Paul Harmon - Police Officer

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

Paul Harmon - Police Officer

Postby admin » October 31st, 2010, 7:02 pm

PAUL HARMON , 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. State your name to the Court and Jury, sir.

A. Officer Paul Harmon.

Q. Are you a police officer for the City of Indianapolis?

A. Yes, sir, I am.

Q. Were you so employed October 21, 1965?

A. I was, sir.

Q. In your capacity as a police officer, sir, were you dispatched or radioed to 3850 East New York Street?

A. Yes, sir, I was.

Q. Did you go there?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. What time were you dispatched there?

A. Approximately 6:27 P.M.

Q. What time did you arrive at 3850 East New York?

A. Approximately 6:30.

Q. Upon your arrival what did you do or what did you see?

MR. ERBECKER: At this time, I ask permission on behalf of Gertrude Baniszewski to ask a preliminary question.

THE COURT: Permission granted.

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

Q. Officer, what time did you arrive there?

A. Approximately 6:30.

Q. 6:30 - at that time did you have a search warrant to search those premises?

A. No, sir, I did not.

Q. Did you have a warrant for the arrest of Gertrude Baniszewski?

A. No, sir.

Q. Did you have reasonable grounds for believing a felony had been committed there?

A. No, sir, I did not.

Q. Did you have reasonable grounds for believing a felon was in the house there at the premises?

A. No, sir.

Q. Did you see any misdemeanor committed in your view at the premises?

A. No, sir, I did not.

Q. Did you see a felony committed in your view at the premises?

A. No, sir, I did not.

Q. Did you have any kind of legal process by way of a legal search warrant, legal warrant for entering the premises?

A. No, sir.

MR. ERBECKER: At this time defendant Gertrude Baniszewski respectfully moves the court to suppress any evidence on the part of this officer.

THE COURT: Overruled.

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

Q. Officer, what did you do or see upon your arrival?

MR. ERBECKER: A continuing objection.

THE COURT: Show for the record - so Mr. Erbecker won't have to objecting to every question put to this officer - the same objection and the same ruling of overruled, on the theory of improper entry. Any other reason you will have to state it.

Q. You understand the question?

A. Would you repeat it.

Q. What did you see or do upon your arrival at 3850 East New York street, sir?

A. On my arrival, I was immediately asked by my superior officer, who had arrived previously, to guard the front door and be sure no unauthorized personnel entered.

Q. Did you do that?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. How long did you remain at the front door at 3850 East New York Street?

A. Approximately an hour.

Q. Did you then leave?

A. I did.

Q. What did you do?

A. Returned to my patrol.

Q. Did you ever return to the premises at 3850 East New York Street?

A. Yes.

Q. Approximately what time?

A. A quarter of 10:00.

Q. At the time you left the premises, were you relieved by another police officer?

A. Yes, I was.

Q. When you returned to the premises, was the same police officer there?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. And again, what time did you return?

A. Approximately a quarter of 10:00.

Q. Officer, upon your return, did you enter the premises?

A. Yes, sir, I did.

Q. What did you do?

MR. ERBECKER: Same objection.

THE COURT: The objection of defendant Gertrude Baniszewski, based on illegal entry, is overruled.

MR. BOWMAN: Defendants Coy Hubbard and John Stephan Baniszewski object for the reason assigned in the hearing this morning.

THE COURT: Overruled.

Q. What did you do, Officer?

A. I arrived at the scene after being radioed there the second time. I was asked by the superior officer-

MR. BOWMAN: We object. It is hearsay.

THE COURT: Objection sustained as to hearsay, as to all defendants.

Q. What did you do?

A. I immediately entered the house - and was - and I searched the basement.

Q. Officer Harmon, I will hand you what has been marked for the purpose of identification as State's Exhibit No. 6. I will ask you to observe that and tell the Court and Jury whether that is a true and accurate reproduction of the scene in the basement at 3850 East New York Street at the time you have testified about?

MR. BOWMAN: We object.

THE COURT: Overruled.

Q. Were you present at the time this was taken?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Officer, I will hand you what is marked for identification as State's Exhibit No. 7 and ask you to examine it and tell the Court and Jury whether that is a true and accurate representation of the scene in the basement at the time you viewed it at the time you have testified?

A. Yes, it is.

Q. Were you present when it was taken?

A. Yes.

Q. I will hand you what has been marked State's Exhibit No. 8 and ask you to examine it and tell the Court and jury whether it is a true and accurate reproduction of the scene of the basement at 3850 East New York Street at the time you have been testifying?

A. It is.

Q. Were you present at the time it was taken?

A. Yes.

Q. I will hand you what is marked for identification as State's Exhibit No. 9 and ask you to examine that and tell the Court and Jury whether it is a true and accurate reproduction of the scene of the basement at 3850 East New York Street at the time about which you have been testifying?

A. It is.

Q. Were you present, sir, when that picture was taken?

A. I was.

MR. NEW: At this time the State offers in evidence State's Exhibits No. 6, 7, 8 and 9.

MR. BOWMAN: At this time the defendants Coy Hubbard and John Stephan Baniszewski ask permission for a preliminary question in the absence of the jury, and further that any preliminary questions asked in behalf of other defendants be asked in the absence of the jury.

THE COURT: Wait till you see the exhibits.

MR. ERBECKER: Subject to the Court's ruling on the motion, Gertrude Baniszewski respectfully asked the Court for permission to ask preliminary questions.

THE COURT: Any objections?

MR. BOWMAN: Yes.

THE COURT: State your objection.

MR. BOWMAN: I asked permission to ask preliminary questions in the absence of the jury.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. BOWMAN: The defendants Coy Hubbard and John Stephan Baniszewski object to Exhibits No. 6, 7, 8 and 9 for the reasons assigned in the hearing this morning.

THE COURT: Overruled for the reasons assigned this morning. Right to ask preliminary questions extended to defendant Gertrude Baniszewski and objection of the defendants Coy Hubbard and John Stephan Baniszewski to same is overruled.

MR. ERBECKER: The defendant Gertrude Baniszewski objects to the introduction in evidence of State's Exhibits No. 6, 7, 8 and 9 for the reasons heretofore advanced with State's Exhibits No. 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5, and for the further reason that they are prejudicial to the defendant Gertrude Baniszewski and for the reason the facts don't tend to prove the corpus delicti. The corpus delicti has not been proven as yet. The pictures themselves are too far removed from the and place of the finding of the decedent to establish any cause or connection between reference the method, means and manner of the cause of the death, namely striking, beating and kicking at and against the body and the pictures, if accepted, would be detrimental and prejudicial to defendant because to show in evidence matters not necessary for the proof of the corpus delicti and the same would magnify and enhance matters that are foreign to the issues herein.

MR. RICE: The defendant Paula Marie Baniszewski objects to the introduction of these exhibits on the grounds they were obtained in defiance of the constitutional rights set forth under the 4th, 5th and 14th amendments.

MR. NEDEFF: Richard Hobbs will make the same motion Mr, Rice made.

MR. BOWMAN: For the purpose of the record, the defendants Coy Hubbard and John Stephan Baniszewski separately and severally object to the introduction of State's Exhibits No. 6, 7, 8 and 9 for the reason it is a violation of their rights under the federal constitution, specifically the 5th and 14th amendments.

THE COURT: The objection of all the defendants is overruled. Exhibits No. 6, 7, 8 and 9 ordered introduced in evidence.

WHEREUPON STATE'S EXHIBITS NO. 6, 7, 8 and 9 WERE ADMITTED IN EVIDENCE,
AND MADE A PART OF THIS RECORD AS FOLLOWS, TO-WIT:

STATE'S EXHIBITS NO. 6, 7, 8 AND 9 ATTACHED.
(6. being a picture of the basement sink)
(7. being a picture of screw hook and burned paper residue in basement sink)
(8. being a picture of basement)
(9. being a different picture of basement)

Q. Officer, after you went to the basement, where did you go?

A. I went immediately up to the kitchen.

Q. I will hand you what is marked for purposes of identification as State's Exhibit No. 10 and I will ask you if that is a true and accurate reproduction of the kitchen at 3850 East New York Street at the time about which you have been testifying before this court and jury?

