The Problem with Confessions: Part 1- Young and Deadly
"I hate to even say some of the things we did. Anything abusive or torturous was done."
What an amazing thing to say! And how horrible! These words were spoken by Johnny, albeit much later in life, so I'll call him John. They are of course from a famous interview. And these words, along with others soon to be quoted, show how troublesome confessions can be. That's because there are so many different reasons to confess to something; relatively minor things, but also dreadful things. One good reason to confess is because one is guilty. And that is what we would all like to believe when we hear someone confess to having done something dreadful. Confession is good for the soul. It allows a person to prepare to meet their Maker. The trouble is that people often confess to having down dreadful things that they really didn't do. Now I must state that I am not saying that John's words were a false confession, although it is somewhat strange. What? Well, he supposedly confessed when the whole thing happened over 50 years ago. On October 27th, he supposedly gave two, not just one, statements to the police; both of which he signed, supposedly of his own freewill. So really, the article contains a third confession! That's a lot of confessions, given how few criminals actually confess at all. But three confessions is perhaps not strange in a case in which there are at least two, though I think the correct number is three, notes! Why another confession? One possibility may be the life-context this confession occurs within; i.e. the person's role as a born-again Christian seeking to work with troubled and wayward souls. Don't get me wrong, that is as noble a calling as there is, and one that is worth the utmost respect. And we all know that to get the respect of wayward souls, particularly if there is a common wayward background, as an inducement to listen and hopefully change their lives, someone with their wayward experience is mandated. Drug addicts will listen to other, former drug addicts (I know what Narcotics Anonymous says!) more than those without such a shared waywardness. So in confessing, he really re-confesses, as it were. I repeat, I am not saying that his confession isn't the truth. What I will say is that there are several components that I find troubling about the contents of the article. If one confesses to what one has done, then it should be a relatively straightforward affair. It will make sense; it will "ring true." These are elements that give me cause to think.
"Anything abusive or torturous was done."
This is simply not true. It is hyperbole; gross exaggeration. That is not quibbling. It was noted that there are only a couple of features of the canonical story that would approximate "torture." All of these features will be discussed in due time. But it can be said here that they are seriously undermined by various facets. These include 150 cigarette burns; scalding; and mutilation by "scratching" and branding. Otherwise, the witness present various little stories of assault and bullying. It is strange that the murder is a "torture murder" when so many things that could have been done, weren't done. I quote a line from an interesting movie about a young woman assaulted by a psychopath: "There's over a hundred tortures in the average living room." Think about the average house! Or even a run-down house. Hammers, screwdrivers, pliers, wrenches; saws; yard implements; the kitchen contains all manner of knives. There are light sockets and wires from lamps. The point is not one of horror or morbidity. The point is that if stories about "torture", true other otherwise, are encountered, it would have been so easy to create stories about things which could be regarded as torture. In his police statement, John stated that he had burned Sylvia with matches. Then he proceeded to state that his mother burned Sylvia far many more times than he did. However, the witnesses do not speak about repeated burnings, despite Dr. Kebel's over-the-top hyperbole about 150 burns on the extremities (averaging 38 cigarette burns per limb). I think I know how Kebel got his number of 150 burns: 15x10= 150. More on that elsewhere. They speak of scalding with hot water, but make the serious mistake, which people seem so willing to overlook, of describing kitchen sink and bathtub scenes where the perpetrators would be just as burned by the scalding water as their victim. So self-torture went hand-in-hand with torture! A neighborhood girl, and the lady of the house, burn Sylvia. But nothing on the scale indicated by Dr. Kebel, and we get one bizarre story that depicts the "burning" as due to Gertrude lighting matches, throwing them at Sylvia and thereby setting her clothes on fire. Then she quickly puts out the fire, and does it again. Leave it to children to come up with stories of abuse, i.e. to explain what they saw in Photo 1, they will inevitably come up with games. And a game is exactly what the witness is describing. Then the statement: "Finally, it all took its toll, and after two weeks of intense torture the girl passed away." It is subjective I admit, but the testimony and the evidence do not bear this statement out. Yet another statement that has been tossed around for 50 years: "Blake is a murderer, convicted in one of the most bizarre and sadistic crimes the state of Indiana has ever seen." Most sadistic? Anyone who reads anything about what generations of serial killers have done would be sickened. Torturing for sport, before murdering their young female victims. And not punching, kicking, pushing down the stairs, not throwing matches at someone. Not giving their victims icky pairs to eat. These psychopaths would not have turned their backs for one moment on the myriad of items laying around the house that could inflict real torture. So the lack of real torture in the case makes the claim somewhat confusing. In fact, it makes it nonsense. The witnesses described Gertrude as treating Sylvia's sores, giving her food to eat, and other such things that are not compatible with this claim, which I suspect owes its continued existence to the habit of simply repeating things others have said so many times over so many years without really thinking about them.
"I hate to even say some of the things we did" is also odd.
It was in his two statements to the police that he did just that. But go back and read those statements, and one has a hard time finding "torture". In those statements, he admitted to the following
- Hitting Sylvia with his fists
- Burning Sylvia with matches
- Spanked her once
- Knocked her down the stairs
- Put a gag in her mouth
This was what John, then Johnny, said he did to Sylvia. Apart from the claim about the matches, there isn’t the trace of torture in this list. I will be posting another essay about confessions. A part 2. In that one, I will argue that the statements made by Paula and Johnny were forced out of them by the police. So the problem with confessions is also the problem with statements. But I would point out one notable problem in Johnny’s first statement. It’s on the claim about knocking Sylvia down the stairs:
Q. Did you ever knock her down the stairs?
A. Twice I done it, I think.
He “thinks.” I think that he was just throwing out a number and hoping that it would please his tormentors. In fact, the witness testimony will attest to numerous trips that Sylvia supposedly made down the stairs after being pushed. This is impossible, and in the case of the basement steps, one push down those steps would be, and I believe ultimately was, fatal. But John had nothing to do with that. Someone else, or someones else, who served no time in jail, did. At least one witness stated that it was Gertrude who burned Sylvia with matches.
The claims made by the police about what various characters had admitted to doing to Sylvia are no more problematic than in Johnny’s case. This was Kaiser’s testimony:
A. If you want me to testify entirely, I would have to have my notes, sir.
Q. The question is, is it necessary for you to refresh your recollection by reading those notes as to what you testified to yesterday, is it?
A. Yes.
Q. Alright, what else did Gertrude Baniszewski tell you?
MR. BOWMAN: We object.
THE COURT: Sustained as to defendants Coy Hubbard and John Baniszewski. Overruled as to defendant Gertrude Baniszewski.
A. During our conversation, she stated before Hobbs marked Sylvia with the needle, she asked her if she knew what a tattoo was. During the conversation, she stated - I asked why she kept Sylvia down in the basement and Mrs. Wright stated she wet the bed. I asked if the reason she did wet the bed was because everyone beat her so much it may have injured her kidneys. She answered that she did not know. During the conversation, Mrs. Wright stated she knew her son Johnny had marked Sylvia with a hot poker. During our conversation, she stated Coy Hubbard did a lot of the beating.
This is testimony given during the trial. In another posting it will be proven that Kaiser’s claim about Sylvia’s kidneys is false. But notice the claim about the “hot poker.” According to Kaiser, Gertrude said that Ricky marked Sylvia with a needle, and that Johnny marked Sylvia with a hot poker. What is he doing? He is claiming that what he was told was that the double event that happened on Saturday, i.e. cutting the slogan into Sylvia’s abdomen, and then branding her on the chest, were done by two different kids. Yet Ricky would claim responsibility for both. In fact, the mark branded on the chest was, as described by Ellis, a number 3. This could not have been made with the eye-hook that was photographed in the basement sink. How much more impossible it was to make it with the furnace poker! I would argue that the brand mark, which was present on Photo 1 Girl and not Sylvia, was made with an object which the police, and all the witnesses, could never identify. But since the scene of this horrible event, which in the case of the real branding may have been voluntary, was to become Gertrude’s basement. At the time of Kaiser’s “conversation” with Gertrude, the official canonical story had not taken its full, and fully ludicrous, form yet. There were initial teething troubles, such as the branding. How was it done? How was it to be said it was done? I think those who shaped the canonical story were at a loss. The best suggestion was the furnace poker. This was far better than the stupid eye-hook. Why? That’s obvious- it could be left inside the furnace until it was red hot, and then could be held long enough by the culprit to allow him or her to inflict the injury on Sylvia. The problem? There’s no way to make a number 3, or a letter “S”, with it. It could have been placed on the skin, but a number 3? What did he do? Stand over the girl, put the tip of the poker on her skin, and then slowly trace a number 3 like he was holding a felt-tip marker? As she screamed, squirmed, writhed..etc, and made a good, solid number 3? I think that such an approach would simply have made a horrific mess, not result in a clearly discernable number 3. There is of course the fact that the witnesses couldn’t agree as to whether it was a number 3 or a letter “S”. And no explanation for it’s significance was ever offered. What did it mean? Why make a number 3? Who made the number 4? That was cut into the skin, not burned. I think it was in light of the realization that a number 3 could not have been made with the poker caused a shift in the lie. A photo had been taken of one of the sinks in the basement. It contained burnt paper and an eye-hook. I will prove in a separate posting that the eye-hook couldn’t have possibly made a number 3, and clearly not the number 3 as described by Ellis. Moreover, burning paper in the sink could never have got the eye-hook hot enough to serve as a branding iron. I think the burnt paper in the sink resulted when someone burned Gertrude’s original notes in order to switch them out with the Gang of Boys note, and the eye-hook was lying in the sink after the basement was altered so as to serve as the real crime scene. To put it better, altered so as to serve as a crime scene. I think that the basement was originally crisscrossed with clothes lines held in place by eye-hooks screwed into anchors in the walls. When the basement was altered, these lines were removed, and the eye-hooks torn out. One landed in the sink, and the person responsible for altering the basement didn’t notice it. But! There it is..in the picture. And! The poker won’t work! So an even more ridiculous part of the canonical story emerged. But it hadn’t until a few days later, at the earliest. So now, Johnny didn’t do it at all! Ricky did both. But, we have this in John’s first statement:
