Just how many songs sing about love! All You Need is Love…and the Beatles were Sylvia’s favorite band. But that song wasn’t released for another two years. So perhaps…She Loves You. That was released the year before, so I’m sure Sylvia had heard that one. What about Gertrude? After all…she has a record player and showed no hesitations to dance around the front room. Did she have any of the Beatles’ albums? If Gertie liked Elvis, there’s always Love Me Tender. It would be rather dicey to start looking for songs with lyrics like… “You Give me Fever.” Indeed, we’ll stop there. One of the coolest things about the Strange Sylvia Likens World is that strange things just keep popping up. The small skit at the end of The Devil Made Me Do It Part 2: What You See is What You Get referenced two girls serenading each other. This derives from the book written by Natty Bumpo in his John Dean manifestation, speaking of Stephanie:
“Her companion was Sylvia Likens, who by this time had become her good friend. At home they sang to one another. Stephanie would sing her favorite song to Sylvia, and Sylvia would reciprocate. Sylvia’s favorite was something about “all the stars in the sky.” She looked upward with hopes and dreams.”
Bravo! I love the last part…particularly because it’s hard to envision just how Things that Go Bumpo in the Night could have known this. But it’s great spin. And the idea that the two girls sat around singing to each other is odd to say the least. Of course, Stephanie claimed an unusual closeness to Sylvia when she claimed that they were twins. She also described tying up Sylvia in the upstairs back bedroom, including the toes. That is simply disturbing. So the two girls sitting around singing to each other makes me a bit uneasy. The source? I mean…the ultimate source? One might suspect that it was Stephanie.
“All the Stars in the Sky.” Well, the author doesn’t seem quite so positive about this… “something about” doesn’t inspire confidence. The Tornadoes released a song by that name in 1963…but that was an instrumental. I haven’t been able to find a song that is “something about” all the stars in the sky. Is it a love song? I don’t know. But given the outcome of Dennis’ relationship with Gertrude, and also the outcome of another relationship which Dennis found himself in, my choice for “most fitting love song” would be Night Ranger’s 1983 song titled Don’t Tell Me You Love Me.
At this stage in the Full Circle essays, I would like to take the time to do a short family history. Not my family history, since that would be boring. Still, the exercise will, I think, prove fruitful. Scripture says that wisdom is more precious than rubies. And that is interesting, since there is a very minor character in the Sylvia Likens Saga who has the name Ruby…Ruby Wright. Yes, Dennis Lee Wright’s stepmother, although she wasn’t for very long. Scripture also says that wisdom is better than jewels. And that takes us to another minor character, one who, like Ruby Wright, isn’t around very long. But! I have come to believe that she is, in fact, extremely important. So much so, that I have had a major change of mind as far as other characters are concerned.
Joseph Cruppenick, whose parents were born in France, was himself born in West Virginia. His parents, Aline and Sime Cruppenick, although the spelling of these names may have something a bit wrong with them..seeing how the census taker were probably not particularly good with French names. In 1920, they lived in Georgetown, Illinois. And in that same year, they had four children: Joseph (25); Frank (19); Alice (16); and Victoria (13). On June 11, 1925, Joseph Cruppenick (son) married Julia Delhaye. In 1930, Joe and Julia lived in Westville, Illinois, and had the following children: Joe (6) and George (4).
Indiana was a strange place for many reasons. One such reason is the fact that, as far as I am concerned, I have never seen so many marriages and divorces. Three, four, sometimes five. Many people seemed to live their lives going from one dysfunctional marriage to the next. And so it is with another figure who is about to appear. Joseph was born on October 18, 1894 and died on April 20, 1965. 1965! That is a very good…or very bad…year, depending on your perspective. The marriage between Joe and Julia Cruppenick ended in divorce, and on April 12, 1939 Julia Cruppenick married Alfred Derringer of Indianapolis. But before that happened, Joe and Julia had a daughter named Juel Rosely Cruppenick, born in Illinois, on June 14, 1934.
On July 12, 1952 Juel Cruppenick married Joe Carr, who appears to have been an elusive figure. In 1953, she was living at 334 North Pine, which was owned by Julia Derringer, who worked for the Mechanics Laundry. It would appear that Juel had problem with sleep-walking. It was reported on September 30, 1953 that Juel was seriously injured when, during a sleep-walking escapade, she fell down the backstairs at 1:00 AM. In 1957, a divorce was announced in the local paper. It involved Juel Carr and Estal G Carr, who appears to have been Estel Gene Carr. So who is Estel Carr? Who is Joe Carr? Is Estel Gene Carr the same man as Joe G Carr? Puzzling. Particularly so given the fact that Joe G and Juel Carr are found living at 334 North Pine..which we know was owned by Julia Derringer..during the years: 1957; 1958; 1959; and 1961. So did the divorce not take place? If the man in the 1952 marriage records index used the name Joe, and he is the same man as Estel Gene Carr, then it would seem, on the surface, that Joe was not his real name. A marriage record is an official, legal record. It does seem odd. But the September 23, 1960 did report a wondrous event..two twin boys were born to Edsel and Juel Carr.
It does seem that Juel’s first husband is a bit of a mystery. Joe? Estel? Edsel? And I hope that it is understandable, but I simply can’t resist: Edsel Carr? Ford Motors marketed a car known as the Edsel during the years 1958-1960. So! Juel was a Carr…and she was married to a Carr…and had a husband who was a Carr…or Car. And! The Edsel was a failure. I could go on and on, but that would be annoying.
I could also point out something else, which may simply be a coincidence. This appeared in the December 27, 1956 Indi Star:
Wow! And my the games that could be played…who can forget…Mommy is in jail! Betty Likens was arrested for stealing some clothes. Is this Juel Carr our Juel Carr? Perhaps a generic jewel isn’t as valuable as a Ruby…sorry, that was bad. Of course, if she were sentenced…for embezzlement…on February 3, 1956 and was discharged on December 27, 1956..which is a bit of a drag seeing how she may have spent Christmas in jail, she served 11 months. Not exactly hard time, but this 'Mommy is in Jail' event was considerably longer than the Betty Likens version of Mommy is in Jail. Still, it seems strange that it is the women, not the men, who seem to end up behind bars. Still..the woman in this news clipping may well not be the Juel Carr discussed here.
The divorce took place sometime between 1961 and 1965. On October 2, 1965…Yes! October 1965! Well, Juel married Joseph E Sanders. And I know what your thinking…please! No more Sanders! Barbara Sanders and Policewoman Warner…who, by the time of the trial, was no longer Mrs. Warner, having gone back to being Harriett “Policewoman” Sanders. So yes…we have a third Sanders. On the marriage certificate, she indicates that she only had one previous marriage…so the bizarre situation involving Estel Gene Carr and Joe G Carr, and an apparently non-existent divorce in 1957, remains. In 1965, Juel was living at 336 North Pine…apparently the next house down from Julia Derringer. In 1964, Mrs. Nina Roth was living at that address. Joseph E Sanders was a brick mason, and had one previous marriage.
According to the marriage certificate, Joseph Sanders was living at 1325 Wittfield. Joseph had a brother named David M Sanders. On June 6, 1964 the Indi Star ran a story about how David and Joseph managed to flip their car over at 2 AM. And oh my! Joseph walked 1,000 yards to a nearby house to get help, walked back, and collapsed. He walked 1,000 yards at 2:00 AM? But he walked back..so he walked 2,000 yards? That’s 20 football fields! So Juel’s second husband was the bionic man! Perhaps each leg of the walk...sorry...was actually only 500 yards. Still, I would be hard pressed to make the walk, even though I didn't just crawl out of an overturned car. David was trapped in the car, and had to be revived at the scene by the Oaklandon Volunteer Fire Department rescue squad. Although David, who was driving, wasn’t speeding, the car hit gravel causing it to skid, and it flipped over twice. David’s condition was serious, but Joseph walked away with deep facial cuts. And on the subject of car accidents...another minor character in the Saga was also in one. But unlike Joseph Sanders, she sustained far more serious injuries. And if the article below is accurate, and indeed relevant to the character in question, then it is clear that the only two people who could have carried Sylvia out of the basement on October 26th, which were not Stephanie and Ricky, were John and Gertrude:
Perhaps Gertrude should have been thankful that she didn't have a car.
In 1967, Joseph and Juel Sanders live at 627 North Oxford, which was vacant in 1966. In 1967 and 1968, Joseph and Jewell Sanders live at 229 Spring Street. Neither are found in 1970, and 229 Spring Street is occupied by Alf A Coffman. Nor are they to be found in 1971 and 1972. But that marriage came to an end, and it would appear without any children, by 1972. And that’s when Juel Cruppenick-Carr-Sanders becomes really important. On March 1, 1972 Juel Sanders, working as a waitress, married a bartender named Dennis Lee Wright. That name may be familiar to Sylvia Likens Saga enthusiasts…better known as the mysterious Dennis Lee Wright Sr…Gertrude Baniszewski’s Significant Other. There was one child born to this marriage…Robert L Wright. During the prior year, 1971, Dennis was working for his father at the Devonridge Pet Center.
The marriage with the hapless and very tragic Dennis Lee Wright ended in 1975. When Alfred Derringer, Juel’s step-father, passed away in 1978, she was still going by the name Juel Wright. On July 6, 1981 she married Harvey Blanton. On March 14, 1983, using the name Juel Roslyn Wright, she married Paul Haven Bradley. Finally, Juel R Bradley married William McCall on April 21, 1988. This marriage also ended in divorce, and, finally, Juel Roslyn Cruppenick-Carr-Sanders-Wright-Blanton-Bradley-McCall died on June 30, 1996. And so the one-time Mrs. Dennis Lee Wright racked up 6 husbands. That does seem like a lot.
And what about children? The following is the list at the time of her death in 1996:
1. Darrell Carr
2. Jerry Dean Carr
3. Kevin Duane Carr
4. Monnie J Carr
5. Joseph Carr
6. Trina Carr
7. Robert Wright- the son of Dennis Lee Wright
So why does this family history matter? And..yes…I am an aspiring genealogy enthusiast…but that’s not why. Compare the following:
1. Juel Cruppenick: born 1934
2. Dennis Lee Wright: born 1942
So Juel was 8 years older than Dennis. Now this:
1. Gertrude Nadine Baniszewski: born 1928
2. Dennis Lee Wright: born 1942
So Gertrude was 12 years older than Dennis.
In both cases, Dennis was involved in with an older woman. In both cases, there was a male child involved; Dennis Lee Wright Jr and Robert L Wright. And in both instances, there were six step-children for Dennis:
Baniszewski: Paula, Stephanie, Johnny, Marie, Shirley, Jimmy = 6 step-children
Carr: Darrell, Jerry, Kevin, Monnie, Joseph, Trina = 6 step-children
Of course, there was a potential complication in the case of the relationship between Gertrude and Dennis. What was that? The presence of Paula. During the testimony of John Baniszewski, the issue of Gertrude having behaved violently toward Paula came up:
***********************
Q. Did you ever have occasion to see Mrs. Gertrude Baniszewski beat, strike or kick your daughter Paula?
MR. ERBECKER: We object.
THE COURT: Overruled.
Q. Did you ever?
A. On New York Street, no, sir.
Q. At any time prior to that?
A. Well, -
Q. Yes or no, if you please, Mr. Baniszewski.
A. Yes.
Q. Tell the court what happened?
MR. ERBECKER: I am going to object to that, there is no time and place.
THE COURT: Sustained.
Q. On what occasion and where, did you see this done?
A. In front of the place where I was living after the divorce.
Q. When was this, approximately?
A. Approximately September 27, 1964.
Q. What was done, Mr. Baniszewski?
MR. ERBECKER: We object.
THE COURT: Sustained.
Q. In the course of the times Paula visited with you during the course of the year 1965, did you ever have occasion to talk with her or she with you concerning the conduct of her mother toward her? Did she ever make any complaints?
MR. ERBECKER: We object, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Objection sustained. It is a leading question.
Q. Did you ever have occasion to talk with your daughter concerning her mother? Was anything said by Paula to you concerning her relations with her mother?
MR. ERBECKER: A yes or no answer.
THE COURT: Yes or no, sir.
Q. Let me rephrase it. Did your daughter ever discuss Mrs. Gertrude Baniszewski with you during the time we have just referred to?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. What was the nature of the discussion?
MR. ERBECKER: We object.
THE COURT: Sustained.
Q. Did you ever have occasion to see any marks, scars, scratches or bruises on the person of your daughter Paula during the time referred to?
MR. ERBECKER: We object.
THE COURT: Overruled. Yes or no.
A. Yes.
Q. Can you describe what this mark or bruise was?
MR. ERBECKER: We object. It calls for a conclusion.
THE COURT: Overruled for the reason assigned. Sustained for other reasons.
***********************
So after trying again and again to get to the reason for Gertrude’s abuse of Paula, it was made clear that we would never find out. However, the topic came up again:
***********************
Q. I will ask you, Mr. Baniszewski, if you can recall an incident which occurred at 3:00 o'clock P.M. on the evening of October 27, 1964, before the house where you then lived, when Mrs. Gertrude Baniszewski appeared with her daughter Paula, at which time an argument ensued and Mrs. Baniszewski struck this girl, Paula, forcibly two times and in spite of your objections said she would strike her any time or any place or way she chose?
MR. ERBECKER: We object and move the court to admonish the jury.
THE COURT: Objection sustained. The jury will ignore that question in arriving at a verdict in this case.
***********************
So it’s clear that Paula and Gertrude had mixed it up with one another, and Gertrude had behaved violently. The sudden appearance of Gertrude dragging Paula around in front of John’s house is particularly interesting. I wonder how she got there. Gertrude didn’t have a car. So she either took a cab, or got someone to drive her to her ex-husband's house, enabling her to put on this little side-show. So it is clear that whatever had led to the situation involving Gertrude and Paula, Gertrude wanted to involve John in it. And it would seem to be the case that when it came to sending the kids to live with Dennis and Gertrude, John showed some reluctance to send his oldest daughter:
***********************
Q. I think you said the three youngest children went home, went back to their mother?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And the three older ones stayed with you, is that correct?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. What are the names of those three older ones?
A. John, Stephanie and Paula.
Q. And how long did they stay with you?
A. Stephanie went back two weeks later, and John and Paula remained with me and I sent them to school.
Q. Was that 1964?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Now, did they stay with you continually after that?
A. Up till about -
Q. Do you have some records with you that would help you recall these dates?
A. Yes, I have.
Q. Would you refer to them?
A. About October 27th.
***********************
So there’s that date again…October 27, 1964. Earlier, he gave the date as September 27, 1964:
***********************
Q. In the course of time did Paula Baniszewski, since the divorce, ever stay with you at your house for any period of time?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. For how long a period of time was this and when?
A. On May 22, 1964, all six kids came to the house. I was not married at that time.
Q. How long did they stay at that time, Mr. Baniszewski?
A. They stayed approximately two months and three of them went back - the three youngest ones went back and the three oldest ones remained with me and a few weeks later, approximately two weeks or three, Stephanie went back and Paula and John remained with me.
Q. How long did they remain with you?
A. Approximately to September 27, 1964 when John was removed back up to her and Paula remained with me.
***********************
So I think there was some confusion between the dates of September and October of 1964. Why? Johnny left on September 27, 1964 to live with Gertrude and Dennis. Why did John keep Paula after sending the others back? She must have gone to live with Gertrude and Dennis sometime before October 27th of that year, on which day Gertrude was furious with Paula, and brought their conflict to John’s front door. Paula was 15-16 years old during the 'Gertrude loves Dennis' time. And that posed a real risk if Paula went to live with Gertrude and Dennis…i.e. the possibility that Paula and Dennis could become..entangled. And it sure would have given Gertrude a reason to be furious with Paula. But John’s interference could well have caused Paula to be angry with John, which another Sanders in this case…Barbara Sanders…said was, in fact, the truth:
***********************
Q. What did she say about it? Anything specifically that you remember?
A. No, other than Paula was mainly talking about how she did not like her father, did not like to visit him.
***********************
So Paula didn’t like John, and she had clashed with Gertrude, and the Institutionals, to use a word that appears in the The Devil Made Me Do It essays that have been published on this website, made sure that we don’t know what exactly led to this situation. But we do know that Paula was pregnant, something that Vermillion also knew:
***********************
A. Paula said she gave it to her. Mrs. Wright said it took all of them to pull her off her. A boyfriend of Paula's was there at that time. Mrs. Wright said something about Paula being pregnant.
***********************
Phyllis dated this to September. And the image we get is that Gertrude glossed over the subject of Paula's pregnancy...that she said it in such a way as to suggest that it was simply matter-of-fact. But that wasn’t the case on the subject of Sylvia being pregnant:
***********************
A. Yes, she told her - if you are pregnant, I am going to kill you - and so then she went - this was in the conversation we were having at the table drinking coffee, and she said she had not had a period for three months and she thought she was pregnant.
***********************
Vermillion’s claim is difficult to believe. Why would Gertrude make death threats against Sylvia for being pregnant. Better yet…why would Gertrude care that Sylvia was pregnant? Sylvia was only staying at Gertrude’s house for awhile. She would, eventually, go home to live with her parents..I use the plural assuming that Lester and Betty weren’t in the midst of yet another separation at the time, or with one parent…presumably Betty. And! Gertrude can end the bizarre and highly distorted and grossly misrepresented arrangement involving Sylvia boarding with her at any time she so chose. In other words…Lester! Betty! Take your kid and go. In fact, Gertrude may indeed have attempted to do so:
***********************
Q. Now, did you ever try to get in touch with anyone regarding Sylvia during the time she was there because of her behavior?
MR. ERBECKER: We object. It is repetitious.
THE COURT: Objection sustained for a reason other than that assigned.
