The Canonical Story that we find in the trial is one that had plenty of time to develop. That said, those who developed it did a particularly lousy job of it. I think that it would be helpful, to say the least, to explore the Canonical Story as it first appeared, and see where that leads us. In some cases, it’s what happened at the beginning of the story that allows us to see how the story eventually emerged. Perhaps the clues to the Real Story are to be found during its tumultuous beginning.
An interesting parallel is that of the Whitechapel murders. Oh, the Whitechapel murderer was also called Jack the Ripper, due to a spurious letter claiming to have been written by the killer. A large number of ridiculous letters were written claiming to be from the hand of the murderer himself. I maintain that the killer wrote nothing. The most notable letters contain taunts directed at the police. There is an important presupposition behind the letters, and that touches on motive. People kill for different reasons. The traditional detective attempts to find killers by looking for motive..money, love, jealousy..and my favorite, revenge. People who kill with no apparent motive can not be caught using the traditional reasoning. Such people kill for sport, and are now referred to as serial killers. Often, they combine satisfying some twisted impulse, and combine this with a game of cat and mouse with the police, the FBI, etc, accentuating the entertainment value. So the police or newspapers, perhaps both, receive communications from the killer egging them on. The Whitechapel murders are almost always believed to be the work of a serial killer, who killed his victims, all of them being prostitutes, for enjoyment. So the public thought at the time, and so ridiculous letters were written. I think that the Inherited Wisdom is wrong. I think that the Whitechapel murderer had a motive. I think that he didn’t just murder prostitutes…he murdered particular prostitutes.
The clue to the murders was available to the police from the beginning. Prostitutes interviewed by the police told the police who the killer was. They called him Leather Apron, because he worked in a trade that required the wearing of a leather apron. Since a large number of men were employed in such trades, that clue wasn’t enough. The answer seemed simple…walk the streets with the prostitutes until they pointed him out. Simple. But not so. Having received the necessary information, they hit a roadblock. A police officer stated that he knew Leather Apron personally…and his name was…John Pizer. The case was solved! Alas, no. John Pizer was interrogated by police. He said that he had nothing to do with the killings. He said that no one called him Leather Apron. He said that he had an alibi, and it was a good one. Who’s your alibi? You guys! What? At the time of one of the murders, there was a dock fire. John Pizer went down to the docks to watch the fire. While there, he chatted with a police constable who was involved in keeping the crowd of spectators back. When asked, he confirmed that he had chatted with the man named John Pizer. An iron-clad alibi. So the Leather Apron clue went nowhere.
It turned out that the cop who named John Pizer as Leather Apron, had a long simmering animosity toward him. He named John Pizer as Leather Apron out of spite. The problem was…the police nonetheless believed that John Pizer was Leather Apron…officers of the law don’t lie. But Leather Apron, i.e. John Pizer, wasn’t the killer, so the Leather Apron clue was simply dropped. If the police had any intelligence, they would have put the pieces together, reasoned that John Pizer was not Leather Apron, and so an evening stroll around Whitechapel with the local prostitutes would have resulted in the apprehension of the killer. Alas..it wasn’t to be. But the information available at the beginning of the Canonical Story, one of the most enduring Canonical Story in the history of crime, was left aside. The Final Canonical Story would result in theories about painters, poets, and even a prince being the Infamous Killer. Entertaining, to be sure, but all such suggestions are, in fact, wrong.
The first article about the death of Sylvia Likens appeared on October 27, 1965. This is highly problematic. Why? Dixon didn’t arrive at Gertrude’s house until 6:30 pm, and the investigation went on throughout the evening. Key people were arrested; Gertrude and Ricky. But the interrogations of Paula and Johnny didn’t take place until the morning of October 27th. Gertrude, as all acknowledged, claimed to be innocent. The information that appeared in the article was fed to the media by the police. Key to this information was Jenny, who along with Kaiser, began creating the Canonical Story. So in one way, the information fed to the media will be of dubious value as far as the truth is concerned. Yet in another way, the information fed to the media will be of incredible value to getting closer to the truth.
What can be said is that some of the details that the police supplied to the press are interesting indeed. We all know the slogan, and several publications on this website have shown that the slogan exists in many variations. However, these versions of the slogan all come from the testimony of various witnesses. On October 27, 1965 another version of the slogan appeared. In fact, given the date, it is actually the first version of the slogan. And I believe, it is the slogan as it really existed. On October 28th, we find the version of the slogan in the newspaper as we have come to know it…I am a prostitute and proud of it, albeit, thankfully, without the ludicrous exclamation point on the end. It is, however, not the version of the slogan that appeared on October 27th. I feel it safe to assert that the police saw the body of the girl, and all saw the slogan. It would be perhaps the most enduring element of the Likens Case, ensuring that the case would remain of public interest 50 years later. We find this on October 27th:
“I am a prostitute”
That’s it. All of it. Why would the police provide this piece of information to the media if it wasn’t true? Why would they lie? And yet, “and proud of it” would be added to the slogan 24 hours later. And that information was leaked to the media by the police as well. I think that there is a good explanation for this, the key being something that has been discussed in other essays on this website. What is that? The note. “I am a prostitute” is what was found on the body. But Police then had to reckon with the note, the Gang of Boys note, that provides the reading “I am a prostitute and proud of it.” This has been shown, on this website, to be more than implausible, and is the result of the writers of the Gang of Boys note having seen the slogan for only a few moments. Later, when the note was produced, it was done by so from memory. Faulty memory. Good grammar though. And an interesting idea, though I have my doubts. Other writers have suggested that this slogan was actually a voluntary body modification. But there’s a problem with this…for it to be that, then the word “proud” must have originally been part of it. If it read “I am a prostitute” then I see no way to conclude anything other than that this was a denigration that was inflicted on the girl against her will. And that’s different.
The article on October 27th also included the following details:
“A team of detectives investigating the case heard a gruesome tale in which the victim had been tied, gagged, beaten with a poker and curtain rods…”
We know that two of the main detectives in the case were William Kaiser and Spurgeon Davenport, and these may well have been the two homicide detectives who, with Officer Babbit of Identification, were breathing down Dr. Ellis’s neck in his empty autopsy room; missing scales and all. None of the testimony includes the detail about Sylvia having been beaten with a poker. Kaiser claimed that Gertrude said that Johnny had “marked” Sylvia with a poker.
Another detail:
“The victim and her sister, Jenny, 15, had been staying with Mrs. Wright since July when their parents, Mr. and Mrs. Lester Likens, left with a traveling road show to Florida, police said.”
This is not what Lester Likens would say in court. Lester recounts coming and going from different fairs. Florida, or so the Inherited Wisdom would be, was his final destination. In fact, the Likens would come and go from these fairs and Indianapolis, visiting Sylvia and Jenny on several occasions. In the claim in the newspaper, only Florida is mentioned, and no visits to Indianapolis are included. The Canonical Story on August 27th holds that Sylvia and Jenny were left with Mrs. Wright in July when their parents, part of a traveling road show, went to Florida. That’s it. Since Jenny undoubtedly supplied key information to Kaiser on the night of October 26th, and police leaked the story to the press, it would seem fair to believe that the information about where and in what capacity the Likens left their daughters with Mrs. Wright came from Jenny. So what is the truth…the information on October 27th, or the long and developed information that Lester would provide in his court testimony?
We also get this information:
“At first detectives said Mrs. Wright told them the girl stumbled into the back yard of the home, dazed and beaten, around 5:30 pm, with a handwritten note stating that she had been beaten by a group of boys. She told detectives she did not call police immediately because she was confused and Sylvia did not appear to be hurt very seriously.”
