THE DARKEST OF PLACES PART 1: CARD 13
Who do you see? Do you see yourself, or, maybe you see someone else who’s really yourself? What is this picture? It doesn’t look like a real artist drew it. It’s no Rembrandt! But it doesn’t need to be; it isn’t supposed to be. It’s a test; actually, it’s part of a test; the Thematic Appreciation Test, and it’s pretty cool. Responses to this image are meant to determine the extent of the subject’s depressive feelings. Of course, there really aren’t any right or wrong answers. If one weren’t careful, one might tell the therapist that it looks like a woman who has gone upstairs to a bedroom in her house. A child has told her that, sorry Dixon, a girl is dead. She opens the door to find out…the child has actually told the truth. Within the T.A.T, this is card 3Gf. Why is that important? Because Relkin showed it to Gertrude.
How about card 5? He showed her this one too. And this is fascinating; by that I mean looking at both cards. In each card a woman is looking into a room. Card 3 clearly shows…a bedroom? Oh no, I just did what the therapist wants! What? I revealed something about myself. Is there something terrible in the room into which she is looking? That was my reaction. Or is she retreating to a room to escape something terrible? Looking at card 3, the door opens to the left, while in card 5, the door opens to the right. Very cool. These are rooms in the same house, on opposite sides of the hall. Did I say that? If Gertrude’s not insane, then I’m not insane Mr. Relkin! In card 3, the woman is clearly upset. Is she upset in card 5? I say no. I say that she is seeing something of which she doesn’t approve. She has suspected something was going on, so she opens the door quietly and looks in. With the whole Likens Saga looming before us, these card become laden with meaning. And so it is with card 8:
Who do you see in this picture? It’s too late now, you know who you see. And she stares and thinks, I think. What does she contemplate? Perhaps, how much she dislikes her own life. Where did that come from! It may well be that she contemplates something totally different. Gertrude saw this card too. But! Let’s look at card 13, since it was discussed during the trial:
Wow! Earlier we saw an upset woman. At least that’s what I saw. Now I see an upset man. And! Methinks I see a bit of Sigmund Freud in this card. There’s a lot to see in this picture. Is the woman in this picture dead? And note that she appears to be in a twin bed, a kid’s bed; almost a mattress on the floor..I said almost. What did Gertrude see?
Q. Now, what testing techniques did you use, projective?
A. I used the Thematic Apperception Test, T.A.T. Various cards.
Q. Which cards?
A. 18 G., 18 G.F., 13 M.F., 12 F., 12 W.C., 8 G.F.
Q. 12?
A. 3.G.
Q. What else?
A. 7 G.F., 5, 4, 6 F.
Q. Did you record the responses to those?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. What was the response to 13 M.F.?
A. She said the picture was depressing; he is upset; could be doing a million things; could be death involved, like Sylvia; could be hunting his feelings.
Did you see what Gertrude saw? I agree with her; the man is upset, and the woman is dead. Did he kill her? I wish I could have sat beside Relkin and asked that question. It doesn’t look like a murder scene. To me, it looks more like the scene of a suicide. Suicide by pills; everything seems so neat and clean. Is sex implied? That’s a good question! My answer…yes, but maybe no. That’s cheating! Well, the woman’s breasts are bare, and most people wear something to bed when they go there to sleep. But! The bed’s too small for both the man and the woman. Hence, yes, but maybe no. What did Gertrude say?
Q. Would you say there was no sexual connotation in her responses?
A. She avoided the sexual aspect in this card.
That’s not surprising. The witnesses make various statements about Gertrude’s obsession with modesty. In fact, Gertrude herself revealed just how concerned she was about the girls being sexually active:
Q. Was there any conversation at that time by anybody there, including Sylvia's father and mother and you and Sylvia, with reference to her condition?
A. I just merely mentioned to Mr. and Mrs. Likens neither of the girls had a period all the time they had been at my house, not to my knowledge they had not.
Q. Any further conversation?
A. Well, Mrs. Likens had something to say about it.
Q. Mrs. Likens?
A. Yes, she did.
Q. What did she say?
A. She asked me if I knew what could be wrong with them. I said, "No, it could be - if they had been out with boys they could be pregnant - or it could be from other causes."
