Phantasm Part 3: Interstitial
One of the dangers of slowing down the momentum is that you might find yourself falling through the spaces in between. Maybe you get a retrial many years later. The memory of the case has fallen through the spaces in between. No separate trial? No change in venue? I know, let’s quash the conviction, and start again. Crawl your way up through the space you fell into, only to be re-convicted with the same lame, stupid, supposed evidence and ridiculous testimony. However, you couldn’t possibly have received the death penalty because that’s pretty final and very hard to fake! So life in prison, sure. The good thing about such a sentence…well, from the perspective of the perpetrator, is that it often morphs into less than a life sentence when you come up for parole. If you were in a strange movie, then a strange scene might flicker across the silver screen. You are in danger. Gangsters and crooked cops are out to get you. Maybe you have a contract out on you. You should have left Indianapolis, but didn’t because, since it’s just fiction…perhaps historical fiction, your mother won’t leave. So you won’t leave. But it’s 1963-1964, and the whole cops-working-for-racketeers scandal is blowing up. Who knows where it all will end? My how convenient it would be if at about this time you suddenly had a new identity…how about, I don’t know…Gertie Wright? You establish that identity, and then move to East New York Street, where Betty and Lester had been living. The folks there don’t know you as Gertrude Baniszewski, just as Gertie Wright. And you’re the mother of a whole bunch of kids; kids that will be hard to remember when asked to name them, so you get some things wrong, such as birthdays. But that’s Ok, apparently Shirley and Johnny are twins..both born in 1955. That’s cool! An enigmatic Number 2!
- Twins: Dianne and Danny
- Twins: Jenny and Benny
- Twins: Donnie and Ronnie
- Twins: Shirley and Johnny
So Indianapolis is the home of an astounding array of twins! If you’re pregnant, and you live in Indianapolis, keep an eye on those zygotes! Here’s 3 more sets:
- Twins: Sylvia and Stephanie
- Twins: Denny and Freddie Wright
- Twins: Sylvia and Photo 1 Girl
That last one I threw out simply to please Tektonikus the Elder. Of course, Sylvia and Stephanie weren’t twins. Right? And we don’t know about Denny and Freddie Wright. Maybe Stephanie made up the man who married Sylvia Likens. Sorry, Stephanie would never do such a thing! An honest young lady if there ever was one. And one, perhaps, quite close to Jenny. And, Johnny and Shirley weren’t twins either. Gertrude stumbled when it came time to give the correct date of Johnny’s birth, and didn’t include Little Jimmy in the list at all. Remembering your cover story isn’t always easy. Perhaps I can modify the advice of witness W.C. Fields: “never work with too many children.” If they’re not yours, or at least some of them aren’t yours, you increase the possibility of tripping up when you have to rattle them off. But that’s ok, since Shirley couldn’t remember her cover story either. How many brothers? Two! the one who my Mom thinks is my twin, and then the one Mom can’t remember. No wait, I forgot my nephew….sorry, my brother Baby Denny. Wait! What did Lester say about Gertrude’s family?
Q. How many children did you know she had?
A. She had a baby and one ten and one eleven and one daughter three - three evidently.
No I won’t mention the fact that Lester can’t count. I promise I won’t mention it, or make fun of it, or ask the children to count along…one, two, three, three, five…If I did, it would be annoying. So, Gertrude’s family looked like this:
- One baby: Denny
- One ten year old: Shirley
- One eleven year old: Marie
- One daughter: Paula or Stephanie
Now it’s just a guess, but “one daughter” is Paula. Why? She was packed off to prison just like Gertrude, while Stephanie was not. But that’s just a guess, and could very well be wrong. But who’s missing from Lester’s list of the four children that make up Gertie’s three kids?
