William Kaiser - Police Officer - Case in Chief Resumed

For Viewing Only
Forum rules
Since some of the different parts of the trial transcript are extremely large, posting has been disabled in them. Use the Baniszewski Trial Discussions for postable topics.
 
Posts: 139  Images: 550  Joined: August 8th, 2010, 7:35 am
Location: Springfield, Illinois

William Kaiser - Police Officer - Case in Chief Resumed

Postby admin » October 31st, 2010, 6:57 pm

The Court: Now, Mrs. Court Reporter, everybody is here, Leroy New and Marjorie Wessner for the State of Indiana, defendants are all here in open court with their lawyers, all of them, William Erbecker, James Nedeff, George Rice and Forrest Bowman, and we are here on the argument we started yesterday evening on the question of the introduction of State's Exhibit No. 18. Anything you have to offer on that, Mr. Leroy New?

MR. NEW: Yes, Your Honor, I would like to cite the Court to a number of authorities, the most recent is Johnston vs State, a 1964 case. I don't have the Indiana citation. It is 198 Northeast 2nd 373 at page 377, in which the specific point is involved. Hensen vs State was cited, a 1952 case at 230 Ind. 635, at page 642. The Hansen case recites where several defendants are tried together, the confession of one made in the absence of the other defendants may be admitted against him if the court instructs or admonishes the jury it is admitted only against the one who made it and is not to be considered as evidence against any of the other defendants who did not join in this, the statement, citing Mitchell vs State, 193 Indiana, page 1. An additional citing Flannigan, 192 Indiana, page 19 and Wigmore on evidence, Third edition, Section 1079, sub-paragraph D page 134. In addition to that under Hill's Criminal Evidence, 4th edition, page 1412, Section 776, and the Indiana Law Encyclopedia by West, under criminal law, Section 355.

THE COURT: Any citations to the contrary, Mr. Erbecker?

MR. ERBECKER: No, Your Honor, in fact I was the attorney on the Hansen case, if I remember correctly. But at this time, if a motion is in order - unless you want to hear from other co-defendants.

THE COURT: I would rather listen on one point.

MR. ERBECKER: I could find no Indiana citation. I found authority to affect certain circumstances, largely in a matter of discretion of the court. I feel it is a conflict of interest. The court refused to grant a separate trial to Gertrude Baniszewski and the court did grant a separate trial to Stephanie. I feel that the court should delete the excess and remove any reference to it. There is no Indiana case I could find on the proposition.

THE COURT: Mr. Rice, do you have anything on the question?

MR. RICE: Nothing.

THE COURT: Mr. Bowman?

MR. BOWMAN: Of course, I agree with the general proposition in a trial of joint defendants confessions of one may be admitted as to him with a cautionary instruction it is not to be considered as to the others. That is the general rule of law. That is not the question. It is really more than one kind of confession for the purpose of this inquiry. There is a confession of a co-defendant who implicates himself. There is a confession of co-defendant that implicates himself and the co-defendant in a joint way and a confession of a co-defendant who accuses the co-defendant. That is the question we have here and that is not, so far as I know, answered by these authorities.

THE COURT: I thought they were. I had a little chance to read these Indiana citations Mr. New quoted. I did not read the digest he quoted. It seems to me he has given me a direct citation on the question of law involved. I could be wrong.

MR. BOWMAN: I have other authorities.

THE COURT: Do you care to name them?

MR. BOWMAN: From other jurisdictions.

THE COURT: I mean Indiana, we live here.

MR. BOWMAN: As I say, Indiana authorities I read appeared to me no answer on this question, certainly not in the light of a situation where the defendants had moved for separate trial and the State resisted. Other authorities can't consider that, these Indiana authorities. That is why I said as far as I am concerned it has never been decided.

THE COURT: What case do you have?

MR. BOWMAN: I have Illinois.

THE COURT: What citation?

MR. BOWMAN: 113 Northeastern 713. I have Massachusetts.

THE COURT: What is that?

MR. BOWMAN: 1 Northeastern 2nd 189 at 196, Head notes 22 and 23. I have a federal.

THE COURT: Which one?

MR. BOWMAN: 25 Federal 2nd, 430, 438, Head note 10. I have 94 Northeastern 2nd, 169.

THE COURT: What state?

MR. BOWMAN: I don't recall. There are two treatises 70 ALR 1186 and 54 ALR 2nd 851. Both these ALR discussions appear to me to support the proposition that when a motion for separate trial is made and the State resists it, their resisting of it is an election on their part not to use this type of material.

THE COURT: You are a young lawyer and a very good one. Tell me who writes the notations for ALR.

MR. BOWMAN: Tip top law graduates, the very top ones who have got better sense than to go in the practice of law because their grades are too good.

THE COURT: O.K.

MR. BOWMAN: I would like to say we have a situation here where the confession, which is in the nature of constructed evidence - and to permit the confession to go to the Jury with logically separable parts, accusing co-defendants, is to permit the State to avoid the hearsay rule simply by the way they construct the confession - and this confession was typed by a police officer and by the number - and by the number of defendants they jointly indict and by resistance of a motion for severance of trial. That is why - we did not make this confession. It is the State's. They built it with this defendant and they are the ones who indicted him, along with the others. They could have indicted separately and it would have only taken one or two more pieces of paper. By this simple scheme, they could avoid hearsay rule, if that is the law, which I doubt.

THE COURT: Alright, the court is of the opinion that the entire Exhibit No. 18 should be admitted in evidence, not parts of it deleted, because of 9-1607, Burns, the defendant Hobbs having asked it all be read. Under that section of the statute, he is entitled to have all or none. The court further finds a proper instruction to the jury not to consider the exhibit in arriving at a verdict in this case as to defendants, which will be made by the court before and after the submission of Exhibit No. 18 would adequately protect the rights of the other defendants under the hearsay rule. Let's take a five minute recess. Right now, I am giving you what I am going to do. Since the submission of Exhibit 18 was done before the jury, I will overrule the objections to the admission of it. I will then instruct the jury and if they want to read or show it, I will instruct them again and if necessary, from time to time make such instruction.

MR. BOWMAN: I would like to make a more specific record with respect to the exact wording. I move the court to delete from that, before it is given to the jury. We can do it now or after we come back.

THE COURT: If you do it when the jury is in here, they are running in and out, which is not good jurisprudence or good for anybody. I think the Jury being run in and out is not good legal procedure. It has to be done on occasion. I have told the Jury not to blame anybody but to blame the judge, but still all in all, good jurisprudence says to go on with the trial. If you care to make a record, do it now, will you, sir?

