Gordon said, "Among many things that he talked about during the interview, which occupied approximately an hour and a half, he told in detail the names and relationships of the people that he had killed and also two people that he had wounded, but who had recovered. He reiterated his insistence that he did not remember these things, but had been told about them and had heard about them on the radio, etc. He also discussed in detail, his long history of marital discord with his wife and his mother-in-law and stated, with obvious sincerity, that he had made repeated efforts to effect reconciliation with his wife, to get her to leave the home of her mother and come and make a home with him and that he was unsuccessful and that finally he had reached the limit."
When the conversation turned to his upcoming court appearance, Ernie became extremely upset and told the doctors that he had been denied his constitutional right to a speedy trial. Although it was pointed out that he had been given a speedy trial on the first indictment, Ernie replied that the right applied to all of his crimes. As a result, he felt that the other four murder indictments should be dropped, because he had not been given proper trials as guaranteed by the Constitution. Ernie told the doctors that he knew he was eligible for parole in less than fifteen years if he received credit for working every day.
In discussing the possible results of his trial on the other four murder indictments, Ernie said that he had offered to plead guilty or no contest to the charge of manslaughter, because the maximum penalty for manslaughter was ten years. But he would only make such an agreement if he was assured that the ten-year sentences for all four of the indictments would run concurrently, so that he had to serve only an additional ten years total for his remaining crimes. During the interview, Ernie displayed an impressive memory for someone who previously said he couldn't recall the details of the crime that had resulted in a prison sentence.
In his report, Dr. Gordon noted that Ernie displayed no evidence of abnormal behavior and did not exhibit any "true delusions." He was described as "bitter and suspicious and antagonistic toward many people that he feels had been unfriendly to him and had given him a bad deal." When asked about religion, Ernie said he was a Catholic and, since the time of the crime, had repeatedly been to confession, in which he always told the priest the truth about what happened that night. When he was asked during the examination about the crime, Ernie said he was sorry "those people" were dead, but that he didn't remember doing it. He said he didn't want anybody to die and he was sorry that they were dead.
The doctors described Ernie's overall intellectual level as average or normal. Gordon noted, "It is my conclusion and the conclusion of my colleagues that this man is not insane or feebleminded; that he knows at present the nature and quality of his acts and is capable of cooperating with his attorney for his own defense, if he thinks it is in his interest to do so." With his next court appearance imminent, Ernie remained indignant during the interview, claiming that he had been demanding a trial for three years. He planned to ask for an outright dismissal of the remaining indictments, which he had appealed all the way to the federal Supreme Court. Ernie told Gordon that he would have raised the issue of insanity himself had he known that his attorneys were not going to present it as a defense. Ernie said that prior to his first trial, he had been examined by both Dr. Abraham Orenstein and Dr. Ralph Banay, but they were not called to testify because the subject of insanity had not been raised. Gordon further noted that Ernie's "explosive characteristics" became more apparent as the examination progressed.
While reviewing his family history, Ernie told the doctors that he had a father, brother, and sister still living, but his mother had died eight years earlier from "hemorrhage." According to the inmate, he and his father had never gotten along. His father had constantly preached to his son never to become a gigolo, but then went out and married again, which was perceived by Ernie as a betrayal of his mother's memory. The doctors noted that he seemed to feel extremely sensitive and resentful that his father had remarried.
According to the report, the inmate said he consulted four different lawyers about his domestic situation, but when all efforts failed, he decided to take matters into his own hands. Ernie told the doctors that he walked into the Mazzoli house on November 17, 1950, where he found the family in a negative mood, cursing him and threatening to throw him out of the house. One of them pushed him toward the door. He admitted that he had taken three or four guns with him at the time. Defending himself, he stated that he never went out of his way to "mess with anyone" and that he "never had the tendency to bother with anyone." He told the doctors, "You've got to go through this experience to understand it." Ernie seemed to feel completely justified in anything that he had done, according to the report, yet he implied that if he had been in his right mind, he would not have killed anyone. As a result, Ernie did not believe that he was in his right mind at that time. He claimed that he had blackouts in the Army, recalling one episode while in the service in which he woke up in a bed in the base hospital.
That September, Dr. Vincent P. Mahoney of Camden also visited Ernie at Trenton State Prison. After the interview, Mahoney filed a report on October 6, 1955, noting, "The patient was alert, had good contact with his surroundings, and was quite verbal in communicating with the examiners. His initial reaction was one of suspiciousness [sic], and he questioned the motives of the examiners in coming to the prison for the examination." Mahoney reported Ernie resented being classified as a psychopathic personality while he was in jail. During the interview, Ernie expressed his doubts about speaking with any doctors. In what seemed to be part of his regular pattern, he felt that he had been betrayed in the past by the psychiatrists, just as he had been by his family and his attorneys.
