Shades of Eva (65 page)

“It’s also Abigail’s testimony that she was
asked to look into the matter of Elmer’s fate, as well as that of
Fred Levantle’s. Abigail Angstrom has admitted to this office that
she accepted this request of her own volition.

“In or around July of 1954, it was Eva’s
statement that she was with Elmer in her room at Coastal State on
the night in question. Eva stated she was allowed to have access to
her son through an unwritten privilege granted to certain mothers
residing at Coastal State who had babies also residing there. I
have asked Dr. Norris to elaborate on this policy, as it seems to
be highly extraordinary.”

Dr. Norris stood to address the group. “The
privilege is a matter of public record,” Anna began. “Eva was a
mother whom I believed deserved to share as much time as possible
with her child. In my opinion, nighttime privileges were as
appropriate as daytime visits. This wasn’t an opinion shared by too
many male staff members, however.”

There seemed to be a mild, somewhat
collective gasp at this remark. Bold as it was, it was the truth.
Anna was the only female psychiatrist on staff at Coastal State in
those days, and the only staff psychiatrist radical enough to not
only allow such a privilege for mothers, but to organize it.

Kalwitz: “In Eva’s deposition, she claims
Fred Levantle broke into her room at Coastal State and demanded
sexual relations. He was surprised to find that Eva had her baby
with her. Eva claims that when she refused to indulge Mr. Levantle
in his requests, that he then assaulted her and also took her baby
from her and left the room. She says she momentarily blacked out,
and that when she came to, she looked out her window and saw Fred
Levantle running away into the woods.

“At this time, I want to address Eva’s age
at the time of Elmer’s abduction. She was seventeen years old and
some days. By Michigan Law in 1954, she was an involuntarily
committed minor residing in the custody of a state mental health
facility, and therefore did not have legal authority over her son’s
custody. Does anyone dispute these facts?”

No response.

Kalwitz: “Attorneys from Coastal State have
submitted documentation with regard to this legal authority. At the
time of his birth, Elmer’s placement was a matter of a team
decision between medico-legal officials at Coastal State and Eva’s
guardians: Eloise and Virgil McGinnis. Does anyone dispute these
facts?”

No response.

Kalwitz: “It bears mentioning that there was
a dispute at this time over the paternity of this infant. Attorneys
from both Coastal State, and Ms. Inslow for Brad Rennix, have
submitted affidavits in this regard. In 1954, Brad, you claimed
paternity for the child. Is that correct?”

Brad Rennix: “Yes I did.”

Kalwitz: “And it’s your statement that Eva
agreed with that claim at the time.”

Dad conferred briefly with his attorney.
“Yes, she did agree,” he answered. “On paper.”

Kalwitz: “She agreed on paper even though
she had confessed to you beforehand that she was raped.”

Brad Rennix: “That is correct.”

Kalwitz: “What this suggests is that Eva
declined to make her allegation public during her pregnancy. Is
that correct?”

Attorney Inslow: “For the record, there is
no public allegation from Ms. Eva McGinnis of a rape until after
the birth of her son, Elmer, and after his abduction. Mr. Rennix
and Ms. McGinnis signed the document in question in an attempt to
legitimize Elmer’s birth. We believe this a noble gesture on the
part of my client, Brad Rennix, as well as Eva. It's my personal
opinion, Mr. Kalwitz, that Eva wanted only to mother her child with
her future husband.”

Kalwitz: “Very well. Also submitted is
documentation verifying the decision by those in authority over Eva
to transfer Elmer, being that Eva was neither of the age of
majority or legally married at this time, to a facility in
Marquette, Michigan for an indefinite period of time. Does anyone
dispute these facts?”

No response.

Kalwitz: “Brad, in your deposition, you
stated that Eva threatened to give her infant son, Elmer, over to a
sister patient prior to his transfer to an outside institution, in
the person of whom you believed to be her sister, Dorothy Biggs, of
San Francisco, California. Is that correct?”

Brad Rennix: “Yes, this was a threat she
made to her father.”

Kalwitz: “It’s also your statement, Mr.
Rennix, that she made this threat because in spite of the paternity
documentation that you signed, her father, the legal authority in
the matter of Elmer’s custody, would not allow either an outside
adoption of Elmer, or for Elmer to remain in the custody of either
Ms. Biggs or other family members. Is this correct?”

Brad Rennix: “Yes sir, that is true and
those were Eva’s contentions.”

Kalwitz: “For the record, Ms. Biggs, along
with your mother, Brad, Mrs. Ida Rennix, filed a request to block
the transfer of Elmer to the Marquette Institution on behalf of you
and Eva. This request was made legal to the Owen County Child
Welfare Agency in 1953. This all serves to demonstrate the tenuous
nature of Elmer’s fate. The matter was resolved with a decision by
the Court in 1954 to grant Eva’s father’s request and have the
infant relocated to the Marquette Institution in the Upper
Peninsula.”

Here, attorney Kalwitz was shaking his head.
He went on. “I find this decision quite regretful. We don’t know if
this would have been a fortunate move for Elmer, or an unfortunate
one. Suffice it to say that life in a mental institution is not an
ideal sentence, particularly when the institution is separate and
apart from one’s mother.”

Kalwitz then turned his attention to the
matter of Elmer’s remains. “Attorneys working on behalf of Abigail
Angstrom, as well as Mitchell Rennix, three weeks ago acquired,
voluntarily, the skeletal remains of an infant human being. Also
given over to CID was a small tool chest in which the skeletal
remains had been either placed or entombed.”

Kalwitz turned to address me at this point.
“I have assured your attorney, Mitchell, that this voluntary
gesture will not go ignored. It is always appreciated when evidence
gathered in the commission of a possible crime is turned over to
the State for consideration in matters of jurisprudence.

“That said, let me briefly address the
forensic issue of the toolbox said to have been the container in
which Elmer’s skeletal remains were buried. Returning to Eva’s
testimony from 1954, she made no reference to a toolbox, neither to
law enforcement, family, or to psychiatric authorities as far as
criminalists can ascertain. Does anyone dispute that
information?”

No response.

Kalwitz: “What this suggests to the DA’s
office is that there was no record—legally or verbally—that a
toolbox of any color or make or model—was ever utilized in the
commission of said abduction. Does anyone dispute this
contention?”

At this time, an attorney for Anna Norris
stood. “Attorney Kalwitz, I’d like to add that although there was a
documented disappearance of a tool chest identical to the one in
question, made at Coastal State around the time of this abduction,
the loss or theft of this chest was not connected to the abduction
by administrative officials at Coastal State, by law enforcement,
or by any patient or visitor at Coastal State, their friends or
families.”

Kalwitz: “For all intents and purposes, this
was a routine disappearance of a piece of maintenance
equipment.”

Another attorney for the Institution stood
to address the DA. “If I might, the Institution did not recognize
an actual loss for weeks after the abduction. Equipment that is
missing is placed on a ledger of missing equipment, and only
assumes the status of lost after six weeks if it does not turn up.
We had no reason to believe, with no testimony to the contrary,
that the missing equipment, later entered into the lost or stolen
equipment ledger, was ever utilized in the commission of a
crime.”

Kalwitz: “This brings to issue other
evidence submitted by defense attorneys for both Mitchell Rennix
and Abigail Angstrom. It needs mentioning here that in indictment
hearings such as this, where there is no jury present and we are
not at trial, that surreptitious information gleaned from otherwise
legally inadmissible sources such as wiretaps or closed-circuit
video recordings are apt for consideration in the matter of
outlining possible charges.

“Therefore, I want to address such testimony
as evidenced by the audio-video recording of a conversation between
Mitchell Rennix and his uncle, Ulysses McGinnis, one that took
place three weeks ago on the eve of Ulysses McGinnis’s shooting
death.

“At this time, Mr. McGinnis confessed to
knowledge of a crime that he later recanted. In his taped
confession, unbeknownst to being taped, Mr. McGinnis admitted to
being present at Coastal State with Fred Levantle the night Infant
Elmer was abducted. On tape, he is heard to confess to visiting the
Institution at Coastal State with Fred Levantle on the night in
question for the purposes of allowing Mr. Levantle some time to be
with his sister, Eva, sexually.

“This testimony, though recanted by Mr.
McGinnis at a later time, alongside testimony given by Eva with
respect to the assault by Fred Levantle that night, in the mind of
this prosecutor, places Fred Levantle and Ully McGinnis at the
scene of the crime on the specific night in question.

“Also during this conversation, Mr. McGinnis
alludes to a red metallic toolbox that was buried at a location
where a black oak tree was standing.

“Attorneys at Coastal State, having
investigated the issue of the toolbox, have provided the
prosecutor’s office with documentation of the loss of a red
metallic tool chest from the then Hypnology Center, where Eva was
boarding on the night of her infant’s abduction.

“Furthermore, this lost tool chest was
specifically identified as one bearing the serial number JH6994IO.
These numbers match serial numbers forensic criminalists retrieved
from the toolbox containing skeletal remains turned into
prosecutors by Abigail Angstrom and Mitchell Rennix three weeks ago
this year.

“These numbers also match serial numbers
pulled from purchase receipt information contained in the
Institution’s log of equipment purchasing of January 12, 1949. What
this suggests to this office is that Ully’s confession was a valid
and truthful confession, and that only two persons in this case
could have known of such a container. These persons would, and in
my opinion, could only have been Ulysses McGinnis and the
perpetrator of the crime, the man Mr. McGinnis admitted to being
with at Coastal State that night—Fred Levantle.”

 Kalwitz continued. “Now, with respect
to the skeletal remains contained in said toolbox.” He looked to
Ben Levantle and my father at this point. “Dr. Levantle and Mr.
Rennix, you have each graciously provided authorities at River
Bluff a hair sample for purposes of obtaining DNA profiles.”

He then turned to me. “As well, Mitchell,
you have provided the FBI field office with a cheek swab for
purposes of DNA analysis.

“A complete DNA profile for the skeletal
remains turned over to the FBI’s field office was obtained and
several comparisons were made in an effort to verify the identity
of the infant and any possible relationships between the infant and
Eva McGinnis, without resorting to a legal exhumation of your
mother, Mitchell.”

I nodded to the DA.

“First, a siblingship test was conducted
between the skeletal remains of who was believed to be infant Elmer
and DNA obtained from Mitchell Rennix. With regard to result of
this test: FBI technicians reported a half-maternal siblingship,
meaning that you, Mitchell, and this infant, share an identical
biological mother in the person of Eva McGinnis Rennix.

“This establishes the human remains as
turned over to authorities in this case as the biological offspring
of Eva McGinnis, and therefore, a legal half-brother to you,
Mitchell.

“Additionally, paternity tests were
conducted using the Elmer sample as a control versus three possible
fathers: Ben Levantle, Brad Rennix, and DNA extracted from the
disinterred remains of one Fredrick Elms.”

Here, I was stunned. No one had informed me
that Fredrick Elms had been exhumed.

Kalwitz continued. “First, the comparison
between your DNA, Mr. Brad Rennix, shows no biological relationship
to the Elmer sample.”

Dad’s expression remained respectfully
neutral.

“A second siblingship test was conducted in
an effort to clarify the matter of the identity of Fredrick Elms,
whom you, Drs. Levantle and Norris, suspected was an alias for
Fredrick Levantle, your brother, Ben.

“By order of this office, an exhumation was
performed on the interred skeletal remains of Fredrick Elms in
River Bluff, MI on the 1st of May, this year. The Lansing field
office generated a DNA profile from biological remains excavated
during said exhumation. The profile generated for Mr. Elms is
consistent with your sample, Ben, in that you and the Elms sample
share both a common mother and a common father.

“This makes Fred Elms a biological match to
your only known sibling, Dr Levantle, Fredrick W. Levantle. This
leaves no doubt in my mind that the exhumation of Fred Elms is,
indeed, your brother, Private First Class Discharged, Fredrick W.
Levantle of River Bluff, MI.”

Still addressing Ben, Kalwitz continued. “It
is my understanding that your brother went AWOL from military
service around the time of Elmer’s abduction in 1954, and then
returned to the states to take up residence next to Eva and Brad
Rennix, and ultimately their only son, Mitchell, in River Bluff. He
lived there with his wife the remainder of his life until he was
shot and killed by Eva McGinnis, this following the sexual assault
of her second born son.”