to christmas time. He's like today I will go collect from rent and we're getting close to the day that we will evict all those who spend their christmas money, and this is just like the bad outcome if scrooge had gone to the wrong place to collect money on a bad day. Yeah, exactly, I'm being completely a weirdo on that. But the investigation was extensive, so it involved the police and faculty members from Harvard Medical School.
Speaker 2:Initially, suspicion fell on Irish immigrants. Like it always does Blame the Irish, that's, you know, that's obviously who had to be. Some random Irish person just came to Harvard and murdered this rich man and various theories about Parkman's disappearance kind of started developing. To complicate things, parkman's family offered a $3,000 reward if he was found alive and a $1,000 reward for his body. That made everybody start looking for him and kind of we see that in law enforcement even today, like when rewards are put out, just the crazies come out of the woodwork and you will get tons of random information that has nothing to do with it. But people are just doing whatever they can at any chance they might be right to try and get access to that reward money. So I can't even imagine in the 1800s what offering that level of money would have done to bring people out and possibly trample crime scenes.
Speaker 3:Probably, you know, possibly contaminate information and things of that nature so the police end up doing this comprehensive search and everybody's looking, just like you said, everybody's looking and as part of this comprehensive search the police do search Dr Webster's areas at the university and they find nothing. So to me that's kind of something that I put in the back of my mind as somebody who looks at these cases that the police looked, there was nothing there, and then all of a sudden there's this individual who starts popping up, efren Littlefield. And depending on who you ask, littlefield is either a witness who has a lot of information or the one who actually commits the crime and he kind of inserts himself into the investigation and it's because of him that when the evidence mounts, webster becomes the primary suspect and it's Littlefield's testimony about Webster that's crucial in building the case against him. Specifically, littlefield talks about this unusual behavior that Webster had when Parkman disappeared. Specifically, he's the one who testifies Parkman was at the building with Webster. He talks about how Parkman was demanding payment. He talks about how Webster was acting odd after the disappearance. Webster also talks about how Dr Webster asked questions about several areas where the body parts ended up being found, including questions regarding the light in the dissecting vault and whether he could use the light or not. Littlefield told him no, I don't know if it was like a you don't have permission to use it or it doesn't work type thing. Littlefield also said that Dr Webster asked if he had seen Parkman, and he asked about several like did you see him at one o'clock on this day? Did you see him in this location? And according to Littlefield, webster and these conversations basically include more time that they have talked during that like week-long period than they've ever talked in all of the years prior. So it stands out as very odd to him. And he says that Webster specifically says did you see Parkman with me? And he says no, i't. And then Webster gives him a turkey for Thanksgiving, which he also thinks is odd because he's never received a gift from Webster before.
Speaker 3:And then Littlefield also says that Dr Webster asked him for burning materials. After he asked for them, littlefield peeked under a door because the door was locked and you could see Webster moving back and forth through the room eight times, from the furnace to the fuel closet and later, when he searches the room, the burning materials are basically all gone. Littlefield says that Dr Webster ran the furnace so hot that they could feel it on the other side of the wall. Now I don't know like I still don't understand the why of this, but for some reason, after he notices it's that hot, littlefield gets into that room and he rips apart part of the furnace and he rips up the floor and the wall that is around Webster's private lab privy and his wife stands watch while he rips this whole thing apart. And then he searches the pit and then finds some things and the police had not searched that pit. Upon finding these remains, he searches the furnace more thoroughly. He finds more remains, specifically some teeth, and then he finds a tea chest which contains the remainder of the body, and it was the part of the body that he couldn't burn and couldn't fit into the privy pit. So when all of this is happening, littlefield is a suspect at that time and you have to look at it and say, okay, he was a suspect. He provides all of the evidence to the police that accuses Webster.
Speaker 3:And some who knew Webster, who alleged that Littlefield killed Parkman, say that Littlefield was just a bad dude.
Speaker 3:They say, you know, oh, webster was a great guy, he was wonderful, he was friendly.
Speaker 3:And they say that Littlefield, he was the bad seed and they think that he did this to claim the reward, like again, when I read that I think well, that doesn't make sense because you wouldn't kill him for the reward before the reward was offered.
Speaker 3:But what you were talking about earlier, about leverage, in the back of my mind I wondered if maybe Littlefield did something that Parkman saw, like maybe he saw him stealing from a faculty lounge or saw him, you know, doing something like maybe stealing things from you know corpses, and he actually has a business on the side where he's stealing corpses and selling them for 25 to the university. So maybe parkman found out about that. Um, but some of them say that he did all of this to get that thousand dollar reward and produce the body. Um, so I think that he wouldn't necessarily commit the murder for the reward. But as far as producing the body, I think it's a, it's a two for one, it clears his name, he throws Webster under the bus and he gets that thousand dollar reward, which is enough that he retires.
Speaker 2:Well and. But then there's the other question, because the the information that was found said that he was out that day collecting rent and doing money. So is there the potential that he overheard a conversation between Webster and Parkman and you know Parkman's like look, all these other people paid, I've got this amount of money on me. And Littlefield sees that as his chance to hey, I'm gonna rob this, to rob this guy. That could be too. So he robs him.
Speaker 2:I mean, it is very suspicious and we know from just historical criminal psychology and forensic psychology after the fact of crimes looking back, that people that commit some of these murders like to inject themselves into the investigation because it helps them know where it's going and what they need to change. So did he murder him as the janitor initially just hide the body, not knowing what to do, and then, as pressure started kicking up, he goes and does all these things to desecrate the body and try to destroy it, and when he realizes he can't, now I'm going to throw this other guy under the bus because I overheard the fact he owes this man money. So but again, that's not kind of how this turns out.
Speaker 3:Well, and Webster claims that he made a payment. He claims that he gave him $400. And whether he actually did or not, they can never prove it. They can never show where he came up with the $400. So they have no evidence. It's not like he went to the bank and took $400 out and they're like oh okay, you have a paper trail for how you came up with this money. But he did say he gave him money.
Speaker 3:So that would support the theory that Littlefield might have been killing him to rob him. And again, if he's selling corpses to the medical school, maybe he figured I'll just sell this guy for 25 bucks, just like I did the other guys. But then when the heat, you know, the pressure gets on and there's all these rewards, maybe he's like shit, I can't pass him off as a cadaver for the medical school. Now, what am I going to do? And maybe then, you know, he starts figuring out how to ditch the body. But then the reward comes out and he's like well, shit, I can get an extra thousand dollars if I you know.
Speaker 2:And then the other question I would ask. I mean, that makes me wonder and again, like we are way forensically trying to look at this almost 200 years later. But I've worked at multiple universities now I couldn't tell you what was underneath my classroom. Like again, I think back then they spent a lot more time in the buildings. But would a normal lecturer know that there's a furnace in this one room that heats the entire building? Would he know all these spaces that all these things are hidden in? But a janitor would know where all these places were. This janitor is giving such detailed information that makes me think you either either you did it or you witnessed more than you're letting onto, because you're giving up a lot of very specific facts about the crime that really only people that were present should know.
Speaker 3:Right, exactly.
Speaker 2:So, and at this time people already knew that Dr Webster had financial problems. So the investigation also uncovered further that Webster's financial troubles and his attempts to pledge his mineral collections as collateral further motivated his action. So he was out trying to get money by any means necessary, selling off his stuff. Like you said, he had lost his house. So some reported that on the day Parkman disappeared he was collecting rent and debts, as you had said, from people, which again would give motivation if Littlefield had overheard this or if even he'd heard Parkman give the individual money. $400 at that time was a lot. Like you said, the $1,000 reward was enough for him to retire. Well, what if that $1,000 was on top of whatever the other doctor had on him before he was murdered? So Webster went to a family member at this time also and stated that he had paid the debt installed that was owed.
Speaker 2:At this point, however, he was unable to provide any tender for the money that he had given to Parkman. So there was no receipts, there was no bank statement for it. But again, if he's out selling off his stuff and that's how he's getting the money, there would be no receipts, like now if I I don't know, like. I've never used Marketplace or anything like that, but I'm pretty sure if I just sell something to somebody on the streets we're not going to write out receipts for anything. So at this time, webster is now arrested and dismemberment of the body required anatomical knowledge. But again, a janitor working at a school like this who is stealing bodies obviously he knows the worth of the bodies and why they're being used potentially would have anatomical knowledge of a human body.
Speaker 3:And that's one of the things that Webster supporters argue is he would have known all this. He would have seen all this. He would have had intimate knowledge of the classrooms and seen what was happening in them and like cleaning up after the dissections and things like that. He would have seen all of it.
Speaker 2:And he could have bought a ticket to a lecture.
Speaker 3:Yeah, exactly Because anybody could buy a ticket for the lecture. So one of the significant things that we'll talk about in a minute is the forensic analysis and it plays a significant role in identifying the remains, as Parkman's. Dr Nathan Cooley-Keep ends up testifying about these teeth that he found and it involves a plate that he had made for Parkman and it's key evidence that links the remains to the missing man, for Parkman and it's key evidence that links the remains to the missing man. So as the trial starts, there's actually a link to a report. It was 669 pages and I will admit I did not read the 669 page report about the trial in preparation for today, but I did read a lot of other things. But I did read a lot of other things. And he was indicted on murder, january 26th of 1850.
Speaker 3:Daniel Webster and Rufus Choate I don't know how you say it C-H-O-A-T-E Choate both refused his case. Those are two prominent attorneys. He asks for them to help him, they say no. He asks for them to help him, they say no. So dr white, john white webster's trial for the murder of dr george parkman was a sensationalized event and it captivates boston and beyond. There's people from all over the world, like literally people from europe coming to see what's going on with this case, and the trial begins on march 19th 1850, and it lasts for 12 days and it concludes on April 1st 1850. It's held in Boston, massachusetts, attracts immense public interest and had an estimated 60,000 people attending the trial at some point in time.
Speaker 2:How big were these courtrooms, my God.
Speaker 3:One of the things that I read, because I thought the same thing. I'm like 60,000 people. How do you get 60,000 people to witness this over the course of 12 days? It's not like this thing took a year or something. So one of the sources I read they said that the seats in the courtroom were removed and replaced with bleachers and you would need a ticket to come in and the groups were rotated every 10 minutes.
Speaker 2:So even his trial. He's selling tickets, this guy is a performance artist. I'm telling you.
Speaker 3:Right, which I can't imagine. Like, as I was looking at this, I thought, yeah, like you get kind of used to people coming in and out of the courtroom and there's like that constant, like activity behind you that you learn to tune out. I cannot imagine having the whole back of the courtroom okay, it's been 10 minutes, your time is up. Everybody get out. The next group come in. Like how do you keep going with your direct examination of a witness as all of that's happening behind you?
Speaker 2:I could end to think that the people, the estimated number of people that witnessed his trial in a 12 day period was three times the entire size of the population of the community he grew up in, right. I think that also to a point kind of shows the growth of Boston at this time period, but also the vast interest in this specific case, which, again, you're going to get into this because this is really your area, is that legal side. But how much did public pressure mount on a jury and the prosecutor and the judge when you've got this much attention on one case?
Speaker 3:And another thing too, I think you have to remember is like publicity. Now, when you select a jury, you ask certain questions like have you heard about this case? Do you know any of the people involved in this case? And they try to find a fair and impartial jury. At that point the standard wasn't the same. It wasn't like have you seen the newspaper regarding this? Yes, I have All right, come on, we'll tell you what you have to consider and what you're not allowed to consider. And that was kind of the end of it. But for the prosecution team, you have AG John Clifford, who later becomes governor and he does the opening and closing arguments. He doesn't do much else. John Bemis, who is a Harvard Law School grad, so we have another Harvard individual mix in, and Clifford ends up making a three hour long opening statement.
Speaker 2:That sounds ridiculous.
Speaker 3:Uh huh, yeah right, Compared to everybody else, like when you look at the way this case plays out, it becomes kind of the theme of the case, as far as the prosecution really dominates the presentation that's going on in the courtroom as mad which I don't know if mad at that time I think meant more crazy than like angry. But regardless of how he was trying to use that term, the defense doesn't object.
Speaker 2:Now that doesn't make sense to me as well. The coroner's job is to say cause of death and how it happened. I don't really think his job is to profile the potential. The alleged defendant in this case, but man, the standards have changed in 200 years well, and again, you can say anything as long as there's not an objection.
Speaker 3:If they had objected, then there might have been an instruction not to consider that, but they didn't object so that that gets put in as evidence are we gonna have again.
Speaker 2:You're going to get into all this, but would that set up grounds for an appeal of incompetent representation?
Speaker 3:Yes, and there's a lot more to come.
Speaker 2:Okay, great, I'm excited.
Speaker 3:Yeah. So then we have Oliver Wendell Holmes and he's the Dean of Harvard Medical College at the time, which he has as a post endowed by Parkman. So there's a personal connection there to the victim, another Harvard person, and his testimony is that the body was not dissimilar to Parkman, which is different than saying that is Parkman. He says it's not dissimilar to him. So you know, they'd measured, they were like, yeah, it's about this tall, yeah, that's about this tall.
Speaker 3:And one of the other things they talked about was there was an excessive amount of body hair. And you know they'd measured. They were like, yeah, it's about this tall, yeah, that's about this tall. And one of the other things they talked about was there was an excessive amount of body hair. And you know, other people said, yeah, parkman had that. And then there was some type of either birthmark or scar that was close to his penis and another one that was on the backside, like close to his butt, that his wife identified said, yeah, that's my husband. So if I had said, yeah, that's my husband. So there were other things, it wasn't just like one little thing. But you know, again, like it's not dissimilar, that's not the same as saying yes, that's him.
Speaker 2:Yeah, and of course, taking into account that he was dismembered, parts of the body were burned. I guess the parts we have do kind of look like him.
Speaker 3:But it makes it pretty hard to say conclusively like that is him.
Speaker 2:Yes.
Speaker 3:And then we have Nathan Keep. He's that dentist and he testified that fall. I'm sorry. He testified that in the fall of 1846, he made false teeth for Parkman and the plate for those false teeth are found in the furnace. He still has those impressions that he made when he created them and I think he was saving them to use them as an educational tool for other dentists. But I'm not a hundred percent sure on that. But he did keep them and if you look on the back of it, there's pictures on the internet and it shows where he wrote Parkman's name on them and they show them to the jury and they show how the plate fits in there perfectly together. And then they bring in the loose teeth that they found and they pull the plate out and they show how those loose teeth would have fit in the plate. So they try to show like how this all all goes together. And then of course our friend Littlefield testifies and so does his wife.
Speaker 2:So that to me again still seems suspicious, because he's at some point a suspect and one of the things that it sounds like clears him is his wife's testimony. So it wasn't my husband, it was this other guy that kind of I don't know that in me would raise flags that something needed to be looked into more.
Speaker 3:And her thing. She stood watch to make sure nobody caught Littlefield when he was digging up that privy and then he leaves and goes to a dance and then he comes back and he finishes digging it up, which was another thing that I just kind of thought in the back of my mind. Like I'm in the middle of digging up a privy, I know I'm going to go like to this social event and then come back and finish digging this up while his wife stands watch. So I don't know if she was supposed to be there to say like, oh yeah, I was there when he found it and he dug it up. I don't know that. Again, I don't know how much she really would have added Sounds like an eyewitness to me.
Speaker 3:Yeah, maybe, yeah, to say like, oh, he was shocked when he found it. We had no idea it was there, I don't know. And then, and of course, they present the evidence of the amount that he owed Parkman, and Webster claimed he paid it but again could never provide any evidence. And then the prosecution presents three unsigned letters that were sent to the police with false information, which we believe was in an attempt to mislead the investigation, and one person who knows Webster testifies that's Webster's handwriting on one of them. So it's not a handwriting expert, it's just somebody who knows Webster who says, yeah, I know him, I know his handwriting, that letter was written by him.
Speaker 2:But at this and again that, not saying that I defend this guy or not, like it wasn't my friend, but coming from a defense standpoint, I would say we have a lot of this guy's writing. He's written books and everything else, and at that time they didn't have computers, Everything was done by hand. So you would have had hundreds of samples of his writing. So why is just one non-expert testifying when you could have had plenty of people that knew him and you could have presented examples of his handwriting and said, yes, this is his or it's not. Which?
Speaker 3:I don't know if the science was behind that at that point, though. I mean, they're just now doing dental evidence is the first case in the US for dental identification, so I don't know if they actually had a handwriting analysis at that time or not. I don't know the history on that.
Speaker 2:And then if they, if they didn't, then why was this allowed in his evidence, right? I mean, that's kind of like saying I, I know the way that my friend plays poker and that looks like the hand my friend would have played.
Speaker 3:that just sounds so bullshit to me but there's so much stuff that they used to let in that they don't now like right character evidence. Used to be able to bring people in and say this, this person's a bad person and has poor moral character. I mean, you could never bring that stuff in now. So let's move on to the defense. On the defense side we talked earlier, webster wanted those two attorneys and they said nope, we're not taking your case.
Speaker 3:He's provided a list of attorneys and I'm not sure where this list comes from. But when he goes through the list he picks out two Harvard graduates because again, harvard seems to be the central theme to everything here Edward Sophia and Plinky Merrick as his defense attorneys. Now, sophia was a civil attorney who had handled Webster's prior matters, which were mostly his finances, but he was not a criminal defense attorney. Merrick had more experience, but he was second chair. So his defense team is like you know. I don't want to speak ill of people, but they don't have the expertise, in my opinion, to do a murder trial at that point in time. I wouldn't. I wouldn't want them to be my attorneys on a murder trial yeah, and and what makes me wonder is going back.
Speaker 2:He can't afford a decent attorney. It sounds like so it almost sounds like he was given a list of the public defenders or people that would take it at a low rate. That could be, and that kind of makes you one like again those conversations of do people with money have better access and get off more frequently because their attorneys are better at what they do.
Speaker 3:Right, exactly, so remember, we talked about how it took 12 days to do the trial.
Speaker 2:Yes.
Speaker 3:The defense takes two of those 12 days.
Speaker 2:That is absolutely insane.
Speaker 3:Right. So in their two days the main goal that they seem to be focused on is to cast doubt on the identity of the remains and they try to state that Parkman was harassing Webster for the repayment. Like I don't understand why they would allege that at that point in time, because that sounds like you'd be setting up a self-defense claim. But they never actually make a self-defense claim, so at least not that I could find any of the sources I looked at. So it doesn't seem to be a good strategy to say he's harassing us if you're not going to actually use that harassment for your benefit. Another thing that happened was Sophia gave a long speech, kind of like an opening statement, and he claimed that Webster could not defend himself because at that time Massachusetts law stated that capital murder defendants could not testify, but they could only make an unsworn speech to the jury right at the end of the trial. So unsworn of course means that you're not swearing to tell the truth. So that would be something that the jury might consider that this is an unsworn testimony. This is just what he's saying. His counsel does advise him not to do it and he does end up doing it.
Speaker 3:So Feer also explains the difference between murder and manslaughter, which, again, in my mind, is not good. If you're trying to argue that Parkman wasn't killed by your client, why are you trying to explain the difference, which we did in a previous podcast? Why are you explaining the difference between murder and manslaughter if you're trying to say he didn't do anything? It seems kind of odd. And they argue that the prosecution did not show beyond a reasonable doubt that Webster was the killer or how Parkman actually died. Um, which I don't know like. Are you going to say that he died of natural causes, because you know like how he died? To me doesn't make a lot of sense at that point, unless you're trying to say it was natural causes. You know like if somebody stabbed him, somebody stabbed him, it was a murder. You might be able to say my guy didn't do it, but you know it's still a murder well and to me I would have gone more with it was somebody else's defense.
Speaker 2:Like you really have another person that sounds like you could 100 say this guy had means, motive and opportunity, much more than I was being harassed. And then this guy, just like you're almost setting up your own demise by saying he was harassing me but I didn't kill him, right where to me it sounds like you would have had a much better chance by basically pinning littlefield and going that reasonable doubt. That's right to me. So even me kind of, is a layman in legal terms and of course back then being a layman, the legal was very different to be an attorney nowadays but this really to me would set up like a completely incompetent appeal.
Speaker 2:but again, the court system back then didn't even look like it does now to have those process um, I just totally forgot the word.
Speaker 3:Like checks, and balances, the Protections.
Speaker 2:The Procedural Procedural. There we go, the procedural appeals that we would have nowadays. That was a long walk to get to procedural.
Speaker 3:So remember, they take two days and during those two days they bring in 23 character witnesses to say he couldn't do it and seven people who say they saw Parkman after the time of the disappearance, which the judge then orders the jury to disregard the testimony of those seven people Because the prosecution claimed that it was another individual named George Bliss, that it was another individual named George Bliss, but nobody calls George Bliss to testify about his whereabouts during that timeframe or if he was even in Boston. So they just say, oh, it must've been George Bliss, but nobody ever says, hey, george, were you in Boston on these days? Which to me again, I'm like, and the judge just excludes it. Like the prosecution just says, ah, it's him, and they're like, okay, then we won't talk about those seven people. Like there's no standard of like, no burden of proof on the prosecution in that instance of them having to show it could have been this other person.
Speaker 3:And I couldn't find. I found a good picture of george bliss um, which richie can, dr richard can see there, and um, on the other side, on the right are sketches basically of parkman. I didn't find any actual pictures of Parkman but I don't know. When I look at those two pictures, I come up with my own conclusion. What's your conclusion, though? When you look at those pictures, do you think they look alike?
Speaker 2:If I'm going off of these. No, they don't look enough alike that I would not want to call somebody to the stand and have them tell me where they were.
Speaker 3:Right, right and at least in the sketches it looks like Parkman had this very prominent pointy chin and the dentist had talked about his lower jaw being unique when he made the plate. And that was how he knew right away it was Parkman's because it was such a unique fit, whereas when I look at George Bliss, like he doesn't. Whereas when I look at George Bliss like he doesn't look like he has any distinguishing features that makes him stand out, like he doesn't have a pointy chin, he doesn't have an odd shaped jaw, he just looks like a regular old guy.
Speaker 2:Yeah, yeah, definitely more rounded jaw.
Speaker 3:So the defense calls some of the experts that the prosecution called and some of their own to try to question the identification of the body. William Morton testifies in regards to the jawbone that if it were placed among a dozen others which I can produce I should not be led to pick it out from any peculiarity. So he then gets out several false teeth that he has to show how they easily fit into that mold, trying to say you know this. Well, I guess we call it a partial now. They were calling out a plate Could have belonged to anybody, it wasn't necessarily his teeth and his dental implant or device. In rebuttal the prosecution calls three other dentists and a physician to estimate the time of death, saying that the remains were still consistent with Parkman's disappearance. The defense ends up giving a six-hour speech during closing arguments and says that the prosecution did not identify the bodies Parkman's, they did not prove that a homicide had occurred, they did not prove that Webster did it and that they did not prove that Webster did it and that they did not prove that Webster had done it with malice aforethought. So they argued that even if it was Parkman's body, anybody could have killed him and disposed of the body where it was found. I doubt it was persuasive because you know, again, it's in Webster's private privy. I think that I would come up with a, like you said, a little bit more limited list of suspects, with one individual coming to my mind right off and again what you were talking about before.
Speaker 3:I think it's important to note on this that Webster has all of these notes he comes up with. I can't remember now how many, I don't think I wrote it down how many pages, but it was something like 190 pages or something. I don't know if I don't think I wrote it down how many pages, but it was something like 190 pages or something. I don't know if I. I don't think I wrote it down, but it was something like 190 pages of notes that he came up with that he had for his theory of the defense and the defense doesn't use any of it. They said the whole time that they're going along. He's passing notes to his attorneys. They ignore all of it.
Speaker 3:He passed a note saying that he wanted them to cross-examine Littlefield about his corpse stealing gig and selling those bodies for $25 each to the medical school. They never asked him about it. He wants them to impeach him on something that he attests to, and they never tried to impeach him. They don't point out that he lives by the lab or in the basement of the building, which is something else, that he passed them a note and said please point this out. They don't point out that he had access to all of the places where the body was found and could have planted the body easily. They don't point any of that out.
Speaker 3:So, additionally, that reward that we talked about, that he was able to retire on, they'd never point out. Hey, he got a thousand dollar reward for coming up with this body. So all of these things that he wanted them to do, they don't do. He also wanted them to accuse Littlefield of doing the actual murder. They don't do that either. So Clifford makes this closing argument and it takes him more than a day and he talks about the and that's's. The prosecution talks about the medical testimony, says that we've proven beyond a reasonable doubt that Parkman was dead and that the motivation was that financial debt.
Speaker 2:What? Here's something curious to me. And again, I don't know what if they never did find Parkman's body we know this guy's stealing corpses there's a big reward. What if he, with his wife, took one of the bodies they had stolen and said, hey, if we can make this crime scene, we can get that reward and parkman's body.
Speaker 3:somebody else killed parkman or he's not even dead, maybe he's just because again they had those seven witnesses who said we saw him later someplace else yeah, maybe he took the money, maybe I don't know.
Speaker 2:There's a lot of to me. There's so much area for reasonable doubt here. I I don't see how they come to the terms they do, but again, as you're going forward with your extreme knowledge of how the courts work, um, I do wonder how much again social pressure and political pressure and these big crowds influence that.
Speaker 3:We have to find somebody guilty and I think too, like with the defense, I feel like they half paint pictures of these different theories, but they never finish it. You know, like I don't know, there's just so much here that I look at and I just want to scream because I'm like, oh my gosh, this is just know. There's just so much here that I look at and I just want to scream, so I'm like, oh my gosh, this is just not. You could have done so much more for this case and they didn't.
Speaker 2:It goes back to that. You know what do you call the person that gets the lowest scores in law school A lawyer.
Speaker 3:Yeah. So, yeah, just because they're a doctor. Yes, yeah, just because they're lawyers, or on the website.
Speaker 2:A doctor, yes, exactly, I didn't want to go there because, yeah, that's my title. But I do definitely see a lot of incompetence here, and that's again coming from more of a layman standpoint.
Speaker 3:Right, right, exactly. So. We also have this 15-minute speech right which the defendant, you know. His counsel advised him not to make the 15-minute speech. And Webster makes this 15-minute speech during which he criticizes his attorney Like big surprise. He's saying his attorneys didn't do a good job. I think that I'm kind of on board with that. He gives his own version of the case and he cites those anonymous letters and he asks the writers of those letters to come forward, but of course nobody does.
Speaker 3:Now Judge Shaw, who's the one who's in charge of this case.
Speaker 3:A lot of people have written that he was biased against the defense. I found one source that said he was related to the victim, but it didn't say how and I couldn't find that anywhere else. So I don't know if that's true. And he instructs the jury that they only need to find beyond a reasonable doubt that the remains were Parkman's, which is kind of throwing a curve in it at the end if the entire time you thought the standard was going to be different, especially from a defense standpoint, and one of the sources I read said that before this case the standard was to an absolute certainty for the body to be identified as the victim's body. And this judge, judge Shaw, compared it to a dead body at sea, saying basically, if somebody pushes a victim off of a boat at night in stormy weather, can anybody deny that the author of that crime is a murderer? So he was really pushing for this idea of you don't really need the body, you don't really need to know it's him to convict.
Speaker 2:So here we are, 1850, and we're starting to kind of push that bounds of what kind of the constitution and everything else puts where the burden is innocent until proven guilty. Now we're saying, well, kind of guilty before proven.
Speaker 3:Well, an absolute certainty. I mean, that's a huge difference. Like you were talking about, there's a medical school, there's tons of bodies everywhere. Just maybe for the thousand dollar reward, this guy, just you know, hacked up somebody else and tried to make it look like him. And he knew who Parkman was obviously like. Everybody knew him because he was everywhere. He probably knew enough about how tall he was, what he looked like, what his height was, that he could have gone through the cadaver lab and said this guy looks a lot like Parkman, let's use this one and on some level maybe gotten away with it.
Speaker 3:So now we've gone from absolute certainty that that's Parkman to reasonable doubt. That that's you know Parkman. So again, going back to that, maybe it wasn't his body, it was one of the other medical school bodies. That now becomes a little bit more likely. So on March 30th at about 8 pm the case goes to the jury and they return at 1045 pm, so that's in two hours and 45 minutes. They convict him of murder and on April 1st he is sentenced to be hanged. The opinions again on this were divided on the veracity of the trial, just like it had been before the trial. After the trial people were still split and even now people are still split about which way this should have gone. We talked a little bit earlier about that. Post-trial relief defense submits a petition for writ of error against george shaw and it's heard on june 12th and you know who hears that writ of error against judge shaw who judge shaw and four other judges so the, the sentencing and case judge, is also on the appeals.
Speaker 3:Judge. Yeah, your Honor, you're wrong because you made a mistake.
Speaker 2:Now admit you're wrong and judges really don't like being told they're wrong.
Speaker 3:No, no, they do not, absolutely not. So that of course gets nowhere. And then the governor, george Briggs at the time. They asked him for a pardon. And just like you were talking about all of that public pressure, there's public pressure from both sides grant him clemency. He didn't do this. There's another half that says you can't go easy on crime, you have to not mess with this. Let him face his execution and be done with it. And a year before that there was a black sailor, washington Good, who had been hanged for the murder of a fellow black sailor, based on circumstantial evidence. So there was an element of fairness to it too, because then people were saying how could you possibly pardon this rich white guy who is part of upper class Boston society when you let the poor black sailor be executed under nearly the same circumstances that were similarly situated, similarly situated.
Speaker 3:Now, in June, webster writes a confession. Some people also think that the confession was coerced. We'll never know about that either. But he admits to killing Parkman in self-defense. When Parkman attacked him over the dead, he said it was not premeditated but an act of rage and passion and provocation. He said it was not malicious murder. He said that parkman was quote, speaking and gesticulating in the most violent and menacing manner, and he said it was because the mineral cabinet was used as collateral for another loan. So basically, webster promised that mineral cabinet as collateral on two different loans. So Parkman was upset because he's like that's supposed to be my mineral cabinet if you don't pay, not somebody else's.
Speaker 3:Webster says that he, quote, seized whatever thing was handiest it was a stick of wood and dealt him an instantaneous blow with all the force that passion could give. It was on the side of the head and there was nothing to break the force of the blow. He fell instantly upon the pavement. There was no second blow, he did not move. And then the last thing that is in this confession is that he admits to authoring the anonymous letters. Now some people like noted that this confession is kind of an interesting, sad twist to the case because if it's true, if this is really what happened, the defense could have used this narrative. The defense could have used this narrative and using this narrative he probably would have qualified for what would at that point been temporary insanity and he would have been able to avoid the death penalty.
Speaker 2:So it sounds like through all of this there's just a lot of incompetence in this trial and really kind of is a case study for how the legal system needed to be changed. And I mean it has changed a lot. But I don't know if this case really laid that groundwork. But it is really interesting to see just the evolution of this case and when we get to the end I'll kind of talk about what I mean by that. But so Webster was executed on August 30th of 1850 in the yards of the Boston City Jail on Levert Street.
Speaker 2:The execution, of course, was a public event attracting a significant crowd. I mean you had 60,000 people that came to his trial. Of course this was going to be a big event and of course at this time hangings were big public events, like people brought their kids and picnic baskets Like they were the social event of the month sometimes, and picnic baskets Like they were the social event of the month sometimes. So, but only a select group of officials were invited to actually be spectators or witnesses to the hanging directly, while thousands more observed from nearby rooftops and windows. So before his execution, webster met with his spiritual advisor and thanked the jail staff for their kindness.
Speaker 2:The execution was carried out early in the morning and Webster's body was pronounced lifeless after hanging for about 30 minutes. His body was later buried in Boston's Cops Hill Burial Ground and Parkman's widow was the first to contribute to a fund created for Webster's widow and daughters. So even Webster's like Parkman's own family, I think kind of had. That's interesting that his widow donated to their needs after this death. And in 1884, boston Globe published a story that Webster was in a harness and not executed, and later seen by a sailor. So there's rumors that he wasn't actually executed. I don't know if I believe that as much, but there's always interesting stories that come out of things like this after the fact.
Speaker 3:So this trial like in the end it gets notable because of that use of forensic evidence that we had never had before. It was the first US case to use dental evidence in a murder trial. It also set that precedent with the judge's ruling saying that the jury only needed to find beyond a reasonable doubt that those remains were Parkman's. And even now there is division on this case. This case, A century after the case, it was said, quote the Parkman murder case stands as a classic example of how a jury can reach a sound verdict despite an unfair trial. But then there's people on the other side who say there was evidence that the prosecutors ignored Judge Shaw was biased against Webster, that there was a Reverend, George Putnam, who was helping the prosecution and that there were statements that were edited before appearing in reports. Some say that Parker's mansion, which is now the mayor's home, is haunted by Parkman because Littlefield was the true murderer.
Speaker 2:This is definitely a place I would like to visit. You know there's other places, like the Borden house, and I got to visit some of the places from the Dillinger stuff that we talked about, but this is one of those places that I'm very interested in. And your little murder protectors are barking. So the Parvin Webster murder case remains one of the most infamous in American history, highlighting the darker aspects of Boston's elite society in the mid-19th century. But also kind of Webster's legacy is complex, reflecting both his contributions to academia, which I respect, but then also kind of this descent into a crime of passion. It sounds like if he did it.
Speaker 2:The case continues to fascinate historians and scholars and true crime podcasters due to the intersections of crime, social status and the early days of forensic science.
Speaker 2:And what I think is interesting about this is I learned about this case.
Speaker 2:I have a very large library of crime books, serial crime books and things like that, because that's my area of research, but I found this in a book titled the 100 Most Infamous Criminals Murder, mayhem and Madness, which was done by an individual named Joe Durden Smith Joe Durden Smith but it's almost basically one page in this decently small book.
Speaker 2:But once we got into the case, just how deep it really goes. I thought when I originally did this oh, this would be a short episode about this academic murder and it's interesting because I work in academia it's kind of funny. But then to see how much influence it had on crime today, the justice system, criminal justice and really questions of what is a fair trial, what is a spectacle trial and likely potential other suspect that could have been investigated. If not, he said she said well, in this case he did it, he did it type situation that you just had a man executed on such flimsy, bad, circumstantial, circumstantial evidence. But use of the justice system like it really questions the term using justice in this case I would agree with that so thank you for listening to the story of dr webster.
Speaker 2:Uh, we really enjoyed kind of researching this and going down this rabbit hole, um, and we look forward to bringing you more cases like this. I want to thank you all so much for listening to our little podcast. This is created with love and passion for criminal justice and true crime. So if you're enjoying the podcast, please follow us, like or rate us on whatever system you're listening to us on, subscribe to our podcast and download episodes. Downloads are important for our growth, as is growing our listeners.
Speaker 2:So if you wouldn't mind, take the time to ask your friends, family, coworkers, tell them about us through word of mouth, social media. I don't care if you even scream at strangers on the streets, to help us kind of get out there who we are. If you're interested in learning more, you could visit our website at wwwdeviantcriminologycom. There you'll find some stuff about our backgrounds, references, show notes for each episode. You can also follow us on our Facebook page at Deviant Criminology. We also have an Instagram page, which is Deviant underscore Criminology. Find me at drrichardweaver on Instagram, and as we grow, we hope to develop a community that will grow with us. So again, thank you for taking the time to listen and have a good week. Thank you.
