The Harvard Medical School Murder: Dr. Webster's Deadly Debt

Send us a text

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

Episode Transcript

Speaker 2 (00:39):
So, as we welcome you to another episode of Deviant
Criminology, I wanted to saythat this case interested me as
an academic just because wealways hear about like the
general professors or, like youwere saying a moment ago, like
the absent-minded professor andall this, but this kind of comes
down to like a, a horriblymoney managing professor who

(01:00):
also becomes like a brutalmurderer, which just in academia
sometimes like I get, like Ican get that type of frustration
, but this is a very unique case.
So, to start this off, I'mRichard.

Speaker 3 (01:12):
I'm Heather.

Speaker 2 (01:13):
And today we're going to be talking about Dr John
White Webster.
So he's a man whose careerspanned through medicine,
chemistry, an academic at aprestigious university and
finally kind of a dash to thismysterious and murderous side of
himself.
Who we are talking about, likewe said, is Dr John White

(01:34):
Webster.
So he was born in May of 1793,on the 20th, in Boston,
massachusetts.
So specifically he was born onFleet Street, which is kind of
on the north end of Boston, andat that time Fleet Street was
kind of part of this growing,bustling urban environment,
predominantly inhabited by theEnglish, which wouldn't last

(01:57):
horribly long after this becausethe Irish would come and take
over Boston for the rest ofhistory.
So this was largely ahomogeneous area influenced
mostly by Puritan ideology,which kind of makes sense at
this time period, and we'relooking just two decades after
the revolution itself.
So the racial and ethnic makeupof the community was mostly

(02:20):
white, but at this time therewere a few ethnic groups and a
small African-Americanpopulation.

Speaker 3 (02:27):
Economically on the North End, including Fleet
Street, was a mix of commercialand residential areas.
Boston was a major trading portand its economy was heavily
reliant on maritime trade,shipbuilding and fishing.
The city's merchants played asignificant role in
international commerce and manyfamilies in the area were
involved in these industries.

(02:47):
However, the economic status ofresidents on Fleet Street
varied, with some familiesenjoying prosperity from trade
and others living more modestly.

Speaker 2 (02:57):
So kind of how it is today as well.
So kind of a little bit moreabout Boston at this time period
.
The general population around1793 was approximately 18,000
people, which I think is likeone neighborhood now and these
numbers would slightly havegrown, but the 1790 census had
it marked at about 18,320 peopleand again was this kind of

(03:21):
booming economic center in urbandevelopment.
The city's role as a hub fortrade and commerce made it
vibrant but then again createddiversity, especially with
growing influx of immigrants andmovement of people throughout
the United States.

Speaker 3 (03:47):
So Webster's family specifically had deep roots in
Massachusetts and his greatgrandfather arrived in Boston
about 1662, and his mother'sfamily settled in 1632.
His grandfather was asuccessful Boston merchant who
owned an apothecary in the NorthEnd and later in Emmesbury,
massachusetts.
His lineage continued andconnected Webster to influential
figures in Massachusettshistory, including Thomas

(04:07):
Leverett, the father of GovernorJohn Leverett I can't talk
today and the grandfather ofHarvard.
President John Leverett andyou're going to see Harvard come
up in the story over and overand over again.

Speaker 2 (04:22):
I also think like apothecaries at the time were
kind of like the marijuanadispensaries of now.

Speaker 3 (04:29):
I think they had everything like pharmacy,
drugstore, miracle.
Yeah, they had it all.

Speaker 2 (04:35):
Like it was.
It was definitely a differenttime, like you know.
Hey, I'm not feeling great.
Here are three leeches and alittle bit of opium.
You'll feel fine tomorrow.
I'm not feeling great.
Here are three leeches and alittle bit of opium.
You'll feel fine tomorrow.
Anyway, so Webster's earlydevelopment was marked by a
tight allowance from his father,and he later claimed that this
kind of hindered hisunderstanding of money, which

(04:56):
kind of to me in a way isn't areally good defense.
Like if you were given a smallallowance to live off of, you
think you'd have a betterunderstanding of money and how
far it could go.
But according to him itcouldn't, and he didn't
understand how money worked.
Which is even more interestingbecause he would go on to attend
Harvard College, graduatingwith an AB degree in 1811 and an

(05:19):
MD in 1815.
So in 1811, attending HarvardCollege to pursue a medical
degree required kind ofdifferent set of prerequisites
than we see today.
Like today, you'd have to gothrough and get your undergrad
in some type of medical fieldand then you would go on to
medical school.
Here there was no reallyprerequisites, you just would

(05:41):
have some type of educationbefore you went on for that MD.
So Harvard itself was foundedin 1636.
And by the early 19th centuryit had established itself really
as like this prestigiousinstitution for higher education
in the United States.
However, the medical programwas not formally established
until 1782, when the HarvardMedical School was founded.

Speaker 3 (06:03):
Yeah, there's no MCATs or anything.
You can just walk right in andget into medical school, Like
what's up with that?

Speaker 2 (06:08):
Yeah, I mean, not too long after this, doc Holliday
would go on to get like amedical degree in his field and
had tuberculosis.
So crazy, right, kind of lowerat that time.

Speaker 3 (06:19):
Just a wee bit.
So in 1811, harvard College didnot require the bachelor degree
for admission to medicalprogram, and students instead
typically attended the lecturesand completed apprenticeships
under practicing physicians andthings like that.
So the curriculum for obtaininga medical degree was less
structured and did not includeany type of rigorous scientific

(06:39):
prerequisites or the standardsthat we have today requisites or
the standards that we havetoday.
Students would attend a lectureon various medical subjects,
including anatomy, surgery andpharmacology, but the program
was not as comprehensive orscientifically grounded as
modern medical education and oneof the things that when I was
reading I don't know exactly howthis worked, but they were
talking about tickets for thelecture and I guess as a student

(07:01):
, you would buy a ticket to goto a lecture and then turn in
your ticket at the lecture hallwhen you came in, and then the
professors would redeem thosetickets for their salary.

Speaker 2 (07:13):
You know what that sounds horrible, right, like
that is really a way to side sayif you're a good professor or
not.
Like well, how many tickets didyou 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 andpodcasting which I don't know if
that's paid off yet but likebecause it is kind of

(07:33):
performative.
But now you look back likealmost 200 years ago and it
literally was performativetheater.
Like we're selling tickets,tickets.
Come here, professor weaverurethis week about how to do a
lobotomy.
Like I just like, how manytickets did you sell?
We had like three.
Like you suck, I know right.

Speaker 3 (07:50):
Well, and that ends up being one of the things, like
you know, about the moneyproblems that Webster has.
He ends up saying part of thatis because of his lectures,
Because, like you're saying, tosell these tickets and make it
theatrics, he started doingthese chemical because he's
doing chemistry, chemicalexperiments and like was known
to set off fireworks and allkinds of things in his lecture.

(08:11):
And so one of the things hesaid is I can't make money like
the other professors because Ihave to spend so much more money
to do these experiments in mylecture that the other people
don't have to do.
And they did say that he sold alot of tickets but they were
not well attended, which Ithought was also interesting,
because if I'm paying for aticket, you'd think I'd show up.

Speaker 2 (08:28):
But you know I'm as somebody that works as a
professor, that is a hundredpercent not true, because even
today you have students that payfor the class but don't show up
sometimes.
So I just also think that it'svery funny that even like 200
years ago, faculty werecomplaining about not getting
enough money.
It's like we still talk aboutthat today.

(08:50):
So it's just very interestingto have read about him and kind
of read this.
It'd be like these sameconversations we had 200 years
later, like it's all right, butkind of talking more about
Harvard.
At that time student attendingHarvard in 1811 would have been
relatively small compared totoday.
It is a massive university.
It takes up blocks inside ofthe city.

(09:12):
The first class had ninestudents and that was in 1642.
So just the thought that thisschool has been around almost
400 years is just perplexing tome, because very little of the
United States has been here morethan 200 years.
So still as Americans, 400years seems mind-blowing.
Just perplexing to me becausevery little of the United States
has been here more than 200years.
So still as Americans, 400years seems mind-blowing.

