So, did Erbecker really say what he seems to have said at the end of Part 1? Yes he did!

One must say that Phyllis Vermillion had been put, or more likely, put herself, in a very difficult situation. And one that would have dramatic consequences for her life after May 1966. During the trial, she is one of three, and if this were ancient Rome, which may be the case seeing that we have an Emperor, or Empress, then we might say that she was part of a strange triumvirate. The other two triumvirs being, of course, Barbara Jean Sanders and the Reverend Julian Roy. It is true that there are good reasons to seriously call into question the testimony of all three triumvirs, and in each case, details of absurdity were built into their testimony which would clearly indicate to all teaspooners that what they were saying was not the truth. All three had to testify, although for different reasons. But Sanders and Roy have in common the fact that both were known to have been inside Gertrude house toward the end of the Saga. They did not see, or were told, at least in part, what they said they saw and heard, at least in part. A Cleric and a Nurse and a Nosy Neighbor Lady walk into a bar…actually, it would be best if I refrain from attempts to be humorous. After all, we have Officer Dixon and Dr. Kebel to keep us laughing through a bizarre Comedy Hour.

Q. Describe the girl.
A. Physical appearances?

No, her religious and philosophical beliefs…tell us whether she was Neo-Platonist or maybe a Gnostic. Of course physical appearances!

Q. Did you later see any of the defendants seated at the defense table?
A. The little girl with a purple sweater on.
Q. Did you see this girl?
A. I could not be sure, no, I retract that.
Q. Did you talk with the lady with the purple sweater?
A. No, I don't believe I did.

I retract that. I’m confused. Maybe it’s the color of the sweater..maybe if it were aquamarine, Dixon could say he saw the girl that he said he saw before he said he couldn’t be sure that he saw the girl that he really saw but didn’t see. At least, maybe.

Q. How was the girl dressed?
A. What girl was that, sir?
Q. The girl you found there.
A. Sylvia?
Q. Yes.

What girl was that? Sylvia? No, the girl with the purple sweater which if it was aquamarine...wait a minute. Is Dixon being funny? Is he playing his Officer Dunderhead character? I don’t think he is. If, of course, he was called to Gertie’s house to establish a crime scene there, and the Canonical Story Buffoonery is actually the truth, then he is playing the buffoon here. But there is a different interpretation that rears its head, or perhaps heads, like a fascinating Hydra. But could there actually be a Chimera here? No, not the very cool monster from Greek mythology. I mean in the modern sense..one being composed of different parts. Don’t forget that Dixon is responsible for providing one of the most important elements of truth in the whole Saga. His astounding truthfulness tells us that there was already a cop at Gertrude’s house when he arrived. And Officer Harmon, the collector of strange things, hopefully not souvenirs…after all, this isn’t the first famous murder case where letters disappeared into private collections, just ask the Boss, told us that the District Sergeant was there when he walked up to the self-opening door of 3850 East New York Street. Harmon felt the need to tell us that it was the door at that house that he needed to guard. Why? Because the door of the Denny Street side of the double was already being guarded. If there were two crime scenes, and each featured a dead girl, then if you asked Dixon how the girl was dressed, then he would ask you… “which girl is that?” I know I would. Hence it is important to look beyond the answers we are given; after all, that’s where the truth lies.

But it should be said that Sanders and Roy have something in common that they have in contrast to Vermillion; both were in Gertrude’s house in an official capacity. So both testifying per se, excluding the absurd things that they said, wouldn’t seem strange. They had another thing in common, a very interesting thing, and one that is easy to miss. Both said that they sat and listened to the Sitter and Knitter unleash a torrent of stupid, not to mention, highly incriminating statements. Oh, and I should mention, quite unbelievable things. Is that all? No! Both witnessed no abuse…but claimed to have been lied to…so in other words, both were tricked. By whom? The dastardly Mrs. What’s-Her-Name-Today, surely. But not only Gertrude. Claiming that she lied to them and tricked them would come as no surprise to anyone. No? No. But they singled out someone very clearly as also behind the deception. If Barbara and Roy were to be put in such a difficult position, then another important character would be as well. Who? According to the Cleric, it was the lies told by Jenny that caused him to suddenly stop at the base of the stairs. Of course, Gertie said that she was keeping Sylvia locked in the bedroom upstairs, and not the basement, because of the things that she said her sixteen year old charge got up to, as it were. She was a prostitute. When he asked Gertrude if he could go upstairs and see Sylvia, she said…sure! Ah! Just how close the Cleric came to seeing Sylvia! But he didn’t, Jenny suddenly confirmed what Gertrude had told him..confirmed the lies that Gertrude had told him. So if Gertrude’s role of Deceiver is to be taken for granted, the surprising thing is that Jenny shares this role. In fact, it was Jenny’s role of Deceiver that prompted the Cleric to decide not to go and see Sylvia. Following the Canonical Story, had he gone up those stairs, he would have found Sylvia in a bad way, and he would certainly have intervened. So whose fault was it that Sylvia died? Whose fault was it that Roy Julian did not go upstairs to find, and subsequently, rescue Sylvia? I think the Cleric is saying that it was Jenny’s fault. What of Barbara Sanders? She too was in the house, and she too, following the usual storyline, was lied to by the Great Liar. But as with the Cleric, so with the Nurse, Jenny is present. And Jenny says nothing. What if Jenny had suddenly stood up and told Sanders the truth? What if she had said that her sister was in the basement, in a bad way, and then beg Mrs. Sanders to go down and see her? As with the Cleric, so too with the Nurse, she would have intervened and Sylvia would not have died. For two of our triumvirs, Jenny is to blame just as much, if not more, than Gertrude.

