It was not my intention to write this essay. Well, it was my intention to write an essay, just not this one. But as soon as I sought to follow my favorite Muse, none other than Calliope, I suddenly felt an overwhelming need to write a different one. Still, I almost didn’t. A well-esteemed colleague and fellow teaspooner had died. I found out from a friend who would miss her as much as I would..as much as I do. So this is, perhaps, by way of a tribute. A tribute to one who is gone but not forgotten. It was not her fault that she inadvertently found herself standing at Ground Zero. Yet, there is more than one Ground Zero, and more than one young woman who found herself standing at one or the other. So against the backdrop of Nightfall, and standing in a place where there are no stars to contemplate, I do my best to fend off Phobetor. How hard could it be to tell him from Morpheus, I thought to myself. If Pasithea brings calm, she also brings hallucinations. And what does Ate bring? With the light that Phyllis Vermillion sees but Kaiser can’t, the steps leading down into the basement are the steps leading into oblivion. An oblivion ruled by a demented Banshee, one who announces a tragic death with a shrieking that would send even Phobetor running in terror? Or an oblivion ruled by someone else, perhaps more than one, perhaps…even more. 

A Canonical Story? I was not alive in 1965; nor in 1966, though I must admit that my appearance wasn’t far off. And a strange thing happened to me. I woke up and, hearing about the First Casualty, someone made a very bizarre comment to me. She said that in her opinion, the Sylvia Likens Saga never actually happened. It was a sham…a hoax. Wow! That is bizarre, but seeing how much I find bizarre things interesting, I asked why she believed this. Perhaps if I hadn’t awoken when I did, and following Pasithea into a place shrouded in a stupefying fog, I might see Ricky, Marie, and Shirley suddenly appear, following behind Bigfoot. Or the Yeti. Given how big Gertrude’s only bathroom was, perhaps I might see Nessie suddenly appear in the Bathtub of Horror. No! She said that the whole thing was simply too crazy to have ever happened. The parts that make up the whole, the building blocks, if you will, are just too unrealistic; so unrealistic, that it virtually dares one to believe it and still believe that one is an intelligent, rational, reasonable person. Interesting! Then I felt a strange, haunting sense of déjà vu. Did I suddenly feel that I was actually alive in 1965? Did a deep, repressed memory of having stood in the Imperial Front Room and witness life in Gertie Wright’s Great Morass come over me? Alas, no. However, I must admit, I found myself wondering…just wondering. How hard would it have been to fix the trial? Well, I believe that the trial was fixed, but if I fixed a trial, which I wouldn’t do since the truth, contrary to popular opinion, is  good thing…I would do it differently. The witnesses should all tell the same lies..I mean, stories, and so the trial would at least make sense. One problem with what I will call an Impromptu Canonical Story, by which I mean one that is put together with very little time to spare, is that in the haste to put it together, clues are left here and there, in various places. They may be small, perhaps small enough to be picked up with a teaspoon, while others are quite large, and if one isn’t careful, one might walk straight into one. If one is lost in the Story, then one might rub the bump left on the forehead, and proceed to follow the rocky, dirty path that has been cut through the middle of a pesky wasteland called, by some, the truth. For most, and I am no means immune to the disease myself, the truth is a noble thing indeed. She has a central place in the middle of most religions and philosophies. Very few would stand up and proudly declare…I reject truth! Canonical Stories are so much better! Thou shalt not tell the truth…that is my commandment! I can not tell the truth, I did not cut down the cherry tree! Do you swear to tell lies, the whole lies, and nothing but lies? Do I ever! The problem with lying is that so many people are so bad at doing it. In my mind, there is redemption in that if the lies you tell are made under duress…something that seems to be very clear in the case of Marie. And I more than admire her loyalty…how hard it was to get her to finally put Ricky in the basement, with a heated IRON FURNACE POKER ENTERED FALSELY INTO EVIDENCE AND REITERATED IN COURT AS SUCH BUT WAS REALLY A STEEL EYE-HOOK SCREW-HOOK THAT HUNG ON A NAIL IN THE BASEMENT THAT DID NOT HAVE THE OBLONG-SHAPED END NECESSARY TO MAKE A NUMBER THREE ACCORDING TO THE DIMENSIONS GIVEN BY DR. ELLIS, in his hand. But beware if you get on her bad side! Ask Darlene, Queen of Cigarette Burns, and Anna the Terrible! 
Of course, in the Likens Case, Gertrude and the other defendants did not stand a chance from the outset. Perhaps the weakest point of the whole judicial process is the jury. And I believe that the jury was stacked against Gertrude from the very start. She had already been found guilty. This is troubling:
 

“One prospective juror, William R Bergeron, 2650 Preddy Avenue, said he believed Mrs. Baniszewski is guilty but said he would disregard that opinion and consider the evidence in reaching a verdict.”
 

So he has already declared Gertrude guilty, but is willing to go ahead and let the trial waste it’s time putting on a bizarre circus before declaring Gertrude what she always was, as far as he was concerned…guilty. How did he come to his pre-trial verdict?

“…he said his opinion of Mrs. Baniszewski’s guilt was based on his reading of newspaper stories…”

The noble William Bergeron, a paragon of impartial virtue, was willing to declare Gertrude guilty on the basis of sensationalist stories written by second rate reporters and published in third rate newspapers. Of course, this man was a big enough dunderhead to declare this upfront. How many jurors had come to the same conclusion on the basis of the same nonsense without making that known? How many kept this to themselves as they eagerly hoped to take up their place in the firing squad. Oops! To quote the attorney…I goofed! I meant…jury. This court is now in session, the honorable…Guilty! Guilty! Guilty! Would the jury please at least let the trial begin? And herein lies an important element in understanding why this most absurd of trials ended in the verdict that it did. If you’re convinced that the defendant is guilty, on the basis of lousy newspaper stories, from the outset, you’ll overlook all the self-defeating and clearly impossible and ridiculous claims and counter-claims as you wait anxiously to declare the verdict. If you’re convinced that Gertrude is guilty, then you will make sure that the Demon of East New York Street gets what she deserves. I reminded my friend of the Canonical Story in which I dwell..in which she dwells. Mr. Bergeron was a teacher at Arsenal Technical High School, the school attended by Sylvia, Paula, and Stephanie. My friend asked why this is important to our so-called Canonical Story. I asked her..how much truth do you think there is in the Likens Trial testimony? Barely any, she said. Barely? Bare? Or…Grizzly Bear? What does that mean? Well, I thought that it’s too bad that we couldn’t have asked Teacher Bergeron whether the staff at his school maintained an arsenal, no pun intended, of firearms to combat Grizzly Bears who might storm the school in search of a meal. 

Now I believe that people expend vast amounts of energy trying to convince people that they are something that they are really not. In so doing, they hope to convince themselves. If others believe it, then I can believe it. But they are not what they seem to be, and so the Cynic in mean echoes the basic idea that Diogenes found so compelling. Search for an honest man? Good luck. Search for someone who actually is what they want you to believe he is? Hmmm. Religion fits the bill! But once religion becomes inconvenient, it is quickly tossed aside for more important things. Then, you simply pick up what you cast off, and everything is fine. And who is a good liar? A really good lie would seem so much like the truth that many, if not most, would never be able to tell that it is really a lie. If Beel-zebub is the devil, though he was, originally, nothing more than a false Canaanite god dwelling on the Philistine coast with his friend Dagan, then perhaps he is also the Father of Lies. Surely he must be a good liar! In truth, I’m not convinced, and that bodes ill for all would-be and have-been liars. Mendax. Déjà vu? I go about my daily business living in an eerie wasteland where the most important people in the world toss about lies that are so obviously lies that one must work very hard, as so many are, to be able to tell themselves that the lies must be truth. Or that the truth doesn’t matter. What one has..surely, can not be lost. All empires rise, and all empires fall. Not true? Ask the Egyptians, or the Assyrians, or the Babylonians; perhaps the Persians; or the Macedonians. The Romans? The Byzantines? The British? Alas. But all felt sure that they were guaranteed to always have what, so it seemed, they always had. So I realized that I am living in an incredible Canonical Story myself! One that is so unrealistic that it too dares one to believe it and…well, my point is taken. And what of these building blocks? I was thrilled to hear someone coin a phrase that so perfectly describes these Building Blocks of Horror that I couldn’t help feeling that, in this one instance, she was a prophetess. A prophetess? Perhaps, less like Huldah, and more like Cassandra. Maybe she too bears a curse that ensures that none will believe her; well, believe her anymore. 

*************************
You Honor, I object!

The Court: Which one are you?

I’m Elliptica.

The Court: You look like Tektonikus.