A. It is.

Q. Were you present when the picture was taken?

A. Yes, sir, I was.

MR. NEW: The State offers in evidence State's Exhibit No. 10.

MR. ERBECKER: In which defendant Gertrude Baniszewski, objects and assigns as grounds to her objection to State's Exhibit No. 10 the same reasons she has heretofore advanced with reference to exhibits No. 1 to 9, inclusive, and for the further reason that the admission into evidence of this exhibit would violate her rights, guaranteed under the 4th, 5th and 14th amendments to the Constitution of the United States and the Indian Constitution, with reference to lack of due process and legal process for the search of premises and obtaining of any evidence there from and seizure of any articles, taking of any pictures or the obtaining of any evidence from the premises in violation of the foregoing constitutional protection is herein above set.

MR. RICE: The defendant Paula Marie Baniszewski objects to the introduction of State's Exhibit 10 on the same grounds as we objected to Exhibit No. 6 through and including No. 9.

MR. BOWMAN: We object to State's Exhibit No. 10 because it's relevancy does not appear.

THE COURT: That objection is sustained unless it later appears you can connect it up. Objection sustained to all defendants on that theory, it is irrelevant.

Q. Office Harmon, I will hand you what has been marked State's Exhibit No. 11 and ask you to examine that exhibit and tell the court and jury whether you have ever seen it before?

MR. BOWMAN: We again renew our request for permission for preliminary questions in the absence of the jury, for the purpose of making a Motion to Suppress.

THE COURT: Overruled.

A. Yes, sir, I have seen it before.

Q. When and where?

MR. BOWMAN: To which we object.

THE COURT: Overruled.

A. The first time I saw this was in the basement at 3850 East New York.

MR. ERBECKER: We are objecting to his testifying till it is offered in evidence.

THE COURT: He asked where did he first see it. Overruled.

Q. Start over, if you will.

A. The first time I saw this was in the basement of 3850 East New York Street on October 26.

Q. I will ask if that particular item is the same as appears in State's Exhibit No. 7, about which you previously testified?

MR. ERBECKER: We object.

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

Q. Did you mark it any way?

A. I did, I marked it with my initial, peculiar to my writing.

Q. And where was it, particularly, in the basement, specifically?

A. Specifically it was in a sink which was attached to the east wall.

Q. Officer, I will hand you what is marked for purpose of identification as State's Exhibit No. 13 and ask if you have ever seen that before?

MR. BOWMAN: I again renew my objection and request permission in the absence of the jury, making a Motion to Suppress and I object to the question and display of the exhibit for the reasons assigned in the hearing this morning and for the reason the evidence has been obtained contrary to the 4th, 5th, and 14th amendments, against these defendants.

THE COURT: Overruled.

A. Yes, sir, I have.

Q. Where and when?

A. On October 26, one piece in the basement at 3850 East New York Street and the other two pieces in the kitchen of the same address.

Q. Have you marked that particular exhibit any way?

A. I have, sir.

Q. Are those the same pieces you found at the time about which you have testified?

A. Yes, sir, they are.

Q. Officer, I will hand you what has been marked for the purpose of identification as State's Exhibit No. 12 and ask you to examine that and tell the Court and jury whether you have ever seen that before?

A. Yes, sir, I have.

Q. Where and when?

A. On October 26, in the kitchen at 3850 East New York.

Q. Where in the kitchen?

A. They were lying on the kitchen table.

Q. Officer, I will hand you what has been marked for the purpose of identification as State's Exhibit No. 14 and ask you if you have ever seen that before?

