Leo Gentry - Police Officer - Case in Chief Resumed

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

Leo Gentry - Police Officer - Case in Chief Resumed

Postby admin » October 31st, 2010, 6:33 pm

JURY PRESENT AND SEATED.

CASE IN CHIEF RESUMED.

POLICE OFFICER LEO GENTRY ON THE STAND.

THE COURT: Your next question, please, State of Indiana.

DIRECT EXAMINATION RESUMED,
QUESTIONS BY MR. LEROY NEW,
DEPUTY PROSECUTOR

Q. Did you talk to Paula Marie Baniszewski before you took the statement from her?

A. I did.

Q. What did you say and what did she say, if anything?

MR. ERBECKER: We object on the part of defendant Gertrude Baniszewski.

THE COURT: Objection sustained as to defendant Gertrude Baniszewski. The jury will not consider this question or answer in arriving at a verdict as to Gertrude Baniszewski.

MR. BOWMAN: We object.

THE COURT: Objection sustained as to Coy Hubbard and John Stephan Baniszewski. The jury will ignore the question and answer in arriving at a verdict as to Coy Hubbard and John Stephan Baniszewski.

A. At that time, we told Paula that the reason she was at the Juvenile Branch and that it was her right to refuse to talk to us, make any type of statement and also that she could have representation - be represented by an attorney or anyone of her choosing, and asked her at that time if she would make a statement and she said "yes".

Q. Did you reduce those particular questions and answer to writing, sir?

A. I did, sir.

Q. Was it signed by Paula Marie Baniszewski?

A. It was.

Q. Who was present at the time it was taken and signed?

A. Paula and myself and Policewoman Warner.

Q. I will hand you, sir, what has been marked State's Exhibit No. 27 and ask you to examine that and tell the jury and court whether that is the statement about which you have been testifying, that was taken October 27, 1965?

A. This is the statement, yes, sir.

MR. NEW: At this time the State offers in evidence State's Exhibit No. 27.

MR. ERBECKER: To which Gertrude Baniszewski objects.

THE COURT: Sustained as to defendant Gertrude Baniszewski.

MR. RICE: At this time, Your Honor, defendant Paula Marie Baniszewski objects to the introduction of the statement taken on the 27th of October. In the first instance, it is a violation of her constitutional rights as to search and seizure, under the 4th amendment; a violation of her rights, under the 5th amendment, of the right to be silent; a violation under the 6th amendment, of a fair trial by jury; and under the 14th, denial of due process and representation.

THE COURT: Overruled as to the defendant Paula Marie Baniszewski.

MR. BOWMAN: We object.

MR. RICE: May it please the court, I would like to have a preliminary hearing, this particular hearing out of the presence of the jury.

THE COURT: We have had one.

MR. RICE: This is a different matter that has just come to my attention as a result of the offer of the exhibit by Mr. New. I could not possibly have known it before.

THE COURT: Take your time and read it.

MR. RICE: The part to which I am concerned, and I think my client and the court would be, is the last part at the bottom of the page.

THE COURT: Let's see it. Overruled. It is a matter of cross examination. The matter can be brought up on cross-examination. Any other objections, Gentlemen?

MR. BOWMAN: We object for Coy Hubbard and John Stephan Baniszewski.

THE COURT: Sustained as to said defendants, under the hearsay rule.

MR. BOWMAN: We further ask that there be deleted from the document any references to those two defendants for the reason it would be hearsay as to them.

MR. ERBECKER: At this time the defendant Gertrude Baniszewski respectfully moves the court to delete or have deleted any reference in State's Exhibit No. 27 to her.

THE COURT: Overruled. The jury is admonished. Show Exhibit No. 27 admitted in evidence as to defendant Paula Marie Baniszewski only. The jury and alternate jurors are admonished that you will ignore the statement, Exhibit No. 27, in arriving at a verdict as to the defendants Gertrude Baniszewski, John Stephan Baniszewski, Coy Hubbard in arriving at a verdict in this case. You will not consider same or use same any way or manner in considering the case, in voting on any verdict, considering any verdict as far as same applies to the defendant Gertrude Baniszewski, John Stephan Baniszewski and Coy Hubbard.

MR. NEW: I would like permission to read the exhibit at this time.

THE COURT: Show it is read to the jury.

WHEREUPON STATE'S EXHIBIT NO. 27 WAS ADMITTED IN EVIDENCE,
READ TO THE JURY, AND MADE A PART OF THIS RECORD AS FOLLOWS, TO-WIT:
(admitted only as to defendant Paula Marie Baniszewski)

STATE'S EXHIBIT NO. 27 ATTACHED.

INDIANAPOLIS, INDIANA.
OCTOBER 27, 1965.

Statement of Paula Marie Baniszewski, female/white/17, of 3850 East New York Street, Indianapolis, Indiana, to Policewoman Harriet Warner and Sgt. Leo Gentry, Juvenile Branch, Indianapolis Police Department, on October 27, 1965.

Q. What is your name and where do you live?

A. Paula Marie Baniszewski, 3850 East New York Street.

Q. What school do you attend and what grade are you in?

A. I go to Tech High School, in the 10th grade.

Q. Do you know why you are in the Juvenile Branch?

A. Yes, because you want to know what happened to Sylvia Likens.

Q. Will you tell us in your own words what you know about Sylvia Likens regarding the facts leading up to her death?

A. Yes, I will tell you.

Q. When did Sylvia Likens and her sister Jenny Likens, come to live with you?

A. Around July 4, 1965, both girls stayed overnight. Mr. Likens, wanted my Mom, to care for both girls, while he and his wife traveled state to state, working for fairs.

Q. Did you ever punish or strike Sylvia Marie Likens?

A. Yes, my dad gave my Mom, a mans police belt, to punish us kids with, and in three months I beat Sylvia Likens with this police belt, about twenty-five times on her but, leaving bruises, on the first of August, 1965, I broke my wrist when I hit Sylvia Likens in the jaw, leaving a bruise. I have pushed Sylvia Likens, several times down the stairs steps, I knocked her down the stairs once. I have thrown a coke bottle at Sylvia Likens, and I given her a black eye.

Q. Will you tell us where Sylvia Likens slept in your house?

A. Yes, upstairs with the girls, until this past week and a half. Sylvia Likens wet and shit on the bed, so Mom made her sleep on the pad down in the basement, and she was kept down in the basement in the daytime.

Q. Have you ever seen your mother beat upon Sylvia Likes, or punish her?

A. Yes, I have seen Mom hit Sylvia Likens, with her fist on the face, and she has thrown coke bottle at her, and I have seen my Mom beat Sylvia Likens, about ten times with a board, four times during the past week. I have seen my Mom hurt Sylvia Likens, on the arms, back, and legs, with a cigarette about fifteen times during the past week. Mom pushed Sylvia down the stair steps several times during September.

Q. Will you tell us who placed a gag in Sylvia's mouth, and who tied her up with a rope?

A. During this past week and a half, my brother Johnny Baniszewski, M/W/12, put a gag in Sylvia's mouth and tied her up about three times up stairs in the bedroom, and twice he did the same thing while she was in the basement. Johnny teased Sylvia and made fun of her. Sylvia, was tied at the wrists and ankles, sometimes with rope, sometimes with a piece of cloth.

Q. Can you tell us who burned and scratched Sylvia on her stomach?

A. I was not there when it happened, I was told that Rick Hobbs did it.

I have read the foregoing statement and it has been read to me by officer Warner, and it is the truth and I will sign the same of my own free will, and have been advised that I did not have to make a statement, and that I could have an attorney.

END STATE'S EXHIBIT NO. 27.

MR. NEW: We ask permission to have the jury view Exhibit No. 27.

THE COURT: Before you look at it, Ladies and Gentlemen of the jury and Alternate Jurors, you will ignore that statement and the reading thereof and you will not consider same, use same, in arriving at a verdict as to the defendants Gertrude Baniszewski, John Stephan Baniszewski and Coy Hubbard, and in looking at that exhibit, as it is passed to you, do not use same or consider same in arriving at a verdict as to defendant Gertrude Baniszewski, John Stephan Baniszewski and Coy Hubbard and you will ignore same in arriving at a verdict as to those defendants - again, Gertrude Baniszewski, John Stephan Baniszewski and Coy Hubbard. Let the record show the exhibit is passed to the jury.

STATE'S EXHIBIT NO. 27 PASSED TO THE JURY.

THE COURT: Next question.

Q. Officer, did you go to 3850 East New York Street the night of the 26th of October?

A. No, I did not.

Q. Did you see Paula Marie Baniszewski on that night?

A. Yes, I did.

Q. Where was that?

A. Indianapolis Police Department.

Q. How long would you say you observed her at that time?

A. Approximately a half hour, maybe forty-five minutes.

Q. Did you have a conversation with her?

A. I just took her name and address and her age.

Q. Anything else?

A. No other conversation.

Q. How long would you say you saw her the morning of October 27, when you took the statement?

A. That morning I probably saw her approximately two hours I would imagine.

Q. Officer, based upon your observation of Paula Marie Baniszewski on the evening of the 26th of October and the 27th in the morning, were you able to form an opinion whether she was sane or insane at that time?

A. I was.

Q. What is that opinion?

A. My opinion is she was sane.

Q. Officer, did you have occasion to see John Stephan Baniszewski, one of the defendants here, on October 27, 1965?

A. I did.

Q. Where did that take place.

A. That was in the Juvenile Branch of the Police Department.

Q. Approximately what time, sir?

A. I believe the first time he was brought in probably around 9:00 o'clock in the morning.

Q. Did you have conversation with John Stephan Baniszewski?

A. I did later, yes.

Q. Where did the conversation take place?

A. In the Juvenile Branch.

Q. In one of your questioning rooms?

A. Yes, it was.

Q. Who was present at the time you had conversation, besides you and John Stephan Baniszewski?

A. Policewoman Warner.

Q. State what you said and what he said.

MR. BOWMAN: Coy Hubbard objects to the hearsay.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. BOWMAN: John Baniszewski objects for the reasons assigned in the hearing outside the presence of the jury.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. BOWMAN: Is the court aware of the legal reason and will it take judicial knowledge of the reasons?

THE COURT: The same statements made outside the presence and hearing of the jury are adopted as if made now.

MR. ERBECKER: Defendant Gertrude Baniszewski objects.

THE COURT: Sustained as to defendant Gertrude Baniszewski. The jury will ignore the question and the answer forthcoming as to the defendant Gertrude Baniszewski and Coy Hubbard.

A. He was informed at that time why he was at the Juvenile Branch, what he was charged with and that he could refuse to make a statement, he did not have to talk to us and could have an attorney or anybody else he wished to represent him.

Q. What, if anything, did he say?

MR. ERBECKER: Same objection.

MR. BOWMAN: We object.

THE COURT: Sustained as to Coy Hubbard and Gertrude Baniszewski. Overruled as to John Stephan Baniszewski. The Jury and Alternate Jurors will ignore the question and forthcoming answer in arriving at a verdict as to defendants Gertrude Baniszewski and Coy Hubbard.

A. He gave us a statement.

Q. Was it reduced to writing?

A. It was reduced to writing.

Q. Was it signed by the defendant John Stephan Baniszewski?

A. It was.

Q. Who was present at the time he signed it?

A. Policewoman Warner, myself and Johnny Baniszewski.

Q. At that time, Officer - I will hand you what is marked for the purpose of identification as State's Exhibit No. 28, consisting of two pages. I will ask you to examine it and tell the court and jury if that is that statement you have been testifying about, that you took from defendant John Baniszewski October 27, 1965?

A. This is the statement.

MR. NEW: At this time the State offers in evidence Exhibit No. 28.

MR. BOWMAN: Coy Hubbard objects for reasons heretofore given.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. BOWMAN: John Baniszewski objects for all the reasons assigned in the absence of the jury.

THE COURT: Overruled. For the purpose of the record, all the reasons assigned in the absence of the jury are incorporated and made a part of the objection here.

MR. RICE: Defendant Paula Marie Baniszewski will object to this as hearsay to her.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. NEDEFF: Richard Hobbs objects, sir.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. ERBECKER: Defendant Gertrude Baniszewski objects to Exhibit No. 28 and moves the court to delete portions that relates to or names her.

THE COURT: Sustained, May I see it? Overruled as to the deletion. Sustained as to hearsay. Admitted in evidence. Ladies and Gentlemen, Exhibit No. 28, which is about to be read to you by the deputy prosecuting attorney is not considered or used by you and shall be ignored as to defendants Gertrude Baniszewski, Paula Marie Baniszewski, Richard Hobbs and Coy Hubbard. You will ignore same and not consider or use same in arriving at a verdict as to said defendants.

MR. BOWMAN: At this time, I object to the reading of the exhibit by Mr. New. The reading of the exhibit unduly emphasizes. The jury has been looking at exhibits as they should. If there is any insistence it also be read, I ask Your Honor to do it.

THE COURT: Overruled. Show read by the deputy prosecutor, over the objection of John Stephan Baniszewski, and again, Ladies and Gentlemen, since there has been an interruption since the last admonition, you will not consider or use, or any way consider this statement as to defendants Gertrude Baniszewski, Paula Marie Baniszewski, Richard Hobbs, and Coy Hubbard. You may read the exhibit to the jury.

WHEREUPON STATE'S EXHIBIT NO. 28 WAS ADMITTED IN EVICENCE,
READ TO THE JURY, AND MADE A PART OF THIS RECORD AS FOLLOWS, TO-WIT:
(admitted only as to defendant John Stephan Baniszewski)

STATE'S EXHIBIT NO. 28 ATTACHED.

INDIANAPOLIS, INDIANA.
OCTOBER 27, 1965.

Statement of John Stephan Baniszewski, White, Male, and 12 years of age, living at 3850 East New York Street, Indianapolis, Indiana, to Sgt. Leo Gentry in the Juvenile Branch of the Indianapolis Police Headquarters.

Q. What is your name and where do you live?

A. John Stephan Baniszewski and I live at 3850, East New York Street.

Q. What school do you attend and what grade are you in?

A. School #78 and I'm in the 7th grade.

Q. Do you know why you are in the Juvenile Branch?

A. To make a statement about Sylvia Likens and what I know.

Q. Do you know Sylvia Likens?

A. Yes, I knew her about two months.

Q. Did she live at your house with you, your mother and sisters and brothers?

A. Yes.

Q. How long did she live there?

A. Since about the first of July.

Q. Did you ever hit Sylvia Likens?

A. Yes.

Q. When did you hit her and what did you hit her with?

A. Once my mother let me take her upstairs and spank her but most of the times I used my fists.

Q. Did you do this of your own accord or did your mother tell you to hit her?

A. Some times I did this when my mother told me to and some of the times I did this for something she had done.

Q. Did you ever hit her in the head?

A. Yes.

Q. What did you use when you hit her in the head?

A. My fists.

Q. Did you ever knock her down the stairs?

A. Twice I done it, I think.

Q. Did you ever burn Sylvia Likens or did you ever see anyone else burn her?

A. Yes, I used matches and Mom used cigarettes to burn Sylvia.

Q. How many times did you burn her?

A. Oh many, I know how many.

Q. How many times did your mother burn Sylvia?

A. Oh, lots of times.

Q. Did you ever see your mother hit Sylvia and did she ever use a board to hit her with?

A. Yes, I saw her hit Sylvia and she used a board.

Q. Did you mother ever hit Sylvia in the head with a board?

A. Yes, many times.

Q. Were you present when Ricky Hobbs scratched Sylvia on the stomach and burned her?

A. No, I wasn't but he did it.

Q. How long was Sylvia kept down in the basement?

A. About two weeks.

I have read the foregoing statement and it has been read to me by Sgt. Gentry and it is the truth. I sign this statement of my own free will and have been advised that I do not have to make this statement or I may have an attorney present.

Additional statement of John Stephan Baniszewski to Sgt. Leo Gentry in the Juvenile Branch of the Indianapolis Police Headquarters.

Q. Are you the same John Stephan Baniszewski that made a statement to me and this is a continuing statement of the first?

A. Yes.

Q. In regards to the times that you said that you had hit Sylvia Likens and your mother hit her, how long ago was this?

A. The last times was on Sunday, October 24, 1965 and Monday, October 25, 1965.

Q. Did you ever put a gag in Sylvia's mouth?

A. Yes, Mom told me to so that Sylvia wouldn't make too much noise when we hit her.

Q. When was the last time that your mother hit Sylvia?

A. Yesterday in the morning and afternoon and she hit her a couple of times about a half an hour before she died.

Q. What did your mother hit her with at the time and where was Sylvia when she was hit?

A. Mother hit her in the head with a book the last time that she hit her. It was upstairs in the bedroom about 4:30 PM yesterday, October 26, 1965.

Q. What did Sylvia do after she was hit?

A. She just kept on moaning.

Q. How long after this did Sylvia die?

A. About an hour and a half.

Q. What did your mother do when she found out that Sylvia was dead?

A. She called the police.

Q. Did your mother tell you what to tell the police when they arrived?

A. Yes she told us to tell them that Sylvia had been gone for two weeks and had just returned that day.

Q. Was he gone from the house these two weeks or had Sylvia been in the house all this time?

A. She had been in the house these two weeks.

Q. Who else did you see hit or burn Sylvia during the time that she lived with you at 3850 East New York Street.

A. Yes.

Q. Who?

A. Paula, Stephanie, Marie and Shirley, my sisters and Anna Siscoe, Judy Duke, Darlene MacGuire, Mike Monroe, Ricky Hobbs, Randy Lepper and Coy Hubbard.

Q. Can you read and write?

A. Yes.

Q. Do you know that this statement may be used against you in court?

A. Yes.

Q. Did anyone threaten you or make any promises to you to induce you to make this statement?

A. No.

I have read the forgoing statement and it has been read to me by Sgt. Gentry and it is the truth. I sign this statement of my own free will and have been advised that I do not have to make this statement and that I may have an attorney present.

END STATE'S EXHIBIT NO. 28.

MR. NEW: We ask permission to have the jury view the exhibit at this time.

THE COURT: Ladies and Gentlemen of the Jury and Alternate Jurors, you have just been read State's Exhibit No. 28. You will ignore same and not consider same or use same in arriving at a verdict as to defendants Gertrude Baniszewski, Paula Marie Baniszewski, Richard Hobbs and Coy Hubbard, and in looking at that exhibit, reading it perhaps, whatever you do with it as it is passed to you, you will ignore same and not consider same or use same in arriving at a verdict as to Gertrude Baniszewski, Paula Marie Baniszewski, Richard Hobbs and Coy Hubbard. Let the record show Exhibit No. 28 passed to the jury.

STATE'S EXHIBIT NO. 28 PASSED TO THE JURY.

THE COURT: Ladies and Gentlemen of the Jury and Alternate Jurors, there has just been passed to you for your inspection, State's Exhibit No. 28. You will ignore same and not consider same, nor use same in arriving at a verdict as to defendants Gertrude Baniszewski, Paula Marie Baniszewski, Richard Hobbs and Coy Hubbard. Next question, Mr. Prosecutor.

Q. Sgt. Gentry, did you see the defendant John Stephan Baniszewski on the 26th of October?

A. I did.

Q. What time of the day or night?

A. That was in the evening, approximately a quarter of 10:00, or 9:30.

Q. Where was this?

A. In Police Headquarters.

Q. How long would you say you observed him at that time?

A. Approximately a half hour or forty-five minutes.

Q. Did you speak to him or he to you?

A. I did.

Q. What was the extent of that?

A. His name, his address and his age.

Q. At the time you took the statement which has been introduced as Exhibit No. 28, approximately how long did you observe him, how long were you with him?

A. Again, the whole time, approximately two hours.

Q. Based upon your observation of the defendant John Stephan Baniszewski on the night of the 26th and the morning of the 27th of October, 1965, were you able to form an opinion as to whether he was sane or insane at that time?

A. I was.

Q. What is that opinion?

A. That he was sane.

MR. NEW: Cross.

THE COURT: Gertrude Baniszewski may cross examine.

MR. RICE: I request you to give this opportunity to me and then Mr. Bowman, in that order.

MR. ERBECKER: I will so yield.

THE COURT: Defendant Paula Marie Baniszewski may cross examine the witness.

CROSS EXAMINATION,
QUESTIONS BY MR. GEORGE RICE, ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANT,
PAULA MARIE BANISZEWSKI

Q. Mr. Gentry, do you know how many copies were made of the statement admitted as State's Exhibit No. 27, purporting to be the voluntary statement of Paula Marie Baniszewski?

A. I believe there were five.

Q. Five copies?

A. Yes.

Q. Were the copies made in your presence?

A. Yes.

Q. All of them based on the original?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. There was no second original made?

A. There were copies, there were Photostats.

Q. Copies were Photostatted by a mechanical means?

A. Yes.

Q. Therefore, every copy is like unto every other copy?

A. I would think so, yes.

Q. Would you tell us where the signatures attesting the witnesses and the signature of Paula Marie Baniszewski, where she voluntarily subscribed to the statement, were placed on this statement?

A. They were placed at the bottom.

Q. At the bottom of the page?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. I will ask you whether or not you also put your signature at the bottom of this page?

A. Yes.

Q. Now, do you happen to know whether or not extra copies of the statement were made and placed in the office of the Marion County Coroner and set down as transcripts in the death of Sylvia?

A. I don't know.

Q. You don't know where other copies are at the present time?

A. No, sir.

Q. If I produce for your examination what purports to be a copy of the statement of Paula Marie Baniszewski, signed by you, with your signature on the side of the sheet instead of at the bottom, as you have just testified, would that surprise you?

MR. NEW: We object.

THE COURT: Objection as to that particular question sustained.

Q. I show you, Mr. Gentry, what has been marked State's Exhibit No. 27, identified by you, offered and presented in evidence. I will ask you to tell the jury and court where your signature is on that sheet of paper?

A. It is at the bottom.

Q. Where is the signature of the other attesting witness?

A. At the bottom.

Q. Where is the signature of Miss Baniszewski?

A. At the bottom.

Q. I will ask you to examine this sheet and ask you to tell the court and jury whether or not this is not a mimeographed copy of the statement?

MR. NEW: We object unless it is identified.

Q. I will show you what has been marked Defendant's Exhibit "A" on behalf of Paula Baniszewski, and ask you whether or not this is not a mimeographed or Photostatted copy of the statement you hold in your left hand, marked Exhibit No. 27 for the people?

A. This is possibly a copy of the original statement.

Q. Where is your signature on this copy?

A. This is on the copy and it would be on the side.

Q. It is not at the bottom, as in the copy you hold in your left hand?

A. No.

MR. RICE: Thank you. At this time, Your Honor, Exhibit "A" on behalf of Paula Baniszewski, will be offered.

MR. NEW: We object because the foundation has not properly been laid.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. NEW: I would like to ask a preliminary question.

THE COURT: Leave to ask a preliminary question granted.

PRELIMINARY QUESTIONS,
BY MR. LEROY NEW,
DEPUTY PROSECUTOR

Q. I hand you Exhibit "A" and ask you to observe the writing thereon to which Mr. Rice has referred, purporting to be your signature. Is that your signature?

A. I believe I signed it there due to the fact there was not room enough to sign it at the bottom.

Q. That is your signature?

A. Yes.

MR. NEW: No objection.

THE COURT: Show it in evidence.

MR. ERBECKER: Defendant Gertrude Baniszewski objects to Defendant's Exhibit "A".

THE COURT: Sustained as to said defendant.

MR. ERBECKER: Defendant Gertrude Baniszewski moves to delete from Defendant's Exhibit "A" any mention of her name, any reference to her.

THE COURT: Overruled as to deletion.

MR. NEDEFF: Same objection by Richard Hobbs, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Sustained as to the admission, overruled as to the deletion. Any other objections?

MR. BOWMAN: No.

MR. RICE: We will now offer it in evidence.

THE COURT: Show it in evidence. Want it read to the jury?

MR. RICE: I would like to read it to the jury.

THE COURT: Show Exhibit "A" is read to the jury.

MR. ERBECKER: Defendant Gertrude Baniszewski objects. It adds new emphasis to the statement, and for the further reason it is purportedly different, there being the absence of signatures.

THE COURT: Sustained as to the hearsay with regard to the defendant Gertrude Baniszewski.

MR. NEDEFF: Richard Hobbs is going to object.

THE COURT: Sustained to Richard Hobbs, as to being hearsay.

MR. RICE: We waive the opportunity to read it and will simply pass it to the jury for observation, primarily for the signatures.

MR. NEW: The State would like to have it read.

THE COURT: Let the record show Exhibit "A" shown to the jury. Before looking at it and reading it, remember you are not to consider this, use this Exhibit "A" - you are to ignore it entirely in arriving at a verdict as to the defendants Gertrude Baniszewski and Richard Hobbs

WHEREUPON DEFENDANT'S EXHIBIT "A" (being a copy of statement) WAS ADMITTED IN EVIDENCE,
SHOWN TO THE JURY, AND MADE A PART OF THIS RECORD AS FOLLOWS, TO-WIT:
(not admitted as to defendants Gertrude Baniszewski and Richard Hobbs.)

DEFENDANT'S EXHIBIT "A" ATTACHED.

THE COURT: Next question, Mr. Rice.

CROSS EXAMINATION RESUMED,
QUESTIONS BY MR. GEORGE RICE, ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANT,
PAULA MARIE BANISZEWSKI

Q. I believe, Mr. Gentry, in answer to a question propounded to you by Mr. New, you said the first time you saw Paula Marie Baniszewski was 10:00 o'clock the evening of October 26 1965.

A. That is right.

Q. At that time you stated you took her name, address and nothing more?

A. Other than that - telling her what she should be told.

Q. Did you take her in custody?

A. She was taken in custody at that time.

Q. Did you tell her the charge?

A. Being a delinquent child.

Q. What was done with her then, if you know?

A. She was taken to the Juvenile Center to stay over night.

Q. Was she lodged there overnight?

A. Yes.

Q. Not in your custody?

A. Not in my custody.

Q. When did you next see her?

A. I would say approximately 9:00 o'clock of 9:15 the next morning.

Q. Where did you see her?

A. Juvenile Branch of the Police Department.

Q. In the City-County Building downtown?

A. Yes.

Q. Who else was present at that time?

A. There was myself and Policewoman Warner and possibly Lt. Crossen. I know he was in and out.

Q. There were then at least two possibly three police officers at this time in addition to the defendant, Miss Baniszewski?

A. Yes.

Q. And all of you were together in one of the interrogation rooms of the Branch?

A. At times, yes.

Q. At times - where were you at other times?

A. In the Interrogation room right next to it. I don't recall which one it was.

Q. At the time the interrogation was carried on, were any of the police officers there in uniform?

A. To my knowledge no, there is a is a possibility the police officers who brought her from the Juvenile Center to the Branch were in uniform.

Q. Was the lady who signed her name on the document as an attesting witness, was she present?

A. She was.

Q. Was she in uniform?

A. This I do not recall.

Q. Were any of the officers wearing their weapons at this time?

A. Yes, I was wearing mine.

Q. Do you know whether or not Miss Warner was, at that time?

A. She keeps it in her handbag.

Q. She had her handbag with her?

A. I don't recall whether she had it in the room with her.

Q. When you undertake to carry on an interrogation, do you follow the procedure of interviewing officers would follow?

A. As a general rule, yes.

Q. What is the source, a list of instructions given from superior of yours?

A. No. I think each officer interrogates an individual to their own liking.

Q. So interrogation, in terms of content and procedure, depends substantially on the experience and judgment of the officer actually doing it at the given time?

A. This is probably true, yes.

Q. At the time that this investigation began, did you undertake to make any statement to Miss Baniszewski concerning certain constitutional rights which were hers, under the law?

A. You mean to Paula?

Q. Yes, Miss Paula Baniszewski, seated behind me, did you tell her at that time she might make a telephone call to some adult relative?

A. No, sir.

Q. As a result, no such telephone call was made?

A. No, sir, it was not.

Q. Did you tell her at that time she might have the services of an attorney?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Was a telephone call made for the purpose of getting an attorney by you or some other person?

A. She did not request one.

Q. Was a telephone call made to get an attorney on her behalf? Did anyone volunteer to do it?

A. Not to my knowledge, no, sir.

Q. There was no attorney present any time during the length and breadth of the investigation by three police officers?

A. No.

Q. You were aware of the age of this defendant being seventeen and little more?

A. Yes.

Q. Were you also aware she was at that time approximately six months pregnant?

A. No, sir.

Q. Were any of your colleagues aware of this?

A. No, sir, we asked her about this condition and she denied it.

Q. Why did you ask?

A. She became faint and it looked like morning sickness. I asked her at that time if she was pregnant and she said, no, she definitely was not.

Q. From her condition, you as an experienced husband and father, had the feeling she might be pregnant and she denied it?

A. I had this feeling.

Q. Did you tell her at this time she had a right to be silent, say nothing to you?

A. She was informed of this, yes.

Q. Did you tell her in the event she made a statement it might be taken down in writing and might be used for or against her?

A. Yes, she was informed of this.

Q. That any statement made could be used in a subsequent trial that might be one involving murder in the first degree?

A. No, sir.

Q. Now, with regard to the mechanics of the statement, I believe you testified earlier, under oath, to your best knowledge and belief, the statement which has been admitted as State's Exhibit No. 27 was taken down on a typewriter in the investigation room in your presence?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. The typewriter, I take it, is one customarily there and frequently used in this type of work?

A. Yes, it is.

Q. Did you do the typing?

A. No.

Q. Who did?

A. Policewoman Warner.

Q. She sat at the machine?

A. She sat at the machine.

Q. Who asked the questions?

A. Part of the time her and part of the time me.

Q. You could observe the writing of the questions on the typewriter as they were asked of Miss Baniszewski?

A. Yes.

Q. The typewriter was in your view all the time?

A. Yes.

Q. You are prepared to say also you heard all the answers that were given in response to those questions by Miss Baniszewski?

A. I was not in the room, present, at all times. I was there, I would say, approximately 60% of the time. I was there when the statement was read to her in full. I was there when she signed it and when Policewoman Warner signed it.

Q. As far as your presence during the questions and answer period is concerned, your signature attests that you were there. You were there 60% of the time and heard 60% of the questions and answers at the time they were asked?

A. I would say that, yes.

Q. Are you aware of any omissions of answers or parts of answers that were given by Miss Baniszewski to these questions when they were committed to the typewriter as her responses?

A. I don't know.

Q. As far as you know it is a correct verbatim answer, every word she said?

A. Yes.

Q. Do you know of your own knowledge whether any other officer or any other person was present at this interrogation?

A. I don't know.

Q. Do you have any reason to believe there is any inclusion that was not actually the verbatim words of Miss Baniszewski?

A. No, I have no reason to believe that.

Q. Directing your attention to Exhibit No. 27, the ninth question reads, Q. "Will you tell us who placed a gag in Sylvia's mouth, and who tied her up with a rope"?. The answer to question No. 9 reads as follows, "During this past week and a half, my brother Johnny Baniszewski, M/W/12, put a gag in Sylvia's mouth and tied her up about three times up stairs in the bedroom, and twice he did the same thing while she was in the basement. Johnny teased Sylvia and made fun of her. Sylvia, was tied at the wrists and ankles, sometimes with rope, sometimes with a piece of cloth". Did Miss Baniszewski say capital M, diagonal, W, diagonal, 12?

A. No, sir.

Q. That part of the statement, purported to be a true and correct representation of her answer to the questions, actually was not put in the statement by Miss Baniszewski, was it?

A. She was asked the boy's age.

Q. I will ask you whether or not during the course of this interrogation, the defendant Miss Baniszewski stood or sat?

A. She was sitting.

Q. Did she sit all the time?

A. To my knowledge, yes.

Q. I will ask you whether or not in the course of this interview with the police officers Miss Baniszewski might not have been standing up against the wall and whether or not in substance it was stated to her as follows, "Tell all you know about this charge, this case or a murder charge may be filed against you", did you hear anyone say that?

A. I did not.

Q. You yourself did not say this?

A. I did not say this.

Q. I will ask you whether or not any promise was made to Miss Baniszewski with regard to the statement which she made, or these answers to your questions?

A. To my knowledge, no promises were made to her.

Q. Were any threats made?

A. No, sir.

Q. No one stood her against the wall or threatened her any way, to your knowledge, while you were there?

A. They did not.

Q. Could this have happened during the 40% of the time you were not there?

A. It is possible. I was called to the telephone on two occasions and was gone approximately maybe five or ten minutes.

Q. To your knowledge, had Miss Baniszewski had food and drink for breakfast prior to this meeting with you?

A. To my knowledge, she had.

Q. Do I recall correctly you said the interview began approximately 9:00 o'clock in the morning with you and the defendant and the other two officers?

A. It was in the neighborhood or 9:00 or 9:30.

Q. Could it have been earlier, around 8:30?

A. No, because we don't go to work till 8:00. She had to be brought in from the Juvenile Center.

Q. Would you say the hour of 9:00 was a fair approximate time for beginning?

A. I would say close to 9:00.

Q. When did the interview terminate?

A. It lasted approximately forty-five minutes. It could have gone on a little longer or it could have been a little less.

Q. It could have been an hour and a half?

A. I don't think so.

Q. But an hour at least?

A. It could have. Along with the statements we made face sheets.

Q. Now, Mr. Gentry, are you telling this court and this jury a single page statement made to you by Miss Baniszewski, consisting of ten questions and ten answers, totaling something less than five hundred words, took approximately one hour to ask, record and get signed?

A. There were other papers made out.

Q. During this same time?

A. During this period, yes.

Q. What were these papers?

A. These papers are face sheets, address slips and there was a juvenile delinquency petition made out.

Q. May I ask you, Mr. Gentry, as a matter of procedure police officers use the same procedure in interrogation of people under twenty-one as you would in a reasonable, mature, intelligent person of forty-five?

A. This I don't know.

Q. Have you ever had occasion to take a statement, questions and answers, from an adult arrested on one charge or another?

A. No, sir.

Q. You have never had?

A. No.

Q. All your work is confined to juvenile?

A. Yes.

Q. Are you acquainted the procedure?

A. Yes.

Q. Do you know whether or not the procedure used varies?

A. A little more leniency is given juveniles than adults.

Q. In this particular instance, if I recall your testimony correctly, you, as the officer conducting the interrogation of a seventeen year old, six months pregnant girl, told her more or less she had a right to telephone calls, to some adult - possibly an attorney, had the right to an attorney, had the right to be silent and that in no instance was a telephone call made by you on her behalf, or anyone else on her behalf - no attorney was telephoned or summoned or appeared during this time, and in fact the statement was taken in these circumstances, and for this particular defendant was regarded as a voluntary statement with all her constitutional rights preserved, is that your position?

A. That is right, sir.

MR. RICE: I have no further question. If it please the court, at this time I should like to move the statement be suppressed with regard to the defendant Paula Marie Baniszewski for the following reasons. First, because of the denial rights of due process, under the 4th, 5th, 6th and 14th amendments. Because, in the second instance, there is apparently an obvious discrepancy between what purports to be the original statement taken by this witness, as indicated by different signatures appearing on State's Exhibit No. 27 and Defendant's Exhibit "A", and in the next instance because the statement itself, by this officer's testimony with regard to question No. 9 and the answer thereto, contains material in the statement alleged to contain nothing but verbatim answers of the defendant, when as a matter of fact in evidence, this is not true.

THE COURT: Overruled. The defendant John Stephan Baniszewski may cross examine the witness.

CROSS EXAMINATION,
QUESTIONS BY MR. FORREST BOWMAN, ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANTS,
COY HUBBARD AND JOHN STEPHAN BANISZEWSKI

Q. Did you interrogate John Stephan Baniszewski too?

A. I did.

Q. How old was he then?

A. He was twelve years of age.

Q. Did you get to him before or after his sister?

A. This would be after.

Q. About what time did you start?

A. I'd say in the neighborhood of maybe a quarter of 10 or 10:00 o'clock.

Q. What time did you get finished?

A. Approximately an hour.

Q. Approximately an hour?

A. Yes.

Q. Could it have been as much as two hours?

A. I don't believe so, sir.

Q. Did you have help?

A. I had help along with Policewoman Warner. She was there.

Q. Who?

A. Policewoman Warner.

Q. Where did this interrogation take place?

A. The Juvenile Branch.

Q. Is that the Juvenile Branch of the Indianapolis Police Department?

A. It is, sir.

Q. City-County Building?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. You saw John Baniszewski the night before, correct?

A. I did.

Q. Where did you see him?

A. It was in police headquarters.

Q. That is downtown here?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. And what part of police headquarters?

A. This is in the Homicide Office the first time.

Q. You saw him in the Homicide office?

A. Yes, he was sitting in a room there.

Q. About what time was that?

A. I would say it would be approximately 9:45 P.M.

Q. Approximately 9:45?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. That is when you first saw him?

A. That is when I first saw him.

Q. Did you have a conversation with him then?

A. Not up there, no, sir.

Q. You did not have a conversation with him at all that night?

A. I did, but it was down in the Juvenile Branch.

Q. From Homicide you took him to the Juvenile Branch?

A. Yes.

Q. What floor is the Homicide Branch?

A. Fourth floor.

Q. What floor is the Juvenile Branch on?

A. Second.

Q. You had a conversation with him in the Juvenile Branch?

A. Yes.

Q. About how long did it last?

A. A matter of a few minutes.

Q. A matter of a few minutes?

A. Yes.

Q. Then what happened, if anything?

A. He was taken, along with the others, out to the Juvenile Center.

Q. Did you take him out there?

A. I did not.

Q. You did not. Then did he come downtown the next morning?

A. He was brought downtown the next morning.

Q. What time did he get downtown to police headquarters?

A. This again, I am not sure. I would say in the neighborhood of 9:00 o'clock.

Q. In the neighborhood of 9:00, what time did you get there that morning?

A. 8:00 o'clock.

Q. You got there at 8:00?

A. Yes.

Q. He did not get there till 9:00, right?

A. I would say so.

Q. Where did you leave him from 9:00 till 9:45 or 10:00 o'clock?

A. It is in a receiving room we have in the Juvenile Branch.

Q. Was he by himself or with his family or sister or brothers?

A. Well, him being a male, he would be on one side and the females are kept on the other side.

Q. He was separated from his sisters?

A. Yes.

Q. His mother was not there, was she?

A. No, she was under arrest at that time.

Q. For what?

A. A preliminary charge of murder.

Q. A preliminary charge of murder?

A. Right, sir.

Q. Did he know that?

A. He did.

Q. Was he under arrest?

A. He was under arrest.

Q. What time did you tell him he was under arrest?

A. He was being held as a delinquent child.

Q. Do you take face sheets, complaints and such in the room - interrogation room with you?

A. Face sheets are made in the interrogation room.

Q. They are made in the interrogation room?

A. They are made from the answers that he gives.

Q. What is a face sheet?

A. I have a copy here. Do you wish to see it?

Q. Yes.

A. This is a copy.

Q. Now, is this face sheet - is that what was filled out in that interrogation room?

A. This was a copy of a face sheet that was filled out there, along with others, yes.

Q. A copy of a face sheet filled out along with others. Then did you have a delinquency complaint there?

A. The delinquency complaint is the Injury to Person.

Q. This is your delinquency complaint?

A. No, the delinquency is made up on a regular petition that goes to the court.

Q. Was that there?

A. Yes.

Q. Was that what you were filling out?

A. This was filled out.

Q. That is an affidavit form, is it?

A. It is a form of affidavit, yes.

Q. Did you sign it in there?

A. I did.

Q. Did somebody swear to your signature to it?

A. The lieutenant. He is a notary.

Q. Lieutenant, who?

A. Lt. Crossen.

Q. In the presence of John Baniszewski?

A. This I don't know, whether he was there at that time or not.

Q. Did you do all this before you started interrogating him?

A. He was charged and this is the material we sent to court.

Q. Did you do all this before you started interrogating him?

A. Before he was interrogated, before the statement was taken - yes.

Q. You don't remember whether or not you did that in his presence or not?

A. I don't know whether it was or not, or whether he was taken back to what we classify as the lockup.

Q. The lockup?

A. Yes.

Q. Now he was at the Juvenile Center the night before, is that correct?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. And is the Juvenile Court also located at the same place as the Center is?

A. It is in another building there, yes.

Q. Out at 25th and Keystone?

A. 25th and Keystone.

Q. He was in the building next to the Juvenile Court all night?

A. Yes.

Q. Now, did you take him to court before you brought him down?

A. No, the court was not open at that time.

Q. The court was not open at that time?

A. No.

Q. At what time was that?

A. Well, I don't know the exact time whoever picked them up brought them in. The call was made at 8:00 o'clock. Court is not open at that hour.

Q. How far is the Juvenile Branch from the four Marion Municipal Courts which have criminal jurisdiction?

A. One is on the second floor and one on the sixth floor.

Q. The same building?

A. The same building.

Q. Did you take him before any of those judges?

A. No.

Q. Did you after you got the statement take him before a judge?

A. He went to court at 2:00 o'clock that afternoon at Juvenile Court.

Q. Juvenile Court, that is in the building out there where he spent the night?

A. The building next door to it.

Q. 2:00 o'clock that afternoon?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Now, did you permit him to make a phone call?

A. No, sir.

Q. Did you tell him he could make a phone call?

A. No, sir.

Q. And he waived his right to counsel, said he did not need an attorney?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Did you ask him whether or not he had enough money to hire an attorney?

A. I did not.

Q. Did you call his father?

A. I did not.

Q. Who typed this statement?

A. I did.

Q. Now, were you then in the interrogation room all the time the interrogation was taking place?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Did you type everything said in there?

A. To my knowledge, yes, during the statement.

Q. You typed the questions as they were asked and the answers as they were given?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Did John Baniszewski say "I have read the foregoing statement and it has been read to me by Sgt. Gentry and it is the truth. I sign this statement of my own free will and have been advised that I do not have to make this statement and that I may have an attorney present"?

A. No, sir, he did not say those words.

Q. When did you tell him that he could have an attorney present?

A. He was told this before he ever made a statement?

Q. When did you tell him that he could have an attorney present?

A. This was on the morning of October 27.

Q. You told him that personally, correct?

A. Right.

Q. Why did you take a statement from John Baniszewski?

MR. NEW: We object. It would be a conclusion.

THE COURT: Objection sustained.

Q. When you took a statement did anybody tell you to take a statement from John Baniszewski?

A. This is procedure.

Q. Did anybody tell you to take a statement from John Baniszewski?

A. No, sir.

Q. Did somebody assign you to the investigation?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Who?

A. Lt. Crossen.

Q. Did he tell you John Baniszewski was a suspect in a murder?

MR. NEW: We object. It would be conversation between two officers.

THE COURT: Hearsay. Objection sustained.

Q. Did you suspect John Baniszewski as being implicated in the killing of Sylvia Likens at the time you started in your interrogation?

MR. NEW: We object.

THE COURT: Overruled. Did you understand the question?

A. Did I suspect him?

THE COURT: Read the question to him.

THE REPORTER READ THE LAST QUESTION.

A. No, sir, he was not charged with murder.

Q. That is not my question, sir, did you suspect him of being implicated in the killing?

A. No, sir.

Q. You did not?

A. No, sir.

Q. Did you suspect him of being implicated in my physical abuse of Sylvia Likens?

A. Yes, this is what he was charged with.

Q. Did it consist of Assault and Battery?

A. Injury to Person, which is a delinquency charge.

Q. Was it your purpose in taking a statement to get evidence to support that?

A. To support the Injury to Person, yes, sir.

Q. Now, did you know where his father lived?

A. No, sir, I had no idea where his father lived at all.

Q. I will hand you what has been marked for identification as Exhibit "B" for the defendant and ask you if that is the face sheet you said you made out before you started the interrogation?

A. This is a copy of the face sheet.

MR. NEW: No objection.

MR. ERBECKER: At this time defendant Gertrude Baniszewski objects to Defendant's Exhibit "B" for several reasons -

THE COURT: May I see it?

MR. BOWMAN: Defendant John Baniszewski now offers Exhibit "B".

THE COURT: Objection sustained.

Q. Officer, does Exhibit "B" contain a notation - "Relationship - father - John Baniszewski, age 40, address, 2011 Main Street, Beech Grove"?

MR. NEW: We object.

THE COURT: Overruled. Answer yes or no.

A. It does.

Q. Did you try that address?

A. No, sir, he was not the legal guardian of the child at that time.

MR. BOWMAN: The defendant re-offers Defendant's Exhibit "B".

THE COURT: Any objection?

MR. NEDEFF: None from Richard Hobbs.

MR. RICE: No objection from Paula Marie Baniszewski.

THE COURT: Any objection from the State?

MR. NEW: We object. A foundation has not been laid for the document.

THE COURT: Objection sustained.

MR. BOWMAN: Nothing further.

MR. NEW: Nothing further.

THE COURT: Defendant Richard Hobbs may cross examine.

CROSS EXAMINATION,
QUESTIONS BY MR. JAMES NEDEFF, ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANT,
RICHARD HOBBS

Q. You are the same Sgt. Leo Gentry whose name is endorsed on the indictment for First Degree Murder against all these defendants, namely, Gertrude Baniszewski, Paula Marie Baniszewski, Stephanie Baniszewski, John Stephan Baniszewski, Richard Hobbs and Coy Hubbard?

A. Yes.

Q. Now, you first talked to these defendants at 9:00 o'clock on the 27th of October?

A. No, the first time I saw them was on the 26th.

Q. The 26th. What time of day or night was this?

A. In the evening, somewhere around 9:30 in the evening.

Q. When was your next opportunity to talk to any of these other defendants on the 27th?

A. Approximately 9:00 o'clock on the 27th.

Q. Did you tell any of the minor defendants or Mrs. Baniszewski they were under serious charges that had been placed against them and they should have a lawyer?

MR. NEW: We object.

THE COURT: Objection sustained.

Q. Did you tell any of these defendants they were charged with a serious crime?

A. Paula and Johnny were and Stephanie and Shirley was informed of the charges against them, yes.

Q. These defendants were never kept in a group?

THE COURT: Mr. Nedeff, state which defendants you are talking about. I see you are the attorney of record for Richard Hobbs.

MR. NEDEFF: I will withdraw that question and will ask one last question.

Q. Now, Officer Gentry, how long have you been a police officer with Indianapolis Police Department?

A. Eleven years.

Q. Now, all your knowledge and information about this case you learned from actually somebody else, from these defendants or some other person?

A. From the defendants and other persons I talked to, yes.

Q. Were you ever at 3838 East New York or 3850 East New York Street?

A. 3838 East New York - I may have been there. 3850 I was not.

Q. You were never at 3850 East New York?

A. I was not.

MR. NEDEFF: No other questions.

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

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

Q. Now, Officer, were any proceedings ever initiated in Juvenile Court against this twelve year old boy?

A. Against John?

Q. He is the twelve year old boy.

MR. NEW: We object. He is arguing with the witness.

THE COURT: Objection sustained.

Q. What was the original charge placed against this twelve year old boy?

A. The original charge was delinquency, which is Injury to Person.

Q. This charge was instituted in Juvenile Court?

A. That was the charge placed against him, yes.

Q. In Juvenile Court?

A. Yes.

Q. Was that processed out at Juvenile Court?

A. He had a hearing, a preliminary hearing on it.

Q. He had a preliminary hearing in Juvenile Court on that charge?

A. On this charge.

Q. When was that now?

A. Approximately 2:00 o'clock P.M. of the 27th of October, 1965.

Q. At that time was he represented by a lawyer?

MR. NEW: The State objects to the question because I don't know whether they have a shift of counsel. I don't know what relevancy that has to this defendant.

MR. ERBECKER: Her name appears on a this thing and no admonition the Court can possibly give will eradicate the damage done by this. I mean due respect to everybody.

THE COURT: Which exhibit are you talking about?

MR. ERBECKER: I am talking about Exhibit No. 28 with reference to a twelve year old boy.

THE COURT: Exhibit No. 28 - any objection from defendant John Stephan Baniszewski?

MR. BOWMAN: Yes.

THE COURT: Objection sustained. State's objection overruled. John Stephan Baniszewski's sustained.

MR. ERBECKER: Is that a continuing objection, Your Honor?

THE COURT: I don't know.

MR. ERBECKER: Am I precluded from going any further?

THE COURT: You are never precluded from doing anything in this court, but it is subject to objection.

Q. At that time, were you present in Juvenile Court in that hearing?

A. I was not.

Q. You were not? Do you know what disposition was made in Juvenile Court?

MR. BOWMAN: We object.

THE COURT: Objection sustained.

Q. Do you know whether or not a record was made of that case in Juvenile Court?

A. I do not know.

Q. Then what happened then to the case in Juvenile Court?

MR. BOWMAN: We object.

THE COURT: Sustained.

Q. All the time you knew that this twelve year old boy's mother was held on a preliminary First Degree Murder charge, didn't you?

A. I did.

Q. Did you ever notify her about it, yes or no, did you?

A. She knew the children were there.

Q. I did not ask you that. Did you notify her?

A. No, I had nothing to do with her.

Q. She was available to you, wasn't she, being in custody?

A. I suppose so, yes.

Q. What steps, if any, did you take to talk to her about this case, if you did?

A. None whatsoever.

Q. You testified a while ago you knew the father did not have legal custody. Did you say that?

A. The legal guardian was the mother.

Q. You knew the mother was the legal guardian?

A. Yes.

Q. You knew she was in custody?

A. Yes.

Q. What steps, if any, did you make to talk to her about the twelve year old boy?

A. I took no steps.

Q. Then you did not notify his father either, did you?

A. Yes, I saw him in court.

Q. Subsequent to your taking the statement?

A. No, this was after.

Q. After you took the statement you talked to the father?

A. Yes, I did.

Q. After the boy signed this?

A. After the boy signed it, yes.

Q. And all the time that you and the other officers interrogated the boy you were in uniform, were you?

A. No, sir.

Q. You were not?

A. No, sir.

Q. What were you in - plain clothes?

A. I am in plain clothes, yes, sir.

Q. What about the other officer?

A. Policewoman Warner - I don't recall whether they were in uniform at that time.

Q. Did you ever do anything to test the mental capability of the twelve year old child, whether he could understand what was going on there?

A. No, sir.

Q. What, if anything, did you do to satisfy yourself the twelve year old boy understandingly waived his right to have a lawyer.

MR. BOWMAN: We object.

THE COURT: Sustained.

Q. What, if anything, did you do to satisfy yourself the twelve year old boy understandingly waived his right to have his parents present?

MR. BOWMAN: We object.

THE COURT: Sustained.

Q. What, if anything, did you do to satisfy yourself that this twelve year old boy understandingly waived his right to have a grownup present?

MR. BOWMAN: We object.

THE COURT: Sustained.

Q. What, if anything, did you do to satisfy yourself that this twelve year old boy understandingly waived his right to have any friends present?

MR. BOWMAN: We object.

THE COURT: Sustained.

Q. Did the boy ever ask for his mother?

MR. BOWMAN: We object.

THE COURT: Sustained.

Q. What, if anything, did you do to satisfy yourself this twelve year old boy knew that he had a constitutional right to remain silent?

MR. BOWMAN: We object.

THE COURT: Objection sustained.

Q. What, if anything, did you do to satisfy yourself that this twelve year old boy knew any statement, whether written or oral, he gave could be used against him in a First Degree Murder charge?

MR. BOWMAN: We object.

THE COURT: Sustained.

Q. What is the standard procedure used, if you know, in interrogating a twelve year old boy?

A. There is no standard. You just talk to him like you would talk to anybody else.

Q. Like you would talk to anybody else?

A. Right.

Q. Did you ever interrogate a twelve year old boy before on a First Degree Murder charge?

MR. NEW: We object.

THE COURT: Sustained.

Q. You did not know what standard procedure was, did you?

MR. NEW: We object.

THE COURT: Sustained.

Q. You did not know what procedure was prescribed to be followed in a twelve year old boy, charged with First Degree Murder, did you?

MR. NEW: We object.

THE COURT: Sustained.

Q. As a matter of fact, you used the same procedure on the twelve year old boy you do on adults?

A. I don't deal with adults.

Q. You used the same procedure you use on seventeen or eighteen year olds?

A. Yes, they are juveniles.

Q. You did that without taking into consideration the capacity and ability of the boy to observe events, did you, yes or no?

MR. BOWMAN: We object.

THE COURT: Sustained.

Q. You did that without determining for yourself whether this twelve year old boy had ability to recollect and communicate events or what was transpiring in front of him, did you?

MR. BOWMAN: We object.

THE COURT: Objection sustained.

Q. When and where did you first talk to this boy?

A. It was on the night of the 26th of October, 1965, approximately 9:30 in the evening at police headquarters.

Q. At that time, did you take a statement?

A. I did not.

Q. You did not. You did talk to him though, didn't you?

A. Yes, I did.

Q. About the events that transpired out there on East New York Street?

A. No, sir.

Q. Did you talk to the boy about his mother that night?

A. No, sir.

Q. You did not?

A. No, sir.

Q. On October 26 1965?

A. No, sir.

Q. Where did the boy spend that night, the 26th of October, 1965?

A. At the Juvenile Center.

Q. In confinement?

A. Yes.

Q. Alone?

A. I don't know whether he was alone or not. A number of children were out there.

Q. What charge was pending against him at that time?

A. Delinquency charge.

Q. A delinquency charge and he was held alone out at the center all night?

MR. NEW: We object.

THE COURT: Objection sustained. He did not say alone.

Q. He was held separate from any member of his family, including his mother?

MR. NEW: We object.

THE COURT: Objection sustained.

Q. How much time elapsed from the time you first saw him about 9:30 P.M., October 26, 1965 until you next talked to him?

A. Approximately twelve, maybe thirteen hours.

Q. Is that the time you secured this double statement here?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Did anybody assist you in securing these statements?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Who was it?

A. Policewoman Warner.

Q. You and she worked in relays with this boy?

A. We worked together, yes, sir.

Q. Did she ever leave the room?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Did you ever leave the room?

A. No, sir.

Q. You never did?

A. No, sir.

Q. Did you ever assist any interrogation of this boy?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Did you ever tell this boy his mother was facing the death chair?

A. No, sir, I did not tell him that.

Q. What did you tell him about his mother?

A. That she was under arrest on a preliminary charge of murder.

Q. Is it a fact, you told this boy if he did not sign the statement, he would get the chair himself?

A. No, sir.

Q. You did not say it?

A. No, sir.

Q. Is it a fact, you told him if he did not sign the statement, his mother would get the chair?

A. No, sir.

Q. Is it a fact, you told the boy if he signed the statement, he could go home?

A. No, sir.

Q. What inducement did you use, if any, to get this boy to sign it?

A. None whatever.

Q. Did you ever tell him his signing the statement could send him to the electric chair?

A. No, sir.

Q. What did you tell him?

A. It was up to him as to whether he wanted to sign it or not. He did not have to. He was told this.

Q. Is there any significance attached to the fact you got his older sister's statement first before you took his?

A. No, sir.

Q. Is it a fact, you told him his sister already signed a statement incriminating him?

A. No, sir.

Q. It is not true? Is it a fact, you told the boy the neighbor kids had already confessed the murder, incriminating him?

A. No, sir.

Q. Is it a fact, you told this boy he had better sign it if he wanted to stay out of the penitentiary and stay alive?

A. No, sir.

Q. What did you do, if anything, what did the other officer do, if anything, to get this boy - to determine if this boy was competent to understand what was going on?

MR. BOWMAN: We object.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. NEW: We object.

THE COURT: Objection of the State and the defendant John Stephan Baniszewski sustained.

Q. Was this boy excited, ill at ease any time?

MR. BOWMAN: We object.

THE COURT: Sustained.

Q. Were there ever any supervisors present to help the boy?

MR. BOWMAN: We object.

THE COURT: Objection sustained.

Q. At the time you interrogated the boy and he signed these two statements, was suspicion focused on him as to his possible involvement in a First Degree Murder charge?

MR. BOWMAN: We object.

THE COURT: Objection sustained. Ladies and Gentlemen, you will ignore the question in arriving at a verdict as to the defendant John Stephan Baniszewski.

Q. What, if anything, officer, did you do to assure yourself this boy understood the conversation and language used by you?

MR. BOWMAN: We object.

MR. NEW: We object.

THE COURT: Objection sustained on behalf of John Stephan Baniszewski. Ladies and Gentlemen, you will ignore that question in arriving at a verdict as to John Stephan Baniszewski.

Q. Officer, at the time, knowing the rank and limit of his understanding -

MR. BOWMAN: We object.

THE COURT: Objection sustained. Ladies and Gentlemen, you will ignore the question or statement in arriving at a verdict. Let me give the jury a recess for fifteen minutes. At a quarter after 3:00, come back to the jury room. That should give you enough time. During the recess, don't talk among yourselves and don't let anyone else 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. By agreement of counsel, with the consent of the State and the defendant, given in open court, the jury is permitted to separate. If you want to go upstairs it is alright. Remember, don't read any newspaper articles that may appear about the case and don't watch or listen to anything that may be broadcast about the case, please avoid contact with anybody with reference to this case. Jury and Alternate Jurors are excused.

JURY EXCUSED.

THE COURT: We are in recess till quarter after 3:00.

RECESS.

MR. BOWMAN: I would like to ask the court, during future recesses and adjournments, Coy Hubbard and John Stephan Baniszewski be kept separate from the other defendants.

THE COURT: Granted. Sheriff, during future recesses, separate Coy Hubbard and John Stephan Baniszewski from the other defendants. Anything else?

MR. BOWMAN: No.

THE COURT: Ready for the jury?

MR. BOWMAN: Yes.

THE COURT: State?

MR. NEW: Yes, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Bring in the jury.

JURY PRESENT AND SEATED.

THE COURT: Next question, Mr. Erbecker.

Q. Now, at the time you took the statement from this boy, would you describe the boy's demeanor, appearance and manner?

MR. BOWMAN: We object.

THE COURT: Sustained.

Q. Describe his speech.

MR. BOWMAN: We object.

THE COURT: Sustained.

Q. Is it a fact, you led the boy by asking him leading and suggestive questions rather than permitting him to make a statement?

MR. BOWMAN: We object.

THE COURT: Sustained.

Q. What, if anything, did you do to assure yourself that this boy knew and appreciated the difference between truth and falsehood?

MR. BOWMAN: We object.

THE COURT: Sustained.

Q. What, if anything, did you do to assure yourself this boy understood his duty to tell the truth?

MR. BOWMAN: We object.

THE COURT: Sustained.

Q. What did you do, if anything, to determine or to assure yourself that this boy at that time had the present understanding or intelligence to understand on instruction his obligation to speak the truth?

MR. BOWMAN: We object.

THE COURT: Objection sustained.

Q. What, if anything, did you do at that time to determine for yourself, to assure yourself this twelve year old boy had mental capacity at the time you questioned him to observe and register and recount the occurrences you were asking him about?

MR. BOWMAN: We object.

THE COURT: Sustained. The reason I am sustaining his objections, it is obligation of the State of Indiana not to have anybody else prove this defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt and to prove his sanity the same way, so all these questions the defendant has a right - John Stephan Baniszewski has a right to object to.

MR. ERBECKER: Am I being restricted?

THE COURT: You are not being curtailed, not being restrained. I am telling you the reason.

MR. ERBECKER: No further questions.

THE COURT: Any other questions on cross examination on behalf of any of these defendants - Mr. Nedeff?

MR. NEDEFF: No.

THE COURT: Mr. Rice?

MR. RICE: No questions.

THE COURT: Mr. Bowman?

MR. BOWMAN: No, Your Honor.

THE COURT: State of Indiana, anything on re-direct?

MR. NEW: No.

WITNESS EXCUSED.
e-mail: webmaster@sylvialikens.com

Return to Baniszewski Trial Transcript

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests

cron