A crisis of faith…that’s a bad thing, isn’t it? What would the Cleric say about that? I wonder. A crisis of faith is usually defined as suddenly not believing what you believed before. It’s often used of religious beliefs that one feels that one can’t be believed any longer. I believe…at least for now, pending a crisis of faith…that a crisis of faith is a very good thing. Do you now not believe what you believed before, or are you really realizing that what you thought you believed before…you really never did. So! Your crisis of faith is leading you to the truth; that’s a good thing…isn’t it? I feel I’ve cleared my mind, and all the past is left behind. That is from a very cool song. Of course, a crisis of faith may be something that results in you realizing that you really did believe what you thought you believed, and at the end of your crisis you think that you really do believe what you thought you believed. True faith never fears being challenged; it simply becomes stronger.

Having eaten my lunch and having finished my White Chapels…wait, White Castles. Jack the…sorry, I mean…David Cohen. Our Victorian-era murderer may have been checked into the Colney Hatch Lunatic Asylum under that name, although it would appear that it was not his real name. Having found a man babbling incoherently in the middle of the street, the police took him into custody, then transferred him to what was known as a workhouse infirmary, a place where the poor received medical care. He was soon found to be too violent to be there, and the police, who were not able to get his name, had him committed to Colney Hatch. Reports of the man’s violence increased. And it was found that for all his babbling, no could tell what he was saying. A strange foreign language? A strange dialect of a strange foreign language? The East End was a place where people from all over Europe had ended up, including people from eastern Europe. Yet no one could identify the language he spoke. Perhaps that’s because he wasn’t speaking any language at all. Before being able to establish who this was and whether or not he was connected with the Whitechapel murders, he died. Most likely, he was suffering from Paresis of the Insane, which is a condition that can manifest itself in people suffering from late-stage Syphilis. It is a dreadful condition, caused by a bacterium that can eventually affect every system in the body. Paresis of the Insane progresses in a way that ultimately leads to death, but there is a serious mental deterioration that leads to complete disorientation. Syphilis can also lead to blindness and cause horrible facial disfigurations. Syphilis was very common in the nineteenth century among prostitutes and their clients. So, if Mr. Cohen had contracted Syphilis, and he knew that his condition was worsening…and by the way, an effective treatment didn’t begin to appear until 1908, then he might want to take revenge on the one who transmitted it to him. And if he patronized prostitutes, which Leather Apron clearly did, then he might wish to avenge himself by killing the prostitutes he had patronized. Thus he would have a motive, and so it is possible that the Ripper killings were not the result of a serial killer who thought it good sport to kill prostitutes.

The victims were usually found in alleys. Except in one case…that of Mary Kelly, who was the last woman murdered by the Whitechapel killer. And she was murdered in her flat, not in an alley. There were prostitutes aplenty all over the East End. Killing them in alleys allowed him to flee quickly if someone approached. And that actually happened with one of the murders, when someone came up on the scene and the killer darted away just in time. Of course, if you break into a flat, then you are very much cornered. And unlike an alley, you have to leave the same way you entered. The possibility of being seen breaking in, and even more so when leaving, increased the risk to the killer dramatically. And herein lies a detail…one of those details that calls the Canonical Story into question. It would seem to be that the Whitechapel killer wanted to kill Mary Kelly specifically; so much so that he passed by all the prostitutes walking around the East End that night, wanting to kill her so badly that he would dramatically increase the risk of being seen. It seems inescapable that the killer had Mary Kelly on his hit list. And after her murder, the killings stopped. He had finished; he had killed those whom he blamed for his Syphilitic Death Sentence. Then police would find a deranged man babbling incoherently in the street.

Elizabeth Stride and Catherine Eddowes were murdered on September 30, 1888. Known as the “Double Event”, the murders show that the killer was not following a particular pattern. Why two on one night? This did not happen with any of the other murders. Why not three? Or even better, why not just one? The killer does not seem to have been operating on the basis of a pattern, and despite the fictional Suspect Zero, serial killers operate according to patterns. It seems plausible that the killer went out looking for women on his hit list on that evening, and having found one of them, he also came across another. So he killed them both…and that would only make sense. But like the murder of Mary Kelly, having taken place inside a flat, so two with the Double Event, the killer is not following a pattern. He is hunting particular prostitutes, passing who knows how many to get to the ones he’s looking for. There is thus a strong indication that the killer had a motive; he was out to avenge himself on particular women he knew.  

These killings have a very interesting parallel to the Sylvia Likens murder. What is that? The presence of a slogan. When Goulston Street was being searched after the body of Catherine Eddowes was found, police found a piece of a bloody apron. This was believed to have been part of an apron worn by Eddowes. Leather Apron…or Bloody Apron? And to make the Canonical Story even more interesting, there was a slogan written on the wall in white chalk above the piece of apron. Police Commissioner Charles Warren ordered that it be washed off the wall. Isn’t that destruction of evidence? He stated that the message might inflame anti-Jewish sentiment in the area, since reports that the killer was a Jew were currently circulating. However, it was removed before the photographer was able to take a picture of it. Convenient. Why not wash it off the wall after the picture is taken? A picture is worth a thousand words, or in this case, only one sentence.

But he had it written down. But three other people wrote it down as well:

“The Juwes are the men that will not be blamed for nothing” (Thomas Arnold/Charles Warren)

“The Juwes are the men that will not be blamed for nothing” (Alfred Long; Metropolitan Police)

“The Juwes are not the men who will be blamed for nothing” (Daniel Halse; City of London Police)

“The Juws are not the men to be blamed for nothing” (Frederick William Foster; not a police officer)

The parallel? No…not the bad grammar, although there was plenty of that in Saul Rabb’s courtroom. If all of these men saw this slogan, why don’t their versions of it match? Yu see it, sorry…you see it on the wall, and you write it down. So why are there 3 versions of it? Of course, it couldn’t be checked for verification, since Warren had it removed, in the process of destroying evidence.

Oh, yes. All these men gaze at the slogan, yet it is removed before it could be photographed. And so we have…three versions.

It was noted in another writer’s essay that the first version of the slogan, which was also as directly related to the theme of “prostitute” as were the Ripper killings, read as follows:

“Detectives said Hobbs admitted beating the girl “10 or 20 times” and carving the words “I am a prostitute” on her stomach with a needle."

So when the October 27th news article was written, the information being leaked by the police, the slogan consisted of just four words. My did this change on October 28th:

“The words ‘I am a prostitute and proud of it’ were found etched in block letters an inch high in two rows across the dead girl’s stomach. Police said a neighbor boy, Richard Hobbs, 15, 310 North Denny Street, admitted doing that job Saturday ‘with a hot needle.’”

I’m confused…didn’t the police see the body? Homicide detectives worked a murder scene, and would have seen the body. And then they leaked the information that the slogan read “I am a prostitute.” Suddenly, within 24 hours, the four word slogan becomes an eight word slogan. The letters are an inch high, and in two rows:

I am a prostitute

and proud of it

So did the homicide detectives, and I suppose that William Kaiser was one of them, miss a row? Surely they raised the shirt up…assuming that the body of the female wasn’t bare-chested. A statement indicating this was brought up during the testimony of Officer Dixon. How did they manage to see the top row, but miss the bottom row? And then, their powers of deduction being so impressive, suddenly remembered that they forgot a row of words, and leaked a revised version of the slogan to the media? The same information appeared in the October 29th newspaper. The October 30th paper stated:

“Police said Mrs. Wright and Hobbs have admitted beating Sylvia and burning eight words on her skin.”

So it took only four days to begin the muddled claims about how the slogan was done. On the 27th, it had been “carved” “with a needle.” On the 28th, it had been “etched” with a “hot needle.” On the 30th, it had been “burned” onto the body. What about the 31st?

“Ricky talked guardedly, saying his attorney had advised him to, but admitted scratching the eight words in Sylvia’s stomach with a needle. Police said the instrument used by him was a sewing needle about three inches long.”

