Dewitt Brown - 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

Dewitt Brown - Physician

Postby admin » October 31st, 2010, 5:14 pm

WITNESS SWORN BY THE COURT.

THE COURT: I am going to be asking you questions, Doctor, for a while. See if you can't get the jury to hear you.

DEWITT BROWN , a witness called by the court,
being duly sworn by the court, testified as follows:

DIRECT EXAMINATION,
QUESTIONS BY THE COURT

Q. What is your name?

A. Dr. DeWitt Brown.

Q. What is your profession, sir?

A. Physician, specializing in neuropsychiatry.

Q. Duly licensed, practicing physician in Marion County, Indiana?

A. I am.

Q. Since when?

A. 1941.

Q. You say you specialize in a certain field of medicine?

A. Neuropsychiatry.

Q. Before becoming a physician, did you go to any school to prepare yourself for your profession?

A. I graduated at Indiana University and subsequently from the Indiana University School of Medicine.

Q. You obtained a degree of Doctor of Medicine?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Did you serve an internship and residency anywhere?

A. I served a rotating, one year internship at Methodist Hospital. My specialty practice was two years psychiatric service in the Army Air Corps Regional Hospital in Texas and following my residency I served six months at Logansport State Hospital and three-years training at the Indiana University School of Medicine and Marion County General Hospital as a Resident in Neurology and Psychiatry.

Q. Do you belong to any Societies?

A. Marion County Medical Society, American Medical Society. I am, currently, President of the Neuro-psychiatric Association, Associate Professor, and certified by the American Board of Psychiatry since 1949 and have been one of the examiners for the past ten years.

Q. You are one of the physicians this court appointed to examine Gertrude Baniszewski, is that correct?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Did you make such examination of her, Doctor?

A. I did.

Q. Are you interested in the outcome of this case?

A. An an individual, no.

Q. Would you say from your examination of the defendant that she was sane or insane on October 26, 1965, the date alleged in the indictment the act occurred here?

A. I cannot testify as to her being insane, since, as an expert witness, this is not in my lexicon. I regard that as being judicial. In my opinion, she was not psychotic or mentally ill at that time.

Q. Do you know the legal definition of insanity, Doctor?

A. I am not completely aware of the definition in Indiana.

Q. Do you have an opinion as to her present sanity or insanity, Doctor?

A. At the time of my examination?

Q. I am talking about right now?

A. I have an opinion about the state of her mental health.

Q. What is that?

A. That she is not mentally ill.

THE COURT: Any cross examination, State of Indiana?

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

Q. When did you see her, Doctor?

A. On the 30th of March and the 1st of April, this year.

Q. On those dates, based upon your examination of Gertrude Baniszewski, are you of the opinion she knew right from wrong?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Are you of the opinion she knew right from wrong October 26, 1965?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Are you of the opinion that on the dates that you examined Gertrude Baniszewski she was able to comprehend the - nature and consequences of her acts?

A. I believe she was.

Q. And are you of the opinion that Gertrude Baniszewski was able to understand and comprehend the nature and consequence of her acts October 26, 1965?

A. I believe she was.

Q. And, sir, are you of the opinion that on the days you examined Gertrude Baniszewski she had the power to control impulses she might have had to commit the particular criminal act?

A. I can not understand such a question in a way to give a factual answer. To me, this thing is rather contradictory. If one has the power to control impulses and he knows he is wrong, he automatically would do so, if he wanted to.

Q. Would your answer be "Yes" since you have already testified she knew right from wrong?

A. Yes, she knew right from wrong.

Q. Are you of the opinion she had power to control any impulse to do any criminal act, whatever it might be, October 26, 1965?

A. In a sense - was she able to make a decision and act on her decision - yes, the answer would be yes.

Q. Alright, sir, now you - do you have an opinion as to the fact she is not mentally ill today, at the present time, is that your opinion?

A. I have not examined her since the 1st of April. She was not mentally ill then. There is no reason to believe she has become mentally ill since then.

Q. Did you find a pathological impairment in the lady's mind?

A. Yes.

Q. What did you find?

A. She has a type of emotional instability, rather a hysterical type of personality in which she used some of the ordinary mental mechanisms in an abnormal fashion. This is not the sort of thing that constitutes psychosis or what is popularly called insanity.

Q. You found no impairment of her reason or judgment?

A. Only the impaired judgment that has been part of a lifelong pattern, part of her personality. Nothing abnormal, not in terms of illness.

Q. You found no memory disability or defect?

A. Yes, there may have been. She stated - shall I go on and tell this?

Q. Well, I am more interested in your conclusions, not what she stated. What your findings were as an expert.

A. I believe she had some impaired memory for events surrounding the arrest.

Q. Alright, on what did you base that, the fact she did not tell you the whole story?

A. This was the basis of most of this opinion, since the information came from her.

Q. So that she was "vague in terms of events leading up to her arrest"?

A. Yes, sir, and following.

Q. Did she tell you her attorney, Mr. Erbecker, had told her not to tell you some of the things done before she was arrested?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Did you find any evidence Mrs. Baniszewski had ever been mentally ill in the past at any time during her life?

A. No, sir.

Q. Did you ever find she had ever been confined in any mental institution or psychiatric unit in any hospital?

A. No, sir.

Q. Did you find, Doctor, that Gertrude Baniszewski utilizes what you might term mental mechanisms of denial as a method of avoiding or postponing reality?

A. I think the mental mechanisms she uses are chiefly in an abnormal sense.

Q. Abnormal in the sense it might be a lie?

A. We all use mental mechanisms of denial. Things we don't like to think about, we avoid or sweep them under the rug.

Q. When you speak, sir, of denial of reality, are you speaking of untruth?

A. No, it is not the same. An untruth or lie is something one does consciously, aware what he is doing. One does it for a conscious purpose. A mental mechanism of denial is something one does unconsciously in the direction he is thinking.

Q. Do they know they are not telling the truth when they do that?

A. On reflection, if one can make the individual reflect, he knows it but there are things we don't allow ourselves to think about because they are too unpleasant, aid this is denial.

Q. You say she utilized that denial of participation as a method of avoiding the unpleasant reality that might come upon her?

A. Not denial in participating in things, just difficulties in her family and other problems of life.

Q. She acknowledged those?

A. She would avoid thinking about them.

Q. She acknowledged such difficulties?

A. Oh, yes.

Q. She denied participation in the crime to you?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. You stated in your report you filed with the court here on April 6 that Mrs. Baniszewski "utilizes the mental mechanism of denial as a method of avoiding or postponing unpleasant reality"?

A. That is correct.

Q. This was a method of denying or postponing what she knew was an unpleasant reality, such as she might be involved in a criminal trial?

A. I don't want to confuse the two uses for the word denial. To state - "I did not do something" is not, this is not mental mechanism of denial.

Q. What do you mean by the word denial, as you used it in your report?

A. A mental mechanism is a trick we all use. There are probably fifteen or twenty of them in which we can control things in our unconscious, give them some expression and at the same time keep repressed the things we don't want to recognize. It can either be emotions, or can be thoughts or past experiences. This term "Denial" as applied to this mental mechanism is different from denial where I state I did not do anything, in answer to a question from somebody.

Q. You are suggesting by taking the stand and denying she committed a certain act would not be involved in this?

A. No, this is not a mechanism.

Q. You found her of normal intelligence?

A. Yes.

Q. Normal memory pattern?

A. Yes.

Q. There was no bazaar behavior in past history?

A. No.

MR. NEW: That is all.

THE COURT: Gertrude Baniszewski may cross examine.

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

Q. Doctor, do you have a copy of the report you made April 1? I did not get one.

A. April 6?

Q. I thought you said April 1. May I have it? Is this a complete copy of it, Doctor?

A. That is not edited. It may have some errors in typing or spelling or punctuation.

Q. Is this the one you submitted to the court?

A. It was corrected.

Q. It is the one you submitted to Mr. New, apparently.

A. I believe it had been edited. I may need this to refer to during the testimony.

Q. I will give it back to you. I ask the court's indulgence for five minutes. This is the first time I saw this.

THE COURT: Alright, Ladies and Gentlemen of the Jury, retire to the jury room for five minutes. During the departure from the courtroom, don't talk among yourselves and don't let any one talk to you about this case or any subject connected therewith. Don't form any opinion on the case till the case is finally submitted to you.

JURY EXCUSED.

RECESS.

THE COURT: Mr. New, the witness wants to correct an answer given to you and I told him alright. Bring in the jury.

JURY PRESENT AND SEATED.

THE COURT: Doctor, was there a statement you made earlier that you wished to correct?

A. Yes, sir, I was asked if Mrs. Baniszewski had told me that her attorney had advised her not to answer all my questions or to answer questions about what had happened. I had examined three of these defendants and one of them stated that his or her attorney had given such advice but I can't swear it was Mr. Erbecker. I don't remember which one it was.

THE COURT: Alright, continue with cross examination, Mr. Erbecker.

Q. Then, Doctor, you agree with the psychiatric evaluation of Dr. Schuster then that she was vague in terms of her arrest, is that right?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Do you think that was assumed or was that real when she talked to you?

A. I don't know.

Q. How many times did you talk to her?

A. On two occasions.

Q. How long each time, Doctor?

A. The first time I spent sixty-five minutes with the prisoner and thirty-five minutes that morning examining her hospital charts and dictating. On the next occasion, I spent one hour with her.

Q. Two hours and five minutes altogether?

A. With the prisoner.

Q. She told you she had never seen anyone mistreat the victim, didn't she?

A. That is right.

Q. She told you that she had never mistreated the victim, didn't she?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Now, Doctor, what type of person would you say she is? Is she an aggressive type or is she a passive type? What kind of person would you say she is?

A. I think she has been, most of her life has been a relatively passive person. She has tended to keep her hostilities repressed.

Q. Keep hostilities repressed, did you say?

A. That is my impression.

Q. She kept them repressed. Did she ever tend to have emotional outbursts, where she would reek havoc on somebody?

A. Such people do have violent outbursts of temper sometimes.

Q. In her particular case, if the evidence indicated she perpetrated injury and mutilation to the body of the deceased for six or eight weeks prior to the deceased's death, would she keep her feelings repressed, prior hostility?

A. Not in the sense of an outburst of anger where the person has kept his feelings submerged and when things get too much he blows up as an outburst. It is not consistent with that. It could be consistent where hostility has been repressed for a period of time and is finding expression in this type of behavior.

Q. Well then, her reaction could be an expenditure of pent up emotion, could it?

A. Yes.

Q. Did she tell you she had filed an Answer in Four Paragraphs, alleging she was of unsound mind?

A. I don't know if she did in such a manner. She showed me a copy of a letter that you had written to - I think this was addressed to the Dean of the Department of Psychiatry at Indiana University, in which you stated she was of unsound mind.

Q. You saw that letter?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Did you ever see the Answer that I filed, Doctor?

A. No, sir.

Q. Well, on February 25, I think it is February 28, 1966, I filed an Answer in this court, alleging in substance she was of unsound mind, she suffered with a mental illness, that she was dominated and impelled by such psychiatric disorder she did not fully, completely understand the nature of the acts charged herein. That, in substance is what I filed. Are you familiar with that type of pleading, Doctor?

A. With the plea of irresistible impulse? Yes, sir.

Q. It is an Answer in Five Paragraphs, Doctor, on file with this court. The first paragraph is - she was of unsound mind. The second is substantially the same. The third says that - in substance it was irresistible impulse, and the fifth paragraph says she is a psychoneurotic type of personality and the like. Did you ever see this?

A. No, sir.

Q. I am handing you the Answer in Five Paragraphs. Did you ever see that before?

A. No, sir.

Q. She denied she saw anybody commit any acts on this deceased, didn't she, Doctor?

A. That is right.

Q. She denied she did it herself?

A. That is right.

Q. Now, Doctor, I will show you State's Exhibit No. 4. Did you ever see that before?

A. No, sir.

Q. Did you ever see such a horrible picture before?

A. Yes.

MR. NEW: We object.

THE COURT: Sustained. The question and the answer will go out. The jury will ignore the question and answer in arriving at a verdict in this case.

Q. Doctor, if the evidence in this case indicates the defendant performed some of these abrasions, cuts and part of that scene on there "I am a prostitute and proud of it", part of the marks on her arm and her body there, and that she acquiesced in and ordered some of the other mutilations to be committed on the body of this deceased, and that she laughed, grinned or giggled, or crocheted during the time some of this was done and this happened over a period of six to eight weeks prior to October 26, the date of the death of the girl, would State's Exhibit No. 4 indicate any evidence of sadism?

MR. NEW: We object.

THE COURT: Sustained.

Q. Did you find any evidence of sadism in this woman?

A. She gave, in her history, no reports of having done any cruel acts on anyone. So, if her statements to me were true, I would have to say I found no evidence of sadism.

Q. Did you make any tests for sadism of any kind?

A. I don't know of any.

Q. You mean there are none in existence? Is that right?

A. Only as a part of a general psychiatric examination and of ordinary psychological tests. It is possible in the course of these, sadism - if it is present - might be demonstrated.

Q. There are no tests for sadism, other than what you described?

A. None that I know of, specifically designed to detect sadism. There may be. I don't know any.

Q. Did you ever have a case involving the defense of sadism?

MR. NEW: We object.

THE COURT: Sustained.

Q. Did you ever have a case where irresistible impulse was imposed?

A. Yes.

Q. Doctor, what is your definition of masochism?

A. Masochism is a type of behavior in which one gets certain satisfaction of unconscious desires from self punishment, or tormenting oneself with either unpleasant thoughts or acts against oneself.

Q. Was there any evidence of this trait in the defendant?

MR. NEW: The State would object.

THE COURT: Objection sustained.

Q. Now, you testified that there was no evidence of any bazaar behavior, did you say that, Doctor?

A. Yes.

Q. After looking at that picture, is your answer the same?

MR. NEW: We object.

THE COURT: Objection sustained.

Q. You said that in her particular case there was a denial of reality - did you say that?

A. I don't recall I said it in such a way.

Q. What did you say on examination by Mr. New, with reference to a mental mechanism of denial?

MR. NEW: We object. The jury heard what he said.

THE COURT: Overruled.

A. Yes, we spoke at some length about mechanism of denial.

Q. Was there any evidence of mechanisms of denial in this woman?

A. Yes.

Q. What does that indicate, with reference to her having full possession of her mental faculties?

A. None. We all use mental mechanisms of denial. He stated she uses it to an unusual degree.

Q. In an unusual degree?

A. More than common, more than normal.

Q. Does it mean loss of contact with reality?

A. No.

Q. What does contact with reality mean, Doctor?

A. Contact with reality is the ability to know and to distinguish what is real from what is fantasy. The individual who has lost contact with reality may have fantasies and believe they are real. We all have fantasies and day dreams, but are able to determine which is which. One who has lost contact can't always determine this.

Q. Is mental mechanism of denial similar to contact with reality?

A. I don't think so.

Q. No?

A. Not in the sense of determining whether or not one is psychotic. In this denial mechanism, one does exclude from conscious thinking things which are too uncomfortable and in this sense there would be avoidance of reality.

Q. Well, if you lost contact with reality, can't you do that by avoidance of reality? Is that what the word means "losing contact"?

A. It is not exactly the same thing.

Q. It is not too exactly different, is it?

A. Except, one we find in a psychotic patient. Where there is simply denial mechanism, it is found more in a neurotic individual, a hysterical individual.

Q. Then what would you say is the basic difference between loss of contact with reality and denial of recall? What is the basic difference?

A. In loss of contact with reality, I think perhaps they express the distortion of reality and the denial of - in denial mechanism there is avoidance.

Q. Is it more pronounced in denial of reality than when there is acceptance of some reality, but distorting it?

A. Ask that again, please? I can't understand.

Q. In other words, is it a mental derangement more pronounced by an absolute avoidance of reality than a distortion of reality - in other words, when you deny something exists is it worse than when you distort an existing thing?

A. In terms of mental illness, no.

Q. What is the difference then?

MR. NEW: We object.

THE COURT: Objection sustained. He is arguing with the witness. Next question, please.

Q. In this particular person here, Gertrude Baniszewski, could she be a sadist and a masochist at the same time?

MR. NEW: We object.

THE COURT: Objection sustained. It is irrelevant and immaterial.

Q. Was there any evidence of sadism in your examination?

MR. NEW: We object.

THE COURT: Sustained.

Q. Was there any evidence of masochism?

MR. NEW: We object.

THE COURT: Sustained.

Q. Did you examine her for any traits along either of those lines?

MR. NEW: We object.

THE COURT: Overruled.

A. Yes, I did not directly look for sadism. I tried to assess her personality but I was primarily interested in whether or not she was mentally ill or psychotic. In addition, I tried to assess her personality to try and get some understanding of why she might have acted the way she is charged, and such assessment would certainly give some regard to the direction in which her unconscious hostile impulses were directed as part of her ordinary scheme of living, and may have been in this situation with which she is charged.

Q. You did find some unconscious hostile impulses, did you?

A. Yes.

Q. Will you please briefly elaborate on that, tell us what you mean by it?

A. Here again, we all have this. Our culture imposes demands on us, as far as our anger is concerned. We are not only not allowed to express it in privative ways, we are not allowed to recognize we have things we feel guilty about. As a result of it, all of us do repress feelings of anger and the relationships with people close to us that causes anger. How much of this hostile feeling exists in one's unconscious depends on the manner in which one is reared, how he is taught to handle his feelings and of some pertinence in her case, depends on the experiences one has in growing up, how many reasons one has had to be angry, to be hostile toward family or environment.

Q. Were you able to determine any of this from your evaluation of her?

A. Yes.

Q. What unconscious hostile impulses in those three areas you described did you find? Do you want your report?

A. No, I don't think I will need it. She has gone through several marital arrangements which had been rather an unhappy experience, from which she received an unusual amount of physical abuse. This again is her story. I can't substantiate it. She had quite a number of children who were out of hand at least. The Children, she was not able to control, the home she was not able to control, and being a rather small woman, she would not take any physical activities, in terms of disciplining these youngsters. In addition to this, her own habitual poor judgment and inadequacy led her in a situation where she would be frustrated with the resulting feelings of anger.

Q. Now, this unconscious hostile impulse you described - could that have been manifested on this deceased, as shown by State's Exhibit No. 4, is that possible?

A. It is possible.

Q. Could it have been manifested on the body of the decedent as shown by State's Exhibit No. 20?

A. It could be part of the cause of such behavior.

Q. Could it have been the cause of her perpetrating, or permitting the perpetrating of the acts on the body of the deceased, as shown by State's Exhibit No. 19?

A. Yes.

Q. Could it have been responsible, for the acts perpetrated on the body of the deceased by her or with her consent or by her orders, as shown by State's Exhibit No. 3?

A. Unconscious hostility could be part of the reason for her participation in any of these things.

Q. And if those acts - could they have extended over - these acts, which could have been a result of unconscious hostile impulses, have continued over a length of time of six to eight weeks prior to the death of the decedent, could they?

A. Yes.

Q. And if they persisted six or eight weeks prior to the death of the decedent, and ultimately led to her death, could you say she comes within the purview of that behavior known as irresistible impulse?

A. No.

Q. It could not?

A. I would not think so.

Q. There was no manifestation of that?

A. Well, if you will define irresistible impulse for me, perhaps I can answer that a bit more directly.

Q. I did not get that, Doctor?

A. If you will define your use of the term irresistible impulse, perhaps I can answer it better.

Q. Well, if the court would define irresistible impulse would that be sufficient definition for you?

A. It would be one on which I could proceed. To me, any impulse on which one acts is an irresistible impulse. This pretty much removes meaning from it.

Q. Now, Doctor, your history here indicates - your written history of April 6 indicates some interrogation of Mrs. Baniszewski with reference to her taking phenobarbital. Did she tell you she did?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Your history indicates she told you she took anywhere from six to ten tablets at a time, four times a day.

MR. NEW: The State will object.

THE COURT: Sustained.

Q. Did she tell you that?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Did she say she had also taken ephedrine?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. What kind of drug is that, if it is a drug?

A. It is a drug used in allergies to counteract a vascular phenomena that may occur such as hives, asthma, it is somewhat similar to adrenalin, in action.

Q. Did she also tell you she was taking antihistamine?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Did she tell you she was taking all these things at the same time?

A. In the same general period.

Q. Now, you corroborated that fact by talking to Dr. Lindenborg?

A. I corroborated the fact he had prescribed drugs, not that she had been taking that amount.

Q. And did he affirm the fact she had been taking phenobarbital?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. That she was - did he affirm the fact that she took one hundred tablets at a time?

A. He told me that he believed his office would supply her with phenobarbital in that approximate amount.

Q. That would make it possible for her to take the amount she claims she took?

A. I don't know. I don't know how often she would get this medicine. If she were taking the amount she said she was, it would last her only three or four days.

Q. Doctor, on April 6, 1966, the last page of your statement, did you write this "With her permission I called Dr. Lindenborg, who affirmed she had been treated with phenobarbital and it would be dispensed from his office, one hundred tablets at a time, making it possible for her to take the amount she claimed". Did you say that?

A. Yes, sir, however, in my statement that it would be possible for her to take these amounts, this would require her getting such a supply at least as frequently as every four or five days. I don't know how often she obtained them.

Q. He told you she got them one hundred tablets at a time?

A. Yes. I don't know whether it was once a week or once every two months.

Q. You don't know if it was every day?

A. I know Dr. Lindenborg would not supply it that often.

Q. You don't know if it was once a year?

A. No, I don't.

Q. Then, irrespective of your motive, you don't know if it was possible for her to take the amount she claimed?

A. No, I don't.

Q. If she took them like she said she did, and if she got the tablets, one hundred tablets, at a time, like Dr. Lindenborg said she did, and if she took them in large dosages as she said she did, would this render her in a state of mental dullness?

MR. NEW: We object.

THE COURT: Sustained.

Q. Doctor, I will ask if you did not write this in your report "if it is true, she may have been in a state of mental dullness, impairing her judgment and her memory", did you write that?

MR. NEW: We object.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. ERBECKER: I will make an Offer to Prove, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Go on.

MR. ERBECKER: The defendant offers to prove, if the doctor be permitted to answer that he would testify that on April 6, 1966 he wrote a letter to the Honorable Saul I. Rabb, Judge, Criminal Court, Division Two, City-County Building, Re: Gertrude Baniszewski, a letter in three pages. On the last page, in the second rhetorical paragraph thereof, he stated this "If it is true, she may have been in a state of mental dullness, impairing her judgment and her memory".

MR. NEW: We will renew our objection.

THE COURT: Objection sustained. Ladies and Gentlemen, you will ignore and not consider, not use that last statement made in open court in the way of an Offer to Prove. The objection has been sustained to it. It is ordered stricken from the record as far as the jury is concerned. Do not use it. You will ignore it in arriving at a verdict in this case.

Q. Doctor, what is your impression of the defendant here?

MR. NEW: We object.

THE COURT: Sustained.

Q. Doctor, on the last page of this letter, you omitted a word. Can you give me any reason for doing that?

MR. NEW: We object.

THE COURT: Objection sustained.

MR. ERBECKER: We offer to prove, Your Honor.

THE COURT: You are going to offer to prove a word is omitted?

MR. ERBECKER: No, just an Offer to Prove.

THE COURT: Overruled. Next question, please.

MR. ERBECKER: May I make a record on this, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Yes, you make a record later, in the absence of the jury.

Q. Doctor, what is the difference between -

A. May I supply that word?

Q. The court has ruled, Doctor, we can't hear it. Doctor, what is the difference between psychotic and psychoneurotic type of personality structure?

A. Psychosis is ordinarily regarded as a major mental disorder. Psychoneurosis is one of the relatively minor mental disorders. The psychotic has lost contact with reality, there is a distortion of his thinking. He may have hallucinations in which he imagines he hears voices or sees things. He may have delusions in which he has false beliefs which cannot be altered by proof. Those are major qualities of psychosis. A psychoneurotic does not have those manifestations. His symptoms are apt to be in the area of disturbed feelings, feelings of tension or nervousness or physical symptoms as a manifestation of unconscious conflicts.

Q. Would you say a psychoneurotic type of personality is indicative of mental illness?

A. This term "mental illness" is used rather loosely. If we, by mental illness, we mean psychiatric - yes, it is one of the psychiatric illnesses. However, not one of the major or serious illnesses which we call psychosis.

Q. How do you tell whether a mental illness is a major or minor illness, Doctor?

A. A major illness makes it impossible for one to function as a responsible member of a community.

Q. Would a murder, without apparent motive be evidence of a psychoneurotic type of personality structure?

MR. NEW: We object.

THE COURT: Sustained.

Q. Now, you said a psychosis could not be altered by proof?

A. No, this was a definition of a delusion and a delusion is frequently a symptom or manifestation of psychosis.

Q. A delusion that can't be altered?

A. That is right.

Q. A person who has delusions is psychotic, is that right?

A. Yes.

Q. Now, then, in this particular case, Gertrude Baniszewski denied reality when she kept denying participation, did she?

MR. NEW: We object.

THE COURT: Sustained.

Q. Now, in Gertrude Baniszewski's type, her personality as exemplified by your report, would her denial of reality be greater signs than delusions since a delusion can't be altered by proof and her denial of reality never changed in her conversation with you?

MR. NEW: We object.

THE COURT: Sustained.

Q. Did she ever change her story about her participation in this crime?

A. No.

Q. She never did?

A. Not to me.

Q. And if the evidence in this case indicates that at the very last, when she testified today, she denied participation, is that indicative to you she is suffering from a delusion that cannot be altered with proof?

MR. NEW: We object. That is a matter for the jury.

THE COURT: Overruled.

A. If you go back to my answer -

Q. I'd like to have the question read to you first.

THE REPORTER READ THE LAST QUESTION.

A. Again, if you will go back to my answer to the prosecutor's question there is a vast difference between a mental mechanism of denial she has used so much and simply denying a statement. This is an entirely different use of the word deny.

Q. Well?

A. I can lie consciouly and deny something that is so, but this is not necessarily a mental mechanism of denial. I know I am lying.

Q. Do you think she knows she is lying, is that what you mean?

A. If she is lying, I think she knows it.

Q. If she is lying, you think she knows it?

A. That is right.

Q. Is there any evidence you had, based on your evaluation and findings, that she knows she is lying?

A. In her history to me there, were perhaps a couple of times I caught her in an untruth. This was not a major part of her story.

Q. Not major?

A. No.

Q. Did you ever catch her in an untruth in a major part of her story?

A. No.

Q. Is that indicative then, if she is lying she does not know she is lying?

MR. NEW: We object. Whether he caught her or not would not be indicative.

THE COURT: Sustained.

Q. Did you have any findings, any evaluation based upon your report, your examination, your evaluation, other reports, contact with her, questions of her, that she was lying to you about anything?

A. I have no proof she was lying.

Q. You have no proof she was lying, so when she says she denied to you any participation in this crime, you have no proof she is lying to you, do you?

MR. NEW: We object.

THE COURT: Objection sustained.

Q. If she was vague in terms of events leading to her arrest, could that have been caused by her overindulgence in barbiturates?

MR. NEW: We object.

THE COURT: Sustained.

Q. What test did you give her, Doctor?

A. My examination of her consisted first of all reviewing her past hospital charts there at the Marion County General Hospital. The remainder of the examination simply was talking with her, asking her about her past history, medical history, family history and her marital and current family history and methods of meeting her responsibility. Also, of course, it consisted of asking her about the crime with which she is charged and about her behavior at that time and subsequently. The major part of my examination was simply observation of her during her answering these questions, her emotional reaction, evaluating the coherence of her thinking, the manner in which her thinking would proceed from one topic to another, whether it did, whether it was related in a coherent way or whether there was abnormal distraction or deviation. Part of this examination was reading over the daily nurses' notes and their observation of her behavior and her comments during her hospital stay and statements of other physicians at the General Hospital concerning their observation of her.

