Emmett Oliver Hashfield

I often come across cases in which research is difficult as I keep finding conflicting information. Much of the time that seems to be because the case is extremely old. When I do cases dating back to the early 1900s or further a lot of “lore” can be found. I have often talked when doing such cases about the issue of “yellow journalism” and how things were exaggerated and embellished through the newspapers for nothing more than sensationalism. When it comes to more modern cases (although I am not sure this case technically qualifies as “modern”) the misinformation found is largely due to one person repeating something that someone else reported.

This case took place in 1960 with much of the information about Emmett Hashfield taking place decades before. Appeals were not published in the same manner as they are today, or at least that was the case in this particular case. I am used to appeals being the place to get the “play by play” story of what occurred in the crime, as well as in the investigation. The appeals in this case gave me very little information. If this case was not local to the area I live in I am unsure I would have been able to get as much information or be able to find conflicting information. I make every effort to not convey inaccurate information and when I come across things that I am confused about or uncertain I am sure to let you, the reader, know this. A local genealogy website also has a way to obtain copies of old newspaper articles that were published in the local newspaper. I relied heavily on these considering that some later articles and even a few blogs that I found were confusing on some of the facts.

What I can tell you is that Emmett Oliver Hashfield was born sometime between 1907 and 1909 in Kentucky. In 1927 he was charged with rape in Perry County Indiana (on the Indiana/Kentucky border) but they were apparently dropped when he married the minor girl who later gave birth to his child. The following year he served a 30 day sentence at the “state farm” when arrested in Spencer County (the town next to Perry) “also on a sex charge.” In 1929 he was given a sentence of 5-21 years in the state prison for a rape charge. It is unclear how long he served but it was said that in 1936 he was sentenced to 1-10 years for “intent to rape a nine year old girl.” Once again it is unclear how much time he served of that sentence but apparently after his release he moved to Anderson Indiana which is located in the northwest central part of the state. Then in 1947 he again was in trouble with the law. This time he was charged with sodomy against a juvenile boy.

Things get a bit confusing here. A blog that I came across stated this last crime was against a 7 year old boy while an article written in 1962 said the boy was ten. The only reason that I point out this seemingly petty issue is to show that in that same blog it was said that Hashfield got a 2-14 year sentence and was paroled in 1960. It went on to say that he “almost immediately violated his probation by moving from Anderson Indiana to Boonville Indiana,” back in the southern Indiana area. However going through newspaper articles from the early 1960's it was said that he was released on November 12, 1958 “to a brother in Newburgh after serving an eleven year sentence.” More articles stated that this move to his brother's home had been pre-arranged, so obviously it was not a probation violation. I should also point out that his brother did not live technically in Newburgh but in Yankeetown. Without showing you a map I will try to explain to you that Newburgh, Yankeetown and Boonville are all small towns (even smaller in 1960) or “townships” in Warrick County. Warrick County is located between Spencer County, where Hashfield had some legal issues in the past and Vanderburgh County, which is where Evansville Indiana is located and the closest big town to the areas down in this area. Today it is much easier to get to one town to another than it was in 1960. At any rate, the blog I quoted above stated he violated his probation and went to Boonville Indiana. Neither of which seems to be true.

By early August 1960 Emmett had been living with his brother, Richard, Richard's wife and four of their six children. He paid them about ten dollars a week in “rent.” About six months prior to this Richard had become nearly completely blind due to cataracts. He was apparently due to have surgery at some point but had been getting some sort of “welfare assistance.” Richard stated that a welfare worker had “suggested” that Emmett move out of their home because it could cause him to lose his benefits. So there had been some sort of agreement in which Emmett moved out and moved to Boonville, a short distance away on about August 13^th. There were later rumors that Richard and his wife had forced Emmett to move because he was abusing their children but Richard adamantly denied this. He and his wife did say they had not left their children alone with him but that he had never abused their children or acted in appropriate.

On August 16, 1960 eleven year old Avril “Honey” Terry, who lived in Boonville with her parents and two sisters had been allowed to go into town to buy some things for her younger sister's birthday. Store keepers remembered seeing her but she never returned home. Authorities were contacted and a search party was formed. It was said that someone mentioned that Emmett Hashfield was a convicted rapist and that he should be looked into so later that same night authorities went to his home. It was said that when he opened his door he was covered in blood and scratches. Some reports say there was a blood trail leading to his door. There were sketchy reports about what was found when and where and whether it was before or after a search warrant was issues. That being said it was said that items belonging to Avril were found in Hashfield's car, as well as the attic of his home.

Hashfield was taken to nearby Evansville to be questioned partly due to the fact that a mob had formed outside the Warrick County jail calling for his lynching. It was in Evansville, where Avril's father, Robert, a physician and psychologist was allowed to enter into the interrogation room and speak to him. So, while authorities protected him from the mob at the jail, they allowed the father of a missing child access to their prime suspect. It was said that it was not very long before he made a confession. He told authorities that he had been downtown and had seen her and helped her pick up some change that she had dropped. He then offered her a ride. He claimed he drove her to an abandoned stripped coal mine south of town. Beyond that it was said that he became “hazy on details of their return to his home and the actual killing” of Avril. He had stated that sometime in the day he had a flat tire and had gone to a service station to get it fixed. A service station attendant was questioned and found this to be true. I found nothing that indicated that the attendant found anything suspicious about Hashfield or his car at that time but authorities seemed to believe that Avril was in the vehicle at that time... dead or alive is unclear.

Hashfield stated at some point he had gone to the banks of the Ohio River. He took authorities to the area. Some reports claim that he confessed to if not the murder itself but dumping her body there. Other reports were more ambiguous and indicated that he simply told them that he had gone to that area for a bit. Then there were the confusing reports as to whether parts of her body were found on the banks in that area or all found in the river in different areas, some found more than twelve miles downstream. Never once in his confession or “discussion” did he mention dismembering Avril's body. There were different reports of different things such as her intestines being removed; there were reports she was decapitated; one report alleged that he had eaten her organs. There were reports that her genitalia had been disfigured or mutilated but a medical examiner determined that she had been raped prior to her murder, at least that is what was alleged.

I say some of these things the way that I have because I must be honest in saying that things were said, done and determined very differently in 1960 than they are now. Let's start with the interrogation itself. First the victims father was allowed into the interrogation, which absolutely would not happen today. There was even an altercation inside that room that was said to have left Hashfield with a black eye. Hashfield may very well have deserved that black eye, but that is not how the legal system should work. Authorities were allowed to say and do whatever they wanted or needed to in order to get a confession from someone, including beating a suspect. When it came to the condition of her body it is hard to tell based on the multiple reports that said different things. However, the one condition that I seemed to find consistent was the one concerning the condition of her genital area. Every report stated that “despite” the area being mutilated the medical examiner determined she had been raped. Now, I am not saying she was not raped, and I am definitely not saying that Hashfield was innocent, but I do not understand how the medical examiner could positively determine this.

With all of this being said, after being interrogated in Evansville, Hashfield was taken back to the Warrick County jail where the area around the jail was blocked to traffic and officers were placed around to prevent the ensuing mob from overrunning the jail. He was returned after questioning but before Avril's body was found. It was said that less than thirty minutes after her body was found he was in front of a judge and charged with first degree murder. Emmett's brother, Richard was interviewed a few days later with his wife. This is when they dispelled the rumors as to why Emmett had left his home and he talked about his brother. He claimed that he did not believe that Emmett had committed the murder but admitted that if he did he was certain he had not done it alone or had done the dismemberment. Richard claimed that Emmett was extremely fearful of blood since he had gotten out of prison. It was Richard's belief that someone else would have had to dismember Avril's body.

Because of the nature and publicity of the case Emmett's case was moved to Bloomington Indiana, just south of Indianapolis. The prosecution was asking for the death penalty while Emmett, through his lawyers, had pleaded not guilty by reason of insanity. I should note that everything I found said this was his plea, but there seemed to be some indication that maybe the actual pleas was not guilty by reason of TEMPORARY insanity. I say this because one of the psychiatrists that testified at his trial spoke about the fact that he did not believe someone could be “temporarily insane.” But, regardless of the plea, this brings up an issue I have spoken about before, the issue of legal insanity.