MR. BOWMAN: The defendants John Stephan Baniszewski and Coy Hubbard object to the State's Exhibit No. 18 being passed to the Jury and move it be stricken from evidence for the reason that it was typed by officers of the State of Indiana, that these defendants moved for separate trials, which motions were resisted by the State of Indiana. The court overruled their Motion for Separate Trials and the exhibit contains matter which does not implicate the defendant Richard Hobbs, but merely implicates co-defendants. The defendants John Baniszewski and Coy Hubbard further move the following be deleted from Exhibit No. 18 if it be passed to the jury. Q. "Have you over seen any other children strike Sylvia, and if so, what are their names"? A. "I have seen Coy Hubbard and Randy Lepper strike and beat Sylvia with their fists, and Randy with his feet. I also have seen Paula strike her with her fist". This is an additional separate matter which the defendants move to be deleted. Q. "Who saw you mark Sylvia Likens with the needle"? A. "Gertie, Paula, Shirley and Johnnie".

THE COURT: Overruled unless you are not done.

MR. BOWMAN: I was trying to think of something. No, that is it.

THE COURT: Any other objections?

MR. RICE: Yes, sir, on behalf of -

THE COURT: Mr. Bowman, that was done on both defendants, John Stephan Baniszewski and Coy Hubbard?

MR. BOWMAN: Yes.

MR. NEDEFF: May I say something before Mr. Rice begins his objection?

THE COURT: Yes.

MR. NEDEFF: Judge, we made no objections to the admission of the statement of Richard Hobbs yesterday and if - although the Court has already decided it is going to be admitted, if some sections of that confession or statement be deleted as to other defendants, Judge, I think there is ample authority that says that if that was done, this defendant would take the stand - I think he has the right to take the stand and supply the missing portions from his own mouth.

THE COURT: I don't know what you are talking about, or of any question raising that question. Are you objecting to the introduction of the Exhibit No. 18 in evidence?

MR. NEDEFF: No, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Alright, then, it will introduced in evidence as far as defendant Hobbs is concerned in toto, that means all of it, in toto. Mr. Rice, please.

MR. RICE: In regard to Exhibit No. 18, on behalf of Paula Marie Baniszewski, we object at this time to the reading of the questions and answers which, if named on the interrogation of October 27, 1965, taken by State's Witness Sgt. William Kaiser, would be in order - No. 6, 8 and 11, in which reference is made to Paula Marie Baniszewski. We desire this portion of it should be suppressed insofar as this defendant is concerned, on the grounds that it represents hearsay made out of her presence and is not therefore admittable.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. ERBECKER: The defendant Gertrude Baniszewski respectfully moves the court to delete the following from State's Exhibit No, 18, being the statement and or purported statement of Richard Dean Hobbs, beginning with the question in the exhibit, "What caused you to do something like this? A. I did this because Gertrude Wright told me to do this". The next question sought to be deleted is "Q. What did you see Mrs. Wright do to the girl? A. She started writing the words on her stomach and I finished them. I have also seen her kick and beat Sylvia with her fists". The next question and answer sought to be deleted is, "Who saw you mark Sylvia Liken with the needle? A. Gertie, Paula, Shirley and Johnnie". The next question sought to be deleted and the answer, "Q. Do you know how long Mrs. Wright kept Sylvia down in that basement? A. At first I thought she was in the Juvenile Center, and then Gertie told me she was keeping her down in the basement". The next question and answer sought to be deleted is, "Q. Can you tell us what happened yesterday afternoon at the house, just before she died"? A. "When I got to the house, I thought Sylvia was gone, because Gertie told she was going to get rid of her the night before. Gertie told me she was still down in the basement. Johnny and Stephanie or Paula drug her upstairs from the basement. She was groaning. We, me and Stephanie carried her upstairs and laid her on the mattress on the bedroom floor, and she was cold, and I gave her artificial respiration, and then Stephanie took over then, and she did too. She was groaning all that time. Johnny and Stephanie put her in the bathtub in some warm water. Johnny and Stephanie took her out of the tub and put her back on the mattress. Johnny and I went downstairs, While Gertie and Stephanie put some dry clothes on her. Then Gertie told me to go call the police, as she thought she had stopped breathing. I went across the street and called the police". The next question and answer sought to be deleted is, "Q. Did Gertrude, tell you to lie to the police? A. Yes. She told us to say that she just got there about an hour before, and that sores boys had beaten her up. Later, I came down to Police Headquarters and told them the truth". The defendant Gertrude Baniszewski, in support of that motion to delete says that if the court refuses to delete same, that the defendant will be biased and prejudiced and the jury will be biased and prejudiced and inflamed because of the conflict of interest of the defendants herein shown by the record in this case, which no admonition of the court could possibly remove and no cautionary instruction could possibly remove, due to the age of the defendant being thirty-seven and the relationship to the defendants being minors and some her children, that it would be highly inflammatory in the minds of the jury and cast upon the defendant the burden of proving something which she is not legally obligated to do. She is further prejudiced because the court refused the defendant a separate trial herein, but the court did, on motion of the State, grant a separate trial to Stephanie, which denies the defendant herein equal protection of the laws and further that no cautionary instruction would suffice to remove the bias and prejudice and inflammatory result because of the deluge of newspaper publicity and radio and television publicity of and concerning the case and the house where it happened and which is buttressed and enlarged by the fact the defendant was the head of the house at that time and the deceased was in her care at that time. For the further reason, the State's objection to the deletion amounts to a denial of the protection of the law and due process of law of the defendant herein and for the further reason the admission of State's Exhibit No. 18 in toto will bias and prejudice and unduly influence the jury and inflame the jury against the defendant Gertrude Baniszewski to such an extent no admonition of the court, no cautionary instruction, could remove same from the minds of the jury, and thus, she would be denied due process of law and a fair and impartial trial before a fair and impartial jury, which she is constitutionally entitled to.

THE COURT: Overruled. Let's take a five minute recess and call the jury.

RECESS.

THE COURT: Bring in the jury, please.

JURY PRESENT AND SEATED.

CASE IN CHIEF RESUMED.

THE COURT: When we finished yesterday evening it was on the matter of reading and showing Exhibit No. 18 to the jury. Ladies and Gentlemen of the Jury, the Exhibit No. 18 is going to be read to you and perhaps shown to you. This exhibit is admitted in evidence only as to the defendant Richard Hobbs. You will not consider same or in any manner consider same in arriving at a verdict as to the other defendants in this case, regardless whether their names are mentioned or not mentioned in said exhibit. Have I made that clear - you will not consider same in arriving at a verdict in this case as to other defendants other than Richard Hobbs. The State of Indiana may read and show Exhibit No. 18 to the jury with that admonition to the jury.

WHEREUPON STATE'S EXHIBIT NO. 18 WAS ADMITTED IN EVIDENCE (as to Richard Hobbs only),
READ TO THE JURY, AND MADE A PART OF THIS RECORD AS FOLLOWS, TO-WIT:

STATE'S EXHIBIT NO. 18 ATTACHED.

