Editing John Webster
The edit can be undone. Please check the comparison below to verify that this is what you want to do, and then publish the changes below to finish undoing the edit.
| Latest revision | Your text | ||
| Line 19: | Line 19: | ||
Over the next few days multiple anonymous letters were sent making various claims about Parkman's fate. Webster claimed that he had met Parkman and paid back the debt in full. However, he soon garnered suspicion from Ephraim Littlefield by asking him odd questions; for example, he asked him several strangely specific questions about if he had seen Parkman on the campus after the time of the meeting or at Webster's rooms. He also asked a number of strange questions about the college's dissecting room. Littlefield began watching Webster closely and on November 28 saw him arriving at the college early and moving between the furnace and fuel closet eight times before igniting the furnace. Suspicious, Littlefield began chiselling through the wall into the furnace, finally breaking through on November 30 and finding a burnt human pelvis and some leg bones. The police were called and removed a number of bone fragments from the furnace. Webster was arrested on suspicion of murder and unsuccessfully attempted suicide by poisoning himself with strychnine. | Over the next few days multiple anonymous letters were sent making various claims about Parkman's fate. Webster claimed that he had met Parkman and paid back the debt in full. However, he soon garnered suspicion from Ephraim Littlefield by asking him odd questions; for example, he asked him several strangely specific questions about if he had seen Parkman on the campus after the time of the meeting or at Webster's rooms. He also asked a number of strange questions about the college's dissecting room. Littlefield began watching Webster closely and on November 28 saw him arriving at the college early and moving between the furnace and fuel closet eight times before igniting the furnace. Suspicious, Littlefield began chiselling through the wall into the furnace, finally breaking through on November 30 and finding a burnt human pelvis and some leg bones. The police were called and removed a number of bone fragments from the furnace. Webster was arrested on suspicion of murder and unsuccessfully attempted suicide by poisoning himself with strychnine. | ||
On December 1, a coroner's jury was assembled to examine the scene. Several more bone fragments were recovered from the furnace, including a jawbone with false teeth, and odd acidic stains on the floor were tested and established to be copper nitrate, which is effective for removing blood. A chest from which emanated a foul smell was opened and found to discover an armless and decapitated human torso which Parkman's family identified as his due to its unusual hairiness and markings on the lower back and near the penis. From the discovered remains it was established that the victim was likely around | On December 1, a coroner's jury was assembled to examine the scene. Several more bone fragments were recovered from the furnace, including a jawbone with false teeth, and odd acidic stains on the floor were tested and established to be copper nitrate, which is effective for removing blood. A chest from which emanated a foul smell was opened and found to discover an armless and decapitated human torso which Parkman's family identified as his due to its unusual hairiness and markings on the lower back and near the penis. From the discovered remains it was established that the victim was likely around 5'10'' tall, the same height as George Parkman. The inquest declared that the body was George Parkman and he had been murdered and dismembered by John Webster. | ||
Webster was defended at trial by Edward Sohier and Pliny Merrick, with his main defence being that the body could not be proved to be that of Parkman. On the second day of trial the head of the medical college's dissection department testified that none of their dissection specimens were of the same proportions as the remains found in the furnace. Parkman's dentist testified that the dentures fitted in the recovered jawbone fit exactly into a plaster mould he had made of Parkman's jaw. A police officer who had examined the scene told the court that the torso found stuffed in the chest did not fit in the furnace, unlike the remains that had been burnt in the furnace. The court was told of Webster's debt problems with Parkman, with Webster being forced to admit that he could not explain where he had got the money with which he claimed to have paid off Parkman. Three anonymous letters in Webster's handwriting making different claims about Parkman's fate were shown to the court. Webster's defence attempted to cast doubt on the identity of the remains, with a dental expert testifying that a number of dentures he had produced would fit perfectly into the dental mould used earlier in the trial. However, Webster undermined his defence while testifying on his own behalf by attacking his lawyers and presenting a wildly different interpretation of the evidence. | Webster was defended at trial by Edward Sohier and Pliny Merrick, with his main defence being that the body could not be proved to be that of Parkman. On the second day of trial the head of the medical college's dissection department testified that none of their dissection specimens were of the same proportions as the remains found in the furnace. Parkman's dentist testified that the dentures fitted in the recovered jawbone fit exactly into a plaster mould he had made of Parkman's jaw. A police officer who had examined the scene told the court that the torso found stuffed in the chest did not fit in the furnace, unlike the remains that had been burnt in the furnace. The court was told of Webster's debt problems with Parkman, with Webster being forced to admit that he could not explain where he had got the money with which he claimed to have paid off Parkman. Three anonymous letters in Webster's handwriting making different claims about Parkman's fate were shown to the court. Webster's defence attempted to cast doubt on the identity of the remains, with a dental expert testifying that a number of dentures he had produced would fit perfectly into the dental mould used earlier in the trial. However, Webster undermined his defence while testifying on his own behalf by attacking his lawyers and presenting a wildly different interpretation of the evidence. | ||