A. Yes, sir, I have.

Q. Where and when?

A. On October 26, on the kitchen table at 3850 East New York.

Q. Have you identified that in some manner?

A. Yes, sir, I have.

Q. I will hand you, sir, what is marked for the purpose of identification as State's Exhibit No. 15 and ask you to tell the Court and jury whether you have ever seen that before?

A. Yes, sir, I have.

Q. Where and when?

A. On October 26, on the kitchen table at 3650 East New York.

Q. Have you marked that particular exhibit?

A. Yes, sir, I have.

Q. Officer, I will hand you what has been marked for the purpose of identification as State's Exhibit No. 16 and ask you to examine that and tell the Court and Jury whether you have ever seen those before?

A. Yes, sir, I have.

Q. Where and when?

A. October 26, lying in a paper bag on the kitchen table at 3850 East New York.

Q. Have you marked that particular exhibit?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. In what way?

A. The same way I previously marked the other evidence.

MR. NEW: At this time the State offers in evidence State's Exhibits No. 11, 12, 13, 14, 15 and 16.

MR. ERBECKER: At this time defendant Gertrude Baniszewski respectfully moves the Court for permission to ask a preliminary question.

THE COURT: Overruled. Is there objection to the introduction of the exhibits?

MR. ERBECKER: I would like to ask a preliminary question.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. ERBECKER: Defendant Gertrude Baniszewski objects to the admission in evidence of State's Exhibits No. 11, 12, 13, 14, 15 and 16 for the reason that the corpus delicti has not been proven against the defendant Gertrude Baniszewski. There is no evidence in the record connecting Gertrude Baniszewski with the ownership, use or possession of Exhibits No. 11 to 16, inclusive. The admission in evidence of these exhibits would be in contravention of the constitutional rights secured to her by the 4th, 5th and 14th amendments to the constitution of the United States and the applicable constitution of Indiana. Further, admission of these would be an invasion of her rights to be secure in her home and the acts of this officer taking and seizing these exhibits without process of a search warrant or any other legal process authorizing a search of the premises is a gross violation of her herein above set out.

THE COURT: Defendant Paula Marie Baniszewski?

MR. RICE: Objects to the introduction or these objects in evidence on the grounds they are a product of an illegal search and seizure, a violation of the rights granted under the 4th, 5th and 14th amendments of the United States Constitution.

THE COURT: Defendants John Stephan Baniszewski and Coy Hubbard?

MR. BOWMAN: These defendants separately and severally object to each of the State's Exhibits No. 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, and 16 for the reason they were obtained in violation of the constitutional rights under the 4th, 5th and 14th amendments to the United States Constitution and for additional reason no proper foundation has been laid for their introduction into evidence.

THE COURT: Defendant Richard Hobbs?

MR. NEDEFF: We adopt the objection of Mr. Rice and Mr. Bowman and the assigned reasons.

THE COURT: For the last reason assigned by Mr. Forrest Bowman, the objection will be sustained as to all defendants.

Q. Officer, what did you do with exhibits No. 11, 12, 13, 14, 15 and 16?

MR. BOWMAN: Both defendants object.

THE COURT: Overruled. It is preliminary.

A. Immediately after gathering the evidence, I marked them and then proceeded to put them in my patrol car and take them down to police headquarters to the property room.

Q. To your knowledge, where have they been since that time?

A. To my knowledge, they have been in the property room.

Q. Have they been altered any way?

A. None that I can observe, no.

Q. Till just now, have they been in the property room, so far as you know?

A. As far as I know.

MR. NEW: The State re-offers State's Exhibits No. 11 through 16.

MR. ERBECKER: We object for the same reasons heretofore advanced, the proper foundation has not been laid for the introduction in evidence.

MR. RICE: We object on the same grounds advanced by Mr. Erbecker.

MR. BOWMAN: I repeat the objections previously made to the exhibits, Your Honor.

MR. NEDEFF: The same objection.

THE COURT: Objection sustained.

MR. NEW: At this time the State asks permission for the jury to view Exhibits No. 6, 7, 8 and 9.

THE COURT: Alright, granted. Let the record show Exhibits No. 6, 7, 8 and 9 shown to the jury.

STATE'S EXHIBITS NO. 6, 7, 8 and 9 EXAMINED BY JURY.

MR. ERBECKER: Defendant Gertrude Baniszewski moves the Court to require the prosecutor to remove from the courtroom and view of the jury Exhibits 11, 12, 13, 14, 15 and 16 because they were rejected in evidence.

THE COURT: Sustained as to that right now. Be sure they are taken from the courtroom, Mr. New. Help him, Miss Wessner, so they won't be displayed. I am talking about Exhibits No. 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15 and 16.

MR. ERBECKER: At this time, Your Honor, Gertrude Baniszewski respectfully moves the court to admonish the jury to disregard Exhibits No. 11, 12, 13, 14, 15 and 16, since they are rejected in evidence.

THE COURT: The motion will be granted after the jury sees the exhibits being shown to them now, so their entire attention will be directed to the admonition. Ladies and Gentlemen of the Jury and Alternate Jurors, in reference to proposed exhibits No. 11, 12, 13, 14, 15 and 16,which are not the exhibits which were just shown to you, you will ignore same, if you have seen them - which I suppose you have because everybody saw them at this time in arriving at a verdict in this case. Next question.

Q. Officer, have the facts you have testified all occurred on or about October 26, 1965 in Marion County, Indianapolis, Indiana?

A. Yes.

THE COURT: Let's recess till 1:30 today. Can you all come back at 1:30? By agreement of counsel and the consent of State and defendants, given in open court, the jury is permitted to separate and go about your business. The bailiff will take you to lunch if you care to go with her. Otherwise, you don't have to. During the recess for lunch, do not talk among yourselves and don't let anyone talk to you about this case or any subject connected therewith. Don't form or express any opinion thereon till the case is finally submitted to you. Don't read any newspaper articles that may appear and don't watch or listen to anything that may be broadcast about the case. Court will remain in session. The jurors are excused and will return to the jury room this afternoon at 1:30 P.M.

JURY EXCUSED.

THE COURT: Bring in the witnesses, please. You will all return at 1:30. Remember there has been a separation of witnesses. Don't go telling what you have said here. Don't talk among yourselves, don't talk about any evidence you have talked about here on the witness stand. Court is in recess till 1:30 this afternoon.

WITNESS EXCUSED.

RECESS.

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

THE COURT: Are there any witnesses in the courtroom? Sheriff, bring in all the defendants. Take the witness stand, Officer Harmon, so we can proceed. Bring in the jury, please.

JURY PRESENT AND SEATED.

POLICE OFFICER PAUL HARMON ON THE STAND.

THE COURT: The defendants may cross examine the witness. Mr. Erbecker, please.

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

Q. Officer, you did not have any warrant of any kind?

A. No, I did not.

Q. No search warrant or anything?

A. No, sir.

Q. All you had was a verbal order of your superior officer?

A. That is right.

Q. You walked in this private home by virtue of the fact you are a police officer?

A. By virtue of the fact I am a police officer, yes, sir.

MR. ERBECKER: No further questions.

THE COURT: Defendant Paula Marie Baniszewski may cross examine.

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

Q. I have before me, Officer, a copy of a report apparently turned in on connection with this case and apparently by Car 44, dated October 27, in which statement appears "one black leather belt, four pieces brass colored tubing, three pieces orange colored wood, one black colored crow-bar, one screw hook, one wooden paddle, one yellow paper bag containing one pair of gray shorts" listed. Are you able to tell me from your own knowledge if this is the police record put on teletype with regard to the delivery of the materials you have testified to?

MR. BOWMAN: All of which these two defendants object to.

THE COURT: Which defendants object?

MR. BOWMAN: Coy Hubbard and John Baniszewski.

THE COURT: Why?

MR. BOWMAN: For the reasons previously assigned with respect to Exhibits No. 11, 12, 13, 14, 15 and 16, the repetition of which is prejudicial to the defendants in the presence of the jury.

