MURDER AT HARVARD

Greymouth Evening Star, 27 August 1928, Page 6

MURDER AT HARVARD

PROFESSOR CONVICTED. Publishers of reports of Famous Trials, especially for the charge of murder, fully realise the deep public interest taken in crime and the trials of criminals, in which there are generally some very knotty problems to unravel. Evidence sufficient to hang a criminal is often difficult to obtain, and must be prepared with the utmost care; moreover, many murders have been committed of which there has been no human witness, and circumstantial evidence has had to be relied upon to bring the guilty to justice. One of the most extraordinary instances of this was associated with the murder of Dr. George Parkman, a graduate of Harvard University, by Professor John Webster, also of Harvard, a man of high scientific attainments and good social standing in Boston. Dr. Parkman had been lending money to Professor Webster over a number of years, and apparently (for no one knew and therefore could say but the debtor) there was a bitter quarrel about repayment. Webster was a family man with exensive tastes, and lived beyond the limits of his income from the university. He was, too, of a generous disposition, and exceedingly popular with everyone. When his father died, leaving him £lO,OOO, Webster’s extravagant spending in entertaining received fresh impetus, and the fortune was soon exhausted. Then he began borrowing all round and from Dr. Parkman, who besides being a wealthy Bostonian, had been a graduate at Harvard; indeed, Professor Webster, through Dr. Parkman’s influence, held his appointment at the university. At that time Dr. Oliver Wendell Holmes (who had to give evidence in the trial of Professor Webster for murder) was Parkman Professor of Anatomy and Physiology,

named after Dr. Parkman. In order to secure loans made to Webster, a mortgage over his furniture, books, and mineral specimens was accepted by Dr. Parkman. Subsequently in raising a loan of £240 from another person, Webster gave a. bill of sale over the already mortgaged mineral collection. When Dr. Parkman found out the fraud he was exceedingly angry, and became relentless in his demands for repayment. Matters were fast becoming critical for Webster, and one morning Dr. Parkman left his house, presumably to see Webster. He was never seen again. What happened, as the trial revealed, was that Parkman met Webster, who murdered his importunate creditor and then tried to destroy the remains in a laboratory furnace. He had almost succeeded while the police were dragging the Charles River for the corpse of the missing Dr. Parkman. When confronted with the charge Webster denied it with indignation. When arrested, as a result of the discovery of partly-burned human remains in the laboratory. Webster took strychnine in the presence of the police, but the dose was not fatal. It was subsequently discovered that Webster had not only murdered Dr. Parkman, but had dissected the body and tried to destroy the pieces with potash and by fire, using nitrate of copper to re move incriminating blood stains. The only clue to the identity of the remains with the body of Dr. Parkman was a gold tooth recovered from the ashes of the laboratory furnace. When Webster was found guilty and there appeared to be no escape from execution he confessed the crime, but pleaded great provocation, telling how he was worked up to fury by the taunts and sneers of his victim. To Rev. Francis Parkman, brother of the murdered doctor, ho wrote from the prison: “I had never,' until the last two or three interviews with your brother, felt anything but gratitude for his many acts of kindness and friendship.” The trial took place at Boston, beginning on March 19, 1850. Evidence and speeches are absorbing in their interest, although most gruesome in parts. For instance, Mr Strong, a witness for the prosecution, deposed that he had been given the body of a pirate to dissect. He said: “I wanted the bones, and desired to get the flesh destroyed.” But he found coal ineffectual yet wood fuel was good; but burning a human body at any time, he said, was a protracted undertaking, and “the smell is difficult to allay.? i