Pathos is a really cool Greek word. And like really cool Greek words, there are many nuances of meaning. Such as…Angst and Pathos; Pathos in the sense of a growing feeling of internal disquiet. That nuance is indeed at home in the Great Saga. Another nuance underlies the English word…pathetic. There is much that is pathetic in our story, to be sure. But Pathos also means “illness.” And one who studies illness can go by the title of Pathologist. Now we’re talking! In our Saga, we find a pathetic Pathologist who has given so many teaspooners a considerable amount of Angst and Pathos. I speak of Dr. Ellis; and by way of introduction to my essay, I have to point out the Pathos that the pathetic Pathologist has caused in my mind! Of course, I think that much of the pathetic Pathos is provided by a man who felt considerable fear as he was forced to play the Sylvia Likens Trial Game. Every roll of the dice was fraught with danger. He was the man of science. And the man of science knew that he would have to be very careful about the way he crafted his veracity-lacking testimony. Why? What would happen if someone were to doubt what had supposedly happened, and an order was given to exhume the body and give another, probably not-so-pathetic Pathologist, a second look. Trepidation, indeed! False claims and statements would be seen to be false..or at least..lacking in veracity..and thereby..potentially..mendacious. I find in his testimony a very astute hedging of bets. I believe that his veracity-compromised statements were crafted in such a way that he would be found to be, not veracity-lacking Mendax, but rather, a pathos generating pathetic Pathologist. Perjury leads to prison…being pathetic does not. And so I point out some things from Dr. Ellis’ testimony that gives me a growing sense of internal disquiet.  

1. Ellis claimed that there were no scales to weigh corpses in the autopsy facility.

There are reasons to question the veracity of this claim. I think that the statement about the scales must stem from the fact that the two bodies had notably different weights. Stephanie described Sylvia as a big girl, and joked that both of them had talked about going on a diet. On the other hand, Photo1Girl looks like she had been undergoing considerable weight loss. Jenny made a statement about her sister having lost weight. Still, the testimony of the other witnesses, although it does reference isolated occurrences of Gertrude supposedly withholding food from Sylvia, and there may be some truth in this, do not describe anything like a systematic campaign of starving Sylvia Likens. Was the other girl being starved? I believe she wasn’t. I believe she was sick and that was the reason for her weight loss, although she may have been undernourished. If Ellis merely estimated the weight of the body, then if it emerged later that the weight of Photo1Girl was not consistent with the weight of Sylvia Likens, the difference could be chalked up to the ridiculous claim that Ellis had no scales.

2. Dr. Ellis’ Level of Experience.

I don’t know how many pathologists there were in Strangest City in the World in October 1965. Was Ellis the only one? This is rather difficult to believe, seeing how Indianapolis was a fairly large city. And what is most interesting about Dr. Ellis is that he received his Doctor of Medicine degree from Indiana University in 1964. So we’re talking about a rookie to say the least. How convenient it is that the Pathologist who performed the autopsy had about 1 year experience. Just how inexperienced was he? Note this:

A. I have not X-rayed a body for fractures. I have X-rayed only for the finding of foreign objects.

What? Ellis is such a newbie that he had never x-rayed a body for fractures? And so it is, and how fortunate it is for the Canonical Story that should the body be exhumed for a second autopsy, and it is found that the autopsy reports are not consistent with the second autopsy, Dr. Ellis can play the inexperienced, newbie card. He didn’t lie…he was just so new that he made mistakes. It is interesting that he was involved with the case of Karen Patterson only a month or so later. This involved an infant named Karen Patterson and her twin brother Calvin. The infant was found dead of head trauma, which the Terre Haute Star (June 6, 1966) said could have been caused by a blow to the head or a fall. She and her brother were found to be suffering from malnutrition, dehydration, and sores on the body. This case is an eerie parallel to the Sylvia Likens case. And I would note that one of the cops involved in the case, but who never testified, was Spurgeon Davenport, a homicide detective who interrogated Gertrude along side Kaiser.  He did not testify during the 1966 trial, but did testify during the 1971 re-trial that took place after the convictions of Gertrude and Paula were quashed. Davenport’s role in the Sylvia Likens investigation offers us another chronological point. He had been a lieutenant in the Homicide Division, but was promoted to captain in February 1966; thus his promotion took place roughly four months after his involvement in the Sylvia Likens case. Mayor John J Barton then promoted him to Inspector of Police. He famously declared that what befell Sylvia Likens was “the most sadistic act I ever came across.” I must say that this appears to me to be extreme hyperbole. The witness testimony does not bear this out, and how is it that a veteran of the Homicide Division had not seen far worse and decidedly more grisly murders? Sylvia died of head trauma, and in what is an amazing situation given charges of murder, the cause of that trauma was never identified. Did Gertrude really stand on Sylvia’s head? Could a smack from a book be a fatal blow? I don’t think so, even if that book were Paula’s Astrophysics textbook…and if you get up at 1:00 am and hurry to school, I bet you’re actually taking Astrophysics…or Quantum Mechanics…or Warp Core Theory. I’ll bet Stephanie wasn’t in any of those classes! Could the cause of that fatal trauma be a good shot from a curtain rod? Back to Gertrude. But if it was a blow from a broom handle, then we must lay the supposed murder on the head of poor Coy Hubbard. Gertrude walks! Or maybe it was an accident, caused when Ricky, helping Stephanie carry Sylvia around the house, only to lose his grip on the girl’s shoulders, resulting in Sylvia banging her head on the stairs. Could that have been what brought about that which Prophetess Sylvia had so stoically declared days before? At most, her head was probably only a foot off the ground, and while it would leave a nasty bump, death was unlikely. But no! It was Stephanie! Blood pressure problems? Prone to fainting? Ricky’s nasty bump becomes Stephanie’s nasty bump. How about being hit in the head with the paddle? Unlikely. Remember, Gertrude smacked herself in the head with the paddle, and in “Chronological Velocity” I commented on what a poor pitcher Gertrude would have made. Likewise, a poor batter. Strike Three! Gertrude survived her Three Stooges-esque self-inflicted paddle smack to the head, although Dr. Paula was quickly summoned to set Gertrude’s broken jaw! So now you see why my favorite character is Paula. She’s a police officer…she’s a hair stylist…she’s a doctor…she’s a spanker of naughty kids…she goes to school at 1:00 am…what’s not to like? A true multi-tasker if there ever was one…an impressive Spinner of Plates! How can this be murder when no murder weapon was ever identified? How can this be murder when no act of premeditation is ever described? We don’t even know who struck the fatal blow. And don’t forget! Dr. Stephanie, whose Doctor of Medicine degree should be revoked given gross incompetence and obvious malpractice, thinks that you can accidentally kill a girl by letting her fall back on a mattress from a sitting position. Now that’s head trauma! There is no act of murder…there is no murder weapon…which sufficiently explains why no one is ever described as delivering anything like a coup de grace! So we don’t even have murder. There is a very mysterious lacuna in the story. For some unexplained reason, on October 26th, around the time that some kids get home from school, Sylvia is in the basement. Well, that’s not strange if you live in the Canonical Story World. But I don’t live there, and so I think it is strange because she is mumbling incoherently. A-B-C-D…what comes next, Shirley? 1-2-3-4…what comes next, Lester? And, she has accidentally had a bowel movement, which necessitated the need to clean the girl up. And so, rinsing her off with Randy Baniszewski’s hose, and washing her off with soap, she is taken upstairs for a bath. