Arthur Paul Kebel - Physician / Deputy Coroner

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

Arthur Paul Kebel - Physician / Deputy Coroner

Postby admin » October 31st, 2010, 6:55 pm


ARTHUR PAUL KEBEL , a witness called on behalf of the State of Indiana,
being duly sworn by the Court, testified as follows:


Q. State your name to the Court and jury, please.

A. I am Arthur Paul Kebel.

Q. What is your business of profession?

A. I am a physician in Marion County. I hold an unlimited license to practice medicine in the State of Indiana. I am also deputy coroner for this county.

Q. Were you a deputy coroner assigned to the Marion County Coroner's office October 26, 1965?

A. Yes, sir, I was.

Q. In that capacity, sir, did you have occasion to go to 3850 East New York Street, Indianapolis, Marion County, Indiana?

A. Yes, sir, I did.

Q. What time of day or night did you arrive there, Doctor?

A. May I consult my notes, Mr. New, approximately 7:30 in the evening.

Q. Upon your arrival - strike that - how did you happen to go there, Doctor?

A. Well, I was on my way to a - I had finished my dinner and was on my way to a little gathering and I received a bell boy call from the Medical Society Exchange Board.

MR. ERBECKER: We object.

THE COURT: Objection sustained as to any conversation, what you were informed.

Q. Did you thereafter go to the vicinity I described?

A. Yes, sir, I did.

Q. Recite your academic qualifications?

A. Bachelor of Science Degree in chemistry and Doctor of Medicine from Indiana University.

Q. And when did you receive your D.S. degree, sir?

A. 1939.

Q. From what university?

A. City College, New York.

Q. When did you receive your M.D. Degree?

A. 1961, Indiana University.

Q. Did you serve any internship or residency?

A. I served internship at St. Vincent's Hospital, this city.

Q. And when did you engage in regular or general practice of Medicine, sir?

A. 1962, in May.

Q. And have you, until the present time, been continuously engaged in the general practice of medicine?

A. Yes, sir, I have.

Q. How long before October 26, 1965 had you served as a deputy coroner?

A. Since the present administration took over the first of January of that year.

Q. Now, Doctor, upon your arrival at 3850 East New York Street, what did you do?

A. Well, I was informed there was a body of a young girl in an upstairs bedroom.

MR. BOWMAN: We object.

THE COURT: He asked what did you do. Objection sustained.

A. I went to the upstairs of the residence to view the body of a young girl.

Q. Do you remember what part of the upstairs you went to?

A. A person took me. It was a back bedroom.

Q. Will you describe what you observed at that time?

A. Yes, as I approached the door of this bedroom, I could see there was a person lying on a mattress on the floor of this room.

Q. Was the person dressed?

A. Yes, the person was clad.

Q. What - was that a male or female?

A. Female.

Q. White?

A. White.

Q. Otherwise, describe the body of the person you observed.

A. The girl appeared to be fifteen or sixteen years old and when I first saw her her hands were folded across her chest. She had on an upper garment that looked like a blouse to me and a lower garment of slacks of some sort.

Q. Would you describe the clothes as dirty or clean?

A. The clothes were surprisingly clean in contrast to other surroundings in the room.

Q. What way?

A. The room was in disarray, not particularly clean. The clothes looked fresh like they had been recently laundered and put on this person.

Q. Do you recall if there was a bed in this same room?

A. May I refer to my photographs of the scene that I have had in my possession since this happened?

Q. Sure.

A. Yes, my pictures shows there was a cot.

MR. BOWMAN: We object.

THE COURT: The objection is to what the picture shows. You may refresh your memory. Hold them so the jury can't see them.

A. Yes, there was a cot in the room.

Q. Was the body laying on the cot?

A. No, it was not.

Q. Where was the body lying when you first observed it?

A. The body was lying partially on and partially off of a mattress.

Q. You made an examination of the body?

A. Yes, I did.

Q. To your knowledge, were you the first person to touch the body?

A. Yes, to my knowledge, I was the first person to touch the body.

Q. Officer, I will hand you what has been marked for the purpose of identification as State's Exhibit No. 3, and previously introduced in evidence. I will ask you to examine that particular exhibit and tell the court and jury whether or not that is the body about which you have testified?

A. Yes, that is the body about which I am testifying.

Q. I will hand you, sir, what has been marked for the purpose of identification as State's Exhibit No. 4 and ask you to examine that and tell whether or not that is the body about which you have been testifying?

A. Yes, that is the body, as a matter of fact, that is my hand on the photograph.

Q. Alright, what kind of examination did you make and what did you first do in connection with that examination?

A. Well, the first thing I did was to look at the face of the victim so that I might identify or recognize her in the event I was asked at some future time to do this. Then I again felt the body for signs of rigidity or rigor mortis and felt various parts of the body for warmth so I could make some estimate what the temperature of the body was, to try and make a conclusion how long the young lady had been dead.

Q. What observation did you make in connection with this examination?

A. The body was in complete rigor, as a matter of fact, when I picked the body up it did not break at the hips, there was pretty complete stiffness. She was a very light person, so this was very possible. Also, I estimated from the differentiation of temperature from the fingers, which would be expected to cool very quickly and come to room temperature, and from the abdomen, which cools rather slowly, they were very near the same, near room temperature.

Q. Did you observe the girl's face carefully?

A. Yes, I did.

Q. What did you observe?

A. Well, I noticed there were numerous contusions about the face and what appeared to be cuts and burns and I noticed there was a tooth broken out and there was evidence of some injury on one side of the girl's head, as though she had been struck a blow.

Q. Which side?

A. On my photographs it shows it to be the right side.

Q. In what part of the head, sir

A. That was in the temporal area, this portion of the head.

Q. When you say this portion, indicate in language so that it may go in the record which portion you are touching with your hand.

A. I am touching immediately before my ear and at level of the eye.

Q. Would that be known as the temple, the right temple?

A. I think so.

Q. What sort of bruise would you describe, what sort of injury was it?

A. Well, it was an ecchymotic area which looked as though she had been struck and some bleeding had occurred into the skin and there was some discoloration.

Q. Was it recent or old?

A. Well, it looked to be fairly recent.

Q. Did you find anything else of consequence around the head or face or around the mouth?

A. Only, as I stated, there was a tooth missing. I can't remember at this time whether it was upper or lower. I think, if my memory serves me right, it was an upper tooth missing. As I said, there were cuts and what appeared to be burn or scald marks.

Q. On what portion of the face or head?

A. They were pretty well distributed about the face. I noticed on the photographs I have there are some visible on the right side of the neck and on the right cheek. As a matter of fact, there are two lesions on the cheek, one under the level of the eye and the other one on the angle of the jaw.

Q. What is a lesion, Doctor?

A. A lesion is come break or scar or abrasion or burn of the skin, or a cut.

Q. Could you determine from your observation or examination of this particular girl, what caused these scalds or burns as you called them?

A. No, I could not from my personal examination and observation tell what had caused them. Based on what I have seen previously, clinically, it looked like it might have been done with hot water or perhaps an acid such as a toilet bowl cleaner, cleaning acid, something like this.

Q. Was there any serum coming from either the cuts or burns?

A. No.

Q. What did that indicate to you, Doctor?

A. That would indicate this body had been washed after it was dead.

Q. Was the hair wet or dry?

A. The hair was damp when I first examined the girl.

Q. What would you estimate the room temperature to have been?

A. Well, I would say it was approximately seventy five degrees, seventy to seventy-five degrees.

Q. Have you an opinion, within a reasonable medical certainty, Doctor, as to the estimated time she died?

A. Yes, sir, I do. Now, you must remember, Mr. New, this is a clinical opinion based on only what I knew at the time about the girl and about bodies in general, the lack of differentiation in temperature between the small extremities, the fingers, and the abdomen, the amount of rigor in the body - settling of blood in the body produces rigor mortis - and I estimated the girl had been dead approximately eight to twelve hours, and this is what I gave in my verdict.

Q. How many degrees of temperature does the body usually lose per hour after death?

A. Well, we estimate the body loses approximately four degrees fahrenheit per hour under normal circumstances, and this normal circumstance, of course, depends on room temperature, etc. There are many variables. This is probably one of the least reliable of all methods in estimating death, if you take the sum total of everything put together you can arrive at some conclusion. Now, rigor mortis, for example -

MR. BOWMAN: We object.

THE COURT: Objection sustained.

Q. Doctor, what would cause the variables about which you testified, what might have caused -

MR. BOWMAN: We object. What might - would be speculative.

THE COURT: Overruled.

A. The facts that might influence changes are as follows: First, if the body was on something extremely cold like a tile floor it would delay some of the processes. On the other hand, we do know both heat and cold will accelerate rigor. If a person dies in a convulsive seizure, rigor will set in more rapidly. We know a person in active exercise, if killed, such as a soldier running - if shot - develops rigor rapidly. Variables, as far as temperature goes, temperature will drop more rapidly if the body has no clothing on it and is exposed. The temperature will drop more rapidly if the room temperature is lower. Temperature will drop if there is a breeze over the body. Many variables must be taken into consideration. If the body is immersed in cold water or washed with cold water after death, it will chill rapidly. Many factors are involved. If you don't look for giraffes and are looking for horses, why an estimate of eight to twelve hours would be a reasonable one.

Q. Doctor, you stated shock would develop rigor rapidly. What is shock?

A. Mr. New, there are many definitions and you have before you an accepted text book of medicine. If the court has no objection and if the defense attorneys have no objection, I would like to read the definition into the record.

THE COURT: Do the defendants object?

MR. BOWMAN: Yes, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Objection sustained.

Q. Tell me in your own words.

MR. ERBECKER: We are going to object unless the doctor shows the examination shows shock.

THE COURT: Objection sustained.

Q. Did you see evidence of shock about which you testified?

A. Yes, but it arises from trauma.

MR. BOWMAN: We object.

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

Q. Did you find evidence of shock or traumatic shock? In the body about which you have been testifying?

A. Mr. New, technically -

THE COURT: Yes or no or I don't know.

A. Yes.

Q. What did you find?

A. The end result of shock. The girl was dead.

Q. Now, then, did you find evidence of trauma?

A. I certainly did.

Q. How do you spell that?

A. Trauma.

Q. What is it?

A. Physical injury.

Q. Injury to a body?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. And did you find such injury to this body?

A. Yes, sir, extensive injury.

Q. Describe the location and nature, as you observed it?

MR. ERBECKER: We object. It is repetitious. There is already a description of trauma.

THE COURT: Overruled.

A. The trauma I described was limited to the head and neck. Over the rest of the body was an incredible amount of trauma.

MR. BOWMAN: We object to the characterization.

THE COURT: The word "incredible" will go out.

A. One would hardly know where to begin.

MR. BOWMAN: We object.

THE COURT: Objection sustained. Just describe the trauma. Doctor, if any.

A. Over the area of both breasts, there are marks both like cuts and burns. At the area between the end of the sternum and the top of the umbilicus, was a brand mark, a 3.

Q. Where is the sternum?

A. The sternum is the lower edge of the bony thorax. You can feel it by running your finger down.

Q. What if I call it the breastbone?

A. That is perfectly alright.

Q. Proceed.

A. The area between the top of the pubis and the umbilicus legible letters were cut and - may I read them?

Q. Whatever you saw, Doctor.

A. I am a prostitute and proud of it. There was also a triangle cut immediately above the hairline on the left over the upper extremities. There were numerous punctate lesions - round lesions - that looked like cigarette burns, something a cigarette would do.

Q. What part of the body did you observe these?

A. I observed them on both the upper and lower extremities.

Q. Front or back?

A. Both front and back.

Q. How many?

A. Well, this would be something you would have to count.

Q. Approximately?

A. I'd say one hundred and fifty.

Q. O.K. What else did you find?

A. On the wrist - the right wrist of the decedent there was a cut. This was pretty deep, through the dermis and epidermis, down to the muscle.

Q. How long?

A. About an inch long.

Q. Proceed.

A. The external vagina was swollen and ecchymotic as though it had been kicked - it was extremely puffy, the labia.

Q. What is the labia?

A. The outer lips of the vagina.

Q. Did you see any blood?

A. No.

Q. What do you mean by ecchymotic?

A. Hemorrhaging into tissue.

Q. Internally?

A. Under the skin, sir.

Q. It was swollen?

A. Yes.

Q. Proceed.

A. Mr. New, may I have the photograph of the back of the victim? It is not in my file.

Q. I hand you, Doctor, what has been marked and introduced in evidence as State's Exhibit No. 4, sir.

A. In the area between the scapula there is an ecchymotic discolored area at least an large as my hand, five to six inches long and four inches wide.

Q. Doctor, before you proceed, what is a common term for ecchymotic area that I would understand?

A. Bruise - and punctate lesion - the same round burn type mark - in the small of the back. In the small of the back another area, a bruise about the size of my hand and these lesions appeared to be in an advance states of healing. Some looked fresh and some looked old.

Q. Doctor, at the time you made this examination, did you see the defendant Gertrude Baniszewski or Gertrude Wright?

A. Yes, I did.

Q. Where was she when you were making this examination?

A. I did not see her till I came down from upstairs.

Q. Did you have conversation with her at that time?

A. Yes, a very brief one.

Q. Do you recall if anyone else was present, in hearing - where they might hear what you said to her?

A. Yes, I think Mr. Kaiser was present.

Q. Will you repeat the conversation you had with Mrs. Gertrude Baniszewski at that time?

MR. BOWMAN: We object.

THE COURT: Objection sustained as to Coy Hubbard and John Stephan Baniszewski.

MR. RICE: We also object.

THE COURT: Objection sustained as to Paula Marie Baniszewski.

MR. NEDEFF: We object.

THE COURT: Sustained. Ladies and Gentlemen, the evidence you are about to receive is not to be used in arriving at a verdict to defendants other than Gertrude Baniszewski. You may answer.