(09:33):
When I traveled overseas you'dgo to places they're like this
was built 2000 years ago andyou're just like holy shit, I
have no comprehension of this.
So the student body had grown alot by time Dr Webster got
there, even though it's not welldocumented how many students
were attending around that timeperiod.
But we've kind of talked aboutwhat it took to obtain a medical
degree.
It did mark a significantdevelopment in the institution's

(09:56):
medical education when theycreated the doctor of medicine.
However, the curriculum againwas not as systemic or
systematic or scientificallyrigorous as it is today.
I mean, we are talking aboutthe time of still kind of using
leeches and lobotomies andthings like that.
Psychology was well in itsinfancy.
So it's really interesting justreading what he would have gone

(10:19):
through, what medicine wasconsidered back then and then
how he would kind of develop onhis journey to get the
experience he felt he wasn'table to get while he was
attending Harvard.

Speaker 3 (10:31):
So after his graduation, webster traveled to
London for further medicaltraining at Guy's Hospital,
where he served as a surgeon'spupil, a physician's pupil and a
surgeon's dresser.
What a surgeon's dresser is I'mnot exactly sure, but it sounds
like that could be aninteresting job.

Speaker 2 (10:48):
I just kind of imagine it's the person that
like holds the the scrubs orsomething.
Puts them over them in like thetheatrical manner, almost like
the Rocky Horror thing, when heputs the gloves on and
everything.
That's kind of what I imagine.

Speaker 3 (11:01):
Something like that right Of course, then it would
have been to protect thesurgeon's clothing, not for
disease control.

Speaker 2 (11:07):
Yes, yes, like if you think back to the films of,
like, all the surgeons comingout just coated in blood and the
little white like outfit theyhad on.

Speaker 3 (11:18):
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 aphilanthropist named Thomas Guy
and by the mid-19th century ithad become a significant
teaching hospital.
But in the period from 1815 to1817, it was well established as
a major medical institution.

(11:40):
During that time, Guy'sHospital was known for its
expertise in surgery andanatomical studies, particularly
through its affiliation with StThomas Hospital, collectively
referred to as the UnitedHospitals, which I thought was
interesting that they have likethis little conglomeration of
hospitals over there workingtogether, and those hospitals

(12:01):
were renowned for theirinnovative approaches to medical
education and care.
Now, that was, of course,despite the challenging
conditions at the time, whichincluded lack of anesthesia and
infection control, which thatjust sounds fantastic.
I want to go there.

Speaker 2 (12:15):
Yeah, and again, like I'm kind of a movie person so
it just makes me think of thosemovies where they would put like
the piece of leather in theperson's mouth after making them
drink whiskey and just be likebite down, it's going to hurt.
So in terms of patient numbersat Guy's Hospital, it was
designed to accommodate asubstantial number of patients
just because of where it waslocated, kind of in this more

(12:37):
urban area of LondonParticularly, it was made for
those who were consideredincurables and had been
discharged from St ThomasHospital.
They would be sent over toGuy's Hospital.
So, specifically, patientnumbers from the period of 1815
to 1817, which is when DrWebster's over there there's not
well documented of how manypatients would have come and
gone, but would again beensubstantial.

(12:58):
Like disease curing wasn't.

Speaker 3 (13:00):
God damn it.
How much would have bet.
Amazon is here.
Maybe Thunder has now scaredoff the Amazon delivery driver.
They are leaving promptly, asshe always forces them to leave.

Speaker 2 (13:12):
Protected you from another murderer.

Speaker 3 (13:13):
Right.

Speaker 2 (13:15):
Look at that, Doing what the cops can't do Proactive
in their protection of theirfamily.
So the number of patients thatwould have gone from St Thomas
Hospital to Guy's Hospital orthat would have been in Guy's
Hospital at this time isn't welldocumented.
But again we know the medicalcures back then weren't really

(13:37):
at the level they are now by anymeans, and especially at that
time with just lack of hygiene.
There were water issues thatwould eventually lead around
this time period to the creationof sewer systems in England.
So they were seeing a lot ofincurable diseases and a lot of
people that couldn't afford thenext level of health care.
So the hospital provided arange of medical services,

(13:59):
including surgical procedures,care for patients with various
conditions, from just kind oflike the ER visit for like
cutting a finger off or whateverhappened inside of factories
this was kind of that growingperiod as well as incurable
diseases, what would later beknown as cancer, and then mental
disorders that weren'tunderstood at the time, just
more known as like beinghilarious or dementia or things

(14:24):
of that nature.
So it was also a hub formedical education, attracting
students like John Keats, whotrained as a surgeon's
apothecary during this periodand would go on to be a
well-known physician in London.

Speaker 3 (14:38):
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 andlearning, with prominent
surgeons like Sir Ashley Coopercontributing to its reputation.

(15:02):
Cooper's emphasis onobservation-based knowledge had
a lasting impact on students,including Keats, who was
influenced by his teachingduring his time at Guy's.

Speaker 2 (15:13):
And I think this kind of goes on like we don't talk
about it a lot, but it's kind ofwell known that a lot of the
best medical facilities andmental health facilities in the
world are usually located inurban areas that are kind of
unfortunately in these moreimpoverished areas just because
the number of clients thatyou're seeing and things that
are coming in, that's how you'regetting access to these

(15:34):
constant patients with disordersand a wide ranging compared to
people with money usually haveboutique doctors, especially at
this time period, like thedoctors would come to your house
and you could afford that.
The normal commoner andespecially in these dilapidated
homes and everything, theincidences are much higher just
because of the concentration ofpeople.
You'd see this about 100 yearslater in Whitechapel In my mind.

(16:09):
It's like when you go to thedental school to get your teeth
cleaned or to get your fillingsput in, as opposed to going to
your family dentist, yes, thethe medical school is usually
like, well, we're going to dofive fillings, but eventually
we're going to have to pull thatteeth, where other dentists
will be like, well, we'll justdo a quick crown.
It's what you can afford andwhat you have access to.
So in 1817, webster moved to SaoMiguel Island in the Azores I
know, know I said that wrong,I'm not gonna apologize for that
when he practiced medicine.

(16:30):
He published his first book andhe met Harriet Frederica
Hickling, the daughter ofAmerican Vice Counsel on the
island, and they married May16th of 1818 and had four
daughters.

Speaker 3 (16:48):
So when the family returns to Boston, webster
entered private medical practicebut struggles to achieve
success, which prompts him tomake his career change, and in
1824, he was appointed as alecturer in chemistry at Harvard
Medical College and by 1827, hehad been promoted to the Irving

(17:11):
Professorship.
During his tenure at Harvard,webster published several
chemistry books and translatedvon Liebig's Organic Chemistry.
I'm not sure what thesignificance of that is, but it
sounds like it was veryimportant.
I'm not sure what thesignificance of that is, but it
sounds like it was veryimportant.
And he was also known for hiscollection of rocks and minerals
and his interest in mineralogy.
And he actually ended upprospecting for andazine in

(17:35):
Sanford, maine, and I googled.
Andazine is a mineral used forstress relieving.
It's a grounding stone and it'ssupposed to melt your worries
away.
But apparently Dr Webster didnot use enough of it in his life
.

Speaker 2 (17:49):
So Dr Webster was kind of like the first, like
American alchemists, and spiritshop owner.
Something like that, like hewould have been like the person
that owned the rock shop todaythat would tell you like there
are stones out there, man, thatlike have vibrations that if you
hold it to your head will cureany type of stress you have.
And you're like, dude, I'm justgoing to take some aspirin, like

(18:11):
thanks, yeah, that's that's.
I just think it's funny becausewe've got to remember this is
the 1800s, so medicine was stillway, way primitive compared to
what we have today.
But Webster's careertransitions from medicine to
chemistry was marked bysignificant contributions to
both fields and it kind ofshowcased his intellectual
curiosity and versatility.