They have another thing in common, something radically different than poor Mrs. Keel-Thompson-Smith-Neely-Vermillion-Keel-McCoy..wow! One needs a program just to keep the numerous manifestations of Phyllis Jean straight. Roy Julian and Barbara Sanders did not witness any abuse. But Phyllis did..on two separate occasions. So the Cleric and the Nurse can be faulted, and within the Canonical Story they certainly should be faulted, with having been told things that any reasonable, rational, non-shovel scraping person would have found so much fault with..things that were clear triggers for pursuing the matter further. File an index card? They were tricked, but bear in mind, they were trying to trick us…they too became Great Liars and Deceivers; although, like Officer Dixon, they provide kernels of truth essential to understanding everything. And in my mind, there is redemption in that. But in the Saga, they failed to take the next logical steps. Haven’t we all? So even though their names are forever linked to a terrible tragedy involving the fate of two girls, not to mention a terrible travesty of justice, they are understandable and forgivable. No so with Mrs. Vermillion. She witnesses abuse on two separate occasions, and does nothing. This is far more grave of a sin indeed! She did nothing at the time, but she then complicates her sin by being completely content to not testify in the case. That is, until she can no longer stand on the sidelines. And she gives us a remarkably silly and wholly nonsensical reason for why she finally did.

So one wonders how Vermillion ended up in her lamentable situation. Why is it that Barbara and Julian do not have to bear the same loathsome reputation as Frank Keel’s unfortunate daughter? If Frank Grosvenor Keel is in fact her father, and he is the same person as Frank G Keel, then it is interesting that Gertrude claimed to have spent time in Kansas, while Mr. Keel did as well..except in his case, it was Leavenworth Military Prison. And that’s different. The Cleric and the Nurse get a pass, and can continue their lives in much the same way as they had before. They should have done more, but they did attempt to find out the truth, and would have acted had they done so. At least within the Canonical Story. The truth is somewhat different. But Mrs. Brevard-County-Florida would be shunned by anyone who followed, even to a fairly small degree, the Sylvia Likens Saga. This was the woman who saw it and did nothing! So anyone, certainly in Indianapolis, who took the case with any degree of seriousness would no doubt, should they cross paths with this woman, scream curses at someone with so much callousness..so much indifference and disregard for a girl she saw abused that she did nothing at all. And then! You didn’t come forward to testify! Until you did, because of some inane need to correct a misprint in the newspaper that said that Coy Hubbard was Paula’s boyfriend? How about call, not the prosecutor’s office, no..how about..the newspaper, and tell them that a mistake had been made. A correction could have been printed the next day, albeit none of the paper’s readers would have cared seeing how totally trivial and irrelevant this detail was. And! If Paula’s boyfriend would not be identified anyway, why should the wife of Anna E Powell’s son care? I am supposed to believe that Phyllis Vermillion made herself a detestable figure, one who will remain as such, as long as the Likens case is followed, which is to say, forever, because of a misprint in the newspaper? The answer is obvious; Vermillion came forward to testify for a very different, and wholly believable reason. And she accomplished what she set out to accomplish. But it came at a very, very high price.

Now before I set out to clarify what made Mrs. Vermillion sacrifice her reputation in the eyes of infinite posterity, I would make a disclaimer. I do not believe what she said she saw, well, she actually saw. That means that I’m suggesting that she lied. However, do not fail to comprehend that in so doing, I am also clearing her of having done what infinite posterity, except for a handful of readers of the material on this website, virulently reproach her for having done. I am saying that Nosy Neighbor Lady did not report any abuse because she did not see any abuse, which wasn’t happening, in some way at least, at all. So in a certain way I am going on record as absolving her of being someone who did nothing about the torture and murder of a child living next-door. If I were in her lamentable position, I would personally prefer to be seen as a liar, and not the terrible person that she ended up morphing into during the trial. After all, everyone lies, and everyone else during the Likens Trial was lying. If the reason I think Phyllis came forward to testify was in fact the reason, it speaks volumes about the real Phyllis Vermillion, who I suggest was really a very caring person. Note a detail of absurdity:

Q. Who screamed?
A. Sylvia did.
Q. Where did she hit her with hot water, if she did?

A. On the right side of her face and I looked - you know to see what she was screaming about. I did not know what was going on then and Paula had a glass in her hand and it looked like steam in it to me. I assumed it was hot water. She started crying and Paula rubbed a whole bunch of yellow stuff all over her face.

Q. What was this, if you know?
A. I don't know, it looked like garbage.

I’ll say it, even though I’m sure everyone has caught on to what Vermillion just did. The “yellow stuff”; this strange “garbage” that Paula rubbed over Sylvia’s face..is butter. So having described a cruel Paula throwing hot water in Sylvia’s face, she then applies an old home-remedy for minor burns…putting butter on it. So here we have a sadistic Paula follow her act of violence with an act of remarkable caring..I’ll burn the girl in the face…but I will then promptly treat it! But there is more absurdity here. We get yet another example of how the witnesses describe a common element in the abuse of Sylvia..burning with hot, or scalding, water. They all fail for the same reason that those who perpetrate this form of abuse would burn themselves as well. So too here; Paula handles a glass of water hot enough to burn Sylvia’s face, without burning her hand! Strange..she could rub butter on Sylvia’s face, and then on her own hand! Can we be sure that it’s butter? And no, I don’t mean whether it is butter or margarine. Let’s let Phyllis continue:

Q. Did Paula say how she got the black eye?

A. Paula said she gave it to her. Mrs. Wright said it took all of them to pull her off her. A boyfriend of Paula's was there at that time. Mrs. Wright said something about Paula being pregnant. Anyway, as I was saying before, she started screaming and crying and Mrs. Wright said, "Go up to your room, you are not going to get nothing". The only thing I could see they were having for breakfast was toast and jelly. 