Q. Will you relate the conversation, what you said and she said?

A. I asked the lady why she did not call a doctor or call the police when she saw the lesions on this girl, and she said - well, she was taking care of them, had poured some alcohol and first aid supplies, and was taking care of these lesions. That was the extent of that particular item. The other thing was where she got the black eye. I don't recall her answer to that.

Q. Was that the extent of the conversation, sir?

A. That was the extent of it.

Q. Did you see any medication on any of those wounds, sir?

A. No, I did not.

Q. Were you able, Doctor, to determine whether the girl had died in the position or location you found her?

A. No, I could not.

Q. Doctor, based upon your examination of this body as you have been testifying here, and based upon reasonable medical certainty, have you formed an opinion what caused her death?

A. Yes.

Q. Would you state to the jury what, in your opinion, was the cause of the death of the girl whose body you have been testifying about?

MR. BOWMAN: A preliminary question.

THE COURT: I think that is cross examination. Overruled.

MR. BOWMAN: I object to the question because it calls for hearsay.

THE COURT: Overruled.

A. My diagnosis, Ladies and Gentlemen, is a clinical one and I will read it to you.

THE COURT: All you have got to do is tell what caused the death. Answer the question directly.

A. It was my opinion at the scene that death was caused by shock and a subdural hemorrhage.

Q. What caused the shock, in your opinion?

A. The shock had been caused by the multiple trauma upon the body, cuts and burns inflicted upon it.

Q. How would that cause death, Doctor?

A. Well, anytime you hurt anybody any way, whether it be under anesthesia from surgery, impulses are sent to the brain and certain protective mechanisms come into play. These protective mechanisms can sometimes be lost, if the nerve impulses to the brain become overwhelming, instead of a fight response you have the phenomenon of somebody fainting. To a lesser degree, this is an indication of shock. What happens is the autonomic nervous system which is automatic and over which you have no control simply loses control itself and you have a complete vasomotor collapse. Blood vessels normally have tone. All these mechanisms that hold you upright give way and the body collapses. If this is overwhelming, you die.

Q. What are symptoms of subdural hematoma?

A. Clinical symptoms, Mr. New, you are not referring to my observations, what lead me to this conclusion?

Q. No, I am giving a general question - what does a patient show who is suffering from subdural hematoma?

A. If a person begins bleeding anywhere in the head, the first sign is a headache and decreasing loss of consciousness and they may be effected many ways, depending on the area primarily affected by the increased pressure from the injured vessels. They may have slurring of speech. They may lose ability to walk. They may go blind. Any of these things may happen.

Q. What causes subdural hematoma?

A. Subdural hematoma is caused by a rupture of blood vessels underlying the brain.

Q. Usually caused by what?

A. Usually caused by - sometimes this is a natural trauma where a person suffers a stroke, a cerebral vascular accident where a blood vessel is broken in the head. You can cause this by a blow. There are natural things which will burst - aneurysms, weakness in the walls, etc.

Q. Now, a subdural hematoma is located where in the head?

A. Well, you have three arena of tissue underneath the bony skull. The dura, which is the one closest to the bone and serves as a periosteum for the bone, the arachnoidea and the pia mater which is a fine translucent membrane adherent to the brain. If it in subdural, it means under the tough periosteal sheet around the brain.

Q. It is called dural?

A. Yes, sub - underneath. It is also possible to bleed above it.

Q. Now, if there is a blow to the head or the head strikes an object that is solid, will a subdural hematoma occur at the location of the blow?

A. No.

Q. Where would it occur?

A. The term is contrecoup, against the direction of the blow. It is possible to strike a person on the right side of the head and have a hemorrhage occur on the left side of the head.

Q. Would this be simply based on Newton's Third Law of Motion - opposite and counter reaction to a given force?

A. I am not a physicist.

Q. Doctor, you stated you examined the labia and pubic area?

A. That is right.

Q. Did you find any evidence of sexual manipulation?

A. No, sir, I did not, or molestation.

Q. Were you able to determine the type of instrument, whether it was blunt or sharp, had made the blow, if it was an instrument, to the head - about which you just described?

A. Well -

MR. BOWMAN: We object. I don't believe there was any testimony of a blow to the head. There was trauma. The question is leading and suggestive.

THE COURT: Objection sustained for the last reason.

Q. The injury to the head - describe it?

A. Well, sir, the injury to the head was not a cutting injury.

Q. Indicating what?

A. Well, really, Mr. New, indicating nothing because very frequently even when struck with a flat object the scalp will split. There was no splitting of the scalp. It was impossible to tell what was used.

Q. How large was it?

A. I would estimate it was something like a stick or ruler, a broken stick.

MR. ERBECKER: I object. It is not responsive to the question.

THE COURT: Objection sustained. Ladies and Gentlemen, you will ignore that answer in arriving at a verdict in this case, I don't think he understood your question.

Q. Give me the size, if you can. Indicate inches or centimeters or whatever you use.

A. May I use a common object - about the size of a broom stick.

Q. Was it recent, doctor, could you tell?

A. It looked to be fairly recent.

Q. By that, what do you mean?

A. Well, you have to judge these things on the basis of the amount of discoloration and so forth and I estimated it was recent, fairly recent - within a day or two.

Q. Doctor, would you ever be able to distinguish or ascertain from a blow such as this whether it was caused by an object striking the head or the head striking an object?

A. No, sir, I don't think that distinction can be made unless there is some imprint of an object and then there would still be a question, if a movable object like a hammer left a mark, you might be correct in presuming the hammer was struck at the head. If there was a sharp edge, there would be no way.

Q. Did you find any imprint, Doctor?

A. No, I did not.

Q. Now, Doctor, how long after a blow is struck, or after the head strikes an object, resulting in a subdural hematoma, would it take a subject to die?

A. This would depend entirely on the size of the blood vessel that ruptured. A small caliber would take a long time. A large blood vessel might kill you immediately.

Q. It is possible it could range from immediately to what period of time, Doctor, within reason?

A. Several weeks.

Q. And you did not - you were not able to determine from the - from your examination, the size of the vessel that had ruptured causing the subdural hematoma in this particular person?

A. No, sir.

Q. Doctor, did you examine the girl's lips or mouth?

A. Only very briefly.

Q. What did you see?

A. The lips looked lacerated.

Q. Deeply or superficially?

A. Fairly deeply.

Q. Now, Doctor, you made an examination of this particular girl. Can you tell the jury whether or not that just prior to the girl's death she suffered pain?

MR. ERBECKER: We object to that. It calls for a conclusion on his part, unsupported by sufficient evidence at this time to indicate whether or not he is qualified to do that speculation.

THE COURT: Overruled. I will give you the right to a preliminary question.

MR. BOWMAN: The question is not sufficiently specific with respect to time.

THE COURT: Overruled. Right extended to ask preliminary questions.


Q. Doctor, have you ever had special skill or training in the medical profession to determine the amount of suffering a person is undergoing prior to death? Is there any way to determine that?