INDIANAPOLIS, INDIANA
OCTOBER 27,1965

I, Richard Dean Hobbs, make the following voluntary statement to Policewoman Joy Snedeker and Detective Sergeant William Kaiser, detectives of the Indianapolis Police Department. No threats or promises have been made to me as an inducement to make any statement at all and I do so of my own free will and accord.

Q. What is your name, age and address?

A. Richard Dean Hobbs, 14, 310 North Denny.

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

A. Howe High School - I'm a stale Freshman.

Q. On October 26, 1965, Sylvia Marie Likens, white, female and 16 years of age was found dead at 3850 E. New York Street. What can you tell as pertaining to her death?

A. About a week ago, I myself, struck Sylvia Likens with the back of my hand in the chest ten or fifteen times. Also, approximately one week ago, I took a needle and wrote the words "I am a prostitute and proud of it" on Sylvia's stomach. I also branded her with the top part of the "S" on her chest.

Q. What caused you to do something like this?

A. I did this because Gertrude Wright told me to do this?

Q. What did you see Mrs. Wright do to the girl?

A. She started writing the words on her stomach and I finished them. I have also seen her kick and beat Sylvia with her fists.

Q. Have you ever seen any other children strike Sylvia, and if so, what are their names?

A. I have seen Coy Hubbard and Randy Lepper strike and beat Sylvia with their fists, and Randy with his feet. I also have seen Paula strike her with her fists.

Q. Did Sylvia ever do you any personal harm?

A. No, sir.

Q. Who saw you mark Sylvia Likens with the needle?

A. Gertie, Paula, Shirley and Johnnie.

Q. Do you know how long Mrs. Wright kept Sylvia down in that basement?

A. At first, I thought she was in the Juvenile Center, and the Gertie told me she was keeping her down in the basement.

Q. Were you present in me house when Sylvia died?

A. Yes ma'am.

Q. Can you tell us what happened yesterday afternoon at the house, just before she died?

A. When I got to the house, I thought Sylvia was gone, because Gertie told me she was going to get rid the night before. Gertie told me she was still down in the basement. Johnny and Stephanie or Paula drug her upstairs from the basement. She was groaning. We, me and Stephanie carried her upstairs and laid her on the mattress on the bedroom floor, and was cold, and I gave her artificial respiration, and then Stephanie took over, and she did too. She was groaning all that time. Johnny and Stephanie put her in the bathtub in some warm water. Johnny and Stephanie took her out of the tub and put her back on the mattress. Johnny and I went downstairs, while Gertie and Stephanie got some dry clothes on her. Then Gertie told me to go call the police, as she thought she had stopped breathing. I went across the street and called the police.

Q. Did Gertrude tell you to lie to me police?

A. Yes. She told us to say that she just got there about an hour before, and that some boys had beaten her up. Later, I came down to Police Headquarters and told them the truth.

Q. Can you read and write?

A. Yes.

I have read and had read to me the above statement and the same is true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief.

END STATE'S EXHIBIT NO. 18.

THE COURT: Before you pass it to the jury, let me give you this admonition again, Ladies and Gentlemen, this exhibit was admitted in evidence only as against the defendant Richard Hobbs. You will ignore same as to all the other defendants in arriving at a verdict in this case. You will not consider or use same in arriving at a verdict in the case as to the other defendants, to-wit, Gertrude Baniszewski, Paula Baniszewski, John Stephan Baniszewski and Coy Hubbard. It is not admitted into evidence as to said defendants. Now, you may pass it to the jury.

STATE'S EXHIBIT NO. 18 PASSED TO THE JURY.

THE COURT: Next question, please. Wait a minute, let me again admonish the jury. There has just been passed to you Exhibit No. 18. You will ignore same in arriving at a verdict as to any other defendants other than Richard Hobbs. You will not consider or use same in arriving at a verdict in the case other than to Richard Hobbs.

WILLIAM KAISER , a witness called on behalf of the State of Indiana,
being duly sworn by the Court, testified as follows:

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

Q. Sgt. Kaiser, will you give the names of those who were arrested in connection with this?

MR. BOWMAN: We object.

THE COURT: Sustained.

Q. Who else did you talk to in your investigation?

A. I talked to Coy Hubbard, white and fifteen.

Q. Where and when?

A. At police headquarters, October 27th.

Q. What time?

A. Approximately 3:00 P.M.

Q. Was he under arrest at that time?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. For what charge?

A. He was being held by the Juvenile authorities on a charge of Injury to Person.

Q. Who else did you talk with, Officer?

A. I talked to Richard Dean Hobbs, white and fourteen.

Q. Any one else?

A. Gertrude Wright, white and thirty-seven.

Q. What charge was placed on Hobbs when you first talked to him?

A. Charge of Pre-Murder.

Q. Who else did you talk with?

A. Gertrude Wright, white and thirty-seven, charge of Pre-Murder.

Q. Continue.

A. I may have had a small conversation with other subjects, I really don't know.

Q. Do you have their names?

A. Paula Marie Baniszewski.

MR. RICE: I object. He said he may or may not have talked to her. Unless, he knows he did.

THE COURT: Overruled.

Q. Was she arrested?

A. Yes, she was white and seventeen. She was arrested on a charge at that time of Injury to Person.

Q. Anyone else?

A. And Shirley Ann Baniszewski, white and ten, who at that time was charged, being held by the Juvenile authorities on the charge of Injury to Person.

Q. Anyone else?

A. That is all, sir.

Q. Did you have conversation with John Baniszewski any time?

A. I had a -

THE COURT: Yes or no.

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Where and when?

A. At the scene.

Q. Do you recall what you said and what he said?

A. I -

    MR. BOWMAN: Yes or no.

A. Yes.

Q. Relate the conversation. Who was present?

MR. BOWMAN: At this time, Your Honor, John Baniszewski moves that the jury be excused for the purpose of a preliminary question.

THE COURT: Overruled at this time.

Q. Relate the conversation.

MR. ERBECKER: I am going to object for Gertrude Baniszewski.

THE COURT: Sustained as to all defendants. The when and where was not answered.

Q. Did you say at the scene?

A. At the scene at the house, 3850 East New York.

Q. What time?

A. On October 27th, approximately 7:00 P.M.

Q. Did you state who was present?

A. Actually only Mrs. Wright that I know of.

Q. Officer, based on your observation of the defendant Gertrude Wright, alias Baniszewski, on October 26, 1965, and further based upon your observation of defendant Gertrude Wright, alias Baniszewski, October 27, 1965, based further on your observation of the defendant Gertrude Wright, alias Baniszewski, October 29, 1965, did you form an opinion as to whether she was sane or insane?

A. I did, sir.

Q. What was that opinion?

MR. ERBECKER: I object, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. ERBECKER: May I state the reason? One, he did not have sufficient time to make an observation, and secondly, he is not a psychiatrist, not a psychologist, not equipped by any special training to make such observation. His examination was limited and not over any extended period of time and for that reason his observation and conclusion would not be evidence. It would merely be a conclusion, and not competent evidence as to her sanity or insanity.

THE COURT: Overruled.

Q. What is that opinion?

A. She was sane.

Q. Officer, based upon your observation and conversation with the defendant John Baniszewski October 26, 1965, you formed an opinion as to whether he was sane or insane at that time?

A. No, sir, I did not.

Q. Based on your observation of the defendant Coy Hubbard on October 27, 1965, did you form an opinion whether he was sane or insane?

A. No, sir, I did not.

Q. All of the acts about which you have testified occurred in Marion County, Indiana on or about October 26, 1965?

A. That is correct.

MR. NEW: Cross.

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

MR. ERBECKER: At this time, defendant Gertrude Baniszewski moves the court to strike from the record all the testimony this officer - witness related with reference to the statements made by Gertrude Baniszewski for the reasons heretofore given.

THE COURT: Overruled.

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

Q. Now, Sergeant, how did Gertrude Baniszewski look to you when you first saw her on October 26, 1965? By that I mean her manner, appearance, demeanor, looks, conversation, her dress - what was your observation?

A. She looked like the average person to me. She was a little nervous at the time.

Q. Is that all?

A. Her clothes was normal and neat.

Q. Her clothes were neat?

A. Yes.

Q. How about her hair?

A. I did not notice her hair.

Q. How about her conversational tone?

A. What?

Q. Her voice, was it high-pitched, normal, medium?

A. Normal.

Q. Did she speak coherently, so you could understand her?

A. I understood her, sir.

Q. What do you mean - she appeared nervous - how did she act?

A. She told me she was nervous.

Q. Did she appear nervous?

A. It appeared that way to me.

Q. Now, how long have you been a police officer, Sergeant?

A. Eighteen years, sir.

Q. Eighteen years - who dictated State's Exhibit No. 18, you?

A. I don't know what Exhibit 18 is, sir.

Q. Exhibit No. 18 is the purported statement of Richard Dean Hobbs that was just read to the jury.

A. It was dictated by Richard Hobbs.

Q. Richard Hobbs? You dictated the questions and he dictated the answers?

A. We asked the questions.

Q. Everything he said is embodied in here, right?

A. No, sir.

Q. Now, when is the first time you advised Mrs. Baniszewski of her constitutional rights?

A. On the night of October 26th.

Q. What time of night was it?

A. When I placed her under arrest, approximately around 9:15.

Q. Down at the police headquarters?

A. That is correct, sir.

Q. Then she was under your observation and under your - more or less control - from the time you arrived at 6:35 till about 9:30, is that right?

A. That is correct.

Q. You first placed her under arrest at 9:30?

A. Around 9:15, sir.

Q. What did you tell her about her constitutional rights at that time?

A. The only thing I told her was she could contact an attorney before she said anything and I advised her what the other two subjects - what statements they had made and she said at the time she would like to call her attorney.

Q. Now then, you said on direct examination you arrived at the Homicide Office at 8:00 o'clock, right?

A. I said approximately 8:00 o'clock.

Q. From 8:00 to 9:00 what did you do with Mrs. Baniszewski?

A. She sat out in the outer office.

Q. Were you questioning her at that time?

A. No, sir.

Q. When did you first question her after you brought her downtown?

A. I - Actually she first handed me the note - she called me out and handed me the note.

Q. At headquarters?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. And you never did question her at headquarters that night?

A. She said she wanted to talk to her attorney.

Q. That was back in the woman's lockup, was it?

A. No, sir.

Q. Where was it?

A. This was in the large room in the detective's office.

Q. The detective's office - and you saw her make a phone call to the attorney, is that sight?

A. No, sir, I did not.

Q. Did she actually make one?

A. Actually I did not see her, sir.

Q. Was she allowed to make one?

A. I don't know, sir.

Q. You don't know if she made one or not?

A. Not to my knowledge.

Q. She asked you to make one?

A. She never asked me, sir.

Q. Did she say that she wanted an attorney?

A. She said she wanted to make a phone call.

Q. To an attorney?

A. To her attorney.

Q. What did you do to make the services of an attorney available to her?

A. When I took her upstairs to the turnkey's office, I advised the turnkey.

Q. You mean the woman's lockup?

A. The main turnkey.

Q. You told them she wanted to get an attorney?

A. That she wanted to call her attorney.

Q. Did he permit her to do that?

A. I don't know, sir.

Q. Then you knew she wanted a lawyer, did you?

A. She told me she wanted to call her attorney, sir.

Q. Around 8:30 or 9:30 the night of October 26, 1965, right?

A. Around a quarter after 9:00.

Q. What day of the week was that?

A. I believe Tuesday, sir.

Q. She went to court the following morning?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Marion Municipal Court 6, Judge Zaklan?

A. That is correct.

Q. It was in the morning?

A. That is correct.

Q. Did she have an attorney that morning?

A. No, sir, she did not.

Q. She appeared in front of Judge Zaklan?

A. That is correct.

Q. What happened there?

A. I continued the case until November 1 at 2:00 P.M., sir.

Q. Now then, that was 9:00 o'clock and I think you testified that at 9:50 you and Capt. Davenport had conversation with her, is that right?

A. That is correct, sir.

Q. But she still did not have a lawyer yet, did she?

A. No, sir, she did not.

Q. And you knew she had made a request the night before?

A. I knew she asked to call her attorney, sir.

Q. And did you again advise her of her constitutional rights?

A. We advised her that she could contact an attorney.

Q. Did you make that possible for her?

MR. NEW: We object, Your Honor, this is repetitious.

THE COURT: Objection sustained to that particular question.

Q. What, if anything, did you and Capt. Davenport do to make the services of an attorney possible for her?

A. We told her that she did not have to say anything, do anything, sign anything until she contacted any attorney and at that time she told us she had not done anything wrong and did not need any.

MR. BOWMAN: We object to what she said.

THE COURT: Objection sustained to defendants Coy Hubbard and John Baniszewski. You may answer the question as to defendant Gertrude Baniszewski.

A. She told us she did not need an attorney and she had not done anything wrong.

Q. Then you did not get her an attorney?

A. No, sir.

Q. Who is Capt. Davenport, who is he?

A. At that time he was my superior officer, sir.

Q. He is the police officer in charge of Homicide?

A. He was at that time, sir.

Q. Now, just before that, you did tell Mrs. Baniszewski that she was implicated by some other co-defendants - you told her that?

MR. BOWMAN: That is hearsay as to Coy Hubbard and John Baniszewski.

THE COURT: Sustained as to Coy Hubbard and John Baniszewski. You may answer as to the defendant Gertrude Baniszewski.

A. The previous night I told her, sir.

Q. Yes, you told her the previous night. I think you testified on direct examination you later checked and she called an attorney, did you say that?

A. No, sir, I did not.

Q. You did not say that?

A. No, sir, I did not.

Q. Alright, now then what did she tell you and Capt. Davenport?

MR. BOWMAN: That would be hearsay as to Coy Hubbard and John Baniszewski.

THE COURT: Sustained as to defendants Coy Hubbard and John Baniszewski and admitted in evidence as to defendant Gertrude Baniszewski, alias Gertrude Wright.

A. During our conversation, she stated that she knew the kids had been mistreating Sylvia and during our conversation, she stated -

Q. Don't read it, Sergeant, refresh your recollection. Can you remember it?

A. I would like to have my notes, sir.

Q. Don't you remember what you testified to yesterday, do you, yes or no?

A. Not all of it.

Q. You don't remember what happened yesterday, what you testified to yesterday?

MR. NEW: We object. It is not proper cross.

THE COURT: Objection sustained.

Q. I will ask you, Officer, is it necessary now to read your notes to refresh your recollection of what you testified to yesterday?

MR. NEW: The State would like to ask a preliminary question prior to making an objection.

PRELIMINARY QUESTIONS,
BY MR. LEROY NEW,
DEPUTY PROSECUTOR

Q. What are the notes you are looking at. When did you make them - who made them?

A. I made them when I talked to Mrs. Baniszewski October 26th.

Q. You wrote them down at the same time?

A. Yes.

MR. NEW: That is all.

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

MR. ERBECKER: Read the question to him.

THE REPORTER READ THE LAST QUESTION.

A. If you want me to testify entirely, I would have to have my notes, sir.

Q. The question is, is it necessary for you to refresh your recollection by reading those notes as to what you testified to yesterday, is it?

A. Yes.

Q. Alright, what else did Gertrude Baniszewski tell you?

MR. BOWMAN: We object.

THE COURT: Sustained as to defendants Coy Hubbard and John Baniszewski. Overruled as to defendant Gertrude Baniszewski.

A. During our conversation, she stated before Hobbs marked Sylvia with the needle, she asked her if she knew what a tattoo was. During the conversation, she stated - I asked why she kept Sylvia down in the basement and Mrs. Wright stated she wet the bed. I asked if the reason she did wet the bed was because everyone beat her so much it may have injured her kidneys. She answered that she did not know. During the conversation, Mrs. Wright stated she knew her son Johnny had marked Sylvia with a hot poker. During our conversation, she stated Coy Hubbard did a lot of the beating.

Q. Alright, Sergeant, when did you next see Gertrude Baniszewski?

A. I saw her on November 29, sir.

Q. On November 29, that would be two days after the hearing in court, would it?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. That time she again told you she did not do anything wrong, did she?

MR. BOWMAN: We object.

THE COURT: Sustained as to defendant John Stephan Baniszewski and Coy Hubbard. Overruled as to defendant Gertrude Baniszewski.

A. She did, sir.

Q. I think you testified that the defendant Gertrude Baniszewski mentioned a paternity suit in Juvenile Court, did you mention that yesterday?

A. Yes, I did.

Q. After she told you she did not do anything wrong, did you continue to question her then on October 29th?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Did you again advise her of her constitutional rights?

A. Yes, sir, I did.

Q. What was the purpose of you questioning her the second time, after you had given her so long an interrogation the day before?

A. I wanted her to check the objects - I wanted her to check the objects taken from the home.

MR. BOWMAN: The defendants Coy Hubbard and John Stephan Baniszewski move the court to admonish the jury to disregard that answer with respect to them. The nature of the answer was not apparent from the question or we would have objected.

THE COURT: Ladies and Gentlemen of the Jury and Alternate Jurors, you will ignore the answer to that question in arriving at a verdict as to the defendants John Stephan Baniszewski and Coy Hubbard. The question was asked by the attorney for the defendant Gertrude Baniszewski and pertains to her alone.

Q. What was your answer, Sergeant?

A. Would you repeat the question, sir?

THE COURT: Let the reporter read the answer.

THE REPORTER READ THE LAST ANSWER.

Q. Now, at that time, did the defendant talk to you about her nerves and physical condition?

A. Yes, sir, she did.

Q. What did she say?

MR. BOWMAN: We object.

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

MR. ERBECKER: Your Honor, the continuity of the testimony is being broken by constant objections. Let the record show a continuing objection to the questions.

THE COURT: Alright, Ladies and Gentlemen of the Jury and Alternate Jurors, you will retire to the jury room for three minutes. We will call you back. Don't talk among yourselves and don't let anyone talk to you about this case. Do not form or express any opinion on this case until it is finally submitted to you. Retire to the jury room for two or three minutes.

JURY EXCUSED.

THE COURT: Let the record show the jury and jurors are out of the courtroom and out of the hearing of these proceedings. I am going to have to ask all you people on that wall to get out. You won't let a judge be good. There is too much moving around, too much whispering and too much gesticulating. I would like to ask you to leave. Sheriff, enforce the order, please. Now, what is it, sir?

MR. ERBECKER: I would like the record to show that it is prejudicial to defendant Gertrude Baniszewski by the constant interposing objections and I would like the court to make a proper order for a continuing objection so it does not prejudice the rights of co-defendants.

THE COURT: Can you do that, Mr. Bowman?

MR. BOWMAN: I don't think so.

THE COURT: It does break up his questioning and so on.

MR. BOWMAN: I have no desire to keep calling the names of my two clients to the attention of the jury, Your Honor. I don't know how I can do that. We have already been through the situation where Gertrude Baniszewski has made statements out of the presence of these defendants which are prejudicial to them. It came out in the State's testimony in chief yesterday and the jury was admonished. As if that was not bad enough, it comes out today on her own attorney's cross examination. I don't see how the jury can disregard the admonition. We just had an exhibit which the jury was admonished to not consider as to these defendants. Not only did they see it - it was read to them. Prejudice from this is piling up and up and up. I can't even remember what evidence is in the record as to which clients, including my own and I don't know how I can save the record if it should happen some question he asked on cross examination would be admitted against these two boys - if we have it in the record, how could I preserve it?

THE COURT: Mr. Erbecker, any question you ask which is objectionable to any party, that party has a right to object. If he does not desire to make one big objection and let the same objection go - I am ruling as promptly as I can and he is not stating any reason, just making an objection, so I don't see where it interferes too much. I think the lawyer has a right to defend his client the best way he knows how. I can't preclude anybody from objecting. Call in the jury, please.

JURY PRESENT AND SEATED.

THE COURT: The objection of the defendant Coy Hubbard and John Stephan Baniszewski is sustained. Overruled as to defendant Gertrude Baniszewski.

Q. This was in reference to her being treated by a doctor, sir?

A. Yes, it is.

Q. Yes, she told me that she had been treated by a Dr. Paul Lindenborg, 1600 Arlington, for asthmatic and nervous condition.

MR. ERBECKER: Read that answer please.

THE REPORTER READ THE LAST ANSWER.

Q. Did she - I believe you testified yesterday about the defendant having lost a child last April - did you mention something about that?

A. Yes, sir, she told me about that.

Q. What was that?

A. She said she lost a baby that belonged to this Mr. Wright - this past April.

Q. In your duties as a police officer, you have arrested numerous people, haven't you?

A. Yes, sir, that is correct.

Q. You have interrogated a lot of people, haven't you?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. And you made observations of lots of people, haven't you?

A. Yes, sir, I have.

Q. And you have given descriptions of a lot of people, haven't you?

A. That is correct.

Q. How tall would you say the defendant Gertrude Baniszewski was at that time?

A. Do you want me to guess, sir?

Q. Your best observation?

A. I would say about 5'4" or 5'5".

Q. How heavy was she?

A. About one hundred and ten.

Q. Are you sure of that?

A. That is my guess, sir.

Q. Wasn't she thin and scrawny at that time?

A. About like she is now.

Q. About like she is now?

A. Yes.

Q. Would you say about the same weight now as she was then?

A. I really don't know, sir.

Q. Did you ever talk with anybody in the presence of the defendant Gertrude Baniszewski?

A. No, sir, I don't think so.

Q. At that time, did you know or have any idea a deal was going to be made with Stephanie Baniszewski?

MR. NEW: We object. There is no such evidence of that.

THE COURT: Objection sustained.

Q. At that time, did you have any idea or know that First Degree Murder charges were going to be brought against any of these defendants?

A. No, sir.

Q. Was there any charges against Stephanie Baniszewski at that time?

A. Yes, sir, there was.

Q. What were the charges against her?

A. Injury to Person, sir.

Q. Now, you testified that you observed her on October 26, 27 and 29, didn't you?

A. That is correct, sir.

Q. How long would you say you saw her on October 26, 1965, in terms of minutes or hours?

A. About four hours, sir.

Q. Four hours - how about October 27, 1965?

A. About two hours and a half.

Q. Two and a half hours. How long did you see her October 29 1965?

A. About an hour, sir.

Q. One hour?

A. That is right.

Q. Were you present in the courtroom prior to the start of this trial and during Mr. New's opening statement, were you?

A. Just partly, sir.

Q. Would you say you heard the major portion of Mr. New's opening statement?

A. No, sir. I did not.

Q. How many murder trials have you participated in, officially, prior to this one, approximately?

A. Approximately twenty-five, sir.

Q. Twenty-five. Were any of those trials in which the defense of insanity was interposed?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. How many?

A. I really don't recall, sir.

Q. Half a dozen?

A. Approximately five.

Q. Five - can you name them?

A. No, sir, I can't.

Q. In those five trials, was the defense of insanity successfully interposed, do you know?

MR. NEW: We object. That would not be proper cross examination.

THE COURT: Objection sustained.

Q. Now, Sergeant, basing your answer on the testimony you gave today, basing your answer on the investigation you made in this case, taking in consideration the facts, circumstances, the observations you made October 26, 1965, the people you talked to, the observation you had of Gertrude Baniszewski, her appearance and demeanor to you, the fact she looked nervous at the time - you said she looked average, taking into consideration her conversation with you that she had been under the care of Dr. Lindenborg, taking into consideration she said she lost a baby last April taking into consideration the statement you got from Richard Hobbs, taking into consideration the oral statements, if any, you got from anybody, taking into consideration any statement or any conversation you had with any co-defendant, if you had any, taking into consideration the pictures taken out there, taking into consideration the coroner's report, if you saw it, taking into consideration the entire background of this case, including your conversation with the defendant, as you related them here; taking into consideration the comparison of this case with cases of the other twenty-five murder cases you had, wherein five insanity pleas were interposed, taking into consideration the observation of all the criminals you have come in contact with in the eighteen years, taking into consideration your innumerable investigations as a police officer and your entire experience, including the experience you had from the time you had graduated from high school to the present time and all the police reports you over saw, read or made and any books on criminology you may have read and any training you had in the Indianapolis Police Department, any training you had by virtue of being attached to the Homicide Division - taking all that into consideration, would you say the acts, declarations and statements and entire background and history of this cause, coupled with all the facts you saw, knew, heard, observed, and your observation of the defendant - all that - do you still say in your opinion this whole thing leads up to a pattern - that in your opinion she is a sane, normal person?

A. In my opinion, sir, the lady is sane.

Q. You think all this stuff you have related, all you say you saw in this case exemplifies and typifies the behavior of a normal person?

A. I don't know what each person would do in the same case as this.

Q. Well, in a nut shell, comparing everything about this case, as I related in those questions, do you think all that is the acts, mannerisms, demeanor, department and conduct of a normal person?

A. I don't know what another person would do in this kind of case, sir.

Q. Do you think another person would do something like that?

MR. NEW: We object.

THE COURT: Objection sustained.

Q. Do you think her behavior pattern and conduct, taking into consideration any other activities that went on in the house, whether you saw them or not see them - do you think her conduct or pattern of behavior was that of a normal person?

A. I don't know, sir. In my opinion the lady was sane.

Q. Do you think her conduct was normal and sane?

MR. NEW: We object.

THE COURT: Objection sustained.

Q. Do you think that her conduct and pattern here is that of a normal person?

MR. NEW: We object.

THE COURT: Objection sustained.

Q. Taking everything I said into consideration, do you still think she is a normal person?

MR. NEW: We object.

THE COURT: Objection sustained.

Q. Were you here during the testimony of Dr. Hull and Dr. Schuster concerning Gertrude Baniszewski?

A. I don't recall, sir.

Q. You were not? If the psychiatric testimony in this case would show that Gertrude Baniszewski, at that time and place and at the present time, had sadistic tendencies, would that any way alter your opinion that she is normal?

MR. NEW: We object.

THE COURT: Objection sustained.

Q. You never studied psychiatry or psychology, did you?

A. No, sir, I did not.

Q. Basing your answer on all the experience you testified to in all the other criminal cases you investigated, have you over been before any evidence of such a personality makeup as the defendant here, Gertrude Baniszewski, has exhibited?

MR. NEW: We object.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. ERBECKER: No further questions.

MR. RICE: We have no cross examination of this gentleman.

THE COURT: Mr. Bowman?

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

Q. Sergeant, what time did you get to 3850 East New York Street October 26, 1965?

A. Approximately 6:55 P.M.

Q. 6:55?

A. Yes.

Q. You say John Baniszewski was there when you got there?

A. Yes, sir, he was. I don't know whether he was - he came in latter.

Q. He came in later?

A. Yes.

MR. BOWMAN: No further questions.

THE COURT: Richard Hobbs.

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

Q. Now, Sgt. Kaiser, you were assigned to this case and have been since October 26, 1965?

A. That is correct, sir.

Q. Have you been the chief detective on it?

A. That is correct.

Q. And your first acquaintance with the defendant Richard Hobbs was October 26, 1965?

A. That is correct, sir.

Q. Now, do you recall when you first talked to him that day?

A. I first talked to Richard Hobbs at the scene at 3850 East New York at approximately 7:00 P.M.

Q. Do you recall now where he was at that time?

A. He was in the front room.

Q. Of the Baniszewski house?

A. That is correct.

Q. Now, at that time did you engage him in any kind of conversation?

A. Yes, sir, I did.

Q. And during the course of that evening did you have any other occasion to talk to him?

A. Yes, sir, I did.

Q. Now, at that time was he under arrest - when you first had your conversation with him?

A. When I first talked to him? No, sir.

Q. Can you recall the time he was under arrest?

A. Approximately 9:15 P.M.

Q. That was 9:15?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Now, at 9:15 on October 26, 1965 was Gertrude Wright or Baniszewski - was she under arrest at that time?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Now, Richard Hobbs, prior to your first conversation is that when he first told you about this Sylvia Likens person coming to the back door with the note?

MR. ERBECKER: We object as far as Gertrude Baniszewski is concerned.

THE COURT: Objection sustained to all defendants.

A. Yes, sir, at the house is when he first told me.

Q. And at that time you learned he was the one that made the call to the police?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Do you know who the first police officer was who arrived there at the scene October 26th?

A. Actually, I don't know, sir.

Q. But there were a number of police officers and detectives other than you there?

A. There were uniform officers, sir.

Q. Now, was that the night that Richard Hobbs told you he would give you a statement when you asked him? Did he say that?

A. He said he wanted to tell the truth, sir.

Q. When was that? If you remember, was it around 9:00?

A. Around 9:00 o'clock, sir.

Q. Gertrude Wright, whom he had known only by the name of Wright, was she under arrest?

A. Not at that time. Shortly after that I placed her under arrest.

Q. Now, he did tell you that night he wanted to tell the truth?

MR. ERBECKER: We object on behalf of Gertrude Baniszewski.

THE COURT: Objection sustained for everybody, including this defendant here. It is beyond the cross examination feature. Next question, Mr. Nedeff.

Q. Now, was he in the company of his father at that time?

A. No, sir, he was not.

Q. In your conversation with Ricky Hobbs, you learned he lived a door away from the Baniszewski house?

A. He lived around the corner, sir.

Q. Around the corner - actually one house separated the Baniszewski house and Hobbs' house?

A. That is right.

Q. Part of the double the Baniszewskis' lived in fronted on New York and Richard Hobb's house fronted on Denny Street?

A. That is correct.

Q. In your conversation with Richard Hobbs, you learned that he was fourteen years of age?

A. That is correct.

Q. That he lived there in that neighborhood all his life?

A. I did not know that, sir.

Q. At that time you did not know it?

A. No.

Q. Did he tell you when he arrived at the Baniszewski house that particular day, Tuesday, October 26th?

A. He said around 5:00 o'clock.

Q. Do you recall he said he had come from school and gone home and around 5:00 o'clock he went to the Baniszewski house?

A. He mentioned something - he did go to school that day.

Q. Did he tell you what he saw when he first walked into the Baniszewski home around 5:00 o'clock on October 26th?

MR. ERBECKER: We object.

THE COURT: Overruled. Yes or no.

A. Yes.

Q. What did he say?

MR. ERBECKER: We object.

MR. BOWMAN: We object.

THE COURT: Objection sustained as to the persons objecting, unless it be shown they were present. The jury will ignore this question and this answer as to all defendants other than defendant Richard Hobbs.

Q. Were any of the other co-defendants present?

A. Is this at the home, sir?

Q. Yes.

A. No, not to my knowledge.

Q. He did tell you that he arrived there around 5:00 o'clock?

A. Approximately.

Q. Did he tell you he went into the home?

A. That is correct.

Q. Did he tell you who he saw there?

A. No, sir, he did not.

Q. Did he tell you what he did there?

A. He told me that.

THE COURT: Yes or no, officer.

A. Yes.

Q. What did he tell you he did?

MR. ERBECKER: We object.

THE COURT: Objection sustained to all other defendants except Richard Hobbs. The jury will ignore the question and answer in arriving at a verdict in this case excepting to defendant Richard Hobbs.

Q. Detective Kaiser, what did Richard Hobbs tell you he did there?

A. Actually, he said the girl came to the back door and she had this note and that he helped her up the stairs. That was about the gist of the conversation at that time.

Q. Now, when was the next conversation you had with him?

A. Later at the Homicide office at police headquarters.

Q. Later that evening?

A. Yes.

Q. Now, after that conversation that you just related with Richard Hobbs, it was around 9:15 or 9:00 o'clock that he told you he wanted to tell the truth?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Now, it was at that time he told you that on Saturday, previous to this Tuesday, October 23 that afternoon, that Saturday that he did, with a pin, scratch on the lower abdomen of Sylvia Likens the words, or part of the words, I am a prostitute and proud of it?

A. He said about a week ago, sir.

Q. Did he say a week before that?

A. Yes.

Q. Since then you have learned it was the previous Saturday?

MR. BOWMAN: That is hearsay.

THE COURT: Overruled.

A. Actually I never was sure about the date, what date it was.

Q. He said he did it with what?

A. He said that he and some other person did it with a pin.

Q. And did he tell you that person had started and had written the words "I am" and he finished it, wrote "a prostitute and proud of it" did he tell you that?

A. Yes, sir, he did.

Q. That is in the statement?

A. Yes, sir.

MR. ERBECKER: We ask that this case be withdrawn from submission and declare a mistrial. One, he is doing something indirectly that he can't do directly. Secondly, he is more or less suggesting an answer to the witness. I move the court to withdraw submission of the cause and declare a mistrial as far as defendant Gertrude Baniszewski, or in the alternative, to give a proper admonition.

THE COURT: Overruled. This is cross examination, you are allowed to lead some on cross, not too much.

Q. Did Richard Hobbs tell you he did this with a needle?

A. A pin, I believe.

MR. ERBECKER: Same objection.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. ERBECKER: In the absence of this defendant he is asking for conversation.

THE COURT: Overruled.

A. Either a pin or needle. I am not sure.

Q. Did you ever locate that pin or needle?

A. No, sir, I did not.

Q. Did he tell you how long it took him to scratch those words "prostitute and proud of it".?

A. Not that I recall, sir.

Q. Now, on that evening, you had an opportunity to observe the body of Sylvia Likens?

A. Yes, sir, I did.

Q. Did you see that wording on her stomach?

A. Yes, sir, I did.

Q. Now, in your conversation, just talking about it with Richard Hobbs, did he also tell you if he, when he used the needle, ever pierced her body, ever pierced her stomach or drew blood?

MR. ERBECKER: We are going to object to any conversation.

THE COURT: Objection sustained as to defendant Gertrude Baniszewski.

Q. Now, on October 26, you did observe the body of Sylvia Likens?

A. Yes.

Q. You observed these words on her belly?

A. Yes, sir, I did.

Q. And you observed that part that Richard Hobbs said he had scratched on her body?

A. That is correct.

Q. And you observed those letterings, did you not?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. That part he had written and admitted he had written, scratched on her body, could you tell and observe that - if this needle pierced and drew blood or was there any laceration or lesion in those words of "prostitute and proud of it"?

A. There were cuts on her body.

Q. We are talking about "prostitute and proud of it" those letters?

A. They were marked in her skin.

Q. Were those markings made by a pin or was it ink?

A. I would say a pin, sir.

Q. Alright, now in your conversation with Ricky Hobbs, he told you about scratching these words and those letters on her stomach?

MR. ERBECKER: We are going to object to this, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Objection sustained. It is repetitious.

MR. ERBECKER: We move the court to admonish the jury.

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

Q. In your conversation with Ricky Hobbs, did you ever ask him about ink in those, traced on those letters?

MR. ERBECKER: Same objection, in the absence of this defendant.

THE COURT: Sustained. It is hearsay conversation as to Gertrude Baniszewski. Overruled as to defendant Richard Hobbs. You may answer the question as to Richard Hobbs only.

A. Actually, it was my understanding it was done with a regular pin.

Q. What do you mean by pin?

A. Like a safety pin or straight pin.

Q. Did you observe on the stomach of Sylvia Likens those letters - was there any ink on those letterings?

A. Actually I don't recall, sir.

Q. Now, in your conversation with Ricky Hobbs, do you recall anything else he said to you?

MR. ERBECKER: Same objection.

THE COURT: Overruled. Yes or no.

A. Yes.

Q. What did he say to you and you say to him?

MR. ERBECKER: We object.

THE COURT: Objection sustained. The jury will ignore the question and the coming answer as to all defendants except Richard Hobbs.

A. He told me he was sorry he did this.

Q. Did he say anything else?

MR. ERBECKER: Same objection.

THE COURT: Same ruling. Can't you give him the whole thing without him asking?

A. If he wants me to.

THE COURT: Objection sustained as to all defendants other than Richard Hobbs. Ladies and Gentlemen, you will ignore the question and answer in arriving at a verdict as to any of the defendants other than Richard Hobbs.

A. He told me that he had struck her with the back of his hand a number of times and he also branded her on the top part of her chest with the letter "S" at that time.

Q. Alright, continue.

A. That is about all the gist of his statement that night.

Q. Now, in his statement he said ten or fifteen times, you just testified a number of times. Do you have any idea how many times he said he struck her?

A. Actually, I don't recall. He said he slapped her with his hands.

Q. Did he ever tell you he did this with his open hand?

A. No, sir.

Q. That he ever knocked her down?

A. No, sir.

Q. Did he ever tell you he struck her in the head?

A. No, sir.

Q. Now, you were present when this admission was made by him the next day, reduced to writing?

A. That is correct.

Q. Who was present besides you yourself?

A. Myself and the office girl, Joyce Snedeker.

Q. Part of this statement - he says "A week ago, I, myself struck Sylvia Likens with the back of my hand in the chest ten or fifteen times".

A. That is correct.

Q. He told you he was present there in the home when Sylvia died?

A. That is correct, sir.

Q. That he had gone to make a call to the police?

A. That is correct, sir.

Q. Now, one of the questions you asked him was why he did this. What was his answer - do you recall?

MR. ERBECKER: We object.

THE COURT: Objection sustained as to all defendants other than defendant Richard Hobbs. Ladies and Gentlemen, please ignore the question as to all defendants other than Richard Hobbs.

A. We asked "What caused you to do something like this" and he answered, "I did this because Gertrude Wright told me to do this".

THE COURT: Ladies and Gentlemen, you will ignore that answer in arriving at a verdict in this case as against all defendants other than Richard Hobbs. Don't use it, consider it in arriving at a verdict in this case as to the defendant Gertrude Baniszewski or any of the other defendants other than Richard Hobbs.

Q.Alright, now, Detective Kaiser, did Ricky Hobbs ever tell you that prior to Sylvia being taken upstairs he had given her mouth to mouth resuscitation in the kitchen?

A. Not that I recall, sir.

Q. Now, have you ever had any other conversation with Richard Hobbs?

A. Yes, sir, I have.

Q. Other than on the 26th of October?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. What days, if you recall?

A. I don't recall the exact date, sir.

Q. Do you recall the conversation you had with him?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. What did he say to you and you say to him?

MR. BOWMAN: We object.

MR. ERBECKER: We object.

THE COURT: Objection sustained as to everybody. Time and place.

Q. Other than on the 26th of October and the 27th of October, do you recall any other conversation with Richard Hobbs?

A. Yes.

Q. Where and when?

A. At General Hospital at the BB ward where Richard Hobbs was placed.

Q. Now, Detective Kaiser, what was the reason for him being at General Hospital? If you know?

A. From my investigation I found Richard Hobbs has to be under strict diet, that he suffers from diabetes.

Q. He has a diabetic condition?

A. Yes.

Q. He has had it some six years already?

MR. ERBECKER: We object.

THE COURT: Objection sustained to the entire question. Next question, please.

Q. Now, you said you had another conversation with him at General Hospital?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Do you recall the time and date?

A. No, sir, I don't.

Q. Was it still in the month of October 1965?

A. No, sir.

Q. Now, in your investigation of this case and your overall investigation of this entire case in matters that occurred there at 3850 East New York Street, did you ever discover a statement that Richard Hobbs gave that varied any or that he lied or was telling the truth?

MR. NEW: We object.

THE COURT: Objection sustained to the entire question, including everybody, including the State of Indiana.

Q. Were you present and witnessed the statement Richard Hobbs gave October 26th?

MR. NEW: We object. It is repetitious.

THE COURT: Objection sustained.

MR. NEDEFF: No other questions.

THE COURT: Any other cross examination on behalf of any other defendants as to this witness?

MR. BOWMAN: No.

THE COURT: Mr. Rice?

MR. RICE: No.

MR. ERBECKER: Nothing further, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Any re-direct?

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

Q. Sgt. Kaiser, Mr. Erbecker asked you to describe Mrs. Baniszewski as you observed her at the scene. Did you notice any bruises about her body?

A. Yes.

MR. ERBECKER: We are going to object. That is improper cross examination.

THE COURT: Objection sustained.

Q. What is Injury to Person?

A. I beg your pardon?

Q. You used the phrase "Injury to Person". What is it?

MR. ERBECKER: We are going to object.

THE COURT: Objection sustained.

WITNESS EXCUSED.

THE COURT: We need a recess, fifteen minutes. Ladies and Gentlemen, you will 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 the case till it is finally submitted to you. Jury and Alternate Jurors retire to the jury room, court will remain in session.

JURY EXCUSED.

RECESS.

THE COURT: Next witness.

MR. NEW: Dr. Kebel.

THE COURT: Are you ready for the jury? 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 3 guests

cron