Ernie had avoided prosecution on four counts of assault with intent to kill. On the murder charges, he was sentenced to five concurrent life terms rather than face the electric chair. The courts began to turn down his requests for free legal assistance, citing the money he spent on postage and copies of other court decisions as proof that he was able to afford to pay for his own defense counsel. Was he discouraged enough by this point to accept the judgment of the court and quietly serve the rest of his time? Not really. As far as Ernie was concerned, he still believed that he had been mistreated by the judicial system, and he wasn't going to rest until he persuaded someone to listen to him. In the months that followed his additional convictions, Ernie filed motions and briefs in every court that he thought might exercise some jurisdiction over his case. Sometimes he sent the paperwork to the wrong office, but that did not deter him for long.
On August 3, 1956, the state filed its response to a brief previously filed by the inmate in the U.S. Third Circuit Court of Appeals, presided over by Chief Justice Phillip Forman. In it, Guy Lee and his assistant, Rowland Porch, addressed many of the concerns raised by Ernie in the preceding years, proving step-by-step that he had been largely responsible for the delays in moving his additional trials forward. As a result, he could not claim that he had been denied a speedy trial. Once again, Ernie's efforts to gain an early release from prison were unsuccessful.
On October 8, 1956, Lee received a note from Ida O. Creskoff, clerk for the Third Circuit Court of Appeals, regarding Case Number 11,968, Ingenito vs. State of New Jersey. It advised him that Ernie's petition was going to be heard on Tuesday, November 6, at 10:30 A.M. in the Third Circuit courthouse in Philadelphia. Ernie wrote to Lee on October 10, stating that he wanted an affidavit from the prosecutor admitting that he failed to visit the inmate on December 29, 1955, when he was incarcerated at the Gloucester County Jail. The defendant noted, "you sent Mr. Small to inform me that you would not talk to me inasmuch as I had counsel appointed by the Court." Ernie added that he was sure Lee had been told that his court-appointed attorney would not make a motion to have his client brought before the court. While the tone of the letter was very polite, Ernie was positive that his own presence had been absolutely necessary in court to make sure that he won his appeal. He was determined to do things his way, just as he had done with past lawyers, even if it meant jeopardizing his case.
Ernie continued to write to Lee. On October 19, he chastised the prosecutor in a letter: "Mr. Lee, since you have `read and re-read' the transcript of the proceedings of January 9th, you should be well aware that the Court did `not' once ask `me' if I had anything to say in my behalf-or defense, as it should have done to fulfill the rules of the Court. The Court did at one point say `Any further remarks?' which was directed at Mr. Cotton, and said Mr. Cotton, shot back 'NO, SIR'. and the Court immediately with machine-gun rapidly [sic] sentenced me. I am sure you will recall what happened to me on January 6, 1955 in the Gloucester County Court when I tried to say something in my defense. I do not believe it necessary to say more at this time. Mr. Lee, since your recollection has become poor as to the events I wished you to recall, you may disregard my letter of October 17, 1956. I do thank you very much for the courtesy of answering my letters."
Gloucester County officials undoubtedly hoped that the passing of time would cool Ernie's temperament, that he would finally accept the fact that he would be in prison for at least the next ten years. They probably failed to realize that the inmate's defiance would remain razor sharp, honed by his resentment at what he saw as a corrupt legal system. On his own, Ernie continued to file appeals and motions in the months that followed. On November 19, 1956, Ernie filed a brief with the Third Circuit Court of Appeals asking the judge to overturn the decision of the district court, which had denied an appeal on the verdicts handed down earlier that year on the four murder indictments. The federal justices upheld the ruling of the lower court.
The following year, Lee received a postcard from the office of John T. Fey, Clerk of the Supreme Court of the United States, stating, "Washington 13, D.C. Feb 26 1957 INGENITO V. NEW JERSEY, Case No. 449 Misc. O.T. 1956. The Court on Feb 25 1957 entered the following order in the above-entitled case: The petition for writ of certiorari is denied. Mr. Justice Brennan took no part in the consideration or decision of this application."