A. Only clinically, Mr. Erbecker.

Q. Do you know in this case?

A. No, because I did not see her before she died.

Q. Would it be possible for you to estimate in this case?

A. I think reasonably so.

Q. You have to take into consideration whether or not she had any areas of insensitivity and whether or not she was conscious.

MR. NEW: We object. This is cross examination.

THE COURT: Overruled, it is preliminary.

Q. Would you?

A. Mr. Erbecker, it would have to be based on the observations of many people in a terminal condition, some of them as a result of natural causes and so forth and I think you can more or less give an opinion about this, based on other things you have seen medically.

Q. Could you determine whether or not this girl had full possession of her faculties at any given time before her death, so as to determine the amount of pain, if any? Could you determine that?

A. Only secondary to the trauma she suffered and the shock that must have accompanied this, not directly, of course.

Q. It is mere conjecture on your part?

A. Yes.

MR. ERBECKER: I am going to object.

THE COURT: Objection sustained.


Q. Doctor, aside from speculation, based on what you have observed and the condition of this body, the various wounds you have described, based upon your experience as a practicing doctor and deputy coroner, do you have an opinion as to whether or not she suffered pain before she died?

A. Yes, I have.

MR. ERBECKER: We object.

THE COURT: Objection sustained. The answer will go out. The jury will ignore the answer in arriving at a verdict in this case. We can't complete this doctor's examination before lunch period. Ladies and Gentlemen, by agreement of counsel given in open court and with the consent of defense counsel and counsel for the State, the jury is permitted to separate and go about your business. Return to the jury room at 2:00 o'clock, at which time the case will resume today. 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 thereon till the case is finally submitted to you. 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. Court will remain in session. Jurors and Alternate Jurors are excused for lunch.


THE COURT: Officer Collins, tell all the witnesses to come in please. We are in recess till 2:00 o'clock. All of you come back at 2:00. Remember what I told you. There has been a separation of witnesses. Don't talk among yourselves and don't tell one another what you are going to testify when you get here. After you have testified, don't say what you have testified to. This case is recessed till 2:00 o'clock today. The Witnesses are permitted to talk to the lawyers.



THE COURT: Are you ready for the jury?

MR. NEW: The State is ready.

THE COURT: Bring in the jury.


THE COURT: Next question, Mr. Prosecutor.

Q. Dr. Kebel, you stated that the person you have been testifying about here before the jury died from traumatic shock, secondary to subdural hematoma. Does a person dying from shock show apathy?

A. Yes, they do.

MR. ERBECKER: We object for the reason it is merely a hypothetical question, not based on evidence in this case.

THE COURT: Overruled.

Q. How do they show it?

A. As I stated, part of the picture of traumatic shock is vascular collapse and there is not sufficient blood getting to the brain and other tissues and these people become extremely indifferent to their surroundings and they become indifferent to stimuli, and it is very difficult to rouse them. I think earlier I testified a person may have slurring of the speech and so forth. Generally consciousness is lowered. I think we have all seen this type of thing in people - they become apathetic and lay around. They are in shock.

Q. Doctor, I will hand you what has been marked for the purpose of identification as State's Exhibit No. 19. I will ask you to examine that and tell the court and jury whether that is the same person you have been testifying about?

A. That is correct, that is the same person.

Q. And by that, I mean the same person you found at 3850 East New York Street?

A. Yes.

Q. I will hand you what is marked for the purpose of identification as State's Exhibit No. 20 and ask you whether or not that is the same person you described as being found dead at 3850 East New York Street?

A. Yes, it is.

Q. Doctor, you have stated before lunch that you had conversation with and observed Mrs. Gertrude Wright or Gertrude Baniszewski at the scene?

A. Yes.

Q. Doctor, based upon your observation of her at that time, did you form an opinion as to whether she was sane or insane?

A. Yes.

Q. What in that opinion?

A. I thought she was a sane person at that time.

Q. Doctor, you stated that the cause of death was traumatic shock, secondary to subdural hematoma, why did you include that particularly with subdural hematoma?

A. It was my own external clinical observations of the body. There were contusions about the head and this would be, I suppose you would call it an educated guess.

Q. Did you form an opinion as to what caused the subdural hematoma?

A. I thought it was secondary to the head trauma.

Q. When you say secondary, you mean caused by?

A. Yes.

Q. You described a blow to the head, or bruise on the head?

A. Yes.

Q. You say it is your opinion that caused the subdural hematoma?

A. That was my opinion.

MR. NEW: Cross examination.

THE COURT: Defendant Gertrude Baniszewski.

MR. ERBECKER: By agreement, Gertrude Baniszewski will yield but not waive cross examination to one of the other defendants, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Paula Marie Baniszewski may cross examine.


Q. Doctor Kebel, you stated in response to a question from Mr. New that the cause of death was shock, secondary to head injuries and subdural hematoma. That is correct, is it not?

A. Yes, that is what I stated.

Q. I believe you stated you were the first person who arrived there, in a medical capacity, to make an examination?

A. Yes, that is correct.

Q. How long did this examination take?

A. I would estimate a half hour.

Q. And in the course of his examination, you examined the entire body of the deceased girl?

A. Yes, I unclothed her, pulled the clothes down. Photographs were made as a result of my undressing her.

Q. Did this include a careful examination of her head?

A. Yes.

Q. Did it also include the jaw?

A. I tried to look in the mouth. There was rigor in the jaws and I did not want to force them, pry them open. I knew he had ordered a post mortem. I just looked inside the lips.

Q. As a result of the examination, which lasted approximately an hour, did you discover evidence of a break in the jaw or any part of the hinge thereof?

A. No.

Q. Did you discover any evidence of a fracture of the jaw or any portion of it?

A. No, I did not.

Q. Did you implement this examination later with X-rays or anything like that?

A. No, sir, I remanded the body to General Hospital and ordered a post mortem examination be done by a pathologist on call.

MR. RICE: No further questions.

THE COURT: Next defendant, John Stephan Baniszewski and Coy Hubbard may examine the witness.


Q. Doctor, you are a deputy coroner?

A. That is correct.

Q. You are an Officer of the State of Indiana, are you not?

A. Yes.

Q. Are you acquainted with Dr. Charles Ellis?

A. Yes.

Q. He is a pathologist?

A. He is a resident pathologist at Methodist Hospital.

Q. Is a resident someone in training to be a pathologist?

A. That is correct.

Q. Have you discussed this case with him?

A. You mean prior to this trial?

Q. Yes.

A. Yes, as you must be aware, we had a Habeas Corpus hearing and we were both present.

Q. Doctor, I will ask you to answer the question. I am serious. I am not trying to be hostile. Yes or no?

A. Yes.

Q. You have discussed it with him how recently?

A. The last time we had any discussion about the case was at the previous hearing.

Q. The previous hearing?

A. Yes.

Q. You have not discussed it with him in the last day or two?

A. No, not in the sense that we talked about anything that was found and so forth.

Q. I see, then you have not the last day or two discussed any findings either of you made, or opinions or conclusions?

A. Not extensively, no. I can't pinpoint. We have been talking but not about specific findings.

Q. With respect to the case?

A. Yes.

Q. You have been talking about the case, is that correct?

A. Yes.

Q. You just have not gotten specific about it - would that be accurate?

A. That is correct.

Q. You discussed generally things about the case, about the medical aspects of the case?

A. Principally about our having to wait so long to get in here.

Q. Was your discussion confined to that?

A. No, there was one other thing we discussed. A picture that was not in my personal files, the picture of the back. I was asked whether or not this was my hand. Ellis was there. I agreed yes it was my hand. I turned the body.