THE COURT: Overruled. The defendant has a right to cross examine.

MR. ERBECKER: Gertrude Baniszewski likewise joins in the same objection.

MR. BOWMAN: We ask that they not consider the question or answer in deliberating with respect to Coy Hubbard and John Baniszewski.

THE COURT: I will take that under advisement pending the answer.

MR. ERBECKER: The same motion in behalf of defendant Gertrude Baniszewski.

A. Can the question be re-asked?

THE REPORTER READ THE LAST QUESTION.

A. Of my own knowledge, that was the report received when I phoned it in.

THE COURT: Request denied.

Q. In this instance, reference to a yellow paper bag was not referred to in any question from Mr. New?

A. That is correct.

Q. Are you telling us now, at the time this material was produced. These gray slacks were in a yellow paper bag?

A. Produced where?

Q. At the police property department by you?

A. Yes, correct.

Q. Did you, at this time, obtain a receipt for these matters?

A. I signed a receipt, yes. I did not obtain one, no.

MR. RICE: No further questions.

MR. BOWMAN: No questions.

THE COURT: No questions on behalf of defendant Coy Hubbard or John Stephan Baniszewski?

MR. BOWMAN: That is correct.

THE COURT: Defendant Richard Hobbs?

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

Q. Officer Harmon, you got a call at 6:27 P.M., October 26, dispatching you to 3850 East New York Street?

A. That is correct.

Q. Now, how many police officers were there when you arrived?

A. When I arrived there were two.

Q. Now, you were dispatched there - did the dispatcher tell you to meet a young fifteen year old boy there?

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

THE COURT: Do you want to ask a preliminary question first?

MR. ERBECKER: No, I will rest on the objection.

THE COURT: Overruled.

A. The answer was "no".

Q. While you were there, you learned the call went out from that time and place - did you ever learn who made the call to the police to come to 3850 East New York?

MR. ERBECKER: The same objection on behalf of defendant Gertrude Baniszewski.>

THE COURT: Overruled.

A. No, I was not involved in the initial investigation.

Q. While you were there at 3850 East New York, at that time, did you discover Richard Hobbs made the call from a telephone station at the Shell Service Station at the southeast corner of New York and Denny?

MR. ERBECKER: Same objection for defendant Gertrude Baniszewski.

MR. BOWMAN: We object.

THE COURT: Does the State object?

MR. NEW: No, I think I know the answer. I am not going to object.

THE COURT: Overruled.

A. No.

Q. What is your answer?

A. The answer is no.

Q. Did you see Richard Hobbs there?

A. I did.

Q. Where was he at?

A. He was standing on the front lawn when I saw him.

Q. The front lawn, the New York Street side or Denny?

A. On the New York Street side.

Q. Did you have conversation with him?

A. No, I did not.

Q. Did he talk to you and tell you he called the police from the Shell Service, catarcornered from the Baniszewski house?

MR. ERBECKER: Objection from defendant Gertrude Baniszewski.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. ERBECKER: At this time, the defendant Gertrude Baniszewski moves the Court to strike all the testimony of this police officer from the record for the reason of the officer violating the rights of defendant Gertrude Baniszewski, secured by the 4th, 5th and 14th amendments to the Constitution of the Unites States.

THE COURT: Overruled. Any further cross examination by any of the defendants?

MR. ERBECKER: No.

MR. RICE: No.

MR. BOWMAN: No.

MR. NEDEFF: No.

THE COURT: Any redirect?

MR. NEW: No, Your Honor.

THE COURT: May this witness leave?

MR. NEDEFF: He may as far as Richard Hobbs is concerned.

MR. ERBECKER: Yes.

THE COURT: You may leave, Officer. If they need you, they will call you.

WITNESS EXCUSED.

MR. NEW: Sgt. William Kaiser.

THE COURT: Were you sworn?

SGT. KAISER: Yes, sir.
e-mail: webmaster@sylvialikens.com

Return to Baniszewski Trial Transcript

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests

cron