Dr. Mahoney found that Ernie was "quite nebulous" about the details of the murders and assaults he committed that November night. The doctor noted, "He brushes it off as an amnesiac episode." At the same time, during the interview, Ernie was "mentally clear, observant of his environment, and no indications of any disorientation or confusion were noted." As he had done during previous examinations, Ernie was suspicious and distinctly paranoid, and his temper flared several times during the interview. Ernie said that he never received a copy of the trial transcript after his conviction for killing Pearl Mazzoli. As a result, he felt that he had been "framed" by the court. The psychologist felt that Ernie displayed "an underlying hostile attitude towards those in authority," which may have stemmed from his turbulent relationship with his father.
The inmate told Mahoney that he never saw much of his father when he was growing up; his earliest memories were of his mother and grandmother. Ernie said his frustration with school started in the "earliest years," because he could not keep up with the work. As Mahoney listened, the inmate said that his father unfairly gave him "awful beatings," while his brother and sister were rarely punished. Ernie said that he always felt uncomfortable around other people, even as a child. He recalled being ridiculed by others as a "hay-seed."
In describing his military experiences, Ernie said that after he was arrested for being absent without leave, he was framed on charges of assault and battery against his superior officers. The doctor reported that Ernie also claimed, "This charge was the result of his need to champion the cause of the `undertrodden,"' but Ernie never clarified who or what that meant. Continuing his life story, Ernie talked about his first marriage and noted that after the annulment, he left his father's home in Cecil and eventually married again. The inmate claimed that his second wife was extremely attached to her mother, and what the mother said would be the law. Ernie claimed that he stayed with the Mazzolis so long in order to try and persuade Tessie to leave, but six weeks before the shootings, he moved out without her and the children. According to Mahoney, Ernie then described weeks of frustration over an inability to see his children and said he did everything possible within the law to obtain visitation rights.
It was difficult for the doctor to confirm the history of the so-called "
black-outs" that Ernie claimed had occurred while he was in the Army and on the night of November 17, 1950. No one apparently ever determined if the blackouts were the result of his earlier head injury or just a convenient excuse to once again forget about something he had done. Mahoney proposed that while they may have been only experiences of intensified reaction, it might be wise for authorities to obtain an encephalographic study. The doctor concluded that Ernie was a "reasonably well-integrated paranoid personality," who felt "chronically hounded and abused." As a result, the prisoner spent a lot of time "lashing back at a hostile environment." Mahoney stated that Ernie was able to confer with an attorney and understand the nature of the proceedings of a trial. He was not considered "overtly psychotic" by the doctor at that time. Other doctors who participated in the examination confirmed Mahoney's belief that the inmate would be able to appear in court.
Following the interviews, Ernie wrote to Lee on October 8, 1955, asking when counsel would be appointed to him. He told the prosecutor, "The doctors who you had sent here have already been here and gone. I am sure you are aware that I would not give a State doctor the right time after the testi mony of the State's last one hundred dollar a day liars." Ernie also wanted to know once again what had happened to his "personal property," which included his car, his Army foot locker, some jewelry, and other items that had been confiscated after his arrest.
The next day, Judge Cafiero wrote to Ernie confirming that a court date of Monday, January 9, 1956, had been set, and at that time, "one or more of the said indictments shall be moved for trial." He told the inmate that Charles Camp Cotton of Woodbury had been appointed by Judge Wick on October 7, 1955, as Ernie's defense attorney. Cotton, whose law practice was located at 1 South Broad Street in Woodbury, was a former acting prosecutor for Gloucester County and had served as a judge in the Occupation Government in Germany after World War II. One of his most important cases involved the prosecution of Alfred Krupp, who was convicted of using slave labor from the Soviet Union in his munitions factory during the war. Cotton would be assisted by Wellford H. Ware, who maintained law offices in Woodbury and Pitman. Ware had previously served as counsel to the federal committee investigating elections in New Mexico.
At Ernie's request, he was moved back to the Gloucester County Jail in Woodbury on December 5, 1955, because he thought the change would allow him to confer more easily with his new attorneys.
Once again, however, the attorney-client relationship was destined to be an unhappy one. Ernie did not like the fact that Cotton was a former prosecutor. Ernie expressed his anger and frustration in a Christmas card he addressed only to Mrs. C. C. Cotton. The outside of the card featured a pretty poinsettia and inside was the greeting, "To wish you a Merry Christmas" with the "you" underlined by Ernie. Underneath, he had written, "I you owe this card from last year. A mouse can marry a woman but it does not make him a man. Nothing but the facts Ma'am."
Inside the card Ernie enclosed a cartoon clipped from a newspaper, showing two lawyers, one saying to the other, "The warden at the State Pen says that he'd appreciate it if we'd start winning some cases." The lawyer who spoke was labeled "Cotton" in blue pen, and his listener was labeled "Ware." Written underneath the diploma hanging on the wall behind them were the words "Pep Boys degree." When he wasn't sending out such sarcastic notes, Ernie continued to compile a file on other cases that he felt related to his own. To him, they were yet further evidence of how he had been denied his right to a speedy trial.