Q. Did you ever make a phone call to anyone trying to notify them of Sylvia's condition?
MR. ERBECKER: We object.
THE COURT: Overruled.
A. What do you mean by her condition, sir?
Q. Any condition?
MR. ERBECKER: We object, unless he sets a definite time and place.
THE COURT: Overruled.
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Who did you call?
A. I did not have anywhere to call. I tried to ask the children who to call. They kept telling me they did not know where this grandparent was or that grandparent.
Q. You said you make a phone call?
A. I called where he gave me a phone to call one time and there was no answer.
Q. When did you do that?
A. I don't remember the specific time.
Q. Do you remember what month?
A. No, sir.
Q. What were you calling about?
A. Trying to find out why the parents had not come back to find out about their children.
***********************
I am prepared, provisionally of course, to believe Gertrude on this point. Apparently, Lester had given Gertrude the phone number of at least one of Sylvia’s grandparents. This would suggest Wallace and Matilda Grimes. They are, of course, Betty’s parents, and the parents of Wallace E; Millie M; Henrietta; and Marjorie. Wallace and Matilda lived at 333 South Temple Avenue. That means that the Grimes lived 1.6 miles from Gertrude’s house. And here in lies one of the most important fatal flaws, among a host of others, in the Canonical Story. At the very least, and I stress…very least, Sylvia, if she was being brutally abused by Gertrude, simply had to go to 333 South Temple. In fact, Jenny stated that Sylvia had visited the Grimes:
***********************
Q. Do you have some relatives that lived at 333 North Temple?
A. My mother's mother.
Q. Your mother's mother?
Yes.
Q. What was her name?
A. Matilda Grimes.
Q. All the time you were at the Baniszewski home did you ever go down there to visit?
A. No, but Sylvia and Stephanie did one time.
***********************
So if Sylvia visited her grandparents, she was free to go there for help.
***********************
Q. Your grandmother Iva Martin and your grandparents on Temple both had phones?
A. Yes.
Q. Did you ever talk to them on the phone?
A. No.
***********************
So that means that all Sylvia had to do was walk across the street and use the phone at Kiernan’s Shell Station across the street...and dial ME1-3557...Hello! Grimes residence...who is this? Hi Sylvia. What? We'll be there in a couple of minutes! A fatal flaw indeed. And when Gertrude, who had deliberately been given a false phone number, attempted to contact the grandparents, she said it was about the Likens’ “children”, which would include Sylvia. In fact, Vermillion’s testimony is fatally flawed itself on this point. She offers the claim that Sylvia was pregnant, which Gertrude admits that she herself actually believed was the case, as the source of the fictional hatred Gertrude had for Sylvia, which itself makes no sense whatsoever. It gives the appearance of being a desperate and half-baked attempt to offer a motive for what Gertrude supposedly did in the Canonical Story. Another essay on this website showed that a very early attempt to find a motive for Sylvia’s victimization claimed that Sylvia, Enslaved Sylvia, was being used like some ante-bellum domestic slave who, if negligent in her duties, was brutally punished. Sylvia do this! Sylvia do that! What? That is, perhaps, one of the most lame attempts to find a motive, and the Enslaved Sylvia motif was quickly dropped. Vermillion’s suggested motive is just as lame.
In fact, we know that Paula was pregnant, perhaps 5 months pregnant, based on the following:
So one can ask why…in Vermillion’s testimony, Gertrude is furious to the point of being stupid enough to make death threats against Sylvia in front of a witness…and that is very convenient…because she is pregnant, but glosses over Paula being pregnant. In fact! With Paula being pregnant…and unmarried…the burden of yet another child, which would be her grandchild, would fall on Gertrude. She would, no doubt, be on the hook for time and money relative to Paula’s child, yet be on the hook for nothing if Sylvia was pregnant. So the lacking-in-veracity claims of Vermillion are hardly credible.
One may also ask, was Paula being pregnant the cause of her conflict with both John as well as Gertrude?
***********************
Q. What was your physical condition the first and second week in July?
A. As I said, I lost a baby a year ago this April and did not see a doctor for two days and I was home alone with the children when I miscarried this baby.
Q. April '65?
A. Yes, sir. Subsequently, I only got to see a doctor once, due to my financial difficulties. I did not have money to keep running back and forth to the doctor. At the same time, two days later, my daughter Paula Marie ran away from home and I was having it pretty rough and the house was pretty bad.
***********************
One can’t be sure exactly, but if Paula gave birth to her child on January 13, 1966, that puts the beginning of her pregnancy around April/May 1965. Thus it is plausible that Paula ran away because of her pregnancy, and that this was the cause of her problems with both of her parents. So! If John was hesitant to allow Paula to live with Dennis Lee Wright, he had good reason to feel that way. Any parent would. And one is tempted to connect the incident where Gertrude dragged Paula to John’s house and proceed to smack her around to a possible entanglement that developed between Paula and Dennis. Am I saying that Dennis Lee Wright was the father of Paula’s daughter Gertrude? No, I am not. I don’t think that’s possible, based on the fact that Dennis disappeared in March of 1965. I am prepared to change a position taken in earlier essays that the reason why Robert Handlon made numerous, and criminal, attempts to get access to Gertrude’s house was to see Sylvia. The observations made above would suggest that he was attempting to see someone else. So I don’t believe it was Sylvia.
So where does all of this lead? Well, I’m glad I asked. In an earlier essay I suggested that Dennis Lee Wright had been married to an otherwise unattested daughter…someone I connected with Photo1Girl. I even suggested that she lived in the Enigmatic Third Bedroom, and that Dennis Lee Wright Jr may have been her daughter. In discussing the testimony of the insurance salesman named Paul Walters, I was of the opinion, at that time, that there was a subtle distinguishing between Mrs. Wright on the one hand, and Gertrude Baniszewski. Dennis and Gertrude were living very close to Dennis’ mother, Alta (Wright) Schlick, and his step-father, George Schlick. I suggested that the two grandparents, Alta and Gertrude, were helping with the new baby. Now I must confess that, like the Cleric and the Intrepid Social Services Nurse, that I was…well, what can I say? Perhaps I can quote a very cool song:
“You’re fooling yourself if you don’t believe it; You’re kidding yourself if you don’t believe it.”
That is a song by Styx, who were the subject of accusations of backward masking, just like Led Zeppelin, as noted in The Devil Made Me Do It Part 2: What You See is What You Get. On February 3, 1983 the Arkansas State Senate ruled that all albums containing bask-masking should have a sticker on the cover disclosing this fact. Styx was cited in the list of back-masking evil Rock groups. Oddly enough, the song singled out was Snowblind. Now it should be said that there have been a number of songs with this title, and at least 2 of them (Ace Frehley of Kiss- solo album; and Black Sabbath) have cocaine as their subject. So too with the song by Styx. However, in the case of the Styx song, the point of the track is to highlight just how destructive cocaine is for those who those who abuse it. Religious kooks found a secret, Satanic message that was back-ward masked in the lyrics:
“Oh Satan, move in our voices.”
That is strange. And not just because it's nonsense. The allegation was just another part of the paranoid delusion that certain types of Christian Fundamentalists unfortunately live in. And the human mind has a certain tendency to…look at this:
What do you see? That’s right! This picture was released to the public on July 25, 1976. By whom? NASA, of course. This picture was taken by Viking 1, and involves the Cydonia region of Mars. It became known as the “Face on Mars.”
Same thing, decades later. So everyone saw the face, at least in 1976. But we know it’s not a face. We saw a face because the human mind will instinctively attempt to perceive order when faced with chaos. If you play songs backwards, the mind will attempt to find order…actual words. Anyone can hear anything, and if you’re looking for words to support your paranoid delusions, you will hear references to Satan, drugs, rebellion…whatever is your cup of Paranoid Tea. When the rock band Judas Priest was being sued for supposedly including subliminal messages in Better by You, Better than Me, a song they didn't write, the lead singer brought a tape player to court. On the tape were lyrics from the Stained Class album that had been played backwards and recorded. Then, before playing a stanza, the singer would tell the court what they would hear..."Hey, ma, my chair's broken"; "Give me a peppermint, I asked her to get one"; and "Help me keep a job." And! It was impossible to not then hear exactly those words when he played the tape. Entertaining? Yes. Fun? Yes. But perhaps nothing could better make the point that the human mind will instinctively look for order in the chaos...even when there isn't any. And it was clear that the judge thought so too.
What is the point of silly messages recorded backwards and then put into a song so that that they’re heard forwards? If you look at the phrase attributed to Styx…how does that cause anyone to worship Satan? They’re English words, but if this is the only suspect phrase in the song…it serves no purpose other than giving hysterically paranoid religious zealots another ridiculous bullet for their ludicrous gun...one that, much to their chagrin...was really only firing blanks into non-existent tunnels. Sorry for the digression. But! Just like the Cleric and the Nurse, I was fooled. As Styx suggested, I fooled myself; except..I fooled myself by believing it…sorry Styx. That's my own twist in my own confession. What did I believe that led me to fool myself? The claim that Gertrude was not actually, legally, married to Dennis Lee Wright. Remember how insistent Officer Dixon was to refer to Gertrude as Mrs. Wright. In his first stint on the stand, he referred to Gertrude as Mrs. Wright 5 times. He never referred to her as Baniszewski…but the attorneys asking the questions referred to her as Baniszewski 27 times. And! They made sure to spin Dixon’s references to Gertrude Wright by juxtaposing the two names:
***********************
Q. On that occasion, did you have occasion to talk to Gertrude Baniszewski, alias Gertrude Wright?
***********************
Q. To refresh your recollection, did Mrs. Wright, or Gertrude Baniszewski say in substance that the girl asked her to forgive her and that she handed her a note and stated she had been out with a gang of boys?
***********************
Q. During the time you arrived at the home, from that time on till you left, did Mrs. Baniszewski, alias Mrs. Wright cooperate with you?
***********************
Q. Officer Dixon, do you see the woman you designated as Mrs. Wright in the courtroom?
A. Yes.
Q. Designate.
A. The lady on the end with her hand up to her mouth, with the red skirt and blouse. (indicating defendant Gertrude Baniszewski)
Q. Where did you get the name Wright?
A. From Mrs. Wright.
***********************
During his second time on the stand, he again referred to Gertrude as “Wright”, but never as “Baniszewski.” But the same pattern of referring to Gertrude as Baniszewski, and highlighting that Wright and Baniszewski refer to the same person, on the part of the attorneys, is to be observed.
***********************
Q. Will you identify Mrs. Wright to the court and jury?
A. Mrs. Wright is sitting at the end. (indicating defendant Gertrude Baniszewski)
***********************
MR. NEW: Let the record show the witness identifies the defendant Gertrude Baniszewski.
***********************
Q. What, if anything, did Mrs. Wright or Mrs. Baniszewski do or say upon your immediate arrival at the door?
***********************
Q. Was Mrs. Baniszewski or Mrs. Wright with you as you first observed her?
***********************
Q. Officer, at that time did you warn Gertrude Baniszewski or Mrs. Wright of her constitutional right to remain silent and say nothing?
***********************
Q. Based upon your observation of the defendant Gertrude Baniszewski, alias Wright, do you have an opinion now as to whether she was sane on October 26, 1965, was she sane or insane?
***********************
If Gertrude was not legally known as Gertrude Wright, I don’t understand why Dixon would insist on calling her by that name, or why the court wouldn’t order him to stop referring her to by an alias. And let me make this clear. Of all the cops involved the Great Tragedy, Officer Dixon was the one who I believe was most resistant to lying. He was the one who made it clear from the beginning that a Mystery Cop was present when he arrived at the house...something I'm sure the Institutionals didn't like one bit. And so he refuses to call Gertrude by the name Baniszewski, because she was legally Wright at the time of his arrival at 3850 East New York. And of all the people who testified in court, Officer Dixon comes across as the only one who was, essentially, an honest and respectable person. It's very tempting to leave him off the list of Institutionals who perpetrated the Great Fraud.
If it is true that Paul Walters was referring to Gertrude as “The Mrs” in relation to the life insurance that he sold to her and Dennis Wright…and remember that a policy was sold insuring the life of Gertrude, and one insuring the life of Dennis, then they must have been legally married. There was no common law marriage in Indiana after 1958. Clearly, if Gertrude is “The Mrs”, then she was legally married. All of this would have to have been verified for Paul Walters to be able to sell the insurance policies. Insurance companies follow a rigorous procedure of verifying and documenting vital information as part of the underwriting process, and the only way to put one over on the insurance company would require that someone at the insurance company was complicit in the fraud. There is nothing about Paul Walters to give the slightest indication that he would be involved in such a situation. I leave him out of list of Institutionals...with no hesitation.
So I find myself having to come Full Circle, as it were, and return to the notion that Gertrude was personally involved with Dennis Lee Wright. Based on the considerations discussed above, as well as the city directories and the newspaper article announcing the birth of Dennis Lee Wright Jr, I conclude that Dennis and Gertrude were legally married. Dennis marrying an older woman, despite the presence of a six step-children, is clearly supported by his later marriage to Juel Sanders. As noted above, he had a son by her named Robert Wright. However, Baby Dennis was not Dennis Lee Wright’s son:
***********************
Q. And will you tell us where the litigation was instituted?
A. Marion County Juvenile Court.
Q. Did you - could you give us the date?
A. Yes, April 26, 1965 we initiated two actions in that court.
Q. What kind of action?
A. These were paternity actions.
Q. Two paternity suits?
A. Yes, one child in being and another child with whom she was pregnant at the time.
Q. Who was named in those cases?
A. A Dennis L. Wright, Sr.
Q. What is the status of those cases?
MR. NEW: We object.
THE COURT: Sustained.
Q. Were they ever finally litigated?
MR. NEW: We object.
THE COURT: Sustained.
Q. Was there ever any hearing on them?
MR. NEW: We object.
THE COURT: Sustained.
Q. Were there ever any judgments entered in them?
MR. NEW: We object.
THE COURT: Sustained.
***********************
Ah, yes. The Leroy New-Saul Rabb two-step. Why object? No reason is given. Why sustain the objections? We’re not told. But I think it is clear that underlying Gertrude’s intention to sue Dennis over the matter of patrimony is the fact that Dennis Lee Wright reached the conclusion that Baby Denny was not his child. If that is true, I can find no reason to doubt that, given the fact that it would have been very easy to prove that he was. However, Gertrude’s unborn child was, in fact, Dennis’ child. If Gertrude had fooled Dennis into thinking that, while she was pregnant with Baby Denny, he was the father of the unborn child...and his name would have been on the birth certificate...at some point he realized that he had been fooled. And I think that the reason for this deception was to obtain life insurance that insured the life of Dennis Lee Wright. With Gertrude as the beneficiary, she would receive the payout if Dennis were to suddenly…die. If it were simply a matter of Dennis being in the army at the time, there is no reason why Dennis wouldn’t have the right to claim his son. We know that he later had a son with Juel Lots-of-Names. Why would he make no claims to Baby Denny? If, in fact, he realized that Denny wasn’t his son…then clearly he would make no such claim. Nor would his parents. But if Gertrude had fooled Dennis Wright into thinking that he was the father of Denny, and thereby got him to marry her, they would have to have lived the normal life of a married couple. That would mean..yes..of course it would. So the unborn child at the time that Dennis Wright disappeared may well have been his. So Gertrude wanted to prove paternity.
Yet again it can be asked...why is all this relevant? I’m glad I asked again. Because it leads to a motive. We have seen that all attempts to find a motive fail dramatically. But find a motive for what? Given the Canonical Story, the motive one seeks is that which will explain why Gertrude brutally abused, and finally killed, Sylvia Likens. However, I think that that is looking for a motive for the wrong thing. If Sylvia Likens was killed accidentally, then the motive to be sought is the motive that led to the context in which Sylvia’s accidental death took place. And there is one possible motive that comes to mind. If I am right, which I’m sure I’m not, then there was no Photo1Girl. Wait! I must qualify that. There was no otherwise unattested daughter of Gertrude who was married to Dennis Wright. And Occam must be far more pleased with that than he was for another Baniszewski girl. But there was another person…Photo1Woman. I will show a picture that was published in another essay on this website:
This picture was published in the October 27, 1965 edition of the Indi Star. This woman was said to be Gertrude Wright. But her face was obscured, in a very unprofessional and generally laughable way, to hide the fact that the woman in the photograph wasn’t Gertrude Wright…by which I mean...Gertrude Baniszewski…who was also Gertrude Wright. And it was noted in other essays that the photo of Oops-a-Giant-Hand-is-Conveniently-Obscuring-My-Face-so-You-won’t-Know-that-I’m-not-Gertrude Baniszewski shows such significant reflections of elements of the Mattress Girl photo that I feel confident to state that the woman pictured above is the person on the mattress. So why is she referred to Gertrude Wright if the police were looking for Gertrude Baniszewski? Who said that she was Gertrude Wright? It would be a strange thing if it was the police who identified her as Gertrude Wright on the night of October 26th! If they did make this identification…were they right? My answer is..no. And..yes. Why would the police make this identification? On what basis would they do so? I can’t be sure, but if Photo1Woman wasn’t actually Gertrude Wright, then it wouldn’t simply be the case that they found a photo id on the body. No..I think it would actually be the case that no identification was left on the body by those who brought her body to the North Denny Street side of the double, and left her in the basement, with the intention of then deposit her in the 3850 East New York side of the double on the next day. What would be the most crazy thing would be if the police found a ring on the woman’s finger, and the name “Gertrude Wright” was inscribed on the band; a ring like a wedding ring. And so the police could make their identification of the dead woman, and then find themselves shocked to learn that the woman who lived on the East New York Street double of the same house had the same name…Gertrude Wright.