I’m confused. Ricky has spoken with a reporter, but did so “guardedly.” Why? His lawyer advised it. Why didn’t Ricky’s lawyer advise him to say absolutely nothing to the reporter? Think about that for a moment. Ok, Ricky…speak to the reporter who will make sure that everyone in Indianapolis, and consequently the members of the jury during your trial, and it’s just fine to confess to the most brutal part of the Canonical Story, it’s just fine to irrevocably confirm your guilt in an amazing confession for the media, just be sure to be guarded about it! Please! Ricky, say absolutely nothing to anyone. “No comment” is what you will say to anyone who attempts to speak with you about this case. Tell them…talk my lawyer! But no! A minor, who is 14 years old, is not protected at all by his lawyer. So Ricky’s fate was sealed on October 31st, and his lawyer did nothing to prevent it.

And one more comment about this case. The October 31rst newspapers said this:

“Mrs. Wright’s Children described some of the torture this way:

Q. How many times did you burn her (with cigarettes)?

A. Oh, many. I don’t know how many.

Q. How many times did Gertie (Mrs. Wright) burn her?

A. Oh, lots of times.

Q. How long was Sylvia in the basement?

A. About two weeks”

Is this an interview by the reporter? Perhaps by the one who conned Ricky into confessing himself into a jail sentence? How about this:

Q. Did you ever burn Sylvia Likens or did you ever see anyone else burn her?
A. Yes, I used matches and Mom used cigarettes to burn Sylvia.
Q. How many times did you burn her?
A. Oh many, I don’t know how many.
Q. How many times did your mother burn Sylvia?
A. Oh, lots of times.
 

Q. How long was Sylvia kept down in the basement?
A. About two weeks.

Those are excerpts from Johnny’s forced confession on the morning of October 27th. So it would appear that the police leaked a copy of a 12 year old boy’s confession of brutality directed against a 16 year old girl to the media. I am utterly amazed that the police would provide a copy of a confession to a reporter to run in the newspaper. I spent much time staring at this in disbelief. But notice that the version that ran in the newspaper differs from the version of the confession that was entered into evidence in the trial…considerably. And notice the information in parentheses. Presumably, the reporter has added this information, no doubt to help the reader with some details. But wouldn’t those details come from the same officers that leaked a copy of a confession to the media? I think so. That means the police believed that Johnny burned Sylvia with cigarettes. The only kids associated with the case who were known smokers were Darlene McGuire and Jenny Likens. So does this mean that 12 year old Johnny was a smoker? At no point in the trial is any connection between smoking and Johnny ever hinted at. And! What about our growing awareness that Gertrude Baniszewski and Gertie Wright were two different people? To re-quote the article:

“Q. How man times did Gertie (Wright) burn her?”

“A. Oh, lots of times.”

Now the response is exactly what appears in the confession produced in court. But not the first part!

Q. How many times did your mother burn Sylvia?
A. Oh, lots of times.
 

So in court the question that was asked of Johnny was about his mother. But the version of the confession shamefully leaked to the media did not reference Johnny’s mother…it referenced “Gertie”…i.e. Gertie Wright. If that was the original question in the original confession, then Johnny and the police officer, who we know was Leo Gentry, discussed the actions of a woman who was not Johnny’s mother. And so Gertrude Baniszewski and Gertie Wright were two different people. But the two women became the same woman, so the confession was altered so as to substitute “your mother” for “Gertie.” Amazing! What else was said in the paper?  

“And another answer from of Mrs. Wright’s children:

“I broke my wrist on Sylvia when I hit her in the jaw.”

Here is some testimony from neighborhood children;

“I hit her six or seven times in the head with my hand.”

“I saw Mrs. Wright throw Sylvia down the basement steps and Mrs. Wright told her that’s where (Sylvia) was going to have to sleep there and that she was not going to give her even crackers and water to eat.”

“I saw one of Mrs. Wright’s daughters put salt on Sylvia’s sores after Mrs. Wright told her to do it.”

“I hit her in the head and she passed out and she was unconscious.”

Yes the first quote is to be found in Paula’s forced confession. But it doesn’t exactly match: “I broke my wrist when I hit Sylvia Likens in the jaw, leaving a bruise.” The second quote I can’t match to any of the confessions. But we all know the third quote came from Judy Bitc…I mean…Judy Duke; hey! I was only quoting Sylvia Likens…don’t blame me! But it doesn’t exactly match the statement made by Judy Duke that was read in court:

About a week ago, I saw Gertrude Wright, throw Sylvia Likens, down the basement steps, and told her that where she was going to sleep, and that she was not going to get anything to eat, crackers or water…

The next quote is also associated with Judy Duke, but it too is different:

I saw Paula, Gertrude's daughter put salt on Sylvia's sores, and the cuts that they made, her mother told her to do it.

It would seem that Judy Duke’s original statement did not identify Paula as the daughter of Mrs. Wright. And that only makes sense, since Paula was the daughter of Gertrude Baniszewski. The last quote appears to be from the confession of Coy Hubbard:

I think I hit her in the head, and later on she passed out

The key element in the confession was that Coy claimed to have hit Sylvia with a broom. And this involved recycling within his confession:

Q. Did you at any time see Mrs. Wright hit Sylvia Likens?
A. Yes, She hit her a lot of times with her hand and one time with a broom.

None of the other witnesses make this claim about a broom. But Coy claims that not only did Mrs. Wright hit Sylvia with a broom, but that he did it too. So it would seem that the confessions, along with the statements, that were presented during the trial existed in another form on October 31st. And it must be asked how any jury could be impartial when confessions and police statements have been published in the newspaper.

And now it is time to come…I’m sure I’ll be forgiven, “full circle,” i.e. we end up where we began! This is from the November 2nd newspaper:

“Sylvia was found dead on a mattress, and her body bore hundreds of marks of cigarette burns, scaldings which peeled the skin and beatings, in addition to the carving out of the words “I am a prostitute” on her chest with a pin.”

Wow! A pin? A pin? Not a Bumppian Burning Wand? And what happened to our three inch needle? Actually, it was Kebelwho referred to a pin. And the slogan was on the stomach, not the chest. The supposed brand was on the chest. Interesting. And! We started with a four word slogan. Then a second line of four words suddenly magically appeared. 4 + 4= 8…perfectly balanced. Now we’re back to the original four word slogan.   And what did we get during the trial? Four versions:

Version 1:  “I am a prostitute and proud of it”  [with an arrowhead pointed to the genital region]

Version 2:  “I’m a prostitute and proud of it”  [reconstruction based on Jenny’s testimony]

Version 3:  “_ prostitute and proud of it”  [reconstruction based on Marie’s testimony]

Version 4:  “Prostitute and proud of it”     [Kaiser’s testimony]

And to this list we must add yet one more version; yes, a fifth version:

“I am a prostitute”

Now…which is the oldest version? Which is the original version? Well, the one from October 27th, the morning following the death of Sylvia Likens. We find it in the information leaked to the media by homicide detectives. And that version? “I am a prostitute,” which is also the version that resurfaced on November 2nd. So:

I am a prostitute + and proud of it

4 + 4 = 8

I am a prostitute = 4 Row 1- leaked on October 27th

And proud of it = 4 Row 2- leaked on October 28th

8 words- stated on October 30th

8 words – stated on October 31st

I am a prostitute - stated on November 2

What a strange pattern! The October 28th newspaper stated the 8 word slogan in full. Then on the 30th and 31st, the media pulls away from the actual slogan, and references “eight words” instead. Then on November 2…we quote the slogan again…as four words.