- Johnny
- James
Now that’s interesting! The two boys Lester does not believe are Gertrude’s children are the two boys she seemed to have so much difficulty remembering. Another interesting observation. Tektonikus the Elder believed that the Number 3 found branded on Sylvia was self inflicted, and meant “I am Number 3.” That wasn’t a bad explanation, given the fact that no one involved in the case could make any statement about its meaning, and Johnny’s twin Shirley’s explanation that it was a letter “S”, and she did have trouble counting things so it was probably for the best that it wasn’t a number in her estimation, which stood for Sylvia, well, it’s nonsense. Yet another explanation follows through from a suggestion in Phantasm Part 1. I can’t remember what…wait, yes I can. Undercover Gertrude was found out, identified if you will, when she involved the police in her tete-a-tete with Robert, and possibly Karen, Handlon. A gang of 5 hoods, seeking to cash in, grabbed a kid they thought was her kid, to get information out of her. They killed her, although it would seem that she actually died in Gertrude’s house, and the Number 3 meant that they were coming for the other 3 kids. If so, I feel as though I have exhausted the possible explanations for the meaning of the enigmatic Number 3, rejecting the work of a by-chance Serial killer and Ricky’s implication that he and Shirley routed around in the basement to find something to brand Sylvia with and found the Iron-Furnace-Poker-Steel-Eyehook, meaning that they simply decided that they could make a three by chance, it having no meaning whatsoever. Markings found on a murder victim are almost never there by chance. Those markings have meaning, and they are meant to say something to someone. They aren’t doodles. So in the new construct, the Number 3 means.. “3 more” or “we’re coming for the other 3.” So, the Gang of 5 and Lester Likens seem to agree. Following the Gang of 5:
- One baby: Denny
- One ten year old: Shirley
- One eleven year old: Marie
- One daughter: Sylvia
Of course, as far as Sylvia being Gertrude’s daughter, well that’s obviously not true. Right? If so, the Gang of 5 didn’t know that. If there is any merit in this new explanation, Sylvia would have told them this. Would they have believed her? “Look, we know you live there. We’ve seen you come and go. So tell us what we need to know about your mother.” Did they know about Marie, Shirley, and Denny? Possibly, and possibly not. It all depends upon what information they had. Could they name the other kids? Lot’s of kids hung around Gertie Wright’s magical house. Patty, Darlene, Anna, Ricky, Randy, Coy. They weren’t her kids. So if all you did was watch the house, which would have been a risky thing to do if Gertrude was what she might have been, you’d end up confused indeed. So you might get your information from somewhere…from someone, else. Hey, a bunch of these kids aren’t hers. We don’t want to grab one who isn’t.
It’s strange how so many people who follow this case can’t find any teaspoons. It seems strange that so many children and young people were accused of such brutality. Paula, Stephanie, Johnny, Ricky were all held without bond. Coy was held by the Juvenile authorities, as were Anna, Judy, Randy, and Mike. Shirley and Marie were sent to the Guardian home, and then turned over to foster parents, a Mrs. Barrett and a Mrs. Simpson. I wonder why Shirley and Marie weren’t sent to their father’s home. I must say that I find this severity rather surprising. Charge Coy with murder for supposedly hitting another kid with a broom? Still, in a certain possible reconstruction, all this makes sense; good sense. If this Gang of Five was looking to kill Gertrude’s other kids, and it appears that they weren’t sure who they all were, then all the kids who lived at that house, or hung around at that house, were in immediate danger. The safest place for them to be is in some form of custody, such as the Juvenile Center, or the Guardian Home. If that were the case, and perhaps it’s just a fiction of mine, then charges would have to be made. And! I was troubled by all those statements given to the police; given by minors who had no lawyer present, no adult advocate present, were willing to put their statements in writing, and willing to sign them. These statements would justify their being held in custody. Shirley and Marie could not live with their father. Why? Because they weren’t safe there; the bad guys would find them easily. So they were spirited off to foster parents. It would be preposterous to try to charge Jenny, so she was quickly sent to Lebanon. Shirley and Mrs. Barrett weren’t far away from Lebanon, being in Zionsville.
I find the “police theme” interesting. We’re told that Johnny was impossible to control, although a woman from the Juvenile Center said Johnny wasn’t a problem. So it’s strange that a special belt is needed to beat Johnny. This police belt belonged to his father. Why a police belt? What’s wrong with some other kind of belt? There were plenty of things to beat troublesome kids with in Gertrude’s house, I’m sure. And if there was a police belt involved, just whose was it? We’re told it was John’s police belt. A police belt to beat a former policeman’s son? Or is this whole Johnny and the police belt a device to explain the presence of a police belt in the house? And of course, if a former policeman brings a friendly dog to his ex-wife’s house for protection, and of course he’s a three-feet tall two-feet tall dog, he is a police dog. According to Randy’s little story, the police at Gertie’s house allowed him to put the police dog into a house full of policemen.
And so it is that John’s game on the stand becomes so interesting. He never went into the house, the one at 3850 East New York Street, and wisely so, given what others had to go through for going into the house. But! He did go in the house..once..he was in the basement on the night of October 26th, the night Sylvia was brought back to Gertrude’s house, was taken into the basement to be hosed off, and then taken upstairs. So! Of all the possible dates when you would manifestly want to avoid being in Gertie’s house, and especially in the basement, it was night of October 26th. The cleric had been in the house before, but had never been in the basement. The Social Services nurse had been in the house before, but had never been in the basement. Even Mrs. Raymond Vermillion had been in the house before, and although it was easy to see into Gertrude’s basement, she never looked into the basement, since that would be nosy. So it would seem that John plays a strange game here. I never went in the house. I came to get my kids, but I always stood on the porch. For all those who can find a teaspoon, this claim is hard to believe. Never went inside? This would certainly seem like a statement from hindsight. But then! I was there at the worst possible time to be there. And why say this? None of the witnesses will say that he was there. Why not just maintain the same line he was taking about never having been in the house? And then, a perplexing thing happens. He admits to being there when Ricky and Stephanie are supposedly going through their comedy routine, with Gertrude carrying on like a madwoman (that one's for you, Dr. Kebel!). So why wasn’t he questioned about his presence? Anyone in that house on October 26th, especially someone who admits to being in the basement, and remember that Ricky denied being in the basement that evening, would have valuable testimony to give. Why let two kids tell us what happened, when we have a sober, not-carrying-on-like-a-madwoman adult to tell us all what actually happened? He admits to being in the house that evening. Then he simply leaves the stand. No questions. No… “what happened?” I would have asked, “why were you there?” Actually, he answered that question. Violet called him, and told him to come over. Why was Violet there? Why didn’t Violet call the police? And, perhaps the most important question, why didn’t Violet testify? So a bizarre situation arises. Who was there that night?
Kids (at least):
- Ricky Hobbs
- Stephanie Baniszewski
- Jenny Likens
- Shirley Baniszewski
Panicking adult:
- Gertrude Wright
More clear-head adults:
- Violet Baniszewski
- John Baniszewski Sr
That is what seems so strange. We will ask the kids what happened, even the 10 year old who doesn’t know what it means to tell the truth. More than that, more on Shirley:
Q. What kind of grades do you get?
A. Not very good ones.
Q. What are your grades in math?
A. D.
Q. What are your grades in English?
A. I don't remember.
Q. Do you know where you lived a year ago?
A. I don't remember.
Q. You don't know?
A. No.
Q. Do you know what your teacher's name was that taught you any of your classes last year?
A. No sir.
So she has a memory problem, and the "D" in math explains the counting difficulties. Yet we’ll ask her to describe events in detail that happened six months ago. We’ll listen to contradictory and farcical testimony from Stephanie and Ricky, where a cause of death is sought in a totally lame manner; Stephanie accusing Ricky of dropping Sylvia on the steps, resulting in her hitting her head. Ricky will deny it, and Erbecker will attempt to blame Stephanie, claiming that she had one of her, apparently blood-pressure related, fainting spells. Everyone is riveted by testimony that is so ridiculous that all owners of teaspoons are perplexed that it was allowed to go on. But what do you expect from 2 kids and a child? According to the canonical story, Gertrude was in no state to be of any help, although I feel confident that this was not the case. Nonetheless, we have two other adults present in that house that evening. John was in the basement, and the only reason to be in the basement…well, there are lots of reasons to be in the basement. Maybe he went over to shovel coal into the furnace. Maybe he went over to wash clothes in the utility sinks in the basement. Perhaps he went over to fold clothes. Or account for iron-furnace-poker-steel-eye hooks. Sorry, that was sarcastic. The only reason to be in the basement that evening was because Sylvia Likens was in the basement that evening; dying. Yet that is of no interest to the court. We won’t ask John what happened that night. We won’t call Violet to the stand and ask what happened that night. We will ask the two kids, one child, and the one panicking adult, to tell us what happened.
That is not the only perplexing part of John’s testimony. He said something else that I never really thought about, until I finally realized that nothing was to be taken at face value any more. Nothing. He said this:
Q. What is your present occupation?
A. Trouble shooter, R.C.A.
Q. How long have you been so employed?
A. Since October 1962.
Q. How were you employed prior to that time?
A. Police Officer, Beech Grove Police Department.
Q. How long were you so employed?
A. About seven years.
Pretty straightforward indeed. However, I thought that it would be interesting to take a look at John’s employment history:
1947 Painter at Insley Manufacturing
1949 Laborer for Robert E Reed
1951 Machinist at Insley
1952 Bullard Operator
1954 Machinist at Chrysler
1955 Machine Operator at J D Adams
1957 Machinist at RCA
1959 Policeman
1960 Serviceman at Gales TV
1961 Serviceman at Gales TV
1962 Gales TV
1963 Patrolman
1964 Gales TV
1965 City Policeman
1966 This is my favorite! So I thought I would provide a visual:
1966 Policeman AND Factory Worker at RCA
1967 Policeman
1968 Policeman
1968 was a pivotal year. Johnny was paroled in December of 1967. John and Violet had been separated since December 28, 1967, and Violet filed for divorce in January 1968. Then John married Mary Jane Smith on December 16, 1968. If Smith is the actual last name. Then John Sr disappears, ending up in Greenwood by the time of his death in 2007. In his testimony in 1966, he said that he had two step-children, a boy and a girl. His obituary lists Stephen, Cynthia, and Elaine, in addition to the children we know from the Great Saga of 1965-1966.
It would be helpful to compare John’s statement in court with what is know about him else where:
Year John’s Claim Extraneous Sources
1968 RCA (per 1966 claim) Policeman
1967 RCA (per 1966 claim) Policeman
1966 RCA RCA and Policeman!
1965 RCA City Policeman
1964 RCA Gales TV
1963 RCA Patrolman
1962 RCA Gales TV
1961 Policeman Gales TV
1960 Policeman Gales TV
1959 Policeman Policeman
1958 Policeman ???
1957 Policeman Machinist at RCA
Wow! I would say that there are some discrepancies here. John’s obituary says that he retired from RCA in 1987. During the trial in 1966, he said that he was no longer a cop, working for RCA instead. Yet he is listed as a cop in 1967 and 1968. In 1966, he is listed as a cop and working at RCA. He claims that he worked for RCA since 1962, whereas he worked for Gales TV, and is listed as a cop three times, in 1959, 1965 and 1966. So was he a cop in 1965, and maybe half-a-cop in 1966? So was he actually a cop when he was in the basement on the evening of October 26, 1965? Is he the Mystery Cop described by Dixon? You know, the one that was there, but wasn’t there. The one who was there, but nobody thought it relevant to find out who he was. Dixon said that a uniformed policeman was sitting in the living room with Gertrude when he arrived at the house, a patrol car parked outside. John said he and Violet were both there. I find it hard to understand John’s statements about his professions. It is also interesting that his obituary mentions his service in the Navy, but says nothing about being a cop. How is that you’re a machinist, then a cop, then work for a TV shop, become a cop again, go back to Gales TV, then be a cop again, then be a cop and an RCA guy, state in court that you’re not a cop anymore, only to be listed another two years as a cop? Of course, there is one rather mind-blowing possibility here. What if the information about occupations in the list actually reflects two different people; i.e. John, and his wife. In other words, when the directories were published, and the head of the household’s occupation was listed, information about the wife would appear from time to time. If during the canvassing, no one was home, and the neighbor on the porch confirmed who lived at the house, and knew that someone was a cop, told you that he was a cop, but that’s because the neighbor knew someone was a cop, so it must be the husband. The interesting thing about the wife, is that her name appears in parenthesis after the husband’s name, and if the woman was married, her occupation isn’t provided. So if she actually was using a different name, then it might be hard to figure out who she was. John’s name is always John Baniszewski, so if he was a cop, then there’s his name for everyone, including some very bad guys, to see. So it is Gertrude who assumes different identities, and not John. Shirley and Marie are in too much danger that they can’t live with their father, but John’s stepchildren apparently are not. Perhaps the bad guys know that they are his stepchildren, and if John isn’t the cop, then going after them would serve no purpose. They were out to make Gertrude pay, not John, so the kids at risk are her kids. Eventually, it would be made very clear in the media which of the kids weren’t Gertrude’s kids. But the threats to Coy and Ricky were real, and it seemed that the boys would be expected to be in Juvenile for some length of time, assuming that they were ever there. Ricky died at the age of 21 from lung cancer? Possible, no doubt. But other possibilities suggest themselves. Could it be that Ricky knew more than the other kids? Knew enough to be a lasting target?
Of course, along similar lines, an interesting thing can be noted about Molly Myrtle Vanfossan. We all know her as Gertrude’s mother. Gertrude’s father died when she was young, leaving Mildred, Gertrude, Hugh, Jack, Gerald, Morris, and John. It is to Morris that we owe aunt Rosie. You could start the story in 1931, when Hugh and Molly live at 231 Pleasant, and proceed from there:
Year Address
1931 231 Pleasant
1932 644 Jefferson
1935 3719 East Michigan
1936 3719 East Michigan
1937 29 North Chester
1938 29 North Chester
1939 30 North Gladstone Avenue
October 5, 1939- Hugh Vanfossan Sr. dies (and yes, poor Gertrude!)
1941 429 N. Dearborn
1942 429 N. Dearborn
1943 429 N. Dearborn
1945 429 N. Dearborn
1947 429 N. Dearborn
1949 429 N. Dearborn
1951 429 N. Dearborn
1952 429 N. Dearborn
1954 429 N. Dearborn
1955 434 N. Dearborn
1956 434 N. Dearborn
1957 434 N. Dearborn
1958 951 N. Downey
1959 951 N. Downey
1960 951 N. Downey
1961 951 N. Downey
1963 I can’t locate Molly Vanfossan
1964 I can’t locate Molly Vanfossan
1965 6234 E. 21rst Street; living with Jack David Vanfossan (Gertrude’s brother)
1966 6234 E. 21rst Street; living with Jack David Vanfossan (Gertrude’s brother)
There may be nothing to it, but Molly was very easy to find year after year. And she didn’t go very far. Maybe she was living with Jack at 6234 E. 21rst Street the whole time during the years 1963-1964, but I don’t know why she would be missed in 1963 and in 1964, only to reappear in the city directory in 1965. Of course, 1963-1964 is also the time of the Dennis Lee Wright situation, and also the time when the IPD scandal was blowing up. Then Molly suddenly reappears in the directory again in 1965 when Gertrude surfaces with her new identity as Mrs. Dennis L Wright, and we know that there was no such marriage. So an interesting situation is encountered:
1963-1964: IDP scandal; police officers indicted for being involved with gambling racketeers
1963-1964: Dennis Lee Wright and Gertrude/Paula story; children brought to John’s house
1963-1964: Molly Vanfossan doesn’t appear in the city directory
1965: Gertrude appears in the city directory as Mrs. Dennis L Wright
1965: Molly Vanfossan reappears in the city directory
1965: The Likens move to East New York Street, then leave for California in haste
1965: Gertrude moves to East New York Street
1965: Paula is pregnant (possibly again)
July 1965: Lester and Betty Likens have to leave in a hurry again; leave Sylvia and Jenny with Gertrude
1965 (Fall): Gertrude clashes with Robert Handlon; the police become involved (William Kaiser); Robert Handlon looking at a possible 10 year prison sentence
October 3rd 1965: Sylvia Likens disappears
October 20th 1965: Robert Handlon enters Gertrude’s house seeking someone in particular
October 26th 1965: Sylvia Likens re-appears in the basement of Gertrude’s house
October 26th 1965: Violet Baniszewski (and John?) are mysteriously present at Gertrude’s house, with at least John being in the basement
October 26th 1965: Officer Dixon sees an unidentified uniformed police officer sitting in Gertie’s living room when he arrives
Post October 26th: All kids and children known to frequent the house are rounded up and end up in some form of protective custody
One can add to this the fact that John doesn’t know when he was a cop and when he wasn’t, and didn’t seem to know where he worked and when. Believing that he was never a cop muddles the situation even more, unless we believe that the “cop” information pertained to someone else. Maybe somebody was undercover, and somehow involved in the scandal. Then, as part of the black ops disinformation campaign, John became the cop. Was he actually in the basement on October 26th like he said? Why should that be the truth? But I am sure that Violet was in the house on this critical evening, if that was her real name. It would seem to be over-reaching to believe that she was the person of whom Dixon was speaking, and not John. And what to make of all this? Certain possibilities do seem tempting.
I have to say that I found that I myself had fallen into one of the numerous interstices to be found all around. I suddenly became uncomfortable with one set of twins. Well, actually a bunch of them, but I found myself, at least momentarily, perplexed by the enigmatic maybe-twins who found a place in Sylvia Liken’s letter. It’s a common name, sure; but the more I thought about it, the more I was striked…sorry, struck, by the fascinating coincidence that the two boys in the letter had the last name Simpson. After all, Mrs. Simpson was Marie’s foster-mother. I am normally quite prepared to acknowledge the existence of coincidence. And I still do, except in the Great Lie. So that made me wonder. Then I was striked..sorry, struck, by the fact that the names rhyme. Name games! Now I could be wrong of course, but I found myself wondering whether the names in the letter weren’t what they seemed to be. They probably are. But I suddenly thought up a little name game of my own! It would be strange indeed if:
"Ronnie and Donnie" = "Robbie and Denny"
In that case, the two names have nothing to do with Sylvia, Jenny, or anyone else other than Paula. That paves the way for a character who has been neglected and all but forgotten. So I looked at him again, and that’s when coincidence died a permanent death:
Q. Now, Mrs. Baniszewski, on the morning of October 26, 1965, there was signed, executed and filed and affidavit for First Degree Burglary against Robert Handlin, parts of which read "that on this day, before me, Noble R. Pearcy, personally came Detective Sheldon Lasky, who upon his oath said Robert Handlin on or about the 20th of October, 1965, County of Marion, did then and there unlawfully, feloniously, burglariously break and enter into the dwelling house of Gertrude Wright, then and there situated at 3850 East New York Street in which said dwelling house the said Gertrude Wright then lived". Now, this was signed and sworn the 26th of October. Now, are you the same Gertrude Wright endorsed as a witness for the State?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And Marie Baniszewski is listed as a witness for the State. Is that your daughter?
A. Yes, sir.
When I re-read this, I found myself sitting in front of the computer screen and reading it over and over again. The name is spelled wrong; the name is Robert Handlon, husband of Karen K Bailey (whose father ran a service station). Robert and Karen had two small babies when they moved to Denny Street, which was actually the other side of the double from Gertrude. Now I believe that Robert Handlon is the man who is referred to by Phyllis Vermillion in her testimony. I think he appears in different forms in her testimony, and I absolutely believe that Vermillion was telling the truth. For the most part. So we know that he was the man who argued with Gertrude on her porch, was arrested, and his ordeal as a result caused Phyllis’ White Castles to not sit quite so well. Of course, she went to the police station to argue with William Kaiser, and I’m sure I know that name, about the fate of Gertie’s former neighbor. He and Karen had already moved out, and I believe had moved out before the “porch event” took place. I think that he had been warned by Gertie to stay away from the house, and her daughters. He then came back, seeking to see one of the girls who lived with Gertrude. Later, he came back again, entered the house and was arrested. And! Gertrude filing charges relevant to the second appearance of the unwelcome tile worker was signed and sworn on the morning of the day that Sylvia was found dead in Gertie’s house! I find myself disturbed, although maybe it’s the White Castles I had for dinner. But maybe not. So did Gertrude go to the police station on the morning of October 26th to swear out a complaint against Robert Handlon? Only to find Sylvia Likens in her basement early that evening? And yet another coincidence not to like. Sylvia’s body had two numbers on it at the of her death. We all know all too well about the enigmatic number 3! The one which caused such discrepancies between Dr. Kebel and Dr. Ellis, and which led to one of the lamest parts of the trial…i.e. the stupid eye-hook. But she also had a number 4 cut into her shoulder; not branded, cut. That suggests the message cut into her abdomen. That reminds me of Lester Liken’s sudden inability to count when asked about the number of Gertrude’s children:
Q. How many children did you know she had?
A. She had a baby and one ten and one eleven and one daughter three - three evidently.
So, Lester rattles off four children, only to say that it is really three children. It was noted earlier that Gertrude forgot about Jimmy, and couldn’t remember when Johnny was born. That is strange. Sylvia had a 3 on her, and she was, if Lester and Betty are to be believed when they described the number of children in their family, the third child. The number 3! But if the Gang of Five thought that Sylvia was one of Gertie’s kids, then they brutalized her to get back at Gertrude. But surely it wouldn’t take a bunch of thugs much smacking Sylvia around to determine that she wasn’t Gertrude’s kid. So maybe they grabbed her to make Lester Likens pay. After all, he had Betty had to skip town twice in 1965, and I think that it’s because someone was after them. I see no other possible conclusion about the numbers on Sylvia’s body other than an allusion to the possibility that there were 4 children, and there were then 3 left after Sylvia died. If Johnny wasn’t Gertrude’s kid, were all the ones younger than him Gertrude’s children? Maybe Gertrude had 4 daughters. That would require that Marie be included, assuming that Jenny should be left out of the list. And Shirley? Could John have had kids by another woman other than Gertrude? And could Gertrude have had kids by someone other than John? Why does Stephanie think that Sylvia was her twin? What is a twin? In this case, a sister. So why does Stephanie think that she and Sylvia were sisters? And what did the gang of thugs think? Perhaps the momentum stopped too long, and everything has started falling through the cracks; you know, became lost in the spaces in between. At any rate, a brief foray into family history might just provide something rather interesting about our I’m-intent-on-seeing-a-teenage-girl-who-lives-in-Gertie’s-magical-house minor character. Of course, by 1966, both sides of the double were vacant. So no one moved in after the Handlon's left? Robert and Karen had moved to be sure, but one is left wondering who had access to the other side of the double, and what when on there.