Distortion Part 1: “An Eye for an Eye
“No man is killing me! No man is killing me!” That was the cry that rang out in the night. One might think that if you were the one yelling such a thing, that it can’t be too bad. After all, no man is killing you. That was not the case for Polyphemus. He was the infamous Cyclops, the humanoid ogre with one eye in the middle of his forehead. His neighbors, who were not nosy neighbors; they didn’t spy on Polyphemus while eating White Castle burgers; and they wouldn’t look into his basement window; told him to hold it down. If no man is killing you, why make such a fuss? They meant well. What they didn’t know was that Odysseus had snuck into Polyphemus’s basement, I mean his cave, and although he managed to hide from the Cyclops, he did have to give him his name. Odysseus? No, he told Polyphemus that his name was No-man. So when Odysseus finally attacked Polyphemus, he naturally cried for help. But no one needs help if no man is killing him.
Having only one eye would present a challenge as far as how much you can see at one glance. Fortunately, we have two eyes, and they are spaced out evenly on our foreheads. So the disadvantage faced by Polyphemus is not a disadvantage faced by us. Well, only temporarily at times. Get hit in the eye with, say, a softball, which hurts a lot, and your eye will swell up and hurt a lot. It will be a few days before you can see clearly with it. But the problem soon passes.
Saturday, October 23, 1965 was a day that figured prominently in the witness testimony. The witnesses sought to put as many significant events into that one day as possible. This alone makes the veracity of the testimony suspect. The very real possibility is that Gertrude did not go to see Dr. Lindenborg on that day, just as the doctor clearly stated. At least that would seem to be a workable hypothesis, although it should be taken to heart that nothing deserves to be taken for granted. One may also add the observation that Gertrude seems to have lied about her condition on October 25th. This would likewise seem to be very much the case on October 23rd.
Gertrude, speaking about her condition on Saturday night:
Q. October 23, Mrs. Lepper was there?
A. Yes
Q. What time of day or night was this?
A. This was late in the evening.
Q. About how late?
A. I don't know for sure. Paula got me up out of bed when she came to the door.
Q. Was there any conversation with her about anything special in particular?
A. No, sir, she had a little conversation with me about the condition my face was in.
Q. What was the conversation about your face?
A. I was wearing sun glasses when I was up because my eyes were swelled and matted quite a bit and my face was swelled and it was getting raw to the point where it was starting to bleed some here and there.
Q. How long did she stay?
A. I don't remember exactly. I think about a half hour because she had Randy dressed up as a girl and we did not recognize Randy at first as I can remember.
A. That was the day Paula was off work and I had been to the doctor's the day before.
Q. You had been to the doctor's on October 23rd?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. What doctor?
A. Dr. Paul D. Lindenborg.
Q. You went to his office?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Where?
A. 30th and Arlington.
Q. How did you get there?
A. My son, John, and I went in a cab early that morning.
Q. Was that the first time you had been Dr. Lindenborg in several months?
A. Yes, it was.
Q. What was the occasion?
A. I was pretty sick and my face was pretty bad then.
Q. How long did you stay at the doctor's office?
A. I remember the appointment was for 10:00 o'clock. I was supposed to have been the first one he took that morning. I don't remember, it was noon or after when I came home.
Q. Did you see Dr. Lindenborg?
A. Yes, sir, I did.
Q. He attended you and gave you some medication?
A. Shots, I believe.
Q. Any medicine?
A. He told me something to use on my face or gave me something, I don't remember, it has been sometime ago, Mr. Erbecker.
What about Sunday, October 24th?
Q. That was the 23rd of October, on the 24th of October, what was your condition?
A. Would that be on Sunday, Mr. Erbecker?
Q. I Think it was.
A. That was the day Paula was off work and she did not go to church. She stayed home so I could be in bed and rest all day so she took care of the house all day, watched the children.
Q. Were you in bed all day Sunday?
A. Yes, I was.
Q. What was your condition at that time? How did you feel?
A. I slept all day.
Now for October 25th:
Q. When was the last time you got any treatment from Dr. Lindenborg?
A. The 25th of October.
Q. The 25th of October?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. What was the occasion for that?
A. You mean what was his treatment?
Q. What was the matter with you?
A. Well, I was just sick, run down and had this - I don't think he even knew what it was - it was completely all over my face and half way down my chest. My eyes were swelled shut and running and I was vomiting, could not retain anything on my stomach, and I was just sick.
Q. What do you mean "stuff all over your face and shoulders"?
A. Just big welts like.
Q. Your face was swollen, you say?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Were your eyes swollen?
A. They were swollen shut about.
Q. How long did that condition exist prior to October 25?
A. Almost two weeks.
October 23 Saturday pretty sick eyes matted and swollen; face raw and bleeding
October 24 Sunday Slept all day
October 25 Monday Vomiting large welts on face and chest; eyes swollen shut
This condition had been going on for 2 weeks. Wait! How long? Of course; “the two weeks.” Are these Shirley’s “the two weeks?” Perhaps Sylvia’s “the two weeks.” Maybe Diane’s “the two weeks,” i.e. the time that she spent hanging around in her car eating pie and oranges, and catching rain water in a cup. All of this a few miles from the highway. That was a strange “the two weeks” indeed. No! These are Gertie Guthrie’s “the two weeks.” There it is! I see that black hole that sits dead smack in the bizarre center of the universe. Passing through it, a strange scene looms before me. Sylvia is being abused terribly during “the two weeks,” but I also see Mrs. Wright suffering too. It’s like there are two Sylvias; like matter Sylvia and anti-matter Sylvia. Now we know that if matter and anti-matter should come into contact with each other, they will blow a hole in the universe. Bracing for the explosion, I find it doesn’t happen. The rules of grammar, the rules of counting, IRON FURNACE POKERS suddenly transforming themselves into other pieces of hardware, a time piece that disappears and suddenly re-appears in a virtual Grumman TBM Avenger, only to then materialize where it belongs..at 3850 East New York Street, shrinking dogs, children walking through walls- symbolically of course. And! We have finally proven that matter and anti-matter can mix and mingle as long as this happens in a shabby rental house, one that another posting on this website pointed out, needed a few coats of paint. Paint? How about The Wall Paper Hanger? Randy and Butchie? Day by day Sylvia and Gertrude grow worse, perhaps side by side.
Gertrude’s claims about her ailments, as far as the comprehensive statement about the 25th, allows one to compare statements by the different people who saw her. Dr. Lindenborg:
A. I did not see her again till October 25.
Q. Why did you see her?
A. For asthmatic bronchitis.
Q. Asthmatic bronchitis, did you prescribe anything?
A. Yes, she was given an antibiotic.
Q. What does that mean?
A. Penicillin, ephedrine and phenobarbital.
Q. How long did you attend her, Doctor, five minutes, ten minutes, half an hour, how long?
A. Well, I treated her for the same condition so many times and I would imagine I spent five minutes or less with her at that time.
Q. Would you describe her condition, if you can remember, her appearance?
A. Well, she definitely had asthmatic bronchitis and I do remember my nurse at that time stated she looked wretched and, as I recall, she did look wretched, harassed and not really herself.
Q. Describe the appearance of her face, if you can remember?
A. Pardon?
Q. Describe her face, skin, if you can remember.
A. Well, she was not made up, I don't believe she used rouge or lipstick. Other than that I don't believe I could say much.
Q. Was there any breaking out on her face?
A. There may have been, sir, but I could not be positive.
Q. Was there any difference in his physical appearance then and as you look at her now in back of me?
A. Well, I don't believe so, sir.
Q. Was she thinner or heavier?
A. Well, what is her weight now?
Q. I don't know, Doctor.
A. She does not appear much different to me. She has always been a very slight woman.
Q. Did she appear nervous to you?
A. Yes, she appeared distraught at that time.
Rouge? How many men would find themselves at pains defining, although they know the word, what exactly rouge is. Honey, are you really going to wear that shade of rouge to the theater tonight? If a woman’s face is swollen and raw, it might look like she’s wearing rouge, just not a particularly attractive shade. Honey, are you really going to wear that “Gertie Wright Skin Disease” shade of rouge tonight when we go to the theater? One is perhaps justified in understanding Lindenborg’s answers to indicate that Gertrude did not have the physical manifestations that she herself described. Gertrude was there for drugs. It is interesting that this is the only reference to Gertrude having been given penicillin. And penicillin is good for treating infections. Gertrude’s use and abuse of Phenobarbital is well documented. Although it is not an anesthetic, a good enough dose of the drug can produce a deep state of sedation, and I find it likely that Stephanie was given a whopping dose of Phenobarbital before Gertrude and someone else left the house on the morning of Saturday, October 23rd. I also suspect that Lindenborg gave Gertrude the penicillin on October 25th because she had asked for it.
Please describe her face. Well, she wasn’t wearing rouge or lipstick. Of course not, this is isn’t a date. Why would you doll yourself up to go to the doctor’s office? Could she be broken out on her face? Possibly. Wait! The good doctor came to court to answer questions about Gertrude’s medical history. Of course, you say. So why is he recalling or not recalling? Why can’t he be positive? Now you will say something like, “it’s been a long time since he saw her and he has seen lots of patients since then.” You have a good point. Or you might say, how can someone remember all the little details about a person? What kind of shoes did she wear? What kind of handbag did she have?” All good points. However, if you took a file folder, a very handy thing invented by Lt. Joseph P Meisburger during the Civil War, you could put all manner of details in it. Not about shoes or handbags (which are important), unless you were creating a fashion file. And! Gertie’s fashions will be discussed below. But in this case, you might write all the relevant details in such a file, nit-picky things like, I don’t know, the symptoms of the patient you were examining. Perhaps Dr. Lindenborg, whichever one showed up in court, should have brought the patient’s…medical records. Then he could say, “Oh, just a moment, let me look in the file.” Which file? The one that has the name GERTRUDE VANFOSSAN BANSIZEWSKI GUTHRIE BANISZEWSKI WRIGHT BANISZEWSKI written on it.
Gertrude’s description of her face is problematic. She stated that even Dr. Lindenborg didn’t know what it was. Even if Dr. Lindenborg was questionable as a doctor, and I’m not saying that he was, it seems rather strange that Gertrude suddenly developed a condition manifesting itself as welts all over her face and chest, and Lindenborg couldn’t diagnose it.
During her supposed discussion of her face with Vernal Leppar on October 23rd, she adds the details that her face, not just her eyes, was swollen. It was also “raw” and bleeding in places. Gertrude gives the appearance of piling on issues related to her face. Why the sunglasses? Maybe she just likes to look cool! No, Gertrude says that she wore sunglasses because her eyes were “swollen and matted.” How will wearing sunglasses help with swollen eyes? She does not state that she wore sunglasses earlier that day when she claimed to have gone to see Dr. Lindenborg. The need for sunglasses would more likely be related to photophobia. But why, if this were the case, would you need them in the evening, but apparently not need them during the period 10:00 – 12:00 am?
It is highly likely that Gertrude lied about the visit from Vernal Lepper on the evening of October 23rd. First, Gertrude was unwilling to state the reason for Mrs. Lepper’s visit. She says that their conversation was about her face. Should we really believe that Mrs. Lepper visited Gertrude’s house that evening simply to talk to her about her face? Maybe Mrs. Lepper was watching TV and then suddenly decided to go see about Gertie Wright’s face? Second, the sunglasses don’t make sense. I should qualify that; they don’t make sense when Gertrude linked them to her swollen eyes. In a different context, they make all the sense in the world. Third, this visit from Mrs. Lepper was the setting for Gertrude’s slandering Randy Lepper. Her statement that Randy was dressed in drag is preposterous. If Randy went around dressed like a girl, then Johnny, Ricky and other boys would not have hung around with him. If Randy went around openly dressed like a girl, he would have been a continual target of abuse by any number of boys in the neighborhood and school. Even if Randy did do this, I doubt that Vernal Leppar would have tolerated it, much less drag him over to Gertrude’s house on Saturday evening to stand there listening to a nonsensical discussion about Gertrude’s face. Maybe. Gertrude actually gives a strange twist to this strange claim:
Q. How long did she stay?
A. I don't remember exactly. I think about a half hour because she had Randy dressed up as a girl and we did not recognize Randy at first as I can remember.
That is a strange way to measure the passage of time! So the impossible to believe becomes even more impossible to believe. Gertrude is saying that Randy being dressed up like a girl was actually done at Vernal Lepper’s insistence. Another commentator on this website made a rather impressive effort to understand Randy Lepper. Can anything be more true than that we reveal so much about ourselves when we talk about ourselves? And is anything more Freudian than that we inadvertently reveal the truth about ourselves when we talk about ourselves as we seek to convince people that we are who we aren’t? So there is no need to re-invent the wheel, and Randy remains quantifiable. And Gertrude’s slandering of the used-to-be-eleven-year-old boy is no more than that. An objective assessment of the young man who posed no threats to Vervet monkeys, or Sylvia Likens for that matter, actually sees him coming out of the whole Saga was one of the strongest, and most impressive, characters.
Another important statement of Gertrude’s appearance on October 23rd came from Ricky:
Q. When you first went in, did you talk to anybody in particular?
A. I asked Gertrude how she was, I believe, I don't remember exactly.
Q. You asked Gertrude who?
A. Baniszewski.
Q. Asked her what?
A. How she was.
Q. You mean Gertrude herself?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. What did she say?
A. She told me she was not feeling well, she was having a hard time breathing.
Q. Where was she at?
A. Sitting at the kitchen table smoking.
So Ricky says that the only thing wrong with Gertrude was that she was having trouble breathing, and adds the comical statement about her smoking at the time. He says nothing about there being anything wrong with Gertie’s eyes or face. It wouldn’t take anyone by surprise if it is pointed out that Stephanie contradicted Ricky. Stephanie and Ricky became paired off in a bizarre dance around the house on the night of October 26th ; an account of things that another work on this website has shown was clearly false and ridiculous. The stories they told, i.e. their respective versions, diverged considerably. So it’s not too surprising to find that Stephanie, who, it should be reminded, was lying in a drug-induced stupor from around 10:00 am to around 6:30 or 7:00 pm on the 26th, seems to have a clear memory of her mother’s face:
Q. In the month of September and October, your mother was ill, wasn't she?
A. Not all the time.
Q. Pardon?
A. Not all the time. There were times she was feeling pretty good.
Q. Sometimes she would be in bed a lot of times, would she?
A. Not always.
Q. Sometimes, would she?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Did she have asthma?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Bronchitis?
A. I don't know. I am not a doctor.
Q. Was her face ever swollen up?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. When?
A. About a week or so before she died.
Q. A Week before Sylvia died, your mother's face was swollen?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. How about the 23rd, Saturday, was your mother's face swollen that day?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. It was?
A. Yes.
Q. Was she complaining of pain?
A. She was scratching.
Not a doctor? If medical school were a man…But! Stephanie says nothing about her mother’s supposedly “matted and swollen” eyes. In fact, Stephanie, despite turning state’s evidence, actually spent a lot of time trying to support her mother. Note this:
Q. What time of day were you sleeping?
A. All day.
Q. All day?
A. About from about 10:00 till about 6:00 or 5:30.
Q. 10:00 in the morning?
A. Yes.
Q. Can you tell the jury who was in your house that day?
A. No, sir.
Q. Who was there when you went to sleep at 10:00 o'clock in the morning?
A. Nobody.
Q. Was your mother there?
A. No, sir.
Q. Where was she?
A. She went to the doctor.
Q. Did she leave the house?
A. Yes.
Q. Who did she leave with?
A. Johnny.
Q. You recall that, you have that recollection now, do you?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And she left before you went to sleep?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. When did she come back?