That’s strange. The Gang of Boys note provides the slogan as “I am prostitute and proud of it,” yet police, acknowledging the existence of the note, provided the press with a slogan reading “I am a prostitute.” And! According the information on October 27th, the note mentions only that the girl had been beaten by a group of boys. Notice another important detail; the police told the press that Gertrude told them about a note. There is no indication that the police were in possession of this note. And why is this? A reading of the information available on October 27th would seem to indicate that the police did not have a note; there was no Gang of Boys note on the evening of October 26th. Gertrude claimed that she gave a note to Dixon, that the note was given to her by one of the children, that she didn’t read the note before giving it to Dixon, and that she didn’t know which child gave it to her. We know about the burnt paper in the sink. The original note was given to one of the children, and children produced another note, burning the first note, and then giving the new note to Gertrude? Believing that she knew what was in the note, and not knowing that the original note had been switched for a different note, she gave it to Dixon without reading it? And she claimed not to know which child gave her the note in order to protect that child…possibly…Stephanie? We have encountered that elsewhere on this website. But the police know only one thing about the supposed note…that it stated that Sylvia had been beaten by a Gang of Boys. And they claimed that Gertrude told them this. The police know the slogan as “I am a prostitute,” whereas the Gang of Boys note that appeared during the trial gives the lengthy, unbelievable version of it. One may well be justified in concluding that there was no Gang of Boys note on the evening of October 26th, that the only note that had existed on October 26th was a different note, and that the burnt paper in the basement sink resulted from someone burning the original note before police arrived. So the existence of the note, and what it said, was known to the police only because Gertrude told them about it. So “I am a prostitute” was actually what was on the body on October 26th, and there was no note. The Gang of Boys note was produced later. If Gertrude told them about a note that they did not possess, then someone created a note…the Gang of Boys note…that provides a different version of the slogan, and adds various other details, including the existence of sores and silly little naughty things Sylvia did while staying at Mrs. Wright’s house, and yet managed to not include the supposed brand on the girl’s chest. There is a good reason for the lack of any reference to a Number 3 being on the body. If these considerations are accurate, then the Gang of Boys note is completely spurious. Indeed, I suggested in part 1 of this serial essay that Gertrude did have a note…a note that she compelled Sylvia to write. It was a note that explained why she was running away, and would not be returning. That note became pivotal to what happened on October 26th, when it was provided to the police. That note was destroyed, and the Gang of Boys note was put in its place.
We are also provided with the reason for what befell Sylvia, and it is provided by Jenny:
“Jenny Likens told detectives her sister had been tortured because Mrs. Wright ‘didn’t like her (Sylvia) at all.’”
But there is nothing in this statement by Jenny that indicates the reason for Gertrude’s hatred. In fact, this would be a major problem with the testimony in this case. The best that anyone could do during the trial was to suggest that the terrible abuse and eventual death of the girl was due to a bit of name-calling. This is, obviously, ridiculous. Equally so Marie’s claim that it was an argument over a Popsicle that set the whole Canonical Story into motion. And since such motives would be set aside by any reasonable person, the supposed actions of Gertrude would essentially remain without a motive. This was the reason why Erbecker pursued the insanity defense; if there was no motive, then Gertrude was either a serial killer, or she was insane. Since no other murders could be attribute to her, Erbecker reckoned that the best approach was to take advantage of the lack of any motive and plead insanity. So as of the evening of October 26th, Jenny and Kaiser simply could not come up with a reason for an imputed hatred of Sylvia on the part of Gertrude. This attests to the fact that Gertrude did not, in fact, harbor any hatred of Sylvia, although it would emerge that they didn’t particularly get along. And I will note at this point that on October 28th, a specific motive for why Sylvia was abused would be proffered. It is on that date that we meet a manifestation of Sylvia Likens that wasn’t apparent on October 27th, and one that would be dropped by the time of the trial, so it is only encountered during the intervening period. What manifestation of Sylvia was this?
We can call this character…The Enslaved Girl. The title of the October 28th article in the Indianapolis Star is titled: ““Lived like a Slave: Police Told of Tortured Girl’s Last Days.”
“Friends and neighbors said that Sylvia lived “like a slave” in the household of Mrs. Gertrude Wright, 37, in a run-down, gray frame rental house at 3850 East New York Street.”
Of course, one must ask…what friends? And what neighbors? The only neighbor who testified was Phyllis Vermillion, and she made no claims about Sylvia being a slave.
“A 14- year-old girl who was a frequent visitor at the Wright home said “It was Sylvia, do this, and Sylvia, do that, all the time- and when she didn’t do it, they would beat her.”
Sylvia do this…and Sylvia do that? And the abuse inflicted on Sylvia was the result of Sylvia not carrying out her slave-duties?
“Besides her regular household duties, Sylvia was forced to do ironing for which Mrs. Wright took the money, according to neighbors.”
Again, the neighbors are sources of information. Yet only Vermillion testified. Vermillion did say this:
“…and then we got to talking about school and everything and she said she made her quit school because she had stole a gym suit at school. Also, she had stole a watch from down the street and she was doing ironings, taking money for ironing.”
However, it is clear that in Vermillion’s statement, although she describes Sylvia as “doing ironings,” she does not claim that it was Gertrude who was taking the money. Marie told of seeing Sylvia and Paula doing chores in the basement, and Shirley stated that Sylvia was “helpful” around the house. And what about the 14 year old visitor to the house who supposedly said:
“It was Sylvia, do this, and Sylvia, do that, all the time- and when she didn’t do it, they would beat her.”
There were two 14 year old girls who testified: Darlene and Anna. Neither made any such claims as this. And no one referred to an enslaved Sylvia, not even Jenny. No one indicated that any of the supposed abuse was carried out because Sylvia rebelled against her enslavement. This is very strange indeed. Why don’t we encounter this Sylvia in the trial testimony? No credible motive for Gertrude abusing Sylvia was offered during the trial. The “Enslaved Girl” character has, built into it, a sort of “motive” for her abuse…if she did not do the tasks that were assigned to her, she was punished. So, unlike the Canonical Story in its final form, a motive existed in the earliest form of the Canonical Story…actual punishment. Of course, when slavery existed in the United States, dreadful punishments were inflicted on those who did not do the work they were assigned. It’s almost as if someone, or someones, felt that the story, as of Day 2, needed something; lacked something..something very important as far as the police were concerned… a motive. You always look for a motive. And a motive was hit upon…punishment inflicted upon a stubborn slave. It’s almost as if the police presumed that the public would want an answer to the question…why? What was the motive? Would this have been more effective than the other attempts at establishing a motive? It’s strange, to say the least, that “The Enslaved Girl” character offered something more, yet… it simply disappeared.
The article, besides providing a different, albeit authentic, reading of the slogan that differs from that found with the Inherited Wisdom, also provides a very different version of how the slogan event played out. A very different one. And there are some interesting details in it vis-à-vis certain testimony in the trial:
“She said about a week ago at least three of the children, Mrs. Wright and Hobbs gagged and tied the victim in the basement of the house and Mrs. Wright told Hobbs to carve the words on the girl’s stomach.”
Wow! No kitchen! The Canonical Story has us believe that the slogan was inflicted on the girl in the kitchen, and that the branding was inflicted on her in the basement. We encounter Silent, Suffering Sylvia standing still for Ricky to scratch the slogan into her stomach in ten minutes. And with a sewing needle, of all things. But Jenny said on October 26th that the girl had to be bound and gagged as the mutilation took place. Which sounds more realistic? Right! The version of events shared with the media on October 26th. So Gertrude and “at least three of the children” tied the girl up and Ricky “carved” the words onto the girl’s stomach. What children? Our kitchen scene has Gertrude carve an ‘I’ and Ricky carve the rest. Everyone else was a spectator. We are told that Randy arrived as the slogan was being finished, and Sylvia was taken to the basement. While down there, Shirley and Ricky, with nothing else to do, decided to brand Sylvia with a Number 3 or a Letter S, no one seems to know which it is. It has been shown elsewhere on this website that Sylvia actually had a 3S OM tattoo on her stomach; a temporary tattoo that Ricky made. And so he got stuck with making the slogan since the Number 3 and slogan would be represented as having been made at the same time. Naturally.
It should noted that according to Shirley, the slogan wasn’t finished in the kitchen. It wasn’t finished when Randy arrived. According to Shirley, the slogan was finished in the basement. And it is extremely interesting that Marie, describing the branding made in the basement, states that Sylvia had been bound and gagged as Paula and Johnny set about making the second mutilation…the Mysterious Marking above the slogan. If the version that appeared in the media on October 27th came from Jenny, then it is strange that Marie gave the description that she did of the branding, which sounds remarkably similar to Jenny’s version of the slogan-event on the evening of October 26th. At least three of the children? Paula, Johnny, and Marie…possibly Shirley…gives us our “at least three of the children.” Could anything be more important? Marie was supposed to describe the branding as done by Ricky and Shirley, Sylvia not being restrained or silenced. But Marie did not do that until she was berated into changing her story. However, the story as of October 27th says nothing about a branding in the basement…there is no Number 3, and there is no Letter S. There is only a scene featuring a bound and gagged Sylvia in the basement, with Mrs. Wright, Paula, Johnny, Shirley, and Marie watching as Ricky put the words “I am a prostitute” on the girl’s stomach. Unless we are actually supposed to include Stephanie in the gang of children in the basement. And Shirley even stated that the slogan was finished in the basement, which is not what the Canonical Story holds to be true, but offers an interesting touch-point to the scene as described on October 27th, and the scene as described by Marie.
This was also said, supposedly coming from Jenny:
“She said they also forced the girl to sleep on the basement floor.”
The role of the basement in the Canonical Story was analyzed in the essay titled “Nightfall,” where it was shown that the dynamics of the situation in Gertrude’s house, when combined with the witness testimony, indicates that the notion of Sylvia sleeping in the basement is nonsense. Even Jenny, in her testimony, kept claiming that Sylvia slept upstairs during the period of time during which, according to Jenny, Sylvia had been forced to sleep in the basement. Other witnesses do this too, and during the final climax to the story, Ricky and Stephanie put Sylvia on the mattress upstairs after bathing her, when they should have put her back in the basement if that’s where she was sleeping. None of the witnesses could come up with a reason for Sylvia sleeping in the basement. Paula even stated that it was for hygienic reasons. And a fatal problem was the fact that the basement in Gertrude’s house is described in such a way as that it is clear that the basement wasn’t locked.
Let’s continue with the story that existed on October 27th, which will lead to a shocking conclusion.
“The sister said Mrs. Wright began beating Sylvia again Monday night in the basement. The girl’s hands were tied while she was struck with curtain rods and a furnace poker, the girl told police.”
So Jenny’s curtain rod becomes curtain rods, and the furnace poker is added. What is described is a group beating, and the different persons involved have curtain rods and one person has a furnace poker. Curtain rods and the poker are obviously something to be found in a basement. To continue:
“Sylvia, who was born at Lebanon and attended Arsenal Technical High School until she dropped out recently, also had been dumped into hot water while tied and gagged, Jenny Likens said. This happened about Saturday, she said.”
So let me get this straight! There was only one instance of Sylvia being dumped into hot water while she tied and gagged?
“Detectives said Mrs. Wright would admit only that she struck Sylvia with a strap, but Hobbs admitted the frequent beatings.”
Yes, Gertrude admitted smacking Sylvia. But she was also smacked everybody else. Or had them smacked. A strap? Not a police belt? If detectives found a police belt…why call it a strap? Because, the police belt had been left by mistake by John Baniszewski, who admitted to being in the basement that night. During the trial, an attempt to explain its presence was made because John shouldn’t have been there, well, assuming that he got to the scene before the other cops.
This is interesting:
“A neighbor said last night she asked Jenny yesterday how Sylvia was and the girl replied that she was all right. The neighbor said Mrs. Wright’s children were ‘full of manners and really good.’ The neighbor said the girls’ parents worked at state fairs and carnivals.’”
Fascinating! We have heard from the police, and we have heard from Jenny. But it seems that the reporter also spoke to a neighbor. That neighbor, on October 26th, asked Jenny how Sylvia was doing, and Jenny told her that Sylvia was fine. This was not mentioned during the trial! Jenny does not indicate such a conversation with a neighbor. Why didn’t this neighbor testify? Was it Phyllis Vermillion? Possibly, but perhaps not. This neighbor knew about Lester and Betty working at state fairs and carnivals. And this neighbor apparently knew Gertrude’s children, and provides a detail that must be absolutely true..they had good manners and weren’t the obnoxious bunch that Gertrude said they were. Why true? The neighbor had no reason to lie, and it was far too early in the development of the Canonical Story for the police to silence the neighbors. That would happen, and in fact, statements by neighbors on October 28th would present a very different picture. Why did Jenny tell this neighbor that Sylvia was fine on October 26th? Who was the neighbor Phyllis Vermillion? Mrs. McGuire? Mrs. Monroe? Mrs. Sims?
“The other boy being sought was not identified, but police said he was believed to have tied ropes around the girl during one of the beatings.”
We could surmise that reference is being made to Coy Hubbard.
The story on October 27th was very different than it would appear later. Lester and Betty Likens leave Sylvia and Jenny with Gertrude Wright in July 1965 as they head to Florida. At some point, Gertrude decides she hates Sylvia, for some unknown reason. On Saturday, Sylvia is bound and gagged in the basement and Ricky carves the words “I am prostitute” on her stomach. She is forced to sleep in the basement, and about the same time, Sylvia is bound and gagged and thrown into scalding hot water. Ricky has administered beatings. Then on Monday, October 25th, there is a group beating administered in the basement using curtain rods and a furnace poker. Kebel is quoted as saying that he arrived at Gertrude’s house and found Sylvia on a mattress in the upstairs back bedroom, dead from a blow to the head. Gertrude supposedly told the police a story about Sylvia’s sudden appearance at the back porch, carrying a note about a beating. I add…that a note was destroyed, and later another note was produced. A neighbor is surprised that Gertrude’s children were involved, seeing that they were good children with decent manners.
Wait! Gertrude’s children are well-mannered? That’s a different picture of the children than we’re used to seeing. These kids stole stuff from Robert Handlon? No. Johnny can’t be controlled until he’s at the Juvenile Center, where he is apparently well behaved? The following was run in the October 31rst edition of the Indi Star:
“Friends and neighbors of the Hobbs described him as a ‘very nice boy.’ He was one of the finest boys I ever knew, a middle-aged woman who lives a few doors north of Hobbs on Denny Street, said, ‘In fact the whole Hobbs family was one of the best in the neighborhood.’ Some of Hobbs’ high school friends said they could not believe ‘Ricky’ did it.”
Wow! Ricky sounds a lot like Gertrude’s kids. The image of the kids we get from external sources…i.e. not from silly trial testimony, and not from lies that the cops presented…is very much different when we listen to uninvolved third parties who have no reason to lie.
