Ronald Hull - Physician

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

Ronald Hull - Physician

Postby admin » October 31st, 2010, 6:58 pm

RONALD HULL , a witness called by the Court,
being duly sworn by the Court, testified as follows:


Q. What is your name, sir?

A. Dr. Ronald Hull.

Q. What is your business or profession?

A. Physician, specializing in the practice of neuropsychology.

Q. Are you duly licensed to practice medicine in Marion County, State of Indiana?

A. Yes, I am, I was licensed in 1947.

Q. Before that did you go to school to prepare yourself for your profession?

A. Yes, I graduated from Indiana University School of Medicine in 1947.

Q. Did you serve any internship or residency?

A. Internship at St. Vincent's Hospital, five years residency in neurology and was certified by the American Board of Psychiatry in 1953.

Q. What do you mean - certified by the Board?

A. A Board established to review the training and background of applicants for designation as a specialist in neuropsychiatry and give an examination and if you pass that, then they certify you.

Q. Do you know Dr. Dwight Schuster who testified just before you?

A. Yes.

Q. Do you know whether or not he has been certified by the Board?

A. Yes.

Q. He has?

A. Yes.

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

A. Yes.

Q. Did you make that examination?

A. I did.

Q. You heard me tell Dr. Dwight Schuster - you were in the courtroom - what the charge was?

A. Yes.

Q. First Degree Murder and the lesser included offenses - you are acquainted with those?

A. Yes.

Q. Did you make such examination of the defendant John Stephan Baniszewski?

A. I did.

Q. Would you say that the defendant John Stephan Baniszewski has comprehension sufficient to understand the nature of these proceedings and make his defense?

A. In my opinion he does, yes.

THE COURT: You may cross.

MR. NEW: No questions.


Q. Would you say he has sufficient comprehension to aid his attorney in making his defense?

A. Yes, I would.

Q. You are not an attorney, are you?

A. No.

Q. You never prepared a defense for First Degree Murder trial, have you?

A. No.

Q. Do you have some idea in your mind what comprehension is needed to aid an attorney in the preparation of a defense in a First Degree Murder case?

A. In a general sense, as far as his general capacity is concerned. Not from a legal standpoint, no, I believe that is why he has a lawyer.

Q. When did you examine him?

A. April 25.

Q. For how long?

A. Approximately an hour and a half.

Q. Was that the only occasion you saw him?

A. Yes, it was.

Q. Have you examined other defendants in this case?

A. Yes.

Q. Did you see them more than once?

A. Some of them, most of them.

Q. Did you cause John Baniszewski to be examined by a psychologist?

A. No.

Q. Did you cause any psychological testing to be done with respect to him?

A. No.

Q. Did you do that with respect to the other defendants you examined.

A. Yes, I did.

Q. Did you form any impression as to the intelligence of John Baniszewski.

A. Yes.

Q. What is that impression?

A. From his fund of knowledge and vocabulary and history of his school accomplishment, it appeared in the average range.

Q. Average range?

A. Yes.

Q. Did you find any impairment, misfunction or malfunction of any psychiatric significance?

A. No, I did not.

Q. You found he was reacting normally with regard to the circumstances?

A. Yes.

MR. BOWMAN: No further questions.


Q. Now, Dr. Hull, you are the same physician with the same background you were in reference to John Stephan Baniszewski, correct?

A. Yes.

Q. You know what this charge is. Defendant Coy Hubbard, did you make an examination of the defendant Coy Hubbard as a court appointed physician?

A. Yes, I did.

Q. Would you say that the defendant Coy Hubbard, who is charged along with John Stephan Baniszewski and others in this case, has comprehension sufficient to understand the nature of these proceedings and make his defense?

A. Yes, I do.

THE COURT: Any cross, State?

MR. NEW: No.

THE COURT: Cross, Mr. Bowman?


THE COURT: May the doctor leave?


THE COURT: You may go. We will let you know when we need you.


THE COURT: Court finds defendants John Stephan Baniszewski and Coy Hubbard have comprehension sufficient to understand the nature of the proceedings and make their defense - each of them have, and the trial is ordered to be continued.

Return to Baniszewski Trial Transcript

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests