Two doctors from Philadelphia had participated in the interview with Banay: Abraham M. Orenstein of 2007 Delancey Street and Baldwin L. Keyes of 2031 Locust Street. They issued a joint report about their examination of the defendant to his attorney, Charles Cotton. Orenstein and Keyes, who both specialized in neuropsychiatry, described Ernie as "friendly and cooperative" during the interview. They stated, "He was neat, clean, and alert and most of the time definitely interested in expressing himself." At the same time, they noted, "He was quick to anger and resented any suggestion or question of opinion contrary to his own." The doctors were impressed by Ernie's improved vocabulary and his grasp of legal terminology. During their discussion, the defendant explained that he had been forced to discharge his courtappointed attorneys, because "they did not know the law, would not agree to his interpretations, would not countenance some of his demands, or were afraid of their own reputations, or were influenced politically, or would not help him, or did not understand how wrong they were and how right he was." In their report, the doctors noted that Ernie failed to keep his temper under control during the interview; he would grow angry, pound the table, and stomp around the room, making accusations against others who had been involved in his case.
In their findings, Orenstein and Keyes noted, "He insists that all maneuvers not done according to his own ideas or desires are against him, and expresses violent hostility toward the courts and its members and to all forms of authority. He considers himself the final authority; everyone else is wrong and he respects no one. He is abusive toward almost all those who have tried to help him and accuses them of having turned against him. He quickly projects blame onto others for his own inability to accept responsibility for error." During the interview, the psychiatrists found that Ernie was unable to reasonably discuss his situation with anyone who did not agree with him. They stated, "He repeats again and again the context of the material he has collected and makes highly impractical and unwise demands which, if carried out, might risk his life." As he had stated to his attorneys, Ernie told the doctors that he was willing to risk the electric chair to prove that his case had been mishandled by authorities.
Like other doctors, Orenstein and Keyes determined that the defendant seemed to have "little feeling" about the people he killed and wounded on November 17, 1950. Insisting that he was unable to recall anything from the time the first shot was fired until he heard the announcement on the radio, Ernie dwelled instead on the fact that he had not been given permission to visit his children. As a result, the psychiatrists concluded that the defendant "may be classified as having a personality disorder, sociopath in type, and manifesting emotional instability, anti-social, aggressive and paranoid reactions." Such ongoing behavioral problems, which probably started during his childhood, very likely erupted on that night and, as a result, Ernie "was in the state of extreme emotional turmoil and was uncontrolled by reason."
The doctors agreed: "At this time, he is sane within the meaning of the law and understands what is right and what is wrong." But they feared that "he cannot adequately evaluate his relationship to his obligations and he is emotionally so unstable that his reactions are impulsive, uncontrolled, and so unguided by reason that he could readily become violent again." As a result, Orenstein and Keyes felt that nothing would be gained by bringing him to trial on the remaining charges. They recommended that Ernie not go to court, because he was unable "to adequately confer with his attorney or to adequately defend himself." Instead, the defendant should remain in prison on the single murder charge and never be released on parole. According to the doctors, "Had Ingenito not committed the crimes for which he has been sentenced on November 17, 1950, it is highly probable that he would have committed some other acts of violence sooner or later."
The doctors felt that Ernie's history of aggressive behavior made him a prime candidate for commitment to a mental hospital. Orenstein and Keyes stated, "Since he has always been unable to manage himself, he has always been a danger to others." They had no doubt that a lunacy commission would probably find Ernie to be sane within the meaning of the law, "but sufficiently unsound of mind to require continuous custodial care to protect him from himself and to protect others from him, and commitment to a mental hospital is therefore entirely justified." Concluding that if Ernie was eventually declared eligible for parole, the doctors warned that authorities should instead commit him to a hospital for the criminally insane.
Violent. Impulsive. Uncontrolled. All points that apparently were never raised during Ernie's first trial. What stopped either the defense or the prosecution from formally presenting psychiatric evidence at that time? Perhaps this is yet another mystery about that November night and its aftermath which will never be resolved.