In an ongoing effort to argue what he saw as a miscarriage of justice, Ernie wrote Lee on April 12, 1957, and asked for a copy of the records of his arraignment at the municipal court in Franklinville. He also wanted copies of any pleas or other proceedings related to his case when he appeared before Judge George Shunk on November 18, 1950. According to Ernie, he needed the information because he was preparing a writ of habeas corpus and a petition. Four days later, Ernie received a letter from Lee's office, noting that the prosecutor's office had no records of Ernie's arraignment. The prosecutor stated, "There is no practice for the taking of a stenographic transcript at an arraignment. I would doubt if one was taken in your case." Undiscouraged, Ernie advised Lee in July that he was preparing yet another appeal for the federal Supreme Court's ruling.
In the years that followed, when Ernie wasn't writing appeals, he devoted himself to working steadily in the prison shoe shop. He did his best to stay out of trouble so that he would be able to impress the state parole board when it was time for his hearing. On July 20, 1967, after serving sixteen and a half years of his original sentence, Ernie appeared for the first time before the Board, firmly believing he was eligible for parole. His application was denied, according to the board, "regardless of the availability of a suitable parole plan." Since his additional sentences, imposed on January 9, 1956, had a different starting date from his original one, the board stated that his eligibility for parole was moved back. Ernie was furious, because he felt he had earned enough time off for good behavior. He wrote repeatedly to Eugene T. Urbaniak, the deputy attorney general, asking why the date had been changed. In one letter, Ernie stated, "This is playing with a mans mind and his sanity, and with the littles hopes he has, and that of his relatives and friends. For almost 17 years ... no value whatsoever has been placed on my life, and no consideration has ever been shown me."
Two years later, Ernie was again scheduled to appear before the parole board. On November 5, 1969, the new Gloucester County prosecutor, Alvin E. Granite, wrote to chairman of the board Harold J. Ashby, "I have your notice of November 5th advising the above subject is eligible for parole consideration. I would like the record to reflect that I oppose parole." Granite, remembered by some of his colleagues as very intelligent and knowledgeable about the law, reportedly understood the psychology of the accused. He supported the position of the Mazzoli and Pioppi families, who had appeared at each parole board hearing to voice their opposition to Ernie's release. Ernie's ex-wife and his younger son were among those who argued against his parole. Apparently, the board members agreed with them because Ernie was again denied his freedom when he appeared for his hearing.
The families' subsequent efforts to keep Ernie behind bars for his full sentence eventually proved futile. In 1974, Ernie was judged to be sufficiently rehabilitated, and he was released on parole from Trenton State Prison. He had spent a total of twenty-three years in jail for murdering five people or six, if counting Jino and Marion Pioppi's unborn child. He served no time for assaulting four others, including his wife and her nine-year-old cousin. The survivors were outraged and remained on guard, instinctively knowing that they hadn't seen the last of him.
After he was paroled, Ernie was required to remain in Trenton. There, he got a job with Trap Rock Industries of Kingston, a company that produced ready-mixed concrete and other related products. Between September 17, 1974, and January 20, 1993, he worked at Trap Rock as a crusher operator, starting out at $929 a month. Ernie was considered an excellent employee, "honest, dependable, and hard working," according to a letter of reference written by personnel manager Jerry L. Meyers. While his work record may have
been admirable, his personal life was not so pristine.
