Dwight Schuster - Physician - Evidence on Insanity Plea

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

Dwight Schuster - Physician - Evidence on Insanity Plea

Postby admin » October 31st, 2010, 5:16 pm

THE COURT PRESENTS EVIDENCE OF DOCTORS ON DEFENDANT'S PLEA OF INSANITY AS FOLLOWS, TO-WIT:

DWIGHT SCHUSTER , a witness called by the Court,
being duly sworn by the Court, testified as follows:

DIRECT EXAMINATION,
QUESTIONS BY THE COURT

Q. Doctor, talk so the jury can hear you. I will be asking you the questions for a while. What is your name?

A. Dwight Schuster.

Q. What is your business or profession?

A. Physician.

Q. Are you a practicing physician, licensed to practice in Marion County, State of Indiana?

A. I am.

Q. For how long?

A. I was licensed in 1944.

Q. And before that did you go to any school to prepare yourself for your profession?

A. I did. I am a graduate of Butler University and a graduate of Indiana University School of Medicine.

Q. Did you receive any degree?

A. Degree in - A.B. Degree and a M.D. Degree.

Q. M.D. means Doctor of Medicine?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. After that, did you serve an internship or residency?

A. Internship in Jersey City and residence training in Methodist Hospital in neurology and psychiatry.

Q. Do you specialize in any particular branch of medicine?

A. Yes, sir, in nervous and mental conditions, neuropsychology.

Q. Have you held any positions in the Medical Societies, Doctor?

A. Yes, sir, I am a member of the local, state and national Medical Societies. I am President-elect of Marion County Medical Society; Alternate Delegate of the Medical Association; Fellow in the American Congress of Psychians; Fellow in the American Psychiatric Association.

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

A. I am.

Q. Did you make such examination?

A. I did.

Q. Are you interested in the outcome of this case, Doctor, do you have any interest in this case at all?

A. Just in regard to giving testimony as requested by the court.

Q. But you are not interested in the State or defendant or anybody else, but just to give testimony as the court appointed physician, correct?

A. That is correct.

Q. The defendant in this case is charged with Murder in the First Degree. The State of Indiana alleges that the date was October 26, 1965. Did you make an examination of the defendant Gertrude Baniszewski as to whether or not she was sane or insane on October 26, 1965?

A. I did.

Q. Was she sane or insane on said date?

A. Sane.

THE COURT: State of Indiana may cross examine.

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

Q. Doctor, did you make an evaluation whether Gertrude Baniszewski was sane, in your opinion, October 16, 1965?

A. Yes, sir, I did.

Q. What was your finding?

A. She was sane at that time.

Q. Do you have an opinion as to whether she was sane at the time you examined her?

A. Yes.

Q. What is that?

A. My opinion is she was sane on the several occasions I examined her, as well as before.

Q. Did you have available to you her medical history?

A. Yes, sir, I did.

Q. Did you find there had ever been any psychiatric disorder, or mental disorder on the part of the defendant Gertrude Baniszewski?

A. When you speak of psychiatric disorder that covers a wide range.

Q. Let me ask you psychosis?

A. No, sir, I don't believe she has ever been psychotic.

Q. Would you agree that, as close as lawyers and doctors can get together, the word psychotic is the same as the word insane?

A. I think in general it is a similar term.

Q. You found no history of insanity on the part of Gertrude Baniszewski in her lifetime?

A. That is right.

Q. Did you see any evidence of unusual, bazaar behavior patterns she might have, when you talked to her?

A. Would you want to clarify "unusual behavior pattern"?

Q. Anything abnormal, any bazaar behavior?

A. Not bazaar behavior. She had what is commonly termed as nervousness.

Q. Aside from that, anything further?

A. No.

Q. Did you find her of average intelligence?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Her speech was coherent and her talk cohesive?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Was she orientated as to time, place and person?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Was it your opinion she was sane at the time you talked to her?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. And was on October 26, 1965 sane?

A. Yes, sir.

MR. NEW: Nothing further.