Elliptica: She’s my twin.

The Court: Really?

Elliptica; Oh, yes! We even had a double wedding when we were children.

The Court: I see. To what are you objecting?

Elliptica: Everything!

The Court: Everything?

Elliptica: Yes, everything! My friend told me….

Attorney: Your Honor, I object!

The Court: to what?

Attorney: She can’t object to everything!

The Court: Yes she can. It’s just highly unlikely that I will sustain her objection.

Elliptica: Thank you, Your Honor. Never have I seen such a pack of…alternative facts.

The Court: Good Heavens, what are alternative facts?

Elliptica: well, alternative facts are…lies. Big lies! And if there are no teaspooners left, people will believe them. But not if you call them lies! You need a different way of putting it.

The Court: that’s true. Who wants to admit to believing a lie? Perhaps alternative facts are different.

Attorney: Your Honor! I withdraw my objection. She has given us the key to what we are seeking to do! Perhaps posterity will view this case as a collection of…and pack of…a bunch of…alternative facts.

Elliptica: I object!

The Court: Why? 

Elliptica: well, that’s not what I had in mind.
*************************

That was very much not what I had in mind. And how close was the attorney to inadvertently adding another animal to our Zoo of Horror…a bull. And yes, alternative facts are a bunch of bull…watch your language! So the building blocks have a name…alternative facts. Lies that become plausible by changing the name. Lying is bad…but sharing alternative facts sounds so reasonable, perhaps even…intelligent. The bard was wrong! A rose by any other name does not smell so sweet if one calls it by another name that suggests that it should smell a little less rose-like. A vase full of jasmine morphs into a field of Corpse flowers. Tares become wheat; goats become sheep; dross becomes gold; and evil becomes good. Where is the One who comes as an Angel of Light? Surely, he is already here.

Q. You are going to tell the truth on this witness stand, aren't you?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. You are going to tell only what you know and what you saw and what you heard, are you?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And you know what it is, what happens to little girls who tell untruths?
A. They will get put somewhere where they would not like it.
Q. They will get punished?
A. Yes.

So Marie proclaims that she will tell the truth. I find it interesting, and highly disturbing, how Marie answered the question about what happens to little girls who tell untruths. I expected an answer more like…they get spanked…maybe with a fireman’s belt, sorry, a police belt. Or even…Paula get the board! Or they don’t get dessert. Or they can’t go out and play kickball with Sylvia. But “put somewhere they would not like”? Think about that for a moment. And then for another moment. How many children would say this? The only child I would think might answer this question in the way Marie did is a child who has been specifically threatened by some adult or adults with being sent to a bad place if that child will not cooperate. I’m sure that Mrs. Simpson’s house, assuming that Ronnie and Donnie don’t live there, is far better than…an orphanage! Or some large and imposing Children’s Guardian Home…a place with mean children that will hurt you. Would you like that, Marie? Notice too how the attorney reacts to Marie’s answer. You weren’t supposed to mention a place that you would not like…you were supposed to just say “punished”. 
 

Q. Do you know what it means to raise your right hand and swear to tell the truth?
A. No, ma'am.
Q. Do you know what it means to tell the truth?
A. I think so, I am not sure.

Ok, Shirley had a bit of trouble with the concept of the truth.
 

Q. Can you tell the truth?
A. Yes, I can.
Q. Will you tell the truth?
A. Yes, I will.

Wow, Shirley’s doubts suddenly disappear. I guess it’s true…it is possible to overcome a bad start. 
 

Q. And I think on direct examination by Miss Wessner, the young lady down there, the deputy prosecutor, she asked you in substance something about - do you know the truth or are you willing to tell the truth - and you remember her asking you that? Did you say you are not sure about the truth, did you say that?

A. Yes, sir.
Q. Pardon?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. You did say it then, you are not too sure about what it means to tell the truth, is that what you mean?
A. Yes.

 

Oh, dear. Full circle. The truth is a very difficult thing. We might ask the judge why such a witness as the one who, like Dr. Ellis, likes to color on people, should be allowed to testify. And why is Miss Wessner a young lady? She is the deputy prosecutor; the one who nods her head to Judy the Truth Teller to indicate the right answers to essentially wrong questions. Listen, young lady, get your math homework done! Listen, young lady, stop nodding your head when you are in your role as deputy prosecutor! A 13 year-old deputy prosecutor? If she were even younger, she could be one of “all the kids” and follow Shirley around. Personally, if I were the Child-Deputy-Persecutor…sorry, that was a misspelling for Prosecutor, I would take offense to a condescending patriarchal figure in an overtly patriarchal society referring to me as a young lady, and thereby reminding me and the world that I am there because the patriarchal figures will allow me to be there. I object! To what? I’m a grown woman, Your Honor, trying to succeed in a profession that is essentially an old boy’s club. If you want, you may call me the Exception that Proves the Rule, but don’t call me a young lady. That’s what my mother called me when she was displeased with my apparently not-done math homework. A little more respect, if you please. 

*************************
“And, when not nodding her head at Judy Duke, she enjoys gardening and photography! Marjorie Wessner, come on down! You’re the next contestant in the Great Lie! Please tell the studio audience something that you don’t like doing.”
“Well, in my spare time I don’t watch TV lawyers.”

“You don’t? I find Perry Mason to be a riveting show.”

“I don’t mean that. I’m not saying that I don’t not watch Perry Mason. What I am not not saying is that I don’t watch court proceedings on television.”

“I was not aware that we have cable TV in 1965. I didn’t know that we had a Live Court Proceedings channel here in Indianapolis. But I thought, being a lawyer, you might like watching non-existent court proceeding on the non-existent Live Court Proceedings channel on Indi Cable TV.”

“I do not not watch that channel!”

“Why?”

“It’s too painful; they don’t follow the rules. They do consult with the American Bar Association, but on the other hand they have to arrange the program to fit entertainment.”
*************************

And although the above game-show event is purely fictional, that last quote is not. Entertainment? Court proceedings that are nothing more than entertainment? Miss Wessner, you are definitely at the right trial. The Young Lady in the black dress? No, she is not a young lady…she is a “lady” who happens to be the mother of Judy Duke. Let’s ask her:

THE COURT: That lady in the blue dress, are you related to anybody here?

SPECTATOR: I am her mother.

THE COURT: So there will be no question about it, would you mind going in the other room? I am the judge, Lady, please.

So Judy’s mother is a lady, but Marjorie is a young lady. And why does the judge think that the Not Young Lady in the black dress doesn’t know that he is, in the end, the judge? Was Saul Rabb not wearing his robe? Or was he sitting with the defendants, rather than occupying his judicial High Place? And it would appear that Saul Rabb, or Mr. Bowman, is color blind. Wait! If you can have a two-foot tall three-foot tall friendly police dog, then you can have a Lady in a Black Dress wearing a Blue Dress! But the situation is a bit tricky. What situation? Knowing when a female person is a young lady, lady, girl, little girl, or some combination. Dixon:

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.

Remembering who spoke to you, like knowing who sat in your police car, is difficult, especially if the color of the sweaters confuses you. So the odd human being wearing the purple sweater is a “little girl”, a “girl”, and a "lady"…all at the same time. 

Q. Do you see this young lady behind me in the blue sweater?
A. Yes.
Q. Was she at the scene?
A. Yes.
Q. Did you talk to her?
A. Yes, I did.

So, it is sweater day! A purple sweater and blue sweater. Any others?

Q. Describe the girl.
A. Physical appearances?
Q. What you saw, whether she was dressed, her color?
A. The girl was dressed. She had on a sweater and slacks. She was laying on the mattress.

And:

Q. Was Paula Marie present?
A. Yes.
Q. Point her out, please.
A. In the middle of the boys. (indicating defendant Paula Marie Baniszewski)
Q. Is that the young lady with the blue checked blouse?
A. And brown sweater.

And:
 

Q. Who do you mean by Gertrude?
A. Gertrude Baniszewski.
Q. Is she present?
A. Yes, ma'am.
Q. Point her out, please.
A. She is sitting right there on the corner. She has on a white sweater and white blouse.

Wait! Judy Duke:

Q. Point her out, please.
A. There. (indicting defendant Gertrude Baniszewski)
Q. What does she have on?
A. A white blouse, a plaid skirt and a blue and white sweater.