There are potential problems with what Gertrude is saying. First, she dates the conversation to October 15th. Lester and Betty claimed that the last time they visited Sylvia and Jenny was October 5th. Second, Betty is described as not knowing what it means if a girl is not menstruating, and most mothers are well aware of the possible implications without being told by Gertie Wright. And! Both could be pregnant! Sylvia and Jenny. A little over the top, Mrs. Guthrie! Still, I think that one kernel of truth here is that Gertrude was concerned with the subject of sex, and so monitored the periods of the girls in the house. Whose? Paula is already pregnant. That leaves Stephanie, Sylvia, and Jenny. Obviously, Marie and Shirley are too young. How worried should she be about Sylvia and Jenny? They aren’t her daughters. She won’t be responsible for taking care of a girl’s baby like Den..well, certainly not any child of Sylvia or Jenny. It seems that sexual activity was a hot button with Gertrude. In fact, that’s where the whole thing started:
A. Well, this was in July, the first part of July, my daughter Stephanie had gone on a trip with her father. She was not there. There was a neighbor girl - her name is Darlene MacGuire, she came over quite frequently to play with Paula and some of the other children and there was a young woman knocked at our door and wanted to talk to Darlene and I went to the door with Darlene and she related to Darlene - she wanted to know whether she knew where she could get hold of Sylvia Likens. Darlene said she had been to her home but did not know exactly where she lived. A day or so later, Sylvia, I suppose, came over to Darlene's and the reason this woman was hunting for Sylvia was supposed to have been because Sylvia had been out with her husband. That is the reason she was hunting for this girl. Darlene said she would tell her if she saw her. Darlene brought Sylvia Likens over to her home two days later and introduced her as the girl this other girl was looking for. That is how I first became acquainted with Sylvia Likens.
Gertrude is lying? I don’t think so. A separate posting on this website suggested that this person might be the neighbor, i.e. the one who lived at 304 North Denny in 1965. I think Gertrude is telling the truth. The woman was looking for a teenage girl who had sex with her husband. Why was Sylvia brought to this woman’s house? Sounds dangerous! Bring the girl to the house of the woman whose husband she had sex with? In the writings of Tektonikus the Younger, Darlene took Sylvia over to this woman’s house so that Sylvia could explain that she wasn’t the girl that the woman was seeking. She maintained that the girl in question looked just like Sylvia and was using her name. She believed the real girl was Photo 1 Girl; assuming I understood TY correctly.
Who is telling the truth…Lester or Gertrude? Did Lester foist his daughters on Gertrude? Did Gertrude adamantly believe that it would be in the best interest of Sylvia and Jenny to stay with her? I think Lester is telling the truth, and that Gertrude wanted Sylvia and Jenny to stay with her. Why would she want that? That’s easy, she was disturbed by what happened on the evening that the angry woman appeared at her front door. She was looking for Darlene. Shortly there after, Darlene inexplicably brings Sylvia to Gertrude’s house:
Q. What happened then? Did she live there then?
A. Not right then.
Q. Go ahead.
A. She hung around with the children that day and with Darlene and later in the afternoon she said something - I think - about Jenny being alone or being home or something and she wanted to go see about her and so Paula and Darlene and Sylvia walked down to her home and brought Jenny back with them.
What did Jenny say?
Q. When did you go there?
A. July 4 or 5.
Q. 1965?
A. 1965.
Q. And who did you go with?
A. Sylvia was with me.
Q. And why did you go there?
A. Well, we was walking down New York Street and my girl friend called us down there and she introduced us to Gertrude.
“We was walking..” I won’t do that! The grammar problem endemic to 3850 East New York Street is well documented. Who is the girlfriend? Darlene? Darlene was Jenny’s friend, yet according to Gertrude, Darlene showed up at Gertrude’s house with Sylvia, not Jenny. I think that after the angry woman left, Gertrude quizzed Darlene about this Sylvia Likens. And I think that Gertrude became worried. Maybe, just maybe, she told Darlene to bring this Sylvia Likens to her. So Darlene shows up with Sylvia, but not with Jenny. Why? Because Gertrude hadn’t asked her to bring Jenny over to her house. And, this was the first time either Likens girl ended up at Gertrude’s house. Why should they have? Why did they? Because Gertrude, acting out of a heightened concerns about girls and sex, wanted to get an answer about this Sylvia Likens. Marie discussed this and provided a fascinating detail. Of course, her story diverges from that of her mother:
Q. Your mother? Now, did you testify that Miss MacGuire introduced Sylvia to your mother, did you say that?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Is that true?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. How do you know that?
A. Because I was in there when Darlene MacGuire brung Sylvia in.
Q. Up to that time had Sylvia ever been in your house?
A. She has not been in our house before then.
Q. What was the occasion for the MacGuire girl bringing Sylvia in the house?
A. There was not no occasion.
As tempting as it, I will not poke fun at “not no occasion.” That’s a double negative! So there was an occasion. Darn, I said I wouldn’t do that. Actually though, there was an occasion. Darlene simply shows up with Sylvia? I think not.
Q. Was there any conversation about someone looking for Sylvia?
A. Yes.
Q. What was the conversation? Who was present and where did it happen at?
A. Well, it happened on our porch.
Q. Your porch?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. What time of day or night?
A. I think it was 6:00 o 'clock at night.
Q. Before Sylvia started living there?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Who was present?
A. A lady came up to - I mean every one of us were out on the porch.
Q. All of you were out on the porch?
A. Yes. This lady came up and pointed to Sylvia and said, "There is that girl that tried to take my husband away".
So in the Marie rescension, Darlene brings Sylvia over to the house for not no occasion. Then they sit on the porch, all of them. At 6:00 pm, the angry woman shows up, points at Sylvia and makes her declaration.
Q. Some lady said that?
A. Yes.
Q. You heard that?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. How old was this lady that said that?
A. I don't know.
Q. Did someone tell you to tell this story today?
A. No.
Q. You are telling the truth?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Where was your mother at that time?
A. On the porch and that lady explained to Mom that Sylvia was running around with her husband.
Q. What did Sylvia say?
A. I can't remember.
Q. And is that when somebody said something about sending a note to somebody?
A. I don't know.
Q. You don't remember that? Did your mother say anything to Sylvia about this woman?
A. I think she talked about it with Sylvia.
Fascinating. Wrong, yet right. Did someone tell Marie to tell this story? I think the reason for telling this story is to back up Gertrude’s story. But she wasn’t told this, because if she had been, I would think that she would have told the same story. I think that what Marie has done is to confuse two events, and then add her own details, which is something that she did throughout her testimony. When Marie says, “I think she talked about it with Sylvia,” I think that’s just what happened. So it was the accusation made by the neighbor woman that prompted Gertrude to tell Darlene to bring Sylvia to her. I’m sure that if this is the case, Sylvia would have denied the whole thing. After all, she didn’t owe Gertrude the truth. But! Gertrude may have had doubts about Sylvia’s protestations of innocence. At the same time, there may be a reason, hypothetical at least, that Sylvia did admit to what she may have done.
If the story of the “angry woman on the porch” is true, and there is much to indicate that it is, then the Gertrude version is preferable to the Marie version. This would explain Gertrude’s notable willingness to take in Sylvia, and consequently Jenny. Then Lester was right, and it was Gertrude who lobbied for the boarding arrangement. What note is the attorney referring to? Marie confused two things again. A long quote:
Q. Marie, I will hand you what is marked State's Exhibit No. 5. Take a look at that. That is a note, a piece of paper that has been introduced in evidence. Do you know when Sylvia wrote that?
A. It was during the summer time and Mom made her sit down and write it?
Q. Where did she make her sit down and write it?
A. In the dining room.
Q. Did Sylvia do that?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Who told her what to say?
A. Nobody.
Q. Did she just write it herself?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Where was your mother when she was writing it?
A. Sitting in a chair by Sylvia.
Q. Right beside Sylvia?
A. Yes.
Q. Did you hear anything your mother might have said to Sylvia when she write the note?
A. No, sir.
Q. Were you there all the time she was writing it?
A. Yes.
Q. Where were you?
A. Sitting on the other end of the table.
Q. Marie, I am sorry. If you will just speak up, Marie, I think it might help. It is very difficult for me to hear.
A. What was your question, please?
Q. Was anyone else there when Sylvia wrote the note?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Who else?
A. Stephanie.
Q. Who else?
A. Paula.
Q. Do you remember anybody else?
A. Johnny.
That’s five kids with an interest in what was supposedly happening.
Q. Did Sylvia write the whole note?
A. Yes.
Q. Then what happened?
A. Mom folded it up and put it in the back of the tablet.
Q. Did you say she folded it and put it in the back of the tablet?
A. Yes.
Q. Did you ever see that note again?
A. No, sir.
Q. Are you sure it was summer time?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. How do you fix that time?
A. It was when Darlene MacGuire introduced her to Mom.
Q. When Darlene MacGuire introduced who to your Mom?
A. Sylvia.
Exhibit 5 is the letter; Sylvia’s letter. And the date of the writing of the letter is not specified, but it has been shown elsewhere on this website that the letter was actually written in California, or immediately after the Likens returned to Indiana. I think the safest position is that it was written in California. So Marie is wrong, as she so often is in her testimony. However, there may also be that there is a kernel of truth here. Once Darlene brought Sylvia to Gertrude’s house, Gertrude quizzed Sylvia about the accusations made by the woman. She then proposed that Sylvia write a note about what had happened, and told her that it should be provided to her parents. Was that note written? I don’t think so. I think that it was going to be written, and then an amazing thing happened. What is that? Lester Likens showed up at Gertrude’s magical front door.
Q. Explain that.
A. One day she was playing with Jenny and Sylvia. We did not even know them then. Darlene MacGuire brought Sylvia into our house and introduced Sylvia to my Mom.
Q. Was that the same day she wrote the note?
A. No, sir.
Q. Later?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. How much later was it?
A. Three or four weeks.
Q. Three or four before what?
A. Before she stayed with us.
Q. Who stayed with you?
A. Sylvia and Jenny.
Q. What I am trying to get at is when Sylvia wrote that note. It could not have been three or four weeks before she stayed with you.
A. It was before Mom went out to got us ready for school. It was the week before school started.
Q. You are sure of that now?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Now, I will hand you what is marked State's Exhibit No. 17, another note. Did you see Sylvia write that?
A. No, sir.
Q. Have you ever seen it before?
A. No, sir.
Q. Did you ever see this State's Exhibit No. 5 after your mother folded it and put it by the tablet?
A. Not after. Mom said she was going to mail it to their father.
So Marie obviously has things confused. Nonetheless, it is clear that Gertrude heard the accusations made by the woman when she appeared at her front door looking for Darlene. Darlene then brings Sylvia to Gertie’s house, and Sylvia is quizzed about the woman’s claims. Then Lester Likens appears, mentions the need for somewhere to leave his two daughters, and Gertrude makes her case. Lester, and then Betty, agree.
When Relkin told the court about T.A.T card 13, he stated that Gertrude missed the sexual implications of the card. But that would seem to have been the case:
Q. Would you say there was no sexual connotation in her responses?
A. She avoided the sexual aspect in this card.
Q. What, if any inference did you draw with respect to that?
A. It was certainly a very threatening area to her. There was probably a sexual involvement in the murder and these children were involved in sexual activity.
Q. Did you find her preoccupied by sexual matters?
A. No, I did not. In fact, she says even though she was living with a man, she has rather conventional sexual beliefs.
There is a lot that is important in this exchange. First, Gertrude continued to maintain that it was herself, and not one of her daughters, who was involved with Dennis Wright. However, she either lied to Relkin, or Relkin lied, or Relkin misunderstood Gertrude. About what? Gertrude was not living with Dennis Wright when she moved to 3850 East New York Street. Relkin has framed this in the simple past tense, and that is wrong. “Had at one time lived with a man,” would have been more accurate. This exchange also confirms what is clear in other testimony; i.e that Gertrude has “conventional sexual beliefs.” Randy shouldn’t see Sylvia, Sylvia is cleaned off in the basement with her clothes on, Sylvia is put in the bathtub with her clothes on; the boys should not see the girl is naked. If Gertrude was in fact going to the extraordinary measures that she apparently did to cover up the fact that Baby Denny was, hypothetically speaking, actually not her child, but her daughter’s child, then we have further confirmation of Gertrude’s beliefs on the subject of sex. Another observation to be made is that Relkin seems to be confused himself. Gertie misses the sexual aspects of the card, yet she makes the statement to him that she believed that there was a sexual aspect to the “murder” of Sylvia Likens, and that “these children were involved in sexual activity.” One clear possibility in card 13m is that the woman is dead, possibly by suicide, but possibily as the result of murder. Did Gertrude actually say that Sylvia Likens had been murdered? Clearly, Gertrude did not miss the sexual aspect of the card.
“There was probably a sexual involvement in the murder and these children were involved in sexual activity.” So now we boldly go where no commentator has gone before; well, as far as I know, and the rest of this investigation will focus on the very controversial and over-looked, yet strongly present, sexual element in the whole Gestalt. If Relkin correctly stated what Gertrude said about sex, we are left in somewhat of a quandary. First, as far as the sexual element goes, and momentarily divorcing it from "murder,” i.e. looking at the question of sex in and of itself, we can start with a few observations:
- One of Gertrude’s daughters was pregnant at the time
- Gertrude covered up the fact that one of her daughters gave birth to an illegitimate child in 1964
- A neighborhood woman had accused Sylvia of being involved with her husband
So it is clear that Paula and Sylvia, separately of course, fall under the statement Gertrude may have made to Relkin. But it is easy to be confused by Relkin’s statement. Is he saying that Gertrude said that there was sexual activity between some of these children? I doubt that very much. Ricky was asked if he had been involved with Gertrude, which he emphatically denied, and that must be the truth. Ricky was clearly bothered by the idea of Sylvia standing in front of him naked when he supposedly put the slogan on her. Randy shows far more concern for avoiding inappropriate behavior. In his testimony, he’s not even allowed to be in the house while Sylvia is in the bathtub upstairs. He has to sit on the porch until she is done. So it is clear that Randy showed a very strong sexual ethic and did not want anyone thinking that he had behaved inappropriately. Coy is a more elusive figure, but it was claimed that he was Stephanie’s boyfriend. Yet it may be that Coy believed the relationship was closer than Stephanie believed it was:
Q. Is Coy your boyfriend?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. How long had he been your boyfriend?
A. Oh, I don't know. He said always.
Q. He said always?
A. Yes.
The implication would seem to be clear. So an intimate connection is possible, but this may certainly not be the case. One might even say that there is something somewhat disordered about Coy’s claim that he had “always” been Stephanie’s boyfriend. At any rate, there is nothing whatsoever to suggest that any of the younger children were involved in sexual activity.
Gertrude stated something on the stand that is very important. She said this:
Q. What was your physical condition the first and second week in July?
A. As I said, I lost a baby a year ago this April and did not see a doctor for two days and I was home alone with the children when I miscarried this baby.
Q. April '65?
A. Yes, sir. Subsequently, I only got to see a doctor once, due to my financial difficulties. I did not have money to keep running back and forth to the doctor. At the same time, two days later, my daughter Paula Marie ran away from home and I was having it pretty rough and the house was pretty bad and -
Q. What do you mean - the house was pretty bad?
A. The home we lived in was not a real nice home at all, it was real run down and it was badly heated and damp and truthfully about ready to fall in, but it was all I could afford at the time.
Q. Were you working at the time?
A. No, sir.
Q. Were you doing any domestic work?
A. Well, when Paula ran away from home I realized I had to do something and do something quick if I wanted my children to continue eating and having a decent place to stay. I took on ironings.
Gertrude places this miscarriage in April. That is significant. If it wasn't Gertrude who was involved with Dennis Wright, then this miscarriage she refers to did not occur. Did it involve one of the girls? I think not. Sort of. It seems quite strange that a girl whom Gertrude continually described as the only one who helped out, i.e. Paula, suddenly ran away. And she ran away two days after this supposed miscarriage. Why? The implication would be that Paula running away was directly connected with Gertrude’s self-described miscarriage. One could very well make this case. Apparently, Paula went into labor with her daughter, whom she named Gertrude, in January 1966, counting back nine months takes us back to April 1965. So Paula being in an early stage of pregnancy coincides with Gertrude having a mysterious miscarriage. And what is a miscarriage? A sudden, albeit tragic, loss of a baby, quite possibly very early on. And Paula runs away. One wonders whether the situation in April 1965 was a parallel to the Denny Wright Jr situation. That involved a cover story. So maybe the miscarriage is also a cover story. There is a sudden, early end to a pregnancy at Gertie Wright’s home. Paula was opposed to this, and so promptly ran away. The possible explanation is one that suddenly reappears during the trial in direct relation to Sylvia.
The issue of sex is important in Sylvia’s letter. That letter was written in California, or shortly after the Likens returned to Indiana. In the letter, Sylvia supposedly confessed to the Ronnie and Donnie affair, along with the situation involving Mike Easton (Easton?). That letter was significantly redacted, and although Jenny would state that the “twins” were Sylvia’s boyfriends, the apparent purpose of the redaction of the letter was to absolve Jenny of any wrong doing, and even to accuse Sylvia of trying to frame her in the Mike Easton event. But Stephanie describes a conversation about sex involving Sylvia and Gertrude:
Q. Did your mother ever talk to Sylvia about anything else other than money and stealing things?
A. Well, they started talking about sex.
Q. Who started talking about sex?
A. Mom did.
Q. Who did she talk to?
A. Sylvia.
Q. Do you remember about when it was, Stephanie?
A. About the end of August.
Q. Before you started to school?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Where did the conversation take place?
A. In the front room.
Q. Who was present when it was going on?
A. Mom and Paula and that is about it, and me.
Q. And you?
A. Yes.
Q. And Sylvia?
A. Yes.
So now it is August, and Sylvia has only been living at the house since July 4th.
Q. Who started the conversation?
A. I think Sylvia started talking about her boyfriends or something.
Q. Do you remember what Sylvia said?
A. Just that she wished she could see them.
Q. Could see her boyfriends?
A. Yes.
Q. Who did she say that to?
A. Nobody in particular.
Q. What did your mother say?
A. She just started asking questions.
Gertrude quizzing Sylvia about her sexual behavior is consistent with her concerns on this subject when the neighbor woman made her declarations about Sylvia and her husband.
Q. Do you recall what your mother asked her?
A. Yes, if she ever done anything with a boy.
Q. What did Sylvia say?
A. Well, she kind of went around and said she did.
Q. What else happened? Relate the conversation as you recall it.
A. Well, she started talking about when they lived in California and went to some kind of park on a date and that she liked a lot of boys and went skating and everything and said - then Mom asked her if she ever went - ever did anything with them and she said "yes" and then Jenny came in and she said - we all started talking - and Jenny started talking about this boy and Sylvia said something about –
If Stephanie is being truthful, then Sylvia was rather open about the subject of sex as it related to California. But Stephanie rambles, and it seems that she is confused; how is going “skating and everything” relevant to the subject of sex? If this is some slang expression for something sexual, then I’m definetely, to my chagrin, behind the times.
Q. What did your mother say, if anything?
A. She asked her why she did it.
Q. How did she ask why she did it - in a loud voice or just conversational?
A. Just in a conversational tone.
Q. What did Sylvia say?
A. She said she did not know why.
Q. Was there any other conversation at that time?
A. No, sir, I don't think so.
Q. You don't recall anything else?
A. No.
This is strange. Sylvia “said she did not know why.” Why what? That’s obvious; why she indulged in sexual activity. The answer to that is equally obvious, but I would think that Sylvia could answer the question. What did Jenny say?
Q. Miss Likens, did you ever have a conversation with Gertrude Baniszewski with reference to your trip in California?
A. I told her some things we done down there.
Q. Did you ever tell Mrs. Baniszewski sometime in the month of July or August 1965 there at the premises of 3850 East New York Street that while you lived in California with your parents that your mother and father went to Las Vegas and left all you children alone in California for a while? Did you tell her that?
A. We were home by ourselves for about two days.
Q. At that time, during that time that you had conversation with Mrs. Baniszewski, did you tell her that Sylvia and you and Benny and Danny had a teenage party there in California, did you tell her that?
A. Yes, I think I did.
Q. And that - did you tell her that - at the time of the conversation with Mrs. Baniszewski did you tell her that it was a sex party, did you tell her that?
A. Well, I -
Q. Yes or no?
A. I did not tell her. Sylvia might have. I don't know.
Q. In your presence did anybody tell her?
A. We had a party. I don't know about sex.
Q. Did either you or Benny or Sylvia or Danny tell Mrs. Baniszewski at that time out there on New York Street that there was a sex party?
This is interesting. Jenny admits that she told Gertrude about goings-on in California. She also admits that she told Gertrude about a party they had while they lived there. Then she begins to falter. The attorney suddenly labels it a “sex party,” then Jenny denies telling Gertrude about the sexual aspect; she thinks Sylvia might have, but then doesn’t know. Jenny admits to being at the party, but knows nothing about sex? Please!
I let Ronnie + Donnie Simpson have intercourse with me. Danny and Jenny knows about it.
In California I was under the covers with Mike Eason. Jenny + Benny seen Mike's pants down. I was trying to get Jenny in trouble with me.
These are the two statements about sexual incidents as found in the letter. In both instances, Jenny is cited as a witness to Sylvia’s claims that it was herself who committed the wrongs. And in the case of Mike Eason, Sylvia suprisingly admits to trying to get “Jenny in trouble with me.” That’s odd. Was Sylvia stating that she and Jenny had sex with Mike Eason? It seems more likely that Jenny got in trouble for this, denied it to her parents, and then used the letter to blame Sylvia. Redacting the letter gave her the opportunity have Sylvia admit all of this. But even if the letter is taken at face value, Jenny clearly knows about California and sexual activity, being present at or at least knowledgable of the events described. Thus she may have lied on the stand.
A. Sylvia's boyfriend was over there. She might have told her something about that.
Q. Over where?
A. At our house in California.
Q. I see. Did you tell Gertrude Baniszewski that you told your mother and father about it when they got back? Did you tell Gertrude?
A. I told my parents. I don't remember telling her.
Q. You don't remember telling Gertrude Baniszewski?
A. I might have.
Q. She was not in California with you, was she?
A. Who?
Q. Gertrude Baniszewski?
A. No.
Q. Then someone must have told her about it?
Sylvia told Gertrude about a dalliance with her boyfriend? Which one? Jenny has already lied, as the letter shows. That letter also showed, at the very least, that Jenny was suspected of the Mike Eason affair. Stephanie says that Sylvia talked to Gertrude. Jenny admits that she herself did, then says that Sylvia told her something, and then Jenny states that she “might have” told Gertrude. But then she admits that she told Gertrude about another controversial thing:
Q. Did you ever have a conversation with Gertrude Baniszewski in the presence of Sylvia about your living at 109 Euclid Street, Indianapolis, Indiana?
A. We could have. I can't remember exactly what it was.
Q. Did you or didn't you?
A. I could have told her something.
Q. Do you remember what you told her?
A. No, I can't remember.
Q. Do you remember telling her this or this in substance, that men were staying there at that house and that they all stayed in one room, do you remember saying that in substance?
Our dear friend Mr. Court did not allow this exchange to continue. And now we have a Gang of Men! Lester said this:
Q. Where did your wife go when you separated?
A. She was at 109 North Euclid Street and I was in Lebanon, Indiana,
Q. Where were the children?
A. The two girls was with her.
Q. Which two?
A. Jenny Fay and Sylvia Marie.
Fascinating! And how long had Betty, Sylvia, and Jenny been at 109 North Euclid? Lester said one week, Jenny said 3-4 weeks. Who’s right? I think Jenny is, since Lester has a vested interest in his separation from his wife being very short. But! It’s time for the enigmatic number game. This time, the enigmatic number is the Number 6! Now, 109 North Euclid had 8 apartments in 1964, with only 1 vacany:
Apartment 1964 1965 1966
1 Ferrell and Florence Asher Same Vacant
2 Charles and Lorene Carter Lorene Carter (widow) Lorene Carter
3 Vacant Stanford Cox (single) Stanford Cox
4 Thomas Layo (widower) Thomas Layo (widower) Thomas Layo
5 Harold and Maggie Hopkins William G McEndree (single) Vacant
6 Harold and Maggie Hopkins Vacant No apartment with this number
7 Kenneth Gross (single) Robert and Dora Asher Robert and Dora Asher
8 Russie B Franklin Russie B Franklin Russie B Franklin
Now I would suspect that Betty Likens moved into Apartment Number 6. If that’s the case, then it’s rather difficult to understand the implications of the North Euclid question that Jenny was asked. When the attorney refers to four men in one room, he must mean four men in one apartment. It would also seem that these apartments were at least two bedroom apartments, given the fact that they were intended for married couples, possibly three bedrooms if a married couple with children could live there. So this whole “four men in one apartment” thing is problematic. Since Jenny, Sylvia and Betty lived there in 1965, it seems unlikely that the reference could be to apartment 1; 2; 4; 6 (obviously); 7 or 8. This would leave apartment 3 (Stanford Cox) or apartment 5 (William McEndree). These two men do not have a wife named in 1965. Thomas Layo was an older man. Russie B Franklin was a woman. William McEndree was a teacher at a public school, and Stanford Cox worked for Western Electric. Stanford Cox was still there in 1966, leaving only apartment 5, William G McEndree, the teacher. As a teacher, it seems unlikely that he had 3 other men living in his apartment with him, unless they were brothers. There are no other men with this last name in the directory for that year. So the claim about the 4 men at Euclid is problematic, and one wonders whether this was simply a lie. It is interesting that Harold and Maggie Hopkins had apartments 5 and 6. If these are two bedroom apartments, that’s 4 bedrooms. But they were not there in 1965. Why two appartments? And why is there no apartment 6 in 1966 or later? So after Betty Likens is gone, apartment 6 is gone too! Did it follow her? Did it disappear? In 1967, there is no apartment 6, but George Teepee has apartment number 5. Now going back to 1963, Clementine Simpson had apartments 5 and 6, and yes it’s fair to ask, if we play the name game, just how many Simpsons there are? In 1961, Mrs. Sue Higgins had apartment 5, but there was no apartment 6. Apartment 6 at 109 North Euclid, which Betty Likens may have lived in with her two daughters, seems to be a lot like Gertie Wright’s magical clock, the one that disappears and re-appears. Do apartments 5 and 6 live separate lives, only to suddenly be melded together, and then split apart again? If so, apartments 5 and 6 are a bizarre reflection of John and Gertrude Baniszewski.
The considerations examined relative to Sylvia’s letter would suggest that it was not Sylvia’s transgressions that were documented. Why write such a confessional letter, only to keep it with her? Did she change her mind about giving it to her parents in California, but instead decided to keep it with her in case she decided to change her mind later and confess? Or did she keep a letter with her that documented someone else’s transgressions?
An important thing to note is that Gertrude confirms a conversation about something that happened in California. Only when she provides the information, she says that the conversation was between Sylvia and her daughters:
Q. Did you hear your daughter testify about a conversation between you and her and Sylvia concerning a California episode, do you remember that testimony yesterday?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Did that conversation happen?
A. She was relating it to my daughters.
Q. Who was?
A. Sylvia.
Of course, we don’t get a statement as to what that conversation was, who it was about, or what was exactly said. For Stephanie, the subject that immediately follows the California story is the statement that Sylvia was pregnant:
Q. Now, do you ever recall any other conversation your mother might have had during the months of July or August, with Sylvia?
A. Well, Sylvia seemed to be getting big in the stomach and started talking about having a baby and she said Sylvia looked like she was going to have a baby.
Q. When was that?
A. About - either the end of August or the beginning of September.
Q. Did you hear the conversation?
A. All they said was Mom said, "You are certainly getting a big stomach, Sylvia", and she said, "It looks like you are going to have a baby".
Q. Did Sylvia say anything?
A. She said, "Yes, I am sure getting fat, ain't I"?
Q. Was that the extent of it?
A. That was all.
Now the subject of the role of sex in the Sylvia Likens story starts to get really interesting.