A. I don't know. I don't know what time it was.
Q. What is the next thing you recall Saturday the 23rd.
A. She was asleep beside me.
Q. Who was?
A. My Mom.
Q. What time was that?
A. I don't know, probably in the afternoon sometime.
Q. Late afternoon?
A. Early.
So Stephanie is supporting the whole Gertrude and Johnny went to Dr. Lindenborg’s office claim, which another posting on this website maintains is suspect. And Gertrude was asleep beside Stephanie early Saturday afternoon? Notice too: “I don’t know, probably in the afternoon sometime.” Now Mr. School, but not his younger brother Mr. Medical School, might point out that the statement “I don’t know” means that Stephanie... doesn’t know. Her answer should stop there. “I don’t know, probably….” That means that she doesn’t know, and everything that follows is a lie. If we adhere to Ricky’s appearance on Saturday being around noon, which is consistent with Jenny wanting to go get lunch-meat, and we should remember that Gertrude was supposedly involved in things at that time, then early afternoon is not likely. Further, the attorney told Stephanie to say “late afternoon” by the one-millionth leading question. Why? Because the attorney saw the chronological problem. How did Stephanie know that her mother was lying beside her in the early afternoon? She was knocked out, and if she wasn’t awoken by the supposed hellish events going on in the kitchen only several feet away from where she was sleeping, then what woke her up in the early afternoon so as to enable her to be able to say that her mother was sleeping beside her? She remembered her mother’s face, but not her eyes? I think Stephanie is trying desperately to prop up her mother’s story. She’s just not doing a particularly job at it.
There is nothing odd about the fact that Randy Lepper confirmed Gertrude’s story about the condition of her face:
Q. How many times would you say she complained or said she was sick?
A. Five or six times.
Q. Did she look sick to you?
A. Yes.
Q. How did she look?
A. Well, in the latter part of October, before Sylvia died, one day I came over there and her face was all broken out.
Q. Whose face was all broken out?
A. Mrs. Baniszewski's.
Q. What was the matter with her, do you know?
MR. NEW: We object.
THE COURT: Objection sustained.
Q. What did she say, if anything, about it?
A. She said she did not know what made her break out.
Normally I would point out that Randy is not a reliable witness. However, in this case, he may well be. After all, when Vernal Lepper marched over to talk to Gertrude, on what I think was October 25th, rather than October 23rd, she had Randy with her. And no, not to show Gertrude what Randy looked like dressed in Hilda’s hand-me-downs. I stated above what I suspect was actually the case. Gertrude did have marks on her face that evening, and Randy was there to see it. But note something very important. Gertrude said that Dr. Lindenborg didn’t know what the skin problem was (which he never saw), Randy heard Gertrude say that she didn’t know, and the doctor at the women’s jail will indicate that he didn’t know. Wow! Some very rare, new, strange skin disease! Perhaps this is the first manifestation of this condition known to man…well, known to the most medically advanced country on earth. But if such a thing were to happen, it only makes sense that it happened at 3850 East New York Street. I would think that an awful skin disease, one that stymied everyone, well, how do you know that it’s not something dreadfully contagious? If you knew what it was, then you’d know whether you have to worry about it or not. If you don’t, then I would think that we would implement Code Red Quarantine immediately, and then call the CDC. It would be a real shame if the nation was plunged into a Bubonic Plague-like catastrophe because of Gertie Wright.
So I think that it is possible that Vernell Lepper did visit Gertrude, just not on the evening of October 23rd. Gertrude describes her condition in very similar terms on October 25th, as she did relative to October 23rd. Yet, nothing is said about Gertrude wearing, or even needing to wear, sunglasses on Monday. A good reason for wearing sunglasses on October 25th readily presents itself and has (it is deplorable that this is true) been a reason for women wearing sunglasses in contexts where they aren’t needed and actually raise suspicions i.e., she was punched in the eye. And witnesses will say that on October 26th and October 27th Gertrude had a black eye. I doubt that Mrs. Lepper went over to Gertrude’s house to talk about her face. However, it may well be that once Vernell began her conversation with Gertie “I’m about to unleash the worse contagion since the Middle Ages” Wright, she asked her about the suspicious sunglasses and the condition of her face. I also believe that she brought Randy with her; the idea being that Randy told his mother something about Sylvia that worried Mrs. Lepper, and she went over to Gertrude’s house to discuss it with her. Gertrude did not want Randy’s mother seeing her black eye, so she wore sunglasses. Then she made excuses about her face. Dr. Lindenborg stated that on October 25th, Gertrude did not have any of these manifestations when she visited his office. I think that the black eye and the condition of her face was something that came about later on October 25th. So hearing what Randy had to say, Vernell Lepper went over to confront Gertrude.
So just what was said about Gertrude’s appearance on October 26th? It should come as no surprise that witnesses said contradictory things. First, Officer Dixon:
Q. Will you describe the appearance of Mrs. Baniszewski?
A. Well, she looked like a normal person - people get upset over surroundings.
Q. What do you mean by that?
A. She was nervous - she was bound to be.
Q. How was she dressed?
A. She had a dress on.
Q. Was her hair put up or disheveled or how was that?
A. Approximately the same, I would say, as she is now.
Q. Now, did you say that she appeared nervous and upset, did you say that?
A. Normally.
Q. Did she appear nervous?
A. As I say, normally.
Q. How did she talk, in a nervous tone or quiet and unemotionally, how was it?
A. It is pretty hard to say actually - I mean after something like that occurred in your home you are bound to be somewhat nervous.
Hey! It sounds like Melvin Dixon has been talking to Randy “I sure know a nervous woman when I see one” Lepper. And! The question of wardrobe arises. This what Gertrude said she was wearing when the police arrived:
“A pair of kneeknocker shorts and a blouse”
So perhaps Officer Dunderhead isn’t up on women’s fashion! Or, maybe, Gertrude was wearing a knee-knocker dress! Obviously, Dixon wasn’t sure what to say when asked about Gertie’s wardrobe, so he fell back on what any man not in the know about women’s fashion and, hoping to avoid a period of deafening silence as he tried to come up with something, would most likely fall back on..she wore a dress. Ella Mae Staples was also asked about Gertie’s attire:
Q. How was she dressed?
A. She had on some pants and a waist. I did not pay too much attention to her shoes.
Didn’t pay too much attention to her shoes? What kind of woman are you? So Gertrude was wearing a dress, and a pair of pants, and, my favorite, a pair of knee-knocker shorts. Maybe it was a particularly cold October in Indianapolis in 1965! Maybe…bundle up! Hold on, more from Dixon:
Q. What was the weather out at that particular time?
A. Clear.
Q. Warm or cold?
A. It was fair, just fair weather, not too cold.
And Gertrude:
Q. How were you dressed when the police came there?
A. A pair of kneeknocker shorts and a blouse. I had sunglasses on and my hair was not combed and that is how I remember. I remember one of my children insisting - "don't you think you had better put coat on, mother"?
Q. Who said that?
A. I believe it was Stephanie. They tell me Stephanie came downtown with me.
Hey Stephanie! Why does mom need a coat if she’s already wearing three layers of clothes?
Kaiser wisely side-stepped the whole “what was Gertie wearing” thing. After all, if he had said a mini-skirt and go-go boots, I expect we all would be having problems. At any rate, pants, shorts (knee-knocker or otherwise), and dresses are all better than the outfit Gertie received on October 27th:
Q. How was she dressed at the time you first saw her, in jail garb?
Jail garb? Apparently knee-knocker dresses aren’t allowed in lock-up.
Now for Kaiser:
Q. Now, Sergeant, how did Gertrude Baniszewski look to you when you first saw her on October 26, 1965? By that I mean her manner, appearance, demeanor, looks, conversation, her dress - what was your observation?
A. She looked like the average person to me. She was a little nervous at the time.
Q. Is that all?
A. Her clothes was normal and neat.
Q. Her clothes were neat?
A. Yes.
Q. How about her hair?
A. I did not notice her hair.
Kaiser, Dixon, and Randy are all in agreement about “nervous.” But it seems like people are doing a lot are not noticing. Staples doesn’t notice Gertie’s shoes, and Kaiser doesn’t notice her hair. And strangely, Lindenborg was having trouble being positive whether he noticed any breaking-out on Gertrude’s face. Kebel:
Q. Will you relate the conversation, what you said and she said?
A. I asked the lady why she did not call a doctor or call the police when she saw the lesions on this girl, and she said - well, she was taking care of them, had poured some alcohol and first aid supplies, and was taking care of these lesions. That was the extent of that particular item. The other thing was where she got the black eye. I don't recall her answer to that.
I’m puzzled. It was important enough to Dr. Kebel to ask Gertrude how she got the black eye, but not important enough to remember the answer? Still, his claim is important. Dixon and Kaiser do not describe a black eye. Jenny states that Gertrude had a swollen eye that didn’t look like a shiner until the next day:
Q. Did the paddle hit Sylvia?
A. It missed her and hit Gertrude.
Q. Did you see Gertrude's eye then?
A. Yes.
Q. What did it look like?
A. Well, I don't know, it was swelling up. It don't get black and blue till over night.
Moe swings a paddle at Shemp, misses him, and hits himself in the eye. Serves him right! Actually, Jenny Likens had a very interesting conception of human anatomy. There is a bizarre cause and effect to it. For instance, if you punch someone in the jaw, their ear becomes bruised. And notice this:
Q. What happened then?
A. She just - I guess she got right back up. I don't know how she got up. Then she fell on my foot.
Q. Which foot?
A. My crippled foot. Her head hit my foot. It is coming back. Gertrude had the paddle and Sylvia was sitting on the chair and as far as I can remember Sylvia fell of the chair. The paddle swung back on her eye. She said, "I think my jaw is broken" and she told me to go upstairs and wake up Paula.
So hitting yourself in the eye with a paddle can break your jaw. But getting hit in the jaw will hurt your ear. And I feel compelled to ask…if Gertrude did in fact break her own jaw by hitting herself in the eye with a paddle that she had actually swung at Sylvia, what could Paula possibly do about it? A broken jaw, contrary to Jenny’s view of it, is actually a pretty serious injury. If I were Gertie Wright, I would tell someone to go over to Kiernan’s Shell Station, or next door to that nosy neighbor Phyllis Vermillion’s house, and call for an ambulance. But no. Apparently Paula knows just what to do if mom gets a broken jaw because she got hit in the eye with her own paddle. 3850 East New York Street must have indeed been a dangerous place if a broken jaw specialist was in residency. It seems unfair to wake Paula up seeing how, according to Marie, she has to get up at 1:00 am to go to work, as well as wake up Marie so that she can kiss her sister before going to school. At 1:00 am? Well you see, our magical clock don’t work so good. That must be it.
After returning from Dr. Lockenwood’s…sorry, Dr. Lindenborg’s office, assuming of course that Paul D Lindenborg and Paul G Lindenborg shared the same office, Gertrude was socked in the eye, to borrow one of Shirley’s words. It was swelling up by the time Vernell made her appearance at Gertie’s magical front door, so Gertrude, the ever-so-clever Mrs. Baniszewski, the woman of many names and outfits, figured that it would surely not raise suspicions with Mrs. Lepper when she appeared at the door at night wearing sunglasses.
Marie said this:
Q. Did you say you went to school on the 26th of October, the day Sylvia died?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Are you sure about that?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Did your mother have a black eye that day?
A. I did not see her face very well. She had a bruise around her eye.
A black-eye? I couldn’t tell because I couldn’t see mom’s face because she was wearing Darlene’s mask. But if I could see her face, I might just see her eye. Still, I couldn’t tell if she had a black eye since it was hidden behind the bruise around her eye. Well, at least we know that Gertie, the sporty dresser who makes sure to wear a knee-knocker dress for Officer Dixon, wasn’t wearing sunglasses under Darlene’s mask. Of course, if she wasn’t wearing Darlene’s mask, maybe Marie couldn’t see her mother’s face because her eye was so big. Perhaps the better explanation is that Marie is trying to avoid answering a question she wasn’t asked; i.e. did you see the condition of your mother’s face? Well, both of Gertrude’s eyes were probably on her face, although if you lived at 3850 East New York, eyes in the back of your head would be a real plus!
Now it’s time to hear from the matrons; all four of them. That’s a lot of matrons! Well, to testify. It only makes sense that women’s jail has more matrons than, say, Phyllis Shannon’s Roaring Twenties, that infamous “body shop” so familiar to Margaret Hill. Need some attention from a “body shop” girl? Just see her about it. I almost forgot; hey Phyllis! Jocko was here! Well, someone had to tell her. Let’s start with matron number one, Mildred Lynch:
A. She appeared to be rundown, with what appeared to be a black eye
Ella Mae Staples:
A. Well, her appearance was that she was - oh, she was, looked like a skeleton. She was dirty and her hair was stringy and I asked her why did she have a black eye.
This description of Gertrude’s condition is very significant in many respects. And Gertrude Skeleton! Just in time for Halloween! Well, she’ll be too busy having a black eye and wearing “jail garb” to be able to amuse the neighborhood children on October 31rst. Myra Ford’s turn:
A. And she had a black eye
Straightforward and to the point. Time for matron number 4, also known as Judith Graston:
A. She had a black eye, was thin and did not look too well.
So can there be any doubts about Gertie’s black eye? The interesting thing is that matrons are simply that..matrons. They oversee prisoners in the women’s jail. Women or not, jail is a rough and dangerous place to be, so if you’re a matron who would like to avoid getting a Gertie Wright-type black eye yourself, you would have to pay close attention at all times. One might think that doctors would be even more observant, perhaps as observant as police officers have to be! But that’s not true in Indianapolis in 1965, when doctors and cops prove to have well-honed “not noticing” skills. And so it is with Dr. Shuck Jr. He was the doctor for the women’s jail. Hopefully, he was a seasoned physician:
Q. How long have you been a doctor?
A. Four years.
Q. You graduated from where?
A. Indiana University Medical School.
Q. When?
A. 1962, June.
Q. This in your first internship, is it?
A. I am a resident physician.
Q. Did you have any internship?
A. Yes, at General Hospital.
Q. Indianapolis?
A. Yes.
Q. When?
A. '62 and '63.
So, not too seasoned. I’ll bet that being a doctor for the jail is not one of those assignments people strive to get! Now we could play the name game. The middle initial of Gertie’s main doctor, Dr. Lindenborg, seemed to be capable of morphing into another one..it could be “D” and then “G.” So if the middle initial of Dr. William A Shuck had a similar capability, we could change it, momentarily of course, from “A” to “O.” Then we might have Dr. O Shucks. But, there will be no name games here. At any rate, Dr. O shucks saw Gertrude on October 27th, and wasn’t that a day when she was seeing and being seen! Dr. Shuck was asked about Gertie’s eyes:
Q. What about her eyes, Doctor, were they bloodshot - closed?
A. I don't recall.
Q. Was her face swollen?
A. She had a little swelling around her eyes, as I recall.
Q. Both eyes?
A. Yes.
So, no black eye. In fact, his description of Gertie’s eyes are similar to her own description. Bloodshot? I’ll bet she didn’t get much sleep the night before. But he says nothing about a black eye.
The results as far as Gertrude’s eye on October 26th and 27th are as follows:
- Black-eye: Kebel, Jenny, Marie, Mildred Lynch, Myra Ford, Ella Mae Staples, and Judy Graston
- Apparently no black-eye: Officer Dixon, William Kaiser, Stephanie, Ricky, and Dr. Shuck
How hard can it be to know if someone has a black eye? Not all black eyes are created equal. I’ll bet that a Shirley “sock and smack” black eye isn’t as bad as a black eye from Paula. But there seems to be no doubt that some witnesses were lying about Gertie’s black eye. And no one more than the fashion lady herself:
Q. Did you ever receive a black eye you administered to yourself?
A. That I administered to myself, no, sir.
Q. Did you have a black eye on the day Sylvia died?
A. No, I did not have a black eye on the day she died, no.
Q. Do you recall Dr. Kebel stated you did have a black eye?
A. I heard him.
Q. Is that not true?
MR. ERBECKER: We object.
THE COURT: Sustained to the form of the question.
