Ronald Hull - Physician

For Viewing Only
Forum rules
Since some of the different parts of the trial transcript are extremely large, posting has been disabled in them. Use the Baniszewski Trial Discussions for postable topics.
 
Posts: 139  Images: 550  Joined: August 8th, 2010, 7:35 am
Location: Springfield, Illinois

Ronald Hull - Physician

Postby admin » October 31st, 2010, 5:12 pm

JURY PRESENT AND SEATED.

WITNESS SWORN BY THE COURT.

RONALD HULL , a witness called by the Court,
being duly sworn by the court, testified as follows:

DIRECT EXAMINATION,
QUESTIONS BY THE COURT

Q. Talk loud so the jury can hear you. What is your name?

A. Dr. Ronald Hull.

Q. Are you a practicing physician here in Marion County, Indiana?

A. Yes, I am.

Q. Did you go to any school to prepare you for your profession?

A. Yes, I graduated from Indiana University School of Medicine in 1947.

Q. Did you serve any internship or residency?

A. Intern one year, five years residency training in neuropsychiatry, certified by the American Board of Neurology and Psychiatry in 1953, with private practice in that specialty since this.

Q. You are one of the physicians the court appointed to examine the defendant Gertrude Baniszewski?

A. Yes.

Q. Did you make such examination?

A. Yes.

Q. Do you have any interest in the outcome of this case?

A. No.

Q. The defendant is charged here by indictment with the offense of First Degree Murder. The alleged date is the 26th day of October 1965. Doctor, have you formed an opinion as to whether the defendant was sane or insane on or about the 26th day of October, 1965?

A. Yes, I have.

Q. What is that opinion?

A. In my opinion, she was sane at that time.

Q. Do you have an opinion, Doctor, as to whether she is sane or insane at the present time?

A. In my opinion, at the present time, she is sane.

THE COURT: Cross examination, State of Indiana?

MR. NEW: Doctor, did you find any indication she had ever been insane?

A. No, I did not.

MR. NEW: That is all.

THE COURT: Defendant Gertrude Baniszewski may cross examine.

CROSS EXAMINATION,
QUESTIONS BY MR. WILLIAM ERBECKER, ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANT,
GERTRUDE BANISZEWSKI

Q. Doctor, in your examination of this defendant, did she ever show any tendency of having unconscious hostile impulses?

A. Yes.

Q. And how many times did you examine her?

A. I believe I had at least three lengthy examinations.

Q. What is meant by the term "unconscious hostile impulses"?

A. I would define that as impulses of aggressive harmful nature, an angry nature. Being unconscious would be within a person's mind but not within their awareness.

Q. Now, Doctor, you have read Freud, have you?

A. Yes, I have.

Q. Did you read Page 569 of his book "Basic Writings of Sigmund Freud, Sexual Aberation" did you ever read that?

A. I don't recall whether I read that particular part.

Q. This particular part on sadism and masochism, did you ever read that?

A. I am not sure.

MR. NEW: We object.

THE COURT: Objection sustained. The jury will ignore the answer, if they heard it, in this case.

Q. Did you ever find evidence of sadism in this case?

MR. NEW: We object.

THE COURT: Objection sustained.

MR. ERBECKER: We would make an Offer to Prove.

THE COURT: Ladies and Gentlemen, retire to the jury room a minute. Don't forget and don't talk among yourselves and don't let anyone talk to you about this case. Don't form or express any opinion thereon till the case is finally submitted to you. Just a few minutes.

JURY EXCUSED.

THE COURT: Your Offer to Prove, please.