As someone with no training in the law, Ernie apparently never understood that much of his "evidence" simply did not support his claim, and he seemed to conveniently forget that his ongoing disagreements with his court-appointed attorneys had been equally responsible for delaying his second court appearance. That same month, Ernie wrote to the judge, complaining that his new lawyers had failed to handle his case appropriately. The inmate later claimed he moved for a postponement when he discovered than Cotton was a former prosecutor "rather than a defense attorney."
The New Jersey State Supreme Court denied Ernie's request for a postponement on December 29, 1955, leaving him a little more than one week to finalize his preparations for court. Ernie apparently complained to Cafiero that he needed more time, but the judge responded that all the necessary legal preparations had been made and Ernie's trial would soon commence. Once again, nothing turned out as anticipated. After reviewing the transcript of the first trial, Ernie's new lawyers decided it would be advisable to call in their own doctors for a psychiatric examination.
As his lawyers discussed strategies and alternatives, on December 19, 1955, Ernie's petition to the Supreme Court of New Jersey for reconsideration of his forthcoming trial was denied by Chief Justice Arthur T. Vanderbilt. A noted attorney and educator, Vanderbilt was responsible for developing ideas to modernize and reform the state's court system that were later incorporated into the New Jersey State Constitution. The date of January 9, 1956, remained set for Ernie's appearance in court, where he would be tried for the murder of Marion Pioppi.
One psychiatrist enlisted by the defense offered Ernie a ray of hope for an insanity plea. On December 17, 1955, Dr. Ralph S. Banay reported his findings after examining the accused earlier that same day. He outlined the defendant's history, noting that doctors had previously concluded he suffered from "a severe personality disorder with uncontrolled emotional outbursts dating back to his early childhood. This condition was thought to be a result of a unusually severe upbringing, gruesome experiences in the basement funeral establishments above which the family lived, and exposure to ridicule and discrimination in school because of his speech difficulty and inability to read adequately in an open class, and to progress with his studies similarly to other students." Banay noted that Ernie's violent temper had surfaced quite often over the years whenever he was confronted by authority. This attitude affected his relationship with Tessie's family. During his interview, Ernie admitted to the doctor that he had been ordered out of the Mazzoli house in October 1950-a fact that he had previously disputed both on and off the witness stand.
Dr. Banay reported that Ernie "told his story in a rather coherent manner but failed to understand the total ramification of the legal procedure which he wanted to invoke anew." According to the psychiatrist: "He was filled with extreme discontent and accusation against his several attorneys, the trial judge, the numerous psychiatrists involved in the case, the state troopers and other witnesses who were called to testify. In his discourse he failed to recognize his role, but fancied himself as the possessor of true understanding of the legal issues involved, and in a commanding tone directed his attorney to proceed according to his demand. By doing so he placed himself and his life in severe jeopardy."
The doctor noted that despite his interest in law, Ernie told him, "I recognize no authority unless I approve it," and "I won't obey any law unless I feel that it is right or wrong." Banay reported that the defendant's "exaggerated self-esteem reached an extreme proportion. This trend, with an unbending and despotic will, formed a combination of forces within that were too dangerous to himself and others." According to the doctor, there was an absence of true feelings. The inmate apparently felt no remorse, regard, or compassion towards any of his victims. Ernie even expressed regret that he had not killed his victims more slowly in order to make them suffer. Banay indicated that the inmate's additional fury was exaggerated because he was to be tried for the premeditated murder of the people he had killed. Ernie insisted to the doctor that there was no premeditation, "in spite of the fact that he placed four guns in the car, when one gun would have been sufficient to frighten his in-laws."
Banay found Ernie's "sense of revenge" still burning even after five years in prison. The defendant told him that if he was ever released, he would spend the next twenty years trying to have Frank Sahl, his first attorney, disbarred. Describing Ernie as "easily provoked," the psychiatrist stated, "Although Ernest knew the nature and quality of his act and differentiates between
right and wrong in general, when it came to evalua tion of his own acts, his faculty was inadequate and insufficient. His ability to confer with his attorney for his defense was greatly impaired, since he was so prejudiced and opinionated, unbending and unreasonable, that his conferences with his attorney lacked the minimal ability to evaluate professional advice, or to be guided by it. Therefore, even from the legal viewpoint the complete sanity of this man is questionable. From the clinical viewpoint, there is such a severe disorganization of the personality and such enormous aggressive capacity in existence within, that a catastrophic outcome is unavoidable."
When Banay had first examined Ernie immediately after his arrest, the doctor described the defendant's acts as "symbolic suicide." Five years later, the psychiatrist suspected that Ernie's push for a second trial, which could result in a death sentence, was another example of a subconscious wish for the ultimate punishment. Banay determined that since Ernie exhibited such "severe emotional disturbance, short of recognizable major psychosis," that he would be incapable of participating in a second trial "with full comprehension." The doctor reported, "His personality trends form such a severe and dangerous combination, that similar acts of violence can be performed on provocation." As a result, he did not foresee a bright future for the defendant, whether or not he was tried and sentenced for his remaining crimes.
Rain of Bullets: The True Story of Ernest Ingenito's Bloody Family Massacre Page 19