Q. What does flagellation mean, Doctor?

MR. NEW: We object.

THE COURT: Sustained.

Q. If the evidence in this case indicates that the defendant whipped the decedent on several occasions, or she permitted the whipping, would that come within the purview of flagellation?

MR. NEW: We object.

THE COURT: Sustained.

Q. After looking at all the pictures I showed you there, Doctor, and if the evidence indicates the defendant here is some way connected with the imposition of those marks, bruises, cuts, lacerations and burns over an extended period of time, could that in any way be associated with your findings here or your analysis here that the defendant had unconscious hostile impulses?

MR. NEW: We object.

THE COURT: Objection sustained.

Q. Would those pictures be indicative of sadism or masochism any way on the part of the defendant?

MR. NEW: We object.

THE COURT: Objection sustained.

Q. Doctor, basing your answer on everything you testified to here today, your report you made to the court here on April 6, the examination you made, and everything - you can't testify that this woman was sane, can you?

A. I can testify that in my opinion she is not psychotic.

Q. She is not psychotic. You can't testify she is sane though, can you?

A. Not as an expert witness because this is a judicial determination, not a medical diagnosis.

Q. Would you say that she did not suffer from any mental illness at the time this crime was committed on October 26, 1965?

A. Not in terms of psychosis or major illnesses. She has some psychoneurotic qualities in her personality.

Q. Such as emotional instability - is that one?

MR. NEW: We object.

THE COURT: Sustained.

Q. Did you say she suffered from emotional instability?

MR. NEW: We object.

THE COURT: Sustained.

Q. Does she suffer hysteria in an abnormal fashion?

MR. NEW: We object.

THE COURT: Sustained.

Q. Does she have impaired judgment?

MR. NEW: We object.

THE COURT: Sustained.

Q. Does she have impaired memory of events surrounding her arrest?

MR. NEW: We object.

THE COURT: Sustained.

Q. Doctor, you said that - at the very first in answer to someone's question - you have no interest in the outcome of this case as an individual, did you say that?

A. That is right.

Q. Why - have you an interest in the outcome of the case any other way?

A. Yes, curiosity, I read the papers the same as anybody else.

Q. Your curiosity?

A. That is right.

Q. In other words, you cannot understand what would cause a human being to treat another in this way, is that right?

MR. NEW: We object.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. ERBECKER: No further questions.

THE COURT: Any cross examination, John Stephan Baniszewski and Coy Hubbard?

MR. BOWMAN: You have never examined this boy, have you?

A. No.

MR. BOWMAN: You never examined that boy, did you?

A. No.

MR. BOWMAN: Thank you.

THE COURT: Any cross, State?

MR. NEW: No, Your Honor.

WITNESS EXCUSED.

JURY EXCUSED, AFTER BEING ADMONISHED.

RECESS.

THE COURT: Now the jury is not in the courtroom and the defendant wants to make an Offer to Prove, which I told him he could do in the absence of the jury.

MR. ERBECKER: Defendant Gertrude Baniszewski offers to prove the following if Dr. Brown would be permitted to testify. That on April 6, 1966, he wrote a letter to the Honorable Saul I. Rabb regarding Gertrude Baniszewski in accordance with a request of the court for examination of Gertrude Baniszewski and that letter consists of three pages. On the last rhetorical paragraph of the third page is the following line, "My impression of this woman is that here is an inadequate personality with a life-long history of poor adjustment and performance and that she utilizes the mental mechanism of denial as a method of avoiding or postponing unpleasant reality. Again, it is my opinion that she is of, at least, normal intelligence and that she is not and never has been psychotic".

THE COURT: Same ruling. Objection of the state sustained. Bring in the jury.
e-mail: webmaster@sylvialikens.com

Return to Baniszewski Trial Transcript

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Yahoo [Bot] and 3 guests

cron