Now here is the climax to this story…the woman in question is identified as Mrs. Gertrude Wright. The name Baniszewski is never used in the article dated October 27th. Did Gertrude really use an alias with the police? We know that she was never married to this mysterious Dennis Wright. How long would it take the police to determine that the woman in question wasn’t Gertrude Wright? How long would it take the police to determine her real name? And if Gertrude maintained her innocence, it would have been stupid to try to pass herself off as Gertrude Wright, seeing that providing the police with a false name is a felony. And why do it? What would it achieve? Does the fact that her last name, which it isn’t, is Wright somehow protect her, but the use of her real name, Baniszewski, would condemn her? She has the benefit of having an ex-husband who is a Beech Grove police officer. I see no reason why Gertrude Baniszewski would want to pass herself off as Gertrude Wright. Of course, her name was Gertrude, and a baby named Denny Wright was living with her. Did she tell the police that this baby was her baby? I think that there is something amazing to note at this point.
All I’ve got is a photograph. That’s a line from a very cool song. But in the song, having a photograph, only a photograph, means the real person is unavailable…unknowable. Nonetheless, photographs can provide valuable clues. I see your face every time I dream…well, not in the Sylvia Likens case. And that song was released in 1983, so it was available in 1965 for Gertrude to dance to in the living room. Still…image is everything. There is no question that photograph can be used to spin public perception. I return to the interesting parallel of the so-called Jack the Ripper murders. It’s been pointed out on this website that the appropriate moniker for the most infamous murderer of all time is the White Castle murderer…wait, that’s not right; I mean the Whitechapel murderer. Too bad Lester and Phyllis Vermillion…they did not have White Castles in 1888 London. Whitechapel was actually a specific district of that city. And photographs did not appear in the newspapers. But the newspapers were obsessed with the killings. So British versions of Natty Bumppo were everywhere, looking for details and general nonsense to hype-up the sensationalist Canonical Story that was being built. That Canonical Story spun out of control, to say the least. And the nonsense that was burying the investigations in a giant pile of…well, you know what kind of a pile I mean, made solving the case increasing difficult. Hey!
So I’m not the only one who’s been critical of the police…though I emphasize…not the police in general. But I have some concerns about Indi’s finest as far as the Sylvia Likens case goes. And here, the police are obviously having their investigation subverted. And! This poor British Bobby is not, by any means, a reflection of Officer Dixon! Our Dixon owes his Sherlock Holmes-eque sleuthing ability to his keen power of…looking. It’s too bad that we can’t send Dixon back to 1888 Whitechapel. He would look his way to finding Saucy Jacky! Should we bring Blindfolded Bobby to 1965 Indianapolis? No…although he might be willing to substitute White Castle for Whitechapel. The police involved in the Sylvia Likens murder case were very keen in my opinion, and perhaps quite good at carrying out their duties. The explanation for their actions are, I think, due to a different cause. What did the killer look like? After all, image is everything.
Wow! How hard can it be to find a guy that looked like this? Actually, this image is meant to convey something far more important than the Whitechapel killer. Most people who don’t study these murders are unaware of just how sadistically violent the East End of London was in 1888. It was the red light district par excellence…name your vice, then head to Whitechapel. People lay dying in the streets from Delirium Tremens. Prostitutes were everywhere…as were the gangs who attempted to control the sex trade; gangs who butchered women in hideous ways if they failed to cooperate. Poverty…hunger…despair. The vicious murder of Martha Tabram, a prostitute, has been regarded by some as the killer’s first victim. However, this is unlikely. Emma Smith is also regarded as the first victim. This too is unlikely. She was viciously attacked by a gang, who inflicted injuries on her that will remain undescribed. What would Spurgeon Davenport have made of that? But the Ripper Case is fascinating in another way…the motive of the killer…was it similar to that of the madman who killed Photo1Girl? Photo1Woman? Who is she…and how did she meet her fate? Well, that’s a topic for a later essay. But image is everything:
So! The killer is a hideous ogre! Are you sure?
Apparently we are sure! Now I could ask…if the killer looked this…why would Blindfold Bobby have so much difficulty finding him? I must add that what we have here is a distortion. From the outset, local prostitutes told the police who the killer was…Leather Apron. How hard is it to catch a guy that several women could point out? A lying cop used this clue to try and set up a man with whom he had a personal feud. His name was John Pizer, and he was completely innocent, seeing how he had the best alibi possible..the police themselves. Tell me if the Ogre-like killer pictured above is even more interesting after view this one:
That is John Pizer. And despite the fact that the police cleared him completely, distorted images of him continued to be used by the press until the murders ceased.
Various pictures of the characters in the Sylvia Likens case were used by the press. Here is an interesting one:
I admit that it’s purely subjective, but this image of Paula helped create the image that led to something like this:
Torture-Slayer? The testimony during the trial made several allegations of abuse supposedly inflicted by Paula on Sylvia…but murder? When was an act of murder on the part of Paula ever described? For that matter, no act of murder was proven against Gertrude, but it is certain that the abuse attributed to Gertrude exceeded that attributed to Paula. According to Jenny, Paula was the last person to arrive at the house on the evening of October 26th. In the comedy routine performed by the two honorary Stooges…Stephanie and Ricky…Paula is invisible. In fact, and this is conveniently ignored when comments are made about Paula, she was coming home from the church Revival meeting on the evening of October 26th.
Interpreting photos is also tricky business. A classic example of this is the following:
You may have seen this before…Adolf Hitler, having annexed the Sudetenland, sends in German troops. The woman on the far left is clearly happy, if not ecstatic, to see Hitler’s forces arrive. The woman in the middle…how does she feel? She has a rather serious look on her face. Perhaps she is afraid of not reacting the way she thinks she is supposed to react. So she does what she sees other people around her doing. Then there’s the Crying Lady. In America, a newspaper that published the photo said that the woman was deeply distraught about the annexation of her homeland by a militarist fiend. The same picture was published in the Nazi party newspaper in Germany, where it was claimed that this woman was so overjoyed to become part of the Third Reich that she weeps tears of joy. Which is true? Is she an ardent Nazi? Or a Nazi hater? What an amazing photo…three women, one happy…one serious…and one…well, we can’t be sure.
Telling the emotions of the person in a photo…1938, and 1971. Is Paula the cold-blooded torture-slayer, here trying not to grin at the game she is playing? The smirk of a sadist? Here’s another one:
Yes…that is the leader of the all the kids…Miss Sock and Smack herself..the Bringer of Cups of Tea. She has just finished testifying. What does this picture indicate that she is feeling? The reporter who wrote the article for the Terre Haute Tribune provided this caption:
Is she smiling? If so, what does that mean? If she’s smiling…why hold a tissue, or handkerchief up to her face? Smiling out of some enjoyment of the whole thing? We know that she was held out as Ricky’s partner in the sadistic branding of Sylvia in the basement. So perhaps she can’t help but show her amusement during the trial. In fact, the following question, with all it implies, is important:
Q. On that Saturday that you said you saw your mother and Ricky using a hot needle on Sylvia, you did not run into the other room and tell Randy to come in that everybody was having fun with Sylvia?
A. No.
Q. That Saturday did you go and tell some other kids to come over to the house because everybody was having fun with Sylvia?
A. No, I never. I never left the house.
Here the implication is that the 10 year old found the mutilation of Sylvia to be entertaining. And thus we having Smiling Shirley:
But another observation can be made. Not long after Shirley began testifying, we find this:
Q. Do you know what happens to little girls who don't tell the truth?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. What happens to them?
A. They get in trouble.
Q. With whom?
A. Whoever they lie to.
THE COURT: Why do you cry at these questions. Don't be afraid. Nobody can hurt you. You are here to testify. You don't have to cry. Nobody can hurt you.
So Shirley is crying. She doesn’t find the whole thing amusing or entertaining. She’s frightened…terrified. So what of the pictures? One more:
Shirley seems to have a similar look on her face at different times, perhaps illustrating her general aspect. Even so, it is simply the case that the apparent smile on the faces of Paula and Shirley, like the emotional reaction of the woman in the Sudetenland in 1938, have different explanations. People will interpret them in line with their own pre-suppositions. I think that the apparent smiles are covering up a totally different emotion…extreme stress. But I could be wrong…perhaps a picture isn’t worth a thousand words. The camera never lies. That’s true…but it is by no means the case that one knows the story the camera is telling.
As with Paula and Shirley, Ricky’s image wasn’t always the best:
An excellent picture to run of Richard Hobbs…the hard man…the brutal man, wait. Boy. That’s easy to forget. This is Judy Duke’s Ricky the Contract Killer! This picture can be contrasted with:
And so we have Ricky the 14 year old…the neighbor boy, and one that his neighbors and the kids who knew him at school apparently held in high regard. Perhaps that’s not reflected in the first picture, but is in the second. Maybe a picture isn’t worth a thousand words..all the time. Maybe some pictures need words to tell the real story; perhaps a thousand words are needed for one picture! That’s a different ratio all together.
Three pictures were published in the newspaper on October 27th. One of these pictures was of Ricky, and while reference is made to Gertrude’s children, the only people named specifically are Gertrude Wright, Ricky Hobbs, and Jenny Likens. That’s it, none of the others are named, even though we know who they are. The first picture is of Sylvia Likens:
This is the picture of Ricky used in the newspaper article.
We have all seen these photos before. Where did the photo of Sylvia come from? Reference is made to Sylvia’s parents, but nothing is said about the reporter having spoken to them. Did it come from Dianna or from the Grimes? Dianna could have had a picture of Sylvia, but the photo that ran in the newspaper article looks to be quite recent. The Likens parents indicated that they were estranged from Dianna. So either this wasn’t the truth, and Dianna was not estranged from her parents, and thus might have had a recently-taken picture of Sylvia, or the picture didn’t come from Dianna. Of course, it makes complete sense that the Grimes would have a picture of their grand-daughter. That makes all the sense in the world. What I have trouble with is the idea that the police obtained a photograph of Sylvia from the Grimes on the evening of October 26th. Jenny said this about where she spent the night on the evening of October 26th:
Q. Then where did you go - after you left police headquarters where did you go?
A. I went to my sister's, Diane Shoemaker, and stayed all night.
What about the evening of October 27th?
Q. Where did you spend the second night, not the night of the death, the day you was over at your sister's house - the next day, where did you spend the night?
A. I think my Grandma Grimes.
Q. Where is that?
A. 333 South Temple.
Q. What time did you arrive there that night?
A. Around 1:30 or 2:00 o'clock.
Q. In the afternoon?
A. Yes.
First she stayed with Dianna and then…to grandmother’s house we go! If the police spoke with the Grimes on the evening of October 26th, and we know that the Grimes did not object to Jenny staying with them, then why didn’t they simply take Jenny to the home of Wallace Grimes on the evening of the 26th? If the police did not speak to the grandparents on October 26th, then they did not obtain the picture of Sylvia from them. Strange. So either Jenny had the picture, the photo was found among Sylvia’s effects, or it was Gertrude’s picture of Sylvia. A similar question can be raised about the picture of Ricky. I think that it’s quite possible that the police spoke to Ricky’s parents on the evening of October 26th. But the issue of establishing Ricky’s identity didn’t exist. So would the police request a photo of Ricky from Woodrow Hobbs? The photo is not a mug-shot. So either the police obtained a photo of Ricky from Woodrow Hobbs for the purpose of running it in the newspaper, or they found it when they searched Gertrude’s house, or a reporter managed to obtain a photo of Ricky from someone that he ran in the newspaper. The provenance of the photos is an interesting subject indeed, as it raises questions about how closely connected Gertrude was to both the Likens, and the Hobbs. We have seen that Gertrude played the role of surrogate mother to Ricky. But that does not necessitate Gertrude actually having a photo of Ricky.
And the Likens? We know that Sylvia and Jenny ended up at Gertrude’s house on July 3rd or July 4th. The image created in the testimony is that this was purely random. So Lester Likens arrives in Indianapolis looking for his we’ve-been-separated-so-many-times-that-we-should-be-divorced-already wife. But then it turns out that he was missing more than Betty…his two daughters are missing too. What is one to do about that?
Q. When you arrived at Mrs. Baniszewski's or Mrs. Wright's, what house did you go to?
A. Well, when we arrived we went next door - Danny did - and I stayed in the car and they told us -
So it’s a good thing that Danny knows where the girls might be. I must admit that I have a problem with what Lester just said. Why? Well Danny knows where the Baniszewskis live, and can therefore direct his father to where the girls are staying, but then goes to the neighbor’s house. The neighbor on the other side of the double is most likely Robert and Karen Handlon. What about the “other side” neighbor? That would be whoever was living at 3848 East New York. According to Vermillion, she didn’t live at that address in July. So who did?
1963: William J Offinga
1964: James R Morgan
1965: vacant
1966: Raymond Vermillion
So is there a connection to Mr. Morgan? Of course, Darlene McGuire lived at 3846 East New York Street, which is one side of the double-house with 3848 East New York Street. It seems strange that Danny could get Lester all the way to Gertrude’s house, and then, instead of simply knocking on Gertrude’s door, he went to a neighbor’s house. It would be a striking coincidence if Danny led Lester to Darlene’s house, only to be told that Sylvia and Jenny were, at that very moment, two houses down. If Danny actually spoke to Robert Handlon, then there was a connection to Mr. Handlon that was known to Sylvia’s family. Here’s an interesting statement:
A. Just the conversation she wanted to know where my wife was. I guess the girl's told me where my wife was. I did not know where my wife was.
Why does Gertrude care about where Betty Likens is? If Sylvia and Jenny told her that their mother was in jail…who cares? I mean that from the perspective of Gertrude. They’re not my kids..why do I care about their mother? Assuming of course, that I don’t know her, in which case I may be somewhat concerned.
Q. What did they say?
A. They said "Mommy is in jail" and I said, "In jail" so I run in the car run down to see if I could find her and evidently she had already been out or was getting out. I missed her someway and went back to the house a couple of times or three looking for her.
Q. Which house?
A. 109 North Euclid. Evidently she went there for the children and they was not there so we went back to Mrs. Baniszewski's house and she said, "Why don't you stay here tonight"? I said, "Well, I had better get back to Lebanon". The boy said, "Let's stay here". He slept on the davenport and I set in the chair and slept all night. If I remember, I was out looking for Betty before they got up.
So Gertrude has never met the Likens. Jenny and Sylvia turn up at their house simply by chance…the mutual acquaintance known as Darlene. Danny is able to get to Gertrude’s house, only to talk to the neighbor. Then Gertrude apparently is concerned about where a woman she never met was at the time. She’s in jail…Mommy is in jail. That is the first time that Betty Likens had been arrested? Betty now has an arrest record…or had one already? Do not downplay the fact that Betty ended up in jail that night, and that fact must be taken into account when assessing the person of Betty Likens. And having never met the Likens, Gertrude was willing to let two men she just met sleep in her house? I wonder if Gertrude knew just what a risk she was taking. She has young girls. It seems hard to believe that Gertrude would have done this. Random? Never met before? Then Lester, and apparently Betty, are willing to let their daughters stay with a woman who never met him, Gertrude’s trepidation about Betty’s current whereabouts having been reconciled:
Q. Then you arrived in Indianapolis and discovered your wife was in jail, had been arrested, and no one was looking after the children. You never saw Mrs. Baniszewski before and after one conference with her and a conference with your wife, you agreed to let your children stay with total strangers, with Mrs. Baniszewski?
A. After two conferences. I had a conference and me and my wife, that is right.
Not a single conference, Mr. Attorney! That would have irresponsible in the extreme! Two conferences. OK, that’s different. Of course, Betty knew Darlene’s mother, and could have spoken with her. But there is no indication of this in the testimony. In fact, Betty states that the information she received about Gertrude came from Lester:
A. Well, she just said she was going to take care of the children. We were going to pay her $20.00 a week. She said she was going to take care of the children. My husband said he thought she was a good woman to take care of the children.
This suggests that Betty did not speak to Ella McGuire. This suggests that she simply went by what her husband said. And for some reason, there is a gap in time involving Betty:
Q. Your wife became aware of where the children were after a week or so had passed, is that correct?
A. No, sir.
Q. How much time?
A. One night and one day.
Q. She was in jail?
A. She was only in jail one night.
Betty said this:
Q. How long had they been there when you went?
A. Just a few days.
And what makes this really interesting is her response to the question regarding when she first spoke to Gertrude:
Q. Did you have a conversation with Mrs. Baniszewski?
A. Yes, my husband said he would like for me to meet her.
Q. What was said at that time?
MR. BOWMAN: We object.
MR. ERBECKER: We object unless the time and place is established.
THE COURT: Objection sustained.
Q. Do you recall what date this was?
A. I think it was October.
I think that it’s fascinating that when asked about when she met Gertrude, her answer is…October. October? Could it be that Betty Likens did not meet Gertrude until October? If so, then she had nothing to do with the decision to board Jenny and Sylvia at Gertrude’s house. Betty gives us this detail:
Q. Would you relate what conversation you did hear in the presence of Mrs. Baniszewski and Paula Marie?
A. Well, they said they were treated real good and they wanted to keep her.
Q. What did Mrs. Baniszewski say?
A. She just said she would like to keep Sylvia and she needed an education real bad and she wanted her to go back to school.
Q. Did she do anything at that time?
A. No, not that I remember. She put her arm around Sylvia, and said she would like to keep her.
Gertrude put her arm around Sylvia? I think that Betty is playing it a little over the top. Why is Gertrude so concerned about Sylvia’s education? She doesn’t seem to have the same interest in Jenny’s education. Yet Gertrude kills Sylvia but leaves Jenny pretty much alone. And we know that both Danny and Benny were found at Gertrude’s house on different occasions, with Benny having actually stayed at Gertrude’s house. Lester tells us that he went to the jail to find Betty, but she had either been released, or was in the process of being released. So he had to look for her further. It’s interesting that, according to Gertrude, Sylvia and Jenny told Lester where he could go to find Betty…after she got out of lock-up, that is:
A. Again I was upstairs and had left my daughter Paula downstairs and Marie was still up too and Sylvia and Jenny. He came back later and said the girls' mother had been bailed out of jail. He did not know where else she could be. I heard the girls telling their father about some man she had been running around with, that she could be over there or she could be over at her mother's and again he asked me if it was alright to leave the girls there so they would not be alone while he went looking for the mother.
So Betty is staying in Indianapolis. She gets arrested, but even if you didn’t find her in jail she might be located if you can locate the man with whom she is committing adultery. Wow. Problematic? Lester thought so:
Q. Then did you have conversation with Mr. Likens about the girls living at your house?
A. No, he talked mainly to the girls and he was talking about - I don't know what I am going to do with you girls, where you are going to stay. He was real vindictive at the mother -
Betty the mother? Lester the father? Judge not lest ye be judged! So I won’t!
Q. Go ahead, relate the conversation, not your opinion or conclusion.
A. Sylvia asked her father if she could stay with us -
Q. On that same night or morning at 1:00 o'clock?
A. Yes, sir, I immediately said, "No, I could not take care of you children, I have too many of my own and too many worries and too many responsibilities without adding any more". She said, "Well, we can take care of ourselves, we are used to that".
We are used to fending for ourselves. A 15 year old girl and a 16 year old girl. That would certainly be the case if Betty was too busy being in jail or running around with some man to look after her daughters. I won't even go into the subject of Lester...for now.
If image is everything, then here are a few pictures of someone we know well:
And:
So one picture smiling, and one..not smiling. Unlike the case of the Crying Woman in 1938, we know why this Crying Woman is crying.
And I think that this one is particularly fascinating:
Fascinating? It’s just another picture of Gertrude. No, not for that reason. Behind Gertrude are two large drawings of…Sylvia. Well, they are generic outlines upon which Dr. Ellis used his three magic markers to indicate wounds that might be burns and might not be burns; trauma that may have been made with a sharp object, a hot object, or…my favorite…a hot, sharp object. It is hard to tell from the picture with any certainty, but there don’t seem to be as many red, blue, green indications as one might expect.
But here is the third picture:
Is the significance of this readily apparent? Is this Gertrude Baniszewski? If so, when was this taken? This is not Gertrude Baniszewski. Notice how convenient it is that a hand and very large arm are blocking the face. This photo has been staged. Notice how the very large arm is virtually straight up and down…at a 90 degree angle. If a person were trying to hide their face because a reporter suddenly jumped in front of them to take a picture, the normal reaction is actually to hold one’s hand in front of one’s face in a way whereby the back of the hand is toward the face, and the palm of the hand faces the camera. And, the hand is often held out toward the camera. But try to mimic this picture by putting your palm over your face, and then position your arm so that it is at a 90 degree angle. You will find that this is a position, a bearing, that one would not make naturally. Notice too just how close the camera is to the face, and then notice how the camera angle is directly level with the face.
Now notice the hematoma around the right eye…a black eye…a nasty one. Gertrude was described as having a black-eye on October 26th, but Dixon, the famous Indianapolis Looker, didn’t see it. There also appears to be one around the left eye as well. The only person with two black eyes at the same time is the one who was lying on Dr. Ellis’ autopsy table. And whereas Kebel states that Gertrude had a black-eye, he doesn’t say that Sylvia had one.
Now look at the lower left side of the face. Yes! Discoloration, wounds or sores of some kind. Now notice the hand…it is a right hand, and it has similar discoloration, wounds, or sores of some kind. Finally, notice the blouse…the funny blouse. It gives the appearance of a circular pattern to the right. So I would compare this photo to this one:
We can see the discoloration on the lower left side of the face. We can see the black-eyes. We can see the wounds, or sores on the right hand. The left hand in the Mattress Photo has been hidden by altering the photo so as to make the hand appear as though it was, for some strange reason, under the funny blouse, when it obviously isn’t, and we can see how it gives the appearance of the blouse having been wrapped tightly around the hand…making it look like a glove. The photo has been altered to hide the left hand and the fact that the fingernails have been torn off. Thus the hand placed over the face of the photo of Mrs. Wright is conveniently the left hand, so we don’t see the fact that the fingernails are torn off. This suggests that the fingernails were missing on only one hand. It is also clear that the blouse has been altered in the Mattress Photo, the bizarre circular pattern on the right side differs considerably from the apparently perpendicular stripes. In fact, looking at the larger picture, the vertical stripes actually run down past the upper body and over the pants. I believe that, when comparing the picture of Mrs. Gertrude Wright with the Mattress Girl photo, who is supposed to be Sylvia Likens, the conclusion must be the woman in the picture in the newspaper is actually dead, and is in fact, Mattress Girl…Mattress Woman. The photo of Mrs. Wright was taken in Ellis’s autopsy room, with the camera, possibly wielded by the officer from Identification, pointing directly into the face as he leaned over her. Then the right arm was brought up so that the right hand was placed directly over the face, the mistake of positioning the arm at a 90 degree angle having been made in the process. The hand so positioned was the right hand, because the fingernails were missing from the left hand. It seems clear to me that Mrs. Wright, and Gertrude Baniszewski, were two different women. Mrs. Wright, the woman in the newspaper photo, is the woman on the mattress. The photo supplied to the press for use in the October 27th edition of the paper, when the Original Version of the Canonical Story in its infancy, was taken in the autopsy room on the night of October 26th. The hand was positioned over the face to obscure the identity of the woman. Why? Because on October 26th, the police wanted to establish the lie that Mrs. Wright was not, in fact, dead, but not only still alive, but was also the woman who killed Sylvia Likens. In other words, the woman the police arrested on the evening of October 26th was Gertrude Baniszewski, and Sylvia Likens had been found dead in her side of the double…3850 East New York Street. The face of Photo1Lady looks to me like she didn’t die on the evening of October 26th; it looks like the woman had been dead for some. Where was she found? And no…not in the basement of the North Denny side of the double. In fact, I now believe that the house on the other side of the wall has no relevance to anything.
I initially, in part 1 of this essay series, I accepted the claims about Gertrude having a black-eye. I also have long accepted the idea that Gertrude had scratches on her face. These were either obtained during a fight with Sylvia, being wounds that were inflicted on her by Sylvia, or were self-inflicted. Why? To make it look like she had been in a fight. I am no longer of that opinion. Why? This picture ran in the October 31rst edition of the Indi Star:
Now it is true that October 31rst is sufficiently later to see a black-eye disappear. But what of these cuts, or scratches, or sores that were all over her face. I will also state that I don’t think that this picture was taken on October 31st. Notice that something has been hung around her neck…I think that it is the plaque that denotes the number of a jailhouse prisoner when they are arrested. Denim shirts used to be commonly given to prisoners to wear in jail…what one attorney described comically as “jail garb.” There is no black-eye in this picture. There are no scratches, scrapes, cuts, or sores on her face. In fact, Dr. Shuck said this:
Q. How long did she have sores on her face, Doctor, after October 27?
A. As I recall, they cleared within a two week period.
Two weeks…of course. But if he saw Gertrude on October 27th and she had sores, and it took 2 weeks for them to clear up, then why does her skin look perfectly fine in a picture that can be no later than October 31rst, although I think that it was taken on October 26th or October 27th? Either the picture isn’t of Gertrude Baniszewski, or Shuck, and various other people, gave testimony that may have been lacking in veracity. In this case, a picture speaks a couple thousand words, at least. He also made the following statements:
Q. Did she appear to be a normal person on October 27, 1965?
A. She was ill from the things that have already been mentioned.
Q. Would you say that, basing you answer on her present condition October 27, 1965, that she had the same manifestation and the same condition on October 26, 1965?
MR. NEW: We object.
THE COURT: Sustained.
Q. Would you say that that condition came on immediately October 27, 1965 or was that condition existing sometime?
A. I believe that the condition had existed for sometime.
Q. Have you any idea how long?
A. No.
Q. Would you say a week or two weeks or three weeks?
A. It could.
Q. Longer?
A. It is possible.
So according to Shuck, Gertrude’s condition must have been very, very serious. It could have existed up to three weeks before he saw her on October 27th. The sores were worsened by Gertrude scratching them. They were weeping and oozing pus. And:
Q. When did you see her again, if you did?
A. The next time was on the 11th of November, 1965.
Q. The 11th of November. How did she appear at that time?
A. She was much improved as far as her skin lesions were concerned. They were practically healed up. She was more comfortable but still troubled with the lung congestion and she was - it was very suggestive of a mild case of pneumonitis at that time.
So they were better, but still visible on November 11, 1965. How is this consistent with the photo published on October 31, 1965? I must answer that with…it simply isn’t. Dr. Lindenborg, who saw Gertrude on October 25th, confirms this:
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.
Dr. Lindenborg’s testimony is completely consistent with the picture published on October 31st. Here is where it gets interesting, as if it wasn’t already. Take a look at this picture:
Is that a black eye….her right eye? It sure looks like it. This picture was taken at the time that Judge Zaklan ordered Gertrude and Ricky to be bound over to the grand jury. The date is November 1st. So if Gertrude has a black-eye on November 1rst, one that looks like it’s healing, and she didn’t have one on October 26th, or October 27th, or even October 31st, she got a black-eye subsequent to any of those dates…whichever date one is inclined to favor. In my mind, that means that Gertrude got her black-eye in a place where black-eyes are made readily available…jail. Another prisoner took a shot at her. That is the black-eye that the matrons talked about. It is interesting, and perhaps no more than that, to note the following photo:
That is Gertrude in 1985. But someone has produced their variation of this photo:
Of course, Gertrude didn’t have a black-eye in 1985. And the black-eye she did have, the one she had on November 1, 1965, was the right eye. Alas.
So the black-eye is out. So the sore or lesions on the face are out. Gertrude was also described to be notably underweight. Shuck testified to this, as did the jail matrons. I’m puzzled by that. I show again a photo from the trial:
So Gertrude was, and probably always was, a very thin woman. And this picture reflects a time when she regained her weight…after having lost a notable amount of weight? How much thinner could she have been without having simply disappeared? How about this picture from the trial:
Again..how much thinner than this could she have been on October 26th? Or October 27th? Gertrude Skeleton? What did Dr. Lindenborg say about Gertrude’s weight on October 25th?
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.
I must agree with the doctor…she has always been a very slight woman…the pictures prove it.
It would appear that a strange image of Gertrude Baniszewski was created; one that mirrored the woman with her hand smack dab in the middle of her face…the woman called Mrs. Wright, whose picture ran in the October 27th paper:
1. Notable Weight Loss
2. Black-eye
3. Covered in sores, particularly to be noticed on the face
4. Lacking in personal hygiene
All of these symptoms match the symptoms that are attributed to Sylvia Likens. Except, Dr. Kebel doesn’t mention a black-eye on Sylvia. And Gertrude Baniszewski didn’t have a black-eye on October 27th. The story about Gertrude’s sores is to be rejected. As for personal hygiene…there’s no way to verify that. But a further comment can be made, namely that this list of symptoms is consistent with the dead women called Mrs. Wright in the October 27th newspaper article. And that women was dead. And that woman’s face was obscured by awkwardly posing the hand, the one without the missing fingernails, in front of her face; a picture that may well have been taken while she lay on an autopsy table in the morgue;…and then..A Trick of the Light reflects an image of the overhead lamp. And perhaps it is here that we are to find another possibility, although I freely admit that it is only a possibility, to explain a particular type of manifestation found on Mattress Girl. The denuded patches…the areas of missing skin. In Ellis’s testimony, he was unwilling to identify what were specifically burns, as opposed to trauma that was due to another cause, such as a sharp object. If the denuded patches could have been made with a hot object, then they were essentially burns. And different types of burns were discussed during the trial:
1. Burns from cigarettes
2. Burns from matches
3. Burns from scalding water
4. Chemical burns
5. Floor burn- specifically on the knees
And that’s a pretty good list, one that I thought was comprehensive. Except it’s not. One type of burn is missing…freezer burn, as if the body had been kept or stored in a freezer. And the denuded patches were caused when the body was removed from the freezer…it came off like what would happen if you wet the skin on your hand, grabbed a frozen metal pole, and then jerked your hand away. This would suggest that Photo1Woman, who was not Mrs. Wright, had been kept in a freezer of some kind. She was put there, or she was found there. It is not uncommon to find large meat freezers in…basements. That is a subject that clearly merits further consideration. But not here.
Before concluding this part of the serial essay, I would like to point out something else that is more than pertinent here. Pertinent? Yes! Because it is relevant to the question of two different women…one named Gertrude Baniszewski, and one named Gertrude Wright. The results of the considerations discussed in this essay leads to one conclusion…there were two different women involved. And so I would bring in Paul Walters, who worked for the Western and Southern Life Insurance Company. He met Gertrude Baniszewski in July 1964, first visiting her when she was living on North LaSalle Street. He gave the address as 1250 North LaSalle. There is no such house number on North LaSalle. John Baniszewski, or John Blake..whichever one said it, claimed that Gertrude was living with Dennis Wright in a house at LaSalle and 13th Street. In the 1964 city directory, James Wright, Dennis Wright’s father, lived at 4301 North Kittley, a street that Gertrude Baniszewski would claim to have later lived on. In the 1963 directory, Dennis L Wright, working as an assembler at Peerless Corp, was living at 1212 North LaSalle with his mother, Alta Wright, and his step-father, George Schlick. In the 1965 directory, Dennis and Gertrude, who are married as far as the city directory is concerned, are living at 3210 E. 34th Street. So it is interesting that Dennis Wright doesn’t appear in the 1964 city directory. According to Gertrude, she and Dennis Wright lived on North LaSalle Street in April 1964, which fits well with Paul Walter’s testimony that it was in a house on North LaSalle State that he met Gertrude Baniszewski in July 1964. Gertrude also confirms that she and Dennis Wright lived on 34th Street. Looking at the 1965 city directory, 1230 and 1232 North LaSalle were vacant, indicating that toward the end of 1964, the occupants had moved out. The previous residents were Gilman Day and Jack L Wilber. At any rate, 1212 North LaSalle is six houses from 13th Street, and John said that the house in question was at North LaSalle and 13th Street. Walter’s testimony makes it clear that he knew Gertrude as Gertrude Baniszewski, who was living at that house with Dennis Wright. He also stated that he would see “the children” there “at times.” He also states that he visited Gertrude Baniszewski at 3850 East New York Street:
Q. How many times would you say you went to her house in July 1965?
A. I would say four or five times, I suppose.
Q. Who was living there at the house then, if you know - who did you see?
A. Well, I don't know that anybody other than the Mrs. was there and the children.
Q. The children were there? Was anybody else there?
A. Not to my knowledge, not living there.
He makes it clear that he had sold a life insurance to Gertrude Baniszewski, indicating that she was the owner. We aren’t told the name of the beneficiary. But then he suddenly remembers that the policy insuring the life of Gertrude Baniszewski wasn’t the only policy:
Q. Who all did you carry insurance on - Mrs. Baniszewski?
A. At that particular time, yes.
Q. Did you ever carry any on her children?
A. No.
Q. You never did?
A. Excuse me. I will have to go back to my first appearance there - there was a family policy written on Dennis Wright which had the children insured.
Q. Dennis Wright?
A. Yes.
Q. When was the last time she paid the premium on any of these policies?
A. Along about that time, July or August. I am not sure of the exact date.
Q. Was your company compelled to make a payment one time to her?
A. Not to my knowledge.
Q. Did you ever - strike that question - Was that a general coverage on Mrs. Wright and children?
A. It is life insurance.
Q. You did not have a health and accident policy?
A. No, sir.
Notice what happened. There is a policy on Gertrude Baniszewski. There is a policy on Dennis Wright. And the policy insuring the life of Dennis Wright was a family policy that covered Mrs. Wright and the children. This leads me to re-assert the conclusion that there are two different women here…Gertrude Baniszewski, and Gertrude Wright. The former had a policy in her own right, and the Wright family had a policy…i.e. Dennis Wright, Gertrude Wright, Denny Wright Jr, and the unborn baby that Mrs. Wright was carrying. Actually, Paul Walters is listed in the city directory as an underwriter, who is someone involved in assessing the risks associated with prospective clients and determining premiums. There is no way that Gertrude Baniszewski and Gertrude Wright would have simply been equated one with the other in the mind of Paul Walters. The specific identities of all parties involved would have been confirmed as part of the basic inquiry involved in issuing life insurance. You have to fill out an application, and the information on that application will be rigorously verified. Insurance companies are very difficult to fool, particularly as concerns the identities of all involved..policy holder and any and all beneficiaries. He said that he visited the house at 3850 East New York Street, where “the Mrs” and “the children” were. Either reference is being made to Mrs. Baniszewski, or to Mrs. Wright. John said this about his divorce from Gertrude:
Q. Were you also at one time the husband to the lady seated at the end of the room, Gertrude Baniszewski?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Did that marriage terminate?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Tell the court when it terminated?
A. The final hearing was approximately September 17, 1963.
Q. By what means did this marriage terminate?
A. The divorce court.
Q. At that time, was disposition made concerning the care and custody of your children?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Who received care and custody of the children?
A. She did.
If Paul Walters sold an insurance policy to Gertrude Baniszewski in July 1964, then it is absolutely certain that he knew that she was divorced. It was very common for divorced women to still go by their husband’s last name, and use “Mrs.” I don’t know why…I would think, well, at any rate, it would have been no problem for Walters to call Gertrude Baniszewski by the name Mrs. Baniszewski. It was also made clear that Gertrude Baniszewski, although passed off as Gertrude Wright, was never married to Dennis Wright. So it is absolutely certain that Paul Walters would never have referred to Mrs. Gertrude Baniszewski as Mrs. Wright. And! When the reference “the Mrs” is used, it seems more than justified to assume that it isn’t being used in reference to a divorced woman. That would mean that Mrs. Gertrude Wright was living at 3850 East New York Street. Now Erbecker tried something clever in court; he posed this question to Dr. Schuster:
Q. Did she tell you that she had one other marriage of brief duration and in recent years had a common law husband?
A. Yes, sir.
And:
Q. And if the evidence would show that she had a common law marriage and that ended unhappily, would that enter into the picture too?
A. It enters into the picture of her as a person, yes.
Q. And if the evidence would show here that she was subjected to physical beatings at the hands of men - her husband and her common law mate, would that be indicative of the picture of her being a masochist?
A. This could have possible bearings, although on examination she denied she gained any satisfaction from that type of relationship.
And:
Q. Now, Doctor, I will ask you to assume that the evidence in this case will show one of the defendants is a thirty-seven year old woman named Gertrude Baniszewski, this woman sitting in back of me here, who lived with several minor children in the City of Indianapolis, on East New York Street. She was divorced from her husband and carried on a common law marriage relationship subsequent to her divorce.
And all of that makes sense, except for one small problem…the state of Indiana banned common-law marriages on January 1, 1958. Common law marriages entered into prior to that date were grandfathered, and common-law marriages established in another state would be recognized. But neither of these circumstances applied to the supposed relationship between Gertrude Baniszewski and Dennis Wright, the relationship originating in 1963. And Paul Walters, the life insurance underwriter, would have, without any doubt, known that. He would have, again without any possible doubt, have known that the woman he knew as Mrs. Baniszewski was NOT Mrs. Wright, and was not married to Dennis Wright. He also knew for a fact that Gertrude Baniszewski was a divorced woman, making “The Mrs” a reference to Mrs. Gertrude Wright, and not to Mrs. Baniszewski, no matter how many children the latter had. One final quote from the testimony of Paul Walters:
Q. Who all did you carry insurance on - Mrs. Baniszewski?
A. At that particular time, yes.
Q. Did you ever carry any on her children?
A. No.
There is no doubt in my mind that this was the truth. He sold a life insurance policy to Gertrude Baniszewski, and a life insurance policy to Dennis Wright. But! The fact that one of Gertrude’s “children” did not have a life insurance policy ensuring her life became a serious problem. One that would lead to a virtual mental breakdown on Gertrude Baniszewski’s part in March 1965. Yet! Seeing how long and unbearably tedious this essay has been, I will leave March 1965 as an appropriate topic for Part 3. That’s when the story really starts to get interesting…I think.