MR. ERBECKER: The defendant Gertrude Baniszewski offers to prove by this witness, if he were permitted to testify, to that question he would testify that he noted some evidence of sadistic tendencies, that he noted tendencies he described "tendencies to strike out at people", that that would be possible on the emotional reaction and physical reaction. That in this particular case it is possible that this woman was motivated by the desire to inflict punishment on someone because of some real or imaginary injury she was suffering from. That in answer to the hypothetical question "assuming she did inflict punishment, could it be attributable to her behavior pattern based on the fact there are sadistic tendencies in this woman here"? Answer: "Assuming that is part of the pattern, yes". That in answer to the question, "Does she have sadistic tendencies" the answer is "yes". In answer to the question, "To what degree, marked, excessive or severe", the answer was and would be, "I'd say moderate". In answer to the question, "What do you mean, moderate"?, his answer was and would be, "Let's say uncertain, it would depend on certain circumstances whether she would express these and I would say the circumstances would have to be moderately severe". In answer to the question "In this particular case would her sadistic tendencies be increased or enhanced by real or fancied wrong to someone near and dear to her"? His answer was and is, "I had no evidence there was a fancied wrong". In answer to the question, "Then it was all actuality as far as she was concerned"?, his answer was "To the best I can determine, yes". That in answer to the question "If evidence disclosed she had anxiety and deep regard for her daughters and that she had heard reports attacking the characters of her daughters' morality and she had heard reports her daughters were called prostitutes and this report had been circulating over the neighborhood and school where her daughters were, assuming that happened and assuming that information was brought home to her, would that be sufficient - basing your answer on her possessing certain sadistic tendencies - to cause her to inflict torture on someone she thought was the cause of this report being made about her daughters"? This answer was made and would be made, "I think that is probably asking more of me than I can really determine from this, as to what would be actually sufficient stress". In answer to the following questions -

MR. NEW: The State objects.

THE COURT: Overruled as to the Offer to Prove. Let him make his Offer to Prove.

MR. ERBECKER: At this time we respectfully ask the court to make the Offer to Prove, beginning with the very beginning, to preclude the possibility, in my anxiety to hurry the thing along, I may have inadvertently not followed the law.

THE COURT: State's objection sustained. Bring in the jury.

JURY PRESENT AND SEATED.

Q. Doctor, on March 16, 1966, did you testify in this court?

A. I am not sure of the exact date. I don't have it recorded.

Q. To refresh your recollection, if the court records indicate that you testified on March 16, 1966 in this cause, would you say that is wrong?

A. I would assume that is correct.

Q. You would assume that is correct? Now, did you make another report in this case, regarding Gertrude Baniszewski, on January 26, 1966?

A. Yes.

Q. Alright, your report January 26, 1966 that she - did you say in that report the review of the hospital chart gives no indication of bazaar behavior other times during her stay at the hospital?

MR. NEW: The State will object.

THE COURT: Objection sustained.

Q. On January 26, 1966, did you state in your report concerning Gertrude Baniszewski that many times the patient made reference to the fact she felt numb and tingly all over and was afraid she was going to choke, or could not breathe? Did you put that in the report?

MR. NEW: We object.

THE COURT: Sustained.

Q. On January 26, 1966, did you put in that report that the patient stated she had always been nervous, and in years past had seen a physician because of her nerves?

MR. NEW: We object.

THE COURT: Sustained.

Q. Did you put in that report that she stated she got married shortly after that and that it was an unsatisfactory marriage, characterized by multiple arguments and separation?

MR. NEW: We object.

THE COURT: Sustained. Ladies and Gentlemen, you will ignore these questions in arriving at a verdict in this case. Next question, please.

Q. Doctor, during your examination, was she obsessed by her physical symptoms?

A. Much of the time. She was not always. At various times.

Q. What do you mean by the word obsessed?

A. I would say preoccupied with them.

Q. And was she vague, in terms of events leading to her arrest?

A. Yes, in reporting them to us, to me.

Q. What do you mean - "she was vague"?

A. She would not be very specific about the events.

Q. Do you think she was feigning that vagueness or do you think it was a natural mental condition at the time?

A. I felt she was feigning.

Q. You felt she was feigning it and what give you that indication?

A. Because when the questions were repeated at various times, different answers were given.

Q. She would give different answers?

A. Different versions.

Q. Now, is she a psychoneurotic type or personality?

A. Yes.

Q. What do you mean by that?

A. This is a term we use to describe a personality that is limited in some of it's ability to cope with stresses of life, inclined to over react to situations, develop perhaps various physical symptoms or emotional reactions that are exaggerated from what we would consider an average or normal reaction.

Q. Do you think that - basing your answer on your examination - Gertrude Baniszewski has lost contact with reality?

A. No.

Q. Would you say she is a schizophrenic?

A. No.

Q. Paranoid?

A. No.

Q. Did you find symptoms of anxiety in this woman?

A. Yes.

Q. How long were your interviews, Doctor?

A. Well, each one, I believe, was in the neighborhood of an hour.

Q. What type of examination did you give, psychiatric, psychological, mental?

A. It involved a psychiatric examination primarily, also a physical examination. It would include a mental examination in the psychiatric term.

Q. What was your psychiatric diagnosis of Gertrude Baniszewski?

A. Essentially that of a neurotic personality,manifested primarily by anxiety.

Q. Did you testify on that date that Gertrude Baniszewski had some tendencies toward paranoid thinking?

A. No.

Q. You did not?

A. No.

Q. Now, Doctor, I will hand you Defendant's Exhibit "N" and particularly page 10 thereof, and ask you if that is the answer you gave to a question I propounded to you? Q. "Is she subject to paranoid thinking as a result of the diagnosis you made"? A. "I would like to make a differentiation between paranoid thinking" and delusion, delusion being false belief. She had some tendency toward paranoid thinking but not toward delusion.

Q. Did you say that?

A. Yes, I did.

Q. Then you were wrong?

A. Yes.

Q. Now, she is paranoid, is she?

A. No, not in my estimation. This is not the primary feature of her psychiatric status.

Q. Would you classify her as paranoid?

A. No, I would not.

Q. Would she come in one of the classes of paranoids, if she were subjected to paranoid thinking?

A. No, paranoid thinking is very - is a very common thing among neurotic personalities, and at times in people who are considered normal. It is not considered a highly pathological, serious reaction.

Q. Do you consider her normal?

A. No.

Q. You don't? She suffers from neurosis, does she?

A. Yes.

Q. Do you consider her sane, Doctor?

A. Yes, I do.

Q. I will show you State's Exhibit No. 3 and ask you, did ever see that before?

A. No.

Q. You did not. If the evidence indicates this is the body of the deceased girl, which is the subject matter of this case here - being a First Degree Murder charge - and the defendant participated in the infliction of these wounds, even ordered and permitted the infliction of these wounds, would that change your opinion any?

MR. NEW: We object.

THE COURT: Objection sustained.

Q. I will hand you what is State's Exhibit No. 19, which evidence indicated is the body of the deceased girl, killed on October 26, 1965. If the evidence indicates the defendant participated in these mutilations, cuts, bruises, burns, lacerations and contusions, and in fact during a six or eight week period prior to the death of that girl, she acquiesced in, indeed permitted and ordered it, would that change your opinion?

MR. NEW: We object.

THE COURT: Sustained.

Q. I hand you State's Exhibit No. 20, which is, as the evidence indicates, the body of the deceased girl, and ask you if the evidence in this case indicated that the defendant participated in the mutilation of that girl as shown by this picture and she acquiesced in, permitted, fostered, even ordered the mutilation as it appears herein, is that the state of mind and acts of a sane person?

MR. NEW: We object.

THE COURT: Sustained.

Q. I will hand you State's Exhibit No. 4, which indicates the back of the deceased girl. If the evidence in this case indicates the defendant permitted, encouraged, ordered and sanctioned the imposition of those marks and made some herself, in your opinion, if that extended over a period of six to eight weeks prior to the girl's death, is that indicative to you of an irresistible impulse to harm and mutilate that girl?

MR. NEW: We object.

THE COURT: Objection sustained.

