Are you sure?

How many times have we been asked this question? How many times have we asked ourselves this question? I can’t say precisely, because I’m not sure. But I know it is a lot. Essentially, this is a question that includes a subtle, sometimes not so subtle, statement. A statement of doubt. When we ask someone the question: “are you sure?” it’s because we aren’t sure. We aren’t sure that we can believe what we’ve been told; or shown. So there is a clear element of doubt. By asking the question, it is hoped, we too can become sure. But there is more to it than just the answer. The other person said she was sure, but the tone in her voice, her facial expression, etc. might suggest otherwise. Still, the question is asked because someone has doubts.

As suggested above, we can also have doubts about what we see. But seeing is believing, or so another trite cliché would have it. Events happen quickly, and usually you only get one shot to see it and believe it, not believe it, or sort of believe and find yourself wondering, “Am I sure?” That changes radically when the thing you’re looking at is something that you can sit and look at for as long as you want. 10 minutes; 30 minutes; 2 days; or forever if that’s what you want to do. The problem is, you can look at something for hours on end and still be missing a critical piece of information that would drive out that nagging, “Am I sure?” To resolve this, you have to find someone who can provide that critical piece of information. Even so, you might find yourself asking, “Are you sure?”

Is any of this musing significant? Of that I’m sure. And that’s the subject of this essay. A strange story was told during the testimony of one of the witnesses. Actually, all the witnesses told an unending succession of strange stories. But there is one little story that is important here. It is a little story, and that statement is diminutive. But the importance of the story, which is undoubtedly true, couldn’t be more important. One reason this is true is that it provides another person’s doubt about something that I’m becoming more sure isn’t true. So I choose this story as the beginning point of quest for certainty; as far as that is possible. From this beginning, other indications will be cited. I have referred to the “Likens Saga” elsewhere. This “saga” is made up elements. Many of these elements are stories. And stories are made up of elements of their own. The elements make up stories, and the stories make up the Saga. Better yet…a Gestalt; i.e. a whole that is greater than the sum of its parts. Another cliché. It is a valid point of procedure that the more and more of these stories there are that make up a particular Gestalt, the more convincing the final conclusion will be, and the more sure I will become. The story comes from the testimony of Jenny. This is the exchange between her and the attorney:

Q. Were you ever shown any pictures of your sister after October 26, 1965?

MR. NEW: We object.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. ERBECKER: I think I would like be heard on this, have the court give me a hearing on that. I think it is important.
THE COURT: Objection sustained to that particular question. Next question.

Q. Did you ever see a picture of your deceased sister?
A. Yes.
Q. When and where?
A. Here in the City-County Building.
Q. When?
A. In March sometime.
Q. March 1966, a couple of months ago, right?
A. Yes.
Q. What was the occasion of that?

MR. NEW: We object.
THE COURT: Overruled.

A. You mean why she showed it to me?
Q. Yes.
A. To prove it was my sister, I guess.

Fascinating! And how bizarre! We find out that Jenny first saw a photograph of her deceased sister in March 1966. Of course, Sylvia died on October 26, 1965, about 5 months earlier. Who showed her the picture? We will not be told this. But I think I can be relatively sure of the type of person, as it were, who showed her the picture. How many pictures?

Q. How many times were these pictures shown you?
A. Once.
Q. More than one picture or just one?
A. More than one.
Q. Was it necessary for you to see more than one in order to identify your sister?
A. No.
But there was also a conversation between Jenny and the person, the woman, who showed her the picture:
Q. Was there any conversation with whoever showed it to you with you at that time with reference to Gertrude Baniszewski?
A. Talk about Gertrude?
Q. Yes, that is what I mean.
A. Yes.
Q. At that time was anything suggested to you about her guilt or innocence?

MR. NEW: We object.
THE COURT: Sustained.

Q. Was there any conversation at that time when the when the picture was shown to you concerning the guilt or innocence?

MR. NEW: We object, that is outside the scope of direct.
THE COURT: Sustained.

Q. How many times were these pictures shown you?
A. Once.
Q. More than one picture or just one?
A. More than one.
Q. Was it necessary for you to see more than one in order to identify your sister?
A. No.

MR. NEW: We object.
THE COURT: Overruled. Let the answer stay in.

Q. Was there conversation when they showed you more than one picture concerning Gertrude Baniszewski, was there?
A. Yes.
Q. And there was a lot of mean, harsh, bad things said about her was there?

MR. NEW: We object.
THE COURT: Objection sustained.

So there was a conversation about Gertrude that went along with the short exhibition; surprise, surprise. But what is the significance of this? To begin with, the identity of the person who showed Jenny the pictures is never given. I think that there is a very good reason for this. That person was a woman. But she couldn’t have been just any woman. She had crime scene photos and/or autopsy photos with her. This would indicate that she was a cop, or worked in the ME’s office. It seems likely that the former possibility is the more likely one. Why? Because she had doubts that the girl in the photo was Sylvia Likens. ME personnel do autopsies. The police identify bodies. As do family members. So, if the police believed that Gertrude and her kids had killed Sylvia, and they already believed that within hours of Dixon’s arrival at Gertrude’s house on the evening of October 26th, they wouldn’t have relied on anything she had to say; even if it involved in identifying the body, which Dixon said Gertrude did anyway. Who would be able to identify the body that night? And, no, not the murder suspect. Not Mom and Dad, not big sis. One has to suspect that it was Jenny who identified the body as that of her sister. I think that would have been mandated. But there are far more complicated considerations. Identified what body? Well, the one in the back bedroom of Gertrude’s house. True. But what about the body in the photos? They are the same, right? Just read the canonical story, or listen to the inherited wisdom. The police investigation was over. The trial phase was up and coming. All the work had been done. And it was a long time since October 26th, relatively speaking. Homicide had finished their case. 

That’s true. But suddenly, someone wasn’t sure. Not sure of what? Obviously, that the girl in the photos was the girl identified by Jenny as her sister on October 26th. This makes this woman a cop. She has copies of the photos. She has studied them. And despite everything that law enforcement had done to wrap up the investigation and move forward with the case, she is suddenly not sure. No wonder she wasn’t identified. Here was an officer who questioned the very foundation of the whole case…the identity of the victim. The Homicide squad would have been mighty offended! Think of Kaiser! The entire police department, and the prosecution team, suddenly found themselves with someone who went rogue. The only way to question the identification of the girl in the photos, was to question the veracity of key figures in the investigation. If the girl in the photos wasn’t Sylvia Likens, they would have known it. What of the parents? Someone was doubting the canonical story. She got her hands on the photos. She wasn’t sure. Very not sure. So not sure, that she had to do something to feel sure. Doing so would expose her to great risk. It was highly likely that it wouldn’t take long to identify her. And to believe that the investigation was fatally flawed by investigators who would have know it….

Another possibility might be proffered. Perhaps she was working for the prosecution, and was showing Jenny the photos ahead of testimony. Possible, but not likely. First of all, if the idea was to remind Jenny of the condition of the body, it would have been pointless. She wasn’t asked detailed questions on this subject. Not like Ricky was. She knew about the slogan, and could tell little stories of fictional abuse. They could all do that. She wasn’t asked about cuts and abrasions, or denuded patches. Ricky would be stuck with confessing to the slogan and branding. He would need to be up on the condition of the body. But the lady cop didn’t show Ricky the pictures. Moreover, the description of the event would suggest that this officer wasn’t supposed to making contact with Jenny. It’s as if she laid-in-wait in the hall. Seeing Jenny, she made her move. If this were connected with the prosecutor, I doubt such measures would have been necessary to show her photos. Jenny herself stated that in her opinion, she was shown the pictures to identify the body. I can almost hear: “Now are you sure this is your sister? This is Sylvia, you’re certain?” For Jenny, it seemed as if the cop wanted the body identified. Again. That can’t be the case; not in the sense of identifying a body soon after law enforcement finds it. That was done months ago. I suspect that this cop didn’t believe that the girl in the photos was Sylvia Likens. But she had to be sure. Why isn’t she sure? Everyone else was; everyone else is. Well, that’s not completely true. There are indications elsewhere in the trial testimony that the identification of the body was doubted. This does get a little muddled. Was there doubt that the body found in Gertrude’s house was Sylvia Likens? I don’t think so; and I, for my part, do not doubt this in any way. The doubt was whether the girl in the photos was Sylvia Likens. And there is a series of observations that will be made on this site suggesting that that doubt is well founded. 

If true, this would tear the whole Gestalt apart. It would collapse and revert back to where things were on October 26th. Actually, it may ultimately revert back to the state of things before October 26th. Just when is impossible to say. But the critical point, which followed in the wake of important points, may have been the discovering the body of the girl in Photo 1. That may have occurred prior to Sylvia’s death. The critical point reached critical mass once that body was identified. Especially if she died at the hands of a gang of men. The note! Yes! How many men make a gang? One can’t be sure. But note the use of the word “gang.” Ricky never uses the word “gang.” He says a “bunch of boys.” It is not mere semantics and nit-picking to draw a distinction between “gang” and “bunch.” The word bunch doesn’t really have a specific connotation to it. Lots of things come in bunches, most of them innocuous, many quite pleasant (e.g. a bunch of grapes). Gang has a different connotation in popular usage; often a negative, indeed, a sinister one. When a number of men are referred to as a gang, one gets the immediate impression that they are a “bunch” of men to avoid. I suspect that “gang” is the right word. Everyone knows that criminals come in “gangs” and not “bunches” like grapes do. The streets have been taken over by gangs sounds better than the streets have been taken over… by bunches.

How many criminals make up a gang? Obviously not one. Two would be a duo..and three a trio! A quartet of criminals? A criminal quartet? Perhaps one is justified in seeking a larger number. Some criminal organizations are quite large. Others are smaller. And! A criminal organization, i.e. a large gang, may be made up of smaller gangs that are, at any rate, large enough to be a gang, rather than a duo, trio, or quartet. Semantics? Not at all. The note didn’t specify how many were in this gang. Only two witnesses do. One is Marie, who says “2 or 3.” That takes us back to a duo or trio. And it sounds like a simple guess, rather than a precise answer. But another witness gave a number that sounds very precise, and I’m not sure that that precision was necessarily intentional:

“I first told him he was in serious trouble and I knew that the girl did not die by the hands of the five boys and that he may be involved in it and if he wanted me to I could get hold of his dad because he may need an attorney and he told me at the time that his mother was sick and dying of cancer at the hospital and that his dad had enough worry and he did not want to bother him and he wanted to tell me the truth.”

This is Officer Kaiser’s testimony during the trial. He is describing the conversation he had with Ricky at headquarters on the night of October 26th. And it is clear from what he says, that a gang of men is made up of five men. Yes! From where did he get that number? I feel sure that he didn’t simply take Marie’s “2 or 3” and convert that to “2 + 3= 5.” And we don’t know whether he actually spoke to Marie that night at all. Kaiser had the note, i.e. the Gang of Boys note. Dixon gave it to him. But it doesn’t say 5 boys. And the number 5 sounds very precise. So it would appear that the Gang of Boys in the Gang of Boys note was not a fiction created by Gertrude. They were real…and they were five. The problem is, Kaiser knows about the “five boys,” and it would seem from the information available now, no one else did. The Gang of Boys note doesn’t specify a particular gang. But apparently, a gang of 5 men, perhaps 5 members of a gang, were known to Homicide. So much so, that Kaiser could feel sure, when talking to Ricky, that these 5 men, known to the police, did not kill Sylvia Likens. Yes it gets confusing, but he was right, they didn’t kill Sylvia Likens. But did they kill the girl in Photo 1? And was that girl Sylvia Likens? After October 26th, she definitely was Sylvia Likens. But did that girl become Sylvia Likens? Sylvia’s fingernails were fine. Not so with the other girl! They were all broken backwards. No doubt a murder. This must all be crazy talk! I’m not sure. It could be something like this. A girl was murdered by a gang of 5 men. They were known to the police. Perhaps the specific identities of the individual men. Perhaps the identity of the gang was known. Or maybe all they knew was that “fingernails girl” was seen with a gang of five before disappearing. If so, a job for Homicide and good old fashioned police work. What is the connection to Sylvia? The Gang of Boys note. That would be obvious. But are the two gangs the same? Yes and no. No, in that they didn’t kill Sylvia Likens. Yes, in that someone may have been trying to blame them. If so, falsely to be sure. Kaiser was right, the gang of five didn’t kill Sylvia. But we know Gertrude gave Dixon a Gang of Boys note, and he gave it to Kaiser. So if there was a gang of five who killed “fingernails girl,” Gertrude’s note is trying to blame them for Sylvia’s death…well, murder..except it was a death until it was transformed into a murder. Bizarre! It makes no sense. Maybe. If Gertrude handed the police a Gang of Boys note attributing Sylvia’s condition to a gang of boys, and the police had the body of a girl murdered by a gang of five, then the two bodies suddenly become linked. How? Gertrude. One might conclude that Gertrude was connected to the gang of five because she knew about them, and attempted to blame them for Sylvia’s fate. Falsely. But giving the note to Dixon incriminated her, and offered police a connection between the two girls. 

I would take a step back. The Gang of Boys note is a forgery. But, let it be clear, the one responsible for that forgery, for the production of that note, was NOT the police. I am absolutely sure of that. The police did not produce that note to frame Gertrude. I think that Dixon was shocked when he read the note that Gertrude gave him. I think he knew Gertrude was going to give him a note, and that he thought he knew what that note was going to say. I would link this with the “mystery cop” that will be the subject of a subsequent essay. Suffice it for now, “mystery cop” told “real cop” the story of what happened on the night of October 26th. That story had been written down in a note. I suspect that Gertrude wrote that note with the intention of giving it to the first responder. That turned out to be Dixon. Mystery cop told Gertrude to do this. She made a copy of this note for herself. The problem was, someone switched Gertrude’s note for a different note; a Gang of Boys note. When Dixon was handed the note, everything changed dramatically. Was Dixon behind Gertrude’s note? No! He had nothing to do with it.

A note switch? A body switch? A note switch, yes. A body switch, sort of. More like, two become one. You start with two girls, and then end up with one. But that one is both. The Gang of Boys note is stupid. The story will be that Gertrude forced Sylvia to write it, but it begins with Dear Mr. and Mrs. Likens. The little story about what the gang of boys did is patently ridiculous and totally unbelievable. Then it shifts to a series of silly little things that Sylvia did to vex Gertrude. There is no way to look at the note and not realize that it drops the responsibility for Sylvia’s demise on Gertrude. I think it was intended to do just that. I think it was written to do just that. Gertrude admitted to giving Dixon a note. Now it gets interesting:

Q. Do you remember what you told the police?
A. I remember - well, yes, I remember something about a note, I remember telling them that, yes, sir.
Q. Do you remember telling them about a note?
A. Yes, I remember handing them one, yes.
Q. Where did you get the note?
A. I don't know which one of the children gave it to me but one of the children gave it to me.
Q. You gave the note to the police?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. You don't know which child gave you the note?
A. No. I don't.
Q. Did you have anything to do with the writing of that note?
A. No, sir, I did not.
Q. Did you tell someone to write the note?
A. No, sir.
If that wasn’t interesting, this surely will be:
Q. Now, then, Mrs. Baniszewski, I will hand you what has been marked for purpose of identification as State's Exhibit No. 5. Have you seen that before?

MR. ERBECKER: We are going to object. It is outside the scope of direct examination.
THE COURT: Overruled.

A. Have I seen it before?
Q. Yes, ma'am.
A. If you are asking me, this particular piece of paper, have I seen it before?
Q. Yes.
A. I can't say I actually saw that actual piece of paper, no, sir.

Q. You testified in answer to Mr. Erbecker's question that you handed a note to the police officers. Is that the note you were testifying about?

A. I could not definitely say, no.
Q. Could you describe the note about which you were testifying?
A. I have no idea, I never read the note

Yes! And the really interesting thing is that, or so it seems, as ridiculous as what Gertrude has said actually sounds, I think she’s telling the truth. She gave the police a note. She admits that. Is it the Gang of Boys note? She can’t say whether she had seen that note. That specific note. To say that she handed the police a note without reading is ridiculous. No! Not if she wrote a note, and thought that she was giving that note to the police. There would be no need to read the note. Why? She knew what is said. Except, someone in the house switched her note with a different note. So, Gertrude gave the police a note, but she couldn’t say she saw the Gang of Boys note, because she didn’t read the note she gave Dixon. It fits. It makes sense. Outrageous..yes. But a note switch? Proof?