Prohibited by his parole from going outside the city, Ernie still defied those rules that he did not believe applied to him. He periodically drove south to Piney Hollow Road and into neighboring Atlantic County, where his very presence terrified his ex-wife and angered other members of her family. Restless, he moved around Trenton a number of times, living in apartments at 621/2 Berkeley Avenue, 846 Berkeley Avenue, and 162 Division Street. In 1991, he ended up on the third floor of 941 Edgewood Avenue, which like his other apartments, was located south of Cadwalader Park. Although he never had any problems finding female companionship, his relationships always seemed to end on a sour note. In September 1977, Ernie was living at 1131 Chambers Street in the Chambersburg district of Trenton and working as a mechanic. He was arrested on September 7 for reportedly cutting a girlfriend's hand during a domestic dispute that had allegedly occurred on July 29 of that year at her home in Ewing Township. Charged with intimidation, atrocious assault and battery, and threatening to kill, he was found not guilty when his case later went to trial. On November 1, 1977, Ernie was returned to prison for violating his parole, but no information was available on whether the violation related to the incident that had occurred in July.
On April 6, 1978, Ernie was paroled again after serving five months in prison. Other women drifted in and out of his life, but eight years passed before his next significant relationship. That was when Ernie met a woman who shall be called Sandra Price, a single mother who was nearly thirty years younger than him. Her daughter, who will be called Molly, was about eight when her mother and Ernie became involved. Although he had made no apparent effort to support his three biological children over the years, Ernie reportedly adopted the role of provider for the Prices. He bought Sandra furniture, clothing, and concert tickets, as well as toys and clothing for Molly. While they never lived together, Ernie had a key to her apartment. He spent a lot of time at Sandra's, often babysitting while his girlfriend was out. But everything changed when he was later "betrayed" by his new family. In 1993, Molly accused Ernie of rape.
Newspaper accounts were quick to rehash Ernie's background when he was arrested on January 20 of that year on charges of sexual assault and child endangerment. They stated that Ernie remained utterly remorseless, even proud, about being a mass murderer after he was released from jail. One of his prized possessions was a book titled Bloodletters and Bad Men, which included a chapter about his crimes. The media reported that he allegedly used his reputation to intimidate Molly, subjecting her to a regular ordeal of rape. He allegedly brought the child to his home on Edgewood Avenue, and after forcing her to have sex, he threatened to kill her and her mother if she told anyone. Molly apparently believed him; she later told authorities that he had shown her the book as proof that he had killed before. Five years passed before the girl found the courage to report him to the police. During that time, Ernie and Sandra's relationship ended. According to records from the Mercer County Prosecutor's Office, authorities were dispatched to Mercer Medical Center on January 13, 1993, where they took Molly's statement, detailing the abuse.
Ernie was indicted by the Mercer County grand jury in April on more than twenty counts, including criminal sexual contact and endangering the welfare of a child. To support his claim that he was no longer able to have sex, Ernie wrote out a list chronicling his declining physical health. In 1989, he reportedly had a heart attack and was admitted to St. Francis Medical Center in Trenton. Later that year, he underwent angioplasty surgery for his condition. By 1992, he was under medical treatment for emphysema, and three years later claimed to be going blind from cataracts in his left eye.
Incarcerated at the Mercer County Jail, Ernie complained that he was suffering from heart disease, emphysema, high blood pressure, and gallstones. He claimed that if he was looking for sex, he would approach someone more mature. This would have been a reasonable statement to anyone who didn't know that he had previously propositioned a thirteen-year-old. The list of materials that were confiscated from his apartment after his arrest included the magazines Hustler Reject, Hot Pussy, and Young Pussy. There were also centerfolds and cartoons cut out of men's magazines, as well as sexually explicit videotapes-pornographic items numbering more than one hundred in total.
Once more, Ernie began to protest his innocence in writing, drafting letters and records of the alleged incidents. He believed he had been falsely charged because Sandra resented the fact that he had given a number of valuable items to his younger son, property that Ernie claimed she thought should belong to her. If Ernie had died in prison before changing his will, he stated that Sandra would have inherited close to $60,000 in cash and property.
When he was not provided with what he felt was a proper time frame as to when the alleged crimes had occurred, Ernie's lawyer, Robert A. Obler of Trenton, made a motion before Judge David J. Schroth of the Superior Court on December 17, 1993, to dismiss the indictment. During the hearing, assistant county prosecutor Robin Scheiner told the court, "I believe she said the actual sexual assault began when she was nine. However, the Grand Jury elected, because there were not any specific dates, couldn't get anything for that, to actually indict from the time she was eleven." Scheiner told the court that Ernie took advantage of what was essentially a father-daughter relationship. Ernie conveniently forgot about the babysitting, claiming that he only recalled ever being alone with Molly on Sunday, January 10, 1993, for about twenty minutes when her mother left them together at the apartment. Ernie suggested that Molly had made up the sexual assaults because she was jealous that he had apparently reconciled with his younger son. Schroth, who had a reputation for handing down the maximum punishment to lawbreakers, denied the motion.
While he was in jail awaiting trial, Ernie reportedly wrote a number of letters to Sandra Price, which Scheiner said were hand-delivered by some of Ernie's friends. While Sandra initially wrote back and asked the accused to stop writing, afraid that Molly might see his letters, she later reported him to the prosecutor's office. The judge ordered that any correspondence from the prisoner to the Price family be seized and destroyed.
Ernie was furious when the media raked up his past in stories about the current charges. On photocopied articles, his notes included statements such as, "I was tried and convicted even before my trial. The prosecutor and Judge should have been taken off my case. They both were prejudice [sic]." By then, he had been an inmate of the county jail for almost a year, but because of a full court calendar, the earliest that his case could be heard was May 30, 1994. The judge denied Obler's motion for dismissal and set Ernie's bail at $250,000. The prosecutor argued against bail, noting that Ernie was a flight risk, because he was believed to have stashed cash at different locations. No records were available to show if he made bail, but the trial went forward on June 27. During the proceedings, the Trentonian reported that Molly testified, "He was like a father to me." The defense countered that the Prices were only nice to Ernie as long as he was paying the bills.
The trial lasted more than a week. After three days of deliberation, the jury convicted Ernie on July 12, 1994, on twenty-nine counts of sexual assault that occurred during a six-year period. Less than two weeks after he was convicted, Ernie asked his attorney to contact the Mercer County Prosecutor's Office to obtain the release of his personal property, which had been removed by authorities from his apartment. That September, Molly's mother wrote to the court, stating, "We've received a life sentence. He should get the same." On September 21, Ernie declared in angry letter to his lawyer that his defense had been mishandled. According to the inmate, Obler failed to call certain key witnesses to the stand and asked the wrong questions of those he did call: "You cut off all my other witness [sic] before they could say the important information." In that same letter, Ernie stated that most of his property, still in the possession of the prosecutor's office, had been removed without a search warrant. He demanded that Obler take the necessary action to ensure t
he return of items that included his television, a VCR, and a camcorder, which Judge Schroth ordered to be returned to him on November 14 of that year.
In the meantime, authorities were concerned with getting Ernie evaluated to make sure he served his sentence in the most appropriate facility. Given the nature of the charges, he was examined at the Avenel Adult Diagnostic Center on October 20, 1994. When he arrived there at 8:00 A.M., Ernie once again displayed the same anger and bitterness that he had always shown to authorities. He advised the doctors, "I'm under a lot of pressure because my lawyer sold me the fuck out." As others had done in the past, the psychologists determined that he displayed "an antisocial personality disorder, with a history of poor impulse control and lack of empathy for others." The staff mandated, however, that he was not eligible for sentencing under the state's Sex Offender Act, because he showed no deviant sexual behavior according to their guidelines.
The defendant was sentenced on January 13, 1995, to 223 years in prison and was required to serve a minimum of twenty-five years. At seventy and in failing health, Ernie probably never again would be a free man. Judge Schroth reportedly based his sentence on a variety of factors, including "the risk that the defendant would commit another offense; the extent of his prior criminal record which included five murders; and the need for deterring the defendant and others from violating the law." Ernie tried to appeal the judge's verdict based on "ineffectual counsel," but that petition was denied by Judge Schroth.
Rain of Bullets: The True Story of Ernest Ingenito's Bloody Family Massacre Page 21