Beating the Devil's Game: A History of Forensic Science and Criminal (8 page)

His uncharacteristic behavior during the subsequent week alerted the building’s janitor, Ephraim Littlefield. He drilled through a wall into the pit for Webster’s privy—the only place in the building not searched. Once he broke through, he spotted human remains: a pelvis, a dismembered thigh, and the lower part of a leg. In short order, the police arrested Webster and searched the lab again. In a tea chest, they discovered a human torso and a dismembered thigh, while in the furnace lay charred bone fragments and a jawbone with artificial teeth that had not burned.

With so little to work with, it was difficult to determine the identity of the victim. Mrs. Parkman identified the body as her husband’s from markings near the penis and on the lower back, and Parkman’s brother-in-law confirmed that it was Parkman via the hirsute torso. Subsequent searches in the lab and office produced bloody clothing belonging to Webster.

Since they were already at a medical college with good facilities for the examination of a body, the investigators laid out the various body parts, tested them, and wrote thorough descriptions. By the end of the day, they had estimated the man’s height to have been five feet ten inches—a match to George Parkman. The inquest jury pointed out that the two thighs found were different sizes, and the coroner patiently explained to these laypeople that one had been exposed to fire and the other was waterlogged from the privy. They could still be from the same person. The inquest and grand juries both ruled that John Webster should be tried for the murder of George Parkman. Judge Pliney Merrick and Edward Sohier defended Webster when the trial began on March 19, 1850, with Judge Lemuel Shaw presiding.

Attorney General John Clifford described how he believed Parkman had been killed, his skull fractured, and his various parts cut off and burned or dumped into a toilet. Dr. Jeffries Wyman, an anatomist, drew a life-size skeleton showing which parts of the body had been recovered and how they fit a frame the size of Parkman’s. He said that in the furnace he had found bones from the head, neck, face, and feet, and he used actual bone fragments to demonstrate how they fit together.

Drs. Winslow Lewis and George Gay both helped to clarify the medical issues involved. Lewis, who was a former student of the defendant’s, used Wyman’s anatomical drawing to demonstrate the body’s various parts, how they fit together, and how they had been affected by the attack. He said that there was an opening in the thorax region that might be a stab wound, but on cross-examination he admitted that he could not be certain.

By the third day, it was clear that the prosecution was relying heavily on scientific medical testimony, which was a boon for American medical jurisprudence. First, Dr. Oliver Wendell Holmes, dean of the Medical College, took the stand and said that someone with knowledge of human anatomy and dissection had done the dismembering. He also explained that a wound between the ribs would not necessarily produce a lot of blood, and that the remains were “not dissimilar” to Parkman’s build—a careful sort of statement that would set a tradition followed even to the present day.

Then Dr. Nathan Keep, Parkman’s dentist, insisted that the jawbone found in the furnace with the false teeth was in fact that of George Parkman. He recognized his own handiwork, and while the gold fillings had melted, there were “peculiar angles and points” on the teeth that he knew well. He had made a wax mold of the man’s protruding jaw and filled it with plaster, and this he used to demonstrate how it matched the pieces of jawbone found in the furnace. Then he placed the loose teeth found in the furnace into his exhibit. It was a demonstration that initially impressed the jury, although dentists for the defense would try to undermine it.

Then came handwriting experts. Some witnesses talked about Webster’s uncharacteristic behavior after Parkman disappeared, and finally, three letters were brought into evidence that had been written to deflect the investigation away from the Medical College, and all were unsigned. One had clearly been written by an educated man, but the other two diverged from that style. A man familiar with Webster’s handwriting testified that he believed Webster had written all three letters. Even worse, Webster’s handwriting was recognized on the face of one of Parkman’s loan notices, reading “
PAID
.”

Sohier produced twenty-three character witnesses, and then brought out medical experts who insisted it was difficult to definitively identify these remains, or to say how the person had met his end. Dr. Willard Morton, a famous dentist around town, said there was nothing in the jawbone found in the furnace that would mark individual identification. Lots of people had protruding jaws. He produced a few false teeth of his own making that fit into the mold made by Dr. Keep. Once again, the jury members nodded, proving that it was a strong moment for the defense.

To round out the proceedings, Sohier said that the prosecution had to prove that the remains were those of Parkman, Parkman had been murdered, and Webster had not only done the deed but had exercised planning and malice. Clifford responded by reminding the jury of the strong medical testimony. He thought there could be no reasonable doubt that Parkman was dead and that he’d been located in pieces inside Webster’s lab.

While this case marks a first for dental testimony, which presumably improved over the years, it’s also notable for certain unusual procedures. Three of the doctors who had testified about medical facts for the prosecution also came in for the defense. Dr. Holmes mentioned the leading authorities on quantity of blood in a human body (not himself) and said that there was no way to tell with certainty whether a human bone had been broken before being burned. It was assumed that since medical expertise relied on objective knowledge and was therefore “neutral,” it would not matter for which side they spoke, but their presence on both sides had the effect of undermining what these experts had said for the prosecution.

On the same evening that they went to deliberate, the jury had a verdict: Guilty. Webster was sentenced to be hanged. While he then admitted that he had murdered Parkman but had done so in self-defense, the sentence stood and he was hanged on August 30.

Another incident in 1850 opened up a new area for toxicology. In Bury, Belgium, Count Hippolyte de Bocarmé had married Lydie Fougnies, the daughter of a merchant, seven years earlier. However, her income was less than he had expected, so they knew their only hope lay in her father’s fortune. It went to her brother, Gustave Fougnies, a sickly man, and as long as he remained a bachelor, they were optimistic that the money would come to them once he died. But then he decided to take a bride. So Hippolyte and Lydie invited Gustave to dinner. Lydie dispensed with the servants for the evening and served the food herself.

That very evening, November 20, her brother appeared to suffer from some sort of stroke. He fell over and died. Lydie and Hippolyte did what they could to save him, drenching him in vinegar. Then they cleaned up the floor and went to bed, leaving the body lying in a bedroom. The servants, who had witnessed this scene, sent for a priest, who in turn notified a magistrate. He noticed strange marks around the mouth of the corpse, and burns in the dead man’s mouth and throat. He arrested the count and countess, pending an investigation, and ordered an autopsy. Gustave’s organs were placed in jars and sent to the chemical researcher Jean Servois Stas (in some sources, Stass). He had studied in Paris under the likes of Orfila and now, at the age of thirty-seven, was a chemistry professor at the École Royale Militaire in Brussels. As a boy, he had set up his own chemistry lab in the attic of his parents’ home, even making the instruments himself, and they were surprisingly precise.

While the victim appeared to have swallowed some kind of agent that burned, it was not clear exactly what this substance was. Given the use of vinegar (which he could smell), Stas believed Lydie and Hippolyte had attempted to neutralize or conceal some type of alkaloid, or vegetable-based poison. However, many chemists, including Orfila, were convinced that while metallic poisons could be identified, it was not so easy with alkaloids, which included morphine, nicotine, and strychnine. In fact, it seemed quite impossible, because tests used to detect poison destroyed the very substance being tested. But Stas was certain there was a way to isolate and test for any substance, so he worked on the problem for three months, dividing the victim’s bodily tissues into several groups for different types of analysis, including smell and taste. Finally, using ether as a solvent, which he then evaporated to isolate the questioned substance, he found the potent drugs: coniine and nicotine.

A gardener recalled how Hippolyte had worked with tobacco leaves to create a perfume, and local pharmacists acknowledged that he had asked them questions about nicotine’s toxic effect. In fact, he had practiced on animals and their corpses were available for toxicological analysis. (Stas also sacrificed several dogs to see if he got similar results.) Hippolyte’s home was thoroughly searched and the authorities found a secret lab where he did the nicotine extraction. Stas even found traces of nicotine on the scrubbed floor. It became clear by logical deduction that Hippolyte had extracted this toxin from tobacco and force-fed it to the victim. When he used vinegar to mask the smell, it had caused the burns, and this gave Hippolyte away. With Gustave’s already weak constitution, it had not been difficult, but even on a strong person, this poison could cause death within minutes, via respiratory arrest.