Ricky would take responsibility for the slogan on the girl’s abdomen and the branding of the Number 3 on the chest. Oh, he chose as his fictional accomplice for the Number 3…Shirley, which he may have done for a specific reason. That relates to the Problem with Confessions. You can confess to what you didn’t do, because you have to confess. But, you can add details to your confession that a knowledgeable and critical reader/hearer will realize are nonsense. If you build in ridiculous details into your confession, or you provide details in your confession that are inconsistent with what is known about that to which you are confessing, it may well be that someone will pick up on it and know that your confession is false. More details were added to the branding story that show it is completely ridiculous. That is a topic for a different essay. What is relevant here is that it would have been impossible to heat an eye-hook, which couldn’t possibly have made the brand on the girl’s chest, by burning paper in the sink. A stupid thing to try when you have a coal burning furnace right next to you. Wait! Burnt paper in the sink! That’s it! By Jove! Someone switched the notes, and burned Gertrude’s note, and the second copy, in the sink. And a child did it! That clears up something else that bothered me. Burn the notes, but turn on the water and wash the ashes down the drain. If you don’t, you leave evidence. You don’t throw contraband into the toilet when the police arrive and kick in the door and not flush it. Otherwise, the evidence sits there. So too with burnt paper. But a child! A child might not think of that. Even a very clever one. So now ashes in the sink! Oh, my! Someone will have to explain that. Let’s give Ricky a shot. Anyway, Gertrude’s notes are now burnt, and there’s just the Gang of Boys note…and Gertrude doesn’t have a chance. Maybe. What child handed Gertrude the note? She doesn’t say. Is she protecting someone? Or maybe she doesn’t really know? I doubt that. I think she knew, but didn’t want to say. I’d like to know what child handed her the note. Ah! But maybe it can be made more interesting. If you were clever enough to come up with the idea of producing a note, and writing it in a way that would implicate whoever gave it to the police, and then switched your note for Gertrude’s note, then you were pretty clever! You might be clever enough to give the new note to another child, and then tell her to give it to her mother. Gertrude looks bad, but that child would as well. Gertrude's motherly instincts may move her to protect her daughter. Besides, she may not know exactly what happened, but still be sure that her daughter didn’t do this. She was set up..and that would be true. Dixon might not be able to remember, among other things, what child he took to the police station. She might not be mentionned by Kaiser as someone he spoke to at the station that night. A quick flanking maneuver might lead to a separate trial, or promises of one….In fact, if you were Gertrude now, you may not know what actually happened to Sylvia. Especially if what happened to Sylvia was an accident that occurred when a rather violent fight broke out in the kitchen, and you tried to separate the combatants. But you got hit in the eye, and so the intake matrons at the jail can describe your black-eye. Maybe you were temporarily stunned, and when you got your bearings, Sylvia was in the basement speaking incoherently. And that’s a symptom of head trauma! You were out long enough to not know that she was accidentally knocked down the stairs into the basement, where she hit her head on the concrete floor, or against the wall. You can’t make out what happened, and someone says the girl is faking. Then your daughter, coming downstairs after using the bathroom, is suddenly staring down into the basement. Oh, yes! And then her three somebodies appear. The first is bringing kids home. “Go call your father!” Now two somebodies are in the basement. Then maybe a mystery cop who suggests you write down what you know. Maybe someone there that night is more clever than you and decides to switch notes…But I digress. Whoever was behind that note, would appear to know about the gang who killed the other girl. That person didn’t know that it was made of 5 men. So for the police to refer to the five boys, as opposed to a gang of boys, I suspect that that was a gaff.

So what cop would come to doubt that the sister of Jenny Likens was the girl in Photo 1? Perhaps an officer in Homicide. Connected to the case? Possibly. But which case? The murder case. But which murder case? There was one. Then two…and then one again. The last thing you can afford by March 1966 is for there to suddenly be two cases again. But if someone doubts that the girl in the photos was Sylvia Likens... The consequences of that would be catastrophic, for obvious reasons. The confusing becomes more confusing, then less so, although in a confusing way, but can then become a lot more confusing. Which case? The murder case? Which one? What if one murder case was connected with a different kind of case. In other words, the person holding the photos in her hand, and suddenly shows them to Jenny, might not be Homicide at all. But who else? Traffic? Robbery Division? I don’t think so. But what if I make this intolerably more confusing by asking another question; not “which case?” Maybe, “which Sylvia Likens?” That’s a crazy question! Maybe it is. But if you have two, you can count them. Don’t count…1 then 2; instead, count 3 then 4. That’s still two, girl one and girl two. But girl one is actually child 3 and girl two is actually child 4! That is crazy. But someone appears to have been counting, and that is documented on the body of girl 1; a branded 3 and a cut 4! 

But if this is not crazy, then an analysis of the question alluded to above could raise the possibility that Homicide weren’t the only ones who knew about a murdered girl and a gang of five men. One can’t be sure, but how about Vice? Maybe they knew. Maybe they knew the girl in the photo. Or thought they did. Maybe they knew that she couldn’t have been found in Gertrude’s house. Not that Sylvia Likens. But still, doubts aplenty! A little police work by them might indicate that the one they knew about had been seen at Gertrude’s house.  They knew about a Sylvia, and there was one living on East New York Street. But that didn’t fit with what else they knew. Which Sylvia? Maybe they didn’t know that there were two Sylvias. I don’ think Gertrude knew either. But if true, somebody or somebodies did know. Perhaps the next little story will offer an interesting, though by no means certain, answer. So it is on to the essay titled “Woman at the Door.”