The “rule” that was used in 1960 to determine if someone was sane is the same one that is used today; it is also the same one that was used in the 1840's. It is called The M'naughten Rule. I will not bore you with the history of the law or “rule” as it is called, I will just simply explain it. Basically M'naughten says if you know the difference between right and wrong, then you are not insane. Many have argued, without success obviously, that this law is antiquated or severely outdated. I should point out that the idea of right and wrong are based on whether they are legal. There also becomes the issues of how they determine if someone truly does know the difference between right and wrong. There has really only been one case in which I feel as if this idea has been successfully challenged and that would be the case of Andrea Yates. Andrea was the Texas mother who was clearly mentally ill and killed her children one by one by drowning them in the bathtub in the summer of 2001. She was initially convicted and sent to prison based solely on the idea that she knew that killing her children was wrong in the eyes of the law. Her conviction was overturned and she was later re-tried and was found not guilty by reason of insanity. She was placed in a mental hospital where she remains today. Andrea knew in the eyes of the law that murdering her children was wrong but in her mental state she believed that the consequences to her were less important than the fact that she felt her children would be safer with God.

Emmett's trial began on October 8, 1962 and while one article I read said the trial lasted six weeks, a decision was made on November 5^th. It appears that several psychiatrists testified at his trial. One said “although the defendant was a sociopathic personality with sexual deviations, he was capable of knowing right from wrong.” Another, as I pointed out early, stated he did not believe in temporary insanity. He described Hashfield as a “sex deviate” and did not believe there was a cure for him. I do also want to point out that there was some indication that this same psychiatrist had not actually spoken to or examined Hashfield because when asked he stated everything he knew about the case and the defendant had come from the newspapers and he claimed they were great factual sources.

This bothers me. Yes, as you know I do rely quite a bit on newspaper articles when I research cases, but, in the same respect, I am not making an important decision about someone's life. I do not have the training to examine such subjects, not to mention I would not have the opportunity to speak to these people. That is not the case with these doctors. I very much got the impression that at least this one psychiatrist that testified may have never even met Emmett Hashfield and based his testimony solely on what he had read in the newspaper and his opinion. Now, in the same respect, I cannot say that I necessarily disagree with the conclusions that the psychiatrist came to, I simply take issue to how he came to them.

Hashfield had two attorneys. One was a less prominent attorney and by the accounts that I read, he may have taken the case more as a learning experience and worked for free. His main attorney was Ferdinand Samper and he was appointed by the courts. At the time Samper was one of the top criminal lawyers in Indianapolis. It was said that “at the time he had defended over 30 clients accused of murder and hasn't lost one to the electric chair yet.” Samper was quoted as saying “by the time Hashfield was convicted twice for a sex offense- and certainly by the third time- someone in authority should have recognized that he was mentally ill and started some sort of treatment.” I cannot say that I disagree with him, nor do I believe that authorities took his past crimes as serious as they should have or he would not have been out of prison and had the opportunity to murder Avril Terry.

The prosecution was able to put members of the Terry family on the stand to identify clothing that had been found at Emmett Hashfield's home as belonging to Avril. They of course got to bring in his previous crimes, which of course showed that there was a pattern in his behavior. According to authorities when they went to Emmett Hashfield's home the night Avril disappeared he had blood and scratches on him. This would go against the idea that his brother stated that he was fearful of blood. Despite Richard Hashfield's opinion that someone else had to be involved it does not appear that the prosecution believed or found evidence of such.

On November 15, 1962 Emmett Hashfield was convicted of first degree murder and the judge sentenced him to die. But, Emmett's lawyers were successful to continually put off his execution despite having several dates set. Then on January 10, 1974 he was taken to the hospital for what was said to be a routine tonsillectomy. It was also said that the doctor who performed the surgery was a rather skilled surgeon. However, there was an issue and in the end Emmett Hashfield bled to death on the operating table. Findagrave.com put his age at either sixty-four or sixty-five. Oddly his burial did not occur until February 1^st and he was buried at the well known cemetery, Crown Hill in Indianapolis.

In the last sixty-two years many things have changed when it comes with dealing with sex offenders, but in other ways many things have remained the same. Whether you agree with the sex offender registry or not, this is something that has come about since Emmett Hashfield's crimes. Many argue that the registry does little and what it does do is often more harmful than helpful to the community as well as the registrant. Even without the registry the authorities, and apparently others, knew Emmett's background as it led them to him within hours of Avril's disappearance. One would argue that with the registry the citizens would have been made aware but obviously there are issues with this. First, this was obviously a time before the Internet where citizens could simply go online and find those on the registry and inform others. But, in fairness since people did know, it still could have spread word of mouth the same way it would do today. A registry in that time would have simply just been passed around to law enforcement, but again it seems that they already knew or were made aware quickly since they went to his door. Secondly, people would have to actually pay attention to it.

In my own personal opinion I believe that people either take the registry too serious or they do not take it serious enough. Either way it does not have the initial desired affect. More and more crimes are considered to be sexual offenses such as indecent exposure, which could mean nothing more than urinating in public or a young man who had sex with his teenage (age appropriate) girlfriend. Because crimes such as these have required people to register and the vast amount of people that have been affected by the registry, it seems that those who have never had experiences with the registry or know someone who has, simply considers the fact that someone is on the registry to be a “sexual deviant” as Emmett Hashfield was described. On the other side of that, those who have been affected by the registry, or know someone who has, that tend to take it less seriously. Somewhere in the middle are the ones that the registry was designed for, the violent predators and those who harm children.

In the same respect it is my belief that the registry has become “big brother” for some parents. A large majority of those who harm children are known to or related to the children that they harm. When their crimes are exposed family members are made aware without the need of a registry. Emmett Hashfield was one of the more rarer cases in which the children he harmed were not related to him. Avril Terry had been warned not to talk to or accept rides from strangers but it was said that she did so anyways. That is not a failure on her parents' attempts but the only thing that would have possibly prevented this crime from happening is if she had not been alone at the time. Children in that time period were allowed more freedoms, just as they were in my generation, however I was raised that you generally always had someone with you. It was still ingrained in our minds that we did not accept rides or things from strangers but it was up to us in the end to abide by the rules set by our parents. I feel as if the registry allows someone to single a particular person out rather than teach children to not trust anyone they do not know.

Another thing that has changed since the time Emmett Hashfield committed his crimes is the length of time he was given for his crimes, as well as how much of that time he served. But, this is also dependent on the prosecutor and the judge in such cases. Most murder cases, or those involving the harm of another, including those such as Emmett's, rape and sodomy, are “state” cases. This means that they are not federal crimes. In order to qualify for a federal crime there must be a change of jurisdictions, most notably across state lines. I cannot say how things were in 1960, but I can say today that if Emmett would have taken Avril across the state line into Kentucky, which would have been completely possible considering the county in which he committed this crime was on the state border, he could have been charged federally. For the most part on state charges a first offense, depending on the crime, can result in what many consider a minor sentence. But, if the perpetrator continues to commit sex offenses the sentences get harsher and the time spend for those offenses are generally longer than they were back in 1960.

One area where things did not change very much revolves around therapies and treatment of sex offenders. Emmett Hashfield's lawyer stated that if someone in authorities would have done something after he began committing his crimes they would have forced him to “starts some sort of treatment.” The fact is that in 1960 they could have “forced” someone much easier than they can now. The treatment of those with mental illness have changed over the decades. When this crime was committed he could have been put into an asylum but he more than likely would have been largely either ignored and left, without treatment, or that treatment would have been something like castration or a lobotomy, neither of which would have stopped Emmett Hashfield from committing his crimes had he been released. Therapists know more today not just about how to treat mental illnesses but also those who have committed sex offenses, both low level and violent. The difference is that it is much harder to “force” someone into treatment, especially before it has reach the extreme. Most treatment options that would work have to be entered into voluntarily. The stigma that accompany sex crimes often prevent people from seeking treatment voluntarily.

It was said that after the murder of his daughter, Dr. Robert Terry developed an organization called Children's Protective League. By December of 1960 they had over 700 members. Most were from the southern Indiana region but there were at least a few hundred from Illinois area. In September of that year Robert Terry was elected President. I found several articles on the organization but all written in 1960, from the end of September until the end of December of that year. After that I found nothing and none of the articles were very specific on what exactly the organization did. There was one article that discussed that they were talking to a State Representative about making an amendment to a 1959 law on “sexual psychopaths.” I am unsure exactly what was in the original law but the members of the Children's Protective League wanted the death penalty to be mandatory “if death results from performance of a sex felony.” I am unsure that this ever made it to law, and reality is that when the death penalty was abolished in the early 1970s it would have made this movement moot. It is unclear how long the organization existed but it appears that it is no longer in service.

What I can say is that in November 1961 Avril's mother, Gail, was assaulted in Evansville. Three teenage boys knocked her to the ground and snatched her purse. She was left with a few bruises and the boys were quickly caught. Robert Terry went to the court and offered to “help” them. I can only assume that he meant through his business as a psychologist. The boys were given probation.

The Terry family, who had moved to Boonville in 1958 from Florida remained in the area. Dr. Robert Terry died in 1980 at the age of sixty-three, his wife, Gail, followed the following year.