Historic Testimony of Dr. Nathan Cooley Keep
The murder was committed in 1849 and the trial
and execution took place in 1850. It had everything needed to make it the trial of the century and probably was the most
sensational one up to the recent Simpson case, excluding those connected with Presidential assassinations and the Lindberg
kidnapping. While TV brought the Simpson trial into everyone’s home, the new telegraph brought the details of the murder
of Dr.
There are a number of aspects in the trial that make it of historical significance. The one of concern here is the part that
DR. NATHAN COOLEY KEEP played in the trial. Simply put, he is credited as being the first ever to identify a corpse in
a court of law by dental records. But before getting to his landmark testimony, we must start at the beginning and get to all
the dreadful details.
Dr.
Dr. John Webster, a Harvard medical graduate, was Erving Professor of Chemistry and Mineralogy
at the university. He also had inherited money from his father, but unlike Parkman, he was not a good manager of his holdings. From the beginning, his spending exceeded his income, and when his money was gone, he was constantly in debt.
And so it
may have been inevitable that Webster secured a loan from Parkman, since they were friends from the time that they were undergraduates
together at Harvard. Actually, the loan was made by several of Webster’s friends, with Parkman’s share being some $483 at the
time of his disappearance. To secure this loan, Webster put up his valuable mineral collection as collateral.
Some time
after this loan was made, Webster turned to another friend, Robert Shaw, with an appeal for more money, telling him that it was desperately
needed to save his furniture from being seized. Shaw agreed to loan him $1,200, and was given a mortgage of the same valuable
chest of minerals. So now Webster had used the same collateral to secure both loans.
He might have gotten away with this
somehow, but as it happened, Shaw was Parkman’s brother-in-law, and in the course of a discussion it became apparent to both that
Webster had no business using the minerals twice in such a way.
Dr. Parkman’s disposition when it came to money matters was not
a good one. When he learned of Webster’s double dealing, he became enraged and apparently was determined to confront him
with what he had just learned and collect his money immediately. An appointment was made for a meeting of the two men. On the appointed day, he set out to meet Dr. John Webster at his chemistry laboratory at the
A week passed with descriptions of Parkman posted and rewards offered for information of his whereabouts. Many leads were followed
with no result, and as time went on, fear built up about his well being.
Webster made no secret that the meeting took place, and he produced “paid in full” notes indicating that the Parkman loan was
paid up at that time. His laboratory was visited by the police twice and given rather quick searches. Also during that
time, the building janitor became suspicious because rooms that he normally had access to were kept locked by Dr. Webster.
This
janitor was present at the police visits, and he knew that all rooms had been looked into except Dr. Webster’s privy, a room just
above a vault that had openings only big enough to allow the tide of the Charles River to enter for cleansing action. For whatever
reason, the janitor resolved to look into this vault, and he proceeded to break through the outside wall beneath the privy.
What he saw prompted him to call the police to the site. The opening was enlarged to permit entering, and the ghastly discovery
was confirmed. A human pelvis, right thigh, and right leg were seen in the vault. The coroner was called, and a
careful search of the laboratory then resulted in the discovery of more remains. A tin box in the lab was emptied and a thorax
with left thigh stuffed in it was found. Attached to the thorax were some of the organs; some were missing.
A furnace contained
more fragments--parts of hands, numerous pieces of skull, and parts that are very important to our story here: a jawbone,
a human tooth, and three blocks of mineral (artificial) teeth.
In the next few days, a group of practicing physicians and specialists
in anatomy were called to examine the body parts. The conclusion of the examination of the remains revealed that the parts all
came from a single individual and one that fitted the physical description of Dr. Parkman. But the medical people could go no
further. Each one when asked said that if they had not heard that Dr. Parkman was missing, it would not have occurred to them
that the remains were of that person. In other words, the description of the body could have matched countless people.
In the ensuing months before the trial, Dr. Webster was tried and convicted in the newspapers around the country, in conversations
among people, and in their correspondence. In fact, incredibly, the verdict of the inquest not only ruled that a homicide
had taken place, but that Dr. Webster was the guilty party.