The New Year arrived. For Ernie just days away from returning to court-it brought another psychiatric examination, this time by two physicians. One was Wallace Hussong, who maintained offices at 524 Cooper Street in Camden. The doctors examined Ernie on January 5 at the courthouse in Woodbury at the request of his attorneys. In addition to his personal history, Ernie told the doctors that his father was once an undertaker, and later had been the owner of a large garage and a hotel. Ernie said that his father had a bad temper and frequently beat him when he was displeased. During the interview, he once again claimed the other children were more favored by his parents and he received most of the punishment. The inmate told the doctors that his mother was sickly because of arthritis, and he and his sister helped with the housework. In recalling his fall from the tree, Ernie said he did not remember any personal difficulties following the incident. He remembered breaking his upper left arm three times while playing football. At first glance, his participation in football, a team sport, seemed to undermine theories about his alleged antisocial behavior, but the doctors determined that by age sixteen, Ernie failed to make even minimal social adjustment, meaning he lacked the ability to get along with others.
During his interview, as he had done before under questioning, Ernie muddled the facts of his past. He said that while he was in the Army, he was AWOL for twenty-six days (instead of two weeks) after going home to try and straighten out a personal matter. From there, an altercation with his superior officers led to his eventual court martialconveniently forgetting the first incident-and later his dishonorable discharge. The doctors reported that Ernie said from the time he left the Mazzoli farm in mid-October to the night of the shootings, "he became progressively upset and brooded over the separation from his wife and children. He felt, of course, that this had been instigated by his wife's family." His mental state eventually led to the commission of the crime on November 17, 1950.
The doctors felt that their subject was pleasant and friendly, and he answered all questions freely. Ernie seemed aware of his situation and could name all of the people involved in his court appearances. He exhibited an excellent memory for both recent and remote facts, but when asked about the shootings, Ernie said with a noticeable lack of emotion, "I'm sorry about them naturally, but I do not feel as though I'm at all responsible." The only time he got upset was when the discussion turned to his string of court-appointed attorneys, whom he blamed for his current situation. Ernie said, "None of them were really interested in helping me. All they were doing was interested in earning their money. They really didn't want to help me." Ernie peppered his conversation with legal phrases, saying that he had done more to help himself than any lawyer. In their report, the doctors questioned whether Ernie was mentally and emotionally prepared for an additional trial on the other murder charges. They noted, "He is so emotionally involved with this suspicious and resentful feeling in an attempt to handle his own guilty feeling concerning the original murder that he is unable to discuss in a reasonable manner his own position in the forth-coming trial."
After their examination, the doctors concluded, "this individual is sane and is responsible for his act." Ernie still exhibited a lack of control: "One could not say that this individual in the future w
ould refrain from hostile, violent, aggressive acts." In their opinion, Ernie displayed an average to low intellect, which they felt was difficult to measure because of his lack of formal schooling. According to their report, the doctors felt his emotional turmoil prevented him from grasping situations on an intellectual level. As other psychiatrists had noted in the past, he displayed a strong antisocial personality that leaned toward becoming sociopathic. He was paranoid, compulsive, and aggressive. The doctors said, "He is unable to comprehend his position and consult with counsel and to plan his defense. In consideration of the individual's mental state, there is no doubt that his judgment is disturbed." The doctors concluded that it would be a mistake to allow Ernie to re-enter society, a determination that would prove prophetic in later years.
The doctors' findings opened the door for defense counsel to petition Judge Wick for a sanity hearing. According to Cotton, the examination proved there was a reason why Ernie, having already terminated at least two court-appointed lawyers, was so uncooperative with attorneys. In his opinion, his client simply was not capable of making rational choices. Cotton told reporters that Ernie had "fired" him "at least seven different times." Dr. Hussong stated that he was unable to get much personal history from the defendant, because Ernie preferred to focus on his forthcoming trial. According to the doctor, Ernie said, "he felt normal and healthy and he commented about having no guilt complex to cause any tension or worry. He stated that the rehabilitation program of the state prison had not been of great interest to him and he had been busy thinking and planning about court procedures. He gave a history of having a number of lawyers whom he considered dishonest, lacking in ambition, disinterested or `politically' prejudiced." Ernie told Dr. Hussong that he did not trust his attorneys, the judges, or the courts. The doctor noted, "Mr. Ingenito frequently confused his own ideas with court opinion for he gave his own interpretations as court communications."
Just as he had during previous psychiatric interviews, Ernie knew his surroundings and was familiar with general information about his rapidly approaching trial. But Hussong stated that the defendant frequently became angry when he was questioned about particulars. "There was an unrealistic, grandiose trend in his uninhibited denunciation of those in authority and in his picturing himself as best able to take care of his complex legal matters." The doctor described Ernie as a person with a "sociopathic type of personality disorder with low intelligence, with a defective sense of guilt, and with strong hostile feelings for persons in authority. He further has a strong paranoid trend in his thinking. There was no evidence of insight or self-understanding." Ernie showed limited awareness about the possible outcome of the next trial; as a result, the doctor felt Ernie could not possibly consult intelligently with his lawyer. Hussong stated, "He has too little judgment, perspective, or concern for his life to plan a defense." According to the doctor, it would be advisable to dismiss the forthcoming case, because Ernie almost wanted the death penalty so he could become a martyr and leave "a black mark upon the record of American justice." In the doctor's opinion, Ernie should remain in prison, and be provided with ongoing psychiatric counseling to address his paranoia and personality disorders.
It is not surprising then that Cotton, after reading these reports, filed a motion in the Gloucester County Court on January 7 to have his client committed to the New Jersey State Hospital. Ernie was outraged. He was scheduled to be tried next for the murder of Marion Pioppi and wanted the case to proceed in order to have his day in court. What he probably failed to realize was that Cotton saw such a move as the only way for the inmate to avoid the death penalty. Gloucester County prosecutor Guy Lee revealed that the state planned to have Ernie undergo testing the following day to determine his mental condition.
On Saturday, January 7, 1956, local newspapers reported that a sanity hearing had been scheduled for Ernie on the upcoming Monday, as an eleventh-hour effort to keep the inmate out of the electric chair. The defendant's attorney had asked that the hearing be scheduled instead of the trial, which was expected to start that day. In response, the prosecution planned to produce medical experts of its own to prove that Ernie was mentally able to stand trial. Lee expected the sanity hearing to take several days. Unlike a criminal trial, a sanity hearing rests the burden of proof on the defense rather than the state. According to the prosecutor, even if Ernie was committed to a mental institution, he would stand trial for his remaining crimes if he was later declared sane.
The defense attorneys presented another surprise when they appeared in court on Monday, January 9, after a morning conference with Judge Wick and the prosecutor. In addressing the court, Cotton said, "May it please your Honor, first, as Counsel for the defendant, we wish to withdraw the notice of motion to proceed under Section 163-2 of the New Jersey Statues Annotated, which was served on the Prosecutor last week, and, at this time, may it please this honorable Court, since my assignment as Court-appointed Attorney for Ernest Ingenito on October 7, 1955, I have devoted all of my attention and energies in the preparation of his case.
"This is perhaps the greatest human tragedy which has ever occurred in our County. Mingled with my regret as a private citizen for the lives which were lost on that fateful evening five years ago is my regret for the tragic fate which has fallen upon this young man, who tried so desperately to make an independent home for the wife and children whom he loved, who, under the torment of the frustrations which lay before him, temporarily lost his reason and brought both upon others and himself the sad and irreparable consequences.
"At this moment, standing before your Honor, in the presence of the citizens of this County, and after the most soulsearching discussions and deliberations, we have finally concluded that it is for the best interests, both for this young man, as well as for the people of this County, to avoid a series of trials on the remaining indictments now, five years after the first trial, as a result of which trial he is now serving a life sentence. Ernest Ingenito has authorized me, on his free and voluntary behalf, to request permission of your Honor to withdraw the pleas of not guilty heretofore entered to the untried indictments, and to enter pleas of non vult [no contest]."
In other words, Ernie was no longer trying to plead innocence to what happened on the night of November 17, 1950. At some point, Cotton apparently had been able to persuade his client that he couldn't win if the additional charges were presented to a jury. Ernie would later claim that he was "forced" to stand by silently while his lawyer entered those pleas, but when the judge asked Ernie if he wished to retract his previous not guilty responses, the defendant answered in the affirmative. Ernie, who showed no emotion during the proceedings, was sentenced that same day by Judge Wick to four concurrent terms of life imprisonment.
The Vineland Times Journal reported that the judge was aware not everyone had approved of the life sentence Ernie had received for shooting Pearl Mazzoli. According to the newspaper, Wick stated, "But all would be satisfied if they learned that he would never be released from prison." With four additional sentences hanging over him, there was such a chance, but only a chance. Although multiple life terms might sound like substantial punishment, concurrent sentences were served at the same time. Ernie would only have to serve at least five additional years before becoming eligible for parole since the starting dates for the new sentences were not retroactive. That meant he could become eligible for parole around 1970, after he had served about fifteen more years in prison.
On January 14, 1956, Lee wrote to retired state trooper Hugh Boyle, who had been involved in the initial investigation and was now living in Florida. He told Boyle, "The court took four pleas of non-vult to the murder indictments and sentenced him to four concurrent life terms. This was much against my objections as I felt that he should stand trial and take his chances on a death sentence from the jury. In any event, I feel that the sentences should have been consecutive as he now stands a chance of being paroled at some time in the future." Apparently, even those five additional years we
re five years too many for Ernie. He continued his campaign for freedom by renewing his correspondence with lawyers, judges, the media, and anyone else who might listen to him. Once again, he refused to quietly accept the verdict of the court and began the appeals process. In the months that followed, he corresponded with both lawyers and judges in an effort to gain support for his cause.
While Ernie researched and wrote, he achieved what he undoubtedly saw as several significant victories over the justice system. On January 19, 1956, after more than five years of effort, Wellford Ware signed for one cedar chest, one foot locker, and all their contents, which had been returned to the Gloucester County Prosecutor's Office by Ernie's sister, Mary Jane Wald. The following month, indictments 61 and 62 for assault with intent to kill his wife Tessie and her cousin, Jeannie, were ordered nolle prosse by Guy Lee. Like the charges filed in Atlantic County for the assaults on Hilda and Frank Mazzoli, these counts simply disappeared into the legal system-of no concern to anyone except the victims and their loved ones.
But not everything was destined to go Ernie's way. On April 9 of that year, the Office of the Clerk of the Supreme Court of the United States, Washington 13, DC, denied the petition for a writ of certiorari filed in the Case No. 551, Ingenito v. New Jersey. A writ of certiorari is the order that a higher court issues requiring a lower court to review its judgment for legal errors. Undeterred, Ernie appealed to the United States Third Circuit Court of Appeals on June 4, 1956, to overrule the decision of Chief Judge Phillip Forman of the United States District Court of New Jersey that Ernie had to serve all five concurrent life sentences. Ernie's legal brief reiterated the facts of his convictions, but noted that his appeal had merit because he had not received a speedy trial on the four murder charges and the two assault indictments. Forman denied Ernie's application for a retrial because he found no probable cause to support the prisoner's claims that his case had not been handled in a timely fashion. Ernie's only success was in persuading the court that he was too poor to pay the fees normally required to file a petition with the court of appeals.
Rain of Bullets: The True Story of Ernest Ingenito's Bloody Family Massacre Page 20