beating in the following condition: 'Everything I had on was nothing but that smut that you would get up off the floor, and he saw me crying, and everything else.' (See N.T. 208, Document 9). However, Mr. Cater did not testify, nor can this court find any past recorded statements of Cater, regarding the beating.
The testimony regarding the 'downstairs' from the homicide headquarters indicated that the only room meeting such a description was the levatory, which was described as being quite clean and not covered with 'smut.'e
In addition, the sworn testimony of the policemen who were involved in the Rivers investigation not only denied any knowledge of the alleged beating but also was to the effect that the relator was never observed in any condition resembling that of a beaten man (N.T. 332-433, particularly 375, 388, 392, 400-401, 406, 409-410, 419, 422, 431). This included the testimony of former Detective Shanahan, whom Mr. Rivers identified as one of the policemen who administered the beating (N.T. 332ff., 364).
The record and the Pennsylvania appellate court decisions indicate that a reconsideration of the information now available concerning relator's sentence is required not only to eliminate consideration of the contents of his statements taken on March 27 and 28, 1957, but also to assure that additional evidence is not overlooked, since 'In such a solemn and drastic proceeding there is no room for a scintilla of error.' See Commonwealth v. Cater et al., 396 Pa. 172, 182, 152 A.2d 259, 265 (1959).f
The following evidence bearing on the sentence of relator is available at this time, which was not available before the court in the fall of 1962:
I. The testimony of various members of the family concerning the lack of parental help or training and other handicaps undergone by relator during his youth which limited his judgment, reasoning and understanding (N.T. 160-185 of Document 11).
II. The testimony of Dr. Robitscher (N.T. 252-286 of Document 9), who treated relator for a period of more than a year, indicates that he would report that relator was not in a position to foresee and anticipate the consequences of his acts to the extent that the other two defendants were (or that an average boy his age would be) for reasons such as these, among others:
A. He was mentally defective (see Appendix A).
B. His judgment and insight were impaired (Dr. Mallin, pp. 171a-172a of R-5), due to absence of family help, as referred to under I above, as well as other factors.
C. He had been drinking and had one marijuana cigarette before the holdup (p. 170a of R-5).
D. He had a psychosis (p. 172a of R-5).