Q. Is that indicate to you this woman is sane, as you said she was?

MR. NEW: We object.

THE COURT: Objection sustained.

Q. Doctor, what is the difference between neurosis and psychosis?

A. The terms are used to differentiate between two degrees of mental illness or psychiatric disorder. Neurosis is a milder form, psychosis is much more severe reaction. The differentiating point usually is a person's ability to perceive and react to reality in a true sense. A psychotic person does not perceive reality correctly. A neurotic person does, but reacts - over-reacts to it.

Q. What is she, a neurotic?

A. Yes, in my opinion.

Q. Did you testify on March 16, 1966 that a neurotic individual merely tends to have intense anxiety or exaggeration of feeling in reaction to things, did you say that?

A. I believe I did.

Q. Is that true?

A. Yes, that is my opinion.

Q. Is it true in this woman's case, if she is a neurotic?

A. Yes.

Q. And do you think she can pretend or simulate feelings or exaggerations or is that an honest, bona fide state of mind.

A. It can be both.

Q. It can be both? In her particular case, what do you think it was?

A. I think it probably is both.

Q. It is both. A while ago you said you thought it was feigned, didn't you? Did you say that?

A. Yes.

Q. Since she probably has both, is it possible that in the period embracing six or eight weeks prior to the death of that girl, this woman did sometimes lose contact with reality?

A. I had no evidence from my examination and history and so forth to indicate that.

Q. Looking at those pictures, would that help you any?

MR. NEW: We object.

THE COURT: Objection sustained.

Q. Did the defendant ever indicate, in your examination of her, any time that she imagined a lot of things?

A. No.

Q. Her general anxiety makeup, would you say that is real or assumed?

A. I feel that it probably represents both. At the time I examined her.

Q. Does this anxiety neurosis enter into everything this defendant comes in contact with, in your opinion?

A. Not necessarily. I really - that is a very technical question and I don't know that I could fully answer that. It would not have to.

Q. It would not have to? Then, basing your answer on the examination you made, do you think the situation has been prevalent all during her life or just the past few years, if you are able to tell?

A. You mean her nervous condition?

Q. Anxiety neurosis?

A. As best I could determine, it has been a prominent feature most of her adult life.

Q. Do you think the defendant is normal?

MR. NEW: We object.

THE COURT: Sustained.

Q. Is there a psychiatric definition of the word normal?

MR. NEW: We object.

THE COURT: Objection sustained.

Q. Can you define for the jury the word "normal"?

MR. NEW: We object.

THE COURT: Objection sustained.

Q. Now, Doctor, in your examination of this defendant, was any stress, strain, worry, anxiety and the like manifested any way to you during the examination?

MR. NEW: We object. It is repetitious.

THE COURT: Objection sustained.

Q. Was there any difference in your opinion as to her condition October 26, 1965, than the condition you found at the time of your examination?

A. Other than what would be attributed to the different circumstances that she was under, I felt her basic psychiatric condition was essentially the same.

Q. What do you mean, what could be attributed to what?

A. In October, she was living at home and when I examined her she was under charges and incarcerated.

Q. Yes, that is indicative of what now?

A. That is - I would say to her it was a stressful situation. She was quite concerned about her legal status and what was going to happen to her.

Q. In other words, there is a different type of severity, isn't there?

A. With reference to her?

Q. Anxiety?

A. Are you speaking with reference to this person?

Q. Yes, about Gertrude Baniszewski?

MR. NEW: We will object.

THE COURT: Objection sustained.

Q. Doctor, did you state on March 16, 1966, in response to the following question, the following answer? Q. "Her anxiety neurosis, as you described, would that indicate she is under emotional stress, actual or believed, or what would it indicate"? A. "It indicates a state of emotional stress, yes". Did you give that answer?

A. I believe I did.

Q. Q. "Caused by what"? A. "Well, we don't fully understand all the causes of this". Did you say that?

A. I am not sure. It sounds like what I might have said.

Q. To the following question, did you give the following answer, Q. "Could it be anxiety for her children"? A. "That could be a factor".

A. I don't remember all the details.

Q. To refresh your recollection, would you care to look at this?

MR. NEW: We object.

THE COURT: Sustained.

Q. I will hand you Defendant's Exhibit No. "E", Doctor, and ask you if on Page 15 thereof, I did not ask you the following question and you gave the following answers? Q. "Could it be anxiety for her children"? A. "That could be a factor".

MR. NEW: We object.

THE COURT: The State's objection sustained. The jury will ignore the answer in arriving - the question in arriving at a verdict in this case.

Q. Doctor, on that date, in response to the following question, did you give the following answer, Q. "Anxiety what persons thought about her daughter could be a motivating factor in anything she did"? A. "Yes". Did you say that?

MR. NEW: We object.

THE COURT: Objection sustained. The jury will ignore the question in arriving at a verdict in this case.

Q. I will ask if it is not a fact that on March 16, 1966 in response to the following question, you did give the following answer, Q. "Could she have a type of pressure that would be caused by domestic relations with her husband"? To which you gave the following answer, A. "Yes, she had considerable difficulty in this area". Did you say that?

MR. NEW: We object.

THE COURT: Objection sustained. The jury will ignore the question in arriving at a verdict in this case.

Q. Doctor, I will ask you if, on the same time, March 16, 1966, in response to the following question, you gave the following answer, Q. "Well, if it could be caused by her inability to be accepted by a man - could it be caused by that"? A. "I believe it is too complicated to make a single cause". Did you say that?

MR. NEW: We object.

THE COURT: Objection sustained. The jury will ignore that question in arriving at a verdict in this case.

Q. Doctor, I ask if on the same date in response to the following question, you gave the following answer, Q. "Well, domestic life, with reference to her relationship with her husband, could be a predominant part, could it"? A. "Yes". -

MR. NEW: We object.

THE COURT: Objection sustained. The jury will ignore the question in arriving at a verdict in this case.

Q. I will ask if on that date, March 16, I asked you the following question and you gave the following answer? Q. "Is there any evidence of sadism in this case"?, to which you gave this answer, A. "I noted some evidence of sadistic tendencies". Did you give that answer?

MR. NEW: I object.

THE COURT: Objection sustained. The jury will ignore that question in arriving at a verdict in this case.

Q. At that time, did you give the following answer in response to the following question? Q. "Describe it, will you"?, and your answer was, A. "Well, tendencies to strike out at people". Did you say that?

MR. NEW: We object.

THE COURT: Objection sustained. The jury will ignore that question in arriving at a verdict in this case.

Q. I will ask if at that time I did not ask you the following question and you gave the following answer? Q. "Physically, you mean"? To which you gave this answer, A. "Well in - that would be possible, or emotional reaction and physical reaction". Did you say that?

MR. NEW: We object.

THE COURT: Objection sustained.

Q. I will ask you, on that time, place and date, you did not give the following answer in response to the following question? Q. "In this particular case, this woman was motivated by the desire to inflict punishment on someone because of some thing real or imaginary she had suffered someway"?, and your answer was, A. "I don't know".

MR. NEW: Your Honor, the State objects to that question. We would like to be heard out of the presence of the jury.

THE COURT: Objection sustained. The jury will ignore that question in arriving at a verdict in this case.

MR. ERBECKER: In view of the court's ruling, which I abide, am I precluded from cross examining this witness?

THE COURT: You are not precluded from cross examining this witness. Make it cross examination, will you please?

Q. Did you ever testify -

MR. NEW: We object.

THE COURT: Ladies and Gentlemen, you will retire to the jury room for a few minutes. During the recess, don't talk among yourselves and don't let anyone talk to you about this case or any subject connected therewith. Don't form or express an opinion on it till it is finally submitted to you.

JURY EXCUSED.

THE COURT: Now, what is it, Mr. New?