THE COURT: Defendant Gertrude Baniszewski may cross examine the witness.

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

Q. Doctor, in your studies did you study any books by Wandt?

A. No, sir.

Q. Galton?

A. No, sir.

Q. Freud?

A. I am acquainted with Freud.

Q. Now, you testified in this court on March 16, 1966, did you?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. At that time you testified "I felt she was psychoneurotic", did you say that?

A. Yes, I said psychoneurosis.

Q. Did you also testify on that date "I think sadism is consciously controlled". You said that, didn't you?

A. I don't recall the exact words. If that is the court testimony, I will accept that.

Q. If I read it to you - would you care to see the transcript?

A. No, sir.

Q. Then, if your answer on this transcript which was signed by that young lady seated next to you, Ruth Plummer, if that answer says, "Yes, I think sadism is consciously controlled", would you say you gave that answer on that date?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. There is sadism in this case, isn't there?

A. I don't believe I made such statement.

Q. You did not say sadism was consciously controlled?

A. I said I did not believe sadism played a roll in terms of her competency or her sanity or insanity.

Q. Well then, sadism, if it is consciously controlled, is existing in this woman, isn't it?

A. I did not say that.

Q. I did not say you said that. I am asking you, sir.

A. No, sir, I don't think I found any indications in my examination of her being sadistic.

Q. Finish your answer, Doctor.

A. I said I did not find indications of sadism in my examination of Mrs. Baniszewski.

Q. Then why did you say "Yes, I think sadism is consciously controlled", Doctor?

A. This was in reply to your question in a generality about sadism.

Q. Well then, I will ask you this final question. When you gave the answer "Yes, I think sadism is consciously controlled", you meant there was no evidence of sadism in here, is that right?

A. As I indicated, you did not read your question before that. The question was in terms about sadism as a separate item, not with specific reference to Mrs. Baniszewski, as I recall it.

Q. Who made another psychiatric examination along with you, Doctor, do you know?

A. Dr. Hull and Dr. Brown and Dr. Smith.

Q. Dr. Hull, have you and Dr. Hull collaborated on your report?

A. We did on the initial report, yes.

Q. Did you on your final analysis?

A. We did not make any combined report on the second examination period.

Q. On the second one you did not? Did you make an examination of this woman, Gertrude Baniszewski, on January 26, 1966, did you?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Did she ever tell you during that examination on January 26, 1966 that she felt numb and tingly all over and she was afraid she was going to choke, or could not breathe, did she tell you that?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Did she also tell you that she had always been nervous and in years past seen physicians because of her nerves, did she tell you that?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Did she tell you many years ago she was hospitalized at a general hospital?

A. Yes, St. Francis.

Q. Did she tell you she quit school at the age of sixteen, when she was in the tenth year of school?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Did she tell you she got married shortly after that and that it was a very unsatisfactory marriage, did she tell you that?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Doctor, did she tell you the marriage was characterized by multiple arguments and separations, did she tell you that?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Did she tell you that she had one other marriage of brief duration and in recent years had a common law husband?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Did she tell you she had seven living children and a total of thirteen pregnancies, did she tell you that?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Did you make this finding yourself, Doctor "The patient was obsessed by her physical symptoms"., did you say that?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. What did you mean by that?

A. That she talked considerably about her physical status, about what - the way she felt, numb and tingly feeling and the choking sensation.

Q. How long did this interview last, Doctor? I am talking about January 26.

A. You are reading from my report and this, of course, was the result of several interviews with her. The sum total would probably be, two to three hours.

Q. Three hours. At the time you wrote this report, January 26, 1966, you had approximately three hours consultation with her?

A. I would thing so.

Q. Now, did she give a coherent story and history to you?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Then why did you say in here she was vague in terms of events leading to her arrest? Why did you say that?

A. Because she had given a coherent history, particularly in regard to her earlier life and events as she remembered them and in regard to the events leading to the arrest she was more vague about that.

Q. More vague about that. What would that indicate to you, as a psychiatrist?

A. It would indicate that because of the probable emotional relationship of events, she had more difficulty recounting the story.

Q. Would that indicate to you she lost all contact with reality?

A. No, sir.

Q. It would not?

A. Not necessarily.

Q. Could it?

A. No, as I think in terms of the report I made, I was not indicating that she was out of contact with reality.

Q. I know you have not done that, Doctor. What I am asking you, sir, is there any significance to the fact she was vague in terms of events leading up to her arrest. Would that indicate she was out of contact with reality?

A. No, sir.

Q. It would not? You found no evidence or psychomotor retardation?

A. No, sir.

Q. This was January and this crime happened October 26. Then does that show mental defect, if you can remember things that happened years ago and can't remember happenings of recent events - does that have any significance?

A. It has a significance. As I stated, the time about October 26 and thereabouts was an emotionally trying time and she was still aware of the circumstances associated with that time. Therefore, it does not have the same psychological basis an the events prior to that, events which were not as emotionally charged.

Q. You say she is aware of the events that happened at that time, is that what you said?

A. Yes, she had awareness. Perhaps she was not able to give full detail. She had awareness of events at that time.

Q. You said here "she was vague in terms of events leading to her arrest". You said that?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Alright, it does not say she was partially vague or half vague. She was vague. Are you indicating, Doctor, there was a recurrence of memory at that time?

THE COURT: May I stop proceedings a minute and the jurors and alternate jurors will retire to the jury room a minute or two? During the time you are leaving the courtroom, 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 any opinion on the case till it is finally submitted to you.

JURY EXCUSED.

THE COURT: I had to call a recess. The deputy sheriff told me the defendant Gertrude Baniszewski was ill. We will resume in a few minutes.

RECESS.

THE COURT: Tell the sheriffs to bring out the defendants. Lady Sheriff, can she proceed?

DEPUTY SHERIFF: Yes, she is feeling better.

MR. NEDEFF: I have a motion before the jury is brought in. In behalf of Richard Dean Hobbs, Richard Dean Hobbs withdraws his former special plea of insanity and suggestion of comprehension, we will withdraw that at this time.

THE COURT: Do it in writing and have him sign it and sign it along with him.

MR. NEDEFF: Your Honor, at this time defendant Richard Hobbs withdraws his written special plea of insanity.

THE COURT: Let the record show defendant Richard Hobbs withdraws his former plea of insanity, heretofore filed. Granted. Bring in the jury.

JURY PRESENT AND SEATED.

THE COURT: You may resume cross examination, Mr. Erbecker.

Q. Now, Doctor, on how many different occasions did you examine this defendant Gertrude Baniszewski?

A. All together, sir? Five times.

Q. Five times and there were three prior to January 26, 1966, were there, Doctor?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. And two subsequent to that, right?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. When were the last two?

A. March 26, 1966 and March 31, 1966.

Q. Who collaborated with you, worked with you March 26 and 31, Doctor Hull?

A. No one. Those were separate, independent. All the examinations were independent. The only time there was collaboration was the preparation of the report to the court January 26th.

Q. Now, Doctor, on February of 1966, I filed an Answer in Four Paragraphs, alleging she was of unsound mind in Paragraph One. In Paragraph Two, I alleged in substance she did not have sufficient mental capacity to know and differentiate between right and wrong; that she did not have mental capacity to form an intent to commit the crime as herein charged; that she suffered and still suffers from a mental illness that prevented her from exercising her free will and volition at the time of the circumstances alleged in the indictment filed herein; that she suffers and still suffers psychiatric disorders which prevented her from fully and completely knowing and understanding the nature and cause of the accusation now pending against her, and which now prevents her from fully and completely understanding the nature and cause of the accusation now pending against her. In Paragraph Four I alleged in substance that at the time of the circumstances alleged in the indictment, her will power was so dominated and impelled by such psychiatric disorder and disease that she did not fully, thoroughly and completely understand the nature of the acts with which she is charged, and any acts or omissions by her, if any occurred, were caused by an irresistible impulse to commit them, or an irresistible impulse to permit the continuance of said acts by others, and she had no will power to resist and overcome them, because of her mental derangement at the time and place of the crime charged. Now, sir, did your findings and your examination on the five occasions and your present evaluation support or sustain any part of the paragraphs Two, Three and Four I just read to you, sir?

A. No, sir, they did not.

Q. None at all? Were you aware of the Answer I filed at the time you made your subsequent examination, Doctor?

A. Yes, I was given a copy.

Q. Of the Answer?

A. Of what you just read.

Q. May I see it, Doctor? You are handing me what purports to be an Answer in Five Paragraphs, given you when? It had to be after the first, because I did not file it till February.

A. Yes.

Q. You did not have the benefit of it on the first?

A. No, prior to the second examination.

Q. Now then, Doctor, if evidence would show in this case that the defendant here committed some of the acta and inflicted some of the wounds, bruises, contusions, burns, cuts, abrasions and lacerations on the body of the deceased, as shown by State's Exhibit No. 20, what would your answer be - any different - with reference to sadism?

A. None.

Q. None whatsoever?

A. None.

Q. If the evidence would show these acts were continued by the defendant or that she permitted the acts to be continued over a period of six weeks prior to the decedent's death, would you still say there is no evidence of sadism in this woman?

A. I - my opinion is that this does not necessarily mean this is sadism.

Q. It don't mean it was sadism, right? And you would say there is no evidence of sadism in this woman, right?

A. I found no indication in my examination of her.

Q. Then you think that your testimony now is congruent with your statement and answer on the date of March 16, 1966, where you said "I think sadism is consciously controlled", is that right?

A. There is nothing in regard to what I have said that is out of context with that. That statement, as I stated before has to do with a general statement as to sadism.

Q. Do you think the infliction of that, as shown by this picture, or permitting that to be done, is the acts of a person who has contact with reality?

A. I think these things can occur with a person who is in contact with reality, yes.

Q. You would not agree with Dr. Kebel that it is the act of a mad man, then?

A. That is a pretty general term.

Q. You won't agree?

A. No.

Q. Doctor, I will hand you State's Exhibit No. 4 and the evidence shows, or indicates, that is the back of the deceased here. Did you ever see it before?

A. Not before today.

Q. What do you mean before today - before I showed it to you?

A. Just now.

Q. You saw it before I showed it to you?

A. Yes.

Q. Who showed it to you?

A. Mr. New.

Q. He talked about it to you?

A. He just asked me if I had seen the pictures and I said "No".

Q. Then State's Exhibit No. 4 - if the evidence shows that transpired over a given time anywhere from four to six week's prior to the death of the decedent, what would you say then? Would that alter your answer?

A. No, sir.

Q. Would you say the person who inflicted that, or permitted it to be inflicted, was a normal, sane person, would you?

A. Well, when you introduce these two words - sane is a legal term and I have testified I believe she is sane. I have not said she does not have some emotional problems, but they are not - have not rendered her mentally incompetent.

Q. If a few minutes before the girl died, evidence disclosed that this woman, this Gertrude Baniszewski, beat her and attempted to get at her and inflict more injuries, would you say she has sadistic tendencies, yes or no?

A. No.

Q. She does not? That is the act of a normal, sane person, right?

A. Those are not - those statements don't go together.

Q. What statements don't go together?

A. If a person is not sadistic it means they are normal sane persons.

Q. Do these exhibits go together with a sane person, Doctor?

A. From a legal standpoint, I have testified I believe she is sane.

Q. Do these pictures bear that story out?

A. They don't alter my opinion.

Q. I hand you State's Exhibit No. 3 and ask you to particular attention to the marks on there which were etched in partly by the defendant here. I think the first word "I" the evidence showed she did that and she either ordered or permitted the balance of it "I am a prostitute and proud of it". If that took twenty-five to thirty minutes, do you think that is the act of an ordinary, sane person, Doctor?

A. Again the word "sane" I have already referred to. I think these are indications of an emotional involvement the defendant has.

Q. Do you think the emotional involvement is such it would render her incapable of thinking rationally?

A. No, I think she knew what she was doing.

Q. Do you think she would be able to control it?

A. I think she could have.

Q. She did not want to, is that what you think?

A. Apparently.

Q. Do you think she wanted to do it? You say you think she wanted to do it?

A. I think this was an expression of her feeling that she carried out. She could have, if someone were there to restrain her any way, she could have restrained herself.

Q. Suppose the evidence shows someone was there, several people were there at the time - would that alter your opinion?

A. Evidently no one in authority, someone she respected or feared enough to not carry out these acts.

Q. In other words, she needed authority to restrain her, is that what you are getting at?

A. Yes, you mentioned the term irresistible impulse. That is what came to my mind. The test is whether or not someone was there in authority. I believe she could have resisted the impulse.

Q. Do you believe in irresistible impulse - do you believe that is possible?

A. I think there are some situations that this term is useful or true.

Q. Well, did you ever read, Weschler and Michael, on Law of Homicide?

A. No, I am not acquainted with that.

Q. Did you ever - I think you said you read Freud, did you?

A. I have read some of Freud.

Q. You are a psychiatrist?

A. Yes.

Q. Did you ever read Page 569, Basic Writings of Freud on sadism and masochism, Doctor?

A. I may have.

Q. May I show it to you, Doctor, right there - do you recognize ever having read that?

A. Yes, I think I have read it.

Q. What is the difference between sadism and masochism, Doctor?

A. Well, they are counterparts, really, they go together. Sadism is the infliction of pain and masochism is receiving of pain and the gathering of satisfaction on either side.

Q. Can a person be ambivalent, have both?

A. Yes.

Q. Do you think it is possible for a person to have both?

A. Yes.

Q. Doctor, take a look at State's Exhibit No. 19, with particular reference to the face, the whole body there. Did you ever see mutilation that complete?

A. It is pretty bad.

Q. Did you ever see one that complete?

A. Not that I recall.

Q. In your whole experience as a psychiatrist did, you ever see one as complete as State's Exhibit No. 3.

A. No.

Q. Did you ever see one as complete with reference to the back of the deceased, as State's Exhibit No. 4 shows, did you?

A. No.

Q. Did you ever see one as complete as State's Exhibit No. 20?

A. No.

Q. You never? Did you ever testify in a trial like this before, Doctor?

A. No, I don't believe I ever have.

Q. The first one. If the evidence should show this woman laughed while this was going on, what would you say? Would you say that was normal?

MR. NEW: We object.

THE COURT: Objection sustained.

Q. If the evidence in this ease, as shown by the record, indicated by the record that this woman smiled and enjoyed herself and knitted while some of these hideous things were going on, would you still say they were the acts of a sane, normal person?

MR. NEW: We object.

THE COURT: Sustained.

Q. How many different cases, Doctor, have you testified, as a court appointed attorney, in murder cases where the defense of insanity had been interposed?

A. I could not answer that spontaneously. There have been several.

Q. How many would you say? Five or six, two dozen?

A. I would think closer to two dozen than five or six.

Q. Now, there is in this record testimony of the sister of the deceased to the effect that the defendant here enjoyed these scenes, laughed at - grinned - while some of the acts were going on. Does that make you change your opinion at all with reference to the absence or presence of sadism in this defendant here?

MR. NEW: We object.

THE COURT: Sustained.

Q. Doctor, did you ever read Alfred Adler?

A. Not particularly.

Q. Sir?

A. No, I am acquainted with his work. I have not read his book.

Q. What is your definition of a masochist?

A. An individual who derives satisfaction, usually with some sex connotation, from pain being inflicted upon them.

Q. Is it true, that masochism is motivated by desire to show superiority, is that true?

A. This might be possible. It is more often referred to as an indication of feeling of inferiority and thereby might be an attempt to counteract or counterbalance that by a show of superiority.

Q. What is the compensation a person is trying to seek or is seeking when they commit acts of sadism?

MR. NEW: The State will object. The witness said there was no evidence of sadism.

THE COURT: Objection sustained.

Q. Now, using your conversation with the defendant here, did she give you her background?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. When did she first give you that?

A. During the first interview.

Q. What did she tell you, Doctor, her whole life?

A. In general, her background, matters about her father and mother and siblings.

Q. Did she give you a background of having been hospitalized any place?

A. Yes.

Q. How many places did she tell you she was hospitalized?

A. She referred especially to one time a number of years ago she was hospitalized at St. Francis Hospital for a period of two weeks.

Q. Anything else?

A. That was the only direct reference to hospitalization. She denied she had ever been hospitalized any where in a psychiatric hospital or a psychiatric unit. She had never been a patient at Marion County General Hospital prior to these recent times.

Q. Did she say anything about her married life?

A. Yes, she did.

Q. What kind of tests did you use on her, Doctor? The Rorschach Test?

A. She did have the Rorschach Test, yes.

Q. You gave it?

A. No, sir.

Q. Who did?

A. Dr. Edward Strain.

Q. Did you get the results of it?

A. I did.

Q. Did she have the Thematic Apperception Test?

A. She had - yes, a selected series of the Thematic Apperception Test.

Q. Your tests were what? Simply interviews only?

A. I test for clinical interviews and the physical studies tests which we ordered in that respect.

Q. Did she ever reveal to you any indication that she felt she was unwanted?

A. Yes, she did.

Q. Would you say she was starved for affection?

A. I think this has been an element in her life development, yes.

Q. Did she ever talk to you about discipline and control of her children, did she ever mention that?

A. Yes.

Q. What did she say about that?

MR. BOWMAN: We object.

THE COURT: Objection sustained.

Q. In your opinion, does that have any bearing on her behavior?

MR. BOWMAN: We object.

THE COURT: Objection sustained.

MR. ERBECKER: I would like to make an Offer to Prove, either in the presence of the jury or in it's absence, either one.

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

JURY EXCUSED.

THE COURT: Alright, the jury is out of the room. Make your Offer of Proof.

MR. ERBECKER: I would like to confer with the witness a minute, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Sure.

MR. ERBECKER: The defendant offers to prove by this witness, if he were permitted to testify - he would testify that the concern about the lack of control and discipline of her children was an indication of her inadequacy as a person to adjust and function to everyday life and that she longed for the attention, affection and love of her children and she was greatly concerned for and was very anxious about her inadequacy - her inability to take care of the children. Is that about right, Doctor?

A. I think so.

THE COURT: Show the objection sustained in it's entirety, the entire case. Bring in the jury.

JURY PRESENT AND SEATED.

Q. Doctor, would you say that the defendant here suffered from lack of affection from adults of the opposite sex?

A. I think this is an area throughout her life - certainly her adult life, that has been an emotional problem, lack of affection and feeling of security in relationship with meaningful adults in her life.

Q. Does that any way associate - that condition associate itself with masochism any way?

A. No, I would not connect that with masochism.

Q. You would not. Would you call her a passive, dependent person?

A. Yes, I think this would describe her.

Q. Would you say she will allow people to abuse her, if they will give her some love and affection in return?

A. Clinically this apparently was borne out in her last marriage.

Q. What do you mean by that now?

A. That she apparently did, by her statement, her story of suffering considerably from her husband, presumably in an effort to obtain some love and affection from him.

Q. And if the evidence would show that she had a common law marriage and that ended unhappily, would that enter into the picture too?

A. It enters into the picture of her as a person, yes.

Q. And if the evidence would show here that she was subjected to physical beatings at the hands of men - her husband and her common law mate, would that be indicative of the picture of her being a masochist?

A. This could have possible bearings, although on examination she denied she gained any satisfaction from that type of relationship.

Q. Irrespective what she says, if she permitted it, would that be more demonstrative of the truth, that she permitted it?

A. It might be indicative of a matter of security, that she would permit it' because of maintenance of material security.

Q. To permit beating up if she thought she would get security?

A. Yes.

Q. She would not do it because she was longing for love and affection? Is that what you mean?

A. This could enter into it.

Q. Now, you said a while ago a person could be a masochist and a sadist at the same time?

A. Yes.

Q. It could be true in this case, could it?

A. That the two are often found together in one person?

Q. Could it be true in this case, could it?

A. Yes.

Q. Did you ever study a book "Analytical Psychology" by Young?

A. No.

Q. Did you ever study Uler's "Schizophrenia"?

A. Yes.

Q. Did you ever study Watson "Behaviorisms"?

A. I have looked at it.

Q. Did you ever study "Studies of Hysteria"?

A. No.

Q. Adolph Meyer's book on Psychology?

A. I have read some of his work.

Q. Did you ever read Kraeplin on Descriptive Classifications?

A. Not directly. I have read quotes from it.

Q. Did you ever read a book by a man named Ebbing?

A. No. I am acquainted with him.

Q. Do you say then - your testimony here is patterned after those authorities, those authors of the books I read to you? Yes or no?

A. I don't know that I can answer a question like that with yes or no.

Q. You could not answer it yes or no?

A. These books are talking about general matter of psychopathology, not with any special reference to a medical, legal or forensic psychiatric case.

Q. Are you familiar with recent court cases?

A. Not necessarily.

Q. Well, are you familiar with recent court decisions of United States, Charles Freedman, December 28, 1966 - February?

A. No, sir.

Q. Are you familiar with any court cases which upheld the theory of irresistible impulse?

A. Not specific cases. I am acquainted with the concept.

Q. What concept, irresistible impulse?

A. Irresistible impulse.

Q. What is your definition of irresistible impulse?

A. An individual is unable to control his behavior because of some irresistible impulse, some irresistible feeling within him.

Q. In your opinion, would a prolonged period of behavior from six to eight weeks prior to the death of the deceased, as exemplified by those exhibits I showed you - would that indicate irresistible impulse on the part of this woman here that she could not control?

A. No, sir, not in my opinion.

Q. Not in your opinion? How many times have you been appointed in the courts of Marion County as a court appointed psychiatrist in the past three years?

A. Fifty times, I expect.

Q. You have never been called in any other county for a defendant, have you?

A. Yes, I have.

Q. How many times, fifty?

A. No, probably not.

Q. Five?

A. Five or ten.

Q. When was the last time you were called in in another county by a defendant?

A. I am sorry. I thought you said Marion County. I have seen cases. I have not always been called to testify. I have examined defendants. I was recently called about a case in Franklin that is still pending, by the defendant's lawyer.

Q. Now, Doctor, your definition or irresistible impulse don't mean that a crime must have been perpetrated in a sudden and explosive fit, does it? It means what?

THE COURT: He answered the question sir, he has give you a definition. Next question, please.

Q. Does the term irresistible impulse to you mean that the act was committed in a sudden, explosive manner?

MR. NEW: We object.

THE COURT: Sustained.

Q. Is it possible to have irresistible impulse over a period of time, from six to eight weeks?

MR. NEW: We object.

THE COURT: Sustained.

Q. Did you ever have any conversation with this defendant as to her ideas about the crime she is charged with?

A. Yes, I asked her about it. That would be her idea.

Q. When and where?

A. On several occasions during the interviews I had with her.

Q. Alright, what did she say?

A. She denied it.

MR. BOWMAN: We object.

THE COURT: Objection sustained. The answer will go out. If you heard it, you will ignore that answer in arriving at a verdict in this case.

Q. In your opinion, based on the examinations you made sometime there in January, do you think she had lost contact with reality at that time?

A. No, sir.

Q. Do you ever think she lost contact with reality?

A. No, sir.

Q. When was the last time you examined this woman?

MR. NEW: We object. He already asked that question.

THE COURT: Repetitious. Objection sustained.

Q. Basing your answer on all the examinations you gave this woman, plus your testimony this morning, plus those pictures you saw of the decedent there, would you recommend this defendant, Gertrude Baniszewski, for a baby sitters job?

MR. NEW: We object.

THE COURT: Objection sustained.