Q. Did you have a black eye when Dr. Kebel talked to you at the scene?
A. No, sir.
Did you ever administer a black eye to yourself? Almost as if Nurse Gertrude had the job of going around the hospital ward giving the patients their prescribed dose of black eye for the day. Smacks to the face with a book, that makes everything better, but black eyes? Did she prescribe one for herself? Administered with a fist or a paddle? But! Gertrude clearly said that she didn’t have a black eye on Tuesday night. Well, if we believe her, then she didn’t have one on Wednesday morning. Why would four matrons lie? All four? Why would Gertrude lie? I think the answer is one that is very bizarre. When you plead not guilty by reason of insanity, it means you did it. So what if the inevitable outcome of the black eye issue would suggest that you didn’t?
Now it is worth a closer look at the black eye theme, and here we find ourselves looking into a side-show mirror. You know, the kind that makes you look so distorted. Actually, it might be that we find ourselves suddenly looking through Sylvia’s eyes into a regular mirror and seeing…Gertrude. So we close our eyes and rub them, open them again, gaze at the mirror and see…someone else. What about the eyes? Dr. Ellis:
Q. What else did you find about the face or head?
A. Both eyes demonstrated ecchymosis, essentially what is known as a black eye, and edema surrounding the eyelids. These black eyes were bluish-purple color.
Q. Which indicated to you what?
A. The blue color is of approximately one day, or very recent. Over a day, it starts to turn yellow and later turns green to brown as this blood - actually it is a collection of blood, and as the blood breaks down it changes in color.
Q. Doctor, you would estimate the origin of the black eyes to be when?
A. They were starting to turn a little bit of yellow on - around the edges, suggesting around a day.
And:
A. There is a bruise approximately in this area, being anterior to the right ear and extended approximately to the right eye. This is one seen on superficial examination.
Q. Approximately what size, doctor?
A. It appears here to have an approximate diameter of four or five centimeters, which there are five centimeters in essentially two inches. Then, as I have already described, the ecchymosis surrounding both eyes. Ecchymosis or bruise are essentially the same, both bleeding into tissue.
So, we are clearly dealing with two black eyes; two black eyes at the same time. Jenny said this:
Q. Did Sylvia eat the same food that you did?
A. Yes, until, you know, it got worse and worse.
Q. When did it get worse?
A. I mean they give her black eyes.
MR. BOWMAN: We object to this. We have no designation when, what and who.
THE COURT: Objection sustained to all defendants.
Out go the eyes. Why? Well, she wasn’t asked about this. She answered a question that she wasn’t asked. Still, all the witnesses were answering questions they weren’t asked. Of course, in Jenny’s mind, the food Sylvia was eating was directly correlated to any shiners she picked up along the way. A punch to the eye, and your diet changes. When, what and who? Since when has that mattered during this trial? Phyllis Vermillion:
Q. What did you see or hear at this time?
A. Well, I saw Sylvia was having coffee with Mrs. Wright or Mrs. Baniszewski. I saw Sylvia and she had a black eye and -
That was dated to September, and Phyllis claims that when she asked Sylvia how she got the black eye, Paula gleefully confessed. Again:
Q. When was the next time you went to the Baniszewski home?
A. In October.
Q. And do you know when in October?
A. Well, it was the week of the 15th.
Q. And who was present this time?
A. Paula, Mrs. Wright, and I don't think Stephanie and them was there. I did not see them. I saw the baby.
Q. What did you see then?
A. Well, Sylvia had another black eye and she had a busted mouth where they had hit her in the mouth, she had a busted mouth.
So Dr. Ellis said two black-eyes. Jenny said more than one black eye. Vermillion described seeing two black eyes, both selflessly contributed by that black eye dispensing vending machine known as Paula. If I were to be sarcastic, which is something I would not do, that now famous Dixonian creation known as the knee-knocker dress aside, I would point out that Paula was lucky that Sylvia’s eyes weren’t as hard as her jaw, since if that were the case, Paula would be nursing her third broken wrist. Nonetheless, the claim that Paula gave Sylvia a black eye is found in her signed confession.
Anyone else? Ricky:
Q. Did you see her face at all, except for the right side?
A. No, sir.
Q. Did you see the right eye?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Was it black?
A. I did not notice.
Q. Did you turn her face up toward you when you gave her mouth to mouth resuscitation?
A. Yes.
Q. Did you see the left side of her face?
A. Yes.
Q. Did you see the left eye?
A. Yes.
Q. Was it black?
A. I believe it was.
“I believe it was.” Translation: “I’m supposed to say it was.” How is it that Ricky noticed the right eye, but not whether it was black? He bent over the girl to give her some bizarre form of CPR, and assisted Stephanie in dragging Sylvia all over the house. Stephanie! Was she asked about Sylvia’s eyes?
Q. Did she have her elbow on the floor - what was her head doing?
A. Just sitting there.
Q. Were her eyes open?
A. Yes.
And:
Q. Then what happened?
A. I put the tea down and raised her up again and I was brushing back her hair off her face. She looked kind of foggy.
Q. Were her eyes open?
A. Yes, sir.
The tea in question was the cup so kindly brought by Nurse Shirley. I’m sure she’s cute, but her reference to socking and smacking makes me a little nervous. Indeed, I hope that “sock and smack” was not some diabolical game invented by Shirley. Still, according to Marie, the Anna Siscoe game was the worst:
A. Get her by the hair and throw her down and walk in her face and stomp on her stomach, give her a bloody nose and bloody mouth.
Please warn me if you see Anna Siscoe coming. Stephanie was asked about Sylvia’s eyes once more:
Q. Did she say anything to you?
A. No, sir.
Q. No word you could understand?
A. Not right then.
Q. Were her eyes open?
A. Yes.
That’s interesting; in more ways than one. The exact same question is asked three times, like some kind of bizarre refrain. Why is it so important whether Sylvia’s eyes were open? Were her eyes open? Yes. Were her eyes open? Yes. Were her eyes open? I said yes! Ricky is asked about black eyes. Stephanie is asked three times if Sylvia’s eyes were open, but is never asked whether either, or both, were black. Why? I think that the intention had originally been to ask her that question. But Ricky did not answer the question in the way he was supposed to answer it. So to avoid a contradiction between the two, we find out from Stephanie that Sylvia’s eyes, apparently not black, were open. One last kid:
Q. Was this the time this happened, when you struck her?
A. It was just the week before, or the last of August, ma'am.
Q. Did you ever see Sylvia alive after this date?
A. Yes, ma'am.
Q. When?
A. I don't remember the date, ma'am, but I was burning trash for my mother and she was walking down the alley. I noticed she had a black eye.
What do Jenny and Anna Siscoe have in common? Both feel the need to mention Sylvia’s black eye(s) without being asked. So let’s look at the black eye scoreboard:
Sylvia:
- Two black eyes: Ellis, Jenny, and Vermillion
- One black eye: Paula’s forced statement; Ricky; Anna
But! Does Jenny’s statement and that of the fearless protector of Robert Handlon agree with the testimony of Ellis? The answer is…no. Phyllis Vermillion says that she saw Sylvia with black eyes on two occasions. Jenny makes a general statement that I think accords with the statements made by Mrs. Vermillion. But! According to Dr. Ellis, the girl on his autopsy table had two black eyes at the same time, not on two separate occasions! And notice the sequence of witnesses:
- Dr. Ellis
- Lester Likens
- Betty Likens
- Don Campbell
- William Kaiser
- Virginia Hubbard
- Don Campbell
- Jenny Likens
- Leo Gentry
- Policewoman Warner
- Leo Gentry
- Phyllis Vermillion
So what? Let’s create two columns from these names, separating out cops and other witnesses who were not eye witnesses to Sylvia’s eyes, from those who were.
