Charles Robert Ellis - Pathologist

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

Charles Robert Ellis - Pathologist

Postby admin » October 31st, 2010, 6:54 pm

CHARLES ROBERT ELLIS , a witness called on behalf of the State of Indiana,
being duly sworn by the Court, testified as follows:

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

Q. Would you state your name to the court and jury, sir?

A. Charles Robert Ellis.

Q. What is your business or occupation?

A. Pathologist.

Q. Where do you practice that?

A. Methodist Hospital.

Q. How long have you been a pathologist at Methodist Hospital?

A. I have been there two years.

Q. What is a pathologist, Doctor?

A. A physician who limits practice to the field of pathology, which is doing of autopsies and laboratory medicine.

Q. Is included in that the determination of causes of death?

A. This is part of the autopsy, yes,

Q. Have you done that regularly in the course of your duties as a pathologist at Methodist Hospital over the two years last past?

A. Yes.

Q. What degrees do you have?

A. Doctor of Medicine from Indiana University.

Q. When did you receive that?

A. 1964.

Q. Any others?

A. No, that is all.

Q. Do you have any other degrees, Bachelor degrees?

A. No, sir.

Q. Doctor, were you a pathologist, practicing in the field of pathology October 26, 1965?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. In the course of your duties as a pathologist at Methodist Hospital or as a pathologist, did you have occasion to examine a young, white female child?

A. In the course of a pathologist and deputy coroner, not through Methodist Hospital.

Q. I will hand you what is marked for identification as State's Exhibit No. 19 and ask you to tell the court and jury whether that is the particular subject on which you performed an autopsy of post mortem October 26, 1965?

A. This is.

Q. I will hand you what has been marked for the purpose of identification as State's Exhibit No. 20. I will ask you to examine that, sir, and tell the court and jury whether that particular subject is the person on whom you performed an autopsy and post mortem October 26, 1965?

A. It is.

Q. What time of day or night?

A. The autopsy started at 9:30 P.M.

Q. Where did you do this?

A. General Hospital morgue.

Q. Who was present at the time you did this, sir?

A. The two homicide officers and a photographer from identification.

MR. NEW: At this time, the State offers in evidence State's Exhibits No. 19 and 20.

MR. ERBECKER: No objection on the part of Gertrude Baniszewski.

MR. BOWMAN: I will ask a preliminary question in the absence of the jury, please.

THE COURT: You making an objection?

MR. BOWMAN: For the purpose of an objection, yes, I object.

THE COURT: Sustained.

Q. Doctor, what examination did you perform, or what did you do on this body?

MR. NEW: Is that all defendants?

THE COURT: Yes, on technical reasons.

Q. What examination did you make, Doctor?

A. At that time, I started with an initial examination of the clothing and then external examination and followed with an internal examination of the body.

Q. And your external examination - what did it disclose or reveal?

A. The body had a length of approximately five feet, four inches, a white female with the approximate weight of one hundred to one hundred and ten pounds.

Q. I will ask you then, Doctor, if the subject picture of which appears in Exhibit No. 19 and 20 was a true and accurate reproduction of the person you performed the autopsy about which you have testified?

A. Yes it is.

MR. NEW: The State offers -

MR. BOWMAN: We object.

THE COURT: Why?

MR. BOWMAN: I don't want to state in the presence of the jury. If we are going in the matter, I will ask permission to ask a preliminary question in the absence of the jury, in fact a series of them.

THE COURT: First give me a reason and see if it calls for asking the jury to leave.

MR. BOWMAN: The exhibit itself has already been disqualified by another witness. The State now is attempting to impeach the testimony of a prior witness. For the further reason the scene portrayed, by reason of the testimony of a prior witness, is not relevant and because it is inflammatory and repetitious.

THE COURT: Overruled. Show Exhibits No. 19 and 20 in evidence and leave to ask a preliminary question in the absence of the jury denied.

MR. BOWMAN: May I ask a preliminary question?

THE COURT: I will withhold ruling, pending preliminary question as to admissibility.

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

Q. Exhibits No. 19 and 20 - do those portray a dead body?

MR. NEW: We object.

THE COURT: Sustained.

Q. Doctor, Exhibits 19 and 20 portrayed, as you testified, a true and accurate representation of the scene that you saw at that time, is that right?

A. They portray the deceased at the time of my examination.

Q. Doctor, as a pathologist, tell us whether or not that would have been her appearance at the time of her death?

MR. NEW: We object.

THE COURT: Objection sustained. That is not a preliminary question.

MR. BOWMAN: At this time, Your Honor, the defendants have an Offer to Prove on the preliminary question.

THE COURT: Overruled. You make and Offer to Prove on the preliminary question?

MR. BOWMAN: Yes.

THE COURT: Do it quietly to the court reporter.

MR. BOWMAN: (out of hearing of the jury) If permitted to answer the question, the doctor's answer would be, "No". The next question would be, "What changes, if any, have occurred in that body since death"? If permitted to answer the question, the doctor's answer would be, "The body has experienced post mortem lividity". The next question would be, "Is that reflected in the State's Exhibits 19 and 20? If permitted to answer the question, the doctor's answer would be, "Yes". The next question would be, "Where and in what manner"? If permitted to answer the question, the doctor's answer would be, "Post mortem lividity is apparent in the photograph showing the left cheek and has exaggerated the ecchymosis present at the time of death".

THE COURT: Same ruling. (in hearing of the jury)

MR. NEW: At this time, the State asks permission to have the jury view Exhibits 19 and 20.

THE COURT: Ladies and Gentlemen, the photographs are going to be displayed to you, and some have already. The court instructs you that these photographs are admitted in evidence for the purpose of aiding the jury in determining certain facts deemed proper by the court. You are instructed, however, that you are not to permit the photographs to inflame your minds. You should not, to any extent, permit the photographs to bias or prejudice you against the defendants. They are not in the record for that purpose. The defendants are entitled to your cool, calm, free deliberation and the exhibits should be considered by you only for the purpose which this court admitted them in evidence. You may now show them to the jury.

WHEREUPON STATE'S EXHIBITS NO. 19 AND 20 WERE ADMITTED IN EVIDENCE,
SHOWN TO THE JURY, AND MADE A PART OF THIS RECORD AS FOLLOWS, TO-WIT:

STATE'S EXHIBIT NO. 19 (being a large picture of decedent) FILED SEPARATELY.

STATE'S EXHIBIT NO. 20 (being a large picture of decedent) FILED SEPARATELY.

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

Q. Dr. Ellis, how was the body clothed when you first observed it?

A. The body was clothed with a pair of - essentially peddle pusher type of pants, approximately ankle in length, slightly above the ankles, and a blouse which was yellow white and orange in color. The sleeve length was about elbow length. No undergarments.

Q. Did you examine the head and face?

A. Yes, I did.

Q. What did you observe?

A. The scalp, first of all, within the hairline I could see no laceration but over the forehead there were multiple abrasions and yellow brown discolorations of the face.

Q. What is a laceration, Doctor?

A. Laceration is a tear or cut in the skin.

Q. What is an abrasion?

A. An abrasion is a roughened or scraped area.

Q. Were these of recent origin, could you tell?

A. Judging the age of these, it is difficult to get the exact age but they were - each lesion would range from a day or so up to one or two weeks.

Q. What else did you find about the face or head?

A. Both eyes demonstrated ecchymosis, essentially what is known as a black eye, and edema surrounding the eyelids. These black eyes were bluish-purple color.

Q. Which indicated to you what?

A. The blue color is of approximately one day, or very recent. Over a day, it starts to turn yellow and later turns green to brown as this blood - actually it is a collection of blood, and as the blood breaks down it changes in color.

Q. Doctor, you would estimate the origin of the black eyes to be when?

A. They were starting to turn a little bit of yellow on - around the edges, suggesting around a day.

Q. What else did you find about the head and face, if anything?

A. There was a large - multiple scratches over the entire face and there was a large area of scraping over the left cheek and down to the jaw. Then, examining the lips, the lips were markedly torn and essentially in shreds, except the lip directly under where the right front tooth would be. This tooth was absent. That was the only place where the lips were not shredded.

Q. Was there any puncture of the lip?

A. These tearing or laceration of the lip extended through from the outer surface to the inner surface, completely through in some areas.

Q. Was that true of the top of the mouth as well as the lower lip?

A. This is the lower lip I am referring to.

Q. What did that indicate to you, sir?

A. It indicated to me that the deceased had been chewing on her lip.

Q. What else did you find about the head?

A. These were the principal external findings of the head. I moved on to the neck.

Q. Alright.

A. Over the neck, there were more areas of loss of superficial skin. It was particularly pronounced over the right side of the neck.

Q. Now, the loss of superficial skin by what means, could you tell?

A. Well, the edges of the wounds were fairly sharp, which would suggest that they had occurred at least enough time prior to allow the edges to start to separate off the wounded tissue and also from the sharp edges, indicating that this was either done with a sharp object or a hot object and the hot object being something other than an open flame which would tend to involve surrounding tissue as well.

Q. Such as?

A. This could be done with a knife or a needle - any sharp object along that line, or it could be done with something perhaps not as sharp but hot.

Q. Now about the areas where the skin was denuded?

A. This is mainly what I am referring to.

Q. You are talking about places where the skin was missing?

A. That is right.

Q. It was done with a sharp or hot object?

A. Yes.

Q. Could it be done with hot water?

A. Most of these did not appear to have been caused with hot water because water would have burned the surrounding area to a lesser degree. The skin surrounding looked somewhat normal.

Q. You did not find evidence of surrounding tissues having been scorched or burned?

A. On these particular wounds. Others on the upper part of the back appealed to have surrounding skin involved to a lesser degree.

Q. How about the area where the skin was denuded, on the face? What was your opinion there?

A. This, I think you are referring to the large area on the left cheek, sir?

Q. Yes, sir, what was the origin of that, in your opinion?

A. This area is perhaps one on the face that could have been something like hot water. I could not say for certain.

Q. Doctor, I will ask you to look at the exhibit which has been marked for the purpose of identification as State's Exhibit No. 21. I will ask you to examine that and ask you if it would be of assistance to you to indicate where we are talking about on the particular body?

A. This being a silhouette of a human body, it would help quite a bit if I could mark the wounds on this, I think it would be helpful.

THE COURT: Show it first to the attorneys.

MR. NEW: At this time, the State offers in evidence State's Exhibit No. 21, as an alternative to having him mark the photographs.

MR. ERBECKER: No objection on the part of Gertrude Baniszewski.

MR. RICE: No objection from Paula Marie Baniszewski.

MR. NEDEFF: No objection from Richard Hobbs.

MR. BOWMAN: No objection from John Baniszewski or Coy Hubbard.

THE COURT: Show State's Exhibit No. 21 admitted in evidence.

WHEREUPON STATE'S EXHIBIT NO. 21 WAS ADMITTED IN EVIDENCE
AND MADE A PART OF THIS RECORD AS FOLLOWS, TO-WIT:

STATE'S EXHIBIT NO. 21 (being a large silhouette of a human body) FILED SEPARATELY.

Q. If you will, sir, you said there were bruises on the head. Will you indicate the location of the bruises on the head?

A. In starting, I have three colors of markers and as much as I can I will try to differentiate between the different types of injuries by using different colored markings. This is essentially a purple, which I will try to use for bruises, and the red will be essentially for areas where there is loss of the skin by either burning or cutting and I will use green where there is an injury but it is rather difficult to tell exactly which, whether it is burning or cutting that might have caused it.

THE COURT: Now the question, sir.

Q. My question was to indicate the location of the bruises to the head you found.

THE COURT: To the head?

MR. NEW: Yes.

A. There is a bruise approximately in this area, being anterior to the right ear and extended approximately to the right eye. This is one seen on superficial examination.

Q. Approximately what size, doctor?

A. It appears here to have an approximate diameter of four or five centimeters, which there are five centimeters in essentially two inches. Then, as I have already described, the ecchymosis surrounding both eyes. Ecchymosis or bruise are essentially the same, both bleeding into tissue. As the question was bruises around the head, another one was found later in the autopsy, not at the time of the external examination. On examining the head, I turned back the skin flap to examine the brain. Inside the skin in essentially this area, a large bruise could be seen from the interior surface of the scalp, but not exterior. These are major bruises around the head.

Q. If you will, indicate while you are in that area on the diagram, take a proper pen and indicate where the skin is denuded.

