The killing of Dr. Parkman by Dr. Webster at Harvard's medical college is a classic murder tale - one of nineteenth-century America's most famous cases (nicely summarized in a meaty Wikipedia entry).
The high social standing of murderer and murderee propelled the case to international prominence. Harvard! It was hard for some to imagine.
But from the beginning, dark suspicions were directed at the man who discovered the crime and provided the critical evidence against Professor Webster - janitor Ephraim Littlefield.
Was Dr. Webster hanged in error?
(The article at right is from an 1896 edition of the Steubenville (Ohio) Herald; copyright expired; via NewspaperArchive)
Soon a book will retell the tale, and the janitor is the guilty man in what promises to be a deeply researched and heavily footnoted account. It is The Gentleman in the Purple Waistcoat: The Victorian Murder Case that Launched Forensic Science and Stunned Boston and the World. The authors are James & Lois Cowan, and their account was intriguing enough to secure the interest of publisher Smithsonian/HarperCollins. It comes out in 2009.
As the authors remark, they have studied the case for many years and were struck by "Littlefield’s particular veracity.... We have opted to look at the events in a new way: to examine all the intricacies for ourselves — not aided by the eager voice of the janitor. It was he, after all, who benefited from the verdict, collecting the reward offered by the missing man’s wealthy family."
Speaking for myself, I've never been one to seek out contrarians' accounts. Then I became a contrarian myself. So I'm looking forward to a book that promises to rewrite the crime encyclopedias. In the meantime, the web offers interesting tidbits about some of the authors' research discoveries and a website delving into some details of their theories.
Is there room for doubt, 160 years after the verdict? If you are a student of this crime, do you have a strong opinion? Are you amenable to an altogether new take on a very old case?
Well, I'll definitely read this book when it comes out. Admittedly, Littlefield has always struck me as a rather odd fish, (and, as I recall, Webster initially tried to accuse him of Parkman's murder.) However, speaking as a True Crime Contrarian's Contrarian, getting me to accept the notion that Webster may have been guiltless will need...one really persuasive tome.
And this is coming from someone who thinks Constance Kent, Florence Bravo, and Richard Hauptmann were innocent.
Posted by: Lisa | April 11, 2008 at 10:48 AM
I don't know too much about the Parkman case, but I do remember the janitor was over keen to help. Lisa, I'm with you re Constance, Florence and Richard!
Posted by: Fiz | April 11, 2008 at 12:48 PM
I just released an account of the Webster-Parkman case: The Unfortunate Dr. Webster. I have done a considerable amount of research on the subject. Webster was innocent, and Littlefield was the culprit who set up Webster. The book is based on fact, but I've taken liberties, writing it as a true crime novel.
The book can be ordered from http://www.FarNorthPublishing.com
Posted by: Glen Carlson | April 16, 2008 at 09:03 AM
I've just read the new book,"The Ghosts of Hopewell" and I am sorry to say it, but I found the author's arguments plus his access to FBI files very convincing and three extremely convincing facts that I never knew before. :-(
Posted by: Fiz | April 17, 2008 at 07:32 AM
So now I'm reading another, and I've swung back the other way! Is there any book about the Lindberg case that preents "just the facts"? I've only ever read the " Hauptmann was innocent" brigade and there are so many pieces of evidence that prove that he could not have been at the house - or even known that the Lindbergs would have been at that house that night. I'd like to know a lot more about the whereabouts of Isidore Fisch and his friends and contacts. Any ideas?
Posted by: Fiz | April 17, 2008 at 10:50 AM
I've been reading true crime for a long time, and thought I knew the Webster case well... I'm now realizing there are a great many students of this crime, and a surprising percentage seem to think he was framed. It will be interesting to gauge the response to this book when it comes out.
Posted by: Laura | April 21, 2008 at 01:25 PM
Hmm... I've not studied Bruno Hauptmann as much as some. I have trouble mustering sympathy or doubt considering he was caught with the goods.... but I try to be open-minded. After I get 100 votes on my Lizzie Borden poll, I'll throw up another on Hauptmann and ask for book suggestions.
Laura
Posted by: Laura | April 23, 2008 at 08:26 AM
He may have been caught with the ransom, but much was missing and he said that Fisch let it with him, wrapped up, when he went back to germany and then died of TB...
Posted by: Fiz | April 23, 2008 at 09:46 AM
I'd like to see us start a legal reversal of the decision and declare John White Webster innocent. I'm convinced he didn't do it because of the letter written by John Weeks to a New Orleans newspaper saying that he, Weeks, committed the crime. Also, Littlefield had means, motive and opportunity to murder Parkman. Littlefield probably was a body snatcher and friend of John Weeks and paid Weeks to murder Parkman. The "confession" that Webster made was written by Rev. Parker and not by Webster.
There was collusion between the Parkman family, the governor and attorney general of Mass. The Parkman family put undue pressure on Marshall Tukey to find the murderer, and Webster was the goat. Webster maintained his innocence throughout his trial.
Posted by: Grampa Joe | April 24, 2008 at 09:16 AM
Interesting.
Posted by: | August 03, 2009 at 09:49 PM