Perhaps one of the most interesting elements in the Canonical Story is “The Two Weeks.” This very definite period of time is found in the witness testimony, and becomes somewhat of a refrain in Shirley’s testimony. It is during this The Two Weeks that a lot of the abuse supposedly took place, Saturday October 23rd being the most important date found in the Great Show…along with the 26th of course. It is very true that the abuse of Sylvia, and the often silly little stories that are told, include the whole period of time from July to her death in October. However, it is also true that rarely are specific dates provided for the almost endless series of abuse stories. We don’t glean a “The Five Weeks.” Nor a “The One Month.” This may owe much to the chronology that is created on a very specific date…October 5th. On that date, Lester and Betty visited their daughters at Gertrude’s house.
This fixed date is significant for another reason..that may have been the day on which Lester and Betty Likens found out that Sylvia quit school, and Betty tells us that this was linked to rumours at school. Based on the claims made by the witnesses, and the relatively few types of rumours that would lead to Sylvia leaving school..something she did for at least the second time, seeing how she supposedly dropped out of school while the family was in California, it seems plausible that the rumour that circulated at school was the same thing that was said by the witnesses…i.e. that Sylvia was pregnant.
It is highly significant that Gertrude tells us that the last time the Likens parents had visited her house was not October 5th; no, she said it was October 15th. And this date, October 15th, is another fixed chronological point, and it too is highly significant:
1. Lester and Betty visit Sylvia at Gertrude’s house for the last time
2. Barbara Sanders visits Gertrude’s house as the result of a “tip” about sick children
3. Phyllis Keel..or Neely..or Thompson..possibly McCoy, Ah! Phyllis Vermillion makes her second visit
Now as far as Mrs. McCoy..that is, Nosy Neighbor Lady, is concerned, she didn’t specifically say that she was in the house on October 15th; she said it was the week of the 15th. To make this more concrete, we can say that October 15th was a Friday. That’s interesting, since Intrepid Nurse stated that Jenny was present, and Paula too, and given the time of day, 2:00 – 2:30, both girls should have been at school. Of course, if they were sick, that would explain why they were home at that time of day. And although Sanders was not a truancy officer, I would have thought that she might inquire as to why the two girls weren’t at school. One might speculate that Jenny was not actually present at Sander’s visit. But if her parents were expected that day, that would explain why she wasn’t at school. For the sake of being comprehensive, it should be noted that Jenny is said to have been present when the Cleric, not just the Social Services Nurse, who, by the way, would meet her end in one of the most bizarre stories I’ve ever heard, one that indeed rivals the Great Saga, visited the house. A key element to the stories of the Cleric and Social Services Nurse is that of being “deceived.” Gertrude lies to the Cleric, and Jenny backs her up. Barbara Sanders speaks briefly to Jenny, who makes no attempt to inform her that Gertrude is lying. So indirectly, Jenny is as responsible for Sanders being duped as she was directly involved in the Cleric being duped. And this theme can be taken further! Since she apparently said nothing to her parents about what was happening, she was responsible for Lester and Betty being duped. However, I believe that this element is fictional. And it must be said that an Achille’s Heal of the Great Saga is the general picture of Sylvia suffering abuse throughout her stay at Gertie Wright’s house. This is what Lester said:
Q. When was the last time you were there?
A. October 5.
Q. Where did you go October 5 with reference to going in any other room?
A. We set in the kitchen at the table. That was the only time I was ever in there.
Q. The only time you were in the kitchen?
A. Yes.
Q. You never were upstairs any time?
A. I might have gone upstairs once to use the bathroom. I can't remember exactly when it was.
Q. You never went to the basement?
A. No, sir.
Q. Up to that time, you had no complaints from your two daughters as to their treatment?
A. Not that I could see.
Betty:
Q. Did you at any of these times, Mrs. Likens, see anything out of order, out of the usual, when you visited in the home?
A. No, it seemed like anybody else's, normal.
Q. Did you see any bruises or marks on Sylvia any of these times?
A. No.
Q. When was the last time you visited Sylvia?
A. October 5.
Q. Who was present then?
A. Well, I seen Sylvia and Jenny, Paula and Stephanie and I think that was all.
And:
Q. Mrs. Likens, do you recall being at the Baniszewski home October 5?
A. Yes.
Q. About what time of day or night?
A. Around noon.
Q. How long did you stay?
A. We stayed long enough to see the girls and pay her and just long enough to see the girls. I imagine a half hour.
Q. About a half hour?
A. Yes.
Q. You saw Sylvia at that time?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. Did you see any bruises her?
A. No.
Q. Any marks?
A. No.
Q. No injuries?
A. No.
Q. She was alright?
A. Yes.
So herein lies the Achille’s Heal, and perhaps here Achilles makes his last stand..maybe a concession stand..sorry. Both Lester and Betty clearly state that as of October 5th, Sylvia had no signs of abuse of any kind; no bruises, cuts, abraisons, cigarette burns, sores, denuded patches, burns due to scalding..nothing. Lester and Betty must take this position, seeing that if they did see such trauma on their daughter, it would have been criminal neglect to have left her there. As it is, I think that the Likens were telling the truth. And I think that all the little stories told by the witnesses about someone doing this mean thing, and someone doing that mean thing, are fictional. A tension is created by the claims of the Likens and the claims of the children…one of the two must be lying. I think it was the children who were lying.
It is clear that the chronological point that is so important here presents us with a completely proposterous scenario…Sylvia showed no signs of abuse as of October 5th. Then suddenly, despite the fact that Lester states that he would be back in three weeks, Gertrude and the children launch a campaign of torture that terminates in Sylvia’s death. Why?
July 4th – October 5th: No palpable abuse of Sylvia
October 6th – October 26th: Sylvia is tortured and killed
The problem presented by this chronology is manifest..there is no indication as to what seminal event took place soon after Lester and Betty Likens left Gertrude’s house and disappeared. And! If we accept the Inherited Wisdom, then we must believe that whatever this unspecified seminal event may have been, Gertie and the children launch their campaign of sadism..sorry, torture until they finally kill Sylvia on the very day Lester Likens was expected. Almost as if.. “there, Lester, there’s your daughter!” There is no seminal event, no launching of a campaign of torture. This whole construct, when deconstructed, would indicate that Sylvia was fine on October 5th. Then there were developments, the first being the fact that Sylvia became sick with Measles or Chicken Pox. She thus had running sores, and Barbara Sanders would arrive at 3850 East New York looking for children with sores. Highly important is the fact that the Nurse actually went looking for “children” with sores, so not just Sylvia.
It is strange that if we follow the “The Two Weeks” construct, then we have a more unbearable chronology:
July 4th – October 5th: No palpable abuse of Sylvia
October 6th – October 11th: Sylvia is still at Gertie’s house, and relatively unscathed
October 12th – October 26th: Sylvia is tortured and killed
This is even more puzzeling. If “The Two Weeks” is so important, then whatever provoked the campaign of brutality can’t be connected to the whatever resulted from Gertie’s meeting with the Likens on October 5th. And if Gertie Wright actually hated Sylvia to the point of abuse and murder, why would she not simply have told Lester and Betty to take their daughters and leave? Are we really expected to believe, something that gives me a headache to say the least, that Gertrude didn’t discover her hatred of Sylvia until October 12th? Or that this hatred, mysteriously having appeared on that date, was so intense that she wouldn’t simply wait “Two Weeks” until Lester showed up again? Such a scenario strains credulity, to say the least. But…why this “The Two Weeks”?
I think that “The Two Weeks” is important. And I think there was actually a “The Two Weeks.” Ricky said this about the day on which he supposedly mutiliated Sylvia with, of all things, a sewing needle, which other contributors to this site have pointed out, does not have a cutting edge.
Q. Ricky, what did Gertrude say about Sylvia?
A. At this time?
Q. Yes.
A. She told me that she was not at the Juvenile Canter, she was down in the basement.
Q. When had she told you Sylvia was at the Juvenile Center?
A. The time before I was over there, the time before that I was over there. I would not know when that was.
Q. Previous to this Saturday?
A. Yes, sir.
Of course, the “Juvenile Center” element here is a fiction. It seems unlikely that Ricky would not have known that Sylvia was at the Juvenile Center. There is no such thing as a hypothetical Code 123, although I’m sure there are scores of fellow parents who relish the idea of having a troublesome teenager taken away by the police and placed in the Juvenile Center simply because he or she was driving them crazy. Had Ricky actually been told that Sylvia was at the Juvenile Center, he would no doubt have quickly sought about finding what criminal offense the girl had committed. It is ridiculous to believe that Sylvia would have ever done something that..well, let’s remember..you end up in Juvenile Detention because you have committed a crime, have been arrested, and a judge sent you there. I think that “Juvenile Center” is a “detail of absurdity” intended to undermine a false confession. Nonetheless, there is a kernel of truth here that couldn’t be more important.
Another writer on this website suggested that three children had been involved in writing the Gang of Boys Note: Jenny, Ricky, and Randy. We just heard from Ricky. What about Randy?
Q. Were you there on Tuesday, October 26, the day Sylvia died?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Did you go to school that day?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. What time did you get home?
A. About a quarter till 4:00.
Q. What time did you go to the Baniszewski house?
MR. ERBECKER: We object. It is assuming something that not in evidence.
THE COURT: Objection sustained.
So Randy was there, and he would have to have been there if he were to have added the “nervous woman” element to the note, an element that is key to Randy’s story.
Q. Did you go to the Baniszewski house?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. What time?
A. It was about a quarter till 5:00.
Q. A quarter till 5:00?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. When you got there, who did you see?
A. Mrs. Baniszewski answered the door.
Q. Did you go inside?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Who did you see then?
A. No one.
Q. No one else was home?
A. No, she said -
MR. BOWMAN: We object.
THE COURT: Why?
MR. BOWMAN: He is about to testify to something she said. It would be hearsay.
THE COURT: On whose behalf?
MR. BOWMAN: John Baniszewski and Coy Hubbard.
THE COURT: Objection sustained as to Coy Hubbard and John Stephan Baniszewski unless it is shown they were present.
MR. ERBECKER: We are going to object.
THE COURT: Sustained unless it is shown Gertrude Baniszewski was present.
Q. When you said Mrs. Baniszewski opened the door, who are you referring to?
A. Mrs. Wright.
Q. Point her out, please.
A. She is in back of Mr. Erbecker. (indicating defendant Gertrude Baniszewski)
Q. That is the woman you said opened the door and said something to you?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. What did she say?
MR. BOWMAN: We object.
THE COURT: Objection sustained as to Coy Hubbard and John Baniszewski. Overruled since it appears Gertrude Baniszewski was there, as to defendant Gertrude Baniszewski.
Q. What did she say?
A. She told me Sylvia came back?
Q. Sylvia came back?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. From where?
A. Well a few days before that they said that -
MR. ERBECKER: We object.
THE COURT: Objection overruled.
A. The last couple of days Mrs. Baniszewski said Sylvia was getting on her nerves too much and she was - I think she asked Richard Hobbs and some of her children to take Sylvia and lose her.
Does it seem strange at all that the attorney suddenly needs the accused identified? Why do we need to identify Mrs. Baniszewski as Mrs Wright? You might do this if, perhaps, Mrs. Baniszewski and Mrs. Wright weren't the same person. Lose her? What Randy is saying is that the Gertie Wright Gang took Sylvia somewhere, left her there, and then returned to the Magical House. Then, perhaps to the annoyance of the Not Crazy Lady, Sylvia suddenly showed up again. I don’t know how far Gertie would havew to have taken Sylvia..wait a minute..wait just one minute! Back in July, when Stephanie had to be picked up after her vacation with one of the men named John Baniszewski, we needed Aunt Rosie’s car..you remember, when Danny Likens was inexplicably sitting in the backseat. Why? Gertrude didn’t have a car! So whose car did she borrow to take Sylvia somewhere and “lose her”? Did Gertude even know how to drive? And the whole idea that the Gertie Wright Gang was so stupid that they believed that simply pulling up somewhere, forcing Sylvia out of the car, and then driving home, congradulating each other on such a clever scheme, is absurd. And! If this were true, and Sylvia was being terribly abused at the time…why return to Gertie’s house? Why not go to…her grandparents’ house? Or a police station? Even Jobil’s Pizza Place? Or Maranatha? Given her supposed condition, I’ll bet anyone who crossed paths with her as she wandered around would call the police for her. When you live in the Canonical Story World, reality is a thing to be avoided at all costs. Forget reality..and scrape the floor of the basement with a shovel..that’ll do it!
It is perhaps the story Randy that caused prompted more stupidity from Judy Bit..sorry, Judy Foster:
I saw Randy Lepper, hit Sylvia in the face twice, and Richard ? On the legs, and kept telling her I hate you, Anna Siscoe, told me that Richard Hobbs, was in jail, also Gertrude Wright, was in jail, and that Gertrude Wright, offered Richard Hobbs, a $1,000 if he would help kill Sylvia Likens.
Judy seems intent on doing what so many witnesses were intent on doing..calling her Mrs. Wright instead of Mrs. Baniszewski. So Judy was familiar with Randy’s role in the story, although in true Judy Duke style, she compounds an unbelievable story with even more unbelievable detail. But I would reference yet another piece of evidence, this time from the Gang of Boys note:
“I went with a gang of boys in the middle of the night”
Let’s add an element from Barbara Sander’s testimony:
“She said she knew who I was looking for, Jenny's sister Sylvia, whom she had kicked out of the house. She expressed contempt and hate for the girl. She said she was not worthy to stay there, as she had called her daughters prostitutes and names around school and that she ran around herself a lot and she was a prostitute. She indicated this in words.”
I’m glad that Gertie “indicated this in words” seeing how awkward it would have been for Gertrude to have suddenly stopped talking to Barbara, pulled out her notepad, write a highly damning statement down on paper, producing yet another note, and then give the note to Mrs. David Sanders. Ah! That would still be “in words.” I am puzzeled what Sanders thought the alternative to speaking such words could have been. Telepathy? It would have been strange if Gertie Wright had actually been telepath or evan a prophetess, seeing how she could have warned Mrs. Sanders about the dangers posed by Las Vegas hotels. Another, more famous prophetess, and who will indeed make a brief but mystifying appearance in our Saga declared:
“You will bring conflagration back with you!”
In Mrs. Sanders’ case, the conflagration was left in Nevada and not brought back to Indianapolis. After all, Indianapolis has plenty of conflagarations of its own. Please note that I am not making fun of the Nurse’s fate, and I have been told by one of the members of the Board of Editors that a very capable, not to mention, sympathetic, writer will be posting her essay on Mrs. Sanders very soon. At any rate, it is not credible that Gertrude would have told Sanders that she had kicked Sylvia out of the house. I think she would have told her something like “she ran away, and hasn’t come back yet.” This way, she wouldn’t be legally to blame if something tragic befell a girl in her care after she tossed her out onto the street because she had been a pain in the neck and called her daughters mean names. Not to mention poor Nellie Siscoe! And the girl was obviously ill at the time, as Gertrude supposedly admitted. And surely Mrs. Sanders, had she been told that a girl who was a prostitute was kicked out onto the streets, would have realized that a Syphilis outbreak was in the brewing, and would have therefore done more than simply fill out an index card. But there is an important kernel of truth here..as far as she knew, one of the girls who was supposed to be there was, in fact, gone. And therein lies the commonalty that runs through these statements…a girl associated with Gertrude’s house had suddenly disappeared. This girl was not Sylvia. Now it can be said that Sylvia did disappear on approximately October 5th; but not from Gertrude’s house, but rather, into Gertrude’s house. She quit school because of rumours that she was pregnant? Why quit school for that reason? Of course, if hypothetically those rumours were actually…true, then being pregnant would be a good reason to leave school. And at that time, that meant disappearing from the view of all but those associated with Gertrude, who knew the truth. I think that two girls disappeared; one was Sylvia, who disappeared into Gertrude’s house, and the other was Photo1Girl, who disappeared from Gertrude’s house. She wasn’t kicked out, wasn’t sent to the Juvenile Center, and wasn’t even “lost.” I think she ran off. Only to return on the night of October 26th.
Now to return to “The Two Weeks.” There would appear to be one conclusive answer as to the origin of this strange time interval:
“I am writing to tell you what I've been done for the last two weeks”
This is, of course, the opening line of the letter. The existence of this letter was unknown until the police searched Gertrude’s house. An officer found the letter, and since another officer had seen it, it couldn’t simply have been destroyed. If that officer only read the opening, then the police, in conjunction with Jenny, could re-write the letter. The letter is strange indeed. Why was Sylvia writing a letter?
Q. Did your deceased daughter write to you?
A. No, sir, I can't remember. I don't think so. We were not any one place too long to receive mail.
Ah! “No I didn’t”; I mean “I can’t remember”; I mean “I don’t think so.” Wow! Which is it…stop and think a minute before giving a ridiculous answer..after all, that might enable you to avoid giving three ridiculous answers. “No” would be simple enough. Perhaps he stumbled because he knew about the…letter! But there is one problem, i.e. what he said immediately before:
Q. October 5 was the last time you saw your daughters?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Did you write to your daughters after October 5?
A. My wife did.
Q. Did you write to your daughter after October 5?
A. No, I was too busy, my wife done all the writing.
Mr. School, who has divorced Stephanie, would say “did all the writing.” And so much for giving 3 wishy-washy answers to a simple question. There may have been mail communication between Sylvia and her parents. A couple of observations should be made. First, there is absolutely nothing in the letter indicating that Sylvia was being abused. Would she have written her parents a letter representing an obviously false confession of a bunch of naughty things someone had done and not mention the fact that she was being tortured? There is a strong element of “Sylvia Confessing” running through the whole Saga. That’s strange for a girl I think had very little to confess. The second observation is this..several of the naughty things in the letter are actually things that happened in California:
I let Ronnie + Donnie Simpson have intercoarse with me. Danny and Jenny knows about it.
In California I was under the covers with Mike Eason. Jenny + Benny seen Mike's pants down. I was trying to get Jenny in trouble with me.
I stole things in California when we lived out there.
I hit a three year old kid in the face, and spanked it on the butt. At the house out on Post Road.
The reason why I got fired from that job in Post Road is because I hit the boy in the face.
Hey Jenny! The word is spelled “intercourse.” I-n-t-e-r-c-u-o-s. There…wait…that’s not right! I just messed up the note I’m writing as we speek. And there is an impatient Boy in Blu standing besides me! I-n-t-e..what? Oh yes, I-n-t-e-r-c-o-u-r-s-e. See! Spelling’s not hard! If I had a coal shovel, I could scrape that out in Morse code on my basement floor, in ten minutes. Hey Shirley, watch this! A-B-C-E! Hah…I can go all the way to E! Hey Lester! 1-2-3-4-3…I’m a very good counter! Hey Judge..watch this! Oh, I bet not push my luck. Afterall, I wouldn’t want to be accused of Contempt of Court…of which I am innocent. Hey Jury, watch me spell! N-o-t g-u-i-l-t-y.
The canonical storyline is that Gertrude made Sylvia write this letter shortly before her death. Why would she have made Sylvia write a note with absolutely clear anachronisms in it? Anachronisms that would have been easily spotted after Sylvia’s death? If the note is meant to describe events within the last “Two Weeks,” that would mean the period of October 12th – October 26th. This would have been a debacle of extreme importance; one that even the “I cannot remember what grade I was in last year even though I know what grade I am in this year” girl would probably have avoided. What’s that, Mr. Data? Start using contractions? You wish you could? How about…I am a prostitute…Hold on! You would use a contraction there like a certain someone?
Q. How old are you Jenny?
A. I am sixteen years old.
She did not use a contraction either, Mr. Data.
Q. What did she say?
A. "I am going to get you out of my house. You are going to get the hell out of my house".
Q. Was Coy Hubbard present that night?
A. That is what I am trying to figure. Yes, he was.
Perhaps Jenny will never use a contraction…wait, hold up..
Q. Was it a sewing needle?
A. Yes, what I seen it was.
Q. How would he do this?
A. Well, take the needle and just - she got the I on there and he put - I imagine it was I'm.
Q. Gertrude started it with a needle and wrote I'm?
A. No, she started writing "I" and said "I am getting sick, here, Ricky, you take over".
I am getting sick…take a need and write “I am a”; no, at least Jenny can use contractions when need be.
I think that it is clear that this letter had actually been written shortly after the family returned from California, and that Sylvia had originally intended to tell her parents about the sins someone else had commited while in California. So the focal point of the letter is the time in California. But this was re-written when it was inconveniently found on the evening of October 26th. Notice the other elements:
I done things that could cause a lot of trouble
I went to school and took a gym suit out of the girls gym locker.
I went to the park and was going to take some cokes out of a coke machine.
I told lies on Mommie to Grandma Martin.
I always want Mommie and Daddy to break up, so I could get my way when I live with Mommie.
I went out with a married man driving around in a convertible.
I took 10 dollars from Gertie Wright.
I knocked Jimmy B. off my back.
I hit Shirley B. for no reason.
And now for the statement that tells us the source of certain elements of the re-written version of this letter:
Jenny has been behaving herself.
This is by no means the only time Jenny sought to have blame diverted from herself. She would, of course, go on record as having done absolutely nothing about the torture and death of her sister. In fact, in her testimony she described instances of abuse in a remarkably casual way. So, if the canonical story were true, then we could ask..who bore the most responsibility for the death of her sister? In a certain sense, Jenny did. So she gives us this:
A. Then she got out of the bath tub and Gertrude and Paula and all of them went downstairs. I was in the bathroom. Sylvia told me to get her clothes. I did. She said, "Jenny, I know you don't want me to die but I am going to die, I feel it".
Excellent! I think Jenny knew that if she told the lies she was forced to tell that she would be blamed for her sister’s death. That would be hard to explain; nigh impossible. So here she has Prophetess Sylvia declare that she’s going to die, but conveniently adds that her dear sister doesn’t want her to die. Really? Really? If Jenny didn’t want Sylvia to die, why didn’t she do something about it? And when did the Prophetess make this declaration?
Q. When did this happen, Jenny?
A. About three or four days before her death.
So Jenny, in her effort to obscure her fictional blame for a fictional event that happened only fictionally, ends up compounding her fictional guilt. In her little scenario, Jenny is specifically told by her sister that she was going to die. Wow! Jenny has been told about her sister’s impending death by none other than her soon-to-die sister herself, and still does nothing. Still, I will gladly, and do so here, absolve Jenny of any blame for her sister’s death. I will also say that Jenny was put in a heart-breaking situation; although I think there are signs that there was no love lost between her and Sylvia, she nonetheless found herself with no alternative to describing her absolute indifference to her sister’s tragic end. That is a fiction, and so I hold her blameless in the actual death of her sister..the guilt clearly rested with Gertrude. Others I hold responsible for thrusting Jenny into the terrible canonical story and giving her such a terrible role in it.
The letter contains two elements. The original element is the recounting of the sins of another child while in California. In the case of “the twins” and the mysterious Mike Eason, the witnesses summoned to verify Sylvia’s guilt are Danny, Benny, and Jenny. Only Jenny is cited for both. And then we get:
I was trying to get Jenny in trouble with me.
And here we must conclude that as far as the events in California are concerned, Jenny had in fact been in trouble for them, and adds a line that features Sylvia confessing that not only was it she herself who committed the wrongs, she had framed Jenny for them. More confession, which is, of course, good for the soul. I wonder how many priests would say, “I sure wish Sylvia had been my parishioner! So quick to confess her sins!” I would also place the Post Road event in California, even though there was a Post Road in Indianapolis. The “job” on Post Road was certainly a baby-sitting job, and Sylvia was accused of having punched the child in the face, and so was fired. These elements are those associated with California. They can all said to be “serious” when contrasted to the silly little things that are added at the end. It is interesting that the event involving Jimmy Monroe, I mean, Jimmy Wright, or Jimmy Baniszewski, or James Blake, is mentioned, which is then followed by the claim that Sylvia hit Shirley. It was of course Shirley who blamed Sylvia for “flipping” her brother Jimmy. We know that wasn’t true. Sylvia was going to give Jimmy a piggy-back ride, and he fell off. It was clearly an accident. Shirley didn’t see it that way, and Jimmy’s ill-fated piggy-back ride is followed by Sylvia hitting Shirley “for no reason.” If Sylvia did hit Shirley, surely it was not “for no reason.” Perhaps Shirley lost a game of “sock and smack,” and little 10 year old Shirley would have, in reality, stood no chance in a fight with the girl who broke Paula’s wrist. Stole $10.00? I would make another observation. It is interesting that it is $10.00 that Sylvia supposedly stole from Gertrude. Why? Because that was the price that Jenny’s father agreed to pay, on a per-girl basis, for them to stay at Gertrude’s house. How clever would it have been to steal $10.00 from Gertie’s Phenobarbital fund, only to give it back saying, “here’s the payment for my room and board!” But Lester was not the only one charged this apparently well-known going rate for allowing other people’s kids to crash at Gertrude’s house.
Of course, the letter makes a fatal chronological error when it adds two “Indianapolis misdeeds,” ensconced within the context of misdeeds in California:
I am writing to tell you what I've been done for the last two weeks.
I went to school and took a gym suit out of the girls gym locker.
I went to the park and was going to take some cokes out of a coke machine.
I let Ronnie + Donnie Simpson have intercourse with me. Danny and Jenny knows about it.
In California I was under the covers with Mike Eason. Jenny + Benny seen Mike's pants down. I was trying to get Jenny in trouble with me.
Of course, the kids spent a lot of time at the park, and I’m sure that there was a coke machine or two around. But the inclusion of the ‘cokes oriented’ misdeed leads to a very important observation of something which slays the “these are Sylvia’s misdeeds” dragon. The way it is written, Sylvia is actually confessing to something she did not do. “I was going to take some cokes.” When seen in light of more serious things that Sylvia, in the letter, supposedly did, why would she have included a sin that existed only in her thoughts? This is highly anti-climatic, and actually shows that the real Sylvia had a rather sound character and sense of morality. No doubt Jenny was with Sylvia that day at the park. Sylvia said something about stealing cokes, and notice that it is not one coke, but cokes, perhaps one for Jenny, but then decided not to do it.
“I went to school and took a gym suit out of the girls gym locker”
We all recognize this element. Stephanie said this:
Q. What did you see?
A. Well, the first day I was home sick, Sylvia come home and she had a gym suit with her and Mom asked her where she got it and Sylvia said she found it and Mom said - Sylvia took it upstairs and came back and while Sylvia was upstairs Mom said, "I bet she took it".
Q. Who did she say that to?
A. Me.
Q. What happened when Sylvia came downstairs?
A. I went back to sleep.
Q. Did anything else happen with reference to the gym suit?
A. An hour later - I guess it was an hour later.
Q. What was that?
A. I woke up and heard somebody arguing with somebody else.
Q. Did you see who it was?
A. Yes.
Q. Who was it arguing?
A. My Mom and Sylvia.
Q. Where were they arguing?
A. In the middle of the room.
Q. What was said?
A. Mom kept saying Sylvia took the gym suit and Sylvia said she did not, she found it on the ground.
Q. Did your mother do anything else?
A. She kept saying she did and Sylvia kept saying she did not and finally Sylvia - I guess just - I don't know exactly, but she said - she gave up and said she did.
Q. Then what happened?
A. Well, they started talking about having babies again.
Yet again Sylvia confesses. It’s fascinating that once Sylvia and Gertrude stop arguing over whether Sylvia found, or stole, the gym suit, they immediately start talking about sex. “Hey, speaking of gym suits, just what have you done with a boy?” Jenny said this:
Q. Tell about one time - when did it happen?
A. Well, about the gym suit.
Q. What about the gym suit?
A. I come home from school.
Q. When was this?
A. September, if I can remember. And Sylvia was sitting on a chair.
Q. Who else was there?
A. Gertrude and Sylvia and me and Paula and that is about it. The kids had not come home from school yet.
Q. What happened?
A. I seen Sylvia's hair was messed up and I asked Gertie what was wrong with it, what was wrong this time. She said "She stole a gym suit from school". Sylvia said, "No, I did not, I found it on the way home from school". It was wet. I think it had been raining. Sylvia kept telling her she had not stole it. She said she did.
Sylvia’s hair was messed up because she walked home in the rain. This is what Gertrude said:
Q. What about Sylvia, during the third week in September? Did anything unusual happen?
A. There was some disagreement over her stealing a gym suit at school.
Now Gertrude maintains that Sylvia told her that she had taken the gym suit from the girl’s locker room. This happened after there was a dispute among the kids as to how Sylvia had suddenly come into possession of the gym suit. Jenny says that Sylvia found the gym suit, although it would appear that it was remarkably coincidental that this would happen. She wouldn’t have been the only kid to “find” something she needed. As to whether Sylvia found or “acquired” this gym suit, that is beyond the scope of this posting. What is very much within the scope of this posting is the fact that Stephanie suggests that the “gym suit affair” occurred during the second week of September. Jenny also maintains that it was in September, as does Gertrude. Even though Gertrude would place this in the third week of September, she knows when it happened. So why in the world would she force Sylvia to write a letter and include the confession of having stolen a gym suit sometime in the last two weeks?
Before moving on, I would point out that there is a possible indicator of the context in which this letter was originally written…that is, the original version of it. What is that?
I told lies on Mommie to Grandma Martin.
I always want Mommie and Daddy to break up, so I could get my way when I live with Mommie.
These two statements are at the transition of the letter from discussing misdeeds in California to misdeeds in Indianapolis. And herein lies the epicenter of the bad feelings between Sylvia and Jenny. Both were involved in their parents’ marital problems, well documented in the testimony of Lester at least, and in fact, someone may have been attempting to undermine the relationship between Lester and Betty. I see these elements:
1. One of the two girls had told Grandma Martin something about Betty
2. This was related to a desire to have her parents break up
3. Her parents breaking up would enable her to live with Betty, as opposed to Lester
There is obviously an internal tension. If the two accusations are from the same hand, then why would the girl who wanted to live with her mother following a divorce tell lies about her mother rather than her father? It is not surprising that at least one of the girls wouldn’t want to live with Lester. This is from Betty’s testimony:
Q. Did you ever have a conversation with Mrs. MacGuire in the early part of 1963?
A. I talked to her one time about watching Jenny while I worked at RCA.
Q. Did you ever have a conversation with Mrs. MacGuire relative to any of your children at that time?
A. No.
Q. Did you ever have a conversation with her - MacGuire relative to your husband and his attitude toward the children?
A. No, I don't remember of it.
A strange conversation to not remember. Of course, Grandma Martin was Lester’s mother. I think that the tension is resolved by seeing one of the two statements as part of the original letter, and the other statement has presenting the view of the other girl:
“Jenny told lies about Mommie to Grandma Martin”
“(Sylvia) wants Mommie and Daddie to break-up so that she can have her way and live with Mommie.”
If this were the case, then the original accusation, made against Jenny, was turned into a confession on the part of Sylvia. The second line attempts to explain the situation involving the conflict between Jenny and Sylvia as far as the relationship between Betty and Lester was concerned. So the second line is context-setting and interpretative, not to mention in total conflict with the preceding line. The two lines are placed together in a way that creates a conflated text. And! I believe that the Lester vs. Betty element in the letter gives the actual context in which the letter was written, shortly after returning from California. Then the letter pivots, and Jenny added some silly things that supposedly happened at Gertie’s house. So the re-written letter ends up creating a ridiculous scenario. The letter is written days before Sylvia’s death, with Gertrude responsible for making her write it. Then Gertrude is stupid enough to have Sylvia begin with:
“I am writing to tell you what I've been done for the last two weeks”
Then she’s stuipd enough to refer to the gym suit crisis, and we know that Gertrude herself dated that to September. Next, she launches into misdeeds committed in California which, from the perspective of the third week of October, were not “two weeks” ago, but rather several months ago. This is all the more strange in that California is specifically mentioned, and Gertrude knew that, whenever that may have been, it certainly wasn’t within the last two weeks, since the Likens girls had been at her house since July. Then Gertrude, apparently aware of the conflict within the Likens family and the position of Jenny and Sylvia in it, feels the need to bring in the issue of one of the girls lying to a grandparent to favorably position herself the case of a divorce. Why would Gertrude care? And why would Gertrude care about any of the stuff from California? The only reason one could posit for Gertrude forcing Sylvia to write a note, actually a second one, which is actually a letter rather than a note, is that she wanted to establish Sylvia as being to blame for being naughty while living with her. Why? “I tortured and killed the girl because she stole $10.00, accidentally knocked Jimmy off her back, and hit my 10 year for no reason? If that wasn’t enough to justify my actions, she also stole a gym suit and thought about taking some cokes!” Well then… Gertrude’s innocent! And if Gertrude were actually stupid enough to conceive of this, unaware that you can not walk away scot-free from murder because the victim caused a little bit of trouble, how do the events from California, and the family situation in Lebanon, possibly serve any purpose? The only explanation is that the original letter, in which Sylvia informed her parents of things that her sister had done, and was written while in Lebanon where the girls were staying with their grandparents, Lester and Betty apparently being elsewhere at the time, was found on the evening of October 26th. Obviously, Sylvia never mailed it. Why? Because Betty and Lester suddenly returned to Lebanon. Jenny did not know about this letter. When it was found, it was re-written, shifting the blame for the misdeeds in California from Jenny to Sylvia, and then adding misdeeds in Indianapolis to connect the letter to the latest context. But a key difficulty was raised by the letter; one that would become central to the canonical story. The Gang of Boys note also raised a key difficulty; one that would also become central to the canonical story. The letter left the Great Saga with a “The Two Weeks.” When the whole case is viewed with a teaspoon and an empty mind (or is it an “open” mind?), this “The Two Weeks” is virtually impossible to understand vis-à-vis the overall chronological context. What about the Gang of Boys note? When quoting the slogan, it quoted it incorrectly. It really read “Prostitute and Proud of it.” But the one responsible for putting it into the note had actually seen it only briefly, and so when trying to remember how it actually read on the girl’s abdomen, he inadvertently added “I am a” on the front. It also omitted the Number 3 that was found on the girl’s chest. That’s not surprising, seeing how the temporary tattoo was to be found on Sylvia, not Photo1Girl. So the canonical story was saddled with another fatal flaw..a slogan that was impossible, and a note without a Number 3.
The conclusion that can be reached here involves the following:
1. “The Two Weeks” was in a letter written shortly after returning from California
2. The letter was found on the evening of October 26th and re-written
3. The canonical story was then stuck with a mysterious “two weeks”
4. This mystery was to be solved by making that two weeks the time of Sylvia’s torture
5. Photo1Girl had abruptly run away from Gertrude’s house
6. Barbara Sanders had been told about sick children on October 15th
7. Since Photo1Girl had disappeared, and Photo1Girl and Sylvia were now the same person, Sylvia had disappeared.
8. Attempts, pathetic in themselves, were made to account for the time involved with this disappearance
9. As Gertrude tells Randy, Photo1Girl had suddenly re-appeared on October 26th
10. Since Photo1Girl and Sylvia were now the same person, Sylvia had suddenly reappeared on October 26th
11. The whole bit about Sylvia having disappeared was represented as a lie
12. So the end result is that Sylvia had never left Gertrude’s house, which I believe is the truth
I would view the final picture as one in which we have the “The Two Weeks” as indirectly connected with Sylvia supposedly having disappeared, and then also have Sylvia having never left Gertrude’s house. So in a bizarre way, we get the truth about Photo1Girl and the truth about Sylvia Likens, which are contradictory, co-existing side-by-side. The story concocted was left, as a result of a letter and a note, with elements that lead to one conclusion..two girls have become one girl. One girl did not disappear from Gertrude’s house, i.e. Sylvia. The other girl did disappear from Gertrude’s house, i.e. Photo1Girl. Ultimately, there is a self-defeating character to the witness testimony:
1. Sylvia’s abuse begins long before October vs. Lester and Betty saying that Sylvia was fine on October 5th
2. Sylvia writes a “Two Weeks” letter vs. clear references to events that happened in California
3. I am a Prostitute and Proud of it vs. Prostitute and Proud of it
4. The brand is an S or a 3, no one is sure vs. the brand is a design that has an S and a 3 and is the OM symbol
5. Sylvia is gone vs. this is a lie Gertrude told Ricky and Randy vs. they would have known that this wasn’t true
The two week period came into existence purely by chance, indeed, to the frustration of those who were crafting the canonical story. But once established as a construct, it created more problems than just the fatal problems discussed above. I would point out here that in evaluating the testimony of Dr. Ellis, one is left as a starting point the fact that there may have been a dearth of veracity involved. As an important introduction, would be the following:
1. Ellis stated that the eye-hook could have made the brand, except the dimensions he provided makes it impossible that the eye-hook could have made the brand.
2. Ellis stated that the slogan was made over a period of “many weeks,” and no attempt was subsequently made to show that the witnesses describe the slogan as made all at one time, with one witness indicating it was done in roughly 10 minutes
3. Ellis claims that he could not tell a burn from a cut
4. Ellis’s claims about his microscopical slides gives the appearance of being concocted to avoid the evidence from those slides being significant to the case
5. Ellis gives no indication that he found an infection, well documented elsewhere, on the girl’s scalp
An evaluation of all of Ellis’ testimony, and the dramatic and fatal differences between it and the other witnesses is beyond the scope of this work. He did say this:
Q. What did you observe?
A. The scalp, first of all, within the hairline I could see no laceration but over the forehead there were multiple abrasions and yellow brown discolorations of the face.
Q. What is a laceration, Doctor?
A. Laceration is a tear or cut in the skin.
Q. What is an abrasion?
A. An abrasion is a roughened or scraped area.
Q. Were these of recent origin, could you tell?
A. Judging the age of these, it is difficult to get the exact age but they were - each lesion would range from a day or so up to one or two weeks.
When asked about the two types of injuries that were described as self-inflicted, i.e. the split lip and broken fingernails:
Q. Observing all these things, the only self inflicted wounds or injuries are the lip and the broken nails?
A. In my opinion, yes.
Q. In your opinion, basing your answer on your examination, would you say these wounds were inflicted simultaneously at the same time?
A. That is impossible for me to time these wounds accurately. I would feel they occurred within - they all occurred within approximately two weeks of one another.
I’m beginning to see a pattern. Let’s continue:
Q. I think you testified the other day, in substance, that the lesions indicated the injuries ranged from a day or so up to two or three weeks prior to your findings, is that substantially correct, did you say that?
A. I believe that is correct.
Q. By that you mean the method of healing, as shown by the photographs and your examination?
A. I am sorry?
Q. That means the photographs and your examination indicated the process of healing was different and therefore you could base your conclusion on that?
A. I think you misunderstood what I said. I meant to say the injuries could have been obtained as recently as a day or two before death up to two weeks. I was unable from my examination to say which ones would have been at each time.
So Ellis suddenly realizes that he has not paid close enough attention to the Two Weeks chronology. Then:
Q. Some of the lesions indicated they could have been two or three weeks prior to that, by the process of healing, as shown by that?
A. They had not shown a lot of healing. I did not feel they were of over two weeks duration. They might have been up to that, with that degree of healing.
So we see that Ellis is trying to stick to the “The Two Weeks” time-frame, even to the point that he will deny that injuries may have been inflicted three weeks before death. And a fatal flaw in this is his testimony about the slogan:
Q. Would you say it was instantaneously or over a period of time, basing your answer from the signs?
A. It appeared essentially the same, so at least it was not done over many, many weeks between the different parts of it. Other than that, I would not be able to say.
Q. The healing portion of the skin would indicate it was done about the same time?
A. Roughly.
This is very difficult to understand. He didn’t say “over many, many days.” He didn’t say “over many, many hours.” He didn’t say “over many, many minutes.” He didn’t even say “over many weeks.” And! He didn’t say, “over the span of two weeks.” Then he completely contradicts himself by agreeing to a very leading question about it being done “about the same time.” These statements are not compatible. His statement, which we can perhaps, taking into account the “not” in “not over many, many weeks” can be understood to mean..it was done over many weeks. And this leaves us with a conclusion that calls the whole time-line, or chronology, into question. If the wounds are such that they were suffered over a period of time that would not extend beyond The Two Weeks, to the point that we are not allowed to add one more week to the estimate, but the slogan was done over many weeks, then the slogan was done a considerable amount of time before the trauma discussed by Dr. Ellis. In fact, the question about the possibility of three weeks is a fair one, given the fact that he also said this:
Q. What would you say - what way would you say malnutrition was a factor - in what way would you say - which contributed to her death?
A. Well, a malnourished individual is going to be less capable of standing the stress of injury than a person who is well nourished. I feel this is the way this added to the case.
Q. In what way?
A. A person that is well nourished, well their healing capabilities of their body are better and they are more able to heal a wound faster and to stand the stress of that easier.
Given this statement, then, hypothetically, it would be fair to say that the wounds could have been older than two weeks given the fact that the girl was malnourished and immuno-compromised, and I would add, very sick. The conclusion I would reach here is that the timing attributed to the infliction of the trauma seen on the body has been manipulated and presented in such a way as to place it within The Two Weeks. This is not the only such manipulation of the time-line that happened while Ellis was on the stand. Gertrude’s attorney, Mr. Erbecker, who tried so diligently to get someone to say that Gertrude was insane, to the point he even asked a reporter, although he managed to not ask the cab driver, launched into a long-winded recitation of the canonical story, which in fact ran roughshod over it from beginning to end. Most important, he engaged in a striking statement that is of immense important to understanding the role of a certain someone in what really happened:
“Several weeks prior to October 26, 1965 one of the neighbors asked her to care for two minor children, ages twelve and fifteen. During several weeks preceding October 26, 1965, one of the children staying at her home - named Sylvia - sustained the injuries you described here in your testimony this morning and that you described last Friday on direct examination, and on October 26, 1965 the day Sylvia Likens died and that evidence indicates her death occurred anywhere from eight to twelve hours prior to 7:00 o'clock P.M.”
So if Erbecker is using the moment to refer to Gertrude’s neighbor, Phyllis Vermillion, without naming her, “several weeks” would not be an accurate reflection of the conversation taking place just after school started:
Q. How many times were you there?
A. Twice.
Q. When was the first time?
A. September, right after school started.
But it does allow him to condense the timeline, not providing the date when Sylvia moved in with Gertrude, but jumping to “several weeks,” which excludes two weeks, but could conceivably include “three weeks.” This would suggest to the listener that the “several weeks” before October 26th, marked by the time at which Vermillion asked Gertrude to watch her children, is the same as the several weeks before October 26th that Sylvia received her injuries. Of course, this is not the case, and despite what Kebel said, Ellis will not go back beyond The Two Weeks when discussing the period during which Sylvia received her injuries. And speaking of missing persons, it would seem that we have lost some children along the way. But have no fear! We will find them in part 2 of this essay, which is called “The Vermillion Effect.” As concerns this part of the essay, we note the chronological “crunch” that was created by The Two Weeks. If what Ellis says about the the trauma was true, then that means within a period of time that does not extend beyond 14 days. This was not what Dr. Kebel said. I can’t resist a couple of preliminary quotes:
Q. In what part of the head, sir
A. That was in the temporal area, this portion of the head.
Q. When you say this portion, indicate in language so that it may go in the record which portion you are touching with your hand.
A. I am touching immediately before my ear and at level of the eye.
Q. Would that be known as the temple, the right temple?
A. I think so.
It may just be me, but I would feel better about Dr. Kebel’s testimony if he seemed more certain about what the temple is, seeing how everyone else would no doubt feel that they knew exactly what the temple is. But:
Q. What if I call it the breastbone?
A. That is perfectly alright.
A sigh of relief. He might know what the temple is, but he does know what the breastbone is.
“If the body is immersed in cold water or washed with cold water after death, it will chill rapidly.”
And I thought that immersion in cold water raises the body temperature. I guess I was wrong.
Q. Now, then, did you find evidence of trauma?
A. I certainly did.
Q. How do you spell that?
A. Trauma.
How do you spell trauma? Is this a spelling bee? Watch Shirley:
Q. How do you spell the word Baniszewski?
A. b-a-n-i-s-z-e-w-s-k-i.
Shirley can spell bigger words than Dr. Kebel! Hah-hah! Hey Shirley, do you know what the temple is? Dr. Kebel, do you know how to spell trauma?
A. T-r-a-m-u-a
Wrong! Can you say your A,B,C,Ds? Sylvia can! Hey, Kebel, here’s another question:
Q. Now, then, did you find evidence of trauma?
A. I certainly did.
Q. How do you spell that?
A. Trauma.
Q. What is it?
A. Physical injury.
Q. Injury to a body?
A. Yes, sir.
To a body? How about a car that hit a lamp post? Trauma to a brick wall? Some of these questions appear to be dumbed-down somewhat. And what about a scenario in which there are more than one thing?
Q. How many?
A. Well, this would be something you would have to count.
Hold on! Are you actually trying to tell this court that to know how many there are of something, you have to count them? Your Honor, “I object!” That is enough of that! But as for a time-frame, note this:
Q. Doctor, before you proceed, what is a common term for ecchymotic area that I would understand?
A. Bruise - and punctate lesion - the same round burn type mark - in the small of the back. In the small of the back another area, a bruise about the size of my hand and these lesions appeared to be in an advance states of healing. Some looked fresh and some looked old.
And:
Q. You indicated some lesions were in various stages of healing and some were fresh and some were old, you said that?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. Did you indicate some of them were as much as three or four weeks old?
A. It is entirely possible, Mr. Erbecker.
Q. Is it possible then that these injuries were inflicted by - by injuries I mean marks, burns, etchings, bruises, contusions, abrasions and wounds - if they were inflicted could they have been inflicted several weeks prior to the date of death, is that possible?
A. Yes.
Etching? Ricky didn’t claim to have scratched the slogan into a bronze plate. More:
Q. Describe in detail what you saw on the back of the person as portrayed by that picture.
A. Well, there is an area of denuded skin area that looks like an ecchymotic area at the base of the neck the site of a human hand. There is a similar one over the sacral area, the same size. There are punctate lesions. There is some skin missing from burns and abrasions. One area looks as though it might be healing it looks as though it is scar tissue.
Q. It indicates what with reference to the time it was placed there?
A. That it is an old lesion, several days at least. It had begun to fibrose.
Q. What does that mean?
A. Fibrous tissue, lighter than ordinary skin, was growing into the area.
Q. Their extent, how old they were, whether or not they were healing and anything relevant to those wounds, Doctor?
A. Well, some of the wounds looked like craters where the skin is missing and appear to be healing in
So there appears to be a discrepancy between Kebel’s time-frame and that of Dr. Ellis. The latter holds to The Two Weeks, whereas Kebel will go as far back as four weeks. Four weeks is a clear problem. Why? Because that takes us back before October 5th. That was the date that Lester and Betty Likens said they last saw their daughter, and they specifically said that there was absolutely no sign of t-r-a-m-u-a on their daughter. Three weeks takes us back to October 5th. This ‘The Three Weeks’ takes us back to the old problem noted earlier; i.e. Gertrude has managed to live with Sylvia for The Three Months without abusing or torturing her. And if Sylvia had Gertrude dangerously near to launching into a campaign of violence against her, she could have simply told Lester and Betty to take their daughters and leave. But no! The Three Months went by tolerably well. And on October 5th, Gertrude had no problem with Sylvia and Jenny staying on with her. But then! A woman who was not insane launched a campaign of violence that one finds it very difficult to describe as anything but insane, without any sort of triggering event. That old problem. But “advanced states of healing” is never said by Dr. Ellis, and it is far too strong of a statement to be consistent with what Dr. Ellis said. Dr. Kebel:
One area looks as though it might be healing it looks as though it is scar tissue.
It looks as though..or is? Scar tissue is scar tissue..why is he not so sure? After all, we're not talking about the enigmatic temple. And if by “craters” we may understand sores that have left sizable indentations in the skin, like those of Chicken Pox sores that the sufferer has been scratching, I would agree that there are some that were healing. But I do not believe that these have anything to do with the other t-r-a-u-m-a..hey! I did it! That Kebel is out of sync with Ellis is clear from the following:
Q. How big were the marks "I am a prostitute and proud of it"?
A. Those letters were about an inch and a half to two inches high.
Q. Was there any blood around them?
A. No.
Q. Could you tell from your observation whether they had been recently put on there or was it an old imprint?
A. It looked as though it had been done at least a few days prior to the time I viewed the body.
Of course, a few days prior to October 26th is clearly a reference back to Saturday, October 23rd, the day Johnny heard the firetrucks because a little baby died; the day that Jenny decided to go get lunchmeat while her sister was supposedly being mutilated; the day that a doped Stephanie slept blissfully unaware of the violence that played out in the kitchen. The slogan was done in 10 minutes. No. Dr. Ellis was right, it was done over many weeks and different parts of it were healing. I suggest that Kebel’s claim about some trauma being in a state of healing is linked to his time-frame which may go back as far as September 27th. But we know that the statements of Lester and Betty will not allow for this. And actually, Kebel’s “three weeks” takes us back to October 5th, as if on that day, presumably after the Likens walked out the front door, Gertrude began her child-assisted assault on Sylvia. The time-line bends, cracks, and breaks. The advantage of Ellis’ testimony is his time-frame for the infliction of the trauma present on the brick wall, sorry, on the back-end of my car which a certain someone backed into our mailbox, sorry, I forgot, trauma only happens to bodies, lies a lot closer to the truth. I emphasize..closer. Of course the witnesses, the children that is, would place the beginning of the appearance of trauma on Sylvia months before October 25th. Kebel will accept three to four weeks, Ellis sticks to the The Two Weeks, a meaningless measure of time caused merely by the finding of Sylvia’s letter. I could offer a possibility of where this letter was found:
Q. Did Sylvia own a Bible?
A. Yes, she did.
Q. Did she read the Bible much?
A. Yes, she would be up in the bedroom and sit by the window and read the Bible. If she was called downstairs, she would put it under her clothes and go downstairs.
Q. Why would she put it under her clothes?
A. I guess she did not want –
MR. ERBECKER: We object.
THE COURT: Sustained. The answer will go out.
Did Sylvia really think that a bunch of rough-neck kids would steal her Bible? You can’t hock it or trade it for cigarettes at school. If you wanted to read a Bible, and didn’t have one, stealing one would seem a tad inconsistent with a spiritual desire to to immerse oneself in God’s Word.
Q. Did she own anything besides clothing?
A. Yes.
Q. What?
A. She owned a Bible and a pocketbook and shoes and things like that.
Q. Did she own any jewelry, anything of that sort?
A. She owned a jewelry box.
Q. Where is her Bible?
A. I don't know. Me and Shirley and Benny all had one.
Q. What happened to the jewelry box?
A. I don't know.
Q. Do you have it now?
A. No.
Q. Did you see it after October 26th?
A. No.
Q. Did you see her Bible after October 26?
A. No.
So if a kid felt the need to read the Bible, he or she would not have to steal Sylvia’s Bible, they could just steal Shirley’s Bible! And that is spelled B-i-b-l-e. The 10 year old had a Bible, but Stephanie didn’t? We have seen repeatedly that Paula showed an admirable interest in religion. And although Sylvia fictionally feels the need to confess things, even something she has only thought about doing, but apparently didn’t do, Paula takes confessing beyond notes, letters, or arguments with Gertie Wright:
Q. Did Paula continue to go to church?
A. To my knowledge she did.
Q. Up till when?
A. Possibly a Sunday or two before. We had a Revival Meeting beginning the same week Sylvia died and I can't remember whether or not the Baniszewskis were there that Sunday before the meeting started Monday or not. They were faithful within a reasonable amount of time of the death of Sylvia.
Q. Did you have conversation with Paula concerning Sylvia at this time?
A. I had a conversation with her about it and she said there was some hatred in her heart and she was concerned about it and she had hit her.
So Paula remained committed to attending church, and feeling contrition about a fight, which she lost, and something disturbing “in her heart,” actually confessed to the Cleric. And no, not about a couple of cokes at the park. He also leaves open the possibility that Paula was present at the Revival, which began the day before Sylvia died. The interesting thing about Revivial Meetings is that they typically last more than 1 day. That leaves the possibility that Paula was actually returning home on Tuesday from the meeting. One of the most moving parts of Jenny’s testimony was this:
A. I don't know. I asked the police officer if he would let me see my sister. They told me they would but they did not. I was there a while and Paula came in the door and Stephanie said, "Sylvia is dead". She said, "You are kidding" or something like that. They were trying to calm me down. Then the policeman - I was sitting in the living room a good while and Paula got out the Bible and started reading the Bible to me, about people dying and things like that and said, "This was meant to happen" and things like that.
“Say you are my sister?” And maybe even Psuedo-Judy Duke’s mother can find the forgiveness she needs if she searchs hard enough. So Paula was not home on Tuesday until after Sylvia had died, indeed, after Jenny and Marie had shown up, only to find Stephanie going on about the fact that Sylvia was dead. So Paula couldn’t have been in the basement that afternoon like the witnesses claim. Whose Bible is it that Paula reads aloud? Did she go and get Shirley’s Bible? Benny Likens Bible? Did she steal Sylvia’s Bible? I think Paula had her own Bible, and, returning home from the Revivial Meeting, I think she had her Bible with her. Sylvia hid her own Bible because she kept personal things in it, things she didn’t want other people seeing. Or reading. And when the police searched the house on the evening of October 26th, they found the Bible. And in it, they found the letter.
So our time rift is a problem indeed. Of course, Phyllis Vermillion will only make it worse…or better…depending on your point of view. Actually, I think that “better” is the right word, since it is with Raymond’s wife that we find a startling detail that will shed a very bright light into our rift in time. Perhaps even more important, she will shed a very bright light into a very dark place. Still, I think it’s time to find some missing children. And in doing so, we will see the real Phyllis Vermillion. At least, I hope so.