Q. That is essentially the conversation with Dr. Ellis about this case, is that correct?

A. Yes.

Q. Now, after October 26, 1965, you have discussed it with Dr. Ellis, is that correct?

A. Yes.

Q. Are any of your opinions here today based on any discussion you had with Dr. Ellis?

A. No, all the testimony I gave today are from my personal notes I wrote up immediately after I had been to the scene. This is a practice of mine.

Q. The opinions you have testified to today are based on your observations of the body?

A. Yes.

Q. On October 26?

A. That is right.

Q. Nothing else?

A. That is right.

Q. I understood you to characterize one as an educated guess?

A. That is correct.

Q. Would that be true of all your opinions?

A. Well, we all have training. You have training in law and I have training in medicine.

Q. Answer the question, if you can.

A. Yes, an educated guess.

Q. All the opinions you testified today are educated guesses?

A. That is correct.

Q. Doctor, do you know what syncope is?

A. Yes.

Q. What is syncope?

A. Fainting.

Q. Does this resemble shock any way?

A. Yes.

Q. What way?

A. Loss of vascular tone, loss of consciousness.

Q. Can syncope be fatal?

A. It depends on what it is associated with.

Q. I take it by your answer it could be?

A. Yes, it is possible. I think it is a matter of semantics.

Q. I think almost everything we are discussing is.

A. Yes, but you are making an issue of it.

Q. Yes, I am making an issue. Is it your answer it can be fatal?

A. I should think so.

Q. Can it be caused by anything other than a traumatic injury?

A. Yes.

Q. Now, let's go to traumatic shock, Doctor, is that characterized, described in more than one way - or let me phrase it this way, are there two kinds of traumatic shock?

A. No, I think my definition - when you say traumatic shock you limit - secondary to trauma.

Q. Secondary to the trauma, that is all there is, is that right?

A. Well, you could have a hemorrhage and shock too, that could be secondary to the hemorrhage.

Q. Shock could be secondary to how many things, Doctor?

A. If you are looking for it, page 158, Gonzales.

Q. Thank you, Doctor, I take it you are acquainted it.

A. In a cursory fashion.

Q. Is it an authority in the field?

A. It is one of the authorities, yes.

Q. Do you recognize medical or primary shock?

A. Yes, that can occur.

Q. And can it occur in another way?

A. Yes.

Q. What in that other way?

A. Well, now when you say primary, you infer something.

Q. Yes, and when you say it you do to?

A. That is right.

Q. What is that?

A. Well, sir, why don't you read from the text?

Q. Because I want you to tell us, Doctor, you are the witness.

A. One might go into primary shock if the spinal cord was severed. This is the initial phase of paralysis. Subsequently, as other body mechanisms take over other types of shock may set in.

Q. What are those?

A. Hemorrhagic shock, secondary to blood loss.

Q. Is reaction in primary shock different from the reaction in syncope?

A. Basically, the mechanisms are essentially the same.

Q. How quickly can traumatic shock cause death?

A. Probably immediately.

MR. BOWMAN: No more questions.

THE COURT: Defendant Richard Hobbs may cross examine the witness.


Q. Is that Dr. Kebel?

A. Yes.

Q. Can you tell this court and this jury what was the direct or immediate or primary cause of death of Sylvia Likens? Subdural hemorrhage in the brain?

A. Counselor, I have been accused of digressing here but there is also an anatomical diagnosis. Mine is strictly clinical. It is strictly on the basis of seeing the body, not having a post mortem available. I think the answer to your question lies in the anatomical diagnosis established by the post mortem, if I did not have the benefit of the post mortem, I would have declared her dead and written a death certificate on the basis of what I said. I did not open the skull, did not prove there was a subdural hematoma. For a precise answer, this would have to be provided to you from the data of the anatomical diagnosis of the post mortem.

Q. Now, is your findings in agreement with Dr. Ellis, the pathologist?

MR. BOWMAN: We object.

THE COURT: Objection sustained. It calls for a conclusion.

Q. This subdural hemorrhage or hematoma, could that be caused by a fall down the stairwell?

A. Oh, yes.

Q. By a person striking their head against a concrete wall?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Could it be caused by a blow to the head by a fist?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Now, in your examination of Sylvia Likens there October 26, 1965 at 3850 East New York Street, you examined the area where the blow, where she received a blow on her head?

A. Where I thought she had been struck some way, something had happened, yes.

Q. Where she was struck - that looked like she had received a blow by a human hand or fist?

MR. BOWMAN: We object.

THE COURT: Overruled.

A. I can't answer that.

Q. In your examination last October, did it show any - prior to her death, any loss of locomotion?

A. No, sir, it did not.

Q. Last October you had at that place and time, you talked to a Ricky Hobbs?

A. Very briefly, yes, I did.

Q. Do you see him here in the courtroom?

A. Yes, I do.

Q. Would you tell the court and jury what he said to you and what you said to him?

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

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. BOWMAN: We object.

THE COURT: Sustained. Defendants John Stephan Baniszewski and Coy Hubbard and Gertrude Baniszewski, the objection will be sustained. This answer, Ladies and Gentlemen of the Jury and Alternate Jurors, you will ignore as to those defendants. Do not consider or use same in arriving at a verdict in this case as to said defendants. Do you remember the question, Doctor?

Q. Could you answer the question, Doctor?

A. Yes, Ricky seemed to be everywhere at the scene and he was doing a great deal of talking. I paid no particular attention to what he was saying till finally I said to him, "What are you doing here, who are you, are you one of the children here"? He said, "No, I am a neighbor, and I am a friend of Gertie's". That is where the conversation ceased. That was the first and last time I spoke to the boy.

Q. My last question, he was to you, the brief time you was cognizant of him, a source of great information?

A. That is right.

MR. NEDEFF: No other questions.

MR. ERBECKER: Could we have a recess, Your Honor?

THE COURT: Any other examination here? From any other defendants?


THE COURT: A recess has been requested, which is granted. The jury will retire to the jury room during the recess and 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 thereon till it is finally submitted to you. Jury and alternate jurors excused for about five minutes.


THE COURT: May I ask you to be seated, all of you? To you people at the door and I am not talking to attorneys - I am talking to you spectators - when my staff tells you not to come in they are the same as the judge. This is a courtroom. A court is made up of bailiffs, clerks and everything else. We are trying to keep decorum. Don't say, "I am a law student and I can come in". People have to go through that door. What do you want there to do, crawl over you? Please leave the courtroom so witnesses can come in and out of that door.

MR. BOWMAN: I want to make a motion for the record, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Be sure the record shows the jury is out of the room when I admonished the spectators and now too.