MR. NEW: For the purpose of the record we think this has reached the point of abuse, not only of the witness, but the jury, court and all parties. Mr. Erbecker willfully, intentionally, answer by answer - every one objectionable and he knows in advance they are objectionable. He does it to incite and certainly abuse and try the patience of everybody in the courtroom, knowing it is improper. Certainly as an officer of the court, he has a responsibility to behave himself when he is trying a First Degree Murder case. To persist along these lines is improper. He knows it is improper. I would like him admonished. This could go on into the night. As I remember, this hearing lasted almost three hours. For him to sit and start down question by question and answer by answer, and do this to the jury when they have had no lunch, is improper and I think he ought to be censored out of the presence of the jury.

MR. BOWMAN: I'd like to agree and disagree with some of Mr. New's remarks. We have had no lunch and it is 1:35 P.M. by the clock in the court room and I think that is at Your Honor's insistence. I object to that. It has made me quite uncomfortable. I am sure the jury is. I don't see how they are receiving any evidence in any degree of clarity, and possibly if Mr. Erbecker's conduct is reprehensible, as Mr. New suggests, which I doubt, it might be because he is hungry too.

THE COURT: What time is your appointment this afternoon, Doctor?

A. 3:30.

THE COURT: Come back at 2:30. Bring in the jury.

JURY PRESENT AND SEATED.

THE COURT: Ladies and Gentlemen of the Jury, by agreement of counsel and with the consent of the defendants and the state, made in open court, the jury is permitted to separate. The bailiff will take you to lunch. During the recess for lunch, don't talk among yourselves and don't let anyone talk to you about this case or any subject connected therewith. Don't form or express an opinion on the case till it is finally submitted to you. Don't read any newspaper articles, or any other articles that may appear about the case. Don't watch anything or listen to anything that may be broadcast. Jury will return to the jury room at 2:30 this afternoon.

JURY EXCUSED.

THE COURT: We are in recess till 2:30 P.M. Be sure the defendants get something to eat and have them back at 2:30.

COURT ADJOURNED.

2:30 P.M. AND THE TRIAL OF THIS CAUSE WAS RESUMED.

THE COURT: Bring in the jury.

JURY PRESENT AND SEATED.

THE COURT: You may continue with cross examination, Mr. Erbecker.

Q. Doctor, do you think it is possible for anyone, including this defendant, Gertrude Baniszewski, to have an irresistible impulse to torture people?

A. Such a thing is possible, yes.

Q. And do you think it is probable in the case of the defendant here because she has sadistic tendencies?

MR. NEW: We object.

THE COURT: Objection sustained.

Q. Is there a line of demarcation, Doctor, between the neurosis and psychosis?

A. It is often difficult to make a very sharp line. We can differentiate generally between the two, although there is some overlapping, some people with very severe neurotic problems that one person might think was psychotic and vice versa. A milder psychotic condition might be interpreted by some people as neurotic. There is sort of a gray area in there.

Q. Since you said that this defendant had a tendency to paranoid thinking, would that get her close to a psychosis?

MR. NEW: We object.

THE COURT: Overruled.

Q. Can you answer the question, Doctor?

A. I am sorry. No.

Q. These anxiety symptoms you described, Doctor, were they severe or moderate?

MR. NEW: We object.

THE COURT: Overruled.

A. Moderate.

Q. Moderate. Could that result in deviant or abnormal behavior pattern with reference to her relationship with anybody?

A. I don't quite understand what you mean "deviant and abnormal".

Q. A sadistic tendency is abnormal, isn't it?

MR. NEW: We object.

THE COURT: Sustained.

Q. Is it possible in this defendant's case that her tolerance for stress and anxiety were so low, because of this anxiety neurosis and neurotic condition, her ability to control the irresistible impulse was bad or low because of her tolerance and she was not capable to act on the irresistible impulse as to the act of sadism.

MR. NEW: We object.

THE COURT: Objection sustained.

