William Kaiser - Detective Sergeant

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 - Detective Sergeant

Postby admin » October 31st, 2010, 7:01 pm

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

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

Q. Will you state your name to the Court and jury, sir?

A. William Kaiser.

Q. What is your business or occupation?

A. Police Officer, City of Indianapolis.

Q. What is your present assignment?

A. I am assigned to Homicide and Robbery Division.

Q. Were you so assigned and employed October 26, 1965?

A. Yes, sir, I was.

Q. In your capacity as sergeant attached to Homicide, were you detailed to 3850 East New York Street October 26, 1965?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. What time of the day or night, Officer?

A. I arrived at the scene approximately at 6:35 P.M.

Q. Upon your arrival, what did you see?

A. When I first arrived at the scene, I observed numerous police officers inside the house and other people. I then was taken upstairs, where I viewed the body of a young girl, which was later identified to me as -

MR. BOWMAN: We object.

THE COURT: Objection sustained.

Q. Where did you observe this girl in the house?

MR. ERBECKER: At this time, defendant Gertrude Baniszewski respectfully requests permission to ask a preliminary question.

THE COURT: Overruled.

Q. Where did you observe the girl in the house?

A. Upstairs in the back bedroom.

Q. Describe her.

THE COURT: Now you may ask your preliminary question.

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

Q. Officer, at this this time, did you have a warrant for Gertrude Baniszewski's arrest?

A. No, sir.

Q. Did you have a search warrant to search the premises?

A. No, sir.

Q. Did you have any court order of any kind, authorizing you to go out there to inspect the premises, search the premises, to interrogate witnesses or secure any evidence?

A. No, sir.

Q. At that time were you in pursuit of a felon?

A. I was making an investigation of a homicide.

Q. At that time, did you have reasonable grounds for thinking a felony had been committed in that house.

A. Yes, sir.

Q. What was the grounds?

MR. NEW: We object.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. BOWMAN: We object.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. BOWMAN: These two defendants respectfully request the jury be excused if it is going to be answered. It is obviously hearsay.

THE COURT: Overruled.

Q. Do you recall the question? Other than the call from headquarters, you had nothing else to base your reason for being out there, did you?

MR. NEW: We object. He said he had cause to believe.

THE COURT: Overruled.

A. Would you repeat?

Q. Other than the call from headquarters, you did not have anything else, no other reason for going out there, did you, yes or no?

A. No, sir.

Q. All you got was some kind of phone call or radio call from headquarters, right?

A. A telephone call, sir.

Q. A telephone call, that is your sole reason for being out there?

A. That is correct.

MR. ERBECKER: No further questions.

THE COURT: Now, read the question Mr. New asked before the preliminary question.

MR. ERBECKER: Defendant Gertrude Baniszewski objects to any further testimony from this witness. It is inadmissible because of the absent or probable cause for his entrance in that home and his investigation and any search he might make, interrogations he might make, as a violation of the defendant's constitutional rights under the 4th, 5th and 14th amendments to the Constitution of the United States.

THE COURT: Overruled, Parker vs. State.

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

Q. Describe the girl.

A. It was a young, white girl. She was lying on a mattress in the back bedroom upstairs.

Q. At the time of your arrival, were any of the defendants present?

A. Yes, sir, they were.

Q. Would you name them?

A. Gertrude Wright, Richard Hobbs, John Baniszewski, Paula Baniszewski, Stephanie Baniszewski and Shirley Baniszewski.

Q. Did you have conversation with the defendant Richard Hobbs at the scene?

A. Yes, sir, I did.

Q. Who was present at the time you had that conversation?

A. Actually, I don't know, sir, there was quite a bit of confusion there.

Q. Do you recall anyone being near enough to have overheard the conversation?

A. No, I do not.

Q. Did you have conversation with Richard Hobbs as to who called the police?

MR. ERBECKER: We object.

THE COURT: Overruled, because it calls for a yes or no answer.

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Will you relate the conversation?

MR. ERBECKER: We object. The record is barren of her being present.

THE COURT: Objection sustained as Gertrude Baniszewski.

MR. BOWMAN: We object as to Coy Hubbard and John Stephan Baniszewski, as being hearsay.

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

MR. RICE: We object on behalf of Paula Marie Baniszewski.

THE COURT: Sustained, Ladies and Gentlemen, the evidence you are about to receive in answer to this question, you will not any way use that evidence in arriving at a verdict as to the defendants Gertrude Baniszewski, Paula Marie Baniszewski, Coy Hubbard, John Stephan Baniszewski. It can only be used as far as you may concern as to defendant Richard Hobbs.

Q. Will you relate the conversation you had with defendant Richard Hobbs?

A. He told me he called the police by instructions of another person.

Q. Did he say where?

A. He made the call across the street in front of the Shell filling station.

Q. Did he say when?

A. No, he did not designate the time, sometime after 6:00 P.M.

Q. Did you have any further conversation with Richard Hobbs at that time?

A. Yes, sir, I did.

Q. Relate what he said and what you said.

MR. ERBECKER: Same objection.

THE COURT: Sustained for all other defendants with the exception of Richard Hobbs. Again, members of the jury, you will ignore the question and answer in arriving at verdicts as to defendants Gertrude Baniszewski, John Stephan Baniszewski, Paula Marie Baniszewski and Coy Hubbard.

A. He told me that, Sylvia had came to the back door earlier in the evening and had been beaten up and bruised and that he helped carry her upstairs.

Q. Did he describe her when she arrived?

A. Just stated that she was beaten up when she arrived at the back door, all beat up and bruised.

Q. Did he say anything else at the scene?

A. He told me that he had to get home.

MR. BOWMAN: That calls for yes or no.

Q. What did he say?

MR. BOWMAN: We will renew our objection.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. ERBECKER: Same objection for Gertrude Baniszewski.

THE COURT: Objection sustained. You will ignore the question and answer as to all the defendants except Richard Hobbs, in arriving at a verdict in this case.

A. He told me his dad did not allow out late, he had to get home, and I give him permission to leave and I would contact him in the morning.

Q. Did you have conversation with the defendant Gertrude Baniszewski at the scene?

A. Yes, sir, I did.

Q. Who was present within hearing at the time you had that conversation?

A. Actually I don't recall, sir.

Q. Would you relate what she said and what you said at that time?

MR. ERBECKER: I request permission to ask a preliminary question.

THE COURT: Granted.

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

Q. At that time, Sergeant, did you know what her constitutional rights were, with reference to person being interrogated at the scene of a dead body, possibly involving a crime?

MR. NEW: We object.

THE COURT: Overruled as to the State.

MR. BOWMAN: These two defendants object and ask that the preliminary question be asked in the absence of the jury and the jury be instructed to disregard the preliminary matters - it is becoming so confused I don't see how they can keep it sorted out, if the questions are not asked in their absence.

THE COURT: Overruled. Read the question.

THE REPORTER READ THE LAST QUESTION.

Q. Yes or no, did you?

A. Yes.

Q. You know all her constitutional rights, what they were?

A. No, sir, I do not.

Q. Well, do you or don't you?

MR. NEW: We object.

THE COURT: Sustained. It is argumentative. He said no.

Q. You did not know then?

A. What do you mean by the question, sir?

Q. I am talking about your being out there at the Baniszewski residence October 26, 1965, aren't we?

A. That is correct.

Q. At that time, did you know what her constitutional rights were, did you?

A. As far as giving me any information on a crime which she was not involved - I had no reason to know what her constitutional rights were at that time.

Q. Is your answer that you did or did not know her constitutional rights? What is it? I don't know yet.

A. I don't know all her constitutional rights.

Q. Then your answer is - not completely, on October 26, 1965, did you know this woman's constitutional rights - yes or no?

MR. NEW: We object.

THE COURT: Objection sustained. You are arguing with the witness.

Q. Is your answer yes or no?

THE COURT: There has been an objection sustained. Next question please.

Q. Did you explain her constitutional rights to her?

A. Not at that time, sir.

Q. You did not then.

MR. ERBECKER: Your Honor, the defendant Gertrude Baniszewski will object to any conversation with this - by this witness - with the defendant at that time, since she was not advised of her constitutional rights as mandatory and obligatory, Escobedo vs Illinois.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. BOWMAN: Defendants John Baniszewski and Coy Hubbard object.

THE COURT: Sustained. Any other objections?

MR. RICE: No.

MR. NEDEFF: We have no objection.

THE COURT: Ladies and Gentlemen, you will ignore the answer of the question as to defendants John Stephan Baniszewski and Coy Hubbard.

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

Q. Relate what she said and what you said at that time.

A. She told me that she had - a girl had come to the back door approximately 5:30 P.M.

Q. What girl?

A. Sylvia Likens, and that at the time she was just wearing a pair of shorts and she had a note at that time and gave the note to one of the kids and she told me they had taken her upstairs and give her a bath and later she had Ricky Hobbs to go over and call the police.

Q. Did she say when she had arrived at the back door?

A. Approximately 5:30, she told me.

MR. ERBECKER: Show a continuing objection on the part of Gertrude Baniszewski.

THE COURT: Overruled.

Q. The same day?

A. Yes, sir, that is correct.

Q. Officer, did you have any further conversation with her at that time?

A. Yes, sir, I questioned her.

MR. BOWMAN: That calls for a yes or no answer.

A. Yes.

MR. BOWMAN: This is hearsay with respect to Coy Hubbard and John Baniszewski.

THE COURT: Sustained unless the time and place is fixed.

Q. At the time and the place you have been testifying about, did you have further conversation at the scene?

MR. ERBECKER: Same objection.

THE COURT: Overruled.

Q. Did you?

A. Yes.

Q. Relate the conversation.

A. I asked her about the girl's parents and she told me the girl's parents were out of town, traveling with a carnival at the time.

Q. Did she say anything else?

A. Yes, I questioned her about -

MR. BOWMAN: Your honor.

A. The answer is yes.

THE COURT: Next question.

Q. What else did she say?

MR. BOWMAN: We object. It is hearsay as far as Coy Hubbard and John Stephan Baniszewski are concerned.

THE COURT: Objection sustained as to Coy Hubbard and John Stephan Baniszewski, with the same admonition. You will ignore the question and answer in arriving at a verdict with respect to John Stephan Baniszewski and Coy Hubbard.

Q. What did she say?

A. I asked if she would come down to headquarters and make a statement pertaining to the death of Sylvia Likens and she stated she would.

Q. Did she do that?

A. Yes, she did.

Q. How did she get down there, if you know?

A. I believe the police officers brought her down.

Q. Officer, I will show you what has been marked and designated as State's Exhibit No. 3 and ask you if you have seen that scene before?

A. Yes, sir, I have.

Q. Does that depict the girl about whom you have been testifying?

A. That is correct.

Q. I will show you, sir, what has been marked for the purpose of identification as State's Exhibit No. 4 and I will ask you to examine that and tell the court and jury if that is the girl about whom you have been testifying?

A. That is correct.

Q. Were you present when the pictures were taken?

A. Yes, sir, I was.

Q. Where else in the house did you go, Officer?

A. I checked the kitchen and I started down the basement but I did not go all the way down.

Q. What did you see, if anything?

A. There was no light at the time. I could not find a light and I came back up.

Q. Was there anything in the basement you observed?

A. No, sir, I could not see down there.

Q. Did you see any animals?

MR. BOWMAN: We object.

MR. ERBECKER: We object.

THE COURT: Objection sustained to the leading question.

Q. What did you say?

A. Actually, I did not see anything.

Q. Did you go down there?

A. No, sir.

Q. How many steps did you go down?

A. Just a couple of steps.

Q. Then where did you go and what did you do?

MR. ERBECKER: We object.

THE COURT: Objection sustained. It assumes.

Q. What did you do?

A. Completed the investigation at the scene.

Q. Of what did that consist?

MR. BOWMAN: We object. The investigation is not relevant.

THE COURT: Overruled. He said what else.

A. I checked to see someone had taken proper care of the children and then I proceeded to police headquarters.

Q. Did you have any conversation with John Baniszewski at the scene?

A. No, just slightly, if anything.

Q. I am sorry, I did not hear your answer.

A. Just a slight conversation.

Q. What was that?

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

MR. RICE: I object on the part of Paula Marie Baniszewski.

THE COURT: Sustained.

Q. Did you have conversation with anyone else?

A. Yes, sir, John Baniszewski.

Q. Was anyone else present besides John Baniszewski?

A. There may have been. I don't know, sir.

Q. What did he say and what did you say?

MR. ERBECKER: We object.

THE COURT: Sustained.

Q. Did you have conversation with any of the other defendants?

A. Not that I recall, sir.

Q. And did you make any other investigation before you left?

A. Not that I recall.

Q. Then where did you go?

A. I went to the Homicide Office at police headquarters.

Q. Did the coroner arrive before you left?

A. That is correct.

Q. Did you know about what time you arrived at the Homicide Office?

A. Approximately a little after 8:00 P.M.

Q. Did you then later see any of the defendants at the Homicide Office?

A. Yes, sis, I did.

Q. Who did you see?

A. I saw Jenny Likens and Mrs. Wright and Richard Hobbs.

Q. Did you talk with Mrs. Wright at police headquarters?

A. Not at first.

Q. Who did you talk to first?

A. I talked to Jenny Likens at first.

Q. Was that in the presence and hearing of any of the other defendants?

A. No, sir, it was not.

Q. Then who did you talk with?

A. I talked to Richard Hobbs.

Q. Where did that take place?

A. Homicide Office.

Q. Do you know approximately what time?

A. I would say around 8:30.

Q. Was anyone else present at the time you had that conversation?

A. Not, sir, not at first.

Q. Will you tell me what Richard Hobbs said and what you said?

MR. ERBECKER: I object on the part of Gertrude Baniszewski, the record being barren she was present at the time.

MR. BOWMAN: I object on the part of Coy Hubbard and John Stephan Baniszewski on the basis it is hearsay.

THE COURT: Mr. Rice?

MR. RICE: We object on the grounds it is hearsay.

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

Q. Recite it, please.

A. I first told him he was in serious trouble and I knew that the girl did not die by the hands of the five boys and that he may be involved in it and if he wanted me to I could get hold of his dad because he may need an attorney and he told me at the time that his mother was sick and dying of cancer at the hospital and that his dad had enough worry and he did not want to bother him and he wanted to tell me the truth.

Q. Then what else did he say?

A. He told me -

MR. BOWMAN: Same objection.

THE COURT: Same ruling. I will make a final admonition.

A. He told me he had been involved in the beating of Sylvia Likens, that he had branded her on the stomach with a pencil the words "I am a prostitute and proud of it". He told me he also branded her on the stomach with a piece of iron and he also had slapped her several times.

THE COURT: Ladies and Gentlemen of the Jury, you will ignore that answer and question which produced the answer as to all the defendants except Richard Hobbs.

Q. Did he say anything else?

A. Yes, sir, I asked him why, the reason he would do anything like that.

THE COURT: Yes or no.

A. Yes, sir.

Q. What -

MR. BOWMAN: Same objection.

THE COURT: Same ruling. Objection sustained as to all defendants except Richard Hobbs.

A. He told me Gertie told him to do it.

THE COURT: Same ruling. Objection sustained as to all defendants except Richard Hobbs.

Q. Did you have any further conversation at that time with Richard Hobbs?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Relate it.

MR. BOWMAN: We object.

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

MR. ERBECKER: Gertrude Baniszewski objects.

THE COURT: Sustained as to Gertrude Baniszewski.

A. He told me different articles at the house used in the beating of Sylvia Likens.

Q. Did he name them?

A. Yes, sir, he said there was a big -

MR. BOWMAN: We renew our objection.

THE COURT: The answer is "yes".

Q. What did he say?

MR. BOWMAN: We renew our objection.

THE COURT: Objection sustained to all defendants other than Richard Hobbs. Again, Ladies and Gentlemen of the Jury, I admonish you on the last answer and this one question and answer, you are not to consider same in arriving at a verdict as to any defendants other than Richard Hobbs. Can you ask the entire conversation?

MR. NEW: I did. "State the conversation, Officer" that was my question. Each time he goes to give an answer, there is an objection.

THE COURT: He does not finish it. Excuse me. Ladies and Gentlemen of the Jury, let me excuse you two or three minutes. Retire to the jury room. During the recess, don't talk among yourselves and don't let anyone talk to you about this case or any subject connected therewith and don't form or express any opinion thereon till the case is finally submitted to you. Jury and alternate Jurors are excused for two or three minutes.

JURY EXCUSED.

THE COURT: The Jury and Alternate Jurors are out of the room, Mr. New, your questions are again "what else did he say, what else did he say". If you can ask one question and get the whole answer out at one time, it will save all this. They are only objecting to the answers as given by the officer and they have to object again to your question "what else did he say".

MR. NEW: The Court will recall I asked the question of this witness "relate the conversation".

THE COURT: Yes, but he is not telling it to you. I am sorry. I can't control the witness. Bring in the jury again.

JURY PRESENT AND SEATED.

THE COURT: Alright, let's start with a new question.

Q. Officer, in answer to the last question you said Mr. Hobbs related different articles around the house, - did he name them?

MR. BOWMAN: Your Honor, John Baniszewski and Coy Hubbard object to the hearsay.

THE COURT: Overruled. Yes or no.

A. Yes, sir.

Q. What did he say?

MR. ERBECKER: An objection on behalf of Gertrude Baniszewski, we object to the piecemealing of the question. It will add emphasis to something that is not binding on Gertrude Baniszewski and it is prejudicial to her, rehashing it.

THE COURT: Objection sustained as to piecemealing the conversation.

MR. BOWMAN: We object.

THE COURT: Ask the entire conversation.

Q. Relate the conversation.

MR. BOWMAN: We object to hearsay testimony.

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

Q. Everything he said.

MR. BOWMAN: There is a question before the court unanswered. I object to the last question.

THE COURT: Overruled, he is enlarging on the question.

MR. BOWMAN: Same objection with reference to hearsay.

THE COURT: Sustained as to hearsay.

A. He told me there was a large black leather belt at the house and also a large club-like object and also the iron that was used to burn Sylvia with at the house. I then informed him that he was under arrest on a charge of preliminary murder.

Q. Anything else, Officer?

A. That was all at that time, sir.

THE COURT: Ladies and Gentlemen of the Jury and Alternate Jurors, you will ignore the questions and answers as to the defendant Richard Hobbs, related by this witness, as to all defendants except Richard Hobbs, in arriving at a verdict in this case.

Q. Did you have conversation with the defendant Gertrude Baniszewski that night at Homicide?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. What time?

A. Approximately about 8:35 P.M.

Q. Where?

A. In the Homicide Office.

Q. Who was present?

A. Myself and I believe - myself most of the time.

Q. Officer, will you relate the entire conversation as to what you said and what she said?

MR. ERBECKER: To which the defendant Gertrude Baniszewski objects for the reasons heretofore given. The officer did not fully and completely advise her of her constitutional rights to remain silent, did not advise her anything she might say would be used against her, that any conversation - if made under inducement, under influence of fear, threats, undue influence and by the presence of police and coercion on a thirty-seven year old woman, nervous and excited and of unsound mind and further under duress and coercion.

THE COURT: I can ask you spectators to leave - if you want to talk or whisper, go outside and do it. Any more and I will clear the room.

MR. ERBECKER: We ask the Court to withdraw the submission of this case and declare a mistrial because of the emotional outburst. It is prejudicial with reference to portions of the motion which is the basis of her defense here.

THE COURT: Overruled. Ladies and Gentlemen of the Jury and Alternate Jurors, any whispering or things you may have heard any spectator in the courtroom do not hold against any of the parties in this case. You may finish with your objection.

MR. ERBECKER: For the reason, any conversation under those circumstances was made under duress, fraud and coercion and by inquisitorial means and methods. Further, any conversation and interrogation of this defendant was in violation of the mandate and prescription laid down by the Indiana Supreme Court in Escobedo vs Illinois and for the further reason any interrogation and questioning and securing of any statements, admissions, conversations or confessions at this time, or any conversation whatsoever in violation of the 5th and 14th amendments of the Constitution of the United States in Article 1, Sections 12 and 13 of the Indiana Constitution, and by the further reason the corpus delicti has not been proven yet and for the further reason there is no evidence connecting Gertrude Baniszewski with the commission of any crime, and for the further reason it is a violation of the Bill of Rights of the Constitution of Indiana, Article 1, Section 14, which provides no person in any criminal prosecution is compelled to testify against herself, and for the further reason that it was produced under the influence of fear, produced by the acts of the police officer, the witness in question, after having confronted her with evidence secured through another co-defendant. Further, it is a violation of Article 1, Section 13 and the 4th amendment of the United States Constitution and this police officer unlawfully, illegally detained the defendant Gertrude Baniszewski and denied her the right to counsel, denied her constitutional right to be advised of her constitutional rights, when the record shows he did not know her constitutional rights at the time and place in question. This denial on the part of this police officer, because of his ignorance of same, shown by the record here, her denial of due process defined in Article 1, Section 13 of the State Constitution and the 5th and 14th amendments of the Constitution of the United States, for the further reason anything and everything learned by this police officer while interrogating this defendant at this time and any time prior to the preliminary charge being filed or a preliminary hearing in any court - whether it be oral or written - was given involuntarily and made and given under inducement, under the influence of fear produced by threats and undue fraudulent acts of the police officer in interrogating her when he did not advise her of her constitutional rights because he did not know them completely and fully himself, because of the acts of this police officer which were inherently coercive in violation of the due process, Article 1, Section 12 of the Constitution of Indiana. For the further reason the defendant here, as shown by the record, did not knowingly, willingly, understand her constitutional rights, did not knowingly, willingly understand and waive her constitutional rights at that time by making or uttering any oral statements - whether oral or written - statements. Any attempt by this police officer and any conversation by this officer was illegal and unlawful and fraudulent because it was an attempt by this police officer to compel the defendant to be a witness against herself involuntarily, and not knowingly, willingly waive any constitutional right as guaranteed her by the Constitution of the United States. For the further reason, that any statements made by the police officer were made in a manner which rendered them untrustworthy and impossible of proof in that he questioned her there alone, without the presence of anyone of her friends, attorneys, relatives or the like and for the further reason she was held by this police officer from around 6:00 or 6:30 in the evening till the time of this interrogation, without food, sleep or rest or without benefit of counsel, without talking to anyone with regard to her rights. The corpus delicti of the charge now pending had not been proven up to that time and for the further reason the acts of this police officer interrogating this defendant without benefit of counsel and without him advising her of her constitutional rights - by his refusal to do so or inability to do so because he did not fully know them himself, in direct violation of the constitutional rights guaranteed her as a person accused of a crime or being held on a criminal charge, in violation of her rights and constitutional provisions herein above set out.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. BOWMAN: We object to it as being hearsay.

THE COURT: Sustained as to defendants Coy Hubbard and John Stephan Baniszewski. Read the question.

THE REPORTER READ THE LAST QUESTION.

A. When I first arrived at the Homicide Office, Mrs. Wright right gave me a note out of her purse and I returned back to the questioning room and continued to talk to Mr. Hobbs and Jenny Likens and after sometime I came back out and I told Mrs. Wright that both Hobbs and Jenny Likens had implicated her in the death of this child and she denied everything and I informed her she was under arrest on a charge of Pre-Murder and that she had a right to contact her attorney and she told me that she would like to put in a call to her attorney, which I did later make arrangements upstairs in the turnkey's office for her to do so.

Q. Was that all the conversation?

A. That was about the gist of the conversation at that time.

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 defendants Coy Hubbard and John Stephan Baniszewski.

Q. Officer, I will hand you was has been marked for purpose of identification as State's Exhibit No. 17 and ask you to examine that carefully and tell the court and jury whether or not that is the note you testified Mrs. Baniszewski gave you when you first came to Homicide at headquarters?

A. Yes, sir, it is.

MR. NEW: At this time the State offers in evidence State's Exhibit No. 17.

MR. ERBECKER: The defendant Gertrude Baniszewski objects to the admission of State's Exhibit No. 17 for the reasons it is hearsay and for the further reason it is not subject to cross examination of and the purported writer of this letter and for the reason it is hearsay and for the other grounds and reasons advanced with reference to the testimony of this police officer.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. RICE: We object to No. 17 in behalf of Paula Marie Baniszewski.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. NEDEFF: Richard Hobbs makes the same objection for the same reasons assigned by Mr. Rice.

THE COURT: Sustained.

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

THE COURT: Sustained. Show in evidence as to defendant Gertrude Baniszewski only.

WHEREUPON STATE'S EXHIBIT NO. 17 (being a note) WAS ADMITTED IN EVIDENCE,
(as to defendant Gertrude Baniszewski), AND MADE A PART OF THIS RECORD AS FOLLOW, TO-WIT:

STATE'S EXHIBIT NO. 17 ATTACHED.

Dear Mom + Dad,
I am writing to tell you what I've been done for the last two weeks. I went to school and took a gym suit out of the girls gym locker. I went to the park and was going to take some cokes out of a coke machine. I let Ronnie + Donnie Simpson have intercorse with me. Danny and Jenny knows about it. In California I was under the covers with Mike Eason. Jenny + Benny seen Mike's pants down. I was trying to get Jenny in trouble with me. I told lies on Mommie to Grandma Martin. I hit a three year old kid in the face, and spanked it on the butt. At the house out on Post Road. I stole things in California when we lived out there. The reason why I got fired from that job in Post Road is because I hit the boy in the face.I done things that could cause a lot of trouble. I always want Mommie and Daddy to break up, so I could get my way when I live with Mommie. I went out with a married man driving around in a convertible. I took 10 dollars from Gertie Wright. I knocked Jimmy B. off my back. I hit Shirley B. for no reason. Jenny has been behaving herself.
Sylvia Likens


END STATE'S EXHIBIT NO. 17.

Q. Officer, will you identify to the court and jury the lady you have been identifying as Mrs. Wright?

A. The lady to the right of Mr. Erbecker there. (indicating defendant Gertrude Baniszewski).

Q. When did you next see Mrs. Wright?

A. I saw her the following day after court or in court.

Q. What court?

A. Municipal Court No. 6.

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

A. After court I did, sir, yes.

Q. Who was present and where did it take place?

A. Myself and Capt. Davenport questioned Mrs. Wright in the Homicide Office at Police Headquarters.

Q. Approximately what time was this?

A. 9:50 A.M.

Q. Who else was present besides Mrs. Wright and Capt. Davenport?

A. That is all, sir.

Q. Will you relate what was said at that time?

MR. ERBECKER: We will object in advance on the same grounds and reasons heretofore set forth previously, without enumerating them for the record again, and for the additional grounds that at that time the officer in court knew she was under a formal charge of murder and the record is barren of her again being advised of her constitutional rights. The record shows her lawyer did not know, so he could not advise her. The officer testified he knew she sought the services of an attorney. Certainly this comes within the purview of Escobedo vs Illinois. Knowing all that, it was a violation of her constitution rights to persist.

THE COURT: Ladies and Gentlemen, we will take a ten or fifteen minute break. During this recess, please 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. By agreement of counsel and with consent of the State and defendants, you are permitted to separate. Don't read any newspaper articles or watch anything or listen to anything that may be broadcast about the case. Let's reconvene in the jury room - it is now about twenty till 3:00 - at 3:00 o'clock. Jury and alternate jurors are excused. Court will remain in session.

JURY EXCUSED.

THE COURT: Can you go back and read the question to me?

THE REPORTER READ THE LAST QUESTION.

THE COURT: I am going to overrule the objection. However, again in accordance with that we were talking about before, these piecemeal propositions call for piecemeal admonitions and if you can get the whole conversation in at one time it will easier for everybody concerned. The objection is overruled. We will have a ten or fifteen minute recess.

RECESS.

THE COURT: You may proceed. When the jury comes in I will overrule your objection, Mr. Erbecker, unless you have something more to show me.

MR. ERBECKER: I would like to show that the conversation about to be related by the officerhere happened subsequent to police court hearing. He says approximately 9:50 A.M. Then it is no longer in the category of investigation. It is in the category of accusation. Under the rules laid down in Gideon vs Wainright she is entitled to counsel. In addition, he - the officer - heard her, or had made arrangements for her to get an attorney and that puts him on guard. In addition to that, the record shows he did not offer her, give her any advice - advise her of her constitutional rights because he was not fully apprised what her rights were. In addition, the interrogation of her followed the hearing, followed the interrogation of the co-defendants and he in joined by the head of the Homicide Squad Captain Davenport, which takes away from her interrogation by this police officer and puts it in the nature of her outweighed by two capable, experienced police officers and puts it in the category of an inquisition, which is emphasized by the fact she did not have a lawyer, none was present, and she was not advised of her rights. He knew she had an attorney. The record is barren what steps he took to make an attorney available to her and all that. All this is absolutely a denial of her rights as laid down in Escobedo vs Illinois. He knew and denied her rights because he knew she had an attorney. He said he knew arrangements were made the night before. In all cases the Supreme Court of United States said, as in Gideon vs Wainright, a person is entitled to an attorney. Up to now, the record shows she did not have one and she wanted one. There was none there when he was questioning her with Capt. Davenport. It has gone beyond investigation. Now it is accusation of First Degree murder. When she is denied an attorney, she is denied due process of law, equal protection of law, to such extent in a First Degree Murder case this conversation could conceivably put her in the electric chair.

THE COURT: Gideon vs Wainright - I think your co-counsel, Forrest Bowman, has a sort of patent on that citation. I have read it many times. It has been cited many times and I have read Escobedo many times and I have read many cases differentiating Escobedo. We have gone through this on your Motion to Suppress and constant repetition does not make your point stronger, I don't think. If you were right, you were right on your Motion to Suppress. Now, I don't want to foreclose you making any objections you wish to make because that is your prerogative and right. This continual repetition of a point that I think is of record for you on your Motion to Suppress Evidence, which we have had a hearing on and this witness here did testify on this Motion to Suppress hearing. It was all directed to this. I look at it this way - the circumstances and facts lending up to, at the time, and after, are more or less in one where a person says something thing to a policeman and hands him a note and things go on from there is a little bit different - in fact much, much different than the question presented in Escobedo. As far as Gideon vs Wainright, everybody is entitled to an attorney, but you have got to do something about it.

MR. ERBECKER: She did do something about it.

THE COURT: Yes, he ordered phone calls made for her. That is the evidence.

MR. ERBECKER: She did not have an attorney.

THE COURT: I don't think Escobedo says every policeman has to carry a lawyer around in his back pocket. So your objection will he overruled. Bring in the jury.

JURY PRESENT AND SEATED.

THE COURT: Objection overruled. Any preliminary question, sir?

MR. ERBECKER: Yes, sir, may I ask a preliminary question?

THE COURT: Yes, sir.

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

Q. Now, Sergeant, what time of day or night was this conversation with Gertrude Baniszewski?

A. 9:50 A.M., sir.

Q. And where did you take her for this interrogation?

A. To the Homicide Office, Police Headquarters.

Q. Who was present?

A. Mrs. Wright, Capt. Davenport and myself.

Q. Was Mrs. Wright's or Mrs. Baniszewski's attorney present?

A. No, sir, he was not.

Q. You knew she had an attorney, didn't you?

A. She stated she wanted to call one.

Q. And did she ask for an attorney at the time you and Capt. Davenport talked to her?

A. No, sir, she did not.

Q. Did you advise her of her constitutional rights at that time?

A. We advised her.

Q. What did you do?

A. I advised her that she did not have to say anything, do anything, sign anything, till she consulted with an attorney and she answered that she had not done anything wrong and did not need any.

MR. BOWMAN: To which these two defendants object and we ask the jury be admonished not to consider this in arriving at a verdict.

THE COURT: The objection is well taken. I will admonish when it is all over.

Q. From the time of the hearing or trial in front of Judge Zaklan in Municipal Court Room No. 6 until 9:50, when you first started talking to Gertrude Baniszewski with Capt. Davenport, what steps or overt acts did you do to allow her to see the attorney she phoned or said she phoned or wanted?

A. She was returned to the lockup and I was not with her all the time, sir.

Q. What is your answer - you don't know?

A. That is right.

Q. You don't know whether or not her wishes to see an attorney were fulfilled, is that right?

A. I do not.

Q. What access to her lawyer did you give her yourself?

A. I advised her, sir.

Q. What access to her lawyer did you yourself give?

A. On that date - nothing on that date.

Q. You did not give her a chance to see a lawyer?

A. No, sir, not on that date.

Q. Did she knowingly, willingly and understandingly - to your knowledge - waive her right to have her attorney present?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. What did she say?

A. She said she had not done anything wrong and she did not need any.

Q. That, in your opinion, constitutes the waiver I set out?

MR. NEW: I object.

THE COURT: Objection sustained.

Q. That is all she said?

A. That is right.

Q. By way of waiver or otherwise?

A. That is what she told me.

Q. At that time, she was formally charged with preliminary First Degree Murder in Marion Municipal Court Room No. 6?

A. That is correct.

Q. It was no longer any investigation on your part with reference to her, but it was accusation against her for First Degree Murder, was it?

MR. NEW: We object.

THE COURT: Sustained.

Q. But this conversation with her, you, and Davenport, had, was after a formal charge had been filed against her - preliminary First Degree Murder - was it?

A. A Pre-Murder charge.

Q. A Pre-Murder charge, yes. Is it a fact, that you and Lt. Davenport, Capt. Davenport misled her and made false promises to her for the purpose of securing a conversation and answer to your questions?

A. No, sir.

Q. That is not true? Did you make any promises of any kind to her?

A. No, sir.

Q. Did you use any kind of pressure, coercion or undue influence - either mental or physical - to get her to talk to you?

A. No, sir.

Q. Did you ask her whether her attorney was coming there at this meeting, before you talked to her?

A. No, sir.

MR. ERBECKER: No further questions, Your Honor. I renew my objection to this conversation between the witness and the defendant for the reason it is in violation of the rules laid down in Escobedo vs Illinois. She is being deprived of due process of law with reference to making a statement or admission or confession and that this conversation is absolutely infirm by reason of the objections I heretofore set out and which I embody in this objection in entirety, in the same manner as if I had made them again.

THE COURT: Objection overruled.

MR. BOWMAN: We object.

THE COURT: Sustained as to the defendants Coy Hubbard and John Stephan Baniszewski.

MR. RICE: We will object.

THE COURT: Sustained as to Paula Marie Baniszewski.

MR. NEDEFF: We will follow suit.

THE COURT: And as to defendant Richard Hobbs. Read the question.

THE REPORTER READ THE LAST QUESTION.

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

Q. Will you relate what was said at that time?

A. First Capt. Davenport and myself both advised Mrs. Gertrude Wright that she did not have to give any statement, sign anything, or say anything until she consulted with an attorney. She told us at that time she had not done anything wrong and she did not need any attorney. Upon talking to Mrs. Wright, she first told me - and Capt. Davenport - that she knew that the kids had been mistreating Sylvia and before Hobbs marked Sylvia with a needle she asked if sheknew what a tattoo was. I asked Mrs. Wright why she kept Sylvia down in the basement and Mrs. Wright told me "because she wet the bed". I asked if the reason she did wet the bed was because everyone beat her so much that they may have injured her kidneys. She answered that she did not know. Mrs. Wright knew that her son Johnny had marked Sylvia with a hot poker.

MR. ERBECKER: I object. That calls for a conclusion of the mind of someone else. I move the court to admonish the jury.

THE COURT: That will go out. I will admonish the jury in this case he is asking for conversation.

A. Upon talking to Mrs. Wright, she stated Coy Hubbard did a lot of the beating. Also, during our conversation, she stated Paula did most of the damage and she broke her wrist once when she struck Sylvia. Also, during the conversation, she stated that once Stephanie tied her to the bed. Also, during our conversation, she stated she told Johnny once to go get some shit and made her eat it. He brought it, wrapped up in some wax paper. She told me at the time that the girl put it to her mouth but she had not actually thought she would eat it. She stated that she kept Sylvia - during her conversation Mrs. Wright, stated she kept Sylvia in the house a week or two. Also, during our conversation, she stated her daughter Paula made Sylvia write the note Sunday because she was afraid she would tell lies on her and blame them for her sores. Also, during our conversation, she stated the only time she gave Sylvia any medicine was when she used peroxide and merthiolate on her. Also, during our conversation, she stated that she, Mrs. Wright, once burned Sylvia on the arm with a cigarette about a month ago. Also, during our conversation, she stated "Stephanie and I gave Sylvia a bath on Sunday, the same day she wrote the note". During our conversation, Mrs. Wright, stated she washed the basement before the police came. Also, during our conversation, Mrs. Wright, stated she saw Coy Hubbard beat her up once, one night upstairs about a week ago. Also, during our conversation, Mrs. Wright, stated "I made her - Sylvia - sleep three times in the basement in the last two weeks". Also, during our conversation, she stated when Coy Hubbard and Randy Lepper hit Sylvia, her head hit the wall. Also, during our conversation, she stated "I got a black eye once when I struck Sylvia and missed and struck myself". Also, during our conversation, she stated she saw Johnny burn her with matches. Also, during our conversation, she stated "I made Paula tell Sylvia to write the note".

THE COURT: Is that the end of the conversation?

A. At that time.

THE COURT: Ladies and Gentlemen of the Jury and Alternate Jurors, you will ignore that answer and the question in arriving at a verdict against all defendants excepting Gertrude Baniszewski.

MR. BOWMAN: Your Honor, at this time defendants John Baniszewski and Coy Hubbard separately and severally request withdrawal of submission for the reason of the prejudice from the answer, not withstanding the admonition.

THE COURT: Overruled. Ladies and Gentlemen, as I told you before, you will ignore that answer and the question that caused the answer in arriving at a verdict as to the defendants John Stephan Baniszewski, Paula Marie Baniszewski, Richard Hobbs and Coy Hubbard. Next question.

Q. Officer, when did you next see the defendant, Gertrude Wright?

A. I next talked to Gertrude the 29th of October at approximately 4:30 P.M.

Q. Where did that conversation take place?

A. In the Homicide Office at Police Headquarters.

Q. Who was present at the time?

A. Just myself, sir.

Q. Would you relate the entire conversation you had with the defendant Gertrude Wright at that time?

MR. ERBECKER: At this time Gertrude Wright and Gertrude Baniszewski objects to any conversation between the witness and the defendant for the reason heretofore assigned and given before here and moves the Court to accept them in entirety the same as if they were set forth and embodied now.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. BOWMAN: We object, Judge, it is hearsay.

THE COURT: Sustained.

A. Again, I advised her she did not have to make any kind of statement till she consulted with an attorney. Again, she stated she had not done anything wrong and did not need any. During our conversation, she told me her name actually was not Wright, but was Baniszewski. Her name was Gertrude Baniszewski. She was white and thirty-seven and that she had never actually been married to Dennis Lee Wright and that at the time, she stated, he was in the armed services in Germany. She told me she had filed a paternity suit in July in Juvenile Court against Dennis Lee Wright, for him to take care of the child she had by him. She also told me that, she had lived different places in the city, that she had once lived on New York Street, she had lived on New York Street since June 26, 1965. During the conversation, she stated she once lived on Bradley about a month. She once lived in Windsor Village from March to April. She did live on Dearborn and 34th from September '64 to March '65 with Dennis. She stated that she, Dennis, and the baby lived on 3030 East 10th from June to September. I again questioned her pertaining to the amount of time Sylvia was kept in the basement. She stated she slept in the basement two or three times in the last week. Also, Mrs. Wright, related to me that she had been suffering from a nervous condition and also an asthmatic condition and that she had been under the care of Dr. Paul Lindenborg, 1600 Arlington, and she also stated that, she had lost a baby this past April that belonged to Dennis. I further went down to the police property room and obtained the -

THE COURT: Is that conversation, sir?

MR. ERBECKER: I move to strike that.

THE COURT: That answer will be stricken from the record. The question was conversation. The jury will ignore the answer in arriving at a verdict. The jury will ignore the question and answer in arriving at a verdict as to defendants John Stephan Baniszewski and Paula Marie Baniszewski, Richard Hobbs and Coy Hubbard.

Q. When did you next talk with Mrs. Wright?

MR. ERBECKER: We object, Your Honor.

THE COURT: It assumes. Objection sustained.

Q. Did you talk to Mrs. Wright again that day?

A. Approximately five to ten minutes later I again talked to Mrs. Wright.

MR. ERBECKER: We object, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Next question, please. Overruled.

Q. Where did that conversation take place?

A. Homicide Office, Police Headquarters.

Q. Who was present five or ten minutes later at the time you talked to Mrs. Wright?

A. Just myself and Mrs. Wright.

Q. Relate the entire conversation at that time?

MR. ERBECKER: We object. It is being piecemealed again, contrary to the Court's admonition, in violation to the Court's instructions, piecemealing the testimony to get emphasis to it.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. BOWMAN: We object. It is hearsay.

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

A. I showed Mrs. Wright some articles and she identified some of them.

Q. What were they?

A. There was a large black belt, a piece of iron -

MR. BOWMAN: We are going to renew our objection.

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

Q. Proceed, Officer.

A. A large black belt -

MR. ERBECKER: We object to his reading from a memorandum, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Overruled.

A. There was a piece of iron, a large paddle, a pair of gray shorts and some brass colored tubings and some orange colored wood.

Q. When you said she identified them, what did she say?

MR. BOWMAN: We object.

THE COURT: Sustained.

A. When I showed her the large paddle, she stated that -

THE COURT: The objection has been sustained to the question.

MR. NEW: All defendants?

THE COURT: Yes.

MR. NEW: As to what she said?

THE COURT: Yes, in view of what has been testified to before. Ladies and Gentlemen, retire to the Jury room a few minutes. 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.

JURY EXCUSED.

THE COURT: Mr. New, the reason for the Court's ruling is this, - that those conversations with this particular defendant pertain as to what others had done with these items and in view of the fact the State objected to separate trials for the rest of them, I think it might be encroaching on their constitutional rights to have this reiterated as to what has been said as to what other defendants did. If you have any offer to prove as to whether this defendant, Gertrude Wright, used any of those items, that will be a different matter. In view of this situation, where it is apparent that her conversation is what somebody else had done, I would want to sustain the objection as to all defendants, if they want it that way. If they don't, it will be a different story, I think it would be very wrong for the Court to allow this testimony to go in when it is already apparent she said she did nothing wrong and other people did these things. That is the reason. You were just about ready to show these things. Understand?

MR. NEW: Yes, we will make an Offer to Prove what the witness answer would be, if asked.

THE COURT: In the absence of the jury.

MR. NEW: The State would like to offer to prove in the record. Show this witness, if asked the question, being shown exhibits No. 11, 12, 13, 14, 15 and 16,being respectively a screwhook, brass colored metal, orange wood, paddle, black belt and shorts, if the witness were permitted to answer, his answer would be the defendant Gertrude Baniszewski denied ever seeing the black belt being used by anybody, including herself; that she did participate in the use of the screwhook in burning the decedent; that she knew nothing of the orange wood being used by anybody, including herself; she knew nothing of the brass rod being used by anybody, including herself; but she herself used the paddle on the deceased, Sylvia Likens, and the shorts were the shorts Sylvia Likens was wearing while in the basement a matter of an hour and a half to two hours before she died.

THE COURT: Now, on that kind of representation and assuming that is what will be proved, understand, I could permit that in evidence over the objections of the other defendants, insofar as pertains to Gertrude Wright only. It is all negative evidence excepting one item.

MR. NEW: She used the paddle and the screwhook and she identified the shorts.

THE COURT: Limit it to that then.

MR. NEW: If it is going in, it should all go.

MR. BOWMAN: These defendants object, Your Honor, is trying very hard to protect the record. I realize that and appreciate it but I think it is becoming impossible. They already had the items identified once, which the State had a right to do, and offered once, which they may have had the right to do, although I feel they knew better. I again renew my objection and would like to state for the record we don't feel an admonition is adequate.

THE COURT: You are limited to your offer to prove, Mr. New. Will you stay with it, sir?

MR. NEW: Yes.

THE COURT: Bring in the jury.

JURY PRESENT AND SEATED.

THE COURT: The objection of the defendants Coy Hubbard and John Stephan Baniszewski will be sustained as to said defendants.

Q. Officer, I will hand you what has been marked for identification as State's Exhibit No. 14 and ask you whether or not you showed that to the defendant Gertrude Baniszewski, at the time of which you are testifying?

MR. ERBECKER: Same objection on the part of Gertrude Baniszewski.

THE COURT: Overruled.

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Did you have a conversation at that time?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. What did you say and what did she say with reference to State's Exhibit No. 14?

MR. BOWMAN: We object.

THE COURT: Sustained as to the defendants you represent. I will admonish the jury accordingly.

A. I asked her if she had seen this before and she said - yes, she had used it to spank Sylvia on the bottom several times.

Q. I will hand you what has been marked, sir, for identification as State's Exhibit No. 16 and ask if you showed those to the defendant, Gertrude Baniszewski, at the time of which you have been testifying?

A. Yes, sir, I did.

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

A. Yes, sir.

Q. What did she say and what did you say?

MR. BOWMAN: I object.

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

A. She stated these were the shorts Sylvia was wearing shortly before death and at the time she had a bowel movement in the shorts.

MR. NEW: At this time the State will offer in evidence State's Exhibits No. 14 and No. 16.

MR. ERBECKER: To which defendant Gertrude Baniszewski objects for the same reasons heretofore given with reference to Exhibits No. 11, 12, 13, 14 and 15 and 16 and moves the Court to accept same without repetition here.

THE COURT: Overruled as to defendant Gertrude Baniszewski.

MR. RICE: Defendant Paula Marie Baniszewski objects.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. BOWMAN: We object.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. NEDEFF: Richard Hobbs objects.

THE COURT: Sustained. The Court will admit State's Exhibit No. 14 and 16 as to the defendant Gertrude Baniszewski only. You will ignore the testimony in arriving at any verdict as to John Stephan Baniszewski, Paula Marie Baniszewski, Richard Hobbs and Coy Hubbard. It is admitted in evidence as to Gertrude Baniszewski only.

MR. NEW: We ask permission to have the jury view State's Exhibits No. 14 and 16 and 17.

THE COURT: Let the record show State's Exhibits No. 14, 16 and 17 are shown to the jury, and is to be considered only in the matter of the case of State of Indiana against Gertrude Baniszewski and not to any of the other defendants.

WHEREUPON STATE'S EXHIBITS NO. 14 and NO. 16 WERE ADMITTED IN EVIDENCE,
AND MADE A PART OF THIS RECORD AS FOLLOWS, TO-WIT:
(all having been admitted as to Gertrude Baniszewski only)

STATE'S EXHIBIT NO. 14 (being a wooden paddle) FILED SEPARATELY.

STATE'S EXHIBIT NO. 16 (being a pair of shorts) FILED SEPARATELY.

STATE'S EXHIBITS NO. 14, NO. 16 and NO. 17 (being a note) SHOWN TO THE JURY.

THE COURT: Next question, please.

Q. Officer, after the night of October 26, 1965, did you have later conversation with the defendant Richard Hobbs?

A. Yes, sir, I did.

Q. When and where?

A. The following morning in the Homicide Office I talked to Richard Hobbs, with his dad, Mr. Hobbs, at that time.

MR. BOWMAN: We object.

THE COURT: Sustained. Next question.

Q. Who was present besides the defendant, Richard Hobbs and his father and yourself?

A. That is all, sir.

Q. Relate that conversation at that time.

MR. ERBECKER: I object in behalf of Gertrude Baniszewski.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. BOWMAN: We object.

THE COURT: Sustained.

A. I told Mr, Hobbs that his boy was in serious trouble and that he should get him an attorney. Mr. Hobbs told me at the time, he stated, "Sgt. Kaiser, if my boy is involved in this thing, I want him to tell you the truth and cooperate with you" and he asked if he could have permission to talk to his boy, which I gave him at that time. Then later on that date, in the afternoon, I took an oral and written statement, which he signed - Richard Hobbs.

Q. Where did this written statement take place?

A. In the Homicide Office at Police Headquarters.

Q. Who else was present, sir?

A. Myself and our typist, Officer Joyce Snedeker.

Q. Was it signed by the defendant, Richard Hobbs?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. In your presence?

A. Yes.

Q. Was the statement taken in your presence?

A. Yes.

Q. Was it made voluntarily?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Officer, I will hand you what has been marked for the purpose of identification as State's Exhibit No. 18. I will ask you to examine that and ask you to tell the jury if that is the written statement, signed by Richard Dean Hobbs, the defendant herein, about which you have been testifying?

A. Yes, it is.

MR. NEW: At this time the State offers in evidence State's Exhibit No. 18 as to Richard Dean Hobbs only.

MR. NEDEFF: Richard Dean Hobbs has no objection to the introduction of this statement.

THE COURT: Show in evidence, introduced as to defendant Hobbs only. Ladies and Gentlemen of the Jury, this exhibit is introduced only as to defendant Richard Hobbs. You will ignore same in arriving at a verdict as to the defendants, Gertrude Baniszewski, John Stephan Baniszewski, Paula Marie Baniszewski and Coy Hubbard.

MR. BOWMAN: May I examine it before it is passed to the Jury?

THE COURT: Sure.

MR. BOWMAN: May I approach the bench, Your Honor?

THE COURT: Yes, sir.

MR. BOWMAN: With respect to this written statement they are offering, the point is this -

THE COURT: Ladies and Gentlemen of the Jury, retire to the jury room two or three minutes. Don't talk among yourselves and don't let anyone talk to you about this case or any subject connected therewith. Don't form any opinion on the case till it is finally submitted to you. Let me again tell the jury, many times in this trial of a lawsuit the jury has to be excused from the courtroom. Don't hold it against anybody. If you have to blame anybody, blame the Judge. I will be glad to take the responsibility.

JURY EXCUSED.

THE COURT: Alright, now the jury and alternate Jurors are not in the room. Defendants Coy Hubbard and John Stephan Baniszewski by Forrest Bowman have what to offer to the court in reference to Exhibit No. 18?

MR. BOWMAN: With regard to State's Exhibit No. 18, which they have offered only as to defendant Richard Hobbs, and which the court conditionally admitted only with respect to that defendant, these two defendants point out there is matter in here relating only to them and are strictly the observation of Hobbs, an accusation not incriminating him, and we respectfully request the court we would like to state for the record - specifically what I am referring to -

MR. NEW: We - the State has considerable evidence that is not excludable with the admonition, as long as the court admonishes it is admitted only as to the defendant who signed it.

MR. NEDEFF: We made no objection to the introduction of the statement in evidence, with the idea it would be introduced in toto. If anything is deleted, and it is taken out of context -

THE COURT: May I ask you all to be seated. Call in the jury.

MR. ERBECKER: May I make a record? I have not had a chance to see it. I want to make a motion.

THE COURT: Everything will be alright.

MR. ERBECKER: May I make a record?

THE COURT: Not at this moment, please.

JURY PRESENT AND SEATED.

THE COURT: Ladies and Gentlemen of the Jury and Alternate Jurors, this is going to be a more extended recess than I thought it would be, so I am going to let you go for this evening. You will return to the Jury room at 9:30 in the morning. Tomorrow morning at 9:30 you will return to the jury room. By agreement of counsel and with consent of the defendant and State made in open court, the Jury is permitted to separate. During this separation, till tomorrow morning, and while the case is going on, naturally, 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 an 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. Jury and alternate jurors are excused till 9:30 tomorrow morning.

JURY EXCUSED.

THE COURT: We are confronted now with a statement - let the record show the jury is out of the room. One of you bailiffs tell all the witnesses to come in the court. Who has not been sworn. Hold up your right hands.

WITNESSES SWORN BY THE COURT.

THE COURT: You are released. Come back tomorrow morning at 9:30, all of you. Remember there has been a separation of witnesses in this case, which means you are not to tell one another what you are going to tell when you become witnesses and after you have testified, don't tell what you have said. You may leave right now.

WITNESSES EXCUSED.

THE COURT: As far as the exhibit is concerned, the defendant against whom it is offered is objecting to any deletion. The other defendants are objecting to references to them. They say an admonition would not be sufficient. I think defendant Hobbs is entitled to have the entire matter in accordance with statute 9-1607 read with all the attendant circumstances. Do you have authority that an admonition would be sufficient, Mr. New?

MR. NEW: I think the Chief Deputy, Frank Spencer, has assembled some authority in case the court has doubt.

THE COURT: I don't have a doubt or else I would have granted separate trials. I just wanted to know where this leaves a court where one defendant says "I want it all in" and the other says, "It is going to hunt me". If - I am assuming and I have no right to assume, but I am not trying the facts, the Jury is - perhaps if the occasion should come up again and again, we could thrash it out once and for all. Call upon your Mr. Spencer for as authority or two. Let's wait five or ten minutes and do it. I would like to tell the lawyers this. I want to recess around 4:30 this evening in honor of Red Mass being celebrated today. Can you get me that and get at least a part of the argument out of the way before 4:30?

MR. NEW: If you want me to guess, I would guess I could not find Frank Spencer in less than twenty minutes. I will do my best.

MR. RICE: Would the court be pleased to hear an objection to this while we are waiting?

THE COURT: No, because Mr. New is out of the room. I will take your objection to it later, understand?

MR. NEW: Mr. Spencer is in Circuit Court in Anderson, Indiana. I reached him by phone.

THE COURT: I want to hear citations from everybody on this. We will reconvene tomorrow morning, first on the question of comprehension on two defendants who have just recently been examined by the doctors, Coy Hubbard and John Stephan Baniszewski, at 9:00 A.M. Tomorrow. That will be out of the presence and hearing of the jury. Then from there we will go to the question of the introduction and deletion, etc. of Exhibit No. 18. Cause recessed till tomorrow morning at 9:00 A.M. Let me warn all of you, I don't want anybody to be late tomorrow morning because the doctors are going to be here at 9:00 A.M. Doctors are busy. This was a late proposition for them and I wish that those who are ordinarily late be here on time and those ordinarily early continue their good habits. We are in recess till 9:00 A.M. Tomorrow morning.

COURT ADJOURNED.

APRIL 29, 1966, AND THE TRIAL OF THIS CAUSE WAS RESUMED.

THE COURT: Let the record show, Mrs. Court Reporter - are there any witnesses in the courtroom? The State is here by LeRoy New and Marjorie Wessner. Defendants are all here. The attorneys are here, with the exception of Mr. Nedeff. Mr. Nedeff represents defendant Richard Hobbs. Mr. Forrest Bowman, may we proceed on the matter of comprehension as to defendants John Stephan Baniszewski and Coy Hubbard without Mr. Nedeff?

MR. BOWMAN: As far as I am concerned, we can.

THE COURT: State of Indiana?

MR. NEW: No objection.

THE COURT: We have had hearings before on this matter on comprehension in the absence of other attorneys. Sheriff, what is your name?

DEPUTY SHERIFF: David Paschall.

THE COURT: What time is it?

DEPUTY SHERIFF: Five after 9:00.

THE COURT: For the purpose of these doctors, do you want them separated, Forrest?

MR. BOWMAN: No.

THE COURT: Bring in both doctors.

MR. ERBECKER: For the purpose of the record, this does not any way pertain to Gertrude Baniszewski. May I go to another court for the purpose of transacting more business? I will be back in five or ten minutes.

THE COURT: Let the record show for five or ten minutes. Be sure the record shows, the jurors are not in the courtroom, not in the presence or hearing of those proceedings. Doctors hold up your right hands.

WITNESSES SWORN BY THE COURT.

THE COURT: One of you take the witness stand. This, Mrs. Court Reporter, is not the trial in chief. It is a matter of comprehension of the defendants John Stephan Baniszewski and Coy Hubbard, on the question as to whether or not these defendants, these particular defendants, have comprehension sufficient to understand the nature of the proceedings and make their defense.
e-mail: webmaster@sylvialikens.com

Return to Baniszewski Trial Transcript

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests

cron