A. This is a large area extending from slightly behind the left eye along the line of the jaw to approximately the midline and then extending back up to the - along the left side of the mouth and over the left cheek to the left eye and then extending also on to the forehead on this left side. This is an area where the epidermis or superficial skin is missing, the deeper layer of skin being present.

Q. Were there any other areas of that nature there?

A. Multiple cuts or scratches were present over the right cheek as well as another small area near the lateral aspect of the right eye, where there was a patchy loss of skin.

Q. What is a patchy loss of skin?

A. I am using the word patchy to differentiate from a scratch or linear length.

Q. Alright, have you indicated fairly well the injuries to the face and head?

A. On the diagram, I have not mentioned the lower lip, which I will put in green. There were multiple tears to the lip except where the front upper teeth in the midline and slightly to the right of midline was absent, the rest of the lip being torn.

Q. Doctor, you were testifying about injuries to the neck. Proceed to that area and indicate to the jury the nature of the injuries or wounds you found.

A. Present on the right side of the neck, were multiple small patches where the skin was absent, extending in a line essentially from the near midline at the lower portion of the neck and extending toward the right ear along the muscle, sternocleidomastoid muscle that runs that direction.

Q. And the loss of skin you are diagramming to the jury - can you estimate how it was lost or what denuded the skin?

A. These are patchy, rather sharp etchings that would suggest that it was done with either a sharp object or a hot object or both.

Q. Alright, anything further to the neck, either front or back?

A. Well, there are more areas of less extensiveness on the left side.

Q. Those are areas of what?

A. Superficial skin is absent.

Q. Proceeding on down the body, Doctor, if you will - are there any further injuries you found. Anything on the shoulders?

A. Over the right shoulder, there is an area with linear shape where again there is loss of superficial skin and slightly posterior to that and slightly more toward the end of the extremity there is a scratching of the numeral 4. Then extending back onto the anterior part of the chest, the collar bone extends approximately through this area, and along the border of the collar bone are two more areas where there is a patchy loss of superficial skin. Over the left shoulder, there is another area, from the top of the shoulder extending down the anterior aspect of the arm and approximately this shape is another area of sharp edged loss of skin. Going to the chest, over the right breast are more areas of loss of skin and in approximately these shapes. The nipple itself was not involved, but the area around the nipple. A similar pattern was present on the left, in that the pattern on the left also did not involve the nipple itself. At the lower border of the left breast, was a scratch running in this direction. Present in the midline of the abdomen, between it - this is essentially the level of the umbilicus or belly button - between it and the end of the sternum, in this area was another numeral, this being a 3, which was the 4 I described earlier was scratched. This is what I would call a block 3. It had the height of eight centimeters, which is approximately three and a fourth inches and a total width of one inch. Present over the abdomen, again in essentially block letters, was - were the words "I am a prostitute and proud of it" with an exclamation point. Extending into - continuing into the external genitalia there was marked edema of the external genitalia, with a large hematoma of the left labia, which is essentially the skin fold surrounding the introitus region.

Q. What is a hematoma?

A. A hematoma is a collection of blood underneath - in this case underneath the superficial skin.

Q. Was there swelling?

A. Yes, bilateral swelling.

Q. What would that indicate to you, Doctor?

A. This would indicate that the deceased had been struck in this region.

Q. A severe blow or medium blow?

A. This would take a pretty good blow. It would not have to be a real severe blow but it would take more than a gentle tap.

Q. Could it have been done by kicking?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Was there any evidence, Doctor, of any sexual penetration or damage to the girl?

A. The vagina was examined quite closely and there was no evidence of laceration. Specimens were taken for sperm study and these were negative. It would not indicate any entrance occurred.

Q. Therefore, you found no damage to her internally?

A. That is correct.

Q. Now, Doctor, you will proceed then with your answer.

A. Going to the upper extremities, there was a large bruise over the left arm involving essentially this region and then extending also down the forearm as this shows. As you see this person standing here it stems out so that when this extends down this portion appears more to the back of the person than to the front. It extends almost to the wrist. Also in and surrounding the areas from the region, multiple areas where superficial skin is gone. And on the back of the left hand is another apparent bruise area. On the right upper extremity, primarily a lateral aspect, slightly extending both front and back another large bruised region and again through this are more areas of - where superficial skin is missing. Extending on down onto the left forearm is another large area present. I have drawn it a little high. Actually, it is a little nearer the wrist than shown on the diagram. This is again what would be considered the dorsal aspect of the right forearm.

Q. What was the nature of that, Doctor?

A. This is another of the areas where there is a good sharp margin between the normal skin and the area where there is skin loss, again suggesting it was done with a sharp object or a hot object. Over the right hand, again on the back of the hand, is another bruised or ecchymotic region. The right hand is also edematous, which means an increased amount of tissue fluid was collected underneath the skin in that region. On the palm of the right hand, there is a sort of puncture wound which is one approximately one-fourth of an inch in diameter. The left hand, the middle finger, there was some blood present, underlying or in the nail bed and the middlemost portion of the fingernail was broken off. The remainder of the fingernails, when examined, showed that they were all broken, so that the broken portion extended toward the back of the hand. This was on both hands.

Q. Which would indicate to you?

A. It indicates a rather strong scratching motion or clawing so they were broken to the back.

Q. In other words, they were broken toward the upper part of the hand?

A. That is right.

Q. Was there anything under the nails?

A. The fingernails were scraped and this material was sent in for examination, which report was sent back as some greasy, nondescript material, nothing definitely identified. Then the lower extremities, going first to the left lower extremity there is a rather large bruise along the lateral aspect of the left thigh, extending essentially from the knee to three-fourths way up the thigh to near her hip region. More small bruises were present over the left leg between and ankle and the knee. Other small bruises were present over the right leg and numerous areas were again present where superficial portions of the skin are absent. These are present over the left thigh, left knee and over the lateral aspect of the lower left extremity, one having essentially x-shaped and many of the others being irregularly shaped patches. Then on the right lower extremity again, similar losses of skin over the knee and over the pretibial or anterior aspect of the right lower extremity. Going to the back, there is a rather large area present over the back of the neck and the midline of the upper portion of the back. This region was a little different than many others in that instead of completely sharp edges there appeared to be a little damage to surrounding skin, where it was damaged to a lesser degree and not completely lost. This damage was somewhat reddened and small fragments of skin - where it was lost these fragments sort of curled up along the edges.

Q. What did that indicate?

A. More or less a burn received from liquid would burn around the edges to a lesser degree.

Q. Chemical?

A. It could be anything, including hot water.

Q. Did you examine to determine if there was the presence of any chemical about the skin particles?

A. We sent specimens for a toxicological examination to see if there were any fragments and none were isolated.

Q. You would be unable to tell?

MR. ERBECKER: We object.

MR. NEW: I will rephrase the the question.

Q. Would you be able to tell if it was done by water?

A. I would be unable to say definitely whether it was caused by water.

Q. It could be?

A. Yes. Over the back also were areas of collection of blood, which I am going to put them in green. There are different than this one I have put here. I am out of colors. These were essentially collection of blood in areas such as this, but they were uniform and not present in the areas across the portion where weight was present from the body. They were present on the buttocks and part of the shoulder region.

Q. What did that indicate to you as the origin?

A. This is a post mortem collection of blood after death, it is essentially the forces of gravity causing the blood to settle to the lowest portion. Actually, these are not injuries.

Q. You are speaking of the last areas?

A. These are not injuries. These are areas you must differentiate from injuries at the time. Another injury present in the midline of the back near the buttocks is again an irregular bordered loss if skin or superficial skin, present in the midline. These are the principal external findings of the autopsy.

Q. Doctor, you have testified you observed punctate lesions. Is it possible for you to indicate those on the body?

A. Well, this one in the palm appears essentially as a puncture wound, where the skin edges are extending down into a small wound, small diameter.

Q. Do you have an opinion as to the cause of those punctate lesions?

A. This on the hand, I would not be able to say what caused it. Many of the others are present, many are circular where there is denuding of skin. I think they were shown. Some are circular and are approximately one centimeter, which is less than one half inch, and these would be having sharp edges and they appear to have been done with an object approximately that diameter.

Q. Do you have an opinion how they were caused?

A. These appeared to be essentially burns.

Q. By some hot object?

A. Yes.

Q. Approximately the size of a cigarette?

A. Approximately so.

Q. How many of those did you saw you were able to count - did you make a count?

A. I did not make a count of these. There are several in this photograph alone I can see -

MR. BOWMAN: We object.

THE COURT: Objection sustained. The photograph speaks for itself.

Q. Doctor, have you generally indicated as best you can where the major injuries were?

A. The major external injuries, yes, sir.

Q. Before you go back to your seat, you indicated a bruise was on the left tempo-parietal region. Where was that?

A. This bruise I was talking about was behind the hairline, one I saw after reflecting the skin flap.

Q. Were there any gouges, where the skin was actually missing?

A. In this region.

Q. Where it was actually missing, gouged out?

A. Over the left knee, this one I have drawn in on the left knee. There was some fluid flowing from this laceration, reddish brown fluid and - I am sorry, it is the right knee, this one - and underlying the fat, underneath the skin could be seen this one.

Q. Is that all?

A. The rest of these were mainly through the superficial skin.

Q. How deep would this be?

A. Less than half an inch.

Q. Beneath the dermis and epidermis?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. How large a wound was that on the right knee?

A. I don't have the exact diameter.

Q. Alright, take your seat, Doctor, please. Doctor, did you make an anatomical diagnosis of the body, the open body?

A. Yes, when I opened the body I examined the internal organs.

Q. Did you examine the liver?

A. Yes.

Q. What did you find?

A. The liver had the weight of twelve hundred grams, which is approximately a normal weight for a person of her size. It was, however, more yellow than normal - it had a yellow color on both the external portion and also when I cut into the liver.

Q. What did that indicate to you, Doctor?

A. This indicates the presence of increased amount of fat within the liver.

Q. What causes that?

A. This is a finding of malnutrition.

Q. Did you find other evidence of malnutrition about the body?

A. On the external examination the bones, particularly the pelvic bones appear more prominent than normal, which would suggest weight loss.

Q. Recent weight loss?

A. I would not be able to say.

Q. Did you make a determination to see if this particular person was pregnant?

A. I examined the uterus closely and there was no evidence of pregnancy.

Q. What else did you find on your internal examination, what internal examination did you make?

A. All the organs were examined. The heart was entirely within normal limits, the lungs were also essentially normal, with no disease process present in either the heart or lungs. The liver again was significant only in the yellow color. The pancreas and adrenals were entirely unremarkable, as was the spleen. The kidneys also were normal. The larynx was examined and there was no evidence of fracture, edema or abnormalities of the larynx. The brain was then the only other significant finding in the autopsy.

Q. Did you find any fractures?

A. No fracture.

Q. When you examined the brain, Doctor, what did you find?

A. First, upon removing the brain, I found - the first thing on reflexing the skin flap, I saw a large bruise.

Q. Over the left side?

A. On the left side, slightly anterior to the left ear. I then removed the skull cap and found approximately 20 to 30 cubic centimeters, approximately two tablespoonfuls of fresh, unclotted blood present in approximately the right temporal occipital region, between the dura and the brain. The dura is the covering over the brain between the brain and the skull cap, so this bleeding was between the dura and the brain.

Q. Doctor, may I ask you to step up to State's Exhibit No. 21 again just a second and indicate to the jury where the right temporal occipital region is?

A. Right occipital parietal? I don't have the occipital posterior aspect. The parietal is in this region. The temporal is here and in this case it was found in approximately this region. On a side view, this being the ear, this would be more essentially this view.

Q. Doctor, was that diagonally opposite the bruise you saw on the left parietal region?

A. Yes, looking from this top view of the skull, this injury was in the left temporal region and the blood was found more in this region on the inside, that would indicate essentially a line in this direction. However, the blood is at least slightly movable between the dura and the skin and could extend approximately to this area.

Q. That is the general area you found it?

A. Yes, the general area.

Q. Now, besides the subdural hematoma, you stated you found in the right occipital parietal region, what else did you find in the brain or skull region?

A. The brain has what we call sulci and gyri, which is essentially hills and valleys, and in this I saw a narrowing of the sulci, or valleys, and flattening of the hills, or gyri, which is an indication of increased intercranial pressure, the pressure sort of flattening out.

Q. Did you find intracerebral swelling?

A. No, sir.

Q. Did you find evidence of a stroke?

A. No, sir.

Q. Did you find any other damage to the brain?

A. The brain has some attachments, by - members and structures, like the dura. I was discussing the attachments to the skull and with pressure there is occasionally, frequently, shifting brain tissue underneath one of the membranes causing mashing on the brain tissue from the pressure of this. There was a suggestion of this pressure over the hippocrates gyri, essentially the midline structure - in the midline of the brain in the right cerebral hemisphere.

Q. Is there any way to reduce that so I can understand it?

A. Essentially one of the hills I was talking about, that is on the medial border of the brain.

Q. What caused it?

A. It was due to increased pressure.

Q. From the blood?

A. It does not have to be necessarily from blood. It can be along with an injury, also a collection of tissue fluids, causing essentially edema of the brain, increasing pressure.

Q. Is it correct a subdural tearing or breaking of a vessel between the dura and the skull, continues to bleed, causing the hematoma?

A. A subdural hematoma is a collection of blood from the process you described.

Q. Is it your opinion, Doctor, that the bruise of injury to the left temporal perietal region caused the subdural hematoma in this patient?

A. I feel this is the jury in that it is the only injury with depth into the inner aspect of the skin.

Q. Your answer is that is the injury that caused the subdural hematoma?

A. I feel it is.

Q. Doctor, do you have an opinion when it might have been received?

A. This blood was of fresh nature, unclotted, still of rather red color - getting back to the deterioration of blood I was talking about earlier, it would start to stain the tissues after at least two or three days. I feel it occurred within two or three days from the time of death.

Q. Did you find staining?

A. No.

Q. Your opinion is the blow was received to the left temporal perietal region within two or three days?

A. I feel the injury to this region occurred within two or three days.

Q. Based on your examination, did you have an opinion when she died?

A. The time of death is difficult to ascertain. We use many different criteria, among them the developing of what we call rigor mortis, stiffness of the body. This is a process that is really quite variable. In most cases, you expect onset within two to four hours and expect it to be complete in six to twelve hours and absent again within twenty-four to forty eight hours. Many things have an effect on this so that these are all entirely proximate figures. We also try to bring in the body temperature at the time of the examination. I took the body temperature of the internal organs. This was done at 10:17 P.M. The body temperature at that time was seventy-seven degrees fahrenheit and room temperature taken at essentially the same time with the same thermometer was seventy-three degrees. At the time of this examination the body was essentially at room temperature. Another - this is again approximate - but we estimate in degrees centigrade the body will lose temperature at approximately two degrees centigrade per hour so that the body in this case had lost approximately fourteen degrees of temperature and at two per hour, a rough estimate would be seven hours.

Q. And this was done at 10:17 P.M.?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. And is there any degree of accuracy in that, Doctor?

A. It is felt that if you are within six to twelve hours of the actual time with these figures you are going well.

Q. Doctor, based upon your examination of this girl, have you formed an opinion as to the cause of her death?

A. I determined her cause of death was increased intracranial pressure due to brain contusion. Underlying and contributing are shock from severe burns and lacerations, malnutrition being an added factor.

Q. When you state "increased intracranial pressure" are you speaking of the subdural hematoma about which you spoke?

A. Subdural is edema. This caused this increased pressure.

Q. You are talking about the same thing as the cause of death, pressure inside the brain?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. And the underlying causes of shock and severe burns, how do you assess that as secondary cause of death? Contributing to the cause of death?

A. The extent of these injuries, superficial injuries, would be of such nature as to cause rather extensive loss of plasma portion of the blood into the bruises and probably also through the areas where the skin was lost and with the loss of plasma there would be falling blood pressure, which is a factor in shock. There is also an element of pain causing a neurogenic type of shock and with the injuries and the fact her lip was chewed, it appeared to me she had pain and would have this added element to give her shock.

Q. What are the symptoms of shock?

A. The initial symptoms of shock is muscle weakness and rapid fatigue with added symptoms being decreased body temperature so that the person might feel cold or be cold in normal environment, this being due to metabolism. Mental functions would be decreased, starting with haziness, disorientation and leading to stupor and unconsciousness and finally even loss of subconscious body functions, such as control of the pressure within the vessels, so that the blood pressure goes to zero.

Q. Would they be able to control bodily functions such as the bowels?

A. In deeper stages, no, in all likelihood there would be loss of control of body functions.

Q. How about her speech, Doctor?

A. Well, this would go in with both mental functions and muscle weakness. She might have slurred speech and her speech might be disorientated and her speech might become quieter and less audible.

Q. Doctor, is it possible that this girl died from natural causes in your opinion?

A. No, sir.

Q. The bruises which you have described and which you stated, along with the burns, caused shock - could they have been caused from striking blows at the body?

A. The bruises could be caused from, are caused by forceful contact.

Q. Such as a beating?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Or kicking?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. I will hand you, Doctor, what is marked State's Exhibit No. 14 and ask you to examine that and tell the court and jury which such instrument as that could cause damage to the head and brain or body of Sylvia Marie Likens of the nature of which you have described?

A. An object such as this could be responsible for several of the injuries. Bruise type injuries, yes, sir.

Q. Doctor, I will hand you what has been marked State's Exhibit No. 11. You have testified that below the sternum or breast bone you found there the figure 3 and I will ask you if you will examine State's Exhibit No. 11 and tell this jury whether or not, if the end of that particular exhibit were heated and applied to the body two different times - and I am speaking of the hooked end, the round end, whether or not it could have caused the numeral 3 that appears on her lower chest?

A. Yes, sir, I feel it could.

Q. Doctor, would it be correct to say those multiple wounds you have testified to had a cumulative effect on the person who died?

A. I feel they did.

Q. And what is the direct relationship between the severe burns and bruises and the death?

MR. BOWMAN: Oh, Your Honor, he has been leading the witness. This is another example of it.

THE COURT: Overruled as to that question.

A. I feel death was due to a combination of this injuries and the head injury.

Q. Doctor, are you in a position to say which of this wounds was the mortal or final wound, which caused the death of this girl?

A. Well, I feel they were all related and all a part of it. Exactly which wound was the final thing, I could not say definitely. I feel the head injury was one of the later or last injuries.

Q. What would you say - what way would you say malnutrition was a factor - in what way would you say - which contributed to her death?

A. Well, a malnourished individual is going to be less capable of standing the stress of injury than a person who is well nourished. I feel this is the way this added to the case.

Q. In what way?

A. A person that is well nourished, well their healing capabilities of their body are better and they are more able to heal a wound faster and to stand the stress of that easier.

Q. Do you have an opinion as to how long this particular girl's lips were shredded?

A. No, sir.

Q. Have you any way of knowing how long her fingernails had been broken upwards?

A. I don't have any idea how long they had been broken upwards, except there were broken fragments still present on the nails and that would indicate at least fairly recent.

Q. Have you any way of knowing, Doctor, from your examination of this patient how much force was used in the blows to the head?

A. No, I could not determine this.

Q. Was there any imprint of any particular instrument on either of the blows?

A. No, sir.

Q. Was the skin lacerated above the bruise on the left perietal region?

A. No, there was no skin laceration there.

Q. What is the most recent time to the time you saw this girl that you would say she could have died?

A. Well, this again is the best way of determining the time of death someone witnessing the actual event and second, circumstantial evidence around the event and anatomic causes are not precise.

MR. NEW: Thank you. You may cross examine.

THE COURT: May we stop right here? Ladies and Gentlemen of the Jury and Alternate Jurors, by agreement of counsel and with the consent of the State and defendants given in open court, the jury is permitted to separate. You will leave here and go about your business. We will return Monday morning, May 2 at 9:30 A.M. You will return to the jury room. During the recess - adjournment, 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 any opinion thereon till the case is finally submitted to you. Do not read any newspaper article that may appear about the case and don't watch anything or listen to anything which may be broadcast about the case. Court will remain in session. Jury and alternate jurors are excused till Monday, May 2, this coming Monday at 9:30 A.M.

JURY EXCUSED.

THE COURT: Tell the witnesses to come in. All witnesses, including the witness on the witness chair now, the doctor, will return Monday Morning at 9:30. Don't forgot what I told you about separation of witnesses. Don't tell anyone what you have said here. You are permitted to talk to the lawyers, both State and defendants. Now, we are in recess till Monday, 9:30.

COURT ADJOURNED.

MAY 2, 1965, AND THE TRIAL OF THIS CAUSE WAS RESUMED.

THE COURT: To you people in back by the door, if you will remain quiet and won't whisper to each other, I don't mind you standing there. The minute somebody starts whispering, talks or makes gestures of some kind I am going to have to dismiss all of you. Stay behind the rope so you won't be crowding the jury. All defendants are here and all attorneys are here. The State is here. Are you ready for the jury?

MR. ERBECKER: Yes, Your Honor.

THE COURT: The jury is not in the room. Mr. Forrest Bowman has a motion in behalf of whom?

MR. BOWMAN: John Stephan Baniszewski and Coy Hubbard. The State having completed direct examination of the witness Ellis and the court indicating it will permit defendant Gertrude Baniszewski to cross examine the witness, defendants Coy Hubbard and John Stephan Baniszewski object to any evidence from this witness as a result of any cross-examination by any attorneys for co-defendants and ask the court to instruct the jury not to consider such questions or answers in reaching a verdict with respect to Coy Hubbard and John Stephan Baniszewski, all for reasons previously stated.

THE COURT: Well. I can't do that because he may ask questions which may pertain to all the defendants. On hearsay and other matters, naturally the motion should be granted as to that. Not knowing what the questions are going to be in advance - if you will make your motion and say "for reasons heretofore stated" the record will show for your reasons.

MR. BOWMAN: The objection at this time, Your Honor, is for the reason the questions not being asked by either the prosecutor or counsel for the defendants, that is all the questions asked by counsel other than the State of Indiana or the counsel for the two defendants making the motion.

THE COURT: Overruled. You direct your objections to each question you may feel is detrimental to you or you may wish. I can't give you a general thing like that. Show overruled at this time. Bring in the jury.

JURY PRESENT AND SEATED.

THE COURT: The defendants may cross examine, defendant Gertrude Baniszewski first.

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

Q. State your name, sir.

A. Charles R. Ellis.

Q. The same Charles Ellis who testified Friday, are you not, for the State of Indiana?

A. I am.

Q. What time did your examination take place of the deceased body, Doctor?

A. 9:30 P.M. on 10/26/65.

Q. 9:30 in the evening, October 26th?

A. That is correct.

Q. Now, Doctor, I show you State's Exhibit No. 3 and ask you if you saw that before?

A. I think I have seen this one, or one quite similar.

Q. That was admitted into evidence. Did you ever compare any notes you may have had with this exhibit with reference to what your testimony would be?

A. I compared my notes to some of the pictures in exhibit. Whether this is one of them, I am not certain.

Q. I will hand you State's Exhibit No. 19 and ask you if you ever used that exhibit in the making of your notes?

A. I used this exhibit in my testimony and in making notes at the time of the autopsy - in making my notes, as far as that, I did not use this exhibit. For my testimony and the drawing of the diagram, I did.

Q. Did you use Exhibit No. 19 in drawing your diagram?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. In making the right portion of the diagram, the front part?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Now, Doctor, I will hand you State's Exhibit No. 20 and ask you if you used that in your testimony for the State last Friday?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. I will hand you Exhibit, State's Exhibit No. 4 and ask you if you used that in describing your testimony before the jury last Friday?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. And you used that exhibit in your hand, did you use that in pinpointing these injuries and disfigurations on that chart right there in front of you and the jury?

A. I used it on some on the back, yes, sir, along with my notes at the time of the autopsy.

Q. Now, will you briefly tell the jury, using State's Exhibit No. 4 out there, when you go out there depict to the jury what parts you testified to Friday with reference to Exhibit No. 4, can you do that briefly, you don't have to go in detail?

A. Referring to - primarily?

THE COURT: Using what State's Exhibit?

MR. ERBECKER: No. 4.

A. State's Exhibit No. 4 and my notes at the time of the autopsy, referring to this region -

Q. You are pointing to what?

A. The back, at the base of the neck and the upper portion of the back.

Q. What is that chart?

A. This is a diagram I made last Friday.

Q. During your direct examination for the State?

A. Yes.

Q. Now, continue, Doctor.

A. I believe that is the main one I referred to from this picture. I may have also - I am not certain - used the picture partially on this one.

Q. Will you generally describe what State's Exhibit No. 4 depicts on that chart there, generally?

A. This region, the base of the neck and the upper portion of the shoulders, are described both in my notes and in the picture.

Q. Consisting of what?

A. I felt this was an area of probable burn.

Q. Go ahead.

A. Both in the picture - where it has an irregular outline - and in my notes I described the edges of the skin, the edges of the lesions, and also some damage to surrounding skin, suggesting a burn. The remainder of the marks on the back, were more from the autopsy reports than from the picture.

Q. Does the picture depict anything else you made on the chart, with reference to the center of the back, red markings?

A. There are red markings here with the area in the base of the back, the lower portion of the back. This is represented in the picture.

Q. Those areas on both arms, are they shown on State's Exhibit No. 4 any way?

A. No, the arms are not shown on State's Exhibit No. 4.

Q. On the picture, your graph you drew Friday, what do the arms indicate there?

A. Those were taken, the injuries were taken from the other photos and from and autopsy report and indicated along the general lines what was shown earlier of bruises and patchy loss of skin, superficial skin and also labeled as broken fingernails.

Q. Did you use State's Exhibit No. 20 in making that chart, yes or no?

A. I did.

Q. Will you describe what is depicted on that chart in front of you with reference to what the photograph shows, State's Exhibit No. 20 shows?

A. Well, the exhibit shows, the photograph shows bruising along this portion of it.

Q. Caused by what?

A. I would not be able to say what caused the bruise.

Q. What did your examination show it was then, was it burns, what was it?

A. A bruise is a collection of blood underneath the skin surface. That is what I am describing, a bruise. Also the areas of patchy loss of skin, these having sharp edges seen in the photograph and at the time of autopsy and being scattered over the arms, of variable sizes and shapes.

Q. What - was this exhibit you have in your left hand - is that any of the injuries depicted further on that chart in front of you?

A. Well, some of the other injuries seen, such as the anterior chest and the abdominal walls and there was a patchy loss of skin over the upper portion of the chest. There were scratches extending from the left breast and the words "I am a prostitute and proud of it" over the abdomen as well as the edema over the anterior genitalia.

Q. How long did it take to complete the markings "I am a prostitute and proud of it" could you tell the jury?

A. No, sir.

Q. Would you say it was instantaneously or over a period of time, basing your answer from the signs?

A. It appeared essentially the same, so at least it was not done over many, many weeks between the different parts of it. Other than that, I would not be able to say.

Q. The healing portion of the skin would indicate it was done about the same time?

A. Roughly.

Q. Anything else depicted on the exhibits in your hand that you show on the chart?

A. Well, I showed on the chart this loss of skin around the left side of the face. This is seen in the picture. Also the scratches, the smaller areas of loss of skin on the neck on the left side.

Q. Now, Doctor, I will hand you State's Exhibit No. 19 and ask you if that depicts anything you made reference to on that chart in front of you, yes or no, does it?

A. Yes, it does.

Q. Is it substantially covered by the other exhibits or did I omit anything?

A. This shows more injuries to the legs than seen on other exhibits.

Q. Please briefly describe on the chart those reflected by the picture.

A. Bruises on the left leg shown at this point. Patchy loss of superficial skin on both knees and anterior aspects of both legs.

Q. Now, Doctor, I will hand you State's Exhibit No. 3 and ask you if that depicts any injury you described on that exhibit in front of you, yes or no?

A. Yes, it shows -

Q. Without omitting anything?

A. This picture demonstrates the numeral 3 that is not shown well in other photographs.

Q. What numeral 3?

A. In the area of the midline, the loss of skin in the general shape of a 3.

Q. Is anything else shown by that exhibit in your hand you have marked on the exhibit in front of you on the board there?

A. Many other marks I have shown. I think they are shown on some of the other photographs.

Q. Which other photographs, Doctor? Describe what you mean by that?

A. Well, I mean these photographs are of the same body, show the same areas in duplication. They are different photographs. What I have described on one photograph is shown on others.

Q. It is duplicated?

A. It is duplicated.

Q. Is there anything shown on the four photographs and shown on the chart in front of you that you have omitted in testifying this morning?

A. I am sure there is.

Q. Describe it.

A. I can go through it all over.

Q. No, just the things you omitted in your testimony this morning.

A. Mr. Erbecker, there are many other injuries on there I have not described. I will have to go through all of it if you want to get them back in testimony.

Q. In the interest of time, that chart depicts everything shown on those four exhibits, the charts you have in your hand and the one on the prosecutors table?

A. It shows all the major ones.

Q. In addition to that there are some minor lacerations?

A. Other smaller scratches that I am sure I don't have on the diagram.

Q. In what area of the body would they be?

A. Here on the left shoulder I have already described patchy loss of epidermis.

Q. What would that indicate, Doctor?

A. It would indicate - having sharp edges as it has, it would indicate it was probably done with hot object or hot material.

Q. Water for instance?

A. Water could have done it.

Q. Alright?

A. Just at the edge of this is another smaller area with the loss of superficial skin.

Q. Where is that at?

A. On the left shoulder, anterior lateral aspect, shortly off the apex or top of the shoulder. Then extending down this arm there are previously described in this region, on the anterior aspect, patchy loss of skin in four smaller areas, patchy loss of skin and there is a bruise marked previously. I had labeled one area as patchy loss of skin and surrounding that there are at least seven more that can be seen in this photograph, that are surrounding a larger loss, previously described. Going on down the arm near the elbow is another smaller bruise on the anterior lateral aspect of the left arm, extending medial to that are two more areas of superficial loss of skin. Going to the back of the left hand, I described a large bruise present on the middle finger and there are two areas of superficial loss of skin. At the proximal knuckle of the little finger is another irregular area of loss of skin. On the left side at the - approximately the same level as the 3 that was described, near the left side was another irregular area of loss of epidermis. On the back of the right hand at the base of the finger - ring finger was another very small patchy loss of superficial skin and present within it a bruise as described on the back of this hand there is an apparent scratch and near the base of the index finger there is again a patchy loss of skin in that region. Going back to the pelvic region, on the right hip where the hipbone is prominent - about this position - directly beneath that are two small areas of patchy loss of skin. I previously described an X-shaped loss of epidermis on the anterior aspect of the left leg - just medial to that is a patchy loss of superficial epidermis.

Q. What would you say those two were caused by?

A. The X-shaped one is quite essentially two linear lines crossing one another, apparently a sharp or hot object of sharp nature. There again there were very light scratches present over the leg, over and above and below these. Another linear loss of epidermis was present slightly lateral and inferior to the X on the medial aspect of the right leg directly below the knee and there is another apparent bruised area in the central portion showing loss of the superficial skin. On the right wrist and near the base of the little finger, is another linear region where there is loss of superficial skin. On the inferior aspect of the chin, slightly to the right of the midline is another area of superficial loss of skin.

Q. What does that indicate, Doctor?

A. This is another of the lesions that appears to be either a hot or sharp object. This large area of loss of skin described over the left cheek on this diagram, I can't tell where the direct border line is - the lateral side of the nose is involved in that one.

Q. What was that indicative of Doctor?

A. This is this area I have described as loss of skin, I felt was probably from a hot object or liquid.

Q. Anything else, Doctor?

A. Well, on this picture from the front, on the medial aspect of the left leg is another large bruise.

Q. Indicative of what?

A. That pressure or force has been exerted at this point. There is a bruise and broken blood vessels from some sort of force on the left side of the pelvis, the left side, essentially the same position as the lateral aspect of the words, "I am a prostitute and proud of it", there is another patchy loss of skin.

Q. Which is indicative of what?

A. A hot or sharp object. Near the elbow on the right arm are a couple of small superficial scratches.

Q. Indicative of what, Doctor?

A. Indicating a scratching or scraping motion against the skin.

Q. Anything else, Doctor?

A. Over the left heel, there is again a superficial loss of skin.

Q. Indicative of what?

A. I made no opinion what might have caused it.

Q. Is that all, Doctor?

A. That is about it.

Q. Take the stand again then. Now, Doctor, in your description of those various appearances on that chart, which are shown by those photographs which were admitted in evidence, some of them were burns?

A. I feel some of them were burns.

Q. Describe what a contusion is.

A. A contusion is essentially the same as a bruise. It is a breaking of blood vessels underneath the skin so the blood gets out of the vessels and collects within the skin tissues.

Q. Were there any contusions on the body of the deceased girl?

A. Yes, sir, I described them as bruises in the testimony.

Q. Would you describe the word lesion?

A. A lesion is essentially any deviation from the normal.

Q. Were there any lesions on the body of the deceased girl?

A. I described the bruises. These are lesions. I described burns. These are lesions. I described patchy losses of superficial skin. These are lesions.

Q. Deviation from the normal. What does that mean?

A. A deviation is anything different from the norm.

Q. So then in plain language, a deviation from normal condition or the dead persons body means what then?

A. Well, it means that these findings were not what one would normally expect in examining a normal body.

Q. Now, Doctor, would you say that - strike that. I think you testified death occurred about seven hours, approximately seven hours prior to your examination?

A. Did -

Q. Did you say that?

A. Yes, sir, I said that to the best of my ability I would estimate death approximately seven hours before. I also said that by the criteria I was going by, it was only an approximation.

Q. What time did rigor mortis set in?

A. In this body?

Q. Yes.

A. It would be impossible for me to say what time it started. It may start immediately after death. Normally, it will start in to begin in approximately two to four hours after death, it may be almost immediately.

Q. What time did you say death occurred that date, about what time?

A. I estimated it - I took the body temperature at 10:17 P.M. and from that time, going back seven hours would have been approximately 3:00 o'clock.

Q. 3:00 P.M., right?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Now, these injuries you described in your opinion did they cause pain to the body of that girl?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. By the nature of them, would they?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Could they have been self inflicted?

A. The one injury I have testified I felt was self inflicted is to the torn lower lip, which I think is chewed. I think this is indicative of pain.

Q. That is the only indication that was the only self inflicted injury?

A. The other injury you might consider is the finger nails are broken in backward. That indicates a scratching motion and the broken fingernails would be an injury.

Q. Observing all these things, the only self inflicted wounds or injuries are the lip and the broken nails?

A. In my opinion, yes.

Q. In your opinion, basing your answer on your examination, would you say these wounds were inflicted simultaneously at the same time?

A. That is impossible for me to time these wounds accurately. I would feel they occurred within - they all occurred within approximately two weeks of one another.

Q. I think you testified the other day, in substance, that the lesions indicated the injuries ranged from a day or so up to two or three weeks prior to your findings, is that substantially correct, did you say that?

A. I believe that is correct.

Q. By that you mean the method of healing, as shown by the photographs and your examination?

A. I am sorry?

Q. That means the photographs and your examination indicated the process of healing was different and therefore you could base your conclusion on that?

A. I think you misunderstood what I said. I meant to say the injuries could have been obtained as recently as a day or two before death up to two weeks. I was unable from my examination to say which ones would have been at each time.

Q. Some of the lesions indicated they could have been two or three weeks prior to that, by the process of healing, as shown by that?

A. They had not shown a lot of healing. I did not feel they were of over two weeks duration. They might have been up to that, with that degree of healing.

Q. Now, if these injuries were, and wounds were inflicted intentionally by someone else, do you concur with Dr. Kebel's testimony that it was the work of a madman, completely out of contact with reality?

MR. NEW: We object.

THE COURT: Objection sustained.

Q. Doctor, could any of these injuries have been caused by kicking at or against the body of the deceased, as shown by your findings and shown by your reports and from your observation of the body, as well as pictures?

A. These bruises, at least.

Q. What bruises, which ones?

A. There are bruises on the arms, legs, the head - both in the right temporal frontal region and the left region. The bruise on the left was the one which could not be seen from the exterior but after opening the head it could be seen. It was still essentially a bruise. All from force and forceful contact. What caused the contact, I would not be able to say.

Q. Were there any marks or any evidence that contact was made with an object other than the hands or any portion of a person's body?

A. The marks were made by objects other than the hands?

Q. For instance, it shows something like that?

A. There were no - what I call pattern injuries, which is an injury that of blunt force that diagrams the object that struck it. When you ask if there were injuries obtained from other things other than hands, I have already testified many of these injuries appeared to be from a hot sharp object. I feel it would not have been hands.

