The Numbers Game: The Enigmatic Number 3- Part 2

Is it possible to deduce the significance of the branded number 3? Or is it an S? According to Ellis and Kebel, it was a number 3, and there is no reason that I can see to doubt that. Of course, Jenny found a bizarre middle ground. How’s that? According to Jenny, Ricky and his partner in crime (Marie? Shirley?) meant to make an S, but messed it up. But again, no explanation for its meaning is provided.

This is not the only important number 3. I can think of another one. Lester said that the last time he visited Sylvia at Gertrude’s house was October 5th. He told his daughter, and Gertrude, the following:

Q. Did you have any conversation with the defendant here relative to your taking your daughter away from her home, yes or no, did you?
A. No, not that I know of.
Q. Did you have?
A. She knew I was going to return within three weeks. I told her - my kids and her both.
Q. You told Mrs. Baniszewski you would be coming back in three weeks?
A. Yes, sir, I did, yes, sir.

So! Lester and Betty visited on October 5th, and Lester made it clear that he would be back in 3 weeks. That would mean that if he hadn’t returned sooner, although after October 5th, then he would be knocking on Gertrude’s door on October 26th. Of course, Sylvia died the evening of October 26th. In a very real way, Lester’s number 3 is far more important than the number 3 represented by the brand. As it turned out, he didn’t show up on October 26th. And that really is too bad. If he had…if he had kept his promise, then maybe there wouldn’t have been a fight in the kitchen about just that subject. No fight, maybe no getting knocked down the stairs. Then Sylvia wouldn’t have had to ask Stephanie to call her father. Nonetheless…what an extraordinary thing! Sylvia died exactly 3 weeks from October 5th, and she supposedly had a number 3 branded on her chest. So you see why this is truly an extraordinary thing! And just imagine! Hypothetically, of course. Imagine what? Imagine sitting on the curb across the street from Gertrude’s house. You sit and watch. Eventually, Lester Likens arrives. You get up and quickly run up to him, and follow him into the house. His daughter is dead! She has been tortured, abused, and mutilated. And there it is! A number 3, exactly 3 weeks after he said he would return to see his daughters, on that very 21rst day, he’s there, she’s dead, and she has a number 3 branded on her chest. Did Ricky know about Lester’s promise to return 3 weeks from October 5th? Did Shirley? I seriously doubt it. Besides, Shirley said that the brand was an S, and it stood for “Sylvia”. But even if they knew about this most important number 3, Lester’s number 3, it didn’t matter. Ricky said that he and Shirley simply looked around the basement for a metal thing to use to carry out their cruel plan. They found 2 items that could pass muster, an EYE-HOOK, and a thing that was not an EYE-HOOK, although it was a non-eye-hook implement that would be merged with the EYE-HOOK during the trial. That implement was the iron furnace poker, which Johnny was able to rid himself of…thankfully. Ricky simply chose the EYE-HOOK. So if we follow Ricky, he was simply looking for something with which to brand the girl. He had no particular thing in mind, so he obviously didn’t envision a number 3. It’s not as though he found out from Gertrude that Sylvia’s father would be back on October 26th..wait! Maybe he did know that. Maybe Gertie told him. Maybe Sylvia told him. But that wouldn’t matter. Why? Knowing that Sylvia’s father would be back on October 26th wouldn’t lead Ricky to a number 3 unless he knew that the promise was made on October 5th, and then he counted forward 21 days to October 26th, and that he even cared in the first place, and thought he would brand Sylvia with a 3 to make some kind of bizarre calendrical statement to Lester. Of course not. But! We are left with a dramatic coincidence..aren’t we?

So the above analysis goes nowhere, other than presenting us with an incredible coincidence. At the same time, Lester’s number 3, albeit irrelevant to Ricky’s number 3, could be important when searching after Gertrude’s end-game. Why did, in the canonical story and inherited wisdom, Gertrude kill Sylvia. Was she insane? She certainly resorted to the Insanity Plea, which is a very high risk maneuver. You have to admit to being responsible, but you’re not guilty of murder, because you were insane at the time. So if the jury believes that you were, in fact, not insane, then you’re a murderer. Or a murderess. Just how risky this maneuver is was made crystal clear when the expert witnesses were called to testify. Dr. Dwight Schuster said this:

Q. Doctor, did you make an evaluation whether Gertrude Baniszewski was sane, in your opinion, October 16, 1965?
A. Yes, sir, I did.
Q. What was your finding?
A. She was sane at that time.
Q. Do you have an opinion as to whether she was sane at the time you examined her?
A. Yes.
Q. What is that?
A. My opinion is she was sane on the several occasions I examined her, as well as before.
Q. Did you have available to you her medical history?
A. Yes, sir, I did.

Q. Did you find there had ever been any psychiatric disorder, or mental disorder on the part of the defendant Gertrude Baniszewski?
A. When you speak of psychiatric disorder that covers a wide range.
Q. Let me ask you psychosis?
A. No, sir, I don't believe she has ever been psychotic.

Q. Would you agree that, as close as lawyers and doctors can get together, the word psychotic is the same as the word insane?
A. I think in general it is a similar term.
Q. You found no history of insanity on the part of Gertrude Baniszewski in her lifetime?
A. That is right.

And specifically:

Q. Was it your opinion she was sane at the time you talked to her?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And was on October 26, 1965 sane?
A. Yes, sir.

What about Dr. Dewitt Brown?

Q. Would you say from your examination of the defendant that she was sane or insane on October 26, 1965, the date alleged in the indictment the act occurred here?
A. I cannot testify as to her being insane, since, as an expert witness, this is not in my lexicon. I regard that as being judicial. In my opinion, she was not psychotic or mentally ill at that time.
Q. Do you know the legal definition of insanity, Doctor?
A. I am not completely aware of the definition in Indiana.
Q. Do you have an opinion as to her present sanity or insanity, Doctor?
A. At the time of my examination?
Q. I am talking about right now?
A. I have an opinion about the state of her mental health.
Q. What is that?
A. That she is not mentally ill.

And:

Q. Are you of the opinion she had power to control any impulse to do any criminal act, whatever it might be, October 26, 1965?
A. In a sense - was she able to make a decision and act on her decision - yes, the answer would be yes.
Q. Alright, sir, now you - do you have an opinion as to the fact she is not mentally ill today, at the present time, is that your opinion?
A. I have not examined her since the 1st of April. She was not mentally ill then. There is no reason to believe she has become mentally ill since then.

2 of 2 expert witnesses said that you are not, and were not, insane. That’s bad luck! But let’s give her another shot. Call Dr. Ronald Hull to the stand:

Q. The defendant is charged here by indictment with the offense of First Degree Murder. The alleged date is the 26th day of October 1965. Doctor, have you formed an opinion as to whether the defendant was sane or insane on or about the 26th day of October, 1965?
A. Yes, I have.
Q. What is that opinion?
A. In my opinion, she was sane at that time.
Q. Do you have an opinion, Doctor, as to whether she is sane or insane at the present time?
A. In my opinion, at the present time, she is sane.

Bad luck that just got worse. 3 of 3! Who would have thought that? Surely if there’s one more expert witness, we can still pull this one out of the fire. Let’s try Relkin:

Q. Now, you say she attempted to withdraw completely, or would withdraw completely?
A. Well, some people in extremely stressful situations just withdraw or they flee. Some people fight.
Q. What did - in your examination what was her psychological reaction on stress and strain?
A. I think she just withdrew. Some people withdraw into psychosis. She did not become psychotic. She just would withdraw psychologically by taking drugs.

 And:

Q. What does that mean - masochistic?
A. She has need to be punished herself, allow people to take advantage of her. She is a passive, dependent person, I would say generally not psychotic, has not any thinking disorder, knows right from wrong, but from her present personality, as I view it, I think it is highly consistent with her story of what happened in the basement was true.

So Gertrude has a drug problem, but isn’t insane. 4 of 4! Wow! In baseball, three strikes and you’re out. In this case, Gertrude already struck out, but got another at bat anyway. And struck out again. I wonder what the odds are that you couldn’t convince 1 of 4 expert witnesses that you were insane. Apparently, impaired memory is an important factor in the question of the legal definition of insanity. Did Gertrude show such a symptom. Yes, but:

Q. You found no memory disability or defect?
A. Yes, there may have been. She stated - shall I go on and tell this?
Q. Well, I am more interested in your conclusions, not what she stated. What your findings were as an expert.
A. I believe she had some impaired memory for events surrounding the arrest.
Q. Alright, on what did you base that, the fact she did not tell you the whole story?
A. This was the basis of most of this opinion, since the information came from her.
Q. So that she was "vague in terms of events leading up to her arrest"?
A. Yes, sir, and following.
Q. Did she tell you her attorney, Mr. Erbecker, had told her not to tell you some of the things done before she was arrested?
A. Yes, sir.

So! Gertrude was so not insane that her attorney had to tell her to act insane. But being sane does not preclude you from doing something stupid; something like telling Dr. Hull that your attorney told you to act insane. Hull just might have echoed another character in the story as to the question of Gertrude’s insanity: “She’s faking! She’s faking!”