One gets the impression that “I am” is used instead of “I’m” so as to balanced the 2 words, and not 1 word, because “of it” won’t balance with a contraction at the beginning. So, an original four word slogan is suddenly augmented with more words, but to balance two halves, which are two rows, the cumbersome “of it” was used. Mathematical considerations? Concern for symmetry? Block letters? Yes! And it was Ellis who used the phrase: block letters. The most likely explanation is that the second group of four words was added, for some reason, and those who added it were concerned, for some reason, that there be two rows of four words each. Why? The fact that the words “block letters” are suddenly used would suggest that the augmentation of the four word slogan can be traced back to the pathetic pathologist. Perhaps it wasn’t the scales-less Dr. Ellis who originated the expanded slogan. Perhaps it was something he said a reporter, who misunderstood what he heard.

Dr. Ellis! Dr. Ellis! A quick word, please!

Oh…Ok but hurry up. I’m going over to Gertie Wright’s house to take back all the stuff Jenny stole from me.

Sure! Sure! What about that slogan?

Slogan? You sound like those weird people from the future!

I mean the words carved into her stomach, what about it?

Well, they’re block letters. And they spell out ‘I am a prostitute.’

Why didn’t Ricky use a contraction, Dr. Ellis?

I do not know.   

What do you think it all means?

It is strange. It was done over time. Not all at once in 10 minutes. There were different healing patterns across the letters.

That is strange. Any ideas?

That’s what’s so odd. It was done in a way that kinda makes it seem like…I don’t…she was proud of it.

"Breaking news! This just in…the bizarre lettering on the girl’s stomach really says: I am a prostitute and proud of it!”

And so you see, we even get Dr. Ellis’s exclamation point. Maybe the reporter added it for emphasis. In this hypothetical scenario, if there were cops involved in it, I’ll bet that the breaking news story upset them somewhat. Dr. Ellis! What were you thinking? I did not tell them that the slogan read like that! And he’s right…he didn’t. But it was in the papers, and now the Canonical Story was stuck with it. So when it came time for a note, a ridiculously absurd slogan had to be included- exclamation point and everything!!!!!

I know exactly what you’re going to ask…and it’s a great question. So the note was created after whatever happened that involved Dr. Ellis. Why is there no reference to the branded number 3? I’ll bet you think that I don’t have an answer for that…but you’re wrong. Sylvia Likens had a temporary tattoo on her mid-section…the OM symbol. But it was wearing away because of bath water, so only the “number 3” part of it was visible. It was only a kid tattoo, so it appeared to be irrelevant for the whole Canonical Story, except knowing that Ricky made it, Ricky would have to shoulder the blame for the slogan. That’s when this piece from the October 29th newspaper comes in:

“Police also revealed that a jagged cut in the shape of a ‘3’ had been made on her stomach by a long screw. Sgt. Kaiser said he does not know when this mark was made.”

Bravo, Kaiser! We have our leaker, if that’s a word. How important is this piece of the Canonical Story? There is no brand! It is a jagged cut…that sort of looked like a Number 3. It was made with a long screw.  The original version of this part of the Canonical Story indicated a jagged cut…so not a rounded number 3. At the time that the Gang of Boys note was prepared, this jagged cut was not included because it wasn’t apparent what exactly it was. In other words, it was irrelevant at that time. So it wasn’t regarded as having anything to do with the slogan, and given the large amount of trauma found on the body of Photo1Girl, it could simply have been a cut that merely looked like a number 3. Ah! But you told the press, Sherlock Holmes, and now it was a number 3…carved with a…screw? So! In the original version, Ricky had yet to be handed an eye-hook to make a symbol that no one was sure what exactly it was. A screw? What a horrible mess would have been made on the stomach using a screw to carve this most Unfathomable of symbols. If it resembled a number 3, it must have barely, given the tearing of the flesh that a screw would make. Could it have simply been more trauma on the body that, when looked at from a certain angle, resembled a number 3? A block numeral? No way! Not if it was made by scraping on the skin with a long screw. Perhaps Kaiser should have spent less time talking to reporters! Perhaps he didn’t say it was a number 3. Perhaps he said it only looked like one. But! He told a sensationalist reporter! And now…

“News flash! Teenage girl had a Number 3 carved into her with a long screw!”

I think that the police should have spent less time leaking things to the press. After all, it is actually easier to tell the truth. Of course, Sylvia had the remnants of the OM tattoo still visible on her stomach…so that becomes a Number 3. But you can’t say that a Number 3 that actually looks like a Number 3, or a Letter S, was made with a long screw. So! The cut becomes a brand..not made with a screw, but rather a screw-hook, and by the same guy who made the original, totally harmless, temporary tattoo. And then Ellis can do his buffoonish ‘I can’t tell the difference between cuts and burns’ routine in court, and Kebel makes the mistake of referring to “some kind of tattooing” when it was his turn to play the buffoon. A brand and some kind of tattooing? Stick to the script.

As for the slogan, how hard can it be to get this right? The strange slogan found on the wall at the Catherine Eddowes murder scene, the piece of evidence destroyed by Charles Warren, has different versions, but they don’t differ by too much. And yet the police, who were in possession of a body showing a slogan burned, or cut, or etched, or scratched..they can’t seem to decide, who could stare at this body 24 hours a day if they wanted…an option not available to police in Whitechapel after their slogan was washed off the wall, can’t decide if their slogan was 4 words…or 8 words. And in court, no testimony matched what homicide detectives leaked to the media on October 27th. And! Tell me if you think that this was irresponsible:

They minus well have written: any vigilantes interested in reprisals…here is the house!

Of course, the publication of extracts from confessions and statements to the police…they just might cause everyone in Indianapolis to be convinced of the guilt of those accused of the criminal actions in this case. Could that be? Let’s hear from the community:

“Outrage; to the Editor of The Star:  Thank God Sylvia Likens is dead! Now the neighbors won’t have to be disturbed by her screams while she is being tortured.”

That was signed “A Reader,” and “Tipton.” Tipton, Indiana is 51 miles from Indianapolis. And what is this Tiptonite saying? Apparently, Sylvia being dead is a good thing, since now the neighbors won’t have to be disturbed by the screaming. She’d have to be screaming pretty loud to be heard in Tipton! What an obnoxious thing for this person to put in the newspaper when it doesn’t even concern this person anyway! I could just see this person living on East New York Street…look, Gertie Wright, would you please just kill her! Her screaming is disturbing my TV time!

Here’s a good one:

“Likens Murder Recalls Nazi Death Camps. To the Editor of the Star:  I join M. K. McClintick in wondering why the sadistic torture of Sylvia Likens was not reported to police. A girl has been brutally murdered while her parents were a thousand miles away. The whole story sounds like it should have taken place in a Nazi concentration camp. Are the guilty parties going to get away with this heinous crime? Sincerely yours, Mrs. Mary E Clark, Peru.”

You might ask…was this murder in the South American press too? Probably not. Peru, Indiana is 81 miles from Indianapolis. It seems like a lot of people who don’t live in Indianapolis feel compelled to make stupid statements in the newspaper just as much as stupid reporters and stupid cops do who actually do live in Indianapolis. And if I lived in Peru, Indiana in November 1965, I would challenge  Mrs. Mary E Clark to find someone who had lived in a Nazi concentration camp, then describe the allegations in the Likens case, and watch their reaction. Mary E Clark knew nothing about Nazi concentration camps, or she wouldn’t have said anything as stupid as she did. But hold up a moment! This line about Nazi death camps that Mrs. Mary E Clark brought into the Canonical Story…this would be echoed by Marjorie Wessner, deputy prosecutor, the girl in the pink dress, during the closing arguments:

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

So did Miss Wessner get her Nazi concentration camp nonsense by reading the comments of Mary E Clark? Is there a connection between Mrs. Clark and Miss Wessner? The use of this theme is ridiculously over the top, and represents polemic beyond anything else in the case. But who is M.K. McClintick, the apparent hero of Mary E Clark? What did he say?

My isn’t he eloquent? I can almost see why Mary E Clark of Peru is so impressed with him. He implies that he is rather knowledgeable about torture. Of course, if he was, then he would know that nothing remotely indicative of torture; well, I should be careful there; maybe he has no idea how Soviet prisoners of war were tortured by the Nazis; or how people were tortured in concentration camps, or how the NKVD tortured everyone they got their hands on, or how American soldiers were being tortured by the Viet Cong. I could go on, but I won’t. Where is the prosecutor? Mr. McClintick…you must not know that Leroy New and my favorite frustrated bass player Marjorie Wessner will perform those services for you. Where is the judge? Don’t tell me that you know nothing of Saul Rabb, known to us affectionately as “The Court.” Where is the law? Perhaps you should go to a law library and gaze at hundreds of law books, and you just might see it. Poor misguided society? I apologize about the partial piece called “TV Disturbing.” I couldn’t find a way to crop it out. But it’s just as well. That person decries a poor, misguided society too. Mr. McClintick focuses on Gertrude’s brutal children. Reading the other piece, I now know how American youth can be turned into monsters. All they need to do is watch Gidget on TV, and the then next thing you know…

It’s easy to see that the next step from Gidget is…the Beast of East New York Street. But Mary E Clark, the pride and joy of Peru, wasn’t the only who was impressed with Mr. McClintick:

It’s kind of a shame that Mr. and Mrs. Hoosier named their child “Horrified.” Here’s your copy of the newspaper, Horrified Hoosier…I mean, Mr. Hoosier. Thanks! Have you met my brother Sickened Hoosier, or my sister Aghast Hoosier? No, I’m afraid I haven’t! But I have met M.K. McClintick! Still, Horrified does have a point…Indianapolis does seem like it was a bit of a jungle. Gertie Wright’s Jungle of Horror! And I detect a bit of hostility towards my now favorite city..as for you, O Indianapolis…you deserve to live in a Gertie Wright style jungle! None of this would have happened if you hadn’t let your children watch Gidget! Gidget’s Jungle of Horror! Perhaps Horrified would feel differently if he had the opportunity to watch Gertrude Baniszewski dance to the record in the front room! Scratch that. As for Mr. McClintick…perhaps he is Malcolm K McClintick who lived at 407 North Penn, apartment 415; adjudicator at the State Vocational Rehabilitation Division. How is that relevant? It’s not.

Now Sylvia was accused of some pretty bad things. She called people mean names, broke Paula’s wrist, and she hit Shirley Baniszewski for no reason! But now we also know from the words of wisdom imparted by such intelligent people, that she made a racket and annoyed the neighbors with her screaming. And we can condemn the people of Indianapolis for this, but particularly the people who had the misfortune of living near Gertrude Baniszewski, and Gertie Wright, and Rosie van Fossan! What underlies this? Well, it was on October 28th that the media began creating a fictional Canonical Story that rivals even that created in 1880s Whitechapel. It was on October 28th that we found that Sylvia had been turned into a slave…you do this! And you do that! Ah, yes, the “Enslaved Girl.” Fictional? Yes..this image of Sylvia was so bad that it was left out of the trial testimony; and that’s saying something. But we also get this, and I’m sure that this is what underlies the ravings of Malcom McClintick and his followers:

“Neighbors as far as four doors away reported hearing Sylvia scream when she was beaten. Neighborhood children who spoke of conditions in the Wright household told of witnessing gang beatings by Mrs. Wright’s children and sometime by visitors to the house. Some even admitted participating in some of the incidents against Sylvia. They said Mrs. Wright told them to do it.”

Who made you do it? The devil made me do it! I thought you say that Gertie Wright made you do it. Same thing! But I guess I now understand the ravings of the person with such a highly developed Christian Spirit condemning just how loud Sylvia was. She screams so loud, that she can be heard four houses down. That is loud! VERY VERY LOUD! Who lives four houses down? If you could hear Sylvia as far away as four doors down, that would take you 3842 East New York Street. Sonja Green lived there. If she could hear Sylvia screaming, then imagine how much louder the screaming would have sounded at William Sim’s house, which wasn’t nearly as loud as it would sound at William McGuire’s house. Hey Gertrude…turn up the record and drown out the SCREAMING. Of course, it would be the loudest at the house immediately next door. Who lived there? I know..Phyllis Keel Thompson Smith Vermillion Keel…I forget the rest. What did she say? The only screaming that she heard coming from 3850 East New York was the screaming of Gertrude Wright. In her testimony, she says nothing about hearing Sylvia scream from inside her house. And the only neighbor to testify was Phyllis Vermillion, and the only screaming she heard was Gertrude? An even more ridiculous version of this appeared on October 31st, just in time for Halloween:

“Police records show that no one had called them about the matter although neighbors as far as four doors away said they heard screams of a girl from the Wright house. When asked why they did not notify the police, they said they had no idea what really was going on.”

This is great. We heard a girl screaming so loud that she actually screamed louder than Gertrude Baniszewski, or Gertie Wright, or Rosie van Fossan. And four doors down! But we didn’t call the police, because we didn’t know what was going on. What could possibly be going on that isn’t horrible enough to horrify even Horrified Hoosier..that isn’t something horrible? She was practicing screaming for Gertie Wright’s Heavy Metal Band of Horror? Gertrude’s record is so bad that all Sylvia has left to do is scream over the top of it? If you hear screaming that loud…well, let’s be fair! That doesn’t mean anything bad…right? No one heard Sylvia screaming four doors down. I think that it’s clear that once the story began to emerge in the press, it was time for other people to try to move into the spotlight a bit by making up nonsense. So you see! Mr. McClintick is right about you, O fallen souls of Indianapolis! And none of this would have happened if America’s youth were free of the evil influence of…Gidget.

But I would like to hear from someone more local:

“Can’t Sleep. To the Editor of The Star:  I just had to write you ever since I read The Star about the torture death of Sylvia Likens. I am in my 70 years and have not slept any since that happened. I do hope and pray that the ones that did that will to pay just the way the girl was treated. D. Baker.”

Now I have to admit that I feel rather sorry for D. Baker. The comments were printed in the November 11th newspaper, which means that D. Baker has been awake for 15 days straight! That would make anyone cranky. And it seems an odd prayer. I understand asking God to see that guilty people are brought to justice. But..an eye for an eye? Everybody knows that you stone a woman caught in adultery; well, except for one person who had the nerve to say: He who is without sin may cast the first stone. And look what happened to him.

So within a matter of days, people were making up nonsense for the media. And the police were leaking confessions and witness statements to the newspaper. And Ricky’s lawyer didn’t stop him from confessing to a reporter. And it was clear that within a matter of days, Gertrude and the others were guilty. Perhaps a change in venue would have increased the chance of a fair trial. That’s right…Saul Rabb said..no! And what a crisis of faith we are left with! We can’t trust the media, and we can’t trust the cops…well, not those cops. But surely they had a motive. Yes, I take it on faith that they did have a motive. Did Mrs. Baniszewski? Did Mrs. Wright? Did Mrs. Van Fossan? Hey! Check this out…Gertrude Baniszewski’s maiden name was Van Fossan, so if Randy was saying that a Van Fossan woman moved into 3850 East New York in July..was Rosie just a manifestation of Gertrude? Think about that.

It would seem that the Whitechapel murderer did actually have a motive, which somewhat compromises the whole Jack the Ripper thing. And so much for slogans. They seem so important, yet one is left with so many versions that it makes one wonder whether any one really saw anything at all. Burned? Etched? Carved? Written in chalk? Four words? Eight words? Wait! I know a  four word slogan that was also written on a wall: mene, mene, tekel, parsin. What? Yes! Those were the words that the prophet Daniel saw a mysterious hand write mysteriously on a mysterious wall. What of that mysterious slogan written on the alley wall near the body of Catherine Eddowes? Nothing. It was just graffiti on the wall. It was just a coincidence. And like a crisis of faith, coincidences do happen. Maybe.