Q. Doctor, what school did you go to for your medical education?

A. Indiana University School of Medicine.

Q. Did it embrace any courses of psychology or psychiatry?

A. There is a course in psychiatry, yes, sir.

Q. You took it.

A. Yes, sir.

Q. How long was the training in psychiatry?

A. I am not certain of the length of it.

Q. Would you say a week, month or year?

A. There are, I believe, at least two different courses in psychiatry. One of them was perhaps a month. I would have to estimate. The other one, the classroom work was lecture type over a semester, one or two evenings a week.

Q. How long is a semester?

A. It runs from September to January.

Q. It would be four or five months?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. It would be classroom what?

A. Most of this was lecture.

Q. You say five months lecture in psychiatry?

A. I said five months of lectures of perhaps an hour or two hours a week.

Q. In psychiatry?

A. Yes.

Q. Did you ever study abnormal psychology in the course of your training?

A. No, sir.

Q. Have you ever testified and given any psychiatric examinations in your experience as a doctor?

A. Have I ever testified as to this, no, sir.

Q. You never have. How much time did you spend, in terms of hours, in making your examination - your initial examination and checking all reports, records, charts, pictures and the like, in talking to any witnesses - if you did - in talking to any attaches of the prosecutor's office - if you did - overall how much time did you spend in the preparation of your testimony last week for the State?

A. This would have to be an approximation. The autopsy started at approximately 9:30 P.M., 10/26 and ended well after midnight. I don't know exactly what time it was.

Q. How long after midnight?

A. I would guess between 1:00 and 2:00.

Q. You started what time?

A. 9:30 P.M.

Q. To around 1:30?

A. Approximately.

Q. Alright, then what else?

A. Then there was considerable time spent reviewing the dictation of the autopsy.

Q. How much time was consumed in doing that, approximately?

A. Probably an hour or two.

Q. An hour and a half would be a safe approximation?

A. Approximately.

Q. An hour and a half dictating your findings?

A. Not dictating, reviewing the dictation.

Q. Reviewing the findings. What else, Doctor?

A. Time was spent, approximately two hours I would say, reviewing microscopic study of the case.

Q. Two hours microscopic study, what else, Doctor?

A. I would say roughly four or five hours spent on reviewing the type of injuries and reading about them.

Q. Four to five hours.

A. Say a half hour to an hour spent discussing the case with the other deputy coroners in the coroner's office.

Q. Dr. Kebel?

A. Dr. Kebel and Mr. Gaither, Chief Investigator.

Q. One half hour to an hour with Dr. Kebel and who else?

A. Mr. Gaither.

Q. Mr. Gaither?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Who is he?

A. He is the Chief Investigator for the coroner's office.

Q. Alright, anything else, Doctor?

A. There was a pre-trial conference with the prosecutor's office.

Q. When and where was that?

A. It was in the prosecutor's office. I don't remember the date. It was prior to my testimony though.

Q. Was it one day last week, do you think?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Was it with Mr. New?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. How much time was consumed then, approximately?

A. Roughly, half an hour.

Q. Anything else, Doctor?

A. Just another hour or two reviewing my notes before I came down.

Q. One or two hours reviewing notes prior to your testimony?

A. That is right.

Q. That would make then around between sixteen and nineteen hours, would you say roughly?

A. You added it up. I have to take your word.

Q. Taking from 9:30 to 1:30 is approximately four hours.

A. Do you want me to add it?

Q. I wish you would.

A. Would you read it?

Q. I think you testified 9:30 to 1:30, four hours?

A. Right.

Q. Did you say an hour and a half reviewing your findings, did you say that?

A. This is a rough approximation.

Q. Surely, it is all approximation, is that about right, would you say - did you testify two hours microscopic study?

A. Approximately.

Q. Did you say four to five hours reviewing the type of injuries you found on the body, did you say that?

A. And reading, yes.

Q. Did you say a half hour to an hour with Dr. Kebel and Mr. Gaither, Chief Investigator?

A. Yes.

Q. Pre-trial conference with Mr. New a half hour?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. One or two hours reviewing notes?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. What does that all add to in your own approximation?

A. Approximately fifteen and a half hours.

Q. You spent approximately fifteen and a half hours on this case?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. That includes the sum total of your entire participation from the very inception of it till now?

A. Approximately right, yes, sir.

Q. Now, Doctor, I will ask you to assume that the evidence in this case will show one of the defendants is a thirty-seven year old woman named Gertrude Baniszewski, this woman sitting in back of me here, who lived with several minor children in the City of Indianapolis, on East New York Street. She was divorced from her husband and carried on a common law marriage relationship subsequent to her divorce. She has children by both men. She had a background and record of having been hospitalized in several hospitals. She had been treated by several doctors. That at the time of the alleged death of the decedent on October 26, 1965 she was under a doctor's care, that she suffered from nervousness for the past several years. During that period of time she lived with a common law husband, Dennis Wright, she was physically mistreated and abused. He administered severe beatings to her on several occasions and required hospitalization because of the beatings she received. She had been supporting her children, sometimes during those intervals that she did not receive money from the father of the children. Her economic living standards were below the average. The children ranged from four or five up to seventeen or eighteen. Several weeks prior to October 26, 1965 one of the neighbors asked her to care for two minor children, ages twelve and fifteen. During several weeks preceding October 26, 1965, one of the children staying at her home - named Sylvia - sustained the injuries you described here in your testimony this morning and that you described last Friday on direct examination, and on October 26, 1965 the day Sylvia Likens died and that evidence indicates her death occurred anywhere from eight to twelve hours prior to 7:00 o'clock P.M. There on said date, that your testimony indicates death was approximately seven hours prior to your examination, which would be around 3:00 o'clock P.M. on October 26, 1965, that someone called the police and the police on arriving there found the defendant, Gertrude Baniszewski, standing there at the house with other children around there, that the police officer in the case questioned the defendant and the evidence stated that she knew "that the kids had been mistreating Sylvia, that she knew a boy named Hobbs marked Sylvia with a needle and she had asked the girl if she knew what a tattoo was". She was asked why she kept Sylvia down in the basement and she, the defendant here, stated because she wet the bed. That when asked if one of the reasons why she did wet the bed was because everyone beat her so much it may have injured her kidneys and the answer was she did not know. Further conversation between the police officer and the defendant, Mrs. Baniszewski, indicated her son Johnny had marked Sylvia with a hot poker. The defendant further told the police officer that Coy Hubbard did a lot of the beating. Paula, another daughter, did most of the damage and broke her wrist once when she struck Sylvia. Another daughter, Stephanie, tied the deceased to the bed. She, the defendant, herself admitted she told another son, Johnny, to go get shit and make her eat it. He brought it up wrapped in some wax papers. The evidence shows that in this conversation with the police officer, who testified here, that she mentioned the defendant here, Gertrude Baniszewski, kept Sylvia in the house a week or two. Further testimony of the police officer indicated the daughter Paula made Sylvia write a note Sunday because she was afraid she would tell lies on her, blame them for the sores. That evidence of the police officer further stated this, in substance, that the only time she gave Sylvia - she meaning Gertrude Baniszewski - any medicine was when she used peroxide and merthiolate on her. She - meaning Gertrude Baniszewski - burned her with a cigarette a month ago. Stephanie and I - meaning Gertrude Baniszewski - gave Sylvia a bath on Sunday, the same time she wrote the note. That the defendant washed the basement before the police came. That the defendant saw Coy Hubbard beat her up one night about a week ago. She - meaning the defendant Gertrude Baniszewski - made her sleep three times in the basement the last two weeks. That conversation with the police officer - testimony of the police officer further indicated Coy Hubbard and Randy Lepper flipped her and her head hit the wall. That she, - moaning the defendant Gertrude Baniszewski - struck at Sylvia and missed her and hit herself. That she - meaning the defendant Gertrude Baniszewski - got a black eye when she - Gertrude Baniszewski - struck at Sylvia and missed her and hit herself. That the defendant here saw Johnny burn her with matches and that the defendant here made Paula tell Sylvia to write the note. Then the evidence show Dr. Kebel, deputy coroner, arrived and questioned the defendant why the police or doctor was not called to attend the injuries and the defendant replied - in substance - we don't need a police officer and we don't need a doctor - or words to that effect. Thereupon the defendant and other co-defendants named in the indictment here were taken to police headquarters on the charge of Pre-Murder filed against them, and at the time police officers initial visit to said home on said date, the defendant Gertrude Baniszewski gave a note to the officer and said - in substance - some boys had taken the girl out and mistreated her, or words to that effect or substance. The police stated on interrogation she maintained she had done nothing wrong, meaning Gertrude Baniszewski. Some of the other defendants gave statements, and named Gertrude Baniszewski and incriminated her degree of participation with respect to the injuries you described. They also gave information and statements with reference to the presence of the defendant, Gertrude Baniszewski, at the time some of these injuries were inflicted. That various articles were seized from the home there and from the home of the defendant, namely a paddle and various other things and a piece of iron and other objects. That thereupon the defendant Gertrude Baniszewski was bound over to the Grand Jury without bond and has been in jail ever since. That during the trial of this cause the following witnesses testified against the defendant here, namely Melvin Dixon, Police Officer, Officer Paul Harmon, Sgt. Kaiser, who related the testimony I am telling you transpired in the conversation between the defendant Gertrude Baniszewski and Police Officer Kaiser. Also Dr. Kebel testified in this case and that you are the fifth witness in this case. That Dr. Kebel testified in this case that in his opinion the acts were those of a madman, in substance, and no one in contact with reality could have inflicted those injuries, or words to that effect. After the arrest of the defendant and prior to trial, she filed a Special Answer in Five Paragraphs. Omitting the caption and formal parts, it alleges in substance she was of unsound mind on or about October 26, 1965 and is so now. That the second paragraph alleged in substance she did not have sufficient mental capacity to know and differentiate between right and wrong and did not have sufficient mental capacity to form an intent to commit the crime as herein charged, that she was mentally ill, in substance. The Fourth Paragraph alleges in substance, her willpower was so dominated and impelled by such psychiatric disorder and disease she allegedly suffered and mental disease she allegedly suffered she was irresistibly impelled to commit the act and her irresistible impulse caused her either to commit the act or permit the performance of acts you described, and that thereupon the court appointed - prior to that time the court appointed - prior to that time the court had appointed two competent and disinterested psychiatrists named Dr. Hull and Dr. Schuster and Dr. Hull's testimony - portions of it indicated -

MR. NEW: Now the State will object to that.

THE COURT: Objection sustained.

Q. That the last paragraph of the Answer of the Defendant was as follows: Her general symptomatology and mental status suggested a diagnosis of a psychoneurotic type of personality structure and she was vague in terms of events leading to her arrest. She indicated she had been sick in bed and did not know what all her children were doing at that time. During the several interviews, the patient was obsessed by her physical symptoms. That she had always been nervous and many years ago she was hospitalized at a general hospital. Many times the patient made reference to the fact she felt numb and tingly all over, and that she was afraid that she was going to choke, or could not breathe. As a result thereby, the defendant was mentally incompetent at the time of time alleged crime with which she is charged, and is likewise mentally incompetent at the present time. Now, Doctor, assuming all those facts are true, Doctor, do you have an opinion as to whether the defendant Gertrude Baniszewski, basing your answer on what you have seen, what you testified to here and your observation of her in the courtroom, the note you took, all the investigation you made, all the testimony you made, did you have an opinion whether or not the defendant Gertrude Baniszewski was, on October 26, 1965, sane or insane?

MR. BOWMAN: We object.

THE COURT: Objection sustained. Ladies and Gentlemen of the jury and Alternate Jurors, the objection of the defendants John Stephan Baniszewski and Coy Hubbard, heretofore made is sustained. You will ignore the question in arriving at a verdict in this case as to the defendants John Stephan Baniszewski and Coy Hubbard, and as to all parties concerned.

Q. Doctor, assuming all the above facts are in evidence here, could you make an opinion, basing your answer on your participation only in the case, plus what I indicated the evidence was testified to by Sgt. Kaiser, and assuming it is true, since it is not controverted, assuming all that is true, do you - could you give, make an opinion as to the sanity or insanity of the defendant Gertrude Baniszewski, could you?

MR. BOWMAN: We object.

THE COURT: Objection sustained. Ladies and Gentlemen, you will ignore that question in arriving at a verdict as to the defendants John Stephan Baniszewski and Coy Hubbard and as to all parties in this case.

MR. ERBECKER: I ask the jury be excused for the purpose of making an Offer to Prove, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Ladies and Gentlemen of the Jury and Alternate Jurors, you will retire to the jury room. This may be for as long as fifteen or twenty minutes. It is now about twenty till 11:00. Lets say you will all be back in the jury room at a quarter after 11:00. During this recess, don't talk among yourselves and don't let anyone talk to you about this case or any subject connected therewith. Don't form or express any opinion on the case till it is finally submitted to you. By agreement of parties and with the consent of the State and defendants, given in open court, the jury is permitted to separate. If you want to go to the third floor and get a cup of coffee, that is your business. Don't read any newspaper articles that may appear about the case and don't watch anything or listen to anything that may be broadcast about the case.

JURY EXCUSED.

THE COURT: Now, on your Offer to Prove, if the parties will agree, in order to shorten the Offer to Prove, that the question does not have to be restated on the Offer to Prove.

MR. ERBECKER: Well, Your Honor, he is a State's witness. May I talk to him before I make my Offer to Prove?

THE COURT: That would be highly irregular, wouldn't it?

MR. ERBECKER: I could not conceivably make an Offer to Prove. I will do it in the presence of Mr. New.

THE COURT: No, if you want to talk to the witness let me give you five or ten minutes recess to talk to him.

MR. ERBECKER: I will talk to him in the presence of Mr. New.

THE COURT: Look, you are an attorney and entitled to talk to him in the presence of yourself, understand?

MR. ERBECKER: You said it was highly irregular.

THE COURT: I thought you meant to do it in front - so they could hear the conversation. If you want a conversation, it ought to be private. A ten minute recess. Dr. Ellis, you are permitted to talk to the lawyers in this case, both the State and defendant. Again let me tell you people in the audience - please, no whispering, no pointing, no gestures. I can't have that in a trial of this kind. Be sure you show, Mrs. Court Reporter, the jury is not in the courtroom. Are you ready for your Offer to Prove now? All parties are here but the jury is not. The alternate jurors are not. Any Offer to Prove?

MR. ERBECKER: No, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Well, we told the jury to be back at a quarter of. Any motions?

MR. BOWMAN: I might as well, Judge. On behalf of John Baniszewski and Coy Hubbard, I move to withdraw submission as to those two defendants and declare a mistrial for several reasons. First, a progress of this trial has showed these two defendants have been denied a right a fair and impartial trial. The repetition and hearsay as to them on direct examination, cross examination, in the hypothetical question, this last lengthy hypothetical question attempted to be put to the witness by Mr. Erbecker, in view of his now declining to make an Offer to Prove was done for the sole purpose of shifting attention to these two defendants by the means of including in his question evidence previously offered against his defendant and the other defendants that was hearsay as to these defendants. It has been gone over and over in front of this jury, Your Honor, admonished the jury on many occasions. Now it appears the admonitions, by the time the State rests it's case in chief, will be in the neighborhood of five hundred, projecting them as they are in the record now. These defendants submit no jury can keep track of the hopelessly prejudicial repetition. They are not receiving a fair trial, their rights are being violated - those protected by the 4th 5th and 15th Amendments to the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of Indiana.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. NEDEFF: Richard Hobbs joins in that objection and motion.

THE COURT: Overruled. Mr. Rice?

MR. RICE: We will join in the motion, if it please the Court, for the same reasons.

THE COURT: Defendant Paula Marie Baniszewski?

MR. RICE: Yes.

THE COURT: Overruled. We are in recess for five minutes.

RECESS.

THE COURT: We are all here and the jury is not here. The jury cannot hear what is being said. Can we have court tomorrow, Gentlemen?

MR. ERBECKER: I have work I have to do, Your Honor, some appeals I am working on. I have made arrangements to do it. I am sorry.

MR. RICE: Afternoon would be free for me.

MR. NEDEFF: We would be available.

MR. NEW: The State would be available.

THE COURT: Let me ask you this question again before we take up for afternoon. See if we can't take advantage of tomorrow as a day we can have another trial.

MR. ERBECKER: I will bring in a verified motion this afternoon. I have more than one case I can't do it. This is the third week we have been going in this thing.

THE COURT: If there is one objection, I will have to say no, it being a legal holiday. I thought be agreement. If we can't be in full agreement that we go on, naturally there won't be court. Ready for the jury?

MR. ERBECKER: Yes.

THE COURT: Everybody?

EVERYBODY: Yes.

JURY PRESENT AND SEATED.

THE COURT: Next question on cross examination.

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

Q. Doctor, you indicated in your answer that those injuries were not self inflicted, in your opinion were they inflicted intentionally by someone?

MR. NEW: We object.

THE COURT: Objection sustained. It invades the province of the jury.

Q. Would you say that the presence at, or the participation in these acts that were performed on the body of the dead girl there - does that indicate a normal behavior pattern of a person who did that, who was present when it was done?

MR. NEW: We object.

THE COURT: Sustained

Q. You and I had a short conference there while the jury were excused?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. At that time did you tell me, in substance, you would prefer not giving an opinion?

MR. BOWMAN: We object.

THE COURT: Objection sustained. Ladies and Gentlemen of the Jury and Alternate Jurors, you will ignore that question in arriving at a verdict in this case.

Q. Are you willing to give an opinion in this case as to the sanity or insanity of Gertrude Baniszewski, yes or no?

MR. BOWMAN: We object.

THE COURT: Ladies and Gentlemen, the objection will be sustained. You will ignore the question in arriving at a verdict in this case.

Q. Doctor, I am going to ask you a short hypothetical question concerning the facts similar to those in evidence in this case. In other words, I will ask you to assume certain facts being true and ask you to give an opinion, based on these assumed facts.

MR. NEW: The State will object to that.

THE COURT: Objection sustained before the question is asked - as to the form of the question.

Q. Doctor, do you recall my discussing with you -

MR. BOWMAN: We object.

THE COURT: Objection sustained.

Q. Do you recall my going over the question with you? In going over the hypothetical question I told you I was going to propound in this case?

MR. NEW: We object.

THE COURT: Sustained.

Q. Did you have a discussion with me relative to what I was going to have you testify to in this case today?

MR. NEW: We object.

THE COURT: Objection sustained.

Q. Did you not, relating to the subject matter, did you have a discussion with me relative to what I was going to have you testify to in this case today?

MR. NEW: We object.

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

Q. Doctor, are you personally acquainted with the defendant here, Gertrude Baniszewski?

A. No.

Q. Did you ever treat her or examine her any time?

A. No.

Q. Did you ever have conversation with her?

A. No.

Q. Doctor, I am going to ask you to assume certain facts to be true and to give an opinion, a psychiatric opinion based on these assumed facts, with particular reference to the conversation you and I had in the absence of the jury a while ago.

MR. NEW: The State objects.

THE COURT: Objection sustained.

MR. ERBECKER: I would like to make an Offer to Prove.

THE COURT: Ladies and Gentlemen of the Jury and Alternate Jurors, a recess is necessary at this time. Rather than have a recess, I am going to send you to lunch. We will resume today at 1:30. Can all the jurors come back at 1:30? By agreement of counsel and with the consent of State and defendants given in open court, the jury is permitted to separate during the recess for lunch. Don't talk among yourselves and don't let anyone talk to you about this case or any subject connected therewith. Don't form or express any opinion on the case till the case is finally submitted to you. Don't read any newspaper articles that may appear about this case and don't listen or watch anything that may be broadcast about the case. Jury is excused.

JURY EXCUSED.

THE COURT: Alright, you may be seated. Let the record show, Mrs. Court Reporter, all the jurors are out of the courtroom and out of the presence and bearing of these proceedings, including the alternate jurors. Your Offer to Prove?

MR. ERBECKER: At this time the defendant Gertrude Baniszewski makes the following Offer to Prove the following testimony would be elicited from this witness if he were permitted to testify in this cause. That the witness had a conversation in private with me in the absence of the jury, wherein the witness and I discussed his testimony and what his testimony would probably be about on cross examination and that further I was going to - the witness was informed by me I was going to ask a hypothetical question concerning the facts, simply to those in evidence in this case, going to ask the witness to assume certain facts as true and give an opinion based on these assumed facts. Further, in the conversation with the witness and further Offer to Prove will show the witness is a witness for the State of Indiana, and that he performed the autopsy on the deceased, he was the state's witness, and that he was reluctant to give an opinion to the hypothetical question I was going to ask.

THE COURT: Same ruling. Objection sustained to the question. Anything else, sir?

MR. ERBECKER: No, Your Honor, I have further evidence from this witness this afternoon.

THE COURT: Alright.

MR. ERBECKER: I am not precluded from making a record with reference to this witness from the Court's ruling. I am not going to be duplicitous and not repetitious. I want to be sure the record contains things I think are germane to this defense.

THE COURT: I am the last one to preclude anybody from doing anything that is proper under the Rules of Evidence. At the same time, this has to be a trial in a court of law under rules prescribed by not only the law books but decisions of the Supreme Court. I think the question was objectionable and the objection by the State was timely made before any harm could be done anybody. That is my ruling. You will not be precluded as to making any kind of record you want to make.

MR. ERBECKER: We are bowing to the court's ruling. I want to know if I am going to be restricted?

THE COURT: Not in this court, You might be someplace else. Not here. Again, I would like to have you review your business tomorrow, Gentlemen, and see if we can't use the day as a trial day. I understand the law - if there is an objection from one, on a legal holiday, I have to abide by it. I may be wrong. I think that is the law. I would like to use tomorrow as another trial day. Be sure the record shows these statements are made in the absence and out of the hearing of the jury. We are in recess in this case till 1:30 today, I want to thank you people in back for listening to me and behaving yourselves during these proceedings. You have been very nice.

RECESS.

1:30 P.M. AND THE TRIAL OF THIS CAUSE WAS RESUMED.

THE COURT: Ready for the jury?

MR. NEW: Yes, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Bring in the jury.

JURY PRESENT AND SEATED.

THE COURT: Next question.

MR. ERBECKER: At this time the defendant Gertrude Baniszewski respectfully moves the court to reconsider it's previous ruling on the long hypothetical question for the purpose of ascertaining the grounds and reasons assigned by the State and other defendants.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. ERBECKER: No further questions.

THE COURT: The defendant Paula Marie Baniszewski may examine this witness.

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

Q. Doctor Ellis, the young lady seated behind me is Paula Marie, one of the defendants in this action. Have you ever had professional relations with her?

A. No, sir.

Q. Have you ever attended her any time or any place?

A. No.

Q. I believe you testified earlier in response to a question by Mr. Erbecker that you had spent approximately four hours actual work on the autopsy and in the course of time since then have spent approximately two hours more running over your notes for the purpose of refreshing your memory?

A. That is right, approximately right.

Q. As a result of approximately six hours time you spent, would you be able to tell us at this time whether or not there was any injury or mark on this body of such nature you could tell the sex of the person who struck the blow?

A. No, sir.

Q. Would you be able to make any suggestion to us concerning the possible age or strength of any person who may have struck the blow inflicting the injuries you have seen?

A. No, sir.

Q. Could you say anything with regard to the height or weight of a person who might have caused such injury to this body?

A. No, sir.

Q. You would be unable to say, based on what you have seen, the possible strength, whether it was much strength or little strength used causing this particular injury?

A. No, sir.

Q. Would it be correct then to say that on the basis of what you have seen, you cannot - either directly or indirectly - make any statement which would point to a particular person or class of persons who caused or probably caused the injury?

A. That is correct.

MR. RICE: No further questions.

THE COURT: Defendant John Stephan Baniszewski and Coy Hubbard may examine the witness.

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

Q. Doctor, you found an injury to the left side of the head on reflecting the scalp, is that correct?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. What was the nature of that injury?

A. This is essentially a bruise. However, the internal aspect of the scalp showed the bruise rather than the outer portion.

Q. The bruise did not appear on the outer portion of the scalp?

A. I was unable to see this bruise till I reflected the skin flop.

Q. What was the size of that bruise?

A. This, as I remember, was approximately four to five centimeters in greatest diameter.

Q. Four to five centimeters? A centimeter is about two-fifths of an inch?

A. Approximately two and a half centimeters to an inch.

Q. This was an inch and a half to two inches?

A. That would be correct.

Q. In greatest diameter?

A. That is right, sir.

Q. What is the location on my head, Doctor, if you will show the jury, about where you found that?

A. The deceased's hairline was further anterior than yours. It was behind the hairline in approximately this region.

Q. About here?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Then you later removed the skull and examined the brain grossly, did you not?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. And you found blood in the dural space.

A. Yes, sir.

Q. How much?

A. I found approximately twenty to thirty cubic centimeters, which would be approximately two table spoons.

Q. Two tablespoons?

A. Yes.

Q. Did you find any evidence of clotting at all?

A. No evidence of clotting.

Q. You were unable to find any?

A. That is right.

Q. Now, did you find an injury to the brain?

A. There was an ecchymotic area over the superior surface of the occipital lobe on the left.

Q. Can you show on my head approximately where that was?

A. The occipital portion is the posterior-most portion and this, I described as being on the superior surface of the occipital lobe, approximately the occipital parietal lobe at the left. That would make it approximately there.

Q. Right there?

A. Yes. I found another one on the inferior surface of the right occipital lobe - make it underneath the surface of the occipital lobe on the right side, actually slightly nearer the midline than I can point to on you.

Q. Which side of the brain did you find blood?

A. On the right.

Q. On the right side - would it be accurate to say the blood you found on the right side of the subdural space could not have come directly from any injury to the brain on the left side?

A. You say directly, meaning bleeding from the brain injury itself?

Q. Yes.

A. It would be correct insofar as saying it did not come from the injury to the brain on that side, not necessarily true as to the injury pertaining to the head.

Q. Because of the contrecoup?

A. Yes.

Q. It could not have come from any trauma directly to the brain on the left side of midline?

A. Yes.

Q. Because of the lining?

A. That is correct.

Q. Did you find the injury from where the blood came?

A. I could not identify any particular vessel - saying this vessel would have been the source of the bleeding.

Q. You could not?

A. No.

Q. Can you say whether or not there were twenty to thirty cubic centimeters of blood in that subdural space at the time she died?

A. I can say that there would be very little bleeding into it, if any, after death. After death, there is no pressure in the vascular system, so bleeding into tissues stops.

Q. Is it accurate to say, substantially, all the blood was there at the time she died?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. And you know what a spinal tap is, don't you, Doctor?

A. Yes.

Q. Would that have detected the presence of blood if it was performed immediately before her death?

A. The only blood I identified was present within the cranium. A spinal tap lower would probably not have shown.

Q. It probably would not - it is not impossible?

A. It might have showed a little - a few cells. I doubt if it would have shown any bleeding.

Q. The point is, there is a connection - is there not - all the way through?

A. There is a connection but this blood I saw was localized a fairly good distance from the opening between the skull and the spinal column.

Q. It was localized?

A. It was found only in the area I found. It had not spread.

Q. It had not begun to organize?

A. No, it had not.

Q. Because of that you drew some inferences as to the time it had been there, did you?

A. I inferred, because there was no staining of the brain as would occur as the blood breaks down - since there was no breakdown noticed, I did decide this was a fairly recent injury.

Q. That was because of the quality of the blood?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. As well as the nature of the surrounding tissues would that be correct?

A. Because the tissues were not stained by the breakdown products of the blood.

Q. The inference then is to the time the blow was struck that caused the brain injury that caused the bleeding, is based on the quality of the blood, is that correct?

A. Yes, this is what is making me feel the injury was obtained at least three day - within at least three days of the time of death.

Q. What is thrombosis?

A. Essentially a blood clot.

Q. Now, you were unable to identify the blood vessel or vessels from which this blood came, correct?

A. That is correct.

Q. So you can't honestly say, is that correct?

A. I can't honestly say what?

Q. Where it came from?

A. I can say it came from torn vessels within the skull cap.

Q. On the right side?

A. On the right side.

Q. Which, you would be unable to identify?

A. That is right.

Q. Because of size?

A. This would be the reason.

Q. Then would it be correct to say that - let me ask you this, are there cases where a blow is struck to the head causing damage to the vessels in the brain, but by reason of the presence of a thrombosis the loss of blood is delayed for some considerable time, till the time the thrombosis is expelled or moves?

A. I would think that this would be a matter of time - if the blood remained in this vessel till the thrombosis moved there could conceivably be time for repair of the vessel and there probably would not be bleeding from it. It is possible, if the thrombosis moved soon enough after the injury it could bleed later.

Q. You are acquainted with Legal Medicine, Pathology and Toxicology by Gonzales, Vance, Helpern and and Umberger?

A. Yes, I am.

Q. You don't know what Page 159 is?

A. No.

Q. Is that an authority in the field?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Doctor, I will ask you whether or not you agree or disagree with this statement. Violence which jars the head may cause a rupture of a blood vessel in the subarachnoid space on the lateral aspect of a cerebral hemisphere with bleeding into the subdural space. The bleeding may be primary and continuous, or temporary closure of the vessel by thrombosis may occur, followed a few days later by expulsion of the thrombus and secondary hemorrhage. Do you agree or disagree with that?

A. This is one of the questions that several authorities have written different opinions on this. This refers to the chronic enlargement of the subdural as it becomes chronic. Some have felt this is a correct explanation for chronic enlargement, others felt the theory of osmosis factor in this and others, the breakdown of blood then causes osmosis to get further blood into the subdural. The problem has not been resolved one way or another.

Q. Doctor, if more than one blow had been struck to the head of Sylvia Likens over a period of time covering forty-eight hours before her death, and assuming that a blow caused the trauma to the brain which caused the bleeding which caused the cerebral edema, which contributed to her death, is there any way you, as a pathologist, or anyone else for that matter, could say which blow did it?

A. It would not be - you could not say with certainty, especially in this case, which blow did it.

Q. You could not say with reasonable medical certainty?

A. However, the blood in the subdural location was found almost diagonally of the blow I described underneath the scalp, which would make this contrecoup position tend to tie it up with that.

Q. From that spot?

A. That is right.

Q. So it would then - of the hypothetical multiple blows to a medical certainty one was struck to that area?

A. It would fit this theory of developments.

Q. Now, do you know the temperature of that body at the time it died?

A. No, sir.

Q. In any opinions that you have testified to during your direct examination, have you necessarily made any assumption as to what that temperature was at that time? I think it calls for a "yes" or "no" or "I don't know", Doctor.

A. As far as I know, I did not assume a temperature at the time of death.

Q. You did not? As far as you know, for any of your opinions, is that correct?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Was this based on part on temperature loss from the time of death?

A. I testified to the time of death based on - partially on temperature and partially on rigor mortis. I emphasized those are quite variable means.

Q. You did testify to an opinion?

A. That is right.

Q. That was partially on temperature, is that right?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Was that based partially on assumption of temperature at the time of death?

A. It is based on assuming that a person carries approximately a normal temperature and then it is estimated from that, the amount of temperature they have lost to the time you measure it, but it is again an assumption and assumes that the person cannot be below a basic temperature and still be living, so that the emperature would be at least above that at the time of death.

Q. What are the widest variations in temperature you know of that human beings tolerated without succumbing?

A. The lowest temperature I know of is in a person that later died, but at the time the temperature was taken it was 9.97, I believe.

Q. That is the lowest?

A. 9.96 to 97.

Q. Does shock have an effect?

A. Yes, sir, with shock a lower metabolic temperature is maintained. As the metabolism lowers, you expect a person to become chilly, with dropping temperature.

Q. Now, does shock, when it operates as the cause of death, leave any lesions observable grossly or microscopically at the time of autopsy?

A. If shock is present long enough, the kidneys in particular will show changes especially microscopically.

Q. They did not?

A. Microscopically it was observable in the lower nephron.

Q. The microscopical findings are not in the reports that correct?

A. They are not in the autopsy report.

Q. Did you find any fractures?

A. No, sir.

Q. Did you - how did you look for fractures?

A. Well, I palpated all the extremities and bones, feeling them to see if there was any massive swelling around them, any abnormal bends, places where the bond would move, where there was no joint.

Q. That does not necessarily reflect a hairline fracture?

A. No, it does not.

Q. Did you X-ray the body for the presence of hairline fractures?

A. I did not, no.

Q. Did you know whether or not anyone else did?

A. I am not certain.

Q. Do you ever do that?

A. I have not X-rayed a body for fractures. I have X-rayed only for the finding of foreign objects.

Q. Do you have X-ray equipment at the morgue?

A. Not at the morgue. Downstairs if is available.

Q. It is available downstairs?

A. Yes.

Q. You testified malnutrition was a contributing factor in the death of this person?

A. I feel it was.

Q. What was the weight of the body?

A. It was estimated at one hundred to one hundred and ten pounds.

Q. Estimated?

A. Yes.

Q. Did you weigh the body?

A. No.

Q. You did not?

A. No

Q. Why did you not do that?

A. There is no scales.

Q. There are no what?

A. No scales in the morgue.

Q. No scales in the morgue?

A. No.

Q. General Hospital?

A. That is right.

Q. Does anything happen to tissue - excuse me - what happens to tissue that is subjected to the heat equivalent to that in the end of a burning cigarette?

A. With heat there is coagulation of the protein and a breakdown of cell structure.

Q. This would be observable microscopically, would it not?

A. It is observable microscopically but it is perhaps better seen on gross appearance.

Q. It is?

A. I feel it is.

Q. Were there areas on the body where you testified it was either done with a hot object or a sharp instrument, you were unable to tell which?

A. There were areas I could not tell which.

Q. By gross observation?

A. By gross observation.

Q. Would - then would this phenomenon you have just mentioned have been identifiable microscopically by burning rather than by a sharp instrument, if you know?

A. I think they would be rather minute, not pronounced at all.

Q. They would be observable or not?

A. I think they would be observable but I still would not be able to say definitely they were burns. They were not that specific to say.

Q. Did you section them?

A. I looked at the sections microscopically.

Q. You were not able to tell?

A. I was not certain they were all burns. I did not section all, but I sectioned some of the lesions.

Q. How many autopsies have you performed, Doctor?

A. I would say roughly two hundred and fifty to two hundred and seventy-five.

Q. Have you ever seen a larger subdural hematoma at an autopsy than this one?

MR. NEW: I object. It is not relevant whether he had or had not.

THE COURT: Overruled.

A. Yes, I have.

Q. Have you ever seen - I will withdraw that - now what is the mechanisms by which a subdural hematoma causes death?

A. The subdural is just one of the factors along with subdural edema. These factors cause increased pressure and then the pressure changes on the brain are what cause the fatal injury.

Q. What causes edema?

A. Edema is essentially the same as is seen in a bruise or where you hit yourself. As the tissue is injured, or in the case of the brain, as the pressure between the spinal fluid and the vascular system change, there is a collection of fluid into the area and this is edema.

Q. Is that a collection in the same space in which the blood accumulates, or is it another type of collection?

A. No, it is within the brain tissue itself.

Q. Intercellular edema?

A. Part of it is intercellular and the other part is intra.

Q. What caused edema?

A. Edema may be due to change in the pressure balance between the spinal fluid pressure and the pressure within the blood vascular system. It is also due to a problem with reabsorption of spinal fluid, a portion of the brain reabsorbs.

Q. Can that be caused by anything besides a subdural hematoma?

A. It would be due to any blow to the head, without a subdural hematoma.

Q. Anything besides a blow to the head? Can it be caused by anything else?

A. It is seen with increased pressure in the brain from any cause.

Q. What about convulsions, would that cause it?

A. I would not know.

Q. Is it your assumption or your opinion in this case that the subdural hematoma caused the edema?

A. I think it was one of the factors.

Q. That caused the edema?

A. The pressure from the subdural was one of the factors.

Q. Pressure from the subdural. Now you have seen autopsies or been present at autopsies where I believe you testified before there were far larger hematomas in the subdural space?

A. That is right

Q. Have you been present at autopsies where there was far greater edema than in this case?

A. Yes.

Q. What, if anything, did that indicate to you as a pathologist, Doctor, with respect to this person?

A. Well, I don't know what you mean exactly.

Q. Let me ask you this. The edema did not substantially - the hematoma did not increase after death in this case?

A. No.

Q. Nor in others you saw?

A. No.

Q. Then the others tolerated a far more severe brain injury without death than this one, is that correct?

A. This does not have to be entirely correct. I want to mention one thing I have not mentioned here. That is concussion, and in concussion an individual can die from the blow to the brain with no injury even identified or no changes identified.

Q. With no lesions observable at all?

A. No.

Q. From concussion?

A. That is correct.

Q. This can cause death?

A. That is right.

Q. Well, if that person also then had a subdural hematoma that was causing edema, would it be possible that the doctor, the pathologist doing the autopsy would see the edema and subdural hematoma and see no evidence of concussion and conclude the subdural hematoma caused the death when in fact the concussion possibly was from another blow?

A. Well, in the first place, I have not said definitely which blow it was. It is completely possible another concussion could have caused even the edema.

Q. Yes, it is also possible, as you said a few moments ago, for a concussion to kill without causing edema?

A. That is right.

Q. Without any lesion observable at the autopsy?

A. That is correct.

Q. The body could have died of a concussion inflicted by a blow that left no mark?

A. It is very possible a concussion was part of it.

Q. How quickly would that have to happen?

A. It does not have to be a definite time limit on that either, although within a day or so. It depends. It can vary from each individual case and is usually found in a person who has received multiple blows over a period of time.

Q. Is it always found in those kind of persons?

A. Usually found.

Q. Not always?

A. Not always. This is a boxer type death that is found.

Q. You found evidence of malnutrition, correct?

A. I found what I interpreted as malnutrition, both in external examination and internal examination.

Q. Doctor, when you say that the spleen is entirely normal on superficial and on cut section, you refer to gross observation in both cases?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. And the Anatomical Diagnosis you filed with the Coroner's Office did not include your microscopic findings, is that correct?

A. That is correct.

Q. When were they completed?

A. I can't give you the exact date but I would say approximately a month later.

Q. Approximately a month later?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. You filed this November 24th, did you?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Were they back then?

A. I -

Q. Your slides, Doctor, did you have your slides then?

A. I really don't know.

Q. How long does it ordinarily take?

A. That is in the process or changing at the present time. Last July it took as much as - well I still don't have some of the slides from last July. I have most of the slides now from recent cases in approximately two to three weeks.

Q. In October, you could get them in two or three weeks?

A. I don't think so. I think in December I started getting slides pretty quickly.

Q. You don't know whether you had the slides?

A. At that time I am not certain.

Q. Did you make any notation with respect to the dates you received the slides?

A. I did not make a note in my records, no.

Q. Did I understand you to say on direct examination your opinion as to the cause of death was "increased intracranial pressure due to brain contusion, secondary to shock from severe burns and laceration"?

A. No, I think they were underlying factors.

Q. Being from severe burns and lacerations?

A. That is what I said.

Q. That is your opinion?

A. With the added factor - malnutrition adds into the others I have described.

Q. Now, you assume that the intracranial pressure was due to brain contusion, is that correct?

A. Yes, sir, there was a brain contusion present, which is an injury to the brain, and in the presence of injury to the brain I would feel edema, increased pressure would be at least related to that.

Q. Now, the brain contusion is not the subdural hematoma, is it?

A. No, a contusion is a lesion I pointed out to you on your head.

Q. The one on the right side?

A. The one on the right and the one on the left.

Q. Did you find edema on both sides of the brain?

A. Yes, I did.

Q. Do you have an opinion as to whether or not this person would have died if the hematoma had not occurred?

A. I really can't say. I think it was an added factor of all or them that caused her to die.

Q. Do you say it took all of them to cause death at that time?

A. At that time I would feel so.

Q. It took everything?

A. I feel this is correct.

Q. If any factor was missing, is it your opinion death would not have occurred at that time?

A. Again we are in a vague area.

Q. Yes, we are.

A. How I can say why any individual dies at any one time is really beyond medical knowledge.

Q. Will you repeat that?

A. Why a person would die at 6:00 o'clock rather than 6:01, from a multiple injury I feel is beyond knowledge at this time.

Q. Do you feel the area or the span of time itself is within your knowledge?

A. This would have to go back to the injury and with some injuries yes, others become more difficult.

Q. What about this case?

A. In this case, I testified here death was due to these factors all in combination and whether she would have died at that specific time if any of them were absent or not, I really could not say.

MR. BOWMAN: Judge, I would like to have a minute or two, if I might.

THE COURT: Does that mean you want a recess?

MR. BOWMAN: No, I need to impose on everyone a minute. No further questions.

THE COURT: Any re-direct, State of Indiana? Mr. Nedeff, please, for Richard Hobbs.

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

Q. Now, Doctor, could you tell me if a blow with a fist to the head of the dead girl, could that cause a subdural hematoma?

A. Did you ask me if it did?

Q. Is it possible?

A. Yes, it is possible.

Q. Then a blow with a board could cause a hematoma?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. A blow with a broom handle or mop handle - would that cause a hematoma?

A. It could, but if it is related, if this subdural hematoma is related to the injury I described, this was a bruise on the left temporal region, it was of greater diameter than a broom handle.

Q. Would a blow inflicted with a judo chop - could that cause this?

A. Again it could.

Q. Could a fall down a stairway, striking a concrete wall?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. That could be the cause of the abrasion on one side of the skull and the hematoma on the opposite side of the skull, that could be quite possible?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. A blow struck to the head by a coca cola bottle or some sort of bottle - could that cause this subdural hematoma?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Now, a person flipped over the shoulder of another person and coming to the ground or on a wooden floor or concrete floor, could that have caused the abrasion on one side of the skull and the hematoma on the opposite side?

A. As long as the head struck some object, yes, sir.

Q. Now, in your autopsy report on page 3, you say a figure is present in the midline between the umbilicus and the xiphoid process. Then you say "This is an apparent numeral 3 which height of 8 cms, or 3 1/4 inches and has a total width of one inch over the lower abdomen". Now from your examination of this body and this figure that purports to be a figure 3, can you tell the court and jury what kind of instrument was used to make that letter 3? If you can?

A. At the time of the autopsy, I felt it was probably done by either a hot or sharp pointed object. However, I have seen, since being in this courtroom, another object which could very easily have formed this, if it was hot.

Q. The eye screw shown to you?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Now, you also say was present over the lower abdomen also were the words stating "I am a prostitute and proud of it". Then you also added "The edge of these letters are quite sharp and clear". Can you give an opinion how those letters were put on?

A. This again I felt was either a sharp or hot object or a hot, sharp object.

Q. By sharp object, could that have been a needle or pin?

A. Yes, it could.

Q. Now, within these words and letters of "I am a prostitute and proud of it" did you detect any ink or pencil marks?

A. No, I did not.

Q. Now, you also say there are "ecchymotic areas over both anterior superior iliac crests". Is that in connection with these words and letters?

MR. NEW: We object. This assumes a fact not in evidence. He is reading from the report.

THE COURT: Objection sustained.

Q. Now, let me ask you this then, Doctor, you say the cause of death was increased - in your report - increased intracranial pressure due to a brain contusion. Now, if the deceased did not have a hematoma, or as you set out, intracranial pressure due to brain contusion, could she have survived the abrasions or lesions over the body - could she have survived those lacerations, abrasions and lesions and burn marks and malnutrition?

A. Yes, sir, the abrasions and contusions all add up to open areas on her body where she would lose fluid from her body and lead toward dehydration and tend to lead toward complications. Now, this plus the fact of loss of blood into the bruises, would indicate the loss of, in all likelihood, a good amount of body fluid. This very likely could cause death without the head injury. Whether it did or not, I could not say.

Q. In fact, no one can say?

A. That is right.

Q. That is even in the face of marvelous recuperative powers of the human body?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Now, could you say if Sylvia Likens, on October 26, 1965, was given medical treatment that day or the 25th or 24th or 23rd, could she not only have survived the lesions and abrasions, but also the intracranial or subdural hematoma? Yes or no, if you can.

A. I don't think I can. I don't know how much each individual injury she had on any of the dates you mentioned. I would not know what value medical treatment would be at that time.

Q. One last question. Now, you said she did suffer from malnutrition?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. You began your autopsy examination - inspection - you measured her as five foot four inches?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Is that correct?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Her weight of one hundred to one hundred and ten pounds?

A. Estimated.

Q. She was small boned girl, was she?

A. Yes.

Q. That weight and height and dimensions of bone structure, they were not beyond normal limits, were they?

A. From an external examination, the bones - particularly the pelvic bones - were quite prominent, which was suggestive, but not definite, particularly in her age group. However, in the internal examination, the liver was yellow, which is a suggestion that fat is present within the liver, which is consistent with malnutrition.

Q. This is the last question. The enumeration on the lover abdomen, would that in itself be fatal?

A. I don't think so.

Q. They were healing, were they?

A. They did have a - essentially a membrane formed over them showing they were in the early processes of healing.

MR. NEDEFF: No other questions.

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

Q. Doctor, if exertion and force was used in tying this girl to a bed, could that force of exertion any way contributed to the head injury?

A. If in the process of a struggle in a situation like this, the head was struck or the head struck something with moderate force, it could have caused the head injury.

Q. Would it have been possible for those particular injuries to have occurred?

A. If, in the struggle, the head struck something at that time.

MR. ERBECKER: No further questions.

THE COURT: Re-direct, State of Indiana?

MR. NEW: No, thank you, Doctor.

THE COURT: Omitted questions on cross examination?

MR. NEDEFF: I do have one.

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

Q. Doctor, were you ever at 3850 East New York Street?

A. At the address, no, sir. I obviously have driven down the street.

Q. In the kitchen there on the east wall of the kitchen is a doorway leading to the basement and a stairway makes two quarter turns -

MR. BOWMAN: We object to the attorney testifying without being sworn.

THE COURT: Objection sustained.

MR. NEDEFF: It was a hypothetical question.

THE COURT: You based it on evidence. Objection sustained.

MR. NEDEFF: I will withdraw.

Q. Doctor, if in a kitchen at 3850 East New York Street is a stairway which makes two quarter turns of two steps each, approximately eight steps down and at the bottom of which is a concrete wall - if the dead girl's head had struck the concrete wall, could that have been the mark on her skull which caused the subdural hematoma?

A. Just a matter of words you used - you said "if the dead girl". If you mean while she was still living, yes.

MR. NEDEFF: No other questions.

THE COURT: Mr. Rice, please.

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

Q. Doctor, I believe in response to a question by Mr. Nedeff here some little time back, you did say that a blow struck by the fist could possibly cause the subdural hematoma which has been so much in discussion. Am I correct in that belief?

A. Yes.

Q. Would it be required that the blow that was struck actually land on the surface of the skull where this hematoma occurred in order to produce the effect you found upon your autopsy?

A. It would not have to be in that same location, if the head were in motion at the time the blow was struck.

Q. Suppose this blow were struck, as a matter of fact, by a clenched fist, striking on the point of the jaw. Assuming the blow was struck thirty days before death of the girl, could that possibly have any effect?

A. It would not have caused the subdural. The subdural hematoma was too recent.

Q. If it happened, as a matter of fact, the 7th day of August, 1965, would it not in fact be minimal, as far as the subdural hematoma was concerned?

MR. NEW: We object. It assumes facts not in evidence.

THE COURT: Objection sustained.

Q. I will ask you whether or not a space of time as much as thirty days from the striking of the blow would be sufficient, from a medical point of view, to remove any effect it might have had in terms of causing death?

A. It would not have had any effect on the subdural. It is possible that as factors mentioned earlier of multiple blows to the head being in a sense contributory to the contusion in that after one injury there were repeated injuries, that may have a bigger effect. It could have it's effect in that way.

MR. RICE: No further questions.

THE COURT: Any further questions?

MR. ERBECKER: One further question.

Q. Did the lack of medical care and treatment contribute any way to this death?

A. Given in time, medical treatment very well could have helped this patient.

MR. ERBECKER: Thank you. Any re-direct?

MR. NEW: No re-direct.

THE COURT: May this witness leave?

MR. NEW: As far as the State is concerned.

WITNESS EXCUSED.

THE COURT: Let's recess for five minutes. During the recess, retire to the jury room. 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 it till the case is finally submitted to you. Jury and Alternate Jurors are excused for five minutes.

JURY EXCUSED.

THE COURT: Before you bring the jury in, we are all here. May I ask if it is definite there is no court tomorrow, Mr. Erbecker?

MR. ERBECKER: Defendant Gertrude Baniszewski objects for several reasons. I think I told the court before. I told the court I had to talk to her tomorrow, about a motion I am going to file in her behalf. I told the court it is impossible four times now.

THE COURT: Then we will recess this evening till 9:30 Wednesday. We have that understanding in the absence of the jury. Are you ready for the jury?

MR. NEDEFF: Richard Hobbs is.

THE COURT: Bring in the jury.
e-mail: webmaster@sylvialikens.com

Return to Baniszewski Trial Transcript

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests