“I don’t blame anybody. Because God says ‘Love thy Neighbor.’ I have no bitterness for anyone. God bless Sylvia Marie Likens’ soul.”

Wow! When I read this statement, I was amazed. I found myself staring in disbelief. Sarcasm? Possibly. I can’t say for sure. I didn’t say it…I didn’t even think it. And the person who did, is not available to ask. Still, I decided to consider for just a moment that the sentiment was genuine. Again, I don’t know that for sure. But I am rather inclined, despite a notable cynicism, to give some things the benefit of the doubt. Dr. House is right- everybody lies. And although I readily agree with that, I also know that everybody tells the truth sometimes. The problem is, people wrap the truth up in so many lies. I could quote a great philosopher- Shrek, who said “Ogres are like onions…they have layers.” I paraphrase. It is important to note that I don’t know about ogres, but I do know that people have layers. Somewhere, buried within them, is the truth. People tell the truth for different reasons, and it is hard to know whether it is actually the truth. And this is no truer than with the quote cited above. So I refrain from any dogmatic conclusions, and aim merely to discuss something interesting, something that I’m sure exists only in my mind.

The person who said this remarkable thing was Paula Baniszewski. It was included in a very interesting written statement made on May 25, 1966- seven days after being convicted of 2nd degree murder. Now I would think, that having been found guilty and being sentenced to life in prison, someone in her position might use the opportunity to ventilate all the negative feelings one would naturally have: anger, wrath, a sense of betrayal by one’s own family, fear, etc. I know I would be so tempted. So, if she is being honest, she stands head and shoulders above me. 

The passage from the bible that she quoted made me think about the strong element of religion that permeates this case. I submitted an earlier posting that discussed the testimony of a certain man of God. And I do not use this term sarcastically. I noted that I did not, and do not, doubt the veracity of his convictions, or that he served God with a faithful heart. At this point, on this issue, his testimony could not be more valuable. Speaking of the Likens sisters:

Q. Did they come with the Baniszewski children?
A. Yes, they did.
Q. By what means did they come?
A. On one of our church buses.
Q. Did Jenny Likens attend Sunday school?
A. Yes, she did.
Q. Did Sylvia?
A. Yes.
Q. What about the Baniszewski children, did they attend?
A. Very faithfully, yes.

Now I know that Gertrude wasn’t much of a church-goer. But her children definitely were. And Sunday School too! Many children end up at church and Sunday school because their parents drag them there; often times kicking and screaming, or at the least, moaning and complaining. So, thinking about this, I am left with the belief that the Baniszewski children had a spiritual sense about them that arose within them, rather than being foisted upon them.

Q. Did Sylvia attend Sunday school regularly?
A. According to the record, I would say she did for about a month or six weeks. After that our records show that maybe she was there once or so during the three or four weeks period.
Q. Was she there August 22, 1965?
A. Yes, she was.
Q. Did you see her on that day?
A. Yes.
Q. Was Jenny Likens there?
A. Yes.
Q. Were any of the Baniszewski children there?
A. Yes.
Q. Did anything particular happen that day?
A. Yes, it did.

Let’s let the minister continue:

Q. What happened, sir?

A. On August 22 - on that Sunday we always give a public invitation at the close of every service to give people an opportunity to come publicly to accept Christ the Savior or be dealt with on any spiritual problems they have. According to the records - and I have a copy of the card [filled] out by both Jenny and Sylvia - both came forward publicly during the morning service.

Q. Did you have conversation with any of the Baniszewski children on that date?
A. Not to my knowledge.
Q. Did any of them accompany Sylvia when she came forward that date?
A. Yes.
Q. Who was it?
A. I remembered Paula and Stephanie both coming when the two Likens girls came. Usually, someone comes forward with them. On that day Paula and Stephanie came forward.

Now I assert that this event speaks volumes about the person of Sylvia. But it seems possible, if only for a moment, that it also speaks volumes about the other two girls standing at the front of the church on August 22, 1965. But I rudely interrupted, so:

Q. Now, you had subsequent visits?
A. Yes.
Q. When was that?
A. Several days later - I would say ten days or two weeks later I was called back.
Q. Who was there then?

A. Mrs. Baniszewski was there and again some of the younger children, the baby and on this occasion Paula had called me and asked me if I would come over and give them some spiritual help. Stephanie had been fainting, passing out and they were afraid she might have a brain tumor. She had been taken to the doctor that day and they were upset about it, afraid to face the conclusion of the possibility it could be a brain tumor.

Now we know that Stephanie had feinting spells, and in her testimony, this subject would become critical for understanding the final moments before Sylvia died. And it should be noted that the pastor’s visits would be evidence against, at least, Gertrude. But I’m impressed with Paula’s concerns about her younger sister. What did she do with these concerns? She turns to God. I would do this now myself, I say triumphantly. However, I have to admit that I would not have done this at the age of 17. So once again, Paula trumps me. She calls the minister and impresses upon him the family’s need for “spiritual help.” I feel rather inclined to believe that her actions suggest…faith. But then, in my naïve opinion, it gets more impressive:

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.
Q. When did you have this conversation?
A. I don't remember. I don't know whether it was on an occasion in the home or after the meeting was over and the young people were starting out the door or not.

Not only does she turn to God when things get tough, she does not hesitate to make confession. And not just about hitting Sylvia, but because of what was “in her heart.” For someone who has a lot of theological education, such as myself, this level of understanding of what real sin actually is gives me cause to stop and think. The danger in having too much formal training is that the whole matter can become quite complicated. Paula’s is a simple understanding, and, at least in the words just quoted, more impressive than mine in many ways; I admit to my chagrin.

Q. I would like to know whether or not on the occasion you are now testifying as to the conversation you had with Paula Baniszewski, on your side was that a conversation between a pastor of a church, talking with and giving spiritual advice to a communicant that belonged to that church?
A. In a confidential way?
Q. Yes.
A. No, we were standing around at the door.
Q. Is it possible to have a confidential communication with a member of the church, if other people of the family are present, by the rules of your faith?
A. No.
Q. Could it have been confidential?

A. If it was confidential, it was not brought to my attention it was of that nature, because of the fact, people were standing around. Usually, people who want to talk to me wait around. To my knowledge, no one said, "This is confidential and I would like to talk to you confidentially. “ I felt it was a sort of bragging what she had done, hitting her and breaking her wrist.

Q. Am I correct, unless one of the communicants of the church says, in so many words says, "This is confidential" you feel at liberty to discuss with anybody what you discussed?

A. No, it would be according to the conversation. For one thing, there are some conversations that are not told to me to be confidential. I separate them by the type of information given me. At the time of this conversation, it was not confidential. It was told to the church workers, people on the bus.

Q. What had been?

A. About striking Sylvia and injuring her wrist. In fact, they came to me, concerned for Paula. To my knowledge and to the knowledge of those who heard this, it was not common practice for Paula to be going about striking anybody and bragging about it. It showed spiritual decline. For that reason, they came and discussed it with me. I said the girl told me. If this did not happen, I would not consider it confidential.

Now we have further information which would seem to dilute the strength of what happened. Paula hit Sylvia and bragged about it. It is very easy to forget that we are dealing with teenagers. And teenagers fight, bicker, and otherwise quarrel with each other. So I adamantly disagree with “it showed spiritual decline.” It showed being a kid. When he had the conversation with her, she confessed to what she did, and what was in her heart. This does not seem feigned to me. And, for what it’s worth, I also adamantly disagree with the pastor’s understanding of when a person’s conversation with a religious functionary is confidential. I can’t say for sure, but Paula may have considered it so.

Q. How many times did you talk to Paula?
A. Quite a few times, if we count the times at the door and the times in the congregation after services and the times in the home, quite a few.

Spiritual decline? I sayeth not. She speaks to the minister at the door, in the congregation after services, and in the home. I have no other way to describe this other than- it suggests faith, and not a superficial one by any means. I contrast this with the church lady:

Q. Directing your attention to August 22, 1965, did you attend church that day?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. Did you see Sylvia Likens that day?
A. Yes, she walked the aisle.

Q. What else did you see at church that day?
A. Oh, you mean the conversation?
THE COURT: See? Not conversation. What did you see?

A. Do you mean whom else did I see?
Q. Yes, when Sylvia went down the aisle, went forward in church, what else did you see, if anything?
A. Well, there were others going forward.
Q. Who else in the Baniszewski family?
A. I believe some of the Baniszewskis'. I don't remember which ones. It seems some of them went.
Q. Did Jenny Likens go too?
A. Yes, she did.
Q. After church when Sylvia went forward, did you take the bus home?
A. Yes.
Q. Who else was on the bus?
A. The Baniszewski children and the Likens girls. There were others.
Q. They were there?
A. They were there.
Q. Did you see Paula Baniszewski on the bus going home that day?
A. Yes.
Q. Did you have conversation with her that day?
A. Yes.
Q. On the bus?
A. Yes.
Q. What did you say to her and what did she say to you?
A. I brought up the subject of Sylvia because she had gone forward in church, to Paula. There was something in her voice when she said "I do not like her". I thought she was her friend and she said, "I hit her" and I must have looked shocked. She said, "I hit her too hard I" - she must have said she broke or dislocated her wrist. She said, "I could kill her. She called my mom a bad name. If she ever calls my mom a bad name again, I will kill her". Her tone of voice - I can't describe it - it disturbed me. Not enough that I reported it to anybody.

She hit Sylvia too hard? Marie said this:

Q. Did her jaw begin to swell?
A. It had a bruise on it.
Q. When Sylvia got home was anything done to treat the bruise on her jaw?
A. No, you could not have done nothing with it, it was just a small bruise.

Jenny said this:

Q. Did you see Sylvia's jaw?
A. Yes.
Q. How did it look?
A. The jaw was not swollen so bad. Her ear was all bruised.

Well, next time I see someone with a bruised ear, I’ll know someone punched them in the jaw. Still..I leave the bruised ear for another time. But I digress. Back to the church lady: 

Q. How long before this time had you seen Paula Baniszewski the first time?
A. They used to go to our church regular and then they dropped out. This was, I would say for about a year they were out. Then they started back sometime shortly before this day that I had the conversation with Paula.

It seems odd that the minister didn’t mention this long time away from church…a whole year? And they returned shortly before August 22nd? The pastor:

Q. What about the Baniszewski children, did they attend?
A. Very faithfully, yes.
Q. During the time that Jenny attended your Sunday school, was this regular?
A. Yes.
Q. Do you know when she and Sylvia began coming to Sunday school?
A. The first occasion I remembered was during the month of July and it was on special occasion and we thought a meeting would last all day and it broke up the middle of the day and we had to provide extra transportation for some that did not have it.

This is hardly shortly before August 22nd. Please forgive me, but I trust the pastor on this point. Moreover, the chronology is already wrong. There’s more:

Q. How well would you say you knew Paula Baniszewski at the time of the ride in the bus, in terms of knowing her very well or casually?
A. I thought I knew her very well.
Q. Did you ever visit her at home?
A. No.
Q. Did you ever meet with her socially any place other than church?
A. Just at church.
Q. Was it your custom to stop and talk with her on the way to church or out any time?
A. If she showed a tendency.
Q. Now, on this particular occasion, Mrs. Sargent, were you convinced of the sincerity of what Paula Baniszewski said to you on the bus?
A. I must not have been because -
Q. Please answer yes or no, if you can.
A. May I put -
Q. Were you convinced?
A. There was something that disturbed me. May I put it in my own words?
Q. No, ma'am.
A. I did not report to the police.
A. She sounded as if she meant it.
Q. You then did believe this was a serious statement by Paula Baniszewski, threatening the life of Sylvia Likens?
A. I really don't know what I did believe.
Q. Well, as a result of your reaction to what you heard, what did you do, if anything?
A. That is the burden of guilt I have to have. I did not do anything about it.

So now I have a problem with what the church lady is saying, though I’m sure it’s just me not understanding what I’m reading. She says twice that what Paula said “disturbed” her, and she felt that Paula “sounded as if she meant it.” So now we have 17 year old Paula sitting on the bus with our church lady. She says that she knows Paula very well, and has talked with her before. Paula must have trusted her something fierce to suddenly make two very serious death threats. Not just so she could hear. The pastor says:

“In fact, they came to me, concerned for Paula. To my knowledge and to the knowledge of those who heard this, it was not common practice for Paula to be going about striking anybody and bragging about it. It showed spiritual decline. For that reason, they came and discussed it with me.”
Q. Did you speak to the clergyman?
A. I decided the child was trying to build up the scrape she had.

So which is it? Paula is just sounding off, or sounds like she means it? The answer is probably- just sounding off. But when viewed in hindsight, which we all know is 20/20, it seems different! And so:

"That is the burden of guilt I have to have. I did not do anything about it."