The couple stood trial together in 1851. With Stas’s testimony, the killer was convicted, making Stas the first person to discover poisonous vegetable extracts in the body. Lydie begged for mercy and said that her husband had forced her into helping to kill her brother. The jury acquitted her, letting her go, while they sent Hippolyte to the guillotine.

Other toxicologists then developed qualitative tests with the Stas procedure to determine the presence of various alkaloids in the obtained extract. Yet with more work, a problem was evident: false reactions. At times, an alkaloid might form in a corpse that mimicked the test reactions for vegetable alkaloids. These substances were dubbed “cadaveric alkaloids” and they showed the need for better tests, especially in court. For every stride in forensic science, there was a dogged attorney to challenge it. That dialectic, while daunting at times, offered benefits to both sides. As new sciences emerged to play a part in the courtroom, these lessons were invaluable. The embarrassment of some professionals often lay the groundwork for others to refine the methods. Eventually the courts would set guidelines and standards, but for the moment, legal science was still experimenting with its role.

* * *

Throughout Europe, liberal reforms promised by successful revolutionaries failed to take shape and several royal rulers regained their footing, but not without having to take the people’s representatives into account. Across Britain and Europe, the working classes formed unions to pressure for better wages and workplace conditions, while socialist creeds denounced private enterprise monopolies. Certain countries gained a strong and cohesive identity, and from among them different countries dominated for different reasons. Germany rose to political power in Europe just as the United States divided into North and South for a bloody four-year Civil War.

Yet science continued to prosper, including discoveries that would assist with better criminal investigation. The year 1851 has often been viewed as the real start of the age of science, when London put on a “Great Exposition of the Works of Industry of All Nations,” building the astounding seventeen-acre Crystal Palace to showcase the achievements of the Industrial Revolution. All nations were invited and more than one hundred thousand exhibits were offered, launching the first in a series of World’s Fairs that would pit nations against one another in a friendly rivalry for the largest and most awe-inspiring designs. With this kind of social and cultural encouragement, more innovations were on the way. It was considered the triumph of “the useful arts” over nature. One exhibit, the binaural stethoscope, established the principle of reading cardiac patterns, which would later influence the design of the first lie detectors. The hope for the exposition was that industrial aggression would replace military aggression, although in fact the former would feed the latter. The exhibit, and others that followed in other countries, celebrated human invention, and the crowds that arrived by rail affirmed the culture’s interest in material progress.

EMPHASIS ON EVIDENCE

In several papers, Mathieu Orfila had listed the types of insects and arthropods that visited a decomposing corpse to feed and lay eggs, adding to the work done by others a century earlier. He demonstrated the correct succession of insects to a corpse, which aided in a case two years later. A couple had moved into an apartment in Paris and decided to have it renovated. To their horror, while repairing several ill-fitting bricks on a mantel, the workmen discovered the mummified corpse of an infant lodged between the walls. That placed the couple under suspicion.

In their defense, Dr. Marcel Bergeret, from the Hôpital Civil d’Arbois, reevaluated the situation. It had been his private interest to study the changes that cadavers underwent after burial, so he was something of an expert on insects. He found that a specific type of fly, Sarcophaga carnaria, which gravitated toward dead flesh, had deposited larvae on the dead baby, and he was able to determine that the child had been born alive and full-term, as early as 1848. The next year, mites had laid eggs on the dried remains, so he concluded that the baby had been placed in the walls before the current residents had even moved in. Suspicion then fell on the previous occupants, but over the previous three years there had been four separate tenants. An investigation ensued, eliciting information from the landlady that a young woman who had lived there had appeared to be pregnant, but this landlady had never seen a child. The suspect was located and arrested, but when the infant’s remains failed to yield a cause of death, the woman escaped conviction. Bergeret published a description of the case, adding that there was an urgent need for more study of forensic entomology.