Randy:

Q. Who do you mean by John?
A. The boy in the white sweater. (indicating defendant John Stephan Baniszewski)
Q. How is Paula dressed?
A. She is dressed in a purple sweater. (indicating defendant Paula Marie Baniszewski)
Q. How about John?
A. In a dark blue shirt. (indicating defendant John Stephan Baniszewski)

So when Randy testified, John traded the white sweater for a dark, blue shirt. If Paula had been wearing a brown sweater, but now wears a purple sweater, then who was wearing the purple sweater on the previous day? Did that person trade her purple sweater for Paula’s brown sweater? And who was wearing the blue sweater? If Gertrude was wearing a white sweater that was also a blue and white sweater, then it’s technically true to say that she was wearing a white sweater…if you’re giving a partial sweater-color description. And! The same would be true if you said that Gertrude was wearing a blue sweater! So Gertrude is the young lady wearing the blue sweater? No. 

Q. Will you indicate Mrs. Wright about whom you have testified, point her out? Point her out for the jury.

A. She is sitting there with the green blouse and white sweater. (indicating defendant Gertrude Baniszewski)

So Gertrude is simply not going to give up her white sweater! Paula was 18 years old during the trial, and was wearing the brown sweater. So the owner of the blue sweater, as well as the owner of the purple sweater, were younger than that, and I suspect that the other two fashionable witnesses sporting sweaters designed by Indi’s Fashion Gurus were Jenny and Stephanie. So if the owner of the purple sweater is a “lady”, as was Mrs. Duke, and that person was not Paula, who wore a brown sweater, and Miss Wessner was a “young lady”, then the deputy prosecutor was no older than 17! A legal prodigy to say the least! Paula was still in high school, but Marjorie had graduated from law school before she was 17!  I am obviously joking. But with all the apparent newbies in the story, perhaps Miss Wessner is more seasoned:

“Since 1963, Miss Wessner has been a deputy prosecutor for Marion County, a job which she estimates takes about half of her time.”

So not quite so seasoned. She’s a part-time deputy prosecutor? However, she did have a bit more experience in practicing law in general:

“When I started practicing law in 1950 I learned quickly how true is the saying ‘the law is a jealous mistress.’”

Oh the inappropriate jokes that could be made! The law is a jealous mistress because she is jealous of the wife? Mistress? Toe-tied? Fortunately, I will not make such jokes, seeing that they are inappropriate, and will not dare to bring anything inappropriate into the Great Appropriateness. But I am curious, she had been practicing law for 16 years? 

“She has taken night courses at Butler University since she has been in practice to catch up on some of the pre-law courses she missed.”

Wait, I’m confused. She graduated from law school without completing pre-law courses? I thought that pre-law came before law school, which in turn, came before practicing law. And so our prodigy! No, I’m still confused. If Miss Wessner was allowed to skip pre-law, graduated from law school, began practicing, and became deputy prosecutor, then I would think that the pre-law courses were deemed unnecessary in her case..no pun intended. But they weren’t, and she was required to take pre-law school classes at night to complete what she was allowed to skip. And if she began practicing in 1950, then she had to take her evening pre-law school classes 16 years later? I guess it must be chalked up to my obvious lack of knowledge of all things legal if I find this very confusing. Is there a lawyer in the house? Sorry; I meant…is there a lawyer other than the ones in this case…in the house? I’ll tell you something else that I find a bit confusing. The basic idea that seems to be that Miss Wessner the Bass Player skipped pre-law, then hastily made her way through law school, began practicing law in 1950, only to become deputy prosecutor in 1963. But is that correct?

“Appointment of Miss Marjorie Wessner of Indianapolis as Indiana Young Republican National Committeewoman was announced yesterday at a state-wide meeting of Hoosier Young Republicans in the Claypool Hotel.”

So our young lady is also interested in politics.

"Miss Wessner, a native of Indianapolis, has been a deputy prosecutor under Marion County Prosecutor Frank H Fairchild since 1951.”

So, Miss Wessner had prior experience as deputy prosecutor before 1963.
 

“At Indiana University she started as a music major. Her instrument was the string bass.”

“I decided, however, that I didn’t want to teach and wasn’t going to make a professional career of music.”

That’s too bad! Maybe she could have replaced Paul McCartney in Sylvia’s favorite band, or even Bill Wyman of the Rolling Stones. So she graduated from college with a major in playing bass, which I suppose is the fast track to entering law school. To think! I graduated from college with a history degree. I didn’t know that I had the option of foregoing pre-law courses, and could have simply joined Miss Wessner in law school. Perhaps if I had majored in bass I would be more knowledgeable about such things. Or maybe I could play drums in Miss Wessner’s edgy new rock band. I’m sure it’s just my didn’t-major-in-bass lack of knowledge that makes me wonder whether, for some reason, someone decided to put Miss Head-nodder onto a fast track; whether someone had a desire to get her through law school with considerable haste and alacrity. 

Of course, Miss Wessner serves in the role of Leroy New’s side-kick in the Great Fraud. I know about Marjorie’s experience as a student of music, but I’m somewhat dismayed that she and Mr. If-I-Put-My-Foot-On-The-Wrong-Mattress-You-Won’t-See-That-The-Bloodstains-Aren’t-There New did not go to drama school together:

“I can’t hear a word these people are saying,” Deputy Prosecutor Leroy New said of the defense attorneys, ‘because the voice of Sylvia Likens cries out to both God and man.”

And:

“New’s colleague, Deputy Prosecutor Marjorie Wessner, called it a ‘beastly, beastly crime’ and likened it to the horrors of Nazi concentration camps in World War II. Miss Wessner described the testimony as “stomach-wretching,” and her own voice broke occasionally as she recounted the torture of Sylvia.”

I hope that there were no survivors of Auschwitz, Dachau, Buchenwald, or any other death-factory run by the National Socialists and their henchmen, in the courtroom. Such a person would have been offended to the Nth degree to hear the unbelievably childish testimony, complete with such barbaric tortures as being smacked with a belt or whacked with a paddle being compared to what millions suffered at the hands of the Nazi Government of Germany. And I have to say…bravo! Bravo, Mrs. Republican Party! What an actress you are, making your voice break like that…impressive!

As far as the question of truth goes, and the ideal of a fair trial before an impartial jury comprised of Bergerons intent on Bergeronizing the Great Trial, Miss Wessner holds a critical position. Still, she did make some heart-warming comments:

"There is a wide open field in law for a woman who is interested in people and their problems. An ability to analyze, to recognize the human needs of clients and a logical mind is helpful."

And if someone has put you on a fast track, you might be able to put off those annoying pre-law classes that everyone else has to take before law school. But I like the part about recognizing human needs..well…as long as you’re a client.

“My prime interest in law is to be of assistance to people.”

I genuinely approve of assisting other people, and so I may find myself inclined to feel that, in the person of Marjorie Wessner, we may in fact find a ray of Vermillian Light in a courtroom that proved to be as shrouded in Kaiserian darkness as Gertrude’s basement. Nightfall suggested that we had nothing to fear in the basement; the courtroom, however, was a different matter. Gertrude’s basement had stars? That’s nothing! Lie on your back and gaze at the sky in Saul Rabb’s courtroom and you could contemplate the Constellation of Bergeron. And now we see the caring of Young Lady Miss Wessner reach it’s fullest:
 

"Jennie wears a brace on her left leg, wasted by Polio. Sometimes she cries quietly when witnesses tell of hundreds of wounds on Sylvia Marie’s thin body. Once she sobbed so loudly she was removed from the courtroom. But she has a winsome smile for Deputy Prosecutor Marjorie Wessner, who sits with her and treats her with unostentatious tenderness.”

Bravo! Listen up, John Dean! You too, Robert Hoover! This reporter is actually a very impressive writer. Who could not be moved by the scene described? Winsome smile…I’m sure that some writer on this website will soon make use of that phrase! Jenny the One who Smiles Winsomely! Miss Wessner…the Queen of Unostentatious Tenderness! I suggested to my Significant Other that I be treated with unostentatious tenderness; the response was…what the hell does that mean? Alas. This emotional connection between Bass Player Marjorie and the girl in the blue…or…purple…sweater, is important.

What about the question of truth as it pertains to the witnesses in the Sylvia Likens trial? Not all of the witnesses were as truthful about not knowing how to the truth as Shirley was. It is interesting that the words “truth” and “true” do not appear in the testimony of Lester and Betty Likens. In the case of the Nurse:

Q. Later you talked with this neighbor who first aroused your curiosity to go to 3850 and investigate? You had additional conversation with that person is that true?

A. Yes, I did.

So here we see the word used in the sense: “is that right?” Sort of…request for confirmation. But in the case of the Cleric, the subject of the truth takes a different turn:

Q. Now, did you ever read about Ananias in the Bible?
A. Yes.
Q. To your knowledge, did Stephanie ever read the Bible?
A. Yes.
Q. To your knowledge, did she ever read about Ananias?
A. Ananias and Sapphira?
Q. Who were they?
A. They lied in church, in the Book of Acts, and they dropped dead in church.
Q. To your knowledge, do you know whether or not Stephanie lied to you after she came forward?
A. No.