Julia Ward Howe, author of Battle Hymn of the Republic, wrote to
her sister Annie that “there has perhaps never been in
Since it could not be determined to a certainty how the murder took place, the indictment accused Webster of killing Parkman by several
different means: with a knife by “strike, cut, stab and thrust. . .on the left side of the breast. . .to the depth of three
inches;” a hammer “with both hands. . .on the head;” with his hands and feet “did strike, beat and kick;” and then to make sure, “by
some means, instruments, and weapons to the jurors unknown.”
To convict Webster of murder, fairly it is hoped, the prosecution
had to establish the corpus delicti and also to prove at least one part of the indictment.
The establishment of the corpus delicti
is of great interest to us here. Our English tradition as well as Massachusetts law made it very clear that a body must
be identified, for the simple reason that once a person has been hanged, the victim must not turn up later on. Testimony regarding
the commission of this crime took up eight or nine days. That of identification of the body lasted little more than half a day. Yet that half day of testimony by Dr. Nathan Cooley Keep was critical in identifying the body. Without it, conviction would
have been very difficult.
And this half day’s testimony by Dr. Keep was historic and groundbreaking. No one had given evidence of this type ever before.
Dr.
Parkman’s teeth were not in good shape. Some time before, he was scheduled to speak at the dedication of the medical building
in which he was murdered. For this event, he wished a new set of artificial teeth to be made quickly, and he went to his friend,
the most prominent dentist in
Here is Dr. Keep’s testimony, in part. It is given in Bemis3, the official "transcript," in narrative form without the questions, and is given here with the punctuation
cleaned up and with a few connecting conjunctions added. Gaps are not indicated. [Bracketed sentences] are in the Bemis
narrative.
“I am a surgeon-dentist and have been in the practice of my profession thirty years in this city. I have given
attention to both natural and artificial teeth. I knew the late Dr.
“Some mineral teeth were shown to me by Dr. Lewis on Monday, December 3, on my return to
“Dr. Parkman’s mouth was a very peculiar one, so marked in respect to its shape and the relation
of the upper and lower jaws, that the impression of it was very distinct with great exactness. The receding of the upper jaw
and the projection of the lower one were strongly marked showing an unusual length of chin, differing from others who have merely
a prominent chin.”
“I began in the usual way with taking an impression of the Doctor’s mouth--an exact facsimile of his two jaws. This was done by applying soft wax in a piece of metal to the lower jaw and then pressing it down until the wax became cold. After the impression was thus taken, it was oiled and liquid plaster poured in, which hardened in about ten minutes and produced an
exact copy of the jaw, of the surface of the jaw where the teeth were wanting, and of the teeth themselves, or any stump, where such
teeth or stump still remained. A like process gave an exact facsimile of the upper jaw.
“[The witness here produced plaster
casts of an upper and lower jaw.] This is the plaster cast of Dr. Parkman’s lower jaw, taken from life. It had in it,
as the cast shows, four natural teeth and three roots, or stumps.”
“Here is the trial plate, accompanying the plaster cast, which
was fitted into Dr. Parkman’s mouth and found to correspond exactly with the shape of his lower jaw, teeth, &c. [Here the
witness produced a thin, indented strip of copper, exactly fitting to the shape of the lower jaw as represented in the plaster cast,
with interstices for the admission of the natural teeth].”
(Likewise, he demonstrated those parts for the upper jaw, and he explained
in great detail how he completed the set of teeth.)
“I saw Dr. Parkman afterwards for the purpose of making slight alterations or repairs as were needed. The last time that I saw
him to do anything to his teeth was about two weeks previous to his disappearance.
“Dr. Lewis presented to me these three
portions of mineral teeth [taken from the furnace]. I proceeded to look for the models by which these teeth were made. On comparing the most perfect block with the model, the resemblance was so striking that I could no longer have any doubt that they
were his. [Here the witness was so overcome by his feelings as to be unable for a moment to proceed.]
“[The witness here exhibited to the jury the blocks of teeth in connection with the plaster model or cast calling attention to the coincidence between the left lower block and the model. He also pointed out the place of grinding (which he remembered as his) showing a roughening of the inside with a slight concave indentation.]
On cross examination: “In reply to your question, ‘When they first came
to my mind after his disappearance?’ I can hardly say when they were ever out of my mind. They always occurred to me whenever
I met the Doctor. They were in my mind when Dr. Lewis first showed the teeth to me; and I immediately said, ‘Dr. Parkman is
gone. We shall see him no more.’ [The witness and many in the audience were here affected to tears.]” (Both the defendant
and victim were his friends, and he knew that he was convicting the one and would never see the other again.)
“I recognized them
at once and then went to look for the moulds. This name [of Dr. Parkman on the mould, shown to the jury] was written upon it
at the time it was made. They were kept in my cellar.”
Some of the reasons for controversy over this trial will appear
below. Sullivan, a high court
In regard to Morton’s testimony, one need
only read of the controversy over the discovery/demonstration of ether anesthesia, which clearly indicates the reasons for ill-will
between Morton and two witnesses for the prosecution--Dr. Jackson and Dr. Keep. Dr.
The jury took three hours to deliver the verdict of
guilty, and the sentence of death by hanging was pronounced some time after. Subsequently, Dr. Webster confessed to the crime,
once by proxy, and another by letter to Parkman’s brother. He was hung August 30, 1850.
There was a hue and cry soon after
the conviction that Webster had not received a fair trial, and that his sentence should be commuted. That there were
faults in the trial is apparently without question. The controversy lingers to this day. If these faults had been recognized
by the attorneys, judges, and jury, it may well be that on the evidence given, the verdict might have been Not Guilty. But as
is well known, a Not Guilty verdict is not the same as Innocent. It just means that guilt is not proved beyond a reasonable
doubt.
For those who might wish to read what is about as close as can be gotten to a transcript of the trial, the Bemis book
is available, though a bit expensive; and the best book pointing out the weak points of the trial is the Sullivan book. But one controversial part concerns us here because it has to do with the judge’s charge concerning the identification of the
body. Certainly, though, if Dr. Keep’s testimony had been found to be not conclusive, then the same could be said in countless
trials since in which bodies have been identified by their teeth.
Another cause for controversy is that the judge in his charge
changed the rules regarding corpus delicti, and his opinion in this regard has in itself made the case historic. Up to
that point, the fact of the corpus delicti had to be proved beyond the shadow of a doubt, in fact to an absolute certainty. The judge, in his charge, changed this to proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Sullivan quotes an anonymous indignant member
of the bar at that time who was very critical of the judge and concludes by saying that proof of homicide requires positive evidence
of the perpetration of the crime or the actual production of the body. (But the judge’s new standard is still that of the state
of
All of this probably has more to do with proof that a murder took place in the first
instance, but obviously the identification of the body would be an important part of this. The judge, in his charge, tells the
jury, “You are to determine, by all the testimony, whether those were the teeth of Dr. Parkman and belonged to the same body as the
other parts; and, if so, it has a strong tendency to a proof of death by violence, and then the corpus delicti is established.”
The jury apparently had the required confidence in the testimony of Dr. Keep.
The name of Dr. Nathan Cooley Keep is
found in histories of dentistry, obstetrics, anesthesiology, dental societies,
_____________________
2Ring, Malvin: Dentistry, An Illustrated History,
3Bemis,
4Sullivan, Robert: The Disappearance of Dr. Parkman, Little, Brown,
5Keep,
P.: Nathan Keep—William Morton’s Salieri?, Anaesthesia 50:233-238, 1995.
Sketches of Dr. Webster and Dr. Parkman from Trial
of Professor John W. Webster for the Murder of Doctor
Illustrations
of Dr. Parkman’s jawbone and Dr. Keep’s casts from Bemis.