MR. BOWMAN: Coy Hubbard and John Stephan Baniszewski, defendants, move to strike from the record the opinions of the witness Kebel with respect to the time of death and the cause of death for the reasons that they are as stated by the witness, guesses.

THE COURT: Educated.

MR. BOWMAN: Educated guesses, and for the further reason the witness attacked their reliability by stating he could not and should not state the primary cause of death, it should be done on the basis of the testimony by a physician.

THE COURT: What is opinion but an educated guess. Objection overruled and the motion to strike is overruled. Any other motions, Gentlemen? Let me know when you are ready, Mr. Erbecker, You said five minutes. We are in recess.


THE COURT: Bring out the defendants, Sheriff. The jury is not here, Miss Court Reporter, make a note. Let me tell the lawyers again. I don't know how many times I have said it. You are making me a little reticent in calling recesses. Are you ready for the jury?

MR. BOWMAN: Your Honor, at this time the court indicated it was going to permit Mr. Erbecker to cross examine the witness.


MR. BOWMAN: At this time, defendants Coy Hubbard and John Stephan Baniszewski request the court to instruct the jury not to consider any of the questions and answers in deliberating with respect to John Baniszewski and Coy Hubbard.

THE COURT: I will do it with each question which affects them as hearsay.

MR. BOWMAN: I am asking that as of the testimony elicited by Mr. Erbecker's questions be excluded from the jurors consideration in deliberating with respect to John Baniszewski and Coy Hubbard. They are, of course, bound by the testimony elicited by the State of Indiana and by their own counsel, but there is no reason why the testimony elicited by Mr. Erbecker's questions should apply to them.

THE COURT: That is quite novel. Give me a reason why.

MR. BOWMAN: Yes, Your Honor, it would put them in the position first of either being prosecuted by Mr. Erbecker as well as the State, or second, represented by him. In either case, it is unfair and the latter would deny them of their choice of counsel.

THE COURT: Well, that motion is directly overruled. If you feel - and that motion will continue with every question and the same ruling, so there won't be any obstruction. If any other objections, for hearsay or other reasons, should be made, you may make them. This objection is reserved to you and will apply on each and every question asked, for the reason assigned.


THE COURT: Other reasons appearing with the questions, you understand you are very much at liberty to object and state your reasons if you wish. Bring in the jury.


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


Q. Doctor, you testified on direct examination as to your training. Have you ever had training in psychiatry?

A. That is part of medical school curriculum, Mr. Erbecker.

Q. To what degree?

A. Through all four years, medical courses in psychiatry each quarter.

Q. Did you ever study psychology?

A. Not as a separate course, no.

Q. Did you ever testify in any court of law on any psychiatric testimony?

A. Yes, I have.

Q. How many times?

A. Well, most recently in federal court.

Q. About when - several weeks ago?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Did you ever testify in any other trial?

A. No, sir.

Q. With reference to psychiatric testimony?

A. No, sir.

Q. Did you ever testify in any court about abnormal psychological testimony?

A. No, sir.

Q. How old are you, Doctor?

A. Forty-seven, sir.

Q. When did you first undertake your medical training?

A. When I was thirty-seven.

Q. Ten years ago?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. How many different hospitals, colleges, schools and places of training did you enter and undergo training?

A. With reference to medicine or my entire general education?

Q. Entire.

A. Grade, City College, New York; attended Rutgers University; attended Ohio State University; attended Butler University and Indiana University.

Q. What hospital did you serve any intern in, if you did?

A. Internship at St. Vincent's Hospital.

Q. How long?

A. A year.

Q. What wards?

A. All of them, sir.

Q. All of the wards at St. Vincent's. Any other hospital, before you graduated?

A. Veterans Administration, 10th Street; Veterans Cold Springs Road, Indianapolis General Hospital, Coleman Hospital, Riley Hospital, Long Hospital.

Q. How long have you been a deputy coroner?

A. Since the beginning of 1956 when the new administration took over.

Q. Did you ever have occasion to act in the capacity of deputy coroner in any other homicides other than this?

A. Yes, I have.

Q. About how many?

A. Mr. Erbecker, I can't venture a guess on that.

Q. Would you say a dozen, Doctor?

A. I think so.

Q. Two dozen?

A. Perhaps.

Q. Now, this blow on the head, would that be described as the temporal lobe?

A. You mean the area?

Q. Yes.

A. It was over the area of the temporal lobe of the brain, yes.

Q. Now, the hemorrhage itself occurred below the skin naturally, did it?

A. Yes.

Q. How deep, in terms of inches?

A. Are you referring to the skin hemorrhage or the hemorrhage inside the cranium?

Q. Inside the cranium.

A. Mr. Erbecker, I have to testify then from something not in evidence, from the autopsy itself. I did not open the head.

Q. You did not open the head, then you don't know?

A. I really don't. I know, of course, but I can't testify on the basis of my present capacity, what I saw at the scene.

Q. Your answer is you would have to base your conclusion on Dr. Ellis' pathological findings?

A. Yes.

Q. Any knowledge you would not have of your own knowledge?

A. That is correct.

Q. Then that particular blow, would be indicative of a heavy blow or a little fall or a heavy fall or a little fall?

A. I don't think I can answer that accurately, Mr. Erbecker. It was heavy enough to bruise the girl. What it constitutes I can't accurately say.

Q. You testified the injury was not a cutting injury?

A. That is correct.

Q. It was a blunt object, if it was an object, and the fact that it was blunt is indicative of contact with the wall or floor?

A. I could not say that, with certainty.

Q. Did you say death was caused by a ruptured blood vessel - is that what caused it?

A. Again, based on my knowledge of what happened afterwards, of the possibility, you see my first guess, educated guess was she did have such thing, but anything I would say from now on would depend on my knowledge, having in my possession a copy of the anatomical examination.

Q. You would have to have a pathological report?

A. Yes.

Q. What your conclusion would be is based on his findings?

A. That is correct.

Q. Can you tell whether this particular rupture occurred immediately at the time of impact or several weeks prior to it or instantaneous or when?

A. Based on the external examination there would have to be enough time for the hematoma to develop. It could be minutes to days, you see, but it looked to me, when I examined her, as if it had been done a day or two from the time of my examination.

Q. You testified you talked to Gertrude Baniszewski out there that night. Would you describe her appearance, Doctor?

A. I noticed she had a black eye and I asked her about this. I don't recall what answer she gave me about the black eye.

Q. Was her face swollen?

A. I did not think so.

Q. Were her eyes swollen?

A. One had the hematoma and it was.

Q. What about her skin on her face, Doctor, was it ordinary or was it raw, was anything wrong with it?

A. Mr. Erbecker, I don't recall anything other than the black eye.

Q. What about her general demeanor, what would you say about her demeanor and attitude towards you, was it average, normal, under the circumstances?

A. This is very difficult to assess. One does not find a dead person in their house every day. I thought her general behavior, for the circumstances and the number of police milling about and so forth, was rather normal behavior.Could this decedent's death be caused by another means other than you described here?

A. Do you refer now to other than the trauma I saw and the opinion I had about the head injury?

Q. Yes.

A. No, there was not anything else in evidence to make me think anything else.

Q. Hematoma - could that occur as the result of physical weakness or structural weakness of a blood vessel without application of outside force?

A. Yes, it is possible.

Q. Entirely possible?

A. Yes.

Q. Could that have been the cause here?

A. I don't think so.

Q. Why don't you think so?

A. Because usually spontaneous breaks in blood vessels are in another age group. One hardly ever finds them in a young person. In our age group, they are real meanies.

Q. Doctor, the indictment charges Gertrude Baniszewski - omitting the caption and formal parts - with striking, beating and kicking at and against the body of the deceased, thereby inflicting mortal wounds. Does that agree with your opinion?

MR. BOWMAN: We object. It calls for a conclusion and invades the province of the jury.

THE COURT: Objection sustained. As to all defendants.

Q. I think you testified to loss of locomotion, that you discovered no evidence of that?

A. That is right.

Q. Could the subdural hematoma be caused by the striking of the head against the floor, wall or any other object other than a blow by an object?

A. Yes, of course.

Q. It would not have to have been caused by an object about the size of a broom handle then, would it?

A. Not necessarily.

Q. You say then the subdural hemorrhage was caused within a day or two of the death, is that right?

A. That was my clinical opinion, not a subdurel hematoma but a bruise which I saw lead me to the conclusion. This, I thought, occurred a day or two before death.

Q. Doctor, did you indicate in answer to Mr. New's interrogation it was possible the subdural evidence did not necessarily have to have been at the place of the blow?

A. That is correct.

Q. What do you mean by that?

A. If you have a contrecoup injury, it can be directly across from the point or impact. It is not unusual for somebody to crack their head against a windshield and suffer a subdural hemorrhage at the back of the head. The brain tends to move forward and tear the blood vessels at the back rather than at the front. If you strike a blow, it is possible to get a contrecoup injury directly across from the site where the injury was.

Q. Did you - your investigation indicate any way that the decedent lost any of her sensibilities, such as sight, speech or hearing?

A. Do you mean any direct evidence of this?

Q. Yes.

A. No, because the patient was dead when I got there.

Q. You indicated some lesions were in various stages of healing and some were fresh and some were old, you said that?

A. Yes, I did.

Q. Did you indicate some of them were as much as three or four weeks old?

A. It is entirely possible, Mr. Erbecker.

Q. Is it possible then that these injuries were inflicted by - by injuries I mean marks, burns, etchings, bruises, contusions, abrasions and wounds - if they were inflicted could they have been inflicted several weeks prior to the date of death, is that possible?

A. Yes.

Q. I think you testified you talked to the defendant Gertrude Baniszewski the night you first saw her out there, you said that?

A. Yes, I did.

Q. Where did you talk to her?

A. It was downstairs in the living room, I think the living room of her home.

Q. Prior to going upstairs or after?

A. No, afterwards.

Q. After?

A. Yes.

Q. What did she say to you, Doctor?

MR. BOWMAN: We object.

THE COURT: Objection sustained as to defendants Coy Hubbard and John Stephan Baniszewski.

A. Well, when I asked her why she did not call a doctor or the police, she said she had been taking care of these wounds herself and had bought some first aid supplies for this purpose.

Q. That is all she said?

A. Yes.

THE COURT: May I stop you a second? The jury will ignore, and alternate jurors, will ignore the question and answer to that question insofar as it pertains to the defendants Coy Hubbard and John Baniszewski, and not any way consider that answer or use it in arriving at a verdict as defendants Coy Hubbard and John Baniszewski. Next question, please.

Q. Now, Doctor, Mr. New showed you some pictures here a while ago. I will hand you State's Exhibit No. 2 and ask you to look at it. Is that the same one Mr, New showed you?

A. I believe this is the - is one of them, yes.

Q. Does that depict the view as you observed it that night?

A. Yes.

Q. It is a picture of the decedent, is it?

A. Yes.

Q. Doctor, I will hand you State's Exhibit No. 3 and ask you to look at that. Is that the same exhibit Mr. New showed you?

A. Yes, it is.

Q. You saw that person there whose picture is depicted?

A. That is right.

Q. Now, Doctor, will you describe those? That etching there in front, what does it say there on the exhibit?

A. It says, "I am a prostitute and proud of it".

Q. How would you say that was placed on there, by what method and means?

A. Well, this picture is not adequate to show a closeup. When I examined it myself it looked as though some sharp instrument was used to scratch the skin and the skin would pop open. That is the way it looked to me.

Q. And that picture above, what does that depict?

A. There is a 3 and this looked as though it had been branded on there, it looked as though an object was hot when it was put up against the skin - a burn.

Q. How big was the brand, the size of it?

A. I'd say four inches high and perhaps two and a half inches wide.

Q. How big were the marks "I am a prostitute and proud of it"?

A. Those letters were about an inch and a half to two inches high.

Q. Was there any blood around them?

A. No.

Q. Could you tell from your observation whether they had been recently put on there or was it an old imprint?

A. It looked as though it had been done at least a few days prior to the time I viewed the body.

Q. Now Doctor, I will hand you State's Exhibit No. 4 and ask you if that is the same exhibit Mr. New showed you?

A. That is, sir.

Q. What does it depict?

A. It depicts the back of the decedent from the neck down to the sacral area.

Q. That depicts the body of the person you saw on that date?

A. Yes, it does.

Q. Describe in detail what you saw on the back of the person as portrayed by that picture.

A. Well, there is an area of denuded skin area that looks like an ecchymotic area at the base of the neck the site of a human hand. There is a similar one over the sacral area, the same size. There are punctate lesions. There is some skin missing from burns and abrasions. One area looks as though it might be healing it looks as though it is scar tissue.

Q. It indicates what with reference to the time it was placed there?

A. That it is an old lesion, several days at least. It had begun to fibrose.

Q. What does that mean?

A. Fibrous tissue, lighter than ordinary skin, was growing into the area.

Q. Anything else that picture depicts, Doctor?

A. No, that is about it.

Q. Doctor, I will hand you what has been marked State's Exhibit No. 20 and ask you if you ever saw that picture before?

A. Yes, I have.

THE COURT: Hold it, Doctor, so the jury does not see it till it is in evidence, if it gets in evidence.

Q. Does that depict the same person you saw that night, Doctor?

A. Yes, it does.

Q. What does that particular picture indicate to you with reference to any cuts, bruises, burns, lacerations, burns and the like?

A. Multiple -

MR. BOWMAN: We object. The exhibit is the best evidence.

THE COURT: Objection sustained.

Q. Did you make an examination of the marks on the deceased body, as shown by the picture?

A. Yes, I did.

Q. Without looking at the picture, without referring to it, describe the contour and size and depth of those marks.

THE COURT: Doctor, turn the picture over.