(18:32):
And you're seeing that he'spublished multiple books, which
shows that even in the 1800s itwas publish or perish, I guess.
But unfortunately Dr Webster'slife would have have it had a
darker side that would lead to aheinous criminal acts.
So now we're kind of going tofocus on the crime that he's
known for, which unfortunatelyreally kind of overtook all his

(18:54):
other accomplishments and wouldseal his fate which is life,
takes that dramatic turn withhis involvement in the murder of
Dr George Parkman and Parkmanis a wealthy Boston business and
benefactor of Harvard MedicalCollege.

Speaker 3 (19:12):
So let's talk about the details of this event.

Speaker 2 (19:15):
So Dr George Parkman was born on February 19th of
1790 into one of Boston'swealthiest families, 19th of
1790, and to one of Boston'swealthiest families.
So one source that Heather wasable to find said that he was
worth half a million dollars athis death, which would have been
roughly $370 million today.
So very well-off person, veryconnected into the community,

(19:38):
very well-known person atHarvard Medical School because
he is a donor and universitieshave always thrived off donors
and they usually have access andprofessors do interact with
them just to kind of build thoserelationships, to try and get
more funding for research andthings like that.
But his poor health as a childled to his pursuit in a career
in medicine.
So at just 15, which to me isastounding he entered Harvard

(20:03):
University where he deliveredthe salutary orientation in 1809
.
So he was inspired by BenjaminRush.
Parkman, became interested inthe treatment of mental illness
and studied medicine at theUniversity of Aberdeen in
Scotland.
And he furthered his educationin Paris under renowned

(20:24):
physicist oh, I'm sorry, underrenowned psychiatrist Philippe
Penel.
And I'm not going to say thatname, I'm just going to spell it
out.
You can look it upE-T-I-E-N-N-E-E-S-Q-U-I-R-O-L.
Etienne Esquireiro.

(20:46):
I should know that because it'sa renowned psychiatrist, but I
don't and then he also adoptedtheir humane treatment methods
for mental health.
This was kind of like thatgrowing time period of mental
health.
I've definitely heard ofPhilippe Penel I don't know this
other individual, but they arekind of some of the forefathers
of what would become known asmodern psychology and psychiatry

(21:07):
.

Speaker 3 (21:08):
So Parkman returns to the United States in 1813, and
he serves as a surgeon duringthe War of 1812.
He establishes a privatepractice in South Boston and
advocated for more humanepsychiatric care.
Boston and advocated for morehumane psychiatric care,
publishing papers like Remarkson Insanity and the Management

(21:29):
of Lunatics.
Despite his efforts toestablish an asylum, he faced
setbacks and the McLean Asylumwas eventually founded without
his direct involvement.
As a prominent businessman andphilanthropist, parkman
inherited his father's vast realestate empire which is going to
be significant later and he wasable to take that real estate

(21:51):
empire and expand itsignificantly.
He was also known for hisfrugal yet philanthropic nature,
donating land to HarvardMedical College which was used
to build the institution inBoston's West End.

Speaker 2 (22:05):
So in this connection to Harvard, would tragically
become the site of his murder in1849.
So Parkman had loaned DrWebster money which Webster
struggled to repay, as we talkedabout a little bit before.
He says he didn't really havean understanding of money and
even though he was supposedlyselling tickets to his lectures

(22:25):
and making some funds, he washaving to put so much money into
his lectures and stuff thatwasn't supported by the
university that he juststruggled with money, which
again, also I think isinteresting that here's a
teacher and a lecturer talkingabout not having enough funding
to be able to equip theirclassroom, so he's having to use
his own money and using it as ajustification for what would

(22:48):
lead to this murder.
So because of Parkman loaningWebster money and Webster
struggling to repay it, it leadsto this kind of strained
relationship between the two menand on November 23rd 1849,
parkman visits Webster atHarvard Medical College to
settle a debt reported to be$2,400, roughly At some point

(23:11):
during this meeting the twostruggle and Dr Webster killed
Dr Parkman ensues.
But it wasn't until a week later, on November 30th, that a
janitor for Harvard Universitynamed Ephraim Littlefield
discovers human remains in thelaboratory beneath Webster's

(23:32):
office.
Specifically Dr GeorgeParkman's remains were found in
the Harvard Medical School'sbuilding on North Grove Street
in Boston, massachusetts.
The remains were discovered ina tea chest, a furnace and a
privy.
The crime scene revealed agruesome dismemberment and
partial burning of the remains.

Speaker 3 (23:53):
So there's a couple things when we go into this,
this investigation.
When you're talking aboutGeorge Parkman he's famous, he's
wealthy, he's well off, he'sworth that half million dollars,
which, in my mind, I think it'scrazy that in the end he lost
his life over $2,500 essentially, and he had $500,000.
And the day that he disappearshe's going around.

(24:15):
Remember, we said he's in realestate.
He's going around paying rentsand collecting the debts that
are owed to him and on somelevel, I guess you can't just
start letting people slide onthose things, because if you
don't let one person pay, theneverybody doesn't want to pay
and then you won't have yourhalf a million dollars anymore.
But at the same time, in theback of my mind, I'm like geez,
if you just walked away and lethim have his $2,500, like it

(24:36):
would have been a much betterday.

Speaker 2 (24:38):
Well, and I wonder, like and again, like we don't
really know I think Park Websterkind of talks about it later in
a weird way, but with Parkmanhaving so much influence at the
university if he may havethreatened his job like hey, I'm
going to report you to theuniversity and you know this is

(24:59):
his income.
Like if I lose this job, what doI have income like if I lose
this job, what do I have?
It's very interesting whathappens with masculinity when
one man challenges another man,especially when you put them in
this position.
Was there something thathappened, threatening his job,
where he took that instance?
Because I don't see parkmanespecially kind of the way they
describe him being the aggressorin this situation at all

(25:20):
physically, but I definitelycould see, when he's got that
much influence, him kind of Idon't want to say being haunty,
but being a little bit more likeyou 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 placeand maybe to some extent.

Speaker 3 (25:35):
but again, like in the back of my mind, I'm like
you know, dr parkman, just walkaway.
Just walk away $2,400.
It's pocket change to you, likeit's not worth losing your life
over this like little bittydebt that you know.
In the grand scheme of thingsit doesn't matter.
And it's not like people didn'tknow that Webster had money
problems.
He had already lost.
Like he built a house for hiswife and four daughters and they

(25:57):
lost it, and at this pointthey're renting a house
someplace else.
So everybody knows they havemoney problems.
If you lent money to him, youshould probably like count it as
a gift, cause you probably knowyou're not going to get it back
, cause it sounds like hedoesn't own anything and he's
barely making it.

Speaker 2 (26:13):
And I have no knowledge whatsoever and this is
all just me being me, but I dothink he kind of even though
people said he was a likable guy, um Parkman kind of even though
people said he was a likableguy, um parkman kind of makes me
think of ebenezer scrooge.
Like here we are getting closeto november, it's getting close
to christmas time.
He's like today I will gocollect from rent and we're
getting close to the day that wewill evict all those who spend

(26:36):
their christmas money, and thisis just like the bad outcome if
scrooge had gone to the wrongplace to collect money on a bad
day.
Yeah, exactly, I'm beingcompletely a weirdo on that.
But the investigation wasextensive, so it involved the
police and faculty members fromHarvard Medical School.

(26:57):
Initially, suspicion fell onIrish immigrants.
Like it always does Blame theIrish, that's, you know, that's
obviously who had to be.
Some random Irish person justcame to Harvard and murdered
this rich man and varioustheories about Parkman's
disappearance kind of starteddeveloping.
To complicate things, parkman'sfamily offered a $3,000 reward

(27:20):
if he was found alive and a$1,000 reward for his body.
That made everybody startlooking for him and kind of we
see that in law enforcement eventoday, like when rewards are
put out, just the crazies comeout of the woodwork and you will
get tons of random informationthat has nothing to do with it.
But people are just doingwhatever they can at any chance

(27:40):
they might be right to try andget access to that reward money.
So I can't even imagine in the1800s what offering that level
of money would have done tobring people out and possibly
trample crime scenes.

Speaker 3 (27:55):
Probably, you know, possibly contaminate information
and things of that nature sothe police end up doing this
comprehensive search andeverybody's looking, just like
you said, everybody's lookingand as part of this
comprehensive search the policedo search Dr Webster's areas at
the university and they findnothing.
So to me that's kind ofsomething that I put in the back

(28:17):
of my mind as somebody wholooks at these cases that the
police looked, there was nothingthere, and then all of a sudden
there's this individual whostarts popping up, efren
Littlefield.
And depending on who you ask,littlefield is either a witness
who has a lot of information orthe one who actually commits the

(28:38):
crime and he kind of insertshimself into the investigation
and it's because of him thatwhen the evidence mounts,
webster becomes the primarysuspect and it's Littlefield's
testimony about Webster that'scrucial in building the case
against him.
Specifically, littlefield talksabout this unusual behavior
that Webster had when Parkmandisappeared.

(29:00):
Specifically, he's the one whotestifies Parkman was at the
building with Webster.
He talks about how Parkman wasdemanding payment.
He talks about how Webster wasacting odd after the
disappearance.
Webster also talks about how DrWebster asked questions about
several areas where the bodyparts ended up being found,
including questions regardingthe light in the dissecting

(29:21):
vault and whether he could usethe light or not.
Littlefield told him no, Idon't know if it was like a you
don't have permission to use itor it doesn't work type thing.
Littlefield also said that DrWebster asked if he had seen
Parkman, and he asked aboutseveral like did you see him at
one o'clock on this day?
Did you see him in thislocation?
And according to Littlefield,webster and these conversations

(29:43):
basically include more time thatthey have talked during that
like week-long period thanthey've ever talked in all of
the years prior.
So it stands out as very odd tohim.
And he says that Websterspecifically says did you see
Parkman with me?
And he says no, i't.
And then Webster gives him aturkey for Thanksgiving, which

(30:04):
he also thinks is odd becausehe's never received a gift from
Webster before.
And then Littlefield also saysthat Dr Webster asked him for
burning materials.
After he asked for them,littlefield peeked under a door
because the door was locked andyou could see Webster moving
back and forth through the roomeight times, from the furnace to
the fuel closet and later, whenhe searches the room, the

(30:25):
burning materials are basicallyall gone.
Littlefield says that DrWebster ran the furnace so hot
that they could feel it on theother side of the wall.
Now I don't know like I stilldon't understand the why of this
, but for some reason, after henotices it's that hot,
littlefield gets into that roomand he rips apart part of the

(30:47):
furnace and he rips up the floorand the wall that is around
Webster's private lab privy andhis wife stands watch while he
rips this whole thing apart.
And then he searches the pitand then finds some things and
the police had not searched thatpit.
Upon finding these remains, hesearches the furnace more

(31:08):
thoroughly.
He finds more remains,specifically some teeth, and
then he finds a tea chest whichcontains the remainder of the
body, and it was the part of thebody that he couldn't burn and
couldn't fit into the privy pit.
So when all of this ishappening, littlefield is a
suspect at that time and youhave to look at it and say, okay

(31:29):
, he was a suspect.
He provides all of the evidenceto the police that accuses
Webster.
And some who knew Webster, whoalleged that Littlefield killed
Parkman, say that Littlefieldwas just a bad dude.
They say, you know, oh, websterwas a great guy, he was
wonderful, he was friendly.
And they say that Littlefield,he was the bad seed and they

(31:52):
think that he did this to claimthe reward, like again, when I
read that I think well, thatdoesn't make sense because you
wouldn't kill him for the rewardbefore the reward was offered.
But what you were talking aboutearlier, about leverage, in the
back of my mind I wondered ifmaybe Littlefield did something

(32:12):
that Parkman saw, like maybe hesaw him stealing from a faculty
lounge or saw him, you know,doing something like maybe
stealing things from you knowcorpses, and he actually has a
business on the side where he'sstealing corpses and selling
them for 25 to the university.
So maybe parkman found outabout that.
Um, but some of them say thathe did all of this to get that

(32:34):
thousand dollar reward andproduce the body.
Um, so I think that he wouldn'tnecessarily commit the murder
for the reward.
But as far as producing thebody, I think it's a, it's a two
for one, it clears his name, hethrows Webster under the bus
and he gets that thousand dollarreward, which is enough that he
retires.

Speaker 2 (32:54):
Well and.
But then there's the otherquestion, because the the
information that was found saidthat he was out that day
collecting rent and doing money.
So is there the potential thathe overheard a conversation
between Webster and Parkman andyou know Parkman's like look,
all these other people paid,I've got this amount of money on

(33:15):
me.
And Littlefield sees that ashis chance to hey, I'm gonna rob
this, to rob this guy.
That could be too.
So he robs him.
I mean, it is very suspiciousand we know from just historical
criminal psychology andforensic psychology after the

(33:35):
fact of crimes looking back,that people that commit some of
these murders like to injectthemselves into the
investigation because it helpsthem know where it's going and
what they need to change.
So did he murder him as thejanitor initially just hide the
body, not knowing what to do,and then, as pressure started
kicking up, he goes and does allthese things to desecrate the

(33:57):
body and try to destroy it, andwhen he realizes he can't, now
I'm going to throw this otherguy under the bus because I
overheard the fact he owes thisman money.
So but again, that's not kindof how this turns out.

Speaker 3 (34:10):
Well, and Webster claims that he made a payment.
He claims that he gave him $400.
And whether he actually did ornot, they can never prove it.
They can never show where hecame up with the $400.
So they have no evidence.
It's not like he went to thebank and took $400 out and
they're like oh okay, you have apaper trail for how you came up
with this money.
But he did say he gave himmoney.

(34:30):
So that would support the theorythat Littlefield might have
been killing him to rob him.
And again, if he's sellingcorpses to the medical school,
maybe he figured I'll just sellthis guy for 25 bucks, just like
I did the other guys.
But then when the heat, youknow, the pressure gets on and
there's all these rewards, maybehe's like shit, I can't pass
him off as a cadaver for themedical school.
Now, what am I going to do?

(34:50):
And maybe then, you know, hestarts figuring out how to ditch
the body.
But then the reward comes outand he's like well, shit, I can
get an extra thousand dollars ifI you know.

Speaker 2 (34:58):
And then the other question I would ask.
I mean, that makes me wonderand again, like we are way
forensically trying to look atthis almost 200 years later.
But I've worked at multipleuniversities now I couldn't tell
you what was underneath myclassroom.
Like again, I think back thenthey spent a lot more time in
the buildings.
But would a normal lecturerknow that there's a furnace in
this one room that heats theentire building?

(35:20):
Would he know all these spacesthat all these things are hidden
in?
But a janitor would know whereall these places were.
This janitor is giving suchdetailed information that makes
me think you either either youdid it or you witnessed more
than you're letting onto,because you're giving up a lot
of very specific facts about thecrime that really only people

(35:42):
that were present should know.

Speaker 3 (35:44):
Right, exactly.

Speaker 2 (35:46):
So, and at this time people already knew that Dr
Webster had financial problems.
So the investigation alsouncovered further that Webster's
financial troubles and hisattempts to pledge his mineral
collections as collateralfurther motivated his action.
So he was out trying to getmoney by any means necessary,
selling off his stuff.
Like you said, he had lost hishouse.
So some reported that on theday Parkman disappeared he was

(36:10):
collecting rent and debts, asyou had said, from people, which
again would give motivation ifLittlefield had overheard this
or if even he'd heard Parkmangive the individual money.
$400 at that time was a lot.
Like you said, the $1,000reward was enough for him to
retire.
Well, what if that $1,000 wason top of whatever the other

(36:30):
doctor had on him before he wasmurdered?
So Webster went to a familymember at this time also and
stated that he had paid the debtinstalled that was owed.
At this point, however, he wasunable to provide any tender for
the money that he had given toParkman.

(36:50):
So there was no receipts, therewas no bank statement for it.
But again, if he's out sellingoff his stuff and that's how
he's getting the money, therewould be no receipts, like now
if I I don't know, like.
I've never used Marketplace oranything like that, but I'm
pretty sure if I just sellsomething to somebody on the

(37:10):
streets we're not going to writeout receipts for anything.
So at this time, webster is nowarrested and dismemberment of
the body required anatomicalknowledge.

(37:31):
But again, a janitor working ata school like this who is
stealing bodies obviously heknows the worth of the bodies
and why they're being usedpotentially would have
anatomical knowledge of a humanbody.

Speaker 3 (37:43):
And that's one of the things that Webster supporters
argue is he would have known allthis.
He would have seen all this.
He would have had intimateknowledge of the classrooms and
seen what was happening in themand like cleaning up after the
dissections and things like that.
He would have seen all of it.

Speaker 2 (38:01):
And he could have bought a ticket to a lecture.

Speaker 3 (38:03):
Yeah, exactly Because anybody could buy a ticket for
the lecture.
So one of the significantthings that we'll talk about in
a minute is the forensicanalysis and it plays a
significant role in identifyingthe remains, as Parkman's.
Dr Nathan Cooley-Keep ends uptestifying about these teeth
that he found and it involves aplate that he had made for

(38:23):
Parkman and it's key evidencethat links the remains to the
missing man, for Parkman andit's key evidence that links the
remains to the missing man.
So as the trial starts, there'sactually a link to a report.
It was 669 pages and I willadmit I did not read the 669
page report about the trial inpreparation for today, but I did

(38:45):
read a lot of other things.
But I did read a lot of otherthings.
And he was indicted on murder,january 26th of 1850.
Daniel Webster and Rufus ChoateI don't know how you say it
C-H-O-A-T-E Choate both refusedhis case.
Those are two prominentattorneys.
He asks for them to help him,they say no.

(39:07):
He asks for them to help him,they say no.
So dr white, john whitewebster's trial for the murder
of dr george parkman was asensationalized event and it
captivates boston and beyond.
There's people from all overthe world, like literally people
from europe coming to seewhat's going on with this case,
and the trial begins on march19th 1850, and it lasts for 12

(39:30):
days and it concludes on April1st 1850.
It's held in Boston,massachusetts, attracts immense
public interest and had anestimated 60,000 people
attending the trial at somepoint in time.

Speaker 2 (39:45):
How big were these courtrooms, my God.

Speaker 3 (39:48):
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 towitness this over the course of
12 days?
It's not like this thing took ayear or something.
So one of the sources I readthey said that the seats in the
courtroom were removed andreplaced with bleachers and you
would need a ticket to come inand the groups were rotated
every 10 minutes.

Speaker 2 (40:07):
So even his trial.
He's selling tickets, this guyis a performance artist.
I'm telling you.

Speaker 3 (40:13):
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 inand out of the courtroom and
there's like that constant, likeactivity behind you that you
learn to tune out.
I cannot imagine having thewhole back of the courtroom okay
, it's been 10 minutes, yourtime is up.
Everybody get out.
The next group come in.
Like how do you keep going withyour direct examination of a

(40:35):
witness as all of that'shappening behind you?

Speaker 2 (40:37):
I could end to think that the people, the estimated
number of people that witnessedhis trial in a 12 day period was
three times the entire size ofthe population of the community
he grew up in, right.
I think that also to a pointkind of shows the growth of
Boston at this time period, butalso the vast interest in this

(40:59):
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 publicpressure mount on a jury and the
prosecutor and the judge whenyou've got this much attention
on one case?

Speaker 3 (41:18):
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 peopleinvolved in this case?
And they try to find a fair andimpartial jury.
At that point the standardwasn't the same.
It wasn't like have you seenthe newspaper regarding this?
Yes, I have All right, come on,we'll tell you what you have to

(41:38):
consider and what you're notallowed to consider.
And that was kind of the end ofit.
But for the prosecution team,you have AG John Clifford, who
later becomes governor and hedoes the opening and closing
arguments.
He doesn't do much else.
John Bemis, who is a HarvardLaw School grad, so we have
another Harvard individual mixin, and Clifford ends up making

(41:59):
a three hour long openingstatement.

Speaker 2 (42:02):
That sounds ridiculous.

Speaker 3 (42:03):
Uh huh, yeah right, Compared to everybody else, like
when you look at the way thiscase plays out, it becomes kind
of the theme of the case, as faras the prosecution really
dominates the presentationthat's going on in the courtroom
as mad which I don't know ifmad at that time I think meant

(42:27):
more crazy than like angry.
But regardless of how he wastrying to use that term, the
defense doesn't object.

Speaker 2 (42:40):
Now that doesn't make sense to me as well.
The coroner's job is to saycause of death and how it
happened.
I don't really think his job isto profile the potential.
The alleged defendant in thiscase, but man, the standards
have changed in 200 years well,and again, you can say anything
as long as there's not anobjection.

Speaker 3 (42:54):
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 evidenceare we gonna have again.

Speaker 2 (43:07):
You're going to get into all this, but would that
set up grounds for an appeal ofincompetent representation?

Speaker 3 (43:14):
Yes, and there's a lot more to come.

Speaker 2 (43:16):
Okay, great, I'm excited.

Speaker 3 (43:17):
Yeah.
So then we have Oliver WendellHolmes and he's the Dean of
Harvard Medical College at thetime, which he has as a post
endowed by Parkman.
So there's a personalconnection there to the victim,
another Harvard person, and histestimony is that the body was
not dissimilar to Parkman, whichis different than saying that

(43:40):
is Parkman.
He says it's not dissimilar tohim.
So you know, they'd measured,they were like, yeah, it's about
this tall, yeah, that's aboutthis tall.
And one of the other things theytalked about was there was an
excessive amount of body hair.
And you know they'd measured.
They were like, yeah, it'sabout this tall, yeah, that's
about this tall.
And one of the other thingsthey 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 ofeither birthmark or scar that
was close to his penis andanother one that was on the

(44:00):
backside, like close to his butt, that his wife identified said,
yeah, that's my husband.
So if I had said, yeah, that'smy husband.
So there were other things, itwasn't just like one little
thing.
But you know, again, like it'snot dissimilar, that's not the
same as saying yes, that's him.

Speaker 2 (44:15):
Yeah, and of course, taking into account that he was
dismembered, parts of the bodywere burned.
I guess the parts we have dokind of look like him.

Speaker 3 (44:26):
But it makes it pretty hard to say conclusively
like that is him.

Speaker 2 (44:29):
Yes.

Speaker 3 (44:30):
And then we have Nathan Keep.
He's that dentist and hetestified that fall.
I'm sorry.
He testified that in the fallof 1846, he made false teeth for
Parkman and the plate for thosefalse teeth are found in the
furnace.
He still has those impressionsthat he made when he created
them and I think he was savingthem to use them as an

(44:54):
educational tool for otherdentists.
But I'm not a hundred percentsure on that.
But he did keep them and if youlook on the back of it, there's
pictures on the internet and itshows where he wrote Parkman's
name on them and they show themto the jury and they show how
the plate fits in thereperfectly together.
And then they bring in theloose teeth that they found and

(45:15):
they pull the plate out and theyshow how those loose teeth
would have fit in the plate.
So they try to show like howthis all all goes together.
And then of course our friendLittlefield testifies and so
does his wife.

Speaker 2 (45:26):
So that to me again still seems suspicious, because
he's at some point a suspect andone of the things that it
sounds like clears him is hiswife's testimony.
So it wasn't my husband, it wasthis other guy that kind of I
don't know that in me wouldraise flags that something
needed to be looked into more.

Speaker 3 (45:45):
And her thing.
She stood watch to make surenobody caught Littlefield when
he was digging up that privy andthen he leaves and goes to a
dance and then he comes back andhe finishes digging it up,
which was another thing that Ijust kind of thought in the back
of my mind.
Like I'm in the middle ofdigging up a privy, I know I'm
going to go like to this socialevent and then come back and
finish digging this up while hiswife stands watch.

(46:06):
So I don't know if she wassupposed to be there to say like
, oh yeah, I was there when hefound it and he dug it up.
I don't know that.
Again, I don't know how muchshe really would have added
Sounds like an eyewitness to me.
Yeah, maybe, yeah, to say like,oh, he was shocked when he found
it.
We had no idea it was there, Idon't know.
And then, and of course, theypresent the evidence of the

(46:26):
amount that he owed Parkman, andWebster claimed he paid it but
again could never provide anyevidence.
And then the prosecutionpresents three unsigned letters
that were sent to the policewith false information, which we
believe was in an attempt tomislead the investigation, and
one person who knows Webstertestifies that's Webster's
handwriting on one of them.

(46:49):
So it's not a handwritingexpert, it's just somebody who
knows Webster who says, yeah, Iknow him, I know his handwriting
, that letter was written by him.

Speaker 2 (46:57):
But at this and again that, not saying that I defend
this guy or not, like it wasn'tmy friend, but coming from a
defense standpoint, I would saywe have a lot of this guy's
writing.
He's written books andeverything else, and at that
time they didn't have computers,Everything was done by hand.
So you would have had hundredsof samples of his writing.
So why is just one non-experttestifying when you could have

(47:19):
had plenty of people that knewhim and you could have presented
examples of his handwriting andsaid, yes, this is his or it's
not.
Which?

Speaker 3 (47:26):
I don't know if the science was behind that at that
point, though.
I mean, they're just now doingdental evidence is the first
case in the US for dentalidentification, so I don't know
if they actually had ahandwriting analysis at that
time or not.
I don't know the history onthat.

Speaker 2 (47:40):
And then if they, if they didn't, then why was this
allowed in his evidence, right?
I mean, that's kind of likesaying I, I know the way that my
friend plays poker and thatlooks like the hand my friend
would have played.

Speaker 3 (47:52):
that just sounds so bullshit to me but there's so
much stuff that they used to letin that they don't now like
right character evidence.
Used to be able to bring peoplein and say this, this person's
a bad person and has poor moralcharacter.
I mean, you could never bringthat stuff in now.
So let's move on to the defense.
On the defense side we talkedearlier, webster wanted those

(48:12):
two attorneys and they said nope, we're not taking your case.
He's provided a list ofattorneys and I'm not sure where
this list comes from.
But when he goes through thelist he picks out two Harvard
graduates because again, harvardseems to be the central theme
to everything here Edward Sophiaand Plinky Merrick as his
defense attorneys.
Now, sophia was a civilattorney who had handled

(48:34):
Webster's prior matters, whichwere mostly his finances, but he
was not a criminal defenseattorney.
Merrick had more experience,but he was second chair.
So his defense team is like youknow.
I don't want to speak ill ofpeople, but they don't have the
expertise, in my opinion, to doa murder trial at that point in
time.

(48:54):
I wouldn't.
I wouldn't want them to be myattorneys on a murder trial yeah
, and and what makes me wonderis going back.

Speaker 2 (49:02):
He can't afford a decent attorney.
It sounds like so it almostsounds like he was given a list
of the public defenders orpeople that would take it at a
low rate.
That could be, and that kind ofmakes you one like again those
conversations of do people withmoney have better access and get
off more frequently becausetheir attorneys are better at
what they do.

Speaker 3 (49:22):
Right, exactly, so remember, we talked about how it
took 12 days to do the trial.

Speaker 2 (49:27):
Yes.

Speaker 3 (49:28):
The defense takes two of those 12 days.

Speaker 2 (49:32):
That is absolutely insane.

Speaker 3 (49:34):
Right.
So in their two days the maingoal that they seem to be
focused on is to cast doubt onthe identity of the remains and
they try to state that Parkmanwas harassing Webster for the
repayment.
Like I don't understand whythey would allege that at that
point in time, because thatsounds like you'd be setting up
a self-defense claim.
But they never actually make aself-defense claim, so at least

(49:59):
not that I could find any of thesources I looked at.
So it doesn't seem to be a goodstrategy to say he's harassing
us if you're not going toactually use that harassment for
your benefit.
Another thing that happened wasSophia gave a long speech, kind
of like an opening statement,and he claimed that Webster
could not defend himself becauseat that time Massachusetts law
stated that capital murderdefendants could not testify,

(50:20):
but they could only make anunsworn speech to the jury right
at the end of the trial.
So unsworn of course means thatyou're not swearing to tell the
truth.
So that would be something thatthe jury might consider that
this is an unsworn testimony.
This is just what he's saying.
His counsel does advise him notto do it and he does end up

(50:42):
doing it.
So Feer also explains thedifference between murder and
manslaughter, which, again, inmy mind, is not good.
If you're trying to argue thatParkman wasn't killed by your
client, why are you trying toexplain the difference, which we
did in a previous podcast?
Why are you explaining thedifference between murder and
manslaughter if you're trying tosay he didn't do anything?
It seems kind of odd.
And they argue that theprosecution did not show beyond

(51:05):
a reasonable doubt that Websterwas the killer or how Parkman
actually died.
Um, which I don't know like.
Are you going to say that hedied of natural causes, because
you know like how he died?
To me doesn't make a lot ofsense at that point, unless
you're trying to say it wasnatural causes.
You know like if somebodystabbed him, somebody stabbed

(51:26):
him, it was a murder.
You might be able to say my guydidn't do it, but you know it's
still a murder well and to me Iwould have gone more with it
was somebody else's defense.

Speaker 2 (51:40):
Like you really have another person that sounds like
you could 100 say this guy hadmeans, motive and opportunity,
much more than I was beingharassed.
And then this guy, just likeyou're almost setting up your
own demise by saying he washarassing me but I didn't kill
him, right where to me it soundslike you would have had a much
better chance by basicallypinning littlefield and going

(52:03):
that reasonable doubt.
That's right to me.
So even me kind of, is a laymanin legal terms and of course
back then being a layman, thelegal was very different to be
an attorney nowadays but thisreally to me would set up like a
completely incompetent appeal.
but again, the court system backthen didn't even look like it

(52:23):
does now to have those processum, I just totally forgot the
word.

Speaker 3 (52:30):
Like checks, and balances, the Protections.

Speaker 2 (52:34):
The Procedural Procedural.
There we go, the proceduralappeals that we would have
nowadays.
That was a long walk to get toprocedural.

Speaker 3 (52:44):
So remember, they take two days and during those
two days they bring in 23character witnesses to say he
couldn't do it and seven peoplewho say they saw Parkman after
the time of the disappearance,which the judge then orders the
jury to disregard the testimonyof those seven people Because
the prosecution claimed that itwas another individual named

(53:05):
George Bliss, that it wasanother individual named George
Bliss, but nobody calls GeorgeBliss to testify about his
whereabouts during thattimeframe or if he was even in
Boston.
So they just say, oh, itmust'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 aboutthose seven people.

(53:26):
Like there's no standard oflike, no burden of proof on the
prosecution in that instance ofthem having to show it could
have been this other person.
And I couldn't find.
I found a good picture ofgeorge bliss um, which richie
can, dr richard can see there,and um, on the other side, on
the right are sketches basicallyof parkman.

(53:47):
I didn't find any actualpictures of Parkman but I don't
know.
When I look at those twopictures, 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 (53:57):
If I'm going off of these.
No, they don't look enoughalike that I would not want to
call somebody to the stand andhave them tell me where they
were.

Speaker 3 (54:06):
Right, right and at least in the sketches it looks
like Parkman had this veryprominent pointy chin and the
dentist had talked about hislower jaw being unique when he
made the plate.
And that was how he knew rightaway it was Parkman's because it
was such a unique fit, whereaswhen I look at George Bliss,
like he doesn't.
Whereas when I look at GeorgeBliss like he doesn't look like

(54:28):
he has any distinguishingfeatures that makes him stand
out, like he doesn't have apointy chin, he doesn't have an
odd shaped jaw, he just lookslike a regular old guy.

Speaker 2 (54:41):
Yeah, yeah, definitely more rounded jaw.

Speaker 3 (54:42):
So the defense calls some of the experts that the
prosecution called and some oftheir own to try to question the
identification of the body.
William Morton testifies inregards to the jawbone that if
it were placed among a dozenothers which I can produce I
should not be led to pick it outfrom any peculiarity.

(55:04):
So he then gets out severalfalse teeth that he has to show
how they easily fit into thatmold, trying to say you know
this.
Well, I guess we call it apartial now.
They were calling out a plateCould have belonged to anybody,
it wasn't necessarily his teethand his dental implant or device
.
In rebuttal the prosecutioncalls three other dentists and a

(55:27):
physician to estimate the timeof death, saying that the
remains were still consistentwith Parkman's disappearance.
The defense ends up giving asix-hour speech during closing
arguments and says that theprosecution did not identify the
bodies Parkman's, they did notprove that a homicide had
occurred, they did not provethat Webster did it and that
they did not prove that Websterdid it and that they did not

(55:48):
prove that Webster had done itwith malice aforethought.
So they argued that even if itwas Parkman's body, anybody
could have killed him anddisposed of the body where it
was found.
I doubt it was persuasivebecause you know, again, it's in
Webster's private privy.
I think that I would come upwith a, like you said, a little
bit more limited list ofsuspects, with one individual

(56:10):
coming to my mind right off andagain what you were talking
about before.
I think it's important to noteon 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 wassomething like 190 pages or
something.
I don't know if I don't think Iwrote it down how many pages,
but it was something like 190pages or something.

(56:31):
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 upwith that he had for his theory
of the defense and the defensedoesn't use any of it.
They said the whole time thatthey're going along.
He's passing notes to hisattorneys.
They ignore all of it.
He passed a note saying that hewanted them to cross-examine
Littlefield about his corpsestealing gig and selling those

(56:53):
bodies for $25 each to themedical school.
They never asked him about it.
He wants them to impeach him onsomething that he attests to,
and they never tried to impeachhim.
They don't point out that helives by the lab or in the
basement of the building, whichis something else, that he
passed them a note and saidplease point this out.
They don't point out that hehad access to all of the places
where the body was found andcould have planted the body

(57:15):
easily.
They don't point any of thatout.
So, additionally, that rewardthat we talked about, that he
was able to retire on, they'dnever point out.
Hey, he got a thousand dollarreward for coming up with this
body.
So all of these things that hewanted them to do, they don't do
.
He also wanted them to accuseLittlefield of doing the actual

(57:40):
murder.
They don't do that either.
So Clifford makes this closingargument and it takes him more
than a day and he talks aboutthe and that's's.
The prosecution talks about themedical testimony, says that
we've proven beyond a reasonabledoubt that Parkman was dead and
that the motivation was thatfinancial debt.

Speaker 2 (58:01):
What?
Here's something curious to me.
And again, I don't know what ifthey never did find Parkman's
body we know this guy's stealingcorpses there's a big reward.
What if he, with his wife, tookone of the bodies they had
stolen and said, hey, if we canmake this crime scene, we can
get that reward and parkman'sbody.

Speaker 3 (58:22):
somebody else killed parkman or he's not even dead,
maybe he's just because againthey had those seven witnesses
who said we saw him latersomeplace else yeah, maybe he
took the money, maybe I don'tknow.

Speaker 2 (58:32):
There's a lot of to me.
There's so much area forreasonable doubt here.
I I don't see how they come tothe terms they do, but again, as
you're going forward with yourextreme knowledge of how the
courts work, um, I do wonder howmuch again social pressure and
political pressure and these bigcrowds influence that.

Speaker 3 (58:54):
We have to find somebody guilty and I think too,
like with the defense, I feellike they half paint pictures of
these different theories, butthey never finish it.
You know, like I don't know,there's just so much here that I
look at and I just want toscream because I'm like, oh my
gosh, this is just know.
There's just so much here thatI look at and I just want to
scream, so I'm like, oh my gosh,this is just not.
You could have done so muchmore for this case and they

(59:14):
didn't.

Speaker 2 (59:15):
It goes back to that.
You know what do you call theperson that gets the lowest
scores in law school A lawyer.

Speaker 3 (59:24):
Yeah.
So, yeah, just because they'rea doctor.
Yes, yeah, just because they'relawyers, or on the website.

Speaker 2 (59:28):
A doctor, yes, exactly, I didn't want to go
there because, yeah, that's mytitle.
But I do definitely see a lotof incompetence here, and that's
again coming from more of alayman standpoint.

Speaker 3 (59:40):
Right, right, exactly .
So.
We also have this 15-minutespeech right which the defendant
, you know.
His counsel advised him not tomake the 15-minute speech.
And Webster makes this15-minute speech during which he
criticizes his attorney Likebig surprise.
He's saying his attorneysdidn't do a good job.

(01:00:00):
I think that I'm kind of onboard with that.
He gives his own version of thecase and he cites those
anonymous letters and he asksthe writers of those letters to
come forward, but of coursenobody does.
Now Judge Shaw, who's the onewho's in charge of this case.
A lot of people have writtenthat he was biased against the
defense.
I found one source that said hewas related to the victim, but

(01:00:20):
it didn't say how and I couldn'tfind that anywhere else.
So I don't know if that's true.
And he instructs the jury thatthey only need to find beyond a
reasonable doubt that theremains were Parkman's, which is
kind of throwing a curve in itat the end if the entire time
you thought the standard wasgoing to be different,
especially from a defensestandpoint, and one of the
sources I read said that beforethis case the standard was to an

(01:00:44):
absolute certainty for the bodyto be identified as the
victim's body.
And this judge, judge Shaw,compared it to a dead body at
sea, saying basically, ifsomebody pushes a victim off of
a boat at night in stormyweather, can anybody deny that
the author of that crime is amurderer?
So he was really pushing forthis idea of you don't really

(01:01:08):
need the body, you don't reallyneed to know it's him to convict
.

Speaker 2 (01:01:14):
So here we are, 1850, and we're starting to kind of
push that bounds of what kind ofthe constitution and everything
else puts where the burden isinnocent until proven guilty.
Now we're saying, well, kind ofguilty before proven.

Speaker 3 (01:01:33):
Well, an absolute certainty.
I mean, that's a hugedifference.
Like you were talking about,there's a medical school,
there's tons of bodieseverywhere.
Just maybe for the thousanddollar reward, this guy, just
you know, hacked up somebodyelse and tried to make it look
like him.
And he knew who Parkman wasobviously like.
Everybody knew him because hewas everywhere.
He probably knew enough abouthow tall he was, what he looked

(01:01:53):
like, what his height was, thathe could have gone through the
cadaver lab and said this guylooks a lot like Parkman, let's
use this one and on some levelmaybe gotten away with it.
So now we've gone from absolutecertainty 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

(01:02:18):
one of the other medical schoolbodies.
That now becomes a little bitmore likely.
So on March 30th at about 8 pmthe case goes to the jury and
they return at 1045 pm, sothat's in two hours and 45
minutes.
They convict him of murder andon April 1st he is sentenced to
be hanged.
The opinions again on this weredivided on the veracity of the

(01:02:41):
trial, just like it had beenbefore the trial.
After the trial people werestill split and even now people
are still split about which waythis should have gone.
We talked a little bit earlierabout that.
Post-trial relief defensesubmits a petition for writ of
error against george shaw andit's heard on june 12th and you
know who hears that writ oferror against judge shaw who

(01:03:03):
judge shaw and four other judgesso the, the sentencing and case
judge, is also on the appeals.
Judge.
Yeah, your Honor, you're wrongbecause you made a mistake.

Speaker 2 (01:03:19):
Now admit you're wrong and judges really don't
like being told they're wrong.

Speaker 3 (01:03:23):
No, no, they do not, absolutely not.
So that of course gets nowhere.
And then the governor, georgeBriggs at the time.
They asked him for a pardon.
And just like you were talkingabout all of that public
pressure, there's publicpressure from both sides grant

(01:03:43):
him clemency.
He didn't do this.
There's another half that saysyou can't go easy on crime, you
have to not mess with this.
Let him face his execution andbe done with it.
And a year before that therewas a black sailor, washington
Good, who had been hanged forthe murder of a fellow black
sailor, based on circumstantialevidence.

(01:04:04):
So there was an element offairness to it too, because then
people were saying how couldyou possibly pardon this rich
white guy who is part of upperclass Boston society when you
let the poor black sailor beexecuted under nearly the same
circumstances that weresimilarly situated, similarly

(01:04:33):
situated.
Now, in June, webster writes aconfession.
Some people also think that theconfession was coerced.
We'll never know about thateither.
But he admits to killingParkman in self-defense.
When Parkman attacked him overthe dead, he said it was not
premeditated but an act of rageand passion and provocation.
He said it was not maliciousmurder.
He said that parkman was quote,speaking and gesticulating in

(01:04:57):
the most violent and menacingmanner, and he said it was
because the mineral cabinet wasused as collateral for another
loan.
So basically, webster promisedthat mineral cabinet as
collateral on two differentloans.
So Parkman was upset becausehe's like that's supposed to be
my mineral cabinet if you don'tpay, not somebody else's.

(01:05:18):
Webster says that he, quote,seized whatever thing was
handiest it was a stick of woodand dealt him an instantaneous
blow with all the force thatpassion could give.
It was on the side of the headand there was nothing to break
the force of the blow.
He fell instantly upon thepavement.

(01:05:38):
There was no second blow, hedid not move.
And then the last thing that isin this confession is that he
admits to authoring theanonymous letters.
Now some people like noted thatthis confession is kind of an
interesting, sad twist to thecase because if it's true, if

(01:06:01):
this is really what happened,the defense could have used this
narrative.
The defense could have usedthis narrative and using this
narrative he probably would havequalified for what would at
that point been temporaryinsanity and he would have been
able to avoid the death penalty.

Speaker 2 (01:06:16):
So it sounds like through all of this there's just
a lot of incompetence in thistrial and really kind of is a
case study for how the legalsystem needed to be changed.
And I mean it has changed a lot.
But I don't know if this casereally laid that groundwork.
But it is really interesting tosee just the evolution of this

(01:06:40):
case and when we get to the endI'll kind of talk about what I
mean by that.
But so Webster was executed onAugust 30th of 1850 in the yards
of the Boston City Jail onLevert Street.
The execution, of course, was apublic event attracting a
significant crowd.
I mean you had 60,000 peoplethat came to his trial.
Of course this was going to bea big event and of course at
this time hangings were bigpublic events, like people

(01:07:02):
brought their kids and picnicbaskets Like they were the
social event of the monthsometimes, and picnic baskets
Like they were the social eventof the month sometimes.
So, but only a select group ofofficials were invited to
actually be spectators orwitnesses to the hanging
directly, while thousands moreobserved from nearby rooftops
and windows.
So before his execution,webster met with his spiritual

(01:07:24):
advisor and thanked the jailstaff for their kindness.
The execution was carried outearly in the morning and
Webster's body was pronouncedlifeless after hanging for about
30 minutes.
His body was later buried inBoston's Cops Hill Burial Ground
and Parkman's widow was thefirst to contribute to a fund

(01:07:44):
created for Webster's widow anddaughters.
So even Webster's likeParkman's own family, I think
kind of had.
That's interesting that hiswidow donated to their needs
after this death.
And in 1884, boston Globepublished a story that Webster
was in a harness and notexecuted, and later seen by a

(01:08:09):
sailor.
So there's rumors that hewasn't actually executed.
I don't know if I believe thatas much, but there's always
interesting stories that comeout of things like this after
the fact.

Speaker 3 (01:08:23):
So this trial like in the end it gets notable because
of that use of forensicevidence that we had never had
before.
It was the first US case to usedental evidence in a murder
trial.
It also set that precedent withthe judge's ruling saying that
the jury only needed to findbeyond a reasonable doubt that
those remains were Parkman's.
And even now there is divisionon this case.

(01:08:43):
This case, A century after thecase, it was said, quote the
Parkman murder case stands as aclassic example of how a jury
can reach a sound verdictdespite an unfair trial.
But then there's people on theother side who say there was
evidence that the prosecutorsignored Judge Shaw was biased
against Webster, that there wasa Reverend, George Putnam, who

(01:09:06):
was helping the prosecution andthat there were statements that
were edited before appearing inreports.
Some say that Parker's mansion,which is now the mayor's home,
is haunted by Parkman becauseLittlefield was the true
murderer.

Speaker 2 (01:09:19):
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 placesfrom the Dillinger stuff that we
talked about, but this is oneof those places that I'm very
interested in.
And your little murderprotectors are barking.
So the Parvin Webster murdercase remains one of the most
infamous in American history,highlighting the darker aspects

(01:09:41):
of Boston's elite society in themid-19th century.
But also kind of Webster'slegacy is complex, reflecting
both his contributions toacademia, which I respect, but
then also kind of this descentinto a crime of passion.
It sounds like if he did it.
The case continues to fascinatehistorians and scholars and true
crime podcasters due to theintersections of crime, social
status and the early days offorensic science.

(01:10:04):
And what I think is interestingabout this is I learned about
this case.
I have a very large library ofcrime books, serial crime books
and things like that, becausethat's my area of research, but
I found this in a book titledthe 100 Most Infamous Criminals
Murder, mayhem and Madness,which was done by an individual
named Joe Durden Smith JoeDurden Smith but it's almost

(01:10:27):
basically one page in thisdecently small book.
But once we got into the case,just how deep it really goes.
I thought when I originally didthis oh, this would be a short
episode about this academicmurder and it's interesting
because I work in academia it'skind of funny.
But then to see how muchinfluence it had on crime today,

(01:10:50):
the justice system, criminaljustice and really questions of
what is a fair trial, what is aspectacle trial and likely
potential other suspect thatcould have been investigated.
If not, he said she said well,in this case he did it, he did

(01:11:16):
it type situation that you justhad a man executed on such
flimsy, bad, circumstantial,circumstantial evidence.
But use of the justice systemlike it really questions the
term using justice in this caseI would agree with that so thank
you for listening to the storyof dr webster.

(01:11:39):
Uh, we really enjoyed kind ofresearching this and going down
this rabbit hole, um, and welook forward to bringing you
more cases like this.
I want to thank you all so muchfor listening to our little
podcast.
This is created with love andpassion for criminal justice and
true crime.
So if you're enjoying thepodcast, please follow us, like
or rate us on whatever systemyou're listening to us on,

(01:12:01):
subscribe to our podcast anddownload episodes.
Downloads are important for ourgrowth, as is growing our
listeners.
So if you wouldn't mind, takethe time to ask your friends,
family, coworkers, tell themabout us through word of mouth,
social media.
I don't care if you even screamat strangers on the streets, to

(01:12:21):
help us kind of get out therewho we are.
If you're interested inlearning more, you could visit
our website atwwwdeviantcriminologycom.
There you'll find some stuffabout our backgrounds,
references, show notes for eachepisode.
You can also follow us on ourFacebook page at Deviant
Criminology.
We also have an Instagram page,which is Deviant underscore

(01:12:45):
Criminology.
Find me at drrichardweaver onInstagram, and as we grow, we
hope to develop a community thatwill grow with us.
So again, thank you for takingthe time to listen and have a
good week.
Thank you.