Q. Were you present when Ricky Hobbs scratched Sylvia on the stomach and burned her?
A. No, I wasn't but he did it.
So! Considerable confusion, it would seem. Ricky burned Sylvia, and Johnny marked her with a hot poker. Please, someone make up their mind! Wait, they did by the time of the trial. Or did they? The same “hot poker” nonsense came up in Gertrude’s testimony:
Q. I will ask you if it is not a fact you told Officer Kaiser you also knew your son John marked Sylvia with a hot poker?
A. I did not tell him any such thing as that, no, sir.
Back to that again? Good lies and bad lies have at least one thing in common; i.e. it can take some time to get them straight, especially if those responsible for them are none too bright. When those involved are very none-too-bright people, they may never get straight.
The other witnesses also manage to find a way to describe the things that they supposedly did to their guest. Dr. Kebel and Dr. Ellis describe what they saw on the body (perhaps, "bodies") in detail, and discuss some of the ways the abuse may have been inflicted. I'm sure he's not saying so, but if there were any other types of abuse beyond those covered by the witnesses, the police and/or ME personnel would have described it. What was so horrible? On first take, the cutting of the slogan on the girl's abdomen. Johnny is not described as involved in that. So too the branding, though he had nothing to do with it. Burning is horrible too. But these claims were already made 50 years ago, and thus “said” already many times over.
"The Young and Deadly." Definitely a grabber of a title! "John Blake was 12 and a killer in 1965..." Really? A killer? A killer is someone who kills someone. That's obvious. But where was John on October 26th? And what was he doing? Who "killed" the family's guest? Johnny is placed in the basement that night, along with other children. This I find to be unconvincing. He is credited with running bath water. This I also find to be unconvincing, but is certainly not "deadly" even if true. If the point was to drown the girl, then it would be. But that is not what the witnesses say happened; it was just a bath. He and/or Ricky are credited with going to the service station across the street and making the call that lead to Dixon being dispatched to the house. So Johnny didn't "kill" Sylvia. In fact, one reading of the events of October 26th, when the false, the improbable and the problematic are read in their own light, there was actually no corpus delecti; no actual murder. Based on the available record, the most that can be laid at Johnny's feet are allegations of abuse and bullying. Hitting, punching, kicking; pushing are things children commonly do to each other. It was head trauma that killed Sylvia, i.e. the real Sylvia. That I don’t doubt. But did John inflict it? He punched her in the head. If that was regarded as sufficient, then we wouldn’t be treated to a bunch of nonsense claims about how the fatal head trauma was inflicted; e.g. a broom, Sylvia hitting her head on the stairs, Gertrude smacking her on the head with a curtain rod. There can be no doubt that for some reason, the witnesses who tell the lies on the stand search and search for something to account for the head trauma, and all fall short. How easy it could have been! Here is my attempt to do so, presenting it in the guise of trial testimony.
Q. Did you ever witness anyone hit Sylvia on the head?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Who was that?
A. Mom.
Q. Do you mean Gertrude Baniszewski?
A. Yes.
Q. Please describe what happened.
A. Well, I saw Mom and Sylvia arguing in the kitchen.
Q. When?
A. The day Sylvia died.
Q. What happened at that time?
A. Mom got real mad, then she hit Sylvia on the head with the frying pan.
Q. How many times?
A. Well, she hit her once, and Sylvia fell down. Then Mom stood over her and hit her on the head a bunch more times!”
There it is. Well, there it would be. This is completely fictional. But how easy it is to simply make up a little story to account for fatal head trauma. That one took me about 10 seconds. This one took less time, and features a fictional neighborhood boy.
Q. How do you know the Baniszewskis?
A. I live down the street.
Q. Did you ever go over to Gertrude’s house?
A. Yes, sir, all the time.
Q. Why?
A. To play with all the kids.
Q. Did you ever hit Sylvia?
A. Yes, but I didn’t want to.
Q. What happened?
A. We was in the basement, and I hit her on the head.
Q. With what?
A. The big shovel.
Q. When was this?
A. The day Sylvia died.
Q. Why did you hit her?
A. Gertie made me. She said Sylvia called her a bad name.
One could go on forever doing this. But a curtain rod? A broom stick?
"Blake said his mother used drugs, abused alcohol and had sex with Wright in front of him and his brothers and sisters."
Straightforward and not so straightforward. Drugs- certainly, as long as it is remembered that the "drugs" was basically Phenobarbital. Later in prison, she had a problem with Valium. It should be emphasized that Gertrude was not involved in street drugs. No accusations of abuse of heroin, cocaine, LSD, or any other list of illicit drugs were made. Phenobarbital was, and still is, a legitimate pharmaceutical used for the treatment of different ailments. It has also been one that has a long history of abuse, and Gertrude was upfront and honest about her use of the drug. Alcohol? This one is tricky. Maybe. Simply put, at no point during the trial was Gertrude ever accused of being a drinker, much less having a problem with alcohol. It is telling that Jenny was specifically asked this question:
Q. Did you ever hear Gertrude Baniszewski use any profane language or indecent or filthy language?
A. Yes.
Q. More than one occasion?
A. Yes
Q. Did you ever see her drink any intoxicating liquor?
A. No
So Jenny clears Gertrude of being a drunk. In fact, the only association between Gertrude and alcohol is the claim by witnesses that, among other healing agents, Gertrude cleansed Sylvia's sores with alcohol. Just for the sake of being complete, it is worth noting the following:
Q. Were you ever refused credit at any of the stores because you would not pay your grocery bill?
A. I never run a grocery bill.
Q. The answer is "no"?
A. That is right.
Q. Isn't it a fact, some of the conflict between you and your wife was the economic necessity of you making more money there?
A. I don't understand.
Q. In other words, did you and your wife ever quarrel about your drinking?
MR. BOWMAN: We object.
THE COURT: Objection sustained.
This was one is even better:
Q. Now, Mr. Likens, did you ever indulge in the use of intoxicants during your married life?
A. Very much. I drank.
Q. You never got convicted, did you?
A. No, sir, I never drank that much.
These exchanges involved Jenny's father. So Gertrude was not a drunk, but Lester was. And I must confess, I’m glad that drinking “very much” didn’t lead to jail, as it often does. The issue of "gambling" was also raised during the trial, as was “negligence”, and an attitude that someone found rather troubling, and told a neighborhood woman. Who? She just so happened to be Darlene’s mother. At any rate, John's accusation of alcohol abuse leveled at his mother is clearly problematic.
His mother had "sex with Wright in front of him and his brothers and sisters." This one is troubling. All followers of the saga know that reference is being made to a companion of Gertrude. Well, according to the canonical story. Supposedly, the two had a son, who was just a baby in October 1965. He was younger than her, and nowadays, I doubt that too many people would see anything wrong with that per se; and I am referring to the age difference. True, older man and younger woman has been a pairing blessed by cultures world-wide all the way back to dim antiquity. Often, this was due to the fact that men did not obtain sufficient means to support a family until they were older. At any rate, the idea that the two had sex in front of John and his siblings is bizarre. Why? Well, we know from Stephanie that there were 3 bedrooms upstairs. We know that Gertrude had one of these bedrooms, and that Stephanie shared it with her. We also know that later, Gertrude and Stephanie moved downstairs, and a makeshift bedroom was set up in what was the dining room. That left little privacy to be sure. But Mr. Wright was gone by then. So if the context of the house on New York Street is imagined, then there was no problem with privacy before he was gone. That would leave intentional deviance if this occurred. If reference to living arrangement at a prior residence is imagined, and John Sr. stated that Gertrude and her kids lived with this Dennis Wright at a house on Lasalle and 13th Street..well, the same observation can be made. Privacy would have been available if sought. Of course, all of this depends totally on whether such a man ever really existed. That should be qualified. A man who fathered baby Denny by someone in the saga existed, though doubts may exist as to whether he had this name. I think of Stephanie, who much later in life, stated that she and Sylvia, while little children, pretended to be married to two little boys they knew at school. Who was Sylvia’s husband? Freddy Wright. He was someone who never existed. So Stephanie plays a little game, a la 1965, making up a fictional “husband” and giving him the surname Wright! Two Mr. Wrights! Two fictional Mr. Wrights? A fictional Mr. Wright and a non-fictional Mr. Wright? At any rate, if someone is in labor, and you take her to the hospital, they will want to know about the father. You could say…it was a ‘ships passing in the night’ sort of thing, and we don’t know where he is now. You could say that, even if you did know where he was, but didn’t want him involved. No one would question it. But you couldn’t give the baby your last name. So you make one up! Maybe you thought up a name in advance, and then insisted on being called Mrs. Wright. Everybody would believe it. Of course, it were true, then they should. Hey Stephanie! I will play a little game. As for the father of baby Denny, Mr. Wright turned out to be Mr. Wrong! That’s not bad. Ok, it was.
But if privacy was always available..I know! How about when Johnny is at school? The others will be in school too! Then you can do whatever suits your fancy, and have your privacy too. So we’re back to deviance. That it is what is strange. During the trial, an attempt was made to suggest that John's mother was in fact sexually deviant. Ricky:
Q. Did you ever have sexual relations with Gertrude Baniszewski?
A. No, sir.
Q. Did she ever fondle or touch you?
A. No, sir.
Q. Did she ever fondle or touch any of the neighbor boys who came in her home?
MR. ERBECKER: We object.
THE COURT: Objection sustained to the question.
Of course. There’s always a way to make the reprehensible even more reprehensible. The attorney couldn’t resist! Now if the answer to the question was really "yes", then Gertrude would be guilty of involvement with an under-age boy. But the answer to that question was "no", and it was not contested. Note this exchange:
Q. You testified, I believe, Friday that you were a friend of Gertrude Baniszewski's?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Were you some particular friend of Gertrude's? Is that why you gave that answer?
A. No, sir.
Q. Why were you not a friend of the children as well?
A. I was a friend of the children.
Q. Were you some particular friend of Gertrude's? Is that why you gave that answer?
The implication is obvious. But does Ricky describing Gertrude as his "friend" really mean anything? If it does, then the following exchange would be even more troubling:
Q. Who was a friend of yours over there, Sylvia?
A. Mrs. Baniszewski.
Q. Gertrude was your friend?
A. Yes, all of them was.
That is from the testimony of Darlene MacGuire. Oh. Awkward! So it was not out of the ordinary for neighborhood kids to view Gertrude as their friend. In the case of Ricky, something else can be noted. At the time, his mother was dying of cancer. He was just a child, and that situation had to have been traumatic and stressful for him, along with the rest of his family. To make a connection with another mother does not seem objectionable in any way. The implication that there was anything untoward is something I find repugnant. No need to go into the undoubted fact that it would have been impossible for an older woman to be in a satisfying physical relationship of any kind with a boy. There is a huge difference between a 14 year old boy, a 16 year old boy, and an adult man. Our ghost-like Mr. Wright was obviously the latter. The age difference there is irrelevant, assuming that it was Gertrude who was involved with the man held to be the father of Dennis Wright, and not someone else in the story. The most important consideration here is as follows; it is clear that an attempt was made to portray Gertrude as a sexual deviant. It seems incomprehensible that if what John says about the Gertrude/Mr. Wright goings-on was going on, that it wouldn't have been used against her during the trial. If such a claim was made, and corroborated by witnesses, i.e. John's siblings, then I feel sure that it would have been that, and not some sick attempt to vulgarize a friendship with a neighbor boy, that would have been used against her. So again, one of the claims in the interview is troublesome.
It should also be added that in the testimony, Gertrude is described as having a well-developed sense of modesty. This appeared in the story of how the slogan was placed on the girl's stomach, in the story when Sylvia was supposedly being placed in the bath tub on the night she died, in descriptions of her lecturing girls about appropriate behavior before marriage, and in her own revelation that she monitored the menstrual cycles of all the girls in the house, not just her own daughters. Interesting observations, at any rate.
"Sick with asthma and bronchitis, his mother didn't work. The family relied on John Baniszewski Sr.'s child-support checks, and when that didn't make ends meet, Blake and his siblings often stole or begged for food."
A small point; yet it is worth noting that his mother did work. Gertrude said that her ex-husband, although he was paying child support, didn't pay it the way he was supposed to pay it. According to her, this created problems. John Sr was supposed to pay $55.00 a week for child support. Gertrude said he was paying $110.00 every two weeks. There was a case in court over this issue. It is clear that with the number of mouths to feed, receiving the money weekly as she was due would have been far more helpful than getting paid every two weeks. So one might argue that part of what was making it hard to "make ends meet" was the fact that his mother wasn't receiving child support the way she was supposed to receive it. Gertrude also made it clear that she was also taking in "ironings" from neighborhood people. In other words, she was ironing clothes at home for extra income. This is left out of the statement noted above. It is also the case that no allegations whatsoever were made during the trial that Gertrude's children were begging for food. As for stealing, allegations were made that some of the children were shoplifting. But in at least one case, Sylvia, not Gertrude, was accused of masterminding this, and who can forget Marie's claim that Sylvia had brainwashed little Jimmy to steal from stores? But Sylvia was unable to brainwash Marie herself, due to the fact that Marie had hair. In other words, you can only brainwash someone without hair, presumably because hair impeded access to the brain, thereby making it hard to wash. Gertrude herself discussed the issue of stealing. She indicated that she had punished her kids for stealing, singling out Stephanie and Shirley by name. While Gertrude did state that at times food was lean, she also indicated that the children had food to eat.
"My mom would make me go down to the drugstore to get her illegal prescriptions from a certain pharmacist. She was addicted."
His mother was addicted; to Phenobarbital. Illegal prescriptions? We know that Gertrude was prescribed Phenobarbital. We know that it was Dr. Lindenborg who was giving it to her. This was not an illegal prescription. She does appear to have been given a lot of it, but the prescribing habits of the doctor are irrelevant here. The doctor testified at the trial, and described Gertrude's use of the drug. In fact, the doctor said something fascinating about this:
Q. How much phenobarbital did you give her - was it a prescription?
A. No, we dispense that to her directly.
My isn't that fascinating! No prescription after all. Just off to the doctor and get your supply. So no pharmacist. No need for subterfuge, or illegal means of getting it. No need to send a little boy to pick up your dope. According to the testimony, John did have a connection in at least one instance:
Q. You had been to the doctor's on October 23rd?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. What doctor?
A. Dr. Paul D. Lindenborg.
Q. You went to his office?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Where?
A. 30th and Arlington.
Q. How did you get there?
A. My son, John, and I went in a cab early that morning.
It's more than possible that her children picked up her drugs for her from time to time. But this would have been at the doctor's office, and they were not being obtained illegally, or from some mysterious and otherwise unattested shady pharmacist. I wonder! It seems strange. What? That a pharmacist selling drugs illegally, and giving them to a child to take to his mother as if he was running a take-out business like the local Chinese restaurant, would remain outside of prison long enough to make any money.
“Blake admits he had lots of behavioral problems, which is why he believes his mother sent him to live with his father, who still lives in Indiana.”
John’s father died on October 31, 2007. Now it was stated during the trial that John had serious behavioral issues. Gertrude made this claim:
Q. I will hand you what is marked State's Exhibit No. 15 and ask if you ever saw that before?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. What is it?
A. That is my ex-husband's police belt.
Q. Did you ever hit Sylvia Likens with that?
A. No, sir.
Q. Did you ever hit Jenny with it?
A. No, sir.
Q. Did you ever hit anybody with it?
A. Maybe several years ago.
Q. How many?
A. Maybe two or three years ago, three maybe.
Q. Why did you keep it unless you used it?
A. I did not keep it. If I remember, it was left at the children's father's house. He brought it over to correct Johnny with.
So Johnny was such a bad boy that his father went over to Gertrude’s house, not entering it of course, to give Gertrude a police belt to smack Johnny with. Why a police belt? Didn’t Gertrude have any belts? A smack with a belt is a smack with a belt! You smack a former policeman’s son with a former policeman’s belt? A former policeman brings over a former police dog? Women often wear rather thin belts, and I would imagine that a smack with a belt like that would hurt just as bad, if not worse. I’ll bet that if Gertrude were in a smacking mood, there were plenty of things in 3850 East New York Street with which to smack the intended child. The idea that Johnny was such a problem that it took a special police belt to discipline him seems over-the-top. Was Johnny the only disciplinary problem? Not if you listen to Gertrude. She’d go on and on about all the woes in her life, including problem children. This was one of many of her not-so-endearing personality traits. The only child who wasn’t a problem, as far as Gertrude was concerned, was Paula. And I’m certain that is true. But oh woe is me my children are such a problem:
Q. Now, you stated previously, if I am correct, that because of your general weakness and illness, that there were times you had delegated corporal punishment of your children to your daughter Paula?
A. That is right, sir.
Q. When you determined such corporal punishment was to be given, you directed Paula to do whatever you directed?
A. I never always told her to do it. Lots of times Paula did it on her own, you know, because she did not - she said she did not want to upset me - and she would go ahead and punish them.
Q. What did she do by way of punishment?
A. Not anything severe - spanking on the bottom.
Q. Who did she spank?
A. James, Marie and Shirley. Johnny she could not handle at all. Neither could I. Stephanie was her own boss. No one punished her. You could not punish her at all.
Again:
Q. Which of your children did you punish?
A. Shirley, Stephanie.
Q. How did you punish her for stealing?
A. They were usually kept in.
Q. Do you ever remember hitting Shirley for stealing?
A. Not any specific time, no.
Q. Did you hit any of your other children for stealing?
A. I imagine over a period of time I have whipped them for stealing.
Q. Did you hit them with anything besides your hand?
A. I don't recall hitting them with anything.
One more example:
Q. Did you ever have conversation about these girls about collecting bottles at the park?
A. Not collecting, no, sir.
Q. About anything with reference to their going around earning money?
A. Do I remember a conversation about it, sir?
Q. Yes.
A. This was mostly in regard to them and my children.
Q. What was it?
A. They had went in the grocery store and picked up bottles to cash in.
Q. Picked up empty bottles at the grocery store?
A. Inside the grocery store, sir.
Q. Who did that?
A. Shirley and Sylvia and Jenny.
Q. Anyone else?
A. That is all that I recall.
Q. How often did that happen?
A. On several occasions.
Q. Each time did you correct them?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. How did you correct them?
A. Made them go upstairs in their room and stay up there.
Q. How long?
A. Not over an hour or two.
Q. Were you there when they took the bottles?
A. No, I was not.
Q. How do you know they did?
A. Shirley Ann told me.
Q. Shirley Ann said she had stole bottles?
A. Shirley Ann told on them first and then told on herself?
Q. You say that was several times they had done this?
A. Yes, sir.
This one is great! And it is quite a scam. The three girls go into a grocery store, make their way over to the area where they keep empty soda bottles. Of course, you redeem these at the store for a nickel or a dime apiece. Then when the employees weren’t looking, you grab some bottles, walk to the front of the store to the cashier, and then cash the bottles in. A criminal operation on this scale takes three hoodlums pull off. Maybe one grabs some bottles, and two keep look out. Now I will say that this is very bold, and takes a lot of nerve. The odds, actually, the inevitability, of being caught are ultimately 100%. Perhaps one might say: "You can fool all the people some of the time, and some of the people all the time, but you cannot fool all the people all the time."
That is not a quote from one of the characters in the Saga. Note how the syndicate composed of three girls has done this successfully several times. And they got away with it every time! Until tattle-tale Shirley went, apparently all on her own, to tell on Sylvia and Jenny. Strange, seeing how Shirley was getting her share of the take. And, little Shirley isn’t smart enough to realize that if she suddenly, and for some unknown reason, decides to rat on her fellow conspirators, they would rat on her, and the criminal enterprise would fall apart without any actions on the part of law enforcement. No more candy money! I have a hard time believing this story. These children might have gotten away with this once, but not several times. In fact, Gertrude is said to have made Sylvia write the second note, which I think was really a letter, and bottles may be relevant:
I went to the park and was going to take some cokes out of a coke machine.
If the infamous Indianapolis pop bottle caper had really taken place, and Gertrude made Sylvia write the second note, then why not make her include her role in the criminal enterprise? And I really love this line of the letter. Sylvia didn’t actually take the cokes out of a coke machine. In a bizarre twist, Sylvia confesses to something she was “going” to do. More on that in a later posting. Maybe the machine dispensed cans. Who knows. But I seriously believe that Gertrude was lying. Why is that relevant here? Well, who wasn’t involved in stealing? Johnny. Why would you beat him with the belt, but only make three girls who Gertrude maintains stole from a store several times, stay in their room for no more than an hour or two? Go to your room and think about what you did! What did Johnny ever do that was so bad that Gertrude needed a police belt to beat him with? Several children were spanked. Did Marie, Jimmy, and Shirley ever get a taste of the police belt? I question whether Johnny was really that much of a disciplinary problem.
Certainly, if John Sr. felt compelled to arm Gertrude with a special, and rather intimidating, belt to use on Johnny, then he would have been all too aware of his son’s unrestrained feral nature. What did he say when asked if he disciplined Johnny?
A. Yes, sir, ordinary discipline, yes, sir.
I suppose all parents can say that.
After October 26th, Johnny was placed in juvenile lock-up. In fact, he was placed in the Marion Superior Court Juvenile Detention Center at 2451 N. Keystone Avenue, located at the corner of East 25th Street. No matter at what age, Juvenile detention is a tough place to be. And usually, you have to be tough if you’re there to avoid being a target of bullies and kids trying to move further up the delinquency food-chain. I would think that acting out would be a plus. Maybe, when you get there, go up to the first kid you see and beat him up. You’re making your statement to the other inmates. Helen Brand was a staff member at the juvenile center, and said this about Johnny:
Q. Ma'am, let me say that John's mother testified she could not control him. Can you?
A. We have no difficulty controlling John, no, sir.
And therein lies my problem. If we follow the canonical story, Johnny is ultra-violent. He brutalizes a sixteen year old girl, partly at his mother’s direction, and partly not. He burns her with matches, pounds on her with his fists, hits her in the head, stuffs a gag in her mouth, shoves her down the stairs. Kaiser says that the 12 year old boy maniacally inflicted a third-degree burn on the girl with a furnace poker. He was involved in scalding her with hot water. He is, on his mother’s admission, impossible to control. So much so, a special belt is designated with which to beat him. A monster! And yet, when he finds himself locked up with other dangerous children in a place where violence is prevalent, this young monster presents no problems to the staff there. Apparently, he’s not a disciplinary problem at a place where I would expect the violent monster to be causing problems with every step he took. No, he appears to have been, in reality, a totally different child than is made out else where in the trial transcript.
"My mom was a very selfish, very self-centered woman. My dad though, he was a very caring, average guy, but back then, custody always went to the mother."