I’ll bet if they’re having toast for breakfast, and Phyllis can even see the jelly jar, I’ll bet there’s some butter nearby. But notice another thing Vermillion has done. What is happening when Paula suddenly explodes in violence?

A. Well, I saw Sylvia was having coffee with Mrs. Wright or Mrs. Baniszewski. I saw Sylvia and she had a black eye and -
Q. What part of the house was this in?

Stop and think about what Phyllis is telling us. When she walked into the house, Sylvia and Gertrude are relaxing, and having a cup of coffee. Stop and think about that again. What a nice, normal thing for Gertrude and Sylvia to be doing! Who doesn’t like a good cup of coffee? And what do you do when you and another person have coffee together? That’s right! You talk; about all sorts of things. So Phyllis is saying that she walked in on a situation that, if anything else she said was the truth, suggests a rather friendly relationship between Sylvia and Gertrude. Then Phyllis will suddenly transform this scene into one of wanton violence. So Phyllis! Had you not shown up, Sylvia and Gertrude could have enjoyed their coffee and had their friendly chat. No need for butter! Then this scene, once Phyllis Keel arrives, so conveniently becomes one so absurd that you could tell the lie you had to tell as a result of a deal with the prosecutor, and then someday someone would figure out what you were actually doing! Notice something else. If Paula wanted to burn Sylvia’s face, how much more effective would have been the…coffee! And the reason why they invented coffee mugs is to save you from having to drink your coffee from a glass, and burn your hand! So if Phyllis expects us to believe the basic storyline, she would have said that Paula threw a cup of coffee in Sylvia’s face, and then omitted the line about the butter.

Q. What did you see when you entered the house?

A. Well, Mrs. Wright and Sylvia was arguing, and Paula was screaming at her. Paula and Mrs. Wright was drinking coffee; I could see the mugs. They was also having breakfast, toast and jelly. I didn’t see any butter. Suddenly Paula picked up one of the coffee mugs and threw coffee in Sylvia’s face. The girl screamed, and Mrs. Wright ordered her to go down into the basement.

Q. What else?

A. Well, I didn’t really see that, and this is only hypothetical testimony at any rate. You see, I did a deal with the prosecution, and consequently, I had to describe fictional tales of abuse. Actually, like Dixon, I retract what I just described.

Q. Why? There’s no purple sweater in your story.

A. Why? Because! What I just described would be quite consistent with the badly executed and wholly transparent Canonical Story! Moreover, I will go down in history as a detestable figure. I’m hoping that one day someone with a teaspoon, and no, not the spoon under Shirley’s bed, will clear me of being such a figure. So I will describe a little scene completely at odds with the Canonical Story, and it goes like this…

Like so many others, she hoped that one day someone would give up a coal shovel, and pick up a teaspoon, and realize that Phyllis was lying, and she wants us to know that she is lying. Then we will know that she didn’t do what she said she did, or didn’t do what she should have done because it didn’t need doing, and is therefore guilty of nothing more than lying. So too Ricky! I will say that I cut a slogan into a girl’s stomach with an object that has no cutting edge…a sewing needle, when if I wanted remote posterity to see me as a monster, I would have said that I got a knife, and no, not a butter knife, from the silverware drawer in Gertie’s kitchen and used that; assuming, of course, that the knives were not sitting beside the spoons, which were apparently sitting under Shirley’s bed. Surely, thought Ricky, anyone who ponders that will say that this is a detail of absurdity…and one day, like the lady who lives next-door to my friend Gertie, someone will recognize that I lied, something that I would gladly go through remote posterity carrying on my back rather than being a sadistic monster. It would have been going too far to say that he did it with a knitting needle..or even, a croqueting needle, two other types of needles that Gertie apparently had lying about the house.     

To Vermillion we owe the shovel scraping story. A bane in many ways, but a blessing in others, seeing how she was actually telling us the truth. She put no spin on this, and left others to suggest that Sylvia lay in the basement scraping the floor in an effort to call attention to her situation. How much easier would it have been to smash the basement window, the one that Phyllis would not have looked through, even though, if she thought that the scraping sound was strange, she probably would have looked through it. I know I would have. She would have done so too, except for the fact that there was nothing strange about the scraping sound in Gertie Wright’s basement. I’ll bet that there was shovel scraping going on in Phyllis’ basement that night. The shovel was a coal shovel, and it was cold that night, and so Paula and Stephanie were scraping coal off the basement floor and putting it in the coal-burning furnace. That’s right…one must make a concerted effort to avoid relating to events in the past from the perspective of the present. We have gas or electric furnaces. Gertie had a coal-burning furnace. That means that she had a pile of coal on the floor of her basement. That means she had a coal shovel in her basement. That means to get the coal into the coal-burning furnace, you have to shovel it off of the floor. That means someone standing nearby will hear…shovel scraping in the basement! I’m sure Phyllis or Raymond Vermillion generated some shovel scraping in their basement, assuming of course that they, like Paula and Stephanie, preferred not to shiver through the rest of the night, or early morning, huddled in their beds. Another not-so-strange thing Phyllis heard was screaming; Gertrude screaming:

Q. What did you do then, Mrs. Vermillion?

A. Well, my husband and I always set down and eat before we go to bed. I heard scraping noises on cement that sounded like a shovel being drug over cement. I heard some noise like a shovel being scraped over cement.

And:

Q. What did you do then, if anything?
A. Well, like I said, we heard the noise and a lot of hollering and went outside to look and my husband said -

MR. ERBECKER: We object.
THE COURT: Sustained.

A. I went out on the front porch and I looked. I went out on the back porch and looked and did not see anything. I went back around in front and went out doors and down the steps. I could see a light on in Mrs. Baniszewski's basement. That is where the noises and hollering were coming from.

Q. Did you recognize the voice you heard?
A. Yes, Mrs. Wright.
Q. How long did this sound from scraping - that sounded like scraping last?
A. Twenty or twenty-five minutes.
Q. And then how long did the hollering last that you heard?
A. Till about 3:00 o'clock in the morning. I could not sleep and threatened to call the police.
Q. Did the scraping sound continue while you heard the voice hollering?
A. Yes.
Q. In all, how long did the scraping noise last?
A. Two hours, maybe two and a half hours.

And:

Q. The night you heard the sound which sounded like a shovel scraping on concrete, this noise you say you thought you heard coming from the basement?

A. Yes, I know it was coming from the basement, that is all the other sounds there were.
Q. There was another sound at that time?
A. No scraping first and Mrs. Wright hollered.
Q. The scraping stopped?
A. No, it kept on and she kept on hollering.
Q. The hollering came from the basement?
A. Yes.
Q. At the same time as the scraping?
A. Yes, it kept up to about 3:00 in the morning.
Q. The hollering and scraping kept up till about 3:00 in the morning?
A. Off and on, the scraping kept on and the hollering - she would pause and then start again.

So if we step back for a minute, and actually think about this, it all makes so much sense. Well, except for the obviously exaggerated amount of time involved. Phyllis tells us that she heard shovel scraping coming from Gertrude’s basement, and heard Gertrude screaming. So let’s turn this into…Sylvia is lying in the basement scraping the floor with a shovel. It is at an ungodly hour, so one might expect the other kids in the house to be asleep, seeing how tomorrow is a school day. Sylvia could smash the window; Sylvia could wield the very formidable weapon she now possesses..she could have simply walked out of the basement, and even if someone was awake, it probably be wouldn’t be Shirley, or her Phenobarbital addicted mother, Sylvia could have declared that anyone unfortunate enough to be awake and not lying at the bottom of a pile of blankets that would have been so handy given how cold the house was at the time, had better not get in her way or they’d get clocked with the coal shovel. So what about the fingernails? You know, the element of the trauma to be found on Photo1Girl, although you will miss it if you look at the doctored photo that was shown in court; you know, the one that has been altered to cover the girl’s hands so you will miss the fact that she has no fingernails. Why would Sylvia be scraping with her fingernails when she has a coal shovel which she can use to scrape at anything she so desires? Personally, I would prefer to whack Gertrude over the head with the shovel. Even better, I would have just waited until everyone was asleep and then walked out the front door. But hitting Gertie with the coal shovel would be immensely more satisfying!

Sorry about that. Returning to the Canonical Story, Sylvia is scraping the floor with her shovel in some attempt to get someone to hear it and know that something is wrong. Except, as Sylvia well knows, shovel scraping is to be heard in everyone’s basement; including Ricky’s basement, Randy’s basement, Mike Monroe’s basement, William Sim’s basement, Darlene’s basement, Anna’s basement, and even Judy Duke’s basement, assuming that she can figure how to use the coal shovel. Oh, and as noted before, Phyllis’ basement. I’ll bet you’d even hear it in a basement in Lebanon, Indiana, such as the Likens’ basement, or at least Grandma Martin’s basement, although you would have pretty good hearing to hear Grandma Martin putting coal into her furnace as far away as Gertie’s house. So there! No one in Indianapolis who hears the scraping will think anything other than what is generating that sound heard everywhere in the city that night..a coal shovel scraping coal off the floor. So again I say, smash the window, or defiantly carry your weapon up out of the basement and hit…wait…no one is awake..just walk out the front door.

But I forgot! Reality is not nearly as exciting as fantasy! So we’ll put Sylvia back in the unlocked basement, and let her scrape the floor with the coal shovel. And then! The diabolical Gertie Wright does something horrible! Something dreadful! I can’t bear to hear what comes next! Hot water torture? Salt in sores? Maybe even…Paula get the board! No. Strange really. For someone capable of such violence, wanton violence, directed at the girl scraping the basement floor with the coal shovel, Gertie is content to stand at the head of the basement steps and simply scream at Sylvia! What a change has occurred on this strange night! Stop that scraping! Stop trying to warn other people as though they don’t also scrape the floor of their basement when they want to put coal in their coal-burning furnace! And if you won’t stop, then I will stand here and yell at you until you do! Stop that, stop that, stop that! I can’t think of anything else to do! I could walk down into the basement and take the shovel away from you. Then I could go back to sleep, and not stand here screaming at you, and I really do feel groggy from all my Phenobarbital. I will also wake up everyone else in the house. And if nosy Phyllis Vermillion can hear me screaming, I wonder who else can hear me screaming? And, for all you shovel scrapers in remote posterity, I must ask, if you were someone standing by my basement at this ungodly hour, on this rather chilly night, what would you think more indicative of a serious problem…someone scraping the floor of the basement with a coal shovel meant to do exactly that, or me screaming at the top of my lungs? I’ll bet that if Phyllis Vermillion can get her better-half to actually call the police because of the racquet, he will call and tell them that I am screaming at the top of my lungs, rather than tell them that someone is scraping the floor of the basement with a tool built to do exactly that. So what that means is that the construct involving the shovel scraping, the basement floor, and the screaming is all absurdly stupid. What is going on? Paula has emerged from the mysterious “third bedroom”; you know the one, the one that no one will say just who occupies it. Maybe, I don’t know, Paula! The house is cold. What to do? I know now! Put coal in the furnace! She appears from the bottom of the stairs, and wakes up Stephanie, who follows her into the basement. Then Sylvia’s twin sister drops coal on Paula’s foot. The two girls begin hollering at each other. And then it happens! This racquet wakes up Gertrude, who proceeds to yell down at the two girls yelling in the basement. Would you two shut up! Stephanie dropped coal on my foot and it hurts! No I didn’t, and it was an accident anyway! Paula is a big baby, and remember mom, Sylvia broke her wrist. You shut up Stephanie or I’ll break your wrist! Both of you shut up, especially you Stephanie! But mom, you always take her side! She’s your favorite, and that will become clear in a couple of months at the trial! So as the scraping continues, so does the shouting, and Raymond Vermillion is getting very close to…

“Hello, police dispatch; who is this?”

“My name is Raymond Vermillion.”

“Phyllis’ husband?”

“Yes.”

“Oh. What’s your emergency?”

“Well, my wife hears shovel scraping, and made me call.”

“Where do you live?”

“Next-door to Gertie Wright.”

“You poor man. Please hold while I contact police headquarters.”

“I have called them, Phyllis, I’m talking to them right now!”

“Sorry sir, you’ll have to hold the line a little longer.”

“Why?”

“Apparently the police headquarters building is rather chilly right now. All the cops are in the basement scraping coal off of the floor to put it in the furnace.”

At any rate, Paula cries over her foot which, I hope, isn’t broken, while Sylvia sleeps blissfully under a pile of warm blankets upstairs, unaware of the idiotic scene playing out downstairs. Or the idiotic scene playing out in remote posterity! Sorry, that’s boring! So, returning to the Canonical Story…just kidding. It probably just isn’t the same now.

And so remote posterity has now heard Mrs. Vermillion. Butter? A good touch! How about a better one?

Q. What did you see or hear at this time?
A. Well, I saw Sylvia was having coffee with Mrs. Wright or Mrs. Baniszewski. I saw Sylvia and she had a black eye and -
Q. What part of the house was this in?

A. Well, it was supposed to be the front room or the dining area, I suppose, just right off the kitchen. It had a table and chair in it. The kitchen is right off that and Sylvia was sitting in the chair at the table and I had went to see Mrs. Baniszewski about keeping my children while I worked. I did not have a baby sitter. I knew I was going to work, that it was a matter of time when they were going to call me. I went over to her house and asked her about - if $10.00 would be enough to keep my children and she said it would. I asked Sylvia how did you get black eye. She did not say anything. Paula said she did that -

“Hi Mrs. Vermillion!”

“Hi Paula. What are you guys doing?”

“Well, we’ve been having coffee and chatting. I’ve been waiting for you to show up so that I can be mean!”

“Sylvia, how did you get the black eye?”

“Hah! I did that!”

Time to recycle:

Q. When was the next time you went to the Baniszewski home?
A. In October.
Q. And do you know when in October?
A. Well, it was the week of the 15th.
Q. And who was present this time?
A. Paula, Mrs. Wright, and I don't think Stephanie and them was there. I did not see them. I saw the baby.
Q. What did you see then?
A. Well, Sylvia had another black eye and she had a busted mouth where they had hit her in the mouth, she had a busted mouth.

Another black eye! And as one writer on this website clearly showed, Vermillion is accounting for the two black eyes on Photo1Girl, which she had at the same time, then saying that she saw them on Sylvia, at two different times. Oops! She got that one wrong.

Where was I before? Oh, yes, I remember! Erbecker said something fascinating:

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

I’m confused. Was he referring to the Likens as Gertrude’s neighbors? He then referred to these children as aged twelve and fifteen, whereas Jenny was fifteen, and Sylvia was sixteen. And the neighbors asked Gertrude to care for her children “several weeks” prior to October 26, 1965; and that “several weeks” before October 26, 1965 Sylvia Likens sustained the injuries that caused her death? I must say that this is amazing. The Canonical Story says that the only child living at Gertrude’s house who was 12 years old was John Blake. Paula was seventeen; Sylvia was sixteen; Jenny was fifteen; Stephanie was fifteen; Marie was eleven; and Shirley was ten. If you remember to include the forgettable boy, Jimmy, you might remember that he was eight. So does Erbecker give the wrong ages? Are the Likens really neighbors? Is Erbecker lying? Is he just wrong? I believe that he was neither wrong, nor lying. Remember this:

A. Well, it was supposed to be the front room or the dining area, I suppose, just right off the kitchen. It had a table and chair in it. The kitchen is right off that and Sylvia was sitting in the chair at the table and I had went to see Mrs. Baniszewski about keeping my children while I worked. I did not have a baby sitter. I knew I was going to work, that it was a matter of time when they were going to call me. I went over to her house and asked her about - if $10.00 would be enough to keep my children and she said it would. I asked Sylvia how did you get black eye. She did not say anything. Paula said she did that –

So just who is Phyllis Vermillion? It appears that she was the daughter of Frank Grosvenor Keel and Ora Mae Gunn. She was born May 29,1933 in Indianapolis. At some the point the family went to Florida, where she married Howard Thompson on January 14, 1951. Her sister Mary E Keel had married Walter Deer in Indianapolis on January 18, 1941. Oddly enough, the witness for the 1951 marriage was Wendell Deer, Walter Deer’s brother, indicating that the Deer family went to Florida with the Keels. They came back to Indianapolis and Phyllis Thompson met Warren Eugene Smith, ex-husband of Viola McNeely. In 1955, we find them living at 3710 East Terrace Avenue. Eugene Smith died on May 19, 1958. On September 22, 1958, Phyllis Smith married Glen Neely (1928-2000), son of Ule and Emma Neely, brother of Gracie, Phyllis, Gladys, and Wayne Neely. Then on October 6, 1961 she married Raymond Thomas Vermillion Jr, son of Raymond and Anna (Powell) Vermillion, brother of Vealis, Stanley, Robert; and possibly the step-son of Chester Campbell, who married his mother Anna. Phyllis will later move to Florida, where, under her maiden name Phyllis Keel, and given the character she morphed into during the trial I don’t blame her giving up the name Vermillion, she married Billy Neal McCoy in 1976. Phyllis died in Polk County, Florida, on July 26, 1988.

So much for family history. It may seem strange that Phyllis had racked up more last names than Gertrude herself. Be that as it may, I return to Erbecker’s statement quoted above, along with the statement made by Phyllis Vermillion that she had approached Gertrude about watching her children. So there can be no doubt that the neighbor referred to by Erbecker must be Phyllis Jean Vermillion. 

Speaking of missing persons, the question of the two children referred to by Erbecker could indicate that we are missing two children in the Great Saga. The family history, brief as it was, provided above can be supplemented with some key information. This is what Phyllis said about her family:

Q. How long have you lived in Marion County?
A. All my life.
Q. How old are your children?
A. I have one six and one a year and a half.
Q. Six and a year and a half?
A. Yes.

And now for the key information..well, the start of it. Phyllis had one child by Glen Neely, a daughter named Colleen Marsha Neely. If she was six in 1966, then she was born around 1960, which fits with Phyllis not marrying Raymond Vermillion until 1961. Thus it would appear that the six year old is Colleen Marsha. What about the other child? She and Raymond had a son, Raymond Lee Vermillion, who was born on September 19, 1963; but tragically died four days later. But they had another son, born in November 1964. Since Raymond Vermillion’s obituary mentions a son named Ricky Vermillion, and the only other mention is of Marsha Moore, Ricky appears to be the child born in 1964, and figuring May 1966 back 18 months, there is an approximate match. So now we know what children Phyllis was talking about in her testimony. But we are left with a significant discrepancy on our hands. It was clear that Erbecker was not satisfied with Phyllis’ answer about her children.

Q. How old are your children?
A. I have one six and one a year and a half.
Q. Six and a year and a half?
A. Yes.
Q. When was the last time you talked to Gertrude Baniszewski prior to October 26, 1965?
A. During the week of the 15th, one day that week.
Q. Now then, after you and your husband went inside that morning around - whenever it was - 2:00 or 3:00 o'clock, did you again talk to Gertrude Baniszewski?
A. No.
Q. You did not? Now from August 27, 1965 to October 26, 1965, other than what you have recounted here, did you see anything else transpiring over there at that house with reference to Gertrude Baniszewski only - nobody else?
A. I saw her whip Sylvia with a belt.
Q. When was that?
A. I don't know, sometime in September, I suppose.
Q. September, anything else?
A. No.
Q. How old are your children, did you say?
A. Six and a year and a half.
Q. Six, and you have no interest in the outcome of this trial, do you?
A. I don't know what you mean by interest.
Q. What prompted you to call the authorities on April 25, 1966, months after this occurred?
A. I told you I saw a picture in the paper and it was not the boy I saw and that was supposed to be Paula's boyfriend and it was not.
Q. That is the reason you called the prosecutor?
A. Yes, it looks like him but it is not him.

Vermillion said that she had only been in the house twice, and described what she saw. She said nothing about Sylvia being beaten with a belt. Now she throws this out too, almost as if she is simply looking for something else to throw out. As for the question about the children… I suspect that Erbecker repeated the question to see if he got the same answer. He did, but he then repeated the age of the older child..six..almost as if.. “six, are you sure?” Of course, there were in fact children of the ages she gave in court. But were there four children? If so, and it would appear that this is indeed the case, why did she say that she had two children? Why does Erbecker get hung up on the statement that one of these children was six years old? One might simply point out that if children 12 and 15 lived at 4848 East New York, it is hard to believe that they did not have anything to do with the children at Gertrude’s house. It is hard to believe that they had never actually been in Gertrude’s house.

Would a babysitter really be required for a 15 year old and a 12 year old? It is interesting that Vermillion stated that Gertrude had actually agreed to watch Phyllis’ children for $10.00. Lester said this about his arrangement with Gertrude:

A. She said that she would like to take care of the children because we was going to go to the fair down in southern Indiana and I had discussed it with my wife after I picked her up at her mother's house. We both agreed since she had children about the same age we would leave them there and we decided to pay her $10.00 per week for each child.

But unlike the Likens’ situation, the deal with Vermillion feel through:

Q. Did Mrs. Wright ever keep your children for you, Mrs. Vermillion?
A. No.

Good questions:

Q. How long have you worked for R.C.A.
A. Since the 19th of September.
Q. 1965?
A. Yes.
Q. Where did you live before you lived there?
A. 1613 South Randolph.
Q. And when is the first time you revealed this information to any law enforcement agency?
A. Well, when I called Mr. New on the phone.

I could be wrong, but the questions about working for RCA and the address she lived at previously were suddenly interjected among the other questions. Why? There are some rather confusing elements related to the history of Phyllis and Raymond Vermillion, particularly when it comes to locating them prior to 1965. But! Here is the history of 1613 South Randolph:

1967:  Lester Payne

1966:  Vacant

1965:  Vacant

1964:  Vacant

1963:  Owen F Wade

1962:  ??

1961:  Owen F Wade

But let’s let Phyllis finish with her claims about where she lived before August 1965:

Q. Where did you live before then?
A. 1613 South Randolph.
Q. How long did you live at that address on South Randolph?
A. About a year and a half.

If the Vermillions moved into 4848 East New York in August of 1965, how could they have previously lived at 1613 South Randolph if that house had been vacant since 1964? In fact, the Vermillions lived at 6108 Bluff Crest Court at the time of Raymond Lee’s birth in 1963. When did they move? Well the July 19, 1964 Indi Star says that the house had been sold. But according to Phyllis’ statement, they were living at 1613 South Randolph since February 1964. It would be approximately five months from that date before the house was sold. So did they move into the South Randolph Street address before selling the Bluff Crest Court house? Five months before that? And if they lived at 1613 South Randolph toward the end of 1964, why is 1613 South Randolph said to have been vacant in the 1965 city directory? As we have seen, the house was vacant during the period of 1964 – 1966. Thus it appears to have been vacant for a long time. So I may be excused for questioning the claim made by Phyllis Vermillion as to where she lived before moving into 4848 East New York. If they had moved into 1613 South Randolph after selling the house on Bluff Crest Ct, they should have shown up in the 1965 directory as living at the South Randolph Street address. But they don’t. And now it’s time to make the situation even more confusing, and possibly even more clear in an odd way. Let’s look at what Vermillion actually said about when she and Raymond moved in next-door to Gertie Wright:

Q. Where do you live, Mrs. Vermillion?
A. 3848 East New York.
Q. That is in Marion county, Indiana?
A. Yes.
Q. How long have you lived there?
A. Since the last of August, about the 27th or 28th.
Q. Of what year?
A. Last August.
Q. 1965?
A. Yes.

Ok, so she’s asked for a straightforward little detail, and she provides it. She’s asked again:

Q. You have lived there since August 27, 1965?
A. Yes, about that. We pay rent on the first and we had paid a deposit on the 27th.
Q. You live there now?
A. Yes.

But is the truth? According to Jenny, it is not the truth. This is what Jenny said:

Q. Was there a house to the other side, to the west, or to the left hand side as you go toward the house - was there a house there?
A. Yes.
Q. Who lived there?
A. New neighbors had just moved in.
Q. There was always someone living there?
A. Not all the time, they had just moved in.
Q. Just moved?
A. Yes.
Q. When?
A. I'd say about the first - it was about the middle of October or a little later.
Q. The middle of October?
A. Or a little later.
Q. Then before the middle of October and from about July then to the middle of October, no one lived there, is that right?
A. That is right?

So there it is. The Vermillions did not move into 4848 East New York until the middle of October. And since October has 31 days, that would indicate that the Vermillions moved in next-door to Gertrude on approximately…October 15th. This is when Phyllis said she saw Sylvia abused a second time. So if Jenny is telling the truth, then the Vermillions did not move into 4848 East New York until approximately the same time that Lester and Betty Likens visited Sylvia for the last time. It was also on this date that Barbara Sanders said that she visited the house. Oh, my! October 15, 1965 was a very busy day indeed!

What about the vanishing children? We know about Ricky and Marsha, but what about a 15 year old and a 12 year old? Four became two just like two became one? I think we can identify these two kids, and it is virtually certain that they are the two children Phyllis had with Howard Thompson. Steven Michael Thompson married Teresa Leigh Sachs on July 21, 1988. The marriage certificate lists the parents as Howard Thompson and Phyllis Keel. Carolyn Sue Thompson married Steven Lee Reddick on June 28, 1969. And what is particularly important is the fact that the marriage certificate gives her address as 5831 Sunwood Drive. And who lives there? Ora Mae Keel. Carolyn was born in approximately 1951, roughly equating with the 15 year old mentioned by Erbecker. Her younger brother was born in approximately 1953, giving us the 12 year old. So Erbecker was right, and Phyllis was lying. Why lie about something like this? It’s most perplexing. Why wouldn’t you just say that you had four children? Why cover-up the existence of exactly the two children that Erbecker referred to and linked to the period of time that Sylvia supposedly received her injuries?

I will make another point, one that could seriously compromise the Canonical Story, as if that hasn’t happened already. The payment that Lester and Gertrude worked out between themselves was $10.00, i.e. $10.00 per kid. Vermillion said that she had two kids, and had worked out the same payment amount. But! $10.00 per kid was not to babysit Jenny and Sylvia…it was room and board for their living in Gertrude’s house. If the quote of $10.00 referenced by Vermillion is also $10.00 per kid, why would Vermillion make the same payment per child that the Likens were paying if she would pick up her two kids when she got home every evening? She wouldn’t; she would pay less than the Likens would pay, if in fact all she wanted Gertrude to do is babysit next-door. $10.00 for 2 kids? $5.00 per kid? It still seems too much to watch kids until Phyllis comes home from work, based on the $10.00 per kid charged to allow Sylvia and Jenny to live at Gertrude’s house. I also find it unlikely that Gertrude would have been willing to watch a baby as young as Ricky. She already had any number of kids to look after, and was abusing Phenobarbital at the time. But two more older kids kicking around…

Now it is clear that Phyllis Vermillion had an axe to grind with Gertrude, and Gertrude’s conflict with the man who used to live on the other side of the double, i.e. Robert Handlon, who is perhaps one of the most important figures in the entire Saga, appears to have been involved. However, is it really possible to believe that when Jean Vermillion suddenly decided to call the prosecutor’s office and voice her desire to testify, something that she apparently had no inclination to do before, that it was because Paula’s boyfriend had been wrongly identified by some reporter as Coy Hubbard? That was really the reason? You’ll excuse me if I answer that in the negative. Was the reason that this perfect storm gave her the opportunity to strike out at Gertrude partly motivated by the fact that she had Robert Handlon arrested while arguing with him on the porch? Of course, if perjury were involved, then it’s taking quite a chance seeing how perjury can get you put…in prison! Or could there be a more basic reason why Vermillion suddenly made a deal with the prosecutor? I can think of one that would be a more powerful motivator than revenge; i.e. protection. As noted earlier, Erbecker drew a connection between the time that Gertrude was approached by a neighbor to “care for” her 12 and 15 year old children, and the period of time during which “one of the children staying at her home” sustained the injuries that Ellis testified about. Why did Phyllis and Gertrude agree on the rate of $10.00, and then the deal fell through? Why does the rate quoted to Lester Likens match the rate quoted to Phyllis Vermillion? I think that these match because that was the rate, per kid, that Gertrude charged to let children crash at “Gertrude’s Flop-House.” If this were true, then the discussion with Nosy Neighbor Lady was not about babysitting, but rather was about Phyllis’ two older kids staying at Gertrude’s house in the same way that Sylvia and Jenny were. If that were true, then her kids, speaking only hypothetically, could have been in the exact same situation as the other kids at 3850 East New York Street. If you came home from work on the night of October 26th, you saw all the police cars in front of Gertie Wright’s house. You asked your kids what was going on, and they told you about Sylvia, as well as the other child with sores that when added to Sylvia gives Barbara Sanders her sought after “children” with sores. You might ask more questions and then find yourself fearful of your children getting caught up in the nightmare. If they have different last names than yours, and you are indeed new to the neighborhood and believed that no one knew that those two kids were actually your kids, you could send them to stay somewhere else in Indianapolis. Somewhere like…Ora Mae Keel’s house. And! There were two…but then there’s the other two…and as the Count would readily agree…that’s four! The neighbors knew about your 2 younger ones, but not that two older ones staying at Gertrude’s house were yours. So when asked about this by cops and attorneys and whoever else was investigating the whole affair, you can say that you indeed asked Gertie Wright to watch your children for $10.00. The trouble is, you didn’t know that was what she charged other parents to take in their kids..like Lester Likens..and maybe even the parents of Johnny, or any of the other kids staying in the house that weren’t Gertrude’s kids. It’s hypothetically interesting, and would make a good plot in a movie. You can say you have two kids, although an attorney who has learned something else, has heard that the two kids’ ages don’t agree with the two kids you say you have, or maybe that the two kids you asked Gertie Wright to look after were not the two kids that you were admitting you have. They might try to find out where you lived before..why? Well, they could go and talk to your former neighbors and get all the details about your entire family. That would mess up the very clever plot we just wrote. So you say that you lived in a house that had been vacant for years. Problem solved. Then it all goes wrong when someone tells investigators… “yes, I know she said that. But I know of two more…and they were living in Gertie’s house! I don’t think they have the same last name as Phyllis.” The outcome you feared back on October 26th, and came up with such a clever plot to avoid, now looms in front of you again. So you make a deal with the prosecutor..testify..and keep them out of it. Of course, that didn’t happen, and it’s probably just the screen-writer in me, but if we did have such a deal in our hypothetical Great Movie, you would have to come up with a reason why you suddenly wanted to testify when you didn’t want to before. I would come up with a better one; one that the audience would believe. But I stand wrong on that! Who would have thought that this Great Movie would have such a large audience after 50 Years? And they are perfectly happy to believe a bunch of nonsense about you getting angry about a picture in the newspaper! I like the other idea better…protect the ones you love. From what? Murder? That’s not what I think. Torture? No. Abuse? No. Assault? No. Maybe, not even calling someone a mean name, although Judy Duke deserves it. And the cost of keeping your two kids out of the Sylvia Likens Quagmire is considerable…you will be the triumvir who has to say she witnessed the abuse and did nothing. So you become a pariah, one who people, if they figure out who you are, will shake their fists at and call down curses on your head. And that’s a shame. Why? Because you aren’t the character you had to become to protect your children. Of course, it was always possible that someone in remote posterity would take a closer look and figure out what you did…and why you did it. Or at least try. You lied? Yes, but doesn’t everybody? And what lengths will we go to in order to protect our children? So let’s no longer call down curses on the head of a woman who doesn’t deserve it. Perhaps it’s true that “love bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, and endures all things.” I think so, at any rate.