Acts 5: 1-11. It’s not surprising that the Cleric knows the story. It is, however, interesting that the attorney seems to think that Stephanie knew it as well. It’s also interesting that he suggests that Stephanie lied…and specifically, to Roy Julian. 

Q. You saw nothing unusual about Mrs. Baniszewski's manner, demeanor, appearance or nothing?
A. I felt she was a little neurotic by her worries and frets and personality but not mentally.
Q. What do you mean by threats?
A. Frets. Her concerns, not threats.
Q. Her concern about what?
 
A. The various things. I was called in to discuss the problem of Stephanie. We went back to the same routine of financial problems and we had discussed this before, and the heavy strain on herself. She said she was under a doctor's care and had to take quite a bit of medicine. Paula had to get a job to absorb some of the expense. Paula got a job because she volunteered to do so, dropped out of school to help relieve some of the strain from her mother.

The problem of Stephanie? Whatever could that be?

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

This is something that we will see at the climax of Stephanie’s testimony. Stephanie blamed Ricky for dropping Sylvia on the stairs. Could it have been the other way around?
 

Q. Have you ever been subjected to fainting or blacking out?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Very often?
A. Well, from what I have heard, I am.
Q. When?
A. Well, I remember one time - I don't know exactly what happened - I went out and woke up on the kitchen floor.
Q. Can you recall when was the last time you blacked out in this fashion?
A. No, sir.
Q. Do you know how long you remained unconscious?
A. No, sir.
Q. Are you at all aware what the cause may be?
A. No, sir.
Q. Have you ever had medical assistance or examination to determine the cause?
A. Yes, sir, yesterday.
Q. Was any finding made?
A. Just that I was very nervous and had kind of high blood pressure.

So she gets light-headed because of high blood pressure? I’m so relieved to find out that Stephanie doesn’t have a brain tumor!

Q. When you recover from the fainting spells, are you able to remember any - with any degree of clearness what happened in the time before?

A. No, sir.

What do having fainting spells and being nervous have in common with high blood pressure? Well, nothing. We know that Gertrude was nervous, and she doesn’t say anything about fainting spells or high blood pressure. Vernal Lepper was nervous too! And Randy will tell us that Stephanie suffered from the same nervousness as her mother…and it was also Sylvia’s fault. The point to make is that high blood pressure does not make you nervous. In the context of the trial, nervous is used to describe a state of mind that is brought about by excessive external pressures which are linked to vexing behavior on the part of…obnoxious kids. We’ve all seen the silly nonsense in movies about women, emotionally overwhelmed by some trivial thing, put on a show of fainting. Of course, people really do faint. And it’s rather odd that the issue of fainting came up when Kebel was on the stand:

Q. What is syncope?
A. Fainting.
Q. Does this resemble shock any way?
A. Yes.
Q. What way?
A. Loss of vascular tone, loss of consciousness.
Q. Can syncope be fatal?
A. It depends on what it is associated with.

I’m at a loss as to understand why the question of fainting came up in the testimony of Kebel. Are we supposed to believe that Sylvia received her head trauma as a result of fainting? The actual act of fainting? Not..fainting and falling down and hitting your head? Wait, I know! Stephanie said this:

Q. Did she ever pass out and fall down?

MR. ERBECKER: That is a leading and suggestive question, Your Honor. We are going to object.
THE COURT: Overruled.

A. Yes, sir.
Q. When was that?
A. About a week before she died.
Q. Where did she pass out?
A. In the middle room.
Q. What room?
A. The middle room downstairs.
Q. Downstairs?
A. Between the front room and the kitchen.
Q. O.K. Can you describe what you saw Sylvia do about a week before she died?
A. I don't know exactly, she just went -
Q. Fainted?
A. Yes, I guess that is what you call it.
Q. What did you do?
A. I told Johnny to get a rag and he went to get it
Q. Did he bring the rag?
A. Yes.
Q. What did you do?
A. I wiped her off.
Q. Where did you wipe her?
A. On the face.
Q. Anything else?
A. Just around her.
Q. How long was she out?
A. Fifteen minutes, something like that.

So a week before Sylvia died, she fainted. And so we see the connection to the “Syncope Question” put to Dr. Kebel. Sylvia fainted and was unconscious for 15 minutes? 15 minutes? You remember that it was 15 minutes, this otherwise unattested babbling in Syncope, six months later? How about…13 minutes? Even Darrow would admit that a day might be something other than 24 hours, so telling time and remember that time one-half year later can be a bit iffy. No attempt is made to explain why Sylvia fainted, and surely the act of fainting didn’t kill her, so the question put to Kebel is still puzzling. And Stephanie has something else in common with her twin! Both faint. Another commonalty between them will be discussed later. In this fainting spell of Sylvia’s, Stephanie treats us to a Detail of Absurdity, a key indicator that we are being treated to alternative facts:

Q. Did your mother call the doctor?
A. No, sir.
Q. Why not?
A. I don't think there was any money in the house.
Q. There was no money in the house?
A. No.

In other words, there wasn’t even a dime in the house that enable some kid to go across the street and make a phone call from the phone at Kiernan’s Shell station? That’s what a local call cost when made from a payphone in 1965, although Jenny might be thrilled to know that you could actually by two Hersey bars with that same amount of money! According to Stephanie, it is clear that a doctor should have been called, but the fact that there wasn’t so much as a dime in the entire house ensured that all there was to do was wipe Sylvia’s face off with a rag. I wonder if a neighbor might allow you to use their phone to make an emergency call? No dime in the house…bravo Stephanie! And I’ll bet that Bergeronian jurors bought that!  

Q. Did she finally get up on her own?
A. She needed a little help.
Q. Did you help her?
A. Me and Johnny did.
Q. What did you do with her?
A. Took her upstairs.
Q. What did you do with her?
A. She slept on the mattress.

Does anyone detect a little recycling? Sylvia is in a bad way, so Stephanie, aided by a boy, takes her upstairs, and Sylvia ends up being laid on the mattress. This time, it’s Johnny, in the great climax of the story, it’s Ricky. 

Q. Did you tell Ricky you were going to have a fainting spell and black out?
A. I told him I did not feel good.
Q. As a matter of fact, it is you who slipped and let her drop?
A. No.
Q. As a matter of fact, is that why you used a slang word?
A. No.
Q. Who was he rebuking then?
A. Himself.
Q. Did you have a fainting spell on the stairway?
A. No, sir.

And:

Q. Why did you not tell your mother to stop? Is it a fact, you felt sorry for having a fainting spell and your mother was wanting to come upstairs and was hollering, "She is faking"?

A. I had not fainted.
Q. But you complained to Ricky you were going to faint?
A. I said I did not feel good.
Q. Everyone knew you had blackouts, didn't they?
A. Yes.
Q. Ricky knew it, didn't he?
A. I don't know.
Q. Did he say somebody had to keep a cool head?
A. Huh?
Q. Did he say that?
A. What?
Q. Was he complaining about you not feeling good, feeling faint?
A. No, sir.

The attorney grilling Stephanie about fainting on the stairs was Nedeff, Ricky’s lawyer. His motivation is obvious…Stephanie said that Ricky dropped Sylvia, so Nedeff is trying to turn it back on Stephanie. Yet, Ricky never said that Stephanie fainted. Gertrude did:

A. Well, before Stephanie told me, she had fainted, or something to that effect, because I had about a half dozen different children telling me a half dozen different things at the same time and I do remember being pretty upset and I asked the children to call for help or do something. I kept asking what is the matter with her.

“Something to that effect?” It seems to me that Gertrude didn’t take Stephanie’s claim very seriously. Oh…since performances are present in our Bergeronian Courtroom, I think the performance put on by Ricky and Stephanie is worth a second look. Well, one aspect of it. What is that? We sit in our front row seats, anxiously waiting for the show to begin. Miss Wessner concludes her bass performance warm-up act, and then…Ricky and Stephanie are carrying Sylvia up the stairs. What about this staircase? Gertie Wright’s Staircase of Horror?
 

Q. How many turns does the stairway make from the dining room up to the upstairs?
A. About eight.
Q. Is the stairway from the dining room to the upstairs, the second floor - is it a straight stairway?
A. No.
Q. How many turns does it make?
A. Two.

Uh…what? Riddle me this…how many turns does a stairway that makes eight turns..make? No! Not eight. The right answer is…two. I think Stephanie didn’t answer the question the way she was supposed to answer it. Why? The attorney asked the same question twice in a row. The first question resulted in an answer of…eight turns. Then he throws in “second floor” and asks if this stairway was straight. Your Honor…I object! Why? The witness has already said that the stairway makes eight turns…thus it can’t be straight…and thus the question is redundant. Ask the question again, and the stairway that seconds ago took eight turns, now takes two turns. In a split second, Stephanie reduces the number of turns by 75% of her original answer. Why? It is my theory that the same question is asked twice, generally during the trial, because the attorney disbelieves the truthfulness of the answer and so hopes to get a contradictory second answer, or because the witness has truthfully answered the question and the attorney is reminding the witness that the false answer was supposed to be given. What is true here? Does Stephanie really not understand the most Unfathomable Staircase in its essential design? Does she have problems with counting the number of turns something makes? Eight steps and two turns? Surely there were more than eight steps. But eight turns? Two turns with eight steps each…making sixteen steps? A staircase making eight turns would be a massive, spiral staircase. So we have a bit of a mystery; an Enigmatic Staircase; Gertie Wright’s Magical Staircase. If your were tired, and wanted to go upstairs to sleep on the mattress on the floor of the upstairs back bedroom, you could make the arduous trek up the massive staircase that takes eight turns. Or, you could wait for the staircase to disappear, and then reappear as a staircase with only two turns. But even if the staircase really makes only two turns, I think something would become clear. If Ricky and Stephanie were carrying an essentially unconscious girl up a stair case that takes at least two turns, and Stephanie fainted…actually fainted…then she, Ricky, and Sylvia would have tumbled down the stairs and ended up back where they began…at the foot of the staircase in the dining room, bruised and a little worse for wear. Knock Sylvia down the steps! Knock Stephanie down the steps! Knock Ricky down the steps! This Diabolical Game is fun indeed! Now, you can play it with anyone! And if Gertrude was standing at the base of the stairs, fretting, crying, fussing, with a good book in hand, then she’d end up lying on her back on the dining room floor contemplating, not the stars in the basement, but the unworldly Stairway to Heaven originating in her dining room and reaching up into the Ethereal Heights. Beings descending and ascending? Or is it all just a spring clean for the May queen? And the bump on Sylvia’s head would become the bump on Ricky’s head…and on Stephanie’s head. And, and it thrills me to say… on Gertrude’s head. I don’t think that the testimony bears out such a massive knocking down of witnesses as if Marie and Denny decided to play bowling rather than kickball, and one of them scored a strike, sending all of the pins, which look amazingly like characters dwelling in the Great House made of Alternative Facts Building Blocks, crashing to the floor. And so I share Gertrude’s cursory dismissal of the claims made by Stephanie that she actually fainted. I think there’s a better answer.
Oh, Hey Stephanie…you either have high blood pressure or you don’t; you don’t “kind of” have high blood pressure. If you have high blood pressure, you take medication for it. What is the name of your blood pressure medication? We all know the medication a person takes for “being nervous”: Phenobarbital. And Stephanie tells us that on Infamous Saturday, she was knocked out by a medication. Gertrude doesn’t seem to have known about Stephanie’s “kind of” high blood pressure, and Dr. Lindenborg doesn’t mention it. We do know from Ricky, at least from his description of the final event, that Stephanie was an almost mirror image of her mother:

Q. Where was Sylvia at that time?
A. She was laying on the kitchen floor on the blanket.
Q. Who was in the kitchen with her?
A. Gertrude and Stephanie.
Q. Where were they at in relation to Sylvia?

A. Gertrude was over on the east wall by the basement door and she was crying. She was scared and Stephanie was kneeling down beside Sylvia.

Q. Alright, what did you do at that time?
A. I asked what was the matter and Stephanie started crying that she was dead.

So both mother and daughter were having a touching and heart-warming moment, sharing a panic attack together. An anxiety attack in stereo! Both were known to be of the nervous type, and both partook of a drug that produced a strong, sedating effect. In other words, Stephanie was prone to anxiety attacks, and it may have been that when Stephanie was having trouble with anxiety, Gertrude shared her Phenobarbital with her. That is what may have happened on Saturday, and so something must have set off a panic attack that morning, or perhaps the previous night. 

Returning to Roy Julian, I find his claim that Gertrude was wracked with fear that Stephanie had a brain tumor to be ridiculous. In fact, “brain tumor” may well be a Detail of Absurdity, but perhaps one that does double-duty.
 

A. Well, anytime you hurt anybody any way, whether it be under anesthesia from surgery, impulses are sent to the brain and certain protective mechanisms come into play. These protective mechanisms can sometimes be lost, if the nerve impulses to the brain become overwhelming, instead of a fight response you have the phenomenon of somebody fainting.

That is interesting information from Dr. Kebel. I have never heard of a person under anesthesia actually fainting…much less fighting! In fact, anesthesia prevents one from feeling pain, and has the important effect of rendering the person completely still…a real plus when you’re cutting into them during surgery. And! I have heard of the body’s “fight or flight” response. I have never heard of the Kebelian “fight or faint” response. And as always, Dr. Kebel is a Fount of Fascinating Things. If Roy Julian were with us, and I include Dr. Kebel of course, we could ask if one symptom of a brain tumor is…lying. Stephanie has a brain tumor! How do you know? Well…she tells lies…and she faints, I mean, has anxiety attacks. What we do know is that there was a “Stephanie Problem” that was vexing Gertrude, and with which the Cleric was familiar. This would seem to involve “lies” that Stephanie was telling; “lies” that she had apparently shared with Roy Julian. Or with someone else who told our Beloved Cleric. Is it too hard to believe that what may have prompted a visit to 3850 East New York Street on at least one occasion was the lies being told to, or known by, Roy Julian? Lies about Sylvia? How strange it would be if it was Stephanie telling lies about Sylvia, rather than Sylvia telling lies about Stephanie. We all know that Sylvia got up in church one day, approached the front of the church, and dedicated her life to God. Paula and Stephanie were with her. Stephanie had dedicated her life to God? Was Stephanie actually a religious and spiritual zealot, an amazing girl who could say…the zeal of the Lord has consumed me?
 

Q. I believe you testified Stephanie came forward at your services. When was that?
A. Stephanie and Paula came forward with the Likens. Stephanie come forward quite a few times.
Q. Stephanie come forward quite a few times. What do you mean?

A. Either to dedicate her life or to re-dedicate it or she would have some type of spiritual problem and ask somebody to pray with her. It gives us an opportunity to publicly counsel and read with them and pray.

Q. Stephanie did that quite a few times?
A. Yes, since I first knew her.
Q. When did you first know Stephanie, about?
A. I would say approximately two and a half to three years, somewhere along in there.
Q. Two and a half to three years
A. Yes.
Q. How many times would you say Stephanie came forward in most of July, August and September and October 1965?
A. I only remember one occasion. I only remember the time she came with either Sylvia or Jenny.
Q. August 22?
A. Yes.
Q. She did come forward other times prior to that?
A. Yes.
Q. Any time subsequent to that?
A. I have no definite, any positive dates or number of times.

This is really fascinating. Sylvia Likens came forward once. Paula came forward with Sylvia. But Stephanie came forward “quite a few times.” Stephanie. Stephanie the Woman of God.  So without prompting, Roy Julian indicates numerous instances of Stephanie coming forward in church. This makes her different from the others. And Roy Julian is acutely aware of a “Stephanie problem,” which he qualifies with an absurd reference to a brain tumor. And of course, we, like the attorney, suspect that Stephanie had been telling lies to the pastor. Why come forward many times?

A. Either to dedicate her life or to re-dedicate it or she would have some type of spiritual problem and ask somebody to pray with her. It gives us an opportunity to publicly counsel and read with them and pray.

I suppose that if you were particularly religious, and belonged to the Order of St. Stephanie, you would relish renewing your vows again and again. Of course, you might have to re-dedicate your life to God if you had fallen into back-sliding, as it were, or had sinned. Not small sins, perhaps. Many times…wow! Spiritual problems? Stephanie Problem…Stephanie’s need to continually re-dedicate her life…Stephanie tells lies to the pastor…Stephanie knows about tying the toes. Strange. Another strange thing…Stephanie has made a point of re-dedicating her life many times and presents spiritual problems to the pastor, but only once during the period of July – October 1965, i.e. the period of time during which Sylvia lived with her. That is convenient. Julian implies issues with Stephanie, but of all her trips to the front of the church, none occurred during the period that Sylvia lived at 3850 East New York Street other than that made at the side of her twin sister. This would obviate the conclusion that whatever Stephanie had fallen into, it didn’t involve Sylvia. Yet, the Stephanie Problem was the top agenda item when he visited Gertrude. 

His visit to Gertrude’s house…the one where the subject of Sylvia street-walking came up…he does not indicate that he went to the house because he was concerned about Sylvia; either because he hadn’t seen her for a while, or because he had heard anything troubling about her…even if that involved Stephanie Lies. He is unaware that Sylvia is any specific place, until Gertrude tells him about the Gertie Wright State Prison that is only reached after a long climb up the Celestial Staircase, until he is at the house. Of course, we know that Stephanie may not have been the only girl guilty of telling untruths at church. And that girl told them in court too. About the Nurse’s visit:
 

A. She told the nurse Sylvia was at the Juvenile Center.

Take that Barbara Jean! You will say that Jenny was present when you were there. You will say that Gertrude said that she had kicked Sylvia out of the house. And yet the witness you said was present during your visit says that you were told that Sylvia was at the Juvenile Center. 

Q. Had Sylvia ever been at Juvenile Center?
A. No.
Q. Did Mrs. Baniszewski ever tell you to say this?
A. Yes.
Q. When was this?
A. When I went to school and church.
Q. Did you follow these instructions?
A. Yes, at one time.

Finally! When?

MR. ERBECKER: We object. It calls for conversation outside the presence of the defendant.

THE COURT: Sustained as to all defendants.

Of course. 
 

Q. Did you have a conversation with any of the defendants concerning Sylvia being at the Juvenile Center, other than Mrs. Baniszewski?

A. I did not understand your question - did I talk to the defendants?
Q. Yes, about Sylvia being at the Juvenile Center?
A. No, because I knew she was not.

But she just said that she actually had told this lie? Was it at church? Was there a Stephanie-like Jenny Problem? Apparently, Jenny spares the pastor:

Q. When did this happen?
A. Sunday night at church.
Q. What Sunday night was it?
A. It was in October.
Q. Who was present?
A. Well, it was on the church bus.

Ah, yes…the church bus. Recycling? A critical conversation is had by Paula on the church bus, and a critical conversation is had by Jenny on the church bus.
 

Q. Who was on that church bus?
A. John and Jimmy and Shirley Marie and Janice.
Q. Was Paula present?
A. No.
Q. And then when you got home what happened, if anything.

A. I went upstairs and Shirley told her mom, woke up her mother and told her I told my girl friend at church that she was at home. I was supposed to say she was at Juvenile.

Yet again…Shirley is a tattle-tale! So Jenny lies by not telling the lie that Gertrude had supposedly told her to tell, and so the church, and Roy Julian by extension, are not informed that Sylvia has been sentenced to the Juvenile Center for some unknown offense. 

Q. What did Mrs. Baniszewski say or do then?
A. Told me to get in the kitchen and I got in the kitchen and she kept hitting me in the eye with her fist and my eye got swollen.
Q. Was anything else said at that time?
A. She said, "Now you are acting like Sylvia".
Q. She said you were acting like Sylvia, anything else?
A. She told Sylvia to get back downstairs.
Q. What do you mean?
A. Sylvia was in the kitchen.
Q. Where did Sylvia go then?
A. Down to the basement.

So now we get a good dose of Jennyism. Sylvia had suddenly appeared, and remained in the kitchen long enough to watch Jenny lose a bare-knuckles brawl with none other than Gertrude herself. Recycling? Sylvia gets black eyes, Gertrude gets a black eye, Jenny gets a black eye. Hey kids! What, Mom? Whose turn is it to get a black eye today? Well, yours. Oh…never mind. No wait, it’s Jenny’s turn! That’s more like it! Hey Jenny, come down to the kitchen, please. Now she’s acting like Sylvia. How? Do we now have Silent, Suffering Jenny? Jenny stands in the kitchen meekly absorbing every blow to the eye that Gertrude gives her? Was she acting like Sylvia because she told the truth? Was she acting like Sylvia because she was faking? Or told lies on mommy so that she could live with mommy when Lester and Betty break up? Actually, what Jenny is saying doesn’t make any sense. 

And who is Janice? Janice is on the bus with Jenny, Jimmy, Johnny, and Shirley. There they sit, kids we all know only too well. But why Janice? Jenny says that Gertrude gave her a Mike Tyson like eye pounding because she told her friend at church that Sylvia was not actually at the Juvenile Center. Is this friend our mysterious Janice? No one else mentions this girl. But Jenny refers to her one more time, and in the context of church:
 

Q. What happened, Jenny?
A. Well, they was having dinner on the grounds at the church and to hear Paula say it, we ate too much.
Q. She accused Sylvia of eating too much?
A. Yes, they took her down the alley. I did not know anything about it till a little girl, Janice, came and told me.

We ate too much becomes Sylvia ate too much. At least as far as Paula was concerned. Then they, and “they” is not defined, took Sylvia down an alley. Janice saw it, and told her friend Jenny. They took her down the alley for some unknown reason. There are characters who are enticing indeed, strange figures that suddenly appear in the Canonical Story and then disappear without a trace, some of whom are seemingly impossible to identify. So too with the mysterious friend of Jenny named Janice, who yet has some role in the Canonical Story.
Did I say story? What can be said of stories?

Q. Is it right or wrong to tell a story?
MR. NEW: We object.
THE COURT: Overruled. By story he means a lie. Do you think it is right to tell a lie or wrong to tell a lie?A. It is wrong.
 

So we know from Shirley’s testimony that it is wrong to tell stories. And what about telling Canonical Stories? That must be wrong too. It is interesting to say the least that of all the witnesses, it was Marie who was so often accused of not telling the truth:

Q. Now, Marie, you are not telling the truth, are you?
A. I am telling the truth, sir.
Q. No, the truth is you lit the matches and you were heating the needle?
A. No, sir.
Q. Is it also the truth you than went downstairs when Randy Lepper came and you lit a paper, heating an iron?
A. No, sir.

Q. Marie, all we want is the truth and we want the whole truth. Now, Marie, I want you to look at what has been marked State's Exhibit No. 6. That is a picture of a sink with burned paper. You burned that paper?

A. No, I never lit the paper.

And:
 

Q. Now, Marie, if Shirley says you are the one who lit the paper, started the fire to heat the iron, and stood there while she was branded, is that the truth?
A. I did not.
Q. Shirley is not telling the truth? Did Shirley not tell the truth about that, Marie, or are you not telling the truth?
A. Oh, God help me.
Q. We want everything that happened, Marie, and we want the truth. You tell it the best you can remember it. Do you think you can tell it, Marie, really what happened, tell it all, no matter what happened?

Heartbreaking, to say the least. It is my belief that the sudden “Oh, God help me” was not occasioned by a lying Marie suddenly realizing that she needed to start telling the truth. No. I believe that “Oh, God help me” was occasioned by a truthful Marie being bullied into lying. 

Q. Now, Marie, are you trying to protect your mother with what you are saying?
A. The truth has to be tollen. I have to tell the truth.
Q. You tell the truth and the truth is, your mother started the I and left, didn't? Is that the truth?
A. No, sir. She was not even in there.
Q. Are you sure, Marie?
A. Yes, sir.

So Marie’s inclination is to remain loyal to her mother. The Canonical Story can’t have that!

Q. Jenny said you lit the matches to heat the needle all the way along. Is that the truth?
A. I only lit that one.
Q. Are you sure?
Q. Did you see them when they were scratched on there?
A. No, sir.
Q. Marie, I say you did see it. After you heated the needle and he scratched the rest without heating the needle, I want to know what happened. I want the truth. I don't want something else.
Q. Are you trying to tell the truth?
A. Yes, sir.Q. Are you trying to protect anybody that is charged here with a crime?
A. No, sir.

More:

Q. She could not roll over because John was holding her?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Is that the truth?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. You said John put a gag in her mouth. Is that actually the truth?
A. Yes, sir.

And:

Q. Now, you said yesterday several things from the witness stand, Marie, and you have said something different today. Are you telling the truth today?

A. I am telling the truth today.

No, she was telling what was close to the truth…yesterday.

Q. Is that the only thing you ever did to Sylvia, hit her on the arm?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Is that the truth?

And:

Q. Now, was everything you told us yesterday the truth?
A. I was confused yesterday and today I was sort of mixed up.
Q. You were confused yesterday and mixed up today?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Was everything you told us yesterday the truth?
A. Yes and no.
Q. Yes and no. What about today? Was everything you told us today the truth?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Everything?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Everything you have said today has been the truth, is that right?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. You have not told any lies today?
A. Yes - oop - no, sir.
Q. You goofed, Marie. You have to be careful about those.
A. I kept on saying yes, sir.
Q. It is awful easy to goof.
A. Yes, sir.
Q. You have to watch what you say very carefully.
A. Yes, sir.

More:

Q. Now, is everything you told me the truth?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Everything?
A. Yes, sir.

And:

Q. Now, was everything you told Mr. Rice the truth?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Was everything you told Mr. New the truth?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Everything?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Was everything you told Mr. Erbecker the truth?
A. He had me confused yesterday.
Q. He did?
A. Yes, sir.

 
To continue:

Q. Now, you remember this morning, Marie, Mr. New was talking to you and you said, "Oh, my God, help me"?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Now, that is when you decided to tell the truth?
A. Yes, sir.

I’ve made my opinion on that quite clear. 

Q. Now, Marie, yesterday you told this court and jury about your mother being in bed, she did not know anything about these words. You were lying?
A. I was confused yesterday.
Q. Who got you confused?
A. Mr. Erbecker.
Q. You were not telling the truth at all, is that a fact?
A. He had me confused. I was confused all the way through yesterday. I did not know what to say. I was afraid I was going to say something wrong.

And:

Q. Now, since I have been talking to you, have you been telling the truth, have you?
A. Yes, sir.

Marie was to be the one who would suddenly be chosen to testify on behalf of her mother. And it is with Marie that the travesty of justice, the Great Obscenity, would manifest itself in its ugliest form. Her testimony would be ended, and continued the next day. And Marie was headed for a lot of trouble. Natty Bumppo gives us some vital information: “Back near the press table, Marie’s foster mother, a Mrs. Simpson, was fuming.” So why is Mrs. Simpson fuming? She obviously doesn’t like Marie’s testimony. In other words, Mrs. Simpson was part of the effort to force Marie to testify against her mother. I can’t think of anything more troubling than that. I noted earlier that Marie had been threatened before she took the stand:

Q. And you know what it is, what happens to little girls who tell untruths?
A. They will get put somewhere where they would not like it.

I don’t think that it’s hard to determine what exactly happened:

Q. Marie, who do you live with now?
A. Mrs. Simpson.
Q. How long have you been living with her?
A. A month I would say, about.
Q. How long?
A. For about two months.
Q. Who did you live with before you went to live with Mrs. Simpson?
A. I was at the Guardian Home.
Q. On University Avenue?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. You had been there since October?
A. I been there through the rest of October to February.
Q. Did you like it there at the Guardian Home?
A. It was O.K.
Q. Do you like it better than there at Mrs. Simpson's?

MR. NEW: We object.
THE COURT: Objection sustained.

A. I like it better at Mrs. Simpson's.

So Marie is telling us that the Children’s Guardian Home was not actually “Ok”. It was a place you were sent when you were being punished. I think Marie hated it there….wait…why can’t she live with her father? This is interesting:

 "Custody of another state’s witness, 15 year-old Stephanie Baniszewski, was awarded by a court yesterday to her father, John S. Banizewski Sr."

That is dated June 7, 1966. And then:

"The three youngest Baniszewski children, who were not charged in the crime, are still in foster homes, having been placed there by the Marion County Welfare Department. They are Marie, 11; Shirley, 10; and Jimmy, 8."

Strike you as odd? The trial’s over. How about this, dated April 26, 1966? Speaking about Stephanie:

"She was the first defendant to volunteer her testimony to the grand jury last fall." 

And!

"The father, John S. Baniszewski, a Beech Grove policeman, is divorced from Mrs. Banizewski. He appeared in the courtroom Friday and embraced Stephanie, but none of the other Baniszewskis approached him. Hammond said that Stephanie testified before the grand jury at her father’s suggestion.”

Wow! The only kid who wants to embrace John is Stephanie! You will forgive me for invoking the name of Occam, and then wielding his razor, when I say that the simplest explanation is that the only child of John’s in the whole thing is…Stephanie! She goes to live with Dad...but the other kids live in foster homes? Yes! They’re not his kids! When Paula and Johnny were taken into custody, no effort was made to contact John, even though, he is a police officer. Why? I think you know why. When Johnny is released from incarceration, he will go and live with his father…John Blake, Mr. Disisit, master of the carpet cleaner! So Marie is put in the Children’s Guardian Home, a place she did not like. She was offered a deal…she could be moved from the Home and placed in foster care…with Mrs. Simpson...if she told “the truth.” If she didn’t she would be punished? Yes, Mr. Attorney, if Marie didn’t tell lies, she would go back to a place she feared…the Children’s Guardian Home. And so it was that one of the people who was essential in manipulating Marie…forcing her to lie…one who was so angry after Marie’s first stint on the stand…may have been Mrs. Simpson. And the dear old lady had all night to make it clear where Marie would end up if her testimony didn’t change.

Q. Now then, Marie, did Jenny Likens ever burn Sylvia?
A. No, sir.
Q. She never did? Did anyone threaten you at all since you got in the courtroom yesterday morning?
A. No, sir.
Q. No one did? You are not afraid of anything, are you?
A. No, sir.

That is Erbecker. And the correct answer to the question…did anyone threaten Marie? The correct answer is…yes! Mrs. Simpson? Was Marie afraid of anything? Yes...being sent back to the Guardian Home. But culpability doesn’t stop there. Erbecker, who called her as a witness, had a conference with Marie and Gertrude the day before. According to Bumppo, John Hammond, Marie’s lawyer, wasn’t present. Then he states this:

“Just before she testified, she was called into another conference with her mother and Erbecker in a small room adjoining the court. Hammond accompanied Marie into the room but left after about a minute. “I didn’t like the conversation,” he said. He reported that Erbecker was asking Marie leading questions such as, “You never did see your mother do anything to anybody else, did you?” Erbecker did not put words into the girl’s mouth, Hammond said, but he was essentially repeating the mother’s testimony and the girl was affirming it. Hammond said Marie indicated she did not want him, her own lawyer, in the room.”

Priceless! We’re talking about an 11 year old girl, and her lawyer leaves the room because he didn’t like the conversation? Marie indicated that she did not want him in the room? Fine! I’ll leave! I don’t like the conversation anyway! Besides, there’s no coffee and donuts in here! He did nothing to prevent this from happening? Too bad, kiddo, you’re on your own! But then:

“As court convened, Erbecker complained that he had been denied permission to talk to one of his witnesses. The witness was Marie Baniszewski, the denier was John Hammond; and Hammond reported to the court that he merely had advised Marie not to have any more private conversations with her mother’s lawyer.”

That’s all he merely did…and look how effective it was. So what happened the day before? Hammond walks out due to the objectionable conversation because his 11 year old client didn’t want him there. Please! And then, during a recess on day 2, we get an indication of just what was happening:

Q. Now, Marie, during the recess, your mother and Mr. Hammond and you and I went to that little room right there, didn't we?

A. Yes.
Q. You on a chair next to the wall?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Mr. Hammond sat right next to you?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Your mother set against that wall, didn't she?
A. Yes.
Q. I stood there by the door?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. I did not say anything at all any time, did I?
A. No, sir.
Q. And I made notes, did I?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Now, you are not confused now, are you?
A. No, sir.
Q. I am not confusing you now, am I?
A. No, sir.

Q. I did not mean to. Did I tell you yesterday when I was interrupted by the man, to tell the truth, no matter who it hurts?

A. Yes

So another meeting. And everyone is there! Marie, Gertrude, Mr. Hammond, and Mr. Erbecker. And what did Marie have to say? Remember, this is day 2, which followed, obviously, hot on the heels of the evening of day 1:

Q. Now, a while ago did you tell Mr. Hammond and your mother and me the housemother said to forget something?
A. Yes, the housemother at the Guardians Home told me to forget about it.
Q. What did she mean?

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

Q. Is that all she said about it?
A. Yes, sir.

The housemother at the Guardian Home told Marie to forget something. And when was this? Obviously, the night before. And who is the housemother? Marie hasn’t lived at the Home for months. Is Mrs. Simpson the housemother? Or did the housemother visit Marie and impress upon the little girl that if she did not change her testimony she would be put back where “she did not like it”? And just what was it that the housemother said to forget? Objection…sustained. Of course. Yet more:

Q. Is that all she said about it?
A. Yes, sir.

Q. A while ago did your mother say this or this in substance to you, "Didn't we tell you to tell the truth yesterday" did your mother tell you that?

A. Yes.
Q. And you said, "Yes, I did, Mother, the best I could"?
A. Yes, sir.

Q. Then your mother said something like this, "I told you kids to straighten up - if you did not something terrible would happen". Did she tell you that?

A. Yes, sir.

The strange thing here is that the attorney asking questions is Mr. Erbecker, Gertrude’s lawyer, and he was the one who called Marie to the stand to testify on Gertrude’s behalf. This was supposedly done without Hammond knowing that Erbecker would do this, although, if that is true, its hard to grasp why he wouldn’t see it coming. Did Erbecker break an agreement? Reading Marie’s testimony on day 1, could he possibly be objecting to that testimony? Or, is something different at play. Perhaps Marie is being rebuked for not telling the truth on day 2, as she had said she would do on day 1. And how strange is this:

"I told you kids to straighten up - if you did not something terrible would happen."

Gertrude said this to Marie toward the end of her testimony on day 2? What terrible thing would happen if the kids didn’t straighten up? Abuse, torture, and murder? What was Marie’s response?

Q. You said this, "The devil caused all this". Did you say that?
A. Yes, sir.

The devil did it? Oh, God, help me…the devil caused it all. If this isn’t read in light of the Canonical Story, but is instead read in light of a different Story, one where Photo1Girl prostitutes herself and is killed, and one where Sylvia became pregnant and Betty Likens suggests ending the pregnancy, then we can see the meaning of Gertrude’s declaration to Marie. Well, at least one possible meaning. And I agree with Marie, who appears to have been a rather astute theologian…the devil was definitely involved in all of this…in more ways than one. 

Q. And did you say - did your mother tell you it was impossible for her to even lift Denny because of this?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. What did you say to that?
A. I did not say anything about that.

That’s true. On day one, Marie made only three references to her nephew, and failed to discuss how he got around the house. On day two, Marie made up for this by describing herself carrying around a baby that she thought was bigger than herself…and so..not Gertrude. Was Marie being manipulated by Gertrude and Erbecker? Absolutely! Marie could not win. If she did not lie, then the anti-Gertrude faction would threaten her with a return to the dreaded Guardian Home. The housemother there was called in to drive the point home, telling her how to testify. Then…Erbecker and Mom enter the story and try to force her back on track. Heart-breaking indeed. 

Q. Now then, Marie, did Jenny Likens ever burn Sylvia?
A. No, sir.
Q. She never did? Did anyone threaten you at all since you got in the courtroom yesterday morning?
A. No, sir.

Perplexing. Did Jenny ever burn Sylvia? No. Then Erbecker challenges this, and asks if Marie had been threatened. Fascinating. Was Marie supposed to say…yes, Jenny burned Sylvia? And this is fascinating for a fascinating reason. Jenny seemed to have suspected that someone was going to accuse her of burning Sylvia. And she tried to head it off at the pass…she testified before any of the other kid witnesses:

Q. Then what happened?

A. Gertie told Sylvia to go down in the basement. Sylvia went down in the basement and Ricky and me - and I can't place, Marie or Shirley, one of the girls went down there. He took the iron poker and handed it to me and told me to burn her.

Q. Who did that?
A. Ricky.
Q. Then what happened?

A. Then I said, "No" and gave it back to him. I said, "I ain't going to burn her". Someone got a piece of paper out of the furnace and at first they tried with matches. They did not think it was hot enough and they got a piece of paper and burned it and got the poker hot and threw it in the sink in the basement.

Is anyone else mystified? According to Jenny, when Randy appeared at the front door on Infamous Saturday, Sylvia was taken down into the basement. We know that. But now we’re told that Jenny went along and Ricky actually handed the IRON POKER to her and told her to burn Sylvia. She responds by saying…No! I ain’t going to burn her. Although we may infer…but you go ahead and burn her. Actually, none of it makes sense. Ricky told Jenny to brand Sylvia? What would make Ricky think that Jenny would do this, unless he believed that she would? And Marie was supposed to have testified, according to Erbecker and Gertrude, that Jenny had burned Sylvia. Was Marie supposed to have told a lie about Jenny branding Sylvia, and Jenny was tipped off, so, testifying first, she made up a lie to establish that she had actually, and verbally, refused to burn her sister? Or had Jenny really burned Sylvia, and Erbecker and Gertrude were upbraiding her for testifying that Jenny had not burned Sylvia? If Jenny had burned Sylvia, why wouldn’t Marie have said so? Why would she protect Jenny Likens? Look at the lengths Marie went to in order to protect Ricky. Look how she treated Darlene and Anna in her testimony. None of the testimony suggests anything approaching a close relationship between Marie and Jenny.

What can be made of Erbecker’s role in the whole affair? When the case was wrapping up, he launched into an amazing tirade directed against his client:

"Participating in this case was not of my choice."

For some reason, that’s not surprising. Actually, we know that John Hammond, who we will meet again in Part 2 of this essay, originally had the case, and then dropped all the accused except Sister Stephanie, the Not-Nun Par Excellence, as his clients. Gertrude was, unfortunately, which is an understatement indeed, assigned to Mr. Erbecker.

"I was to...This crime was horrible, horrendous, vicious...I've been in a lot of murder trials, and this is the most vicious I ever saw in my life! It threatens the root of civilization."

Here we go again…Erbecker…and Spurgeon Davenport. The Sylvia Likens was so horrible that it threatens the root of civilization! And this is Gertrude’s lawyer…Erbecker isn’t working for the prosecution, by any chance? He isn’t, by any chance, helping to build the Canonical Story? Just what is he telling the jury? And as Gertrude sat in shock, he declared:

“In my opinion, she ought to go to the electric chair…if you think this is the action of a sane, normal person.” 

“I condemn her for being a murderess, that’s what I do; but I say she’s not responsible because she's not all here!" 

"Then he showed an autopsy picture for emphasis. "Look at this exhibit! Look at the lips on that girl!"

She bit through her lip, and the fate of civilization was in the air?

"I've done my little job."

Wait…you didn’t want the case. And in your opinion, this was a “little” job? Yes, I agree you did little, if any, or your job. What is he telling the jury about this case? About his client? He did his little job? Yes! And now, he’s making sure that she goes down. Could there be a reason why he didn’t to represent Gertrude? Could there be a reason why Gertrude’s acquittal would not work in his best interest? That is worth looking into. 

"If this woman is sane, put her in that chair. She committed acts of degradation that you wouldn't commit on a dog. Send her to the chair! She has to be crazy or she wouldn't have permitted that." 

What? Mr. Erbecker, you are well aware of the fact that you were unable to get any of the mental health specialists to agree that Gertrude was insane…you know that. Yet you still persist in this ridiculous claim! You know the jury will not find Gertrude insane, and still you try to play this doomed little game. You know that the jury will believe the testimony of Relkin and the others, and knowing that they will find Gertrude sane, you declare her a murderess worthy of the electric chair? Join in with others who accuse Gertrude of having committed a crime on a par with the atrocities committed by the Nazis? Declare her guilty of a crime so horrible that it threatens the existence of all mankind? Gertrude Baniszewski is responsible for almost single-handedly bringing an end to all of Creation? Satan himself flees in horror at the just sound of your client’s name? Abigor, who reveled in war and murder, calls in sick upon finding out that his opponent would be the skinny, drug-abusing 37 year old woman from the Infernal Realm that can exist nowhere else other than Indianapolis? I will be forgiven in concluding that in these final moments, Erbecker showed which side he really was on. He didn’t want the case…he did his “little” job! Perhaps he did a far bigger job…perhaps he did the biggest job of all. And I wonder if any attorney put on such a ridiculous and incompetent show at the most critical of points…ranting and raving like a…madman, as he virtually straps his client into the electric chair himself. Of course, it was a strange evening. Lying on my back in Gertrude’s basement, and gazing at the stars, I fell asleep. Then I saw Phobetor and Morpheus stalking each other as the subterranean sky grew bigger and bigger. The Infamous Lady was seated in a chair…blindfolded. A saw man ask her if she wanted a cigarette. She said no…her asthma was acting up. The man turned around and faced the firing squad. They fidgeted nervously…anxiously…they had waited impatiently since October 27th. Finally, the man yelled “fire!” Then the sound of the rifle-fire caused me to suddenly sit up and look around. The two brothers were gone, and I couldn’t see the stars anymore. Perhaps we could summon the Cleric to finish the “little job.” But he was busy wishing he never heard of Acts 5: 1-11; busy hoping he won’t suddenly join a congregation that counts Ananias and Sapphira as exalted members if he steps over the threshold of the Grace Memorial Baptist church on North Alabama Street. But perhaps we don’t need the Cleric. I think that we can rely on our Infamous Man, the one who wanted nothing to do with any of this, to perform the Last Rites. For whom? Gertrude? Sylvia? Photo1Girl? Or someone else? A certain someone who remains hidden from view? Still, Poor Gertrude? I think so. Well, maybe.

Elliptica 2/12/17