Eye witnesses: Non eye witnesses:
Dr. Ellis
Lester Likens
Betty Likens
Don Campbell
William Kaiser
Virginia Hubbard
Don Campbell
Jenny Likens
Leo Gentry
Policewoman Warner
Leo Gentry
Phyllis Vermillion
Isn’t that interesting? I exclude Campbell, Gentry, and policewoman Warner because they weren’t at the scene. Their job was to bully forced confessions out of children. So at any rate, they didn’t see the body. What about Kaiser and Dixon, the inventor of the knee-knocker dress? They both saw the body, but neither were asked about the eyes. So of all the people who said that Sylvia had one or two black eyes, the three witnesses who claimed to have seen more than one black eye are in a direct sequence. I think Anna wasn’t supposed to mention a black eye, just that she was illegally burning garbage on behalf of $5.00 Mrs. Siscoe. Ricky was asked about both eyes because he was supposed to say that both eyes were black…at the same time. The thing about Ricky, at least one possible interpretation, is that Ricky was to be the witness with the most credibility; i.e. credibility in the eyes of the jury. Who cares what Shirley, the well-known leader of “all the kids” had to say? And Ricky agreed to tell a certain story. He did so, until he suddenly began to pull back.
Q. I would like for you to indicate if you will, please, will you step down here. I will hold this in my hands. State's Exhibit No. 19 and I would like you to indicate, if you will, what part of this particular body of Sylvia Likens you mutilated, cut or burned.
A. The words "I am a prostitute and proud of it" and the top part of the 3.
Q. Anything else?
A. No.
Q. What part? I will ask you to look at that exhibit and tell if that is the way she looked when you actually put the brand or whatever you call it on her?
A. No, sir.
Q. She did not look that way?
A. She did not look that bad.
Q. What did you see. Did you see - what did you see on this particular picture when you were putting the tattoo on her Saturday?
A. I don't know exactly.
Q. Did you see the craters, gouges, burns, when you added the words "I am a prostitute and proud of it"?
A. Some of the things were all around.
Q. They were all there then, is that correct?
A. Not all of them.
Q. How many would you say were not there? Do you see any particular thing that was not there?
A. A fourth of them were there.
Q. The skin on the side of the face - was it that way?
A. No, sir.
Q. The skin along the shoulder on the left side. Was that the way you can see there?
A. No, sir.
Q. Was the puffiness around the genitalia - was it there?
A. No, sir.
Q. It was not there? Were these bruises along the ankle up to the hip on the left leg there?
A. I don't believe so.
Q. You said she was undressed?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Were they there or weren't they?
A. I don't know.
This is extremely important. Ricky is shown a picture. It is a horrid picture. And the attorney takes us back to Saturday, October 23rd. That is the day when Ricky supposed mutilated and branded Sylvia. And we know that the testimony was that she stood in front of him unclad. But looking at the picture, the horrid photo, wasn’t all that damage present on her? I think the expected answer was yes. But Ricky balked, and refused to go along with it. Still, he didn’t deny it. He chose to compromise. Only 25% of what was visible in the photo was on the girl who stood before him on Saturday morning. Enumerate the specifics about the damage to the body was any of it there? No, sir. Any of it? You said 25%. “I don’t know.” In other words, I will not confess to having done, or seen, anything in this terrible picture. Ricky broke ranks. Of course, in a canonical story world, we would have to believe him. So that would mean that the remaining 75% of the damage to the body of the girl in the photo was inflicted during a period of time comprising the evening of October 23rd – October 26th. So! Must we believe that after reducing “the three weeks” to a sub-set of “the two weeks”, we must now reduce the sub-set of “the two weeks” to a sub-set of “the four days?” Of course, Stephanie, having received a snoot-full of Phenobarbital, slept into the evening, blissfully unaware of the horrible, fictional, but horrible, scene playing out six feet away from her. But she has to wake up some time.
Q. What time do you remember waking up Saturday night, October 23rd?
A. About 6:30 or 7:00 o'clock.
Oh, that answers that. But I think that one answer leads to more questions.
Q. Was Sylvia there then?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Did you talk to her?
A. Just a little bit.
Q. What time did you first talk to her on Saturday?
A. Right before I went to bed.
Q. You did not talk to her Saturday morning?
A. No, sir.
Q. You did not talk to her Saturday afternoon?
A. No, sir, I was asleep.
Q. What time did you talk to her Saturday evening?
A. Around 9:30.
Q. 9:30 was the first time you talked to her?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. How did she look at that time?
A. Alright.
Q. She looked alright. How was she dressed?
A. She had some jeans on, I think.
Q. She had a shirt on?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. A blouse, did you say?
A. It was either a blouse or shirt.
Q. Did she complain of any pain?
A. No, sir.
Q. What was she doing, just sitting?
A. Walking.
Q. Where?
A. She was going upstairs.
Why going upstairs? I bet it was because she wanted to go to bed! She was tired, and it was getting late. So much for the girl who is forced to sleep in the basement! Of course, Sylvia was dressed. But this girl, who was supposedly mutilated, who had a third-degree burn inflicted on her, and, following Jenny, was forced to defile herself with a soda bottle earlier that day seemed perfectly…fine. Combine all of the canonical story-world gruesome elements with the damage to the body of the girl in the photo shoved in front of Ricky, she seemed…fine. Let’s reduce it to 25%, following Ricky’s decision to distance himself from 75% of it. She still seemed... fine. Because she was fine. No mutilation, no branding, no disgusting soda bottle, and no: craters, gouges, burns, missing skin on the face or left shoulder, no bruises along the ankle up to the hip on the left leg. Still, how can the claims made by Ricky and Stephanie be reconciled? They can’t. Wait! They can. Stephanie was allowed to tell the truth. Ricky was supposed to lie. And he did lie, until the photo caused him to pull back. And the following is my favorite. Nothing so communicates the fact that Ricky was forced to confess to things he didn’t do. He could admit it and deny it at the same time:
Q. Did you have any occasion to talk with Gertrude Baniszewski between 4:00 o'clock Saturday afternoon and the time you arrived there Tuesday afternoon?
A. None that I recall.
Q. When you talked with Sgt. Kaiser on the morning of the 27th and signed a statement, didn't you tell Sgt. Kaiser when you got to the house Tuesday you thought Sylvia was gone because, "Gertie told me she was going to get rid of her the night before"?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Was that the truth?
A. It must have been if I signed it.
It must have been if I signed it. I signed a false confession. I was forced to by a bully. Was it the truth? “It must have been.” In other words, it wasn’t. They made me lie. About myself. About my friends. And here I am. What do I do now? I was ok with the whole thing for a while. But now I’m not. Now they’ve shown me a horrifying picture. It must have been the truth; but it wasn’t. So what do I do now? All these things, I do not recall; I have no idea. So why did I lie by telling lies that must have been the truth?
Q. Did you say you were scared when you made the statement?
A. Yes, sir.
At the risk of being wrong, which is the risk one must run if one hopes to be right, I find myself compelled to declare Ricky…not guilty. Of course, Ricky wanted to tell the truth. And he had in his corner the one he should have most been able to count on:
Q. Did you intend to tell the truth to Sgt. Kaiser?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Did your father meet with you before you made the statement, in the presence of Sgt. Kaiser, and tell you to tell the truth?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Were you afraid when your father was there?
A. Yes.
Q. Did he tell you to tell the truth if you had anything to say?
A. Yes.
Q. Did you try to do that?
A. Yes.
Q. Then what you put in State's Exhibit No. 18, to the best of your knowledge, was the truth?
A. Yes.
This is one of the hardest pieces of testimony to read, and I must say that it makes me sick. Ricky wanted to tell the truth, but he was scared. His father was there. And Ricky was..scared. So much for his father. His mother lay dying in a hospital bed. It’s too bad that she had not been there that night; maybe someone would have been on his side. Still, ours is a culture which has a long tradition of child abuse deeply ingrained within it, and no more so than in those elements of this culture that should be at the forefront of protecting those who can’t protect themselves. Behind the façade of truth and everything that is right hide the worst victimizers.
Q. Then you did see Coy Hubbard do some harm to Sylvia?
A. Not that I recall now.
Translation: “I’m sorry that I lied about you, Coy.” There is much that is heartbreaking in the Sylvia Likens Saga. Indeed, the tragic death of a sixteen year old girl. The horrible murder of another girl. But! Go ahead and hold up that Bible! Do you swear to tell the lies, the whole lies, and nothing but the lies we have forced you to tell? You’re taught to tell the truth..by a bunch of liars; liars who then force you to be liars. Of course, not to lie about them. Not the police! Not the neighbors! Not a Social Services Nurse who would die in a bizarre manner that would suggest…the past catching up to her. Perhaps, tragedy for tragedy. Oh, and certainly not the religious authorities! Not your…parents! I don’t care what they’ve said to you! I don’t care what threats they’ve made! You will not lie! You will not admit to things you didn’t do! You will not accuse your friends of doing things they didn’t do! We will stand by you, Ricky and Randy. You do not have to be afraid. Sorry. That’s a digression. An exceedingly annoying one.
What? Oh, yes..black eyes. So we can subdivide the black eyes (plural) camp into two categories:
- Simultaneous black eyes: Dr. Ellis
- Black eyes at different times: Phyllis Vermillion and Jenny
So! Vermillion and Jenny, going off the basis of what Dr. Ellis said, which was the truth as it pertained to the girl on his autopsy table, actually are inimical to the testimony of Ellis, despite the fact that their lies were intended to give eye-witness credibility to what Ellis said. But they failed, not realizing that Sylvia having black eyes at different times actually contradicted Dr. Ellis. In fact, it creates a subdivision of the “one black eye” group and places them securely within it. If Paula really inflicted one black eye, Anna Siscoe noticed one black eye as Sylvia walked past her choking and wheezing because of the pollution Mrs. Siscoe’s daughter was creating by burning trash instead of leaving it in a garbage can at the end of the drive-way, Ricky might have seen a left black eye but not a right black eye… all of this stands in stark contrast to the testimony of Dr. Ellis. No one saw Sylvia with two black eyes at the same time! No one. If you saw a black eye at this time, then a black eye at another time, why does the girl lying on the table in front of Dr. Ellis have two black eyes at the same time? She did. Sylvia didn’t. In fact, Sylvia didn’t even have one black eye. At least, on the night of October 26th. Could Paula have given Sylvia a black eye? Her statement says that she did. I think that she probably did. It happened during the fight Sylvia and Paula had some time in August. Sylvia got hit in the eye. Paula got knocked to the ground and, putting out her hand to break her fall, broke her wrist. But Sylvia didn’t have one on the evening of October 26th. How is that? Because the one man who was at the house that night and examined the body of Sylvia Likens was Dr. Kebel. And I love Dr. Kebel. To him we owe “giraffes and horses”; the statement that the malnourished girl didn’t look like a concentration camp victim; the claim that a madman must have killed Sylvia, apparently forgetting that the person accused of doing it was a woman, and one who would be declared sane by the mental health professionals. But! Two more important things are owed to Dr. Kebel! First…transportation. The police arrived at Gertie’s house in, well, police cars. But how did Dr. Kebel get there?
Q. Could that have been the cause here?
A. I don't think so.
Q. Why don't you think so?
A. Because usually spontaneous breaks in blood vessels are in another age group. One hardly ever finds them in a young person. In our age group, they are real meanies.
Meanies? Maybe Dr. Kebel got to Gertie’s magical house in a Yellow Submarine! It is of course the music-hating Blue Meanies who would find themselves bested by the Fab Four. And! The Beatles were Sylvia’s favorite group. So Dr. Kebel could survive these “real meanies” if he had access to a yellow-colored undersea vessel of some kind. Besides, it’s a cool movie. I think it would be interesting to consult a few medical reference books and look for “meanies” in the index. I would, but I’m sure that I wouldn’t find any. After all, we don’t live in a…
Stop that! There is no connection between yellow submarines and black eyes, except perhaps for a stray meanie or two. Yellow submarines, Blue Meanies, black eyes…it has suddenly become very colorful. But what else is owed to the immensely entertaining Dr. Kebel? With so many annoying digressions, pathetic attempts at humor, and condemnations of a society that uses and consumes children as if they were elements in a Cost Accounting text book, I think I lost my way. Dead reckoning skills will put me back on course. Oh yes. Dr. Kebel never said that Sylvia Likens had one black eye, much less two black eyes. In fact, in Dr. Kebel’s testimony, the only person who he said had a black eye on the night of October 26, 1965 was Gertrude Baniszewski.
Q. You testified you talked to Gertrude Baniszewski out there that night. Would you describe her appearance, Doctor?
A. I noticed she had a black eye and I asked her about this. I don't recall what answer she gave me about the black eye.
Q. Was her face swollen?
A. I did not think so.
Q. Were her eyes swollen?
A. One had the hematoma and it was.
So Kebel refers to Gertrude’s black eye as a hematoma. He uses that word 21 times in his testimony, and in 20 of these uses he is referring to the subdural hematoma that caused Sylvia’s death. The word “eye” is used 7 times in his testimony. In 5 of these uses he is referring to Gertrude. That leaves 2 occurrences:
Q. In what part of the head, sir
A. That was in the temporal area, this portion of the head.
Q. When you say this portion, indicate in language so that it may go in the record which portion you are touching with your hand.
A. I am touching immediately before my ear and at level of the eye.
Q. Would that be known as the temple, the right temple?
A. I think so.
It seems odd that Kebel isn’t sure that that part of the head called the temple is really the…temple. Most people can, like the attorney here, point to their temple and call it their…temple. Why would a deputy coroner be uncertain about what the temple is called or perhaps that he knows where the temple is? When you’re looking for horses instead of giraffes, or is it the other way around? Maybe if you’re too busy looking for a python because a group of Vervet Monkeys are screaming their word for “python!” you miss the leopard in the tree. Still, the reference to “eye” in this context, along with ear, is intended to locate that area of the head that may, or may not, be the temple.
Q. Did you find anything else of consequence around the head or face or around the mouth?
A. Only, as I stated, there was a tooth missing. I can't remember at this time whether it was upper or lower. I think, if my memory serves me right, it was an upper tooth missing. As I said, there were cuts and what appeared to be burn or scald marks.
Q. On what portion of the face or head?
A. They were pretty well distributed about the face. I noticed on the photographs I have there are some visible on the right side of the neck and on the right cheek. As a matter of fact, there are two lesions on the cheek, one under the level of the eye and the other one on the angle of the jaw.
So the reference to Sylvia’s eye is to note the location of a particular facial lesion. I can’t remember whether the missing tooth was upper or lower? It might have been an upper tooth, “if my memory serves me right.” No offense Dr. Kebel, but…And! This particular statement by the man who managed to bring “meanies” into a forensic discussion is quite telling:
Q. Doctor, you stated that the cause of death was traumatic shock, secondary to subdural hematoma, why did you include that particularly with subdural hematoma?
A. It was my own external clinical observations of the body. There were contusions about the head and this would be, I suppose you would call it an educated guess.
Wait a minute! The secondary cause of death which you have been going on about is an “educated guess?” Might we expect something other than a guess? The word “theory” sounds better; maybe even “probability based on…” But I wonder how many such educated guesses Dr. Kebel made:
Q. The opinions you have testified to today are based on your observations of the body?
A. Yes.
Q. On October 26?
A. That is right.
Q. Nothing else?
A. That is right.
Q. I understood you to characterize one as an educated guess?
A. That is correct.
Q. Would that be true of all your opinions?
A. Well, we all have training. You have training in law and I have training in medicine.
Q. Answer the question, if you can.
A. Yes, an educated guess.
Q. All the opinions you testified today are educated guesses
A. That is correct.
So all of Dr. Kebel’s opinions are simply guesses; educated guesses, but guesses nonetheless. Professionalism is a must:
Q. You discussed generally things about the case, about the medical aspects of the case?
A. Principally about our having to wait so long to get in here.
Q. Was your discussion confined to that?
A. No, there was one other thing we discussed. A picture that was not in my personal files, the picture of the back. I was asked whether or not this was my hand. Ellis was there. I agreed yes it was my hand. I turned the body.
Hey Kebel! The crime scene photographer says that it would be better if he took photos of the body that did not feature your hand!
Of course, time of death, especially in the case of a murder..what could be more important?
Q. Have you an opinion, within a reasonable medical certainty, Doctor, as to the estimated time she died?
A. Yes, sir, I do. Now, you must remember, Mr. New, this is a clinical opinion based on only what I knew at the time about the girl and about bodies in general, the lack of differentiation in temperature between the small extremities, the fingers, and the abdomen, the amount of rigor in the body - settling of blood in the body produces rigor mortis - and I estimated the girl had been dead approximately eight to twelve hours, and this is what I gave in my verdict.
Q. How many degrees of temperature does the body usually lose per hour after death?
A. Well, we estimate the body loses approximately four degrees Fahrenheit per hour under normal circumstances, and this normal circumstance, of course, depends on room temperature, etc. There are many variables. This is probably one of the least reliable of all methods in estimating death, if you take the sum total of everything put together you can arrive at some conclusion. Now, rigor mortis, for example –
So you used the “least reliable of all methods?” What happens if the stated time of death goes out the window? Well, a whole lot can change. What did Ellis say about determining the time of death?
A. Well, this again is the best way of determining the time of death someone witnessing the actual event and second, circumstantial evidence around the event and anatomic causes are not precise
Someone standing around and watching the person die, then quickly looking at their watch, mentally noting the time, then providing that time is the best way? I’m sure it is. The circumstantial evidence and anatomic causes aren’t precise? So much for the time of death. But do such statements give sufficient grounds to call into question the quality of the Medical Examiner’s Officer per se? Perhaps:
Q. What was the weight of the body?
A. It was estimated at one hundred to one hundred and ten pounds.
Q. Estimated?
A. Yes.
Q. Did you weigh the body?
A. No.
Q. You did not?
A. No
Q. Why did you not do that?
A. There is no scales.
Q. There are no what?
A. No scales in the morgue.
Q. No scales in the morgue?
A. No.
Hold on! The place where murder victims and supposed murder victims are autopsied does not have scales for, I don’t know, weighing things? Indianapolis couldn’t splurge and buy Dr. Ellis scales so that he can weigh bodies? Really? So how did you know that she weighed 100-110 pounds? Did you pick up the body, stand there for a moment, and then shout out, “well, she seems to weigh 100–110 pounds to me?” And I like the 10 pound cushion he builds in. Who needs new-fangled things like scales when you can look and guess, or weigh a girl by bouncing her around in your arms? We don’t have scales. As far as I am concerned, if it wasn’t worth weighing the body, then I can throw out your figure of 100-110 pounds. Maybe we could all make some donations and buy Dr. Ellis some scales. I hope they have electricity! What about slides? You know, microscopical slides? We all know that that must be important!
Q. And the Anatomical Diagnosis you filed with the Coroner's Office did not include your microscopic findings, is that correct?
A. That is correct.
Q. When were they completed?
A. I can't give you the exact date but I would say approximately a month later.
Q. Approximately a month later?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. You filed this November 24th, did you?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Were they back then?
A. I -
Q. Your slides, Doctor, did you have your slides then?
A. I really don't know.
Q. How long does it ordinarily take?
A. That is in the process or changing at the present time. Last July it took as much as - well I still don't have some of the slides from last July. I have most of the slides now from recent cases in approximately two to three weeks.
Q. In October, you could get them in two or three weeks?
A. I don't think so. I think in December I started getting slides pretty quickly.
Q. You don't know whether you had the slides?
A. At that time I am not certain.
Q. Did you make any notation with respect to the dates you received the slides?
A. I did not make a note in my records, no.
He filed an Anatomical Diagnosis without his slides. When were the slides completed? He can’t be sure…maybe a month. So the dates and times that key elements in building the forensic case for use in a first degree murder trial aren’t documented? I made my filing on November 24th, but I can’t remember if I had my slides. Details! Details! Well, how long does it take to get your slides? It’s 1966 and he is still waiting for slides from July 1965? Now that is a turn-around time! You build the case for murder without your slides, which take forever to get, and you can’t really be sure when you got them, but you file the report anyway? No scales, and forget slides. Guesses..guesses..guesses..well, at least they’re educated guesses. Well, I think they’re guesses, at least, that’s what I recall.
Tektonikus: “Your Honor! I move that all of the information provided by Dr. Kebel and Dr. Ellis be thrown-out!”
Well, perhaps I’m just being picky or over-analyzing. Still, Kebel makes it clear that Sylvia Likens, the girl he examined on the evening of October 26, 1965 did not have one black eye, much less two black eyes. And he also makes it clear, while attempting to do the opposite, that the girl he examined was not the girl Dr. Ellis examined. No! Two different girls! They looked similar, and Photo 1 Girl may have some sort of connection to Sylvia Likens, but two different girls nonetheless.
Wow! That is strange. Gertie was the only one with a black eye. She had it on October 25th, so when Vernell Lepper suddenly banged on her door, she put on sunglasses. Ah! “She wears her sunglasses at night.” Ok. Yellow Submarine is a better song. She wears them when the police arrive on October 26th. Of course! By Jove! Dixon didn’t see her black eye because Gertie sat in the front room with the cop who wasn’t supposed to be there, with John and Violet kicking around somewhere, even though he made his best attempt at doing what he did best…investigate? No. Skillful police work? No. He looked. And I had so much confidence in Dixon’s legendary “looking” skills. After all, he can tell a girl is dead just by looking. Hey Officer Dixon? Do you think it strange that this women is wearing sunglasses in her living room after 6:30 pm? Hey Officer Kaiser! The one who upheld the highest principles of justice and fairness while pushing around a frightened child! Do you think it strange that this woman is wearing sunglasses in her living room after 6:30 pm? See! You both missed her black eye. Of course, if you invented the knee-knocker dress, then you had a flair for style. So Gertie’s cool eyewear might just be…stylish. No, no Mrs. Wright…Wait! I thought we determined from the outset that Gertrude was Mrs. Baniszewski, and not Mrs. Wright. So why is it that the Master of Looking insists on calling her Mrs. Wright? Perhaps the Master of Looking is not the Master of Listening. Of course, the woman wearing the sunglasses in her living room after 6:30 pm said she was Mrs. Wright. Yes! And giving the police a false name is a felony! And if you are a cop and given a false name by a woman who is now charged with a much more serious felony, the proper thing to do would be to keep calling her by her alias throughout your testimony..isn’t it? Maybe the Master of Looking is not only not the Master of Listening; apparently he is also not the Master of Remembering. Could it be that any number of cops milled around 3850 East New York Street without ever asking Mrs. Whoever-she-is to take off the stupid sunglasses? Concerns for style aside? Perhaps Vernell Lepper would have made a better cop… “Hey Gertrude! Take off the sunglasses! You don't fool me! Who clocked you in the eye? My son says…” Perhaps not, seeing how she had several reasons to be nervous herself. “Hey mom! Jocko says that Phyllis Shannon…” “Young man I told you to forget about Phyllis Shannon!” So why did Dixon and Kaiser say nothing about a black eye? A temporary failure of looking skills? Kaiser didn’t notice the cool new dress that was so ahead of its time. Wait, I know. The truth about the black eye was potentially a serious problem. Ellis’ girl had two black eyes, and Gertie had one of her own? What would happen if Phyllis Vermillion (anyone for White Castles?), Jenny (When, what and who is a problem now?), Anna Siscoe (can you get a citation for burning garbage?); Ricky (One I couldn’t tell, the other might be); and Marie (I couldn’t see if mom had a black eye because her black eye was in the way) would incorrectly say they knew of only one black eye? Or one black eye at different times? But have no fear! Kebel joins the ranks of Dixon and Kaiser. The problem is, he’s the deputy coroner. The problem is, he examined the body. The problem is, Sylvia Likens did not have a black eye on October 26th. So who is the girl with two black eyes? Who is the girl lying in front of Dr. Ellis? And my isn’t it a strange distortion indeed! Gertie looks in the mirror and sees…Sylvia? Sylvia looks in the mirror and sees…Gertrude? No, it’s an eye for an eye, perhaps an eye for two eyes. Gertie looks in the mirror and sees…an anonymous girl who would flag down cars on North Meridian? Does she know this girl? She hears that Sylvia was flagging down cars. Gertie disapproves, and she disapproves when her own daughters do it! So just who are labelled “prostitutes”? Still, Gertrude is told that Sylvia is doing this. That’s a distortion in its own right. When Photo 1 Girl looks in the mirror, who does she see?