MR. ERBECKER: Nothing further.

THE COURT: Any other questions from any of the other defendants?

MR. RICE: No.

THE COURT: State?

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

Q. Mr. Erbecker asked you about the area of her being vague concerning facts leading up to the arrest. Is it a fact, Mrs. Baniszewski told you Mr. Erbecker told her not to answer certain questions about things she had done preceding her arrest?

A. That is right.

Q. Therefore, she did not answer your questions concerning certain things she had done prior to her arrest?

A. That is right.

MR. NEW: That is all.

THE COURT: Any re-cross.

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

Q. Did she tell you anything else I told her, Doctor?

A. I don't recall specifically, any specific statement, just general statements such as that.

Q. On January 26, 1966, you wrote this examination report we are talking about?

MR. NEW: We object.

THE COURT: Objection sustained.

Q. What conversation are you talking about with the defendant that Mr. New asked you about?

A. In regard to my first interview with her, January 18, 1966. I made a note that she said, "I don't know the whole story, Mr. Erbecker, does not want me to say".

Q. She don't know the whole story, Mr. Erbecker, does not want her to say. Is that what you said?

A. That is the note I made.

Q. May I see that note, Doctor?

A. Sure.

Q. Now, Doctor, I will hand you Defendant's Exhibit "M" and ask you if that is your minute sheet you made during your examination of the defendant Gertrude Baniszewski on January 18, 1966?

A. It is.

Q. In your own handwriting, sir?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. And while this was made by you, physically made by you, were you talking to the defendant, or were the notes made later?

A. No, they were made during the interview.

Q. Simultaneous to talking with her you made the notes?

A. Yes.

Q. That is - she said, "I don't know the whole story", is that what she said?

A. Yes.

Q. You wrote it all down?

A. Yes.

MR. NEW: We object.

THE COURT: Sustained.

Q. How much time elapsed from the time Gertrude Baniszewski said "I don't know the whole story" till you wrote that down?

A. I would not be able to say exactly, certainly within a matter of a minute or two.

Q. A minute or two. You could not have made a mistake about that statement?

A. That is not a verbatim statement. I did not put it in quotes as if I am quoting directly.

Q. What did she say?

A. That was the context as I interpreted her statement.

Q. That then is what you mean when she was "vague in terms of events leading to her arrest"?

A. Yes.

MR. ERBECKER: No further questions.

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

Q. Doctor, did she on other occasions state that Mr. Erbecker had instructed -

MR. ERBECKER: We object.

THE COURT: Overruled.

A. In subsequent examinations the same type of question and same type of answer was received.

Q. When you say that, you are saying she said again that Mr. Erbecker told her not to answer in certain areas, is that correct?

A. Yes.

Q. She declined to answer?

A. Yes.

Q. She did have the ability to resist the impulse to tell and she did follow her attorney's advice and did not tell you what she had done?

A. Yes, sir.

MR. NEW: That is all.

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

Q. Doctor, she did not tell you I told her to say what is written on the first part of it? She did not say I told her to say this "I don't know the whole story" - she did not say that?

A. No.

MR. ERBECKER: Nothing further.

THE COURT: Any other questions?

MR. NEW: Nothing further.

THE COURT: I would like to ask an omitted question, if it is permitted. Doctor, do you have an opinion now as to the present sanity or insanity of the defendant Gertrude Baniszewski?

A. Yes, sir.

THE COURT: Would you say she is sane or insane at this time?

A. I believe she is sane.

THE COURT: Cross examination?

MR. NEW: No questions.

MR. ERBECKER: No.

THE COURT: Doctor, you take Exhibit "M" with you. If we need it we will get it photostatted get a photostatted copy of it.

WITNESS EXCUSED.

THE COURT: Remember, there has been a separation of witnesses. You are not to tell them what has been said.

MR. ERBECKER: The defendant is asking for five minute recess.

THE COURT: Let's go on with this witness.
e-mail: webmaster@sylvialikens.com

Return to Baniszewski Trial Transcript

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests

cron