This Day in Norwood History-March 17, 1955-Peter Makarewicz Makes Own Plea To Jury

Young Peter Makarewicz told the jury this afternoon that he did not murder Geraldine Annese and asked that he be acquitted.

The 16-year-old defendant making his plea in a calm voice from the prisoner’s cage said: “I have been accused of a crime I did not commit and I only hope that the verdict you return will be a verdict of not guilty.” ” He then sat down and Judge Lewis Goldberg began his charge to the all-male panel in, Norfolk County Superior Court .

Peter made the personal appeal for acquittal after Judge Goldberg advised him that “under the law you have the right if you wish to address the jury ”

Perfectly composed, the young defendant accepted the invitation and rose to his feet to make the appeal.

The jury has five alternatives in making a decision: murder in the first degree, murder in the first degree with recommendation of life imprisonment, murder in the sec ond degree, manslaughter, not guilty.

Prior to the opening of the judge’s charge a capacity crowd in Norfolk County Superior Courtroom heard the defense argue that the 16-year-old defendant was given a “brutal, foreign brainwashing” by police for the alleged confession. Dist. Atty. Myron Lane asked for the death penalty for Peter claiming that the sex-strangulation slaying of Gerry was “premeditated with malice aforethought.”

In the course of his 50-minute Argument, Lane called Peter a “cold, calculating, smart-alecky defendant who in the attempted commission of rape strangled and murdered Geraldine Annese.” In his “brainwashing” charge against the police, defense counsel Louis Goldstein declared: “I’m going to use a term I dislike very intensely; brainwashing. This is America and brainwashing doesn’t go here. “I don’t believe it’s funny to tongue-lash a boy into submission. It is possible to beat a human being mentally too. It looks to me that it was brainwashing, they used that morning, a brutal foreign technique.”

In a dramatic argument in behalf of his good-looking client, attorney Louis Goldstein told the all-male Norfolk County Superior Court jury that the boy had no motive for the sex-strangulation slaying of his pretty neighbor.

As Goldstein made his argument in a packed courtroom, the parents of both Peter and the slain girl’s family sat side by side following carefully his every word. “The prosecution comes in here and says this boy got the urge to kill while lying beside his baby sister. If that’s so why didn’t he kill his sister? Why didn’t he kill his brother when his brother came into the house?

“Didn’t Hate Girl”

“The law says you don’t have to prove a motive, but it also says you may consider the lack of motive as a factor in weighing the guilt or innocence of the accused.

“Nowhere in the testimony in this entire case has there been any testimony to show that this boy hated the girl, had any fight with this girl or had any motive whatsoever to kill her.” Goldstein said the District Attorney found it necessary to “prompt” Norwood Police Chief Mark Folan while the officer was on the stand, but when Peter was a witness he was not allowed to explain himself or some of the things he might have said, the lawyer said.

Brainwash Theme

Reverting to his “brainwash” theme, Goldstein asked: “What happened in that police station between 6 a. m. and 9 a. m. on the morning of Nov. 6?

“Why did the district attorney tell George Kenney (his clerk) not ‘to take notes sometimes?”

Then Goldstein went back to yesterday when Peter stood up under six hours of relentless questioning by Dist Atty. Myron Lane and said:

“It was a man against a boy in the courtroom, but it was six men against a boy In that police station.”

“They contradict themselves, yet they want this boy to tell an unblemished story.”

Long Interrogation

He then questioned the prosecution’s contention that during the long interrogation of Peter, three officers left the Norwood police station and went to State Police Headquarters, 1010 Commonwealth av, Brookline.

“Do you think all these men went to 1010 Commonwealth ave? Chief Folan, Sgt Bogdanchik, Lt Murphy … the District Attorney himself .,. If the evidence says he was there?”

Then he asked: “Why are they so frightened about the hours of 6 a. m. to 8:19 a. m. of Nov. 6?”

The defense began its argument the moment the filled courtroom was, brought to order. The prosecution was expected to present story?

“Reading a Script”

Continuing he said:

“Do you believe anyone in that police station said ‘now Peter take it easy or was aa gentle with the boy at they were in this courtroom? He was in there from 12:15 a. m. to 10:07 a. m. Can you believe they were as gentle with him all that time?

Goldstein accused all the prosecution witnesses of “reading a script” and then not believing in their own case.

“That’s why they put all of them back on the witness stand.”

“Sure this boy stood up under fire in this courtroom. Did you ever get an extra bit of energy like this boy got while he was waiting four months to get up in a courtroom and tell his side of the story?”

He was expected to call rebuttal witnesses but did not.

Discusses Challenges

Lane said he regretted the defenses mentioned anything about epilepsy “because there has not been one iota of evidence that epilepsy has any bearing on the case.”

Discussing the “challenges that on a motive for the slaying, Lane

“The jury can judge for itself from the evidence that has been presented – Was It just the urge to kill? Was it jealousy? Was it an urge to have sexual relations with Geraldine?

Regarding the hours between 8 a. m. and 9:12 a. m. of Nov. 6- when the defense said Lane had been “painfully silent” about what happened, the district attorney said: “Mr. Kenney and each of the officers who testified told you where he was during those hours, four of them were at State Police Headquarters in Brookline, I wasn’t there from :30 to 8 a. m.

“Defense Weakens”

Challenging the defense’s contention that Peter only said “yes” to long questions that were asked him at the garage, scene of the murder, when he was taken there after his alleged confession, Lane said:

“Of course, he only said ‘yes.’ because he had already confessed at the station.”

He claimed the state has proved “beyond a doubt” Peter murdered Gerry. ,

“The evidence of all the experts is uncontroverted. The weakness of the defense is this; the weakness is that the defendant never said to you that he put those fingerprints on Mr. Kalliel’s car and Mr. Freund’s car anywhere else but in that garage. He told you he saw those cars elsewhere, but he never once told you that he put his fingers on them elsewhere.

In asking for a verdict of first-degree murder, Lane told the jury that Peter “tore the clothes from her while she fought for her life and honor.” “The defendant in an attempted commission of rape strangled and murdered Geraldine Annese and it is my duty to ask for a verdict of murder in the first degree.”