There is much to be said in favor of the comments that John made about his mother. However, these comments overlook something that I think is crucial to understanding Gertrude; i.e. during the trial, she protected her children. Foremost, she refused to name which of her children gave her the Gang of Boys note. She risked life in prison, and even the electric chair, to protect her kids. Moving on, I make it clear that I am not making any disparaging comments about John’s father. But there is some testimony from the trial that I find worth pointing out. It appears in the testimony of the Social Services Nurse. I have written elsewhere that I believe that what she testified about Gertrude was false. However, she did make comments about Paula that I am less inclined to dismiss. Why? Because they do not contribute to what she was trying to accomplish; i.e. forwarding false claims about Gertrude. In fact, the comments sort of float around with no relevance to the context created in Barbara Sander’s testimony. This is often the sign of a kernel of truth. She says that she talked to Paula, and said this:
A. Yes, I talked to Paula. The main conversation I had with Paula, at the same time, she also expressed her great dislike - I guess you would say, or hate - for her and said she had called her names and so forth, and she went on to tell me how awful she was. We talked further about her father, Mrs. Wright's ex-husband, and how he did not pay support all the time and how she had troubles financially. We talked about this a little bit and her husband in service, Mr. Wright, that he did not pay support all the time either and she had a pretty difficult time financially and so forth and Paula went on to say how her own father, how she disliked him.
And:
Q. Was there any conversation about Mr. Baniszewski, the father of these children, paying any support?
A. I said this was mentioned.
Q. I beg pardon?
A. It was mentioned that he did not always pay.
Q. Who said that?
A. Mrs. Baniszewski.
Q. What did she say about it? Anything specifically that you remember?
A. No, other than Paula was mainly talking about how she did not like her father, did not like to visit him.
According to Sanders, Paula told her that she disliked her father and did not like staying with him. When John Sr. was on the stand, he was asked this:
Q. While Paula lived with you in Beech Grove, did she ever run away from your custody and go someplace else to live?
A. No, sir.
MR. RICE: We object.
THE COURT: Objection sustained. The answer will go out. The jury will ignore the answer in arriving at a verdict in this case.
Q. Did Paula ever try to inflict any injury on herself while she was living with you in Beech Grove?
MR. RICE: We object.
THE COURT: Objection sustained.
No surprise that we didn’t get an answer. Paula and Johnny were two different persons, who could obviously hold two different opinions. But the comments cited above are worth noting.
The last item worth noting is the fact that John uses the expression "that girl" instead of naming her. At first take, this is very odd. It is safe to assume that anyone interested in his "confession" will know that the girl is Sylvia Likens. Maybe. That is the canonical story and inherited wisdom. So why not name her? After all, it's a confession...right? It's not like he was tracked down and suddenly had a microphone stuck in his face. It's a confession, and one might expect that if you are going to confess to killing someone, you would be expected to name that someone. Especially if the audience already knows the identity of that person. The people in church certainly did. Well, they no doubt thought so. Of course, and I add this only as my own observation which in no way is that of the interviewer or interviewee, if you could see the girl in Photo 1 in your head, and you knew who that person was supposed to be, but didn't know who it really was, it might be hard to toss out a name. Those words are purely my own.
People confess to things for different reasons. The best reason by far is that they are guilty and seeking redemption. Other reasons come to mind. If you are being re-tried for something you didn't do, but your attorney says that you don't have a chance of being found not guilty, so he recommends that you enter into a plea bargain. By pleading guilty to a lesser charge, you stand a better chance of getting out of prison without some part of your life left to live. That occurred in this saga. Also, you can have been in prison for so long, that all you finally want is parole. The problem is, you won't be paroled unless you own up to what you did (but didn't really do) and show contrition before the parole board. After all, everybody believes you did it anyway. So confess to what you didn't do, and get a chance of living outside the walls of a prison. That happened too. Another reason for confessing is that you are a frightened child who did nothing wrong but was then threatened and bullied into confessing. That happened too.
But I also know that evangelical Christianity puts a strong emphasis on the confession of sin and seeking forgiveness and redemption from God. I believe that few things are more important than this, and I stand resolutely with this manifestation of the religion on this matter. But denial? Everybody believes you did it. Denial is simply not possible in the religious context just noted. A similar religious context plagued the cleric Roy Julian, who testified during the trial. Similar but different. You are a man of God, and your congregation knows that, in your capacity as pastor, and I have no doubts about the seriousness with which he took his calling, you had been in that house many times. You must have known about the atrocity being committed! And you, a man of God, did nothing! This is quite a bind, especially if nothing amiss had been occurring in that house. But people believe that something horrible was going on. So you were there and did nothing, because nothing was going on. No one will believe you. Just listen to the tales the children will tell! You might have to lie to save your ministry. After all, there is a greater good to be served. At any rate, it is impossible to state unequivocally that false confessions were made by anyone. Only they can say for sure. But there does seem to be a possible pattern of false confessions. Nonetheless, it is fair to examine the claims that people make, and raise questions and concerns if so needed. However one decides in the end about such things, at least one has a stronger basis for their convictions. And one of my convictions, or at least an opinion that could eventually become a conviction, is that although John was indeed young in 1965, he was never as deadly as he was made out to be.