(See Redd, 135 Ill.2d at 295-96, 553 N.E.2d at 334-35.) The cases cited by defendant are distinguishable. For example, Bernasco (138 Ill.2d at 349, 562 N.E.2d at 958), People v. Redmon (1984), 127 Ill. App.3d 342, 468 N.E.2d 1310, and People v. Devine (1974), 17 Ill. App.3d 1053, 309 N.E.2d 76, all involved young defendants with mental deficiencies. People v. Turner (1973), 56 Ill.2d 201, 206-07, 306 N.E.2d 27, 30, also involved a defendant with a mental deficiency.

It cannot be said that his will was overborne or that he did not make the statements voluntarily. Defendant cites our opinion in People v. Devine (1974), 17 Ill. App.3d 1053, 309 N.E.2d 76, in support of his contention that his statements were not voluntary. In Devine, this court affirmed the trial court's suppression of certain statements and confessions.

: (1) that at no time did respondent or his parents request to speak to an attorney or have one present; (2) that neither respondent nor his parents complained to anyone of mistreatment of any kind; (3) that respondent was never physically or mentally abused by police or anyone else; (4) that no threats or promises were made to respondent, nor was he coerced, tricked or deceived; (5) that respondent was at all times treated kindly, considerately and humanely; (6) that respondent was properly and fully advised of his constitutional rights and that he fully understood those rights, and that he knowingly and intentionally waived each of those rights; (7) that respondent's youthful age and mental capacity did not prevent him from understanding his rights, nor from knowingly and intelligently waiving those rights; and (8) that the record indicates a total absence of any of those obnoxious factors which would render a statement of confession involuntary. Respondent directs our attention to People v. Devine (1974), 17 Ill. App.3d 1053, 309 N.E.2d 76; and People v. Baker (1973), 9 Ill. App.3d 654, 292 N.E.2d 760. In Devine, the appellate court at page 1057 noted that "[i]t is apparent to us that the defenant's subnormal intelligence was an important but not decisive factor leading the trial judge to suppress his confession and statement."