I thought Abiline65 made some very interesting points. I like the name, but I don’t think that Nathan Kaminsky was still alive to be stalking 304 North Denny. The point about the mattress photo was definitely cool. Not only the hands, but now the whole “funny blouse” appears to be a falsification. There’s more to this photo yet. According to Dixon, Gertrude said that Sylvia arrived at the house without a funny blouse; without a top at all. Abilene65 seems to think that Sylvia never made it back to 3850 East New York, and there would seem to be much to recommend this view. As for the photo, if you zoom in on the pants, the pink pedal pushers, I think you might find something interesting. So here it is:
Maybe it’s just me, but looking at the right leg, it seems rather strange just how far the hip juts out from not only the right leg, but especially relative to where the waist would appear to be. Then contrast the right hip to the left hip. Then it is not hard to see the way that the stripes from the lower portion of the funny blouse seem to extend back towards the feet. The more I look at it, the more the whole lower portion of the body looks fake. Look at the extreme curvature in the legs as you move toward the ankles. It sort of looks like football pants with full pads, although the shape of the right hip and the left hip are not even close to being in proportion to each other. In short, the body below the waist looks fake.
I would point out something that I only noticed the other day. The picture below shows the long, thick cut on the outside of the right wrist. It is a nasty looking cut, but it looks so very straight. It’s as if she wasn’t moving a muscle when this cut was made. Tektonikus had the interesting suggestion that this cut was made as the girl attempted to cut rope or some similar material with which she had been bound at the wrists.
That wasn’t bad, but it seems to me that if that were the case, the cut wouldn’t be as straight as it is. In fact, it almost appears as if the person was already dead when this cut was made. In other words, it could be post-mortem; but I’m no Dr. Ellis or Dr. Kebel!
This is where it gets interesting. I will now show a close up of the face.
It’s easy to miss this. It looks as if she no longer has eyebrows. Instead, she has cuts similar to the one on her forearm over each eye. Looking at a normal view of the Mattress Photo, i.e. without the zoom, it is very easy to miss these cuts since from a distance, the may appear to the eye as her eye brows. That can be do, in part, to the tendency of the human mind to instantly incorporate elements of what are seen into the context that the mind expects. At any rate, none of the witnesses ever mention cutting Sylvia with a knife, much less making a cut over each eye. If this were something done by her killer, I’m at pains to suggest why this would have been done. Moreover, it appears that the two cuts, which are thick cuts, are converging toward each other, as they move from the eyes toward the bridge of the nose. Then they just stop. The cut over the left eye is quite straight, more so than the one over the right eye. But the one over the right eye appears to be headed back toward the ear. I would surmise that she was lying completely still for these cuts as well. In fact, if one were to draw a line from each cut toward the nose, they could be joined up to form a continuous line. It makes we wonder if there was only one line that wrap around the face from the ears, across the lower forehead, just above the eyes. Then, some kind of make up, such as Mortician’s Make-up, was used to cover the part of the cut that that ran across the bridge of the nose, leaving the appearance of eye brows, particularly at a distance. The result is that it can be difficult to see that the cuts aren’t eyebrows. In fact, it could be interpreted to be a long cut made by the medical examiner to peel back the skin flap. That would suggest that this picture, i.e. that of the face, was taken after the autopsy was completed. If that were so, then the much larger and clearly visible incisions made on the chest, abdomen, etc would be unable to be hidden, making it all the more interesting that a terrible job, well, probably not for 1965, but it looks terrible now, was done to put a funny blouse on the body, which also doubles as a glove to hide the fingernails, and fake the lower body so as to be wearing pink pedal pushers. The feet on the other hand, covered in coal dust, are probably genuine, although her fake clothes are clearly much cleaner the mattress and surroundings, but she still has her original, coal dust covered feet. Sylvia Liken’s funeral was held on November 1, 1965. It should be noted that it was an open casket funeral. That would mean that considerable amount of clean-up work by the mortician relative to the face would have been required. Clearly the face shows areas that still need to be covered.
Why would you photograph the face after the autopsy, and then pass it off as a crime scene photo? I supposed there are lots of possible answers to that question. It could be that the crime scene photos, i.e. those shot in the basement of 304 North Denny, were terrible pictures as well. Maybe the face simply wasn’t clearly visible. I’m no expert, but the more I look at the face of this girl, the more she looks like she has been deceased for longer than the period obviously assumed from the case. One possibility was that prior to the burial, it was determine that the crime scene photos would not have been sufficient, so this picture was taken, and a composite “photo” was created. A post-autopsy shot of the face and head, an upper body with a funny blouse, one that simply doesn’t work, and a fairly poor job of hiding the hands, was created. Then the lower body was faked so that the body would be wearing pants, but the dirty, coal-stained feet are visible.
It could also be noted that the photo of the face is problematic in another way. It’s not a full on overhead view. In fact, the way the face is tilted, some of the injuries described by Ellis in his testimony can’t be seen. If this were a crime scene photo, we might expect a better view of the face, since the crime scene photo is essential to establishing that the body found at the scene is in fact the person police investigators she was. I don’t doubt that this is Sylvia, and Tektonikus has come to that conclusion as well. Could it be possible that, if this is indeed a picture taken after the autopsy, that the head was positioned in such a way as to avoid revealing other areas around the face that had been affected by autopsy procedures? It’s just a thought.
It is important to remember that the witnesses and the material on this website throughout show that the witnesses had no real idea what they were supposed to be describing. They never mention these cuts. There was one kid from Gertrude’s bunch who may have been the main culprit in what happened to Sylvia Likens, and another kid who may have known what had happened, if Marie having cut herself on wiring is accurate, and there is much to recommend this. Of course, Gertrude did not necessarily know how Marie actually cut herself, or where, if we are to believe Gertrude’s claims that she was doped most of the time. The one kid who was more important than any other as far as having to account for her actions in detail was Paula, who did not testify. Yet another concession, as if enough of those haven’t been made already, to the canonical story world; someone else must have been involved. Not Gertrude, and not Shirley. At this point it’s impossible to say.
Then there’s Paula’s father, the guy who is a cop but not a cop, the guy who is supposed to not be a cop after 1962, but then is a cop in the city directories, and on his marriage certificate for Violet Mae Manley dated 1964, and then again in the city directories for 1967 and 1968 even though he testified that he stopped being a cop so he could work for RCA, work which would accord well with the various related-type jobs he had going back in time (as listed by Tektonikus in her Phantasm series). It’s name game time! Tektonikus will love this! If I were Gertrude, and I got out of prison, I would change my name. That way, I won’t have people hounding (!!) me until the day I die. So change the name we must. I thought a simple and common name, such as Marilyn Harris. Then I would move well away from Indiana. I thought maybe, New Mexico. That can’t happen! After all, this is the weird Sylvia Likens' world. Instead, she changed her name to Nadine? Isn’t that her original, middle name? How about a new last name? How about, maybe, Vanfossan? Anybody who is an ardent follower of the case knows the name Nadine Vanfossan as readily as Gertrude Baniszewski, Gertie Wright, and even Gertrude Guthrie. So change the name, and accomplish nothing. Then move as far away as Iowa? I have a better one. The cop game. Violet Manley, born Violet Bettner, married Norman Manley and had three children. They would be John’s stepchildren. He mentioned them:
Q. Where do you live now, sir?
A. 2011 Main Street.
Q. Who lives with you?
A. My wife and her two children.
Q. Do you have facilities there for another thirteen year old boy?
A. Yes, sir.
Two? Ronald and Lorna, and another one. What about 2011 Main Street? I think that 1971, you could afford to move. Name game time! If you used to work for Gales TV, maybe you could move to Gala Drive. It’s a new subdivision, more or less, not far from Calhoun where one of your stepchildren lived, well, former step children. What about the old house? Name Game time! In 1969, Robert Roberts was living there. That’s not bad. In 1970, Jerry Manley was living there. There’s the third. So if only two live with John in 1966, which two? Well, apparently Jerry since, at some point, he ends up with the house. Rhyme time? The name is Jerry not Garry? Life has plenty of coincidences, overall. Stephanie:
Q. Miss Baniszewski, if you will speak up so I can hear you - if I can hear you the jury can hear you. Will you do that?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Thank you. Were you home on the weekend of July 4, 1965?
A. No, sir.
Q. Where were you?
A. I was with my dad.
Q. How long had you been at your dad's?
A. About a week and a half.
Q. What were you doing there?
A. On vacation.
Q. Were you out of the city?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. When did you return to 3850 East New York Street?
A. About July 17 or 16, somewhere along there.
That’s interesting. Of course, at least you’re back by the middle of July. If you were in Tennessee, maybe on August 4, 1965, or somewhere along there, you might see your step brother marry someone named, Stephanie! But she was wasn’t in Tennessee on August 4, 1965. Stephanie Baniszewski that is. I have considerable trouble understanding the whole, "what job do you have? thing." Cop and not cop? Ronald Manley was killed in the line of duty in 1974. Then we’re told that he had been a cop since 1968. That’s odd. I found a Ronald and Stephanie Manley living at 4719 Calhoun street in 1971, when we find John-who?-Blake, living with his new wife at 2025 Gala Drive, on the other side of Sloan. The odd thing is that Ronald Manley apparently runs Manley’s Clark Super 100 Gas Station in 1971. Then, he’s a cop in 1972, living at a different address, and Stephanie is not listed as his wife as she was in 1971. Often times it seems, like everything in this case, to just keep going around in circles, picking up again where it left off. Name game and job quiz! Tektonikus said that while Gertrude’s name changed at least twice, and maybe more, although changing it back to Vanfossan doesn’t count because she should have done that anyway once she was divorced from the “hey’s what your job?” guy. Well, that was her choice. She also said that John Baniszewski stayed with that name the whole time. No! In 1971, we find John S. and Mary Jane Blake living on the other side of Sloan. Now we’ve all been told that John S. Blake and John S Banizewiski are the same man. Really? Why did he change his name? If he did, he did a better job of it than Nadine Vanfossan. Why would you change your name and then keep living in the same place? The same place you’ve supposedly lived since you got out of the Navy after the war; that’s World War II, by the way. You are pretty famous after the whole trial thing. I don’t understand how changing your name and staying in the same old place will accomplish anything. I would think that everyone knows who you really are, seeing how you didn’t move to New Mexico. That’s totally different if John Blake and John Baniszewski aren’t the same man. Now for a riddle, if John Baniszewski became John Blake, and he got a job, what job would he get? No, not cop. We supposedly have another cop at just the time that our last one vanished. Instead, we go back to our earlier type of job, more blue-collar in nature. Now there’s nothing wrong with that, but the riddle still needs an answer. How about, carpet cleaner? Ok, but who would you work for? Answer: Disisit Carpet Cleaning. Wow, that’s hard to pronounce. Name game time! What would happen if you had trouble locating this company, except for a reference to it in the July 2, 1971 (a very good year!) edition of the Jewish Post, which, while saluting Israel, refers to Disisit Carpet and Upholstery Cleaning, which apparently does residential and commercial cleaning; indeed, none are too large or small! I like this part: “Cleaning on Location, Cash or Swap.” Cool! I don’t have to drag my carpets and upholstery down to Gala Drive to get them cleaned! They will actually come out to my house, or business, and clean the carpets there, so I don’t have to tear them off the floor to get them cleaned. And swap. Another novel idea. If John shows up to clean my carpet, now that I know I don’t have to rip it apart and take to him, and I don’t have the cash, I can trade something. Maybe, clean my carpet and I’ll fix your TV. How about, clean my carpet and I'll paint Shirley's room? How about, if I clean your carpet, will you take my ex-wife? Sorry, John, no way! If it were 1830, I might be able to trade a few of my chickens or a cow (more animals). Does this blurb sound at all odd? Hey, check it out:
Disisit = Dis is it = This is it. There’s the answer to the riddle! The best name game of all! A fake sounding name that is code for something else. Or is it? That was bad, sorry. What is it? Maybe, John Blake “is it.” A new house, a new name, and a new job. I wrote a brief radio ad:
“This is “This is it” Carpet Cleaning. Say goodbye to tearing up those carpets to get them cleaned! Here at “This is it” we come to you! A little short? Payday is next week? That’s no problem at “This is it!” A swap is a sure thing, just no chickens, cows, or ex-wives! We’ll have you saying “this is it” at “This is it.”