Q. Did you testify on March 16, 1966 that the defendant's condition reflected a possibility of sadism, did you?

MR. NEW: We object.

THE COURT: Objection sustained.

Q. Would you consider psychoneurosis a mental defect?

A. I would rather use the term mental disorder.

Q. Well, what is your answer then?

A. I would consider it a mental disorder.

Q. It is not a mental defect?

A. Well, the term defect is not used in our nomenclature.

Q. Using your nomenclature, is psychoneurosis a disorder?

A. Yes.

Q. Did your examination show a mental disorder in this defendant?

A. Yes.

Q. Would you say that the sadistic tendencies this woman has is a mental disorder?

MR. NEW: We object.

THE COURT: Objection sustained.

Q. Doctor, if the evidence in this case would indicate that this defendant for about six to eight weeks prior to October 26th performed mutilation on the body of the decedent, inflicted torture on her in all manners, by way of a board, by burning a single letter on her stomach, inflicting incisions on her stomach, she kicked her, beat her, threw her down steps, jumped on her, she struck her and then while she was doing that, or while that was done in this woman's presence, this defendant's presence, that she not only disclosed no remorse, compassion or anxiety over the deceased but actually laughed or enjoyed it, would that indicate characteristics of the defendant's behavior pattern, such as she was sadistic?

MR. NEW: We object.

THE COURT: Objection sustained.

Q. Doctor, while you examined the defendant, did she ever refuse to tell you anything?

A. She did not directly refuse, no. She was vague and evasive about various things.

Q. Was she indefinite about it?

A. I think vague is a better description.

Q. Did you use the word indefinite one time?

A. I may have.

Q. Did you also testify it was difficult to get her to be more specific?

MR. NEW: We object.

THE COURT: Objection sustained.

Q. Doctor, do you think this defendant is afflicted with any mental disease of any character whatever, now or at the time of the crime on October 26, 1965?

A. Yes, I characterized it as a neurotic reaction.

Q. A final question, Doctor, basing your answer on the examination you made, evaluation you made, and your testimony in the courtroom today, your seeing those pictures which were exhibits introduced in evidence, coupled with the question I attempted to ask you, and the like, and if you had known all that, would you have recommended this woman as a babysitter for anybody?

MR. NEW: We object.

THE COURT: Objection sustained. Any cross examination for Paula Marie Baniszewski?

MR. RICE: We have no questions for Dr. Hull.

THE COURT: Any questions for John Stephan Baniszewski or Coy Hubbard?

MR. BOWMAN: Doctor, does that woman, Gertrude Baniszewski, have the capacity for violent behavior?

A. In my opinion she does.

MR. BOWMAN: Nothing further.

THE COURT: Richard Hobbs, cross examination?

MR. NEDEFF: Richard Hobbs has no cross examination.

THE COURT: State?

RE-CROSS EXAMINATION,
QUESTIONS BY MR. LEROY NEW,
DEPUTY PROSECUTOR

Q. Doctor, did she know right from wrong October 26, 1965, in your opinion?

A. Yes.

Q. Did she know the nature and consequences of her acts?

A. Yes.

Q. Did she, at this time, have willpower sufficient to control any impulse she had - she may have had to commit the crime?

A. In my opinion, she did have.

MR. NEW: That is all.

MR. ERBECKER: On October 26, 1965 was there present in this woman unconscious hostile impulses?

MR. NEW: We object. It is repetitious.

THE COURT: Objection sustained.

MR. ERBECKER: Nothing more.

THE COURT: May this doctor leave?

MR. NEW: He may as far us the state is concerned.

MR. BOWMAN: No objections.

MR. ERBECKER: Yes.

WITNESS EXCUSED.

THE COURT: Does the state have anything?

MR. NEW: The State has no medical testimony, Your Honor, under the statute.
e-mail: webmaster@sylvialikens.com

Return to Baniszewski Trial Transcript

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], Seznam [Bot] and 2 guests