Part 1 examined the confession that John Stephan Baniszewski Jr, i.e. Johnny, made much later in life. In the course of that examination, it was noted that confessions are given for different reasons, especially false confessions. In this part, I will look at the confessions made by Paula and Johnny on October 27th.

And one would think that when interrogating children, special procedures would be followed. Why? How easy would it be for one or more cops to push around and manipulate a pregnant 17-year-old girl and 12-year-old boy? Did either have the protection of an adult advocate while being interrogated? No. But still, the cops would surely handle them with kid gloves, as it were. If they were dealing with an adult, male criminal...well you would certainly deal differently with him than you would a child. Surely there would be special procedures in place for handling children. To begin with, I would think that a police department would have a general code of procedure for carrying out interrogations. That might help prevent some cops from violating people’s constitutional rights, such as threatening them. The IDP apparently didn’t have such a code, not if you ask Leo Gentry:

Q. When you undertake to carry on an interrogation, do you follow the procedure of interviewing officers would follow?
A. As a general rule, yes.
Q. What is the source, a list of instructions given from superior of yours?
A. No. I think each officer interrogates an individual to their own liking.

That’s great! Their own liking. And I’m sure there are no innocent people in prison. It gets better:

Q. May I ask you, Mr. Gentry, as a matter of procedure police officers use the same procedure in interrogation of people under twenty-one as you would in a reasonable, mature, intelligent person of forty-five?

A. This I don't know.
Q. Have you ever had occasion to take a statement, questions and answers, from an adult arrested on one charge or another?
A. No, sir.
Q. You have never had?
A. No.
Q. All your work is confined to juveniles?
A. Yes.
Q. Are you acquainted with the procedure?
A. Yes.
Q. Do you know whether or not the procedure used varies?
A. A little more leniency is given juveniles than adults.

It’s nice that they showed a “little more leniency” when interrogating a 12 year old boy (Johnny), a 15 year old boy (Coy), a 14 year old boy (Ricky), and a pregnant 17 year old girl (Paula) It comes as no surprise that there is no record or testimony relative to Stephanie, even though she was indicted by the Grand Jury for murder. Yes, murder, not Sylvia-flipping. But! She turned State’s Evidence, so everything went away. Of course, Gentry had never interrogated an adult, so what is the basis of this “little more leniency?” After all, any cop can interrogate any suspect any way he likes. And everything was done correctly. What about Paula, a pregnant teenager:

Q. Were you also aware she was at that time approximately six months pregnant?
A. No, sir.
Q. Were any of your colleagues aware of this?
A. No, sir, we asked her about this condition and she denied it.
Q. Why did you ask?

A. She became faint and it looked like morning sickness. I asked her at that time if she was pregnant and she said, no, she definitely was not.

Q. From her condition, you as an experienced husband and father, had the feeling she might be pregnant and she denied it?

A. I had this feeling.

Oh, come on! I asked her if she was 6 months pregnant and she said…no? She denied it? What nonsense! Why in the world would she have denied it? What purpose did that lie serve, i.e. this fictional lie supposedly told by Paula? None whatsoever. If Gentry’s testimony is lacking a certain degree of veracity, namely, an absurd statement that Paula lied, what purpose would that serve? That’s obvious. What would happen in court if the police had to admit that they pushed around a pregnant teenager? That they dealt with her, any way they saw fit? Perhaps the truth:

Q. I will ask you whether or not during the course of this interrogation, the defendant Miss Baniszewski stood or sat?
A. She was sitting.
Q. Did she sit all the time?
A. To my knowledge, yes.

Q. I will ask you whether or not in the course of this interview with the police officers Miss Baniszewski might not have been standing up against the wall and whether or not in substance it was stated to her as follows, "Tell all you know about this charge, this case or a murder charge may be filed against you", did you hear anyone say that?

A. I did not.
Q. You yourself did not say this?
A. I did not say this.

Q. I will ask you whether or not any promise was made to Miss Baniszewski with regard to the statement which she made, or these answers to your questions?

A. To my knowledge, no promises were made to her.
Q. Were any threats made?
A. No, sir.
Q. No one stood her against the wall or threatened her any way, to your knowledge, while you were there?
A. They did not.
Q. Could this have happened during the 40% of the time you were not there?
A. It is possible.

So apparently the pregnant teenager, who did not deny that she was pregnant, was forced to stand against a wall and threatened into making the confession she made. It didn’t happen when he was there, which was 60% of the time, but calculated abuse of the girl may have occurred during the 40% of the time when he was not there. Who else was present?

Q. Who else was present at that time?
A. There was myself and Policewoman Warner and possibly Lt. Crossen. I know he was in and out.

Nice call! No abuse of the girl happened when I was there. But Policewoman Warner, and/or Lt. Crossen, may have abused her. Surely Policewoman Warner and Lt. Crossen testified. What? They didn’t? Hmm, I wonder why. Another great question:

Q. Were any of the officers wearing their weapons at this time?
A. Yes, I was wearing mine.
Q. Do you know whether or not Miss Warner was, at that time?
A. She keeps it in her handbag.
Q. She had her handbag with her?
A. I don't recall whether she had it in the room with her.

So when interrogating a pregnant, 17-year-old girl, it’s important to be armed. Oh, yes, because while she’s being abused and forced into a false confession, letting her see your weapon now and then would surely help matters along. What about Policewoman Warner, the cop who may have abused Paula? Well, Gentry certainly left that possibility open. Was she armed? I don’t know. She keeps her weapon in her purse! If you’re a cop, then you keep your weapon in part of your belt, or in a holster strapped around your shoulder. One must admit, it keeps you from leaving your weapon somewhere by accident. I hope Policewoman Warner never accidentally left her purse…Hey! I’ve seen female police officers. They’re in just as much danger at any given time as their male counterparts. I’ve never seen a policewoman, or a picture of one, swooping into action with her purse over her shoulder. You suddenly rush into a liquor store being held up by a couple of thugs. They wheel around and point their guns at you. “Hey, please wait! I have to get my gun out of my purse! Wait! I left my purse in the car! I’ll be right back! Of course, Gentry can’t remember if our policewoman had her purse with her while Paula was being interrogated. If he’s ever at a robbery, and she’s his partner, I hope he keeps an eye on her purse. Was she a uniformed officer, or a plain-clothes detective?

Q. Was the lady who signed her name on the document as an attesting witness, was she present?
A. She was.
Q. Was she in uniform?
A. This I do not recall.

This I do not recall. I’m sure that all people of my generation get a strange sense of Deja Vue when they hear this line. It featured prominently in testimony relative to the Iran-Contra Scandal. And in the Sylvia Likens Scandal…I mean, the Sylvia Likens Case, “I do not recall” proved particularly popular. It was even used by individuals, professionals, such as Dr. Shuck, who surely had paper records or files that would provide specific and precise answers to the questions asked. Alas. And I would think that police interrogations were thoroughly documented. I believe that they are, and were. This would be invaluable if the police found themselves unjustly accused, as they have been many times, of abuse or irregularities. But that will not be the case here.

So he doesn’t remember about the purse, therefore he doesn’t know if she was armed. But he doesn’t know if she was in uniform or not. Gentry reminds me of Officer Dixon, Mr. See-Hear-Know nothing that goes on around me. Now ladies, tell me if there isn’t male chauvinism, in addition to the whole “purse” thing, in this:

 Q. The typewriter, I take it, is one customarily there and frequently used in this type of work?
A. Yes, it is.
Q. Did you do the typing?
A. No.
Q. Who did?
A. Policewoman Warner.
Q. She sat at the machine?
A. She sat at the machine.

Of course, the woman did the typing. She’s sort of a maybe in uniform, maybe not in uniform, might have her purse and therefore maybe her gun or might not have had her purse and therefore left her gun lying around wherever she left her purse, couldn’t tell that Paula was pregnant, who’s stuck with doing the administrative work, yet may have abused Paula during the 40% of the time Gentry wasn’t actually in the room, kind of gal. At least in this case. But it gets better. Gentry’s testimony puts our very strange policewoman in an even more questionable light:

Q. The typewriter was in your view all the time?
A. Yes.

Q. You are prepared to say also you heard all the answers that were given in response to those questions by Miss Baniszewski?

A. I was not in the room, present, at all times. I was there, I would say, approximately 60% of the time. I was there when the statement was read to her in full. I was there when she signed it and when Policewoman Warner signed it.

Q. As far as your presence during the questions and answer period is concerned, your signature attests that you were there. You were there 60% of the time and heard 60% of the questions and answers at the time they were asked?

A. I would say that, yes.

So why doesn’t he say that he was there for an hour? Or 45 minutes? I’m sure that Gentry, unlike many other witnesses, actually had a watch. It is rather odd that you would say that your were there for 60% of an event. Could it have been 65%? 69%? And notice the logical fallacy. If you were present for 60% of an interrogation, then you would be there for 60% of the questions...yes or no? Gentry says yes. But what I’m sure of is that not all the questions, asked and answered, were of the same length, or that the answers did not take the same amount of time. Did you do it? No! That took a couple of seconds. Tell us about anything your mother did to Sylvia! Well, obviously, that could take a lot more time to answer. Depending upon which questions were asked when, 60% of time he may be in the room to hear 70% of the questions and corresponding answers, or maybe only 48%. Paula’s written statement was State’s Exhibit No. 27. The exhibit was right there. If we wanted to know how many questions Gentry was present to hear, why not just have him look at the exhibit and identify the questions he heard?

This whole 60/40 thing that Gentry came up with, let’s nail it down even more, if we can. I’m sure that if we look at the documentation involving Paula’s interrogation, we can arrive at something more definite. When did it begin?

Q. When did you next see her?
A. I would say approximately 9:00 o'clock of 9:15 the next morning.
Q. Where did you see her?
A. Juvenile Branch of the Police Department.

Wait, can you be more specific please? Did this start at 9:00 or 9:15? “I would say”; what kind of answer is that? Let’s ask it again:

Q. Do I recall correctly you said the interview began approximately 9:00 o'clock in the morning with you and the defendant and the other two officers?

A. It was in the neighborhood or 9:00 or 9:30.

Wow! We’ve just tacked on another 15 minutes! And still: “approximately.” More:

Q. Could it have been earlier, around 8:30?
A. No, because we don't go to work till 8:00. She had to be brought in from the Juvenile Center.
Q. Would you say the hour of 9:00 was a fair approximate time for beginning?
A. I would say close to 9:00.
Q. When did the interview terminate?

A. It lasted approximately forty-five minutes. It could have gone on a little longer or it could have been a little less.

Q. It could have been an hour and a half?
A. I don't think so.
Q. But an hour at least?
A. It could have. Along with the statements we made face sheets.

So Gentry’s statements are utterly worthless. It started between 9:00 and 9:15, although it may have started between 9:00 and 9:30, except that it started around 9:00. How about 8:30? No way, we don’t get to work until 8:00. How long did the interrogation take “approximately 45 minutes.” But could it have been at least an hour and half? I don’t think so. Could it have been at least an hour? “It could have.”

Possible start times:

9:00 am

9:15 am

9:30 am

Possible durations:

45 minutes

1 hour

1 hour and 30 minutes (he doesn’t think so).

So the interrogation could have taken place:

9:00 – 9:45 am

9:00 – 10:00 am

9:15 – 10:00 am

9:15 – 10:15 am

9:30 – 10:15 am

9:30 – 10:30 am

That doesn’t even take into account permutations based on possibilities of less than 1 hour and 30 minutes. No wonder that Gentry gives us the ridiculous “I was there 60% of the time…he doesn’t seem to know when this interrogation took place. After all, 60% of the time can apply to any of the time slots noted above. Apparently, IPD officers interrogating a 17-year-old girl did not have document the beginning time, the ending time, or the amount of time this went on. So how do I know that this didn’t go on for 2 hours? 3 hours? Actually, we get an interesting answer to this question at another point in the testimony:

Q. How long would you say you saw her the morning of October 27, when you took the statement?
A. That morning I probably saw her approximately two hours I would imagine.

Approximately two hours? I don’t think that any more comments are necessary. The statements about time and duration are utterly worthless.

Now Paula’s statement consisted of 10 questions and 10 answers:

Statement of Paula Marie Baniszewski, female/white/17, of 3850 East New York Street, Indianapolis, Indiana, to Policewoman Harriet Warner and Sgt. Leo Gentry, Juvenile Branch, Indianapolis Police Department, on October 27, 1965.

Q. What is your name and where do you live?
A. Paula Marie Baniszewski, 3850 East New York Street.
Q. What school do you attend and what grade are you in?
A. I go to Tech High School, in the 10th grade.
Q. Do you know why you are in the Juvenile Branch?
A. Yes, because you want to know what happened to Sylvia Likens.

Q. Will you tell us in your own words what you know about Sylvia Likens regarding the facts leading up to her death?

A. Yes, I will tell you.
Q. When did Sylvia Likens and her sister Jenny Likens, come to live with you?

A. Around July 4, 1965, both girls stayed overnight. Mr. Likens, wanted my Mom, to care for both girls, while he and his wife travelled state to state, working for fairs.

Q. Did you ever punish or strike Sylvia Marie Likens?

A. Yes, my dad gave my Mom, a mans police belt, to punish us kids with, and in three months I beat Sylvia Likens with this police belt, about twenty-five times on her but, leaving bruises, on the first of August, 1965, I broke my wrist when I hit Sylvia Likens in the jaw, leaving a bruise. I have pushed Sylvia Likens, several times down the stairs steps, I knocked her down the stairs once. I have thrown a coke bottle at Sylvia Likens, and I given her a black eye.

Q. Will you tell us where Sylvia Likens slept in your house?

A. Yes, upstairs with the girls, until this past week and a half. Sylvia Likens wet and shit on the bed, so Mom made her sleep on the pad down in the basement, and she was kept down in the basement in the daytime.

Q. Have you ever seen your mother beat upon Sylvia Likes, or punish her?

A. Yes, I have seen Mom hit Sylvia Likens, with her fist on the face, and she has thrown coke bottle at her, and I have seen my Mom beat Sylvia Likens, about ten times with a board, four times during the past week. I have seen my Mom hurt Sylvia Likens, on the arms, back, and legs, with a cigarette about fifteen times during the past week. Mom pushed Sylvia down the stair steps several times during September.

Q. Will you tell us who placed a gag in Sylvia's mouth, and who tied her up with a rope?

A. During this past week and a half, my brother Johnny Baniszewski, M/W/12, put a gag in Sylvia's mouth and tied her up about three times up stairs in the bedroom, and twice he did the same thing while she was in the basement. Johnny teased Sylvia and made fun of her. Sylvia, was tied at the wrists and ankles, sometimes with rope, sometimes with a piece of cloth.

Q. Can you tell us who burned and scratched Sylvia on her stomach?
A. I was not there when it happened, I was told that Rick Hobbs did it.

I have read the foregoing statement and it has been read to me by officer Warner, and it is the truth and I will sign the same of my own free will, and have been advised that I did not have to make a statement, and that I could have an attorney.

These are fairly short questions, and fairly short answers. This took how long? It took a whole hour.  Oh, maybe 45 minutes. No! It took 2 hours! And given our 60/40 numbers, Gentry was present for 6 questions, and consequently, 6 answers. It’s just me I’m sure, but the number and length of the questions and answers does not begin to fit the amount of time given; well, the possible amounts of time given. I wasn’t the only one with doubts:

Q. Now, Mr. Gentry, are you telling this court and this jury a single page statement made to you by Miss Baniszewski, consisting of ten questions and ten answers, totaling something less than five hundred words, took approximately one hour to ask, record and get signed?

A. There were other papers made out.
Q. During this same time?
A. During this period, yes.
Q. What were these papers?
A. These papers are face sheets, address slips and there was a juvenile delinquency petition made out.

Ah! That’s it…all the paperwork! And we know from TV that cops have lots of paperwork. It’s too bad that not all of them have Administrative Assistant Harriet Warner…sorry, Policewoman Administrative Assistant Harriet Warner, the gal with the loaded purse, assuming she has it with her at the time. We learn from Gentry that although the interrogation was over, Paula had to sit, or stand, around while Ms. Warner filled out all the other paperwork. Hang on, we’ll take you back after everything else is done in triplicate. I hope Harriett was a good typist, otherwise the period of time that the pregnant teenager was stuck in the interrogation room would become even longer, depending on how many times Officer Loaded Purse had to use the Liquid Paper, and maybe a problem with typing skills resulted in a two-hour interrogation.

Now I would point out something else. According to Gentry, Johnny’s interrogation and statement took about the same time as that of Paula. How many questions was Johnny asked? Well, 10 of course. That’s interesting, both are asked 10 questions and give 10 answers, and the amount of time, although we’re not actually sure when, or how long, these interrogations went on, is the same. That’s nice and neat. So one of the two wasn’t more difficult to get answers out than the other. Both sat down at the table and quickly and efficiently answered 10 questions in a manner which made the whole thing rather convenient for the police. Well, unless Paula was interrogated for 2 hours, then the whole thing blows up in our face. If that’s the truth, then it took twice as long to get 10 answers out of Paula than it took to get 10 answers out of Johnny. I suspect that Paula was pretty tough, and that getting her to make her statement wasn’t that easy.

The poor policewoman. Gentry was prepared to throw her under the bus. That’s assuming that she was even there. But if she was, then she might just be responsible for the clear indicator that the statement made by Paula had been altered:

Q. Do you have any reason to believe there is any inclusion that was not actually the verbatim words of Miss Baniszewski?

A. No, I have no reason to believe that.

Q. Directing your attention to Exhibit No. 27, the ninth question reads, Q. "Will you tell us who placed a gag in Sylvia's mouth, and who tied her up with a rope"?. The answer to question No. 9 reads as follows, "During this past week and a half, my brother Johnny Baniszewski, M/W/12, put a gag in Sylvia's mouth and tied her up about three times upstairs in the bedroom, and twice he did the same thing while she was in the basement. Johnny teased Sylvia and made fun of her. Sylvia, was tied at the wrists and ankles, sometimes with rope, sometimes with a piece of cloth". Did Miss Baniszewski say capital M, diagonal, W, diagonal, 12?

A. No, sir.

Q. That part of the statement, purported to be a true and correct representation of her answer to the questions, actually was not put in the statement by Miss Baniszewski, was it?

A. She was asked the boy's age.

So apparently Paula knows police jargon. Maybe she learned it from her cop and not-cop father? She was asked about the boy’s age. How did Gentry and policewoman I-do-all-the-typing-because-I-am-female (see below) know that Paula didn’t lie? Go to hell! I didn’t do nothing! My brother? He’s 18! Hah! Now I would think that if a 17-year-old girl was giving a confession, and that she actually did everything she would be accused of doing, why wouldn’t she lie? If I was involved in the interrogation, would I believe her? What would happen if I typed in M/W/18, only to be dragged into Captain Whoever’s office to be harangued because my administrative assistant typed in 18 when the truth was 12? I would kick myself for simply believing the suspect, converting her answer into police jargon, and then having my secretary type it into the official, police statement Exhibit document. Then it’s wrong. What will happen to this exhibit in court?

I wonder why Paula was asked Johnny’s age, which they surely knew, because Johnny was in his own interrogation room, which I think may have been next to the one Paula was in, and at the very least, would have known the details about Johnny before interrogating Paula. Notice that she wasn’t asked the age of suspect M/W/14; also known as Ricky Hobbs.

That’s not much to go on, someone would probably say. Perhaps that’s true, so let’s move on to a much more substantial thing:

Q. Mr. Gentry, do you know how many copies were made of the statement admitted as State's Exhibit No. 27, purporting to be the voluntary statement of Paula Marie Baniszewski?

A. I believe there were five.
Q. Five copies?
A. Yes.
Q. Were the copies made in your presence?
A. Yes.
Q. All of them based on the original?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. There was no second original made?
A. There were copies, there were Photostats.
Q. Copies were Photostatted by a mechanical means?
A. Yes.
Q. Therefore, every copy is like unto every other copy?
A. I would think so, yes.

Q. Would you tell us where the signatures attesting the witnesses and the signature of Paula Marie Baniszewski, where she voluntarily subscribed to the statement, were placed on this statement?

A. They were placed at the bottom.
Q. At the bottom of the page?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. I will ask you whether or not you also put your signature at the bottom of this page?
A. Yes.

Q. Now, do you happen to know whether or not extra copies of the statement were made and placed in the office of the Marion County Coroner and set down as transcripts in the death of Sylvia?

A. I don't know.
Q. You don't know where other copies are at the present time?
A. No, sir.

Q. If I produce for your examination what purports to be a copy of the statement of Paula Marie Baniszewski, signed by you, with your signature on the side of the sheet instead of at the bottom, as you have just testified, would that surprise you?

The question of Leo Gentry’s signature is important. The issue is as follows:

Leo Gentry’s signature is the one in the middle. The other copy…

The copy is terrible, but it is clear that Leo Gentry signed on the side of the document, not at the bottom. So why is this?

Q. I hand you Exhibit "A" and ask you to observe the writing thereon to which Mr. Rice has referred, purporting to be your signature. Is that your signature?

A. I believe I signed it there due to the fact there was not room enough to sign it at the bottom.
Q. That is your signature?
A. Yes.

But this is simply not true. Looking again…

But the second copy…

There is plenty of room to sign at the bottom. So Gentry is lying and attempting to come up with a way to explain the fact that the two documents are different documents.

Q. I will show you what has been marked Defendant's Exhibit "A" on behalf of Paula Baniszewski, and ask you whether or not this is not a mimeographed or Photostatted copy of the statement you hold in your left hand, marked Exhibit No. 27 for the people?

A. This is possibly a copy of the original statement.
Q. Where is your signature on this copy?
A. This is on the copy and it would be on the side.
Q. It is not at the bottom, as in the copy you hold in your left hand?
A. No.

And is worth noting that Paula’s signature is not the same on the two documents…

These are not the same signature. I’m not saying that someone forged Paula’s signature. The important point is that these two documents were signed at different times, which clearly indicates that Gentry is lying. So now we know that Paula’s statement, which had been bullied out of her by forcing her stand against a wall as a 60/40 police officer with his weapon threw questions at her, had been tampered with beyond the M/W/12 insertion. Five copies of the statement were made…

Q. Mr. Gentry, do you know how many copies were made of the statement admitted as State's Exhibit No. 27, purporting to be the voluntary statement of Paula Marie Baniszewski?

A. I believe there were five.

Q. Five copies?

A. Yes.

Q. Were the copies made in your presence?

A. Yes.

Q. All of them based on the original?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. There was no second original made?

A. There were copies, there were Photostats.

Q. Copies were Photostatted by a mechanical means?

A. Yes.

Q. Therefore, every copy is like unto every other copy?

A. I would think so, yes.

Photostat machines were the precursor to the Xerox Copy Machine. How were the additional copies used? Where did they go? Gentry has no idea. Why did one of them get filed in the coroner’s office? Did Kebel or Ellis see this statement? Kebel couldn’t have seen it before he supposedly “seen” the body he supposedly “seen” because if he had gone to Gertrude’s house, it was the day before Paula gave her statement. Ellis said that he did his autopsy at 9:30 pm on the night of October 26th, although it seems rather odd that also present was “the two officers.” Which officers? Was Kaiser one of them? And why does the newbie Pathologist need to have two homicide officers breathing done his neck during an autopsy? Also present was a “photographer from identification.” Dixon said this:

Q. How long did you stay there after you called - who did you call, the coroner?
A. I called the coroner and our identification and homicide division.

I thought that the pathologist carried out a scientific autopsy, meaning that he simply carried out procedures and performed the necessary tests to produce the official autopsy record. I would think that having two homicide detectives, probably two detectives who were at Gertrude’s house, who had already questioned suspects, present as Ellis performed the autopsy would be inimical to an unbiased autopsy. What did they do? Help our very new pathologist? Maybe they were giving him tips on how to do the job correctly. Maybe Ellis could ask them how to do this, and how to do that. I don’t think so. I think that it would have been easy to influence the results of the autopsy, and possibly skew or outright falsify them, if two detectives were standing over the pathologist’s shoulder. Ellis will falsely say that the eyehook could have made the Number 3, except that there was no possible way it could have, and he knew that based on the dimensions of the Number 3 he included in his testimony. Perfect circles don’t make ovals. Could a couple of homicide detectives have impressed upon Ellis the need to say this? And who was the “photographer from identification?” Dixon again:

Q. How many pictures were taken at your request?
A. I did not count them.
Q. One or two?
A. Several sides of the demised.
Q. About half a dozen?
A. I would say approximately.
Q. You were there when these were taken?
A. Yes.
Q. You more or less supervised the taking of them?
A. No, sir.
Q. Who did?
A. Identification.
Q. Identification?
A. Yes, sir.

Other works on this website have shown that the Mattress photo was substantially altered and falsified. Along the same lines, the Room photo was shown to be utterly worthless. But who was involved with these photos? One might think that it was “Identification” as Dixon put it, i.e. the photographer who took the pictures in Gertrude’s house on October 26th. Was the same photographer the “photographer from identification” who, along with two homicide detectives, were present at the autopsy? It was suggested in “A Trick of the Light” that the photograph of Sylvia’s face was taken post-autopsy. Wow! Now we know that a photographer from Identification was present at the autopsy at 9:30 pm on the same night, and possibly may have been the same guy who had been taking pictures in Gertrude’s house early that evening. That’s interesting. Still, and it’s just me, I would think that the police would get a copy of the pathologist’s report, rather than the pathologist receiving a copy of Paula Baniszewski’s statement.

Now Gentry says that he naturally signed Paula’s statement, and that this was at the bottom of the page. That only makes sense. He also says that “I have read the foregoing statement and it has been read to me by officer Warner, and it is the truth and I will sign the same of my own free will, and have been advised that I did not have to make a statement, and that I could have an attorney” was also at the bottom of the page. So now to the clincher:

Q. If I produce for your examination what purports to be a copy of the statement of Paula Marie Baniszewski, signed by you, with your signature on the side of the sheet instead of at the bottom, as you have just testified, would that surprise you?

MR. NEW: We object.
THE COURT: Objection as to that particular question sustained.

Q. I show you, Mr. Gentry, what has been marked State's Exhibit No. 27, identified by you, offered and presented in evidence. I will ask you to tell the jury and court where your signature is on that sheet of paper?
A. It is at the bottom.
Q. Where is the signature of the other attesting witness?
A. At the bottom.
Q. Where is the signature of Miss Baniszewski?
A. At the bottom.
Q. I will ask you to examine this sheet and ask you to tell the court and jury whether or not this is not a mimeographed copy of the statement?

MR. NEW: We object unless it is identified.

Q. I will show you what has been marked Defendant's Exhibit "A" on behalf of Paula Baniszewski, and ask you whether or not this is not a mimeographed or Photostatted copy of the statement you hold in your left hand, marked Exhibit No. 27 for the people?

A. This is possibly a copy of the original statement.
Q. Where is your signature on this copy?
A. This is on the copy and it would be on the side.
Q. It is not at the bottom, as in the copy you hold in your left hand?
A. No.

“No.” Copies with Gentry’s signature at the bottom, and copies with Gentry’s signature on the side. Multiple photostats (5, not forgetting the one Ellis got) of the same master document with signatures on different parts of the document. You sign on the side because there isn’t room at the bottom. There was room on the bottom of at least one copy, but not room on the bottom of another copy. Did M/W/12 cause this problem? You know, the thing that was inserted into the statement even though the statement was not altered? It seems to be a distinct possibility that any statement forced out Paula on the morning of October 27th by various means, which were discussed above, was then altered enough that some copies of it were longer than other copies. In short, the statement of Paula Baniszewski was falsified, and should never have been accepted as evidence. So Paula’s statement, along with the Mattress and Room photos, are false evidence.

How many people sat in on this interrogation? Well, Officer 60/40 did, 60% of the time and who heard 6 questions asked. Secretary Lethal Purse was there of course, after all, there was typing to be done. Was she there 100% of the time? And then there is the strange reference to Lt. Crossen. Gentry says that this cop was “possibly” present. Of course, that means that he was “possibly” not present. Then we get an immediate contradiction: “I know he was in and out.” So who was he? Apparently, he’s a notary. A cop-notary. But, and this is interesting, he was involved in Johnny’s situation too:

Q. That is an affidavit form, is it?
A. It is a form of affidavit, yes.
Q. Did you sign it in there?
A. I did.
Q. Did somebody swear to your signature to it?
A. The lieutenant. He is a notary.
Q. Lieutenant, who?
A. Lt. Crossen.
Q. In the presence of John Baniszewski?
A. This I don't know, whether he was there at that time or not.
Q. Did you do all this before you started interrogating him?
A. He was charged and this is the material we sent to court.
Q. Did you do all this before you started interrogating him?
A. Before he was interrogated, before the statement was taken - yes.

Lt. Crossen is a notary? I think not:

Q. Why did you take a statement from John Baniszewski?

MR. NEW: We object. It would be a conclusion.
THE COURT: Objection sustained.

Q. When you took a statement did anybody tell you to take a statement from John Baniszewski?
A. This is procedure.
Q. Did anybody tell you to take a statement from John Baniszewski?
A. No, sir.
Q. Did somebody assign you to the investigation?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Who?
A. Lt. Crossen.
Q. Did he tell you John Baniszewski was a suspect in a murder?

MR. NEW: We object. It would be conversation between two officers.
THE COURT: Hearsay. Objection sustained.

Hearsay, sure. Why not call Lt. Crossen to the stand? So we know that Lt. Crossen is more than a notary. He was in charge, and he assigned Gentry to the investigation of Johnny. But Gentry was also directly involved in the interrogation of Paula. Lt. Crossen signed paperwork relative to Johnny, and he was in and out of the room as Paula was being interrogated.

In 1963, Indianapolis had a group of police called the Civil Defense police, described as…

Preserving law and order, protecting life and property and helping the civilian population in the event of a disaster or enemy attack.

I guess Indianapolis was in dire risk of an invasion by the Soviet Red Army. The city was divided into four regions, with a CD captain and a staff of lieutenants/sergeants under him. But the entire Civil Defense Police department was headed by Lt. William J. Crossen. His chief aide was Sgt. John C Arens, but five other IDP police officers were assigned to the group. This is an interesting quote: “Usually, a policeman assigned to some bureau or special detail is a natural mark of envy among some members of the regular patrol force. He is often, and usually unjustly, accused of having a ‘soft touch.’ But such is not the case with Crossen and Arens, nor the five other city policemen assigned to CD supervision and teaching.” So we know that Crossen didn’t have a “soft touch.” Maybe he didn’t have a pair of kid gloves? We also know that Crossen, in that assignment, worked a 12-to-14-hour day. 2-5 nights a week Crossen gave talks to community groups about the CD Police. He was also involved in screening potential recruits. It is interesting that William J. Crossen retired from the IDP in 1968, and at his death in 2007, was said to be the oldest retiree from the IDP. When was Officer I-don’t-do-real-police-work-anymore born? 1913. That means he was 55 when he retired. Is that old? I don’t know the average age of retirement for police officers. But it would seem possible that, given the fact he retired in 1968, only two years after the Sylvia Likens Trial, he was already moving toward retirement. When? Well it could be speculated that the run-up to leaving the police force was taking charge of the Civil Defense police. What about these guys? It can’t be overestimated that these guys were volunteers. So a few years prior to overseeing the simultaneous interrogation of a pregnant teenage girl and a twelve-year old boy, and apparently a man known to not have had a “soft touch” was desirable, Lt. Crossen had moved away from real police work in favor of overseeing a bunch of volunteers. In fact, in 1962 the Civil Defense Police were seeking 6,000 more recruits. 6,000 not-cops! These guys enrolled in a 17-week course, receiving training in: “Laws and arrest, search and seizure, arrest methods and techniques, traffic control, facts about the Communist menace, patrol duties, fingerprinting, courtesy, communications and How to Recognize and Handle Mentally Disturbed Persons. Cool! They learn about combating the Communist Menace! Real cops don’t go after the Commies! It’s just me, but I wonder just how strong the Communist Party was in Indianapolis. And how can I possibly resist? Recognizing and handling mentally disturbed persons? Why bring four mental health experts in to diagnose Maybe-crazy-maybe-not-crazy-Gertrude? And you didn’t get the answer you were looking for?

Attorney 1: “Your Honor, I would like additional testimony as to my client’s sanity.”

Attorney 2: “I object, your Honor!”

The Court: “Why?”

Attorney 2: “Well, attorney 1 is 0 for 4 as far as expert testimony goes relative to the mental condition of his client. How many more must we examine before he concedes that, as annoying as Gertie Wright is, she’s not insane?

The Court: “That is a good question. How many more expert witnesses do you wish to call, attorney 1?”

Attorney 1: “Not many! Just 6,000!”

The Court: “Oh my, we can’t count past the number 3! Who are these 6,000 expert witnesses?”

Attorney 1: “I can’t name them all! But they are the volunteers of the Civil Defense police.

Attorney 2: “I thought that their role was combatting the Communist Menace and keeping watch for an invasion by the Soviet Red Army.”

The Court: “I thought that too.”

Attorney 1: “Indeed! But they do so much more.”

Attorney 2: “Like what?”

Attorney 1: “Well, their first week of training is devoted to “Explosive Ordnance Reconnaissance.”

The Court: “That would come in handy if the Soviet Red Army does invade.”

Attorney 2: “What else?”

Attorney 1: Traffic duty during the Indy 500, and State Fair.

The Court: State Fair? Lester Likens could sell hot dogs to them.

Attorney 2: What else do they do?

Attorney 1: They are security at school athletic events.

Attorney 2: In case of a riot during the Junior High Baseball tournament?

Attorney 1: Exactly! They also assist with neighborhood social affairs.

The Court: Oh, they oversee the neighborhood Welcome Wagons?

Attorney 1: Probably!

Man in the gallery: “There is something else that can be said about them!”

The Court: “What is that, sir?”

Man in the gallery: A lot of them “seem more interested in helping an injured and distressed fellow human than they are in basic police procedures!”

The Court: That’s nice. Who are you, sir?

Man in the gallery: Lt. Bill Crossen.

The Court: Who? Weren’t you in charge of the simulatenous interrogation of a pregnant 17 year old girl and a scared twelve year old boy? Both of whom happened to be accused of dreadful crimes in this case? Both of whom gave extremely convenient statements that will facilitate the guilty verdicts they will receive shortly?

Attorney 1: Yeah! What about Paula’s statement that includes police jargon embedded in it? Why did the coroner get a copy of one of the five copies of Paula’s statement, and some can’t be found? Why do some have police signatures at the bottom, and others have it on the side?

Attorney 2: What about Johnny? Why did he give two statements, the first not naming a bunch of kids, and the other conveniently name every kid Johnny could think of?

Attorney 1: I thought Policewoman Wagner was a secretary, and that you were a notary!

Man in the gallery: that was the other Lt. Bill Crossen. I’m retiring soon.

Attorney 2: I move that this man testify on the stand.

The Court: You heard him say that that was the other Lt. Bill Crossen. So he need not testify. But, attorney 1, you may call your 6,000 mental health witnesses. Well, those not currently fighting the Red Menace, providing security at my daughter’s softball game or supervising the Welcome Wagon. What are the odds that one of them won’t say Gertie Wright is crazy?

Attorney 1: Thank you, your Honor.

So we have three people present during Paula’s interrogation. Two of them are “in and out.” There were only 10 questions...couldn’t they sit still long enough for that? Was Ms. Wagner there the whole time? Be careful! Neither Gentry nor Crossen could say for sure since they weren’t there all the time. Maybe when Crossen and Gentry were in the “in” phase of their “in and out,” Ms. Wagner had to run out and find her purse. Maybe others were present?

Q. At the time the interrogation was carried on, were any of the police officers there in uniform?

A. To my knowledge no, there is a possibility the police officers who brought her from the Juvenile Center to the Branch were in uniform.

So why would the officers who brought Paula from the Juvenile Center be present during the interrogation? Well, this is only a possibility. Maybe while Lt. Crossen and Gentry were momentarily “in and out,” the officers who escorted the dangerous Paula Baniszewski, Public Enemy Number 1, from the Juvenile Center would appear in the room briefly. It seems to me that this must have been a pretty big room. It would seem that the only officer who could sit still long enough was Secretary Wagner, who may have actually been present for all ten questions!

Johnny’s confession later in life was discussed in part 1. Here in part 2, his confession to the police, both of them, are relevant. Gentry tells us just where this huge interrogation room was located, the one in which Paula was kept standing up against a wall promising profusely that she wasn’t as pregnant as she looked! Gentry, ever so sensitive to women so as to suspect Paula was pregnant, only to be stymied by her inexplicable denials, thought that she had Morning Sickeness:

Q. Were you also aware she was at that time approximately six months pregnant?
A. No, sir.
Q. Were any of your colleagues aware of this?
A. No, sir, we asked her about this condition and she denied it.
Q. Why did you ask?
A. She became faint and it looked like morning sickness. I asked her at that time if she was pregnant and she said, no, she definitely was not.

It looked like Morning Sickness? You know what gives away Morning Sickness? Vomiting. I would like to think that if that was the case, they would have postponed the interrogation. Maybe not. But where did this take place?

Q. When did you next see her?
A. I would say approximately 9:00 o'clock of 9:15 the next morning.
Q. Where did you see her?
A. Juvenile Branch of the Police Department.

Now, where was Gentry during the 40% of the constantly changing time interval during which Paula was incriminating herself when he was not hearing the six questions?

Q. And all of you were together in one of the interrogation rooms of the Branch?
A. At times, yes.
Q. At times - where were you at other times?
A. In the Interrogation room right next to it. I don't recall which one it was.

Why be there? Since the only way for a room to be right next to another room is to either be on the right side of it or on the left side of it, he had a 50/50 chance, which is not as good as 60/40, of being right simply by guessing. But I bet there was a way to be 100% sure. Just check the interrogation record. Paula’s? No. Maybe look in Johnny’s.

Q. Did you interrogate John Stephan Baniszewski too?
A. I did.
Q. How old was he then?
A. He was twelve years of age.
Q. Did you get to him before or after his sister?
A. This would be after.
Q. About what time did you start?
A. I'd say in the neighborhood of maybe a quarter of 10 or 10:00 o'clock.
Q. What time did you get finished?
A. Approximately an hour.
Q. Approximately an hour?
A. Yes.
Q. Could it have been as much as two hours?
A. I don't believe so, sir.
Q. Did you have help?
A. I had help along with Policewoman Warner. She was there.
Q. Who?
A. Policewoman Warner.

So Johnny’s interrogation began around 9:45 am, and Paula’s could have started as late as 9:30 am. Hold on, when did Johnny’s begin? Let’s ask Policewoman Harriett Luella Sanders:

Johnny’s lasted an hour, and Paula’s may have lasted an hour. So in other words, the interrogation of Paula and that of her brother ran concurrently? In the same building? Yes, and how about this? In interrogation rooms next to each other. Now, time is something like counting, and English grammar…it’s very hard! Particularly for Gentry:

A. He was taken, along with the others, out to the Juvenile Center.
Q. Did you take him out there?
A. I did not.
Q. You did not. Then did he come downtown the next morning?
A. He was brought downtown the next morning.
Q. What time did he get downtown to police headquarters?
A. This again, I am not sure. I would say in the neighborhood of 9:00 o'clock.
Q. In the neighborhood of 9:00, what time did you get there that morning?
A. 8:00 o'clock.
Q. You got there at 8:00?
A. Yes.
Q. He did not get there till 9:00, right?
A. I would say so.
Q. Where did you leave him from 9:00 till 9:45 or 10:00 o'clock?
A. It is in a receiving room we have in the Juvenile Branch.

So, wait a minute. Johnny arrives at about the same time as his sister. Then she gets interrogated, while he sits in the Waiting Room? Maybe, twiddling his thumbs or doing a crossword puzzle? How strange. Gentry said that during his 40% phase, he was in the interrogation room next to the one Paula was in. What was so important about that room that he would miss 4 questions of Paula’s interrogation so as to be in there? Perhaps there was something more interesting in that interrogation room? Paula’s being grilled in one interrogation room, Johnny’s sitting around in the Waiting Room, and something is so interesting about the interrogation room next to Paula’s, which may have been to the right or to left, that Gentry misses 4 of Paula’s questions, leaves Johnny bored in the Waiting Room, and hangs out in the other interrogation room? Maybe there’s a TV in that room and the Jr. High Baseball Tournament, protected by the Civil Defense Police, is on channel 4. Now it gets confusing, and then becomes crystal clear.

Q. Who typed this statement?
A. I did.
Q. Now, were you then in the interrogation room all the time the interrogation was taking place?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Did you type everything said in there?
A. To my knowledge, yes, during the statement.
Q. You typed the questions as they were asked and the answers as they were given?
A. Yes, sir.

Q. Did John Baniszewski say "I have read the foregoing statement and it has been read to me by Sgt. Gentry and it is the truth. I sign this statement of my own free will and have been advised that I do not have to make this statement and that I may have an attorney present"?

A. No, sir, he did not say those words.

So, Gentry can type! It is the 1960’s, after all. But I am confused. If he was in the interrogation room next to Paula’s, but because he was only “in and out” of Paula’s because he was in Johnny’s, then he was “in and out” of Johnny’s. So who else was there? He said earlier…indispensable Policewoman Wagner. But I’m having trouble picturing this. Gentry is in Paula’s interrogation room. Wagner is doing the typing. Gentry keeps leaving to pay visits to the interrogation room next to Paula’s, leaving Wagner, the now-you-see-him-now-you-don’t supervisor of the 6,000 strong bulwark against Communism flitting in and out, and possibly the guys who brought Paula from the Juvenile Center, hanging around. But he’s there for all of Johnny’s testimony, doing the typing; Wagner’s around, although she’s typing in the other interrogation room since Gentry can only be there for 60% of the time, being too busy being present for 100% of Johnny’s. So how is Wagner helping Gentry in the interrogation to the right, or to the left, of Paula’s? And why isn’t she typing? Scratch that, she’s typing in the other room. So now we know why Johnny was supposedly left in a Waiting Room, clearly to create the impression that what may have been occurring, which would have been reprehensible if it was, wasn’t occurring. What? That officers were going back and forth between the two interrogation rooms. “Hey, kid! Your sister’s hanging you out to dry. You better start saying something.” “Hey, Paula! Guess what Johnny’s doing? He’s dropping the dime on you. When you stop vomiting, you better start talking.” Not an uncommon tactic with adult criminals, but any officer can interrogate any suspect the way he or she likes; although some are a little more lenient with children, but not so lenient as to not wear your weapon into the interrogation room. I suspect that there were no cops there that morning who had a “soft touch.” Of course, if Paula’s interrogation took 2 hours, then the whole Waiting Room thing falls apart.

Ah, Paula’s statement was redacted and falsified. Perhaps Johnny’s wasn’t. His first statement ended with:

“I have read the foregoing statement and it has been read to me by Sgt. Gentry and it is the truth. I sign this statement of my own free will and have been advised that I do not have to make this statement or I may have an attorney present.”

Did Johnny say those words? No. What? No. Johnny didn’t say those words; the cop said those words. So what Gentry is telling us, is that a 12 year old child, without any coercion whatsoever, no threats, no treatment like his sister was receiving, gave an incriminating statement, verifies that it is the truth, admits that he was told that he didn’t have to make the statement but that doesn’t matter because he so badly wanted to make it, and he was told that he didn’t have to have an attorney present, and, a great stroke of luck for Gentry et al, didn’t want one anyway. What a load of nonsense. What court would possibly accept such a ridiculous statement made by a child, with no parent, attorney, or child advocate present? None, I hope, unless it was implicit in the travesty of justice taking place. I hope no court would have accepted this police statement; except this court. Gentry had no problem with displaying his weapon for Paula…did he balk at showing it to Johnny?

Why wouldn’t a minor (Paula) and an out-and-out child (Johnny) not have a parent present? Well, Gertrude was too busy. She was too busy having a black eye, what looked like scratches on her face, sores on her face, neck, feet, hands, legs, and arms, and doing her Gertrude Skeleton impression. But I wonder if you couldn’t have another parent there, the…wait, I’m having trouble recalling. I recall! Every child has three parents…a mother and a father. How about the father?

Q. Now, did you know where his father lived?
A. No, sir, I had no idea where his father lived at all.

Q. I will hand you what has been marked for identification as Exhibit "B" for the defendant and ask you if that is the face sheet you said you made out before you started the interrogation?

A. This is a copy of the face sheet.

MR. NEW: No objection.
MR. ERBECKER: At this time defendant Gertrude Baniszewski objects to Defendant's Exhibit "B" for several reasons -
THE COURT: May I see it?
MR. BOWMAN: Defendant John Baniszewski now offers Exhibit "B".
THE COURT: Objection sustained.

Q. Officer, does Exhibit "B" contain a notation - "Relationship - father - John Baniszewski, age 40, address, 2011 Main Street, Beech Grove"?

MR. NEW: We object.
THE COURT: Overruled. Answer yes or no.

A. It does.
Q. Did you try that address?
A. No, sir, he was not the legal guardian of the child at that time.

The concerns discussed above are not the only ones, to be sure. Were Paula and Johnny taken to the Juvenile branch to be interrogated by a police officer assigned to the interrogations who had not been in contact with the two accused kids before? I would think, and I might well be wrong, that that would be the case. I would think that if such an officer had already spoken with the two accused in another context, that the integrity of the statements would be compromised. If there was a long recension and a short recension of Paula’s statement, could there be supplementation in the long recension based on something the interrogator discussed with her on a different occasion? We might run that risk.

Q. Officer, did you go to 3850 East New York Street the night of the 26th of October?

A. No, I did not.
Q. Did you see Paula Marie Baniszewski on that night?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. Where was that?
A. Indianapolis Police Department.
Q. How long would you say you observed her at that time?
A. Approximately a half hour, maybe forty-five minutes.
Q. Did you have a conversation with her?
A. I just took her name and address and her age.
Q. Anything else?
A. No other conversation.

I love this one. The cop who will interrogate Paula on the morning of October 27th was the same cop who saw her the night before…at the police station. He was with her 45 minutes to an hour, and the only information he got from her was her name, address, and her age. Wow! So Paula was pretty tough if a veteran cop needs that much time to get the information from her that the cops who had actually been at the house probably had already obtained. No other conversation. Gentry was called in to see Paula, simply to get three pieces of obvious information. And! If you talked to her the night before, and you actually did more than get three pieces of information from her, then I would think that there was a real danger of importing the contents of the questioning the night before into the interrogation first thing the next morning. Surely the same cop didn’t see Johnny the night before:

Q. Sgt. Gentry, did you see the defendant John Stephan Baniszewski on the 26th of October?

A. I did.
Q. What time of the day or night?
A. That was in the evening, approximately a quarter of 10:00, or 9:30.
Q. Where was this?
A. In Police Headquarters.
Q. How long would you say you observed him at that time?
A. Approximately a half hour or forty-five minutes.
Q. Did you speak to him or he to you?
A. I did.
Q. What was the extent of that?
A. His name, his address and his age.

So we’re back to parallel events, lasting the exact same amount of time with the same dunderheaded information having been obtained. No official statements were taken on the evening of October 26th, and the same officer who spent at least one hour with the two suspects will be the same officer to take an official statement the next morning. According to Gentry, the charge against Johnny was:

Q. Now, is this face sheet - is that what was filled out in that interrogation room?
A. This was a copy of a face sheet that was filled out there, along with others, yes.

Q. A copy of a face sheet filled out along with others. Then did you have a delinquency complaint there?

A. The delinquency complaint is the Injury to Person.

So where did Gentry speak with Johnny on the evening of October 26th?

Q. You saw John Baniszewski the night before, correct?
A. I did.
Q. Where did you see him?
A. It was in police headquarters.
Q. That is downtown here?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And what part of police headquarters?
A. This is in the Homicide Office the first time.
Q. You saw him in the Homicide office?
A. Yes, he was sitting in a room there.

So Johnny’s charge the night before the assault, but we find him sitting in the Homicide office? Hold on, let’s take a guided tour of the Police station:

Q. That is when you first saw him?
A. That is when I first saw him.
Q. Did you have a conversation with him then?
A. Not up there, no, sir.
Q. You did not have a conversation with him at all that night?
A. I did, but it was down in the Juvenile Branch.
Q. From Homicide you took him to the Juvenile Branch?
A. Yes.
Q. What floor is the Homicide Branch?
A. Fourth floor.
Q. What floor is the Juvenile Branch on?
A. Second.
Q. You had a conversation with him in the Juvenile Branch?
A. Yes.

So Officer Gentry, who deals with juveniles, happens to be visiting the Homicide department on the fourth floor. He sees Johnny, a juvenile, sitting in the a chair in the department that investigates murders. He thinks nothing of it. The visit to the fourth floor then becomes a visit to the second floor, the floor Gentry probably worked on. “Hey, look! It’s that kid I saw in the homicide department.” Or maybe, as Johnny sat in the Homicide department, Gentry was called up from the Juvenile department. “Hey, Leo, come on up and look at this 12-year-old boy sitting with us in the Homicide department.” “Ok. All you want me to do is look? Is Officer Dixon busy? He’s good at looking, you know. Maybe I should speak to him.” “No! Just look. We’ll send him down to the Juvenile department on the second floor so you can talk to him.” “Couldn’t you have just brought him down?” Of course, there are a lot of other possibilities, but I would think that a conversation between Johnny and an interrogator who questions juveniles exclusively in the Homicide department when he was initially charged with assault, would seem odd. However, the other part of that dynamic child interrogation duo was also hanging around in the Homicide department on the evening of October 26th. We wouldn’t want Gentry to get lonely as he stares at Johnny, asking him only his name, address, and age. To avoid this, we should invite Policewoman ... Name game! If you were a policewoman who had to go about with your purse over your shoulder, or otherwise you would be unarmed, and Gentry kept calling you Policewoman Wagner, who would be? Of course! Harriet Luella Sanders. In 1966, you would probably be living at 20 Harris Avenue.

Perhaps, it gets a little more odd. Gentry:

A. No, sir, he was not charged with murder.
Q. That is not my question, sir, did you suspect him of being implicated in the killing?
A. No, sir.
Q. You did not?
A. No, sir.
Q. Did you suspect him of being implicated in my physical abuse of Sylvia Likens?
A. Yes, this is what he was charged with.
Q. Did it consist of Assault and Battery?
A. Injury to Person, which is a delinquency charge.

So Gentry saw Johnny sitting in the Homicide department the night before, but didn’t speak to him there. He followed him down to the Juvenile department, where he was charged with assault. And there was no suspicion of his involvement in a homicide. “Hey, this is my first visit to the Homicide department, and I’m pretty excited!” “Oh, Officer Doe, that’s nice.” “Hey, the lady sitting over there…she must be here for a homicide!” “Oh no. Shoplifting. You see, whenever somebody is arrested, even if they are twelve years old, they first have to sit in a chair here in the Homicide department. Later, we transfer them to a different floor.” “Ah…that seems strange.” “Well, we homicide detectives don’t have much to do. By the way, we just sent a kid down to the second floor.” “What did he do?” “We think he was mean to another kid.”

So you did not know where the father was? So you lied! But why stop now? And I’m really confused. John and Gertie are divorced. But no longer being Gertrude’s husband does not make you no longer the biological father of Paula and Johnny. You don’t live far away, but because the mother had custody of the children, the police cannot contact you when police officers are abusing your children into false confessions? I’m supposed to believe that if the man and woman are no longer married, but live about 10 miles apart, the police cannot contact the father when four of his children are in police custody? John had visitation rights. His kids lived with him at different times. The police can’t call the father? Nonsense. The only reason why Gentry said that was because he didn’t get away with lying about not knowing where John lived. And in 1965, the City Directory seems to think that John was a cop. You didn’t call the cop-father because you didn’t know where he lived because you were too busy knowing where he lived? Exhibit B? Damn! I was hoping that wouldn’t pop up.

As is so often the case, it gets more insidious. We didn’t know where the father lived, and that was because we were too busy knowing where the father lived. But he didn’t win the custody battle with his ex-wife, so we couldn’t speak to him about his son before Johnny gave the boy the incriminating statement that would lead to his unfortunate fate. However, there was a strange legal principle in Indianapolis at that time. You can’t speak to the father before his son seals his own doom. But:

Q. Then you did not notify his father either, did you?

A. Yes, I saw him in court.
Q. Subsequent to your taking the statement?
A. No, this was after.
Q. After you took the statement you talked to the father?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. After the boy signed this?
A. After the boy signed it, yes.

Vocabulary difficulties? “Subsequent” means “after,” Officer Gentry. The kid’s in big trouble now. And seeing how this case was handled with the utmost proprietary the whole way, now let’s talk to the father.

Now some very interesting questions were posed to Gentry about why Johnny might just be so keen on sending himself to prison, and no, it wasn’t, from the kindness of his heart, to save the police and the people of Indianapolis a lot of trouble:

Q. Did you ever tell this boy his mother was facing the death chair?
A. No, sir, I did not tell him that.
Q. What did you tell him about his mother?
A. That she was under arrest on a preliminary charge of murder.
Q. Is it a fact, you told this boy if he did not sign the statement, he would get the chair himself?
A. No, sir.
Q. You did not say it?
A. No, sir.
Q. Is it a fact, you told him if he did not sign the statement, his mother would get the chair?
A. No, sir.
Q. Is it a fact, you told the boy if he signed the statement, he could go home?
A. No, sir.
Q. What inducement did you use, if any, to get this boy to sign it?
A. None whatever.
Q. Did you ever tell him his signing the statement could send him to the electric chair?
A. No, sir.
Q. What did you tell him?
A. It was up to him as to whether he wanted to sign it or not. He did not have to. He was told this.
Q. Is there any significance attached to the fact you got his older sister's statement first before you took his?
A. No, sir.
Q. Is it a fact, you told him his sister already signed a statement incriminating him?
A. No, sir.
Q. It is not true? Is it a fact, you told the boy the neighbor kids had already confessed the murder, incriminating him?
A. No, sir.
Q. Is it a fact, you told this boy he had better sign it if he wanted to stay out of the penitentiary and stay alive?
A. No, sir.

What a list of possible threats and inducements to make a false confession! Did the attorney simply rattle off this list, knowing full well that Gentry would not answer any of these questions in the affirmative? Or did Johnny tell someone that these were the threats and inducements hurled at Johnny as he sat in the interrogation room in the Homicide…I mean, the Juvenile, branch? One more:

Q. Is it a fact, you led the boy by asking him leading and suggestive questions rather than permitting him to make a statement?

I don’t know why, but that sounds familiar. But I would like to visit on two of the inducements listed above that may have been used to get Johnny’s confession:

Q. Is it a fact, you told him his sister already signed a statement incriminating him?

A. No, sir.

Q. It is not true? Is it a fact, you told the boy the neighbor kids had already confessed the murder, incriminating him?

A. No, sir.

I stated above that it is my opinion that Johnny and Paula were being interrogated at the same time, in adjoining rooms, with officers going back and forth between the two rooms. And I don’t see how it is possible that the answer to the two questions, i.e. was Johnny told that his sister had already implicated him, and that other kids had already implicated him, so he should confess, could really be “No sir.” Why is that? Because Johnny actually gave two statements, not just one. That seems strange. Did give and sign the first statement, and then ask Gentry to come back because he forgot some stuff? I don’t think so. In his first statement, Johnny implicated himself and his mother. He also made one statement about Ricky. He did not mention Paula, any of his brothers or other sisters, or any neighborhood kids other Ricky. But this is what we find in the mysterious, gee-I-forgot-some-stuff statement:

Q. Who else did you see hit or burn Sylvia during the time that she lived with you at 3850 East New York Street.

A. Yes.
Q. Who?

A. Paula, Stephanie, Marie and Shirley, my sisters and Anna Siscoe, Judy Duke, Darlene MacGuire, Mike Monroe, Ricky Hobbs, Randy Lepper and Coy Hubbard.

Now the second statement includes a bunch of other lame things, including Gertie smacking Sylvia in the face so as to make her feel better. But suddenly Johnny names all the other kids that will become so well known to followers of this case. And there they are…in a nice, neat row, with Paula, his sister in the room next to him, at the front of the list. Notice that when Johnny’s sisters are named, they are named in descending order by age. A frightened 12-year boy, working on his statement, lists his sisters in such a bureaucratically pleasing way. But whatever the cops thought they had on this long list of children, it was this statement that would be so important. A second statement. One made when, possibly, a whole series of threats and inducements were thrown around the interrogation room. I think the whole second statement was specifically intended to get this list of names.

Wait a minute...back up. The charges against four of John’s children? Sure, Paula, Stephanie, and Johnny. That’s four. Let’s pretend that we can count, and then that’s not four.

Q. Did you tell any of these defendants they were charged with a serious crime?

A. Paula and Johnny were and Stephanie and Shirley was informed of the charges against them, yes.

The ten year old had been charged with a serious crime? For what, forgetting who her brothers were? For not getting past A-B-C-D? Maybe, not getting Sylvia her tea fast enough? For calling Sylvia a bad name? I know… she did half of the branding. Ah, yes. Shirley and Ricky poke around in the basement to find something with which to brand Sylvia. Shirley retrieves a giant iron poker. Ricky prefers the iron poker steel eye-hook. Each makes 50% of a letter S, except that it was a number 3. Baloney. Shirley fetched her mother’s sewing kit…that’s life in prison. She lit a match? That’s a double life sentence! What serious crime could Shirley have been accused of? The ten year tattle-tale physically abused a sexteen year old girl who bested Paula in a fight? Hey! Surely you can find something to charge Baby Denny with. Maybe, annoying Sylvia by crying too loud. Maybe physical abuse…that one’s good…maybe the baby snuck up behind Sylvia and pulled her hair. That should be good for at least 10 years. Maybe not. Hold on, where’s Marie? She was included in Johnny’s long list of names too.

One final interesting observation. Gentry was asked a very interesting question. It was about places:

Q. Were you ever at 3838 East New York or 3850 East New York Street?
A. 3838 East New York - I may have been there. 3850 I was not.
Q. You were never at 3850 East New York?
A. I was not.

So Gentry claims to have never been to Gertrude’s house. But he leaves open the possibility that he had been to 3838 East New York Street. I wonder why the attorney included this address along with the one we naturally expect, the giant black hole known as 3850 East New York Street?

The following shows the breakdown of the main, and ever so dangerous, brother-sister team of sadists:

1. Paula Baniszewski, aka The Strangler; aged 17; pregnant and showing clear signs of Morning Sickness while being forced to stand against a wall in the interrogation room:

a. Knew she didn’t have to talk to the police, but wanted to.

b. Knew that she was entitled to have an attorney (or “anyone of her choosing”- but not her father!) present, but didn’t want anyone present.

c. Knew that her statement would be put into writing, and wanted it to be.

d. Knew that it would be incriminating, and liked it that way.

e. Knew she didn’t have to sign it, but was ever-so-keen to do so.

2. Johnny Baniszewski, aka Johnny; aged 12; scared out of his mind.

a. Waived his right to have an attorney.

b. Made no request to make a phone call, much less his father (who wouldn’t have been allowed to see him anyway).

c. Knew he didn’t have to make an incriminating statement, but wanted to.

d. Knew his statement would be put into writing, and that was just fine with him.

e. Everything he told Gentry was the truth!

f. Signed his highly incriminating, yet painfully honest, statement of his…own free will.

g. The attestation to these things, you know, the blurb at the bottom, he didn’t really say, but when he heard it later, thought it was just dandy

Q. Did Paula and Johnny say anything else to you?
A. Yes, one last thing.
Q. What was that?

A. They said that they wanted to skip the whole trial thing; they asked if they could borrow the keys to the prison so that they could save us the trouble, open the gates, lock themselves in their cells, and then toss the keys down to us from their windows.

Q. You agreed to this?
A. Are you kidding? They have rights you know.

But I forgot two more…

3. Coy Hubbard: W/M/15…aka Paula’s Boyfriend (sorry, Phyllis!):

 Q. Do you understand this statement can be used in court for or against you?
A. Yes.
Q. Were any threats or promises made to induce you to give this statement?
A. No.

Q. Did you understand you did not have to give this statement, and that you could have had your parents or an attorney present.

A. Yes.
Q. Will you sign this statement of your own free will?
A. Yes.

I have read the foregoing testimony and it has been read to me by Sgt. Campbell and it is true.

 4. Ricky Hobbs W/M/14…aka The Hit Man

I, Richard Dean Hobbs, make the following voluntary statement to Policewoman Joy Snedeker and Detective Sergeant William Kaiser, detectives of the Indianapolis Police Department. No threats or promises have been made to me as an inducement to make any statement at all and I do so of my own free will and accord.

I have read and had read to me the above statement and the same is true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief.

It seems clear that these confessions aren’t worth the paper they were written on. All of the youths who made statements were threatened, manipulated, cajoled, or promised for their confessions. How lucky were the police and the prosecutor! Four key suspects, kids, willing to try and convict themselves! I suppose it’s too bad that they didn’t go ahead and sentence themselves! Four kids willing to toss aside all their rights and protections! But the real crime is that no one sought to protect those who needed it the most…no one was wearing kid gloves.