Playing the name game doesn’t mean you’re playing a game with the truth. Perhaps. The fascinating thing is that this game can go on ‘til the cows come home. Wait, “This Is It” doesn’t take cows. But! Tektonikus played a name game with two names that are themselves a name game; i.e. Ronnie and Donnie. Robbie and Denny? How about I try? Maybe, Ronnie and Donnie Baniszewski. Now that is interesting. In 1940, Ronald and Donald are 7 years old. Oh my, they were twins! They had an older brother named John Baniszewski? And a sister named Delores? As I recall, when Jenny so cleverly referred to the “twins” as Sylvia’s boyfriends, she added that Sylvia knew their sister. That’s cool, but the John Baniszewski just referred to isn’t our John, so that Ronnie and Donnie aren’t our Ronnie and Donnie. Simpson? Marie’s angry foster-mother? Hey! Mike Easton, or Easton, or whatever his name was; I think that was California. Didn’t the Likens go to California? Presumably after Gertie Guthrie made the trek to Hutchinson, Kansas, then to California, and then all the way back to Indianapolis where she had lived all her life. Lester:
Q. Did you ever leave the state with your family?
A. Yes, we did.
Q. When did that take place?
A. Around February 8, 1965.
Q. Where did you go?
A. We went to California.
Q. Did Sylvia go with you?
A. Yes, sir, she did.
Q. What other children went?
A. They all went.
Q. Did your wife go with you?
A. Yes.
Q. Where did you go?
A. Long Beach, California.
So if there was a family named Simpson living in Long Beach, although it was in the 1940 census that I found them, and there were two twin sons named Ronnie and Donnie Simpson, that would be something to behold. So, no Robbie and Denny; no Ronnie and Donnie Baniszewski. You mean to say that the truth was actually told in the middle of the Great Lie? Sorry, Tektonikus, I think we're back to our twins. And we’re back to our enigmatic Number 2! Ah, yes, “the two weeks.” Just ask Shirley. How long had Sylvia been missing? Abilene65 didn’t take a firm position. But I wonder if she would say… “the two weeks?” If Mike Eason was in California, and Ronnie and Donnie Simpson were California, then the letter was written in California! That means that the letter was written sometime between February 1965 and May 1965. Let that sink in. It wasn’t written at Gertrude’s not-so-subtle urging. And by October 1965, it was at least 5 months old. Sorry, Jenny, but it’s not nice to lie. But I’ll bet that it was altered in October 1965! That’s disappointing, as I found the image of Gertrude forcing Sylvia to write a letter to keep you from getting into trouble with Mommy and Daddy rather touching. So much for the name game…I’m sure there are more to come.
The marriage certificate is interesting, and it probably really isn’t since I simply don’t know the minutiae of local government, because it is signed by Edwin McClure as clerk of court. Normally, that’s not interesting, except that when I did an internet search, I found out that he ran for judge of the Marion County Probate court in 1966. It would seem that he had the proper experience for that job, seeing how he was Clerk of the Probate Court in 1958, 1963, and 1964. There’s probably nothing unusual in a marriage certificate being signed by the Clerk of the Probate Court. He also forgot to complete all the fields in the clerk of court section at the bottom. I wonder if John’s new wife Violet was at all confused that he was a cop in 1964, two years after he stopped being cop, and decided that being a not-cop wasn’t as interesting as being a real cop, so he moonlighted as a police officer while working for RCA, and then is a not-cop again just when we’re told that his former stepson has become a not-cop, although he gave up running a gas station to become a real cop. All that without "This is it." If you’re not careful, this could get confusing. Confusing like the way the name Stephanie pops up all over the place; Stephanie Baniszewski; Stephanie Jacob; Stephanie Barnhart. Of course, the name Stephanie is pretty popular. So was the name Gertrude! Such as Gertrude Burns, the wife of Glenn L Burns. But not everyone finds genealogy interesting.
Tektontonikus will laugh at me for indulging in a long, boring, rambling, annoying…digression. Where was I? Oh, yes, This-is-it claimed that he had been in the basement on October 26th. He also stated that he had never gone into Gertrude’s house. He also stated that he only ended up in the basement because his wife Violet called him over there. It has been asked elsewhere why she was in the basement. Tektonikus gave an interesting take, but one that depended on the Sylvia-Stephanie-Jenny then Gertrude fight in the kitchen. What if John, and Violet for that matter, were not in the basement of Gertrude’s house on October 26th? What if they were in the basement of 304 North Denny that night? Why? After Sylvia was killed, or at least she was believed to have been killed, Paula tried to call her father. Instead, she got Violet, who went over to the house. Finding the horrible situation, she was able to reach John who came over as well. Of course, it would be Gertrude who would bear the brunt of the accusations of brutality, with Paula coming off as more of a bully but also someone who at times had helped Sylvia. It was probably a real shock to everyone that Paula was found guilty. Nonetheless, it seems clear that Gertrude was covering for one of her kids. That revolved around the Gang of Boys note. I agree with Abilene65 that the kid in question was not Stephanie, and it appears that Tektonikus is coming to a similar conclusion. At this point I am of the opinion that the most important picture (the Room Photo being completely worthless), i.e. this Person Photo, is nothing short of a complete fabrication, and should have never been allowed into evidence at all, since it may well be that only the mattress, the completely indiscernible, very dark room, and feet covered in coal-dust are the only original components to it. Maybe this photo, the Room Photo, and the ridiculous eyehook should have all been tossed into the garbage can. There were probably empty garbage cans out back of 304 North Denny that would have served that purpose just fine.
I would like to conclude with one final picture. It was something that I noticed when examining the girl’s face close up after I noticed the cuts above the eyes. When blown up, it is exceedingly strange. Now that’s often true when you zoom in on specific areas of an old photo. Nonetheless, this one is at least worth noticing. First, look at the girl’s face again:
If you look at the right side of the face, you will notice what looks like a small dot of light. Even in a old photo as bad as this one, it seems somewhat bright. Blown up, it looks like this:
Isn’t that interesting. It’s like staring into a light, and you can clearly make out what looks a tic-tac-toe design inside the light, which appears to be rectangular. What made me suddenly think of the supposed crime scene photo was being at the dentist and looking up at the extendable overhead light that the dental hygienist uses to light up the inside of a patient’s mouth for cleaning the patient’s teeth. It is a rectangular light, like those made by Pelton and Crane, that gives off enough light for the procedure, but not too bright so as to hurt the patient’s eyes.
It has an odd grill like pattern in it. So I can’t be blamed for wondering whether this is a reflection; a reflection of an overhead light used during the autopsy. Perhaps there is a protective grill over the front of the light. Maybe something by the head of the girl, something obviously quite small, caught light from some source and reflected it back when the picture was taken on the autopsy table. To be fair, I must acknowledge that it may be, in the end, a trick of the light. (Userid: Bluebird lz)