Q. And was she vague, in terms of events leading to her arrest?
A. Yes, in reporting them to us, to me.
Q. What do you mean - "she was vague"?
A. She would not be very specific about the events.
Q. Do you think she was feigning that vagueness or do you think it was a natural mental condition at the time?
A. I felt she was feigning.

Ok, so as to quoting one of our characters, another one of our characters might say: “No, he never”! But “feigning” and “faking” are the same thing. So what juror is going to believe that you are insane if you admit to trying, in conjunction with your attorney, to act insane to get a doctor to say you are insane in court? The Insanity Plea is dead, and you’re guilty. Well, Gertrude is. A high stakes game indeed. So to all those commentators who live in a different Sylvia Likens Gestalt than this one…Gertrude was not insane!

Was she a sadist? Was she the kind of person who inflicts terrible suffering on another simply because it gives them pleasure? Or was she a sadist with a different definition? Relkin:

Q. What do you mean - consistent?
A. Well, in other words, she told me how she felt and everything that happened to her and, of course, a person can - may or may not be telling the truth in this, but it is highly improbable she could be sophisticated enough to simulate or fool me on the test and the test data was very consistent with the interview data. She is a very passive, dependent person and rather than being sadistic she is masochistic.

And:

Q. Would you say she is sadistic?
A. Not at all.
Q. Would you say she is the opposite?
A. I would say so.
Q. That is what you mean by masochistic?
A. Yes.

This, I think, is probably the best thing that came out of Relkin’s testimony, as it has a direct bearing on the question as to whether Gertrude did the things she was accused of doing:

A. Yes, I think it highly improbable a person with this personality, would indulge in aggressive, sadistic behavior.
Q. You certainly would not think she was an aggressive type of personality, would you?
A. No.
Q. Do you remember seeing State's Exhibit No. 19 here?
A. Yes, I do.
Q. Well, if a person inflicted on those wounds on that girl while she was living, would you have an opinion as to the type of person who would do that?
A. I certainly would.
Q. What opinion would you have there?
A. A very sadistic person.
Q. Is that completely inconsistent with a masochistic person?
A. As I said before, sometimes you get people who are pseudo-masochistic but that is rare. Usually they are one way or another.
Q. You can get people who are both?
A. Occasionally.

I think the term is sadomasochistic. So if Photo 1 Girl had actually had all the signs of violence shown in the photos inflicted upon her WHILE SHE WAS ALIVE, the person who responsible would be sadistic. But! Gertrude wasn’t a sadist! The implications are clear. But what about Dr. Schuster?

Q. There is sadism in this case, isn't there?
A. I don't believe I made such a statement.
Q. You did not say sadism was consciously controlled?
A. I said I did not believe sadism played a roll in terms of her competency or her sanity or insanity.
Q. Well then, sadism, if it is consciously controlled, is existing in this woman, isn't it?
A. I did not say that.
Q. I did not say you said that. I am asking you, sir.
A. No, sir, I don't think I found any indications in my examination of her being sadistic.

And:

Q. If a few minutes before the girl died, evidence disclosed that this woman, this Gertrude Baniszewski, beat her and attempted to get at her and inflict more injuries, would you say she has sadistic tendencies, yes or no?
A. No.

Sometimes things look promising, and then go south. Dr. Brown:

Q. Now, this unconscious hostile impulse you described - could that have been manifested on this deceased, as shown by State's Exhibit No. 4, is that possible?
A. It is possible.
Q. Could it have been manifested on the body of the decedent as shown by State's Exhibit No. 20?
A. It could be part of the cause of such behavior.
Q. Could it have been the cause of her perpetrating, or permitting the perpetrating of the acts on the body of the deceased, as shown by State's Exhibit No. 19?
A. Yes.
Q. Could it have been responsible, for the acts perpetrated on the body of the deceased by her or with her consent or by her orders, as shown by State's Exhibit No. 3?
A. Unconscious hostility could be part of the reason for her participation in any of these things.
Q. And if those acts - could they have extended over - these acts, which could have been a result of unconscious hostile impulses, have continued over a length of time of six to eight weeks prior to the death of the decedent, could they?
A. Yes.
Q. And if they persisted six or eight weeks prior to the death of the decedent, and ultimately led to her death, could you say she comes within the purview of that behavior known as irresistible impulse?
A. No.

Can’t buy a break! But all canonical story adherents should note what Erbecker has done. To try to get one of them, any one of them, to agree with him, he has drawn out the period of abuse during which Sylvia supposedly suffered. He gives this as 6 – 8 weeks before Sylvia’s death. How can that be? Lester and Betty testified that they could see nothing wrong with Sylvia during their visits up to and including October 5th. So faithful adherents of the canonical story are left with setting aside the children’s testimony that Sylvia was being abused well before October 5th, in order to uphold the testimony of Lester and Betty by suggesting that Sylvia’s abuse really began after October 5th. Why? To avoid the possibility that Lester and Betty knew that their daughter was being abused, and did absolutely nothing. I have seen timelines that declare that the torture starts after October 5th. Nothing could be more absurd. That will be discussed shortly. Maybe Gertrude was paranoid? Dr. Hull:

Q. Did you testify on that date that Gertrude Baniszewski had some tendencies toward paranoid thinking?
A. No.
Q. You did not?
A. No.
Q. Now, Doctor, I will hand you Defendant's Exhibit "N" and particularly page 10 thereof, and ask you if that is the answer you gave to a question I propounded to you? Q. "Is she subject to paranoid thinking as a result of the diagnosis you made"? A. "I would like to make a differentiation between paranoid thinking" and delusion, delusion being false belief. She had some tendency toward paranoid thinking but not toward delusion.
Q. Did you say that?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. Then you were wrong?
A. Yes.
Q. Now, she is paranoid, is she?
A. No, not in my estimation. This is not the primary feature of her psychiatric status.
Q. Would you classify her as paranoid?
A. No, I would not.
Q. Would she come in one of the classes of paranoids, if she were subjected to paranoid thinking?
A. No, paranoid thinking is very - is a very common thing among neurotic personalities, and at times in people who are considered normal. It is not considered a highly pathological, serious reaction.
Q. Do you consider her normal?
A. No.
Q. You don't? She suffers from neurosis, does she?
A. Yes.
Q. Do you consider her sane, Doctor?
A. Yes, I do.

It comes as no surprise that Erbecker became increasingly frustrated by the fact that not one of four expert witnesses would admit that Gertrude was insane, sadistic, paranoid, etc. He resorted to bullying, unsuccessfully of course, and then implemented a bizarre tactic where he would constantly rattle off all the things that had supposedly been done to Sylvia/Photo 1 Girl and insist that only an insane, sadistic, or paranoid person could do those things. It’s important to note that the expert witnesses were there simply to relay their assessments of Gertrude’s mental state as indicated by their interviews and tests. They were not there to determine whether Gertrude did any of things that Erbecker wouldn’t shut up about. A person who did such things might have been insane, or sadistic, or paranoid, but that was irrelevant. What did Erbecker accomplish by following this stupid strategy? The jury is hearing two things: Gertrude’s sane! Gertrude's sane! Gertrude’s sane! But they’re also hearing: Gertrude did it! Gertrude did it! Gertrude did it! With this strategy, she didn’t stand a chance.

This leaves the canonical story playing with hardly any cards in its hands. So what’s left for motive? How do we answer the question…why? Maybe Gertrude was a contract killer? Of course not, but it we pay any attention to the nonsense spewed forth by Judy Duke, Ricky Hobbs was:

A. Anna Siscoe, told me that Richard Hobbs, was in jail, also Gertrude Wright, was in jail, and that Gertrude Wright, offered Richard Hobbs, a $1,000 if he would help kill Sylvia Likens

A $1,000 dollars! I know it’s 1965, and one must allow for 50 years of inflation, but $1,000 dollars seems like quite a bargain for a contract killing. We know that Gertrude had very little money, wasn’t getting her support from her ex-husband in accordance with what the court had ordered, and at times fed the children soup and crackers. Where in the world did Gertrude Baniszewski get $1,000 to pay Ricky to bump off Sylvia? It’s too stupid to even answer the question. I must admit that it gets on my nerves considerably when I find people quoting the lies that Judy Duke told, and treating them as facts. But having said that, she made this claim to the police. And I think that it is possible that this claim, or one like it, may have been believed by the police. And yes, it gets really interesting from there! Why? Because there may have been a certain consideration that might lead one to credit such an accusation. That will be fully developed in another essay.

All that’s left is a consuming hatred. Not an insane one, not a sadistic one, and not a paranoid one. There is no psychotic delusion. So what forms the basis of this consuming hatred? Well, nothing, really. The children offer silly and childish reasons for this hatred. She called Gertrude a bad name; she called Paula a bad name; she did this little thing, and she did that little thing. All explanations for Gertrude’s hatred of Sylvia, which must all REMAIN FIRMLY within the confines of a sane mind, fail miserably. But! For the sake of argument, let’s say that there was some basis in reality for this hatred. It’s manifestly not true..but if it were, why kill her? To get rid of her. Now the canonical story receives a death blow. Jenny tells her fictional story with a lame clue about Ellenberger Park and claims that Gertrude was all set to murder Sylvia. Then she changed her mind? If the story was true, I can think of great reason to change her mind…Lester would be back in a couple of days! I think you could hate someone very much, but hate the prospect of the electric chair or life in prison even more. Especially if you are NOT insane. So there it is…the death blow. Gertrude sits in the kitchen with Sylvia, Jenny, Lester and Betty, and knows that at the latest, the parents will back in 21 days. It’s not 5 years! It’s not 12 months! It’s 21 days! So the closer you get to that date, the more insane…oops! it would be to kill Sylvia. If you were Gertrude, you could tack up a calendar on the kitchen wall. Turn it to October, and then circle October 26th. You could draw a smiley face; you could write- “Oh, thank God!” You could put an X in the box for each day on the calendar as you count down to Nirvana. That’s 21 X’s in 21 boxes. But if you kill her, and then have her dead body laying on a mattress in your house on the day Nirvana is about to figuratively knock on your door, then you will probably have decades of X’s to put into decades of boxes found on decades of calendars taped to the wall of your prison cell! If only I left her alone! With all the Phenobarbital I take..all the time I spend in a barbiturate coma..maybe I’ll take a little more than usual, and hardly every deal with her. Paula already takes of…the baby, oversees the house, etc. The closer I get to October 26th, the day that I can tell Lester Likens to take his two daughters and never darken my door again..the more certain I am that killing my nemesis is, simply put, insane. And I’m NOT insane; just ask Relkin, Hull, Brown, and Schuster.

These considerations couldn’t be more important. But one more observation can be made. If Gertrude had such an intense hatred of Sylvia that it could end in murder, then it would have happened well before Sylvia actually died. Why? Well, Sylvia dropped out of school. I think this happened on October 5th, or shortly before. She had a very good reason. What was that? It was all around school that she was a prostitute. She wasn’t one, but another girl who was one and looked like Sylvia was using her name. I don’t believe that Sylvia started a rumor at school about Stephanie or Paula being prostitutes. Teenage girls don’t demean each other by using the word “prostitute”, a word that has an almost “occupational” ring to it. It’s not nearly as demeaning as Wh---; Sl--; C--- and various other words. If you are not paid for services, then you are not a prostitute. One of the various other words would be far more likely to be used. But think! What a foul-mouthed girl Sylvia must have been. It wasn’t just Stephanie and Paula who were denigrated by her. Oh, my! Now it gets interesting. Start with Jenny:

Q. What offenses or acts did your sister do or commit to cause Gertrude to do these things?
A. Well, I think Stephanie came home from school and said Sylvia called her mother a whore. I guess that is what all started it.

The canonical story is breaking apart with the first child witness. Not Stephanie, not Paula…Gertrude! And look at the denigrating word…whore! Packs a lot of punch, no pun intended. This word is far more likely than “prostitute” as a denigrating epithet thrown around by teenage girls. At the same time, Jenny makes a different statement:

A. Johnny came home one night - it was Sunday night, I can't think what he said, some girl came up to him and said Sylvia called one of his sisters a whore. That started some trouble.

Good Heavens, Sylvia! You said that Gertrude was a whore? And that one of her daughters was a whore? Stephanie says that a boy at school approached her. But Jenny! Stephanie came home and said that Sylvia called Gertrude a whore? Johnny came home and said that Sylvia called one of his sisters a whore? Maybe you should make up your mind, Jenny! And who would Johnny have found this out from on Sunday night? Sunday? Maybe a girl he knows at church? I have to admit, that Jenny’s use of the word “whore” is far more likely than “prostitute.” Why? Because a “whore” is a “slut” in popular usage. And Anna! Her turn:

A. I slapped her in the face and kicked her in the rear part of her body once, I believe.
Q. Did Sylvia say anything?
A. I don't believe so, ma'am.
Q. Why did you do this, Anna?
A. Because Gertrude Wright and I don't remember who else said that she said something about my mother - they said Sylvia said something about her.
Q. Did you hear Sylvia say anything about your mother?
A. Not exactly, ma'am. I heard her talking one day. I did not hear exactly what she said. I thought she said what I was told she said about my mother.

Anybody want to hear what Sylvia said about Mrs. Siscoe? No? I do!

Q. Now, at the time, did you sign a statement wherein this was written on it? "I slapped Sylvia Likens in the face and kicked her on the rear end because she was talking about my mother". Did you sign that?
A. Yes.
Q. When you said a while ago you were not sure who said it, it was not true?
A. Pardon?
Q. When you testified on direct examination hearing Sylvia Likens saying something, you were mistaken?
A. No, sir.
Q. When did you hear her talk about your mother?
A. No, sir, I did not hear Sylvia. Gertrude Wright told me Sylvia had said it.
Q. Further, did you say this on October 28, 1965, "She said my mother went out with all sorts of men and got $5.00 for going to bed with the men"?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Sylvia said that?
A. That is what she was supposed to have said, sir.

So Sylvia called Paula and Stephanie prostitutes, she called Gertrude a whore, and then, for some reason, got really nasty when it came to Mrs. Siscoe! It’s one thing to be a prostitute, but to be a prostitute who can’t get more than $5.00? That’s mean!  What did Marie say about this?

Q. Did you ever see Sylvia do anything to Paula to make her do these things?
A. All I remember is Sylvia called Mom a real bad name and Paula got mad and hit her and broke her wrist.
Q. Did you actually hear Sylvia call your mother a name?
A. No, sir.
Q. Who told you she did?
A. Paula.
Q. Paula said she had called her mother a name?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. You did not hear her do it?
A. No, sir.

Of all the lies told about Sylvia supposedly denigrating other females, Stephanie’s is best since she adds a ridiculous bit of comedy:

Q. Now, did anything happen at school that caused you to have any difficulty with Sylvia?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. What was that?
A. Well, this boy came up to me one day in school and he asked how much I would take and I did not know what he meant. I asked him what did he mean and he said, "How much do want to go to bed with me" and so I did not know what to do. I guess I was more frightened than anything. I got kind of mad and said, "Who told you that"? He said, "Just a friend of yours". I said, "Some friend" and I asked him who it was and he said it was Sylvia.

So, we have a boy at school who has apparently never heard the things feuding teenage girls call each other. And! He was told that Stephanie was a “prostitute”, i.e. not a whore, or a slut, or something else, and assuming that that was her current job when she wasn’t at school, he decided that he might just have enough allowance money to do a deal. If only he had $5.00! Sorry, but I find this story to be ludicrous. This boy would know what all kids at school know, i.e. the use of insults. Based on what Betty said about things being said about…not Stephanie…not Paula…not Gertrude…and not even Mrs. Siscoe! at school, but rather Sylvia, the latter had to leave school. Why was Sylvia accused of being catty with all these other females? I think there’s an obvious answer to that question. “I am a prostitute and proud of it”. Who put it on Sylvia? Ricky, but at Gertrude’s urging. Why? The context, of course. A reason was needed to have done this. Interesting. For someone responsible for inflicting abuse and torture on a 16 year old girl, in a completely sane, masochistic, and not paranoid way of course, a reason is needed. That seems odd. If you’re wantonly cruel…you don’t need a reason. If your violently insane, which the Big Four said Gertrude wasn’t, you don’t need a reason. But Gertrude did. Now if Ricky were to admit that he put the slogan on Sylvia, but it wasn’t Gertrude who told him what the slogan should say, and Ricky didn’t think it up on his own, and all the claims that Sylvia called other females nasty things are false…then from where did the slogan actually come? Maybe you’re a cop and Ricky tells you, and you don’t believe him. So it’s time to find another context..sort of an eye-for-an-eye kind of thing. If the slogan includes the word “prostitute”, then it must be because she called another girl, or girls, or Mrs. Siscoe, or Gertrude, something the same or at least similar. Lights…camera…action! The truth is, the simple truth is, that the only rumors about anyone being a prostitute were being leveled at Sylvia Likens. She was not, of course, a prostitute, but there were good reasons to suspect she was.

A digression, yes, but it seeks to make a point. To double back, the canonical story overlooks something. If Sylvia left school by October 5th, then what did she do all day? What did she do all day for 21 days? Or, maybe we could say, for Sylvia’s number 3, i.e. the three weeks spent kicking around all day in Gertrude’s house. Go to bed, get up, hang around with Gertrude, got to bed…repeat? And Gertrude was always home. During the school day, where were “all the kids”? That’s obvious…at school. And that’s exactly where Sylvia wasn’t. Where was Paula? At school? Work? Who was munching on Phenobarbital? That one’s easy! But if all these things are true, who watched baby Denny all day? There’s the baby, Gertrude and Sylvia in the house all day. Was Sylvia watching Denny? Was Sylvia doing chores? Doing ironings? The prospect of never-ending close-quarter daily life with one whom Gertrude hated so much that she would throw her own life away by killing her nemesis rather than waiting a few weeks for Lester to come and fetch his daughter…then surely that would have happened well before Sylvia’s death. Ricky said that when he put the slogan on Sylvia, he hadn’t seen her in a while, and that he believed that she had been at the Juvenile Center. That’s ridiculous. Although some parents might think, momentarily at any rate, that it would be really cool if you could simply dump a troublesome kid at a local Juvenile Detention Center, you nonetheless can’t. You have to be a juvenile offender, be taken into custody, and probably be sent to such a place by a judge. Randy said this:

Q. Did you ever hear Gertrude say. "Someone call the police, this girl is driving me crazy"?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. When was that?
A. A few days before Sylvia died.

I love this statement! And I can say that after reading this, and knowing from the canonical story and inherited wisdom that I should believe every stupid thing these kids said, I was tempted to make a call to 911 and ask the police to arrest several people I know who routinely drive me crazy. I opted against it, but the idea is a good one.

Q. Now officer, I think you testified that you received a dispatch to visit the home of Mrs. Wright in October 1965.
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Do you recall the date?
A. Let me check my notes; ah, yes, here it is! On or around October 23rd.
Q. And you visited that home at that time?
A. Yes.
Q. Why were you called there?
A. Well, dispatch said that a crime had been committed there.
Q. After you investigated..had there in fact been a crime committed there?
A. Oh yes, a serious one.
Q. And someone was arrested?
A. Well, taken into custody is more like it.
Q. Can you tell the court what happened?
A. Well I found that a code 123 had been committed.
Q. Sounds serious. What’s that?
A. Teenage girl driving a grown-up crazy. That was the dispatch I got.
Q. What happened?
A. You must understand that it’s a very serious offense. So she was taken into custody pending trial. I needed a witness, and a neighborhood boy was there. He was playing with Mrs. Wright’s invisible dog, and he did seem to be dressed rather oddly. He said that he could vouch for Mrs. Wright’s claim. He said that he knew nervous women when he saw them, since his mother was so nervous. It got worse from there.

Q. How’s that?
A. It turned out that it was a double-crime. The neighborhood boy, who left for a few minutes and came back with a hose, said that Mrs. Wright’s daughter had also been driven crazy by this girl. I figure that if I hadn’t acted when I did, there could have been more victims.

That was hypothetical testimony, of course. But Randy made his contribution to the fictional “Sylvia has disappeared” theme. Ricky thought Sylvia, always a dangerous delinquent, was in lock-up. Randy said something different, and what he said, shows just how stupid the things he said could be:

Q. What did she say?
A. She told me Sylvia came back?
Q. Sylvia came back?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. From where?
A. Well a few days before that they said that -

MR. ERBECKER: We object.
THE COURT: Objection overruled.

A. The last couple of days Mrs. Baniszewski said Sylvia was getting on her nerves too much and she was - I think she asked Richard Hobbs and some of her children to take Sylvia and lose her.

I have always wondered what Ricky did to make some of these children dislike him so. Anna told us about Ricky the contract killer. Here, we’re told that Sylvia had been gone, but then found out from Gertrude that she was back. Was she finally cleared of the charge of having committed a double code 123? Had she been released from lock up? Perhaps she drove the staff and inmates at the Juvenile Center so crazy that they opened the front doors, pushed her out, and pointed her toward Gertrude’s house. No! A very, very strange twist. And that no good Ricky Hobbs is involved again! Apparently, the contract killing fell through, and I did comment on my belief that $1,000 seemed to be a pretty low offer. So! If we are allowed to harmonize the different components in the canonical story Gestalt, Gertrude approached Ricky with another idea. If you won’t help me kill her, and she is still getting on my nerves too much, maybe you could take her somewhere and lose her. So what did Randy think Ricky and his hench-children could do? Find someone with a car, since Gertie didn’t have one, and then pack Sylvia into the backseat? Then drive out a ways, open the door and tell her to get out? Then drive off? And then the whole problem would be solved! I must say, and I can say it because all of these stories are fiction, that I am amazed to learn that, Randy at any rate, and Ricky too if Randy is to be believed, thought that 16 year old Sylvia wouldn’t be able to find her way back. Such actions! And how necessary! First we were going to take her to Ellenberger Park and dispatch her there, but then we changed our minds. Off to the Juvenile Center. When that didn’t work, we tried to drive her out a few miles, force her out of the car, and then she’d be gone. Perhaps all of this was necessary because the price of contract killings was too high at the time. But children weren’t the only ones who resorted to this. Resorted to what? Providing stories to support the idea that Sylvia had disappeared for a period of time. Adults did this too. The Social Services nurse said that Gertrude told her that she had kicked Sylvia out of her home. Even the cleric joined in, stating that Gertrude explained to him that she had falsely imprisoned Sylvia in the upstairs back bedroom. So the commonalty is an important theme. What’s that? “Sylvia has disappeared.” The ultimate expression of this is the Gang of Boys note, which states that Sylvia had gone off with a gang of boys, and finally returned in a terrible condition. There may be a kernel of truth underlying the “Sylvia’s Disappeared” theme. I think it may have been related to Sylvia dropping out of school. She left one day, and then wasn’t seen anymore; except by the residents of the Baniszewski house and some neighborhood kids. The rumors that had forced Sylvia to leave school became supplemented by the rumors about why she had simply disappeared. According to Gertrude, the school became concerned about Sylvia’s disappearance:

Q. Did you ever receive any notice from the school because she did not come to school?
MR. ERBECKER: We object.
THE COURT: Overruled.
A. Yes, several.
Q. How did you receive that notice?
MR. ERBECKER: Same objection.
THE COURT: Overruled.
A. Got it in the mail.
Q. What did you do about it, if anything?
MR. ERBECKER: Same objection.
THE COURT: Sustained.

Sustained! Of course, we were about to find out something important. I believe that Nurse Sanders visited Gertrude’s home in October as she testified. I do not believe that Gertrude told her what Sanders claimed. But it is possible that Sanders went to Gertrude’s house to find out what happened to Sylvia. She didn’t receive an anonymous tip. It seems more likely that the school sent her. So once the school began sending notices, and not getting any responses, Sanders was sent out to visit Gertrude’s home. I think it possible that if the rumors that forced her to quit school involved her being a prostitute, that this would have added to the urgency. I think it is possible that Sylvia was there when Social Services Nurse was there, and spoke to her. And the subject of “Sylvia the Prostitute” may have been discussed. This would make sense if Sylvia left school for that reason. It could have been explained that these were rumors with no truth to them, and that Sylvia’s parents would be back in town before long. Sylvia would return to them, they would leave, and that was it as far as Gertrude was concerned. So until Sylvia’s parents came back to get her, and wherever they lived after that and whatever schooling she was to get from that point forward, or even whether Sylvia would end up spending her life selling popcorn and cotton candy at rural fairs and carnivals, was none of Gertrude’s business, Sylvia would not be at school. The subject of rumors already, her sudden disappearance would simply add to the confusion. It could also be the case that the school did a little research of their own, and that they found indications supporting the idea that Sylvia was a prostitute, i.e. more than just high school rumors. They may have received the same kind of contradictory evidence, like the police may have, and that Gertrude definitely had, that raised considerable concerns. At any rate, Sylvia had not disappeared. She had disappeared into Gertrude’s house, and not the basement. Did she the leave house? Jenny said that Sylvia went to their grandparent’s house once. I am skeptical about that claim, and believe that she, like Jenny, never went to the grandparents’ house. Stephanie did, and was seen with a girl that looked like Sylvia. The rumors that were swirling around that part of Indianapolis about Sylvia Likens would probably cause her to remain sequestered in Gertrude’s house, until her parents came back to get her. Sylvia died, and so had another girl. The stories and rumors about who was who and what had happened were the result of a dizzying confusion. The girl who disappeared from school after October 5th, wasn’t seen again until she was found dead of head trauma in Gertrude’s house. Where had she been? A captive in Gertrude’s private torture chamber. Given what police knew about the other girl, that story-line was inevitable. So two girls had died, and it could be believed that there was only one girl, but it seemed like that wasn’t possible. You might hear someone ask “Are you sure?” But then October 26th arrived. And that’s when all the number 3’s aligned like stars in a constellation; Lester’s number 3, Gertrude’s number 3, and Sylvia’s number 3. In the end, the number 3 became the downfall of all of them. Wait, there is another number 3, Photo 1 Girl’s number 3. That will be discussed in the fourth and final part of the Numbers Game- the Enigmatic Number 3. At this point, one might feel justified in doubting that a woman who was sane, not a sadist, and not paranoid, who had no palpable reason for hating Sylvia Likens, would feel compelled to ruin her own life by killing the girl rather than waiting a short period of time for Lester’s number 3 to become a reality, and then put off killing her until the time she could practically hear Lester walking onto her porch, having survived a day-in and day-out existence living with her all the time. After all that… “I swear I can hear Lester headed this way”… only one more X in one more box to go.