So she may be looking at the event in hindsight after all. But there are bigger issues:

Q. My question permits a yes or no. I must ask you to answer. My question was, did you speak to your clergyman, Roy Julian, about this incident?
A. Yes.
Q. What did you tell him?
A. I just told him what she said.
Q. What was his reaction?
A. That was sometime later.
Q. Did he say anything - feel you had cause to be perturbed - did he say he did?
A. No, he did not say it.
Q. Did you approach the household where Paula Baniszewski lived and make a report to anyone there?
A. No.
Q. Did you make a report to any police officer, say you thought a killing was in the offing?
A. No, sir.
Q. None of these things were done?
A. No.

So, the church lady goes to talk to Roy Julian after hearing Paula sounding off on the bus about hitting Sylvia. Actually, in her description, Paula explains her wrist, and then makes threats. The minister verifies that people on the bus came and talked to him about what Paula said. He does not refer to death threats, but he does refer to bragging. The church lady does not refer to bragging. In fact, if Paula walked away from a dust-up with a broken wrist, then she really has nothing to brag about! After all, she got the worst of it, given the rather small bruise left on Sylvia’s jaw (excluding her ear). But notice something else about what the minister said:

“About striking Sylvia and injuring her wrist. In fact, they came to me, concerned for Paula. To my knowledge and to the knowledge of those who heard this, it was not common practice for Paula to be going about striking anybody and bragging about it. It showed spiritual decline. For that reason, they came and discussed it with me. I said the girl told me. If this did not happen, I would not consider it confidential.”

When the people from the bus spoke to the minister, he already knew about it. He had talked with her at the door. He actually told the people from the bus that “the girl told me.” What girl? Was it Paula that came to him to tell him about it? It seems to me that this is more than possible. But there is a serious chronological problem that arises. Testimony indicates that Paula hurt her wrist in a fight with Sylvia on August 6th, or August 7th. Stephanie says this about the Sunday that Sylvia went forward to make her big decision:

Q. Now, were you ever present in the church when Sylvia was asked to come forward and dedicate her life?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Do you recall about when that was?
A. It was sometime in August.
Q. And was this at Grace Memorial Church about which you have testified?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Who else was in church with her when she made this decision?
A. I think her sister was. I think everybody was, except Paula.

So now we have a problem. The church lady and the pastor insist that Paula was there for this event, which both identify as August 22, 1965. Stephanie says that Paula wasn’t there. Which is it? I point out something else. In his testimony, the minister was asked about visits to the Baniszewski home after August 22, 1965. He describes two such visits. The first is the visit during which Sylvia was discussed, and which I have addressed in a previous posting. Then there is the visit resulting from Paula calling the pastor because of Stephanie’s health issues. Then the pastor is asked about the last time Paula went to church. He said this:

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 was present for a revival meeting at church on Monday, October 25th! It would seem that the conversation just cited concerns something that happened before Monday, October 25th. Again, a long quote:

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.
Q. When did you have this conversation?
A. I don't remember. I don't know whether it was on an occasion in the home or after the meeting was over and the young people were starting out the door or not.
Q. What else did she say?

MR. RICE: Your Honor, I think I will have to object until I ask a preliminary question or two.
THE COURT: I would like to ask whether or not the conversation she had was in the capacity of pastor and she in the roll of a communicant of the church.
MR. NEW: We object. We asked that question and they objected.
THE COURT: Overruled.
PRELIMINARY QUESTIONS, BY MR. GEORGE RICE, ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANT, PAULA MARIE BANISZEWSKI

Q. Can you answer the question?
A. As to whether it was in the capacity of a pastor and member?
Q. Yes.
A. Of the congregation? Would you ask that question again?
Q. I would like to know whether or not on the occasion you are now testifying as to the conversation you had with Paula Baniszewski, on your side was that a conversation between a pastor of a church, talking with and giving spiritual advice to a communicant that belonged to that church?
A. In a confidential way?
Q. Yes.
A. No, we were standing around at the door.
Q. Is it possible to have a confidential communication with a member of the church, if other people of the family are present, by the rules of your faith?
A. No.
Q. Could it have been confidential?
A. If it was confidential, it was not brought to my attention it was of that nature, because of the fact, people were standing around. Usually, people who want to talk to me wait around. To my knowledge, no one said, "This is confidential and I would like to talk to you confidentially". I felt it was a sort of bragging what she had done, hitting her and breaking her wrist.
Q. Am I correct, unless one of the communicants of the church says, in so many words says, "This is confidential" you feel at liberty to discuss with anybody what you discussed?
A. No, it would be according to the conversation. For one thing, there are some conversations that are not told to me to be confidential. I separate them by the type of information given me. At the time of this conversation, it was not confidential. It was told to the church workers, people on the bus.
Q. What had been?
A. About striking Sylvia and injuring her wrist. In fact, they came to me, concerned for Paula. To my knowledge and to the knowledge of those who heard this, it was not common practice for Paula to be going about striking anybody and bragging about it. It showed spiritual decline. For that reason, they came and discussed it with me. I said the girl told me. If this did not happen, I would not consider it confidential.

And there is the main problem. According to the pastor, this conversation was held at a date subsequent to the first post- August 22nd visit, and quite possibly as late as October 25th. If so, two different days are being confused. The conversation that the church lady had with Paula on the bus lead her and others to talk to the minister about it. He tells them that Paula has already told him. And he places this event in the period after August 22nd, and indeed, he can’t remember where! He says that it could have been at the Baniszewski home, or after the church meeting:

Q. When did you have this conversation?
A. I don't remember. I don't know whether it was on an occasion in the home or after the meeting was over and the young people were starting out the door or not.

This isn’t surprising. He has already acknowledged regular contact with Paula. Remembering when and where every conversation took place would be, in a word, impossible! But suddenly, he can remember all too well!

Q. Can you answer the question?
A. As to whether it was in the capacity of a pastor and member?
Q. Yes.
A. Of the congregation? Would you ask that question again?
Q. I would like to know whether or not on the occasion you are now testifying as to the conversation you had with Paula Baniszewski, on your side was that a conversation between a pastor of a church, talking with and giving spiritual advice to a communicant that belonged to that church?
A. In a confidential way?
Q. Yes.
A. No, we were standing around at the door.

It seems to me that two days are being confused. The first was August 22, 1965, when Paula and Stephanie accompanied Sylvia and Jenny to the front of the church as the two Likens girls pledged their lives to God. Paula had a cast on, from a previous scrap with Sylvia. It wasn’t for some time later that the church lady heard Paula mention hitting Sylvia. It was on this occasion, not the previous one that Paula talked to the minister on her own initiative and he informed the nosy church-bus people that he had already spoken with Paula about it. He became confused himself in his testimony, the veracity of which I questioned in another posting. As we suddenly remember things differently; indeed, suddenly remember things that didn’t happen, it’s only to be expected that things get jumbled up. The church lady may have keyed in on the August 22, 1965 date from the pastor’s testimony, whereas the conversation with the minister about what she heard Paula say…and remember that the minister doesn’t mention any death threats, involved something that happened sometime later (I suspect that that event occurred before October 5th). I could make this worse by pointing out that Marie says that Paula hurt her hand punching Sylvia in September. But since I don’t want to make this worse, I won’t mention it. 

But! Should I believe that the church lady heard Paula’s death threats, and went to tell the pastor, who then makes no mention of them? I do know that the church lady’s testimony serves one key purpose; i.e. premeditation to murder. This is absurd in itself. Her being treated to 2 death threats from the mouth of Paula reminds me only too well of Mrs. Vermillion’s claim that on the two occasions she was in Gertrude’s house, she was treated to an abusive show put on by Paula. It’s another one of those themes…i.e. Paula the show-woman, who once an adult witness takes her place in the front row, rushes onto the stage to give her performance. Her highly incriminating performance. But I note something else relative to church lady’s testimony. Apart from these ridiculous death threats, what is actually said about Paula’s role in the whole thing? And I preface this with the disclaimer that I do not believe most of it, and have doubts about the remainder. She hit Sylvia, she pushed her down the stairs, she was involved in the branding (absurd), etc. In short, she is accused of being involved in this bizarre pattern of abuse leading up to the evening when Sylvia arrives back at the house after being gone for a period of time, dying. So…no premediated murder! Anywhere. But with death threats, that changes. 

But does it? Church lady does not say that Paula said that she was going to kill Sylvia. She says she’s angry…she “could” kill her. Not that she “will” kill her. Then Paula, in the words of church lady, says “will kill her.” The problem for the prosecution, which if I represented Paula, I would have pointed out, is that this is a conditional threat; i.e. Paula will kill Sylvia if Sylvia calls her mom a bad name again. In my mind, my non-lawyer mind, Paula is innocent until proven guilty. If Sylvia does turn up murdered, Paula can only be found guilty if someone proves that Sylvia did in fact call Paula’s mom another bad name. Then they would have to prove that Paula actually knew about the second name-calling incident, and that she had the means and opportunity to follow through on her threat. But what of motive? Motive for murder? Sylvia would have said another mean thing about Paula’s mother. I shudder to think that any court in the United States would consider name-calling by a teenage girl to actually be a motive for murder. I’m sure it’s probably happened..maybe…but still. It seems some times that when considering this case, somewhere along the line, reality, actuality, plausibility, and any of an endless lists of things I could name, simply cease to have any meaning anymore. Reality as we know it temporarily dropped through a hole in the universe and sat in a state of suspended animation just long enough for this bizarre parallel world to briefly touch down from some somewhere, from some someplace, and hover over Indianapolis for a few months, only to dematerialize forever, allowing reason and rationality to illuminate our court-system yet again. But I digress; and find myself guilty of polemic. Where did I leave off? Oh, yes!

Now I have to admit that the situation gets even more puzzling when in the same document from which I took the beginning quote, Paula notes that Stephanie provided testimony that countered that of the church lady by stating that Paula wasn’t at church on August 22nd, and Paula makes mention of her cast. That confuses me, since the minister seems so sure that she was there the Sunday Sylvia accepted God; she and Stephanie. This is an enigma for me, and originally I wondered whether Stephanie was, after so contributing to the charges of abuse piling up on her sister, was seeking to take away the ‘premeditation to murder testimony’ offered by the lady on the bus who claimed to know Paula so well. There’s only one person I know who could answer this, and my remarks here are merely observations, probably incorrect ones, being made on the basis of nonsense testimony and lies, and within a vacuum… of truth. 

I make a few final comments, as if I haven’t already made too many and, as I am sure, made too many mistakes. Jenny specifically states that on the night Sylvia is found dead, she and Marie arrived at the house after several hours of raking leaves. Stephanie is there when they get there. But Paula doesn’t arrive until after Jenny and Marie. Stephanie places Paula and Jenny, and the inclusion of Jenny might be a shot taken at the one who put Stephanie there first, in the basement when she (Stephanie) gets home from school. But she says something amazing about Paula. When Paula arrives, she is surprised to hear that Sylvia is dead! Wow! Then she said that Paula did this:

"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."

Q. What else did she say to you?
A. She said, "Do you want to live with us, we will treat you like our own sister.”
Q. Did she say anything else about dying?
A. She just kept reading chapters in the Bible and then the police officer called me in the kitchen.

Again, I say- Wow! And I know that I saw this once before! When a serious crisis presents itself, Paula turns to God. Stephanie might have a brain tumor…call the pastor. Sylvia is dead…turn to the bible. And we all know that many people, when confronted with death, will do just that. And I thought the offer to admit Jenny into the family as one of the Baniszewski sisters is, if true of course, rather prophetic, seeing that Jenny would actually end up living with… Leroy New, the deputy prosecutor. So I guess she ended up with a different “family” after all, although I have no doubt misunderstood all of this. I also felt that the offer Paula makes sounds familiar. Although not intended by Jenny I’m sure, or Paula for that matter, I can’t help but think of the story of Ruth, the outsider, who once her husband is dead, insists on returning home with her mother-in-law Naomi. Naomi tells her to remain with her own people. But Ruth says, in part:

“Don’t force me to leave you; don’t make me go home. Where you go, I go; and where you live, I’ll live. Your people are my people, your God is my God.”

Ruth goes on to become the great-grandmother of one of the greatest heroes in human history. Interesting, only in an inaccurate and abstract way I’m sure. But it’s an emotive theme; i.e. the outsider finally finding her place in a way she never imagined. That did not happen in Indianapolis in 1965 of course. But I could swear I heard the offer. Having strained credulity beyond the breaking point, I could be yet even more profane and show myself to be the arch-apostate one more time. I can’t help but think of one more quote, and since it is one of my favorites, I feel unable to resist, although the context is of my own making:

“Say you are my sister, so that things go well for me because of you.”

This also did not happen in Indianapolis in 1965/1966. No; I’m wrong about that…maybe. I suddenly remember something Stephanie said:

Q. Miss Baniszewski, I asked you somewhat earlier whether or not your attitude toward your sister Paula was one of sisterly affection. Your answer was, "I can say it in three words"?

A. Yes, sir.
Q. Say those words.
A. I love her.

In my opinion, that says it all.