Q. Their extent, how old they were, whether or not they were healing and anything relevant to those wounds, Doctor?

A. Well, some of the wounds looked like craters where the skin is missing and appear to be healing in. Some of the areas look like second degree burns and the skin is missing but the epidermis is still present. There is tattooing of some kind across the abdomen the left side of the face there is an extensive ecchymotic post mortem area of some kind, it is difficult to determine.

Q. What does that mean?

A. If the head was turned sideways anytime, the blood may have settled to that side of the face and may have accounted for part of the dark area.

Q. Anything else, Doctor?

A. Well, these injuries are over the torso and the upper extremities and the face. Also on this picture, it is very evident the pubis mons are quite swollen and the upper part of the super pubis mons area and the vagina were very badly swollen.

Q. Indicative of what?

A. A blow or kick, something like that to the area.

Q. Anything else, Doctor?

A. That is about it.

Q. Doctor, I will hand you State's Exhibit No. 19 and ask you if you ever saw what is depicted there in that picture?

A. Yes.

Q. Without referring to the picture, can you refresh your recollection now, not looking at the picture, describe what that picture portrays, what it did portray at the time it was taken?

A. It was taken at the autopsy room in Marion County General Hospital and the body was lying on the post table and it is the body of the decedent I had examined previously at the home where the death was said to have occurred.

Q. Doctor, have you saw any other pictures that depict the body of that girl you found out there that are not in evidence, yes or no?

A. Yes, there are some pictures in my personal file.

Q. How many of those do you have?

A. I think about ten of them.

Q. Do all the pictures refresh your recollections as to the copius amount of the areas, the depth, the contour and the like you observed on the dead girl's body that night?

A. Yes.

Q. Doctor, have you ever, in all your experience prior to October 26, 1965, saw a sight such as this?

MR. BOWMAN: We object.

THE COURT: Sustained.

Q. Now, Doctor, a last question. Basing your answer on all the things you observed out there on East New York Street, October 26, 1965, including the dead girl's body, including the marks and burns, etchings, bruises, contusions, cuts, abrasions and wounds, including those all over her chest, face, arms, legs and all over her body and anything you may have observed at the house out there including the condition of the room you found the dead girl's body in, including the conditions of the house, including the presence of the police when you arrived, including the conversation with Gertrude Baniszewski and specifically your testimony, in substance, "I asked her why she did not call the police or a doctor before" and her, answer wherein she said in substance, "I put alcohol and medication on her" or words to that effect; and including the temperature of the body; and including the examination you made on the dead girl and reference to the cuts, burns, brand marks on the breast one saying "I am a prostitute and proud of it"; the triangular cut above same; plus the cigarette burns; plus the deep cut on the right wrist; especially the vagina swollen and bruised, - particularly the outer lip; the round burns on the back and other locations - approximately one hundred and fifty in number; plus the fact medical care and attention was not secured any time; plus the fact all these combined produced shock by reason of the numerous trauma; plus the subdural hemorrhage; plus the wounds; plus the visible appearance of the legs that indicated various stages of healing, namely some new and some old enough to indicate the continuance of these acts for weeks at a time prior to this date; coupled with the fact the house was in a residential neighborhood with medical and police facilities available; coupled with the acts of juveniles in the home and this defendant, Gertrude Baniszewski, was an adult approximately thirty-seven years of age and the only adult there at the time of your visit; coupled with the lack of explanation or extenuating circumstances related or told you by Gertrude Baniszewski, now, Doctor, would all these facts give rise to the speculation or belief on your part, taking into consideration the psychiatric and medical experience you have described, would that indicate to you Gertrude Baniszewski was of sound mind?

MR. NEW: That invades the province of the jury.

THE COURT: Objection overruled, if he understands the question.

A. I am not going to ask her to repeat it. May I answer this in my own way for once in this court today?

THE COURT: You try, Doctor.

MR. NEDEFF: Hobbs has no objection to him answering the question any way he pleases.

MR. ERBECKER: I would like a yes or no with an explanation.

THE COURT: Can you answer yes or no or you don't know and then explain?

A. Well, I have an opinion, yes.

Q. What is the opinion, is she, or was she sane at that time or now?

A. You must recall, Mr. Erbecker, at the time I saw the body I had no way of connecting any of the defendants with what I saw. As a matter of when I left the house that night, I still had no idea anybody in this courtroom would be here today accused of this crime. Based on what I saw, I thought it was the work of a madman.

Q. Let me ask you this question, Doctor, after what you saw, would you say Gertrude Baniszewski then suffered or now suffers any sadistic tendencies to such point she had an irresistible impulse to enjoy them or exercise them?

MR. BOWMAN: Your Honor, we ask that the jury he excused for the purpose of making a motion.

THE COURT: Make your objection.

MR. BOWMAN: I can approach the bench.

MR. ERBECKER: I am going to interpose an objection. It does not concern any objection other than my clients. To curtail me, is a denial of due process.

THE COURT: Petition denied at this time. Any objection to the question?

MR. BOWMAN: I don't even recall the question.

THE COURT: Do you recall the question, Doctor?

A. Well -

THE COURT: Read the question.


A. Mr. Erbecker, I have never examined this woman psychiatrically. My contact with her is limited to a brief conversation, not related to this directly except as to why she did not call someone. My opinion is based strictly on what I saw. I think the answer to your question must come from somebody competent to examine this woman. If I had nothing to see except these pictures, I would say only a person completely out of contact with reality could be capable of inflicting this type of agony on another human being.

Q. Would the same be true, that she was completely out of contact with reality, if she permitted acts to be performed or continued - would the same be so?

A. I think so.

MR. ERBECKER: Nothing further.

THE COURT: Any redirect?

MR. NEW: No.

THE COURT: Any additional cross?


Q. Doctor, did you find any evidence of malnutrition on the body?

A. Yes, this in a starved, depleted person.

Q. Did that, in your opinion, contribute to her death? If you can, answer yes or no or you don't know.

A. I would be tempted to answer it no.

THE COURT: The question is answered. Next question.

Q. Would that temptation arise to a reasonable medical certainty?

A. Based on the autopsy findings, not on my own.

Q. On your own information?

A. No, the answer would have to be, no, I don't think she starved to death.

Q. The question is, do you think it contributed to her death?

A. It may have, yes.

Q. Do you think, if she had been properly fed she would have been better able to withstand whatever she suffered?

A. No.

Q. Then would it be your answer a person suffering from malnutrition has as much resistance to shock as a person who is not?

A. No. You are talking about this individual case?

Q. Yes.

A. External evidence of starvation was not in the extreme. She did not look like somebody from a concentration camp.

Q. Your gross observations indicate gross malnutrition.

A. I did not list that as cause of death.

Q. You examined the body grossly?

A. Yes.

Q. Did you see it grossly?

A. She was poorly nourished.

Q. You would not want to use malnutrition?

A. No, it implies something more than poor nourishment.

THE COURT: Any redirect, Mr. New?

MR. NEW: None.

THE COURT: May this witness leave?

MR. NEW: Yes.


MR. NEW: Dr. Charles R. Ellis. Have you been sworn, Doctor?

WITNESS: Yes, I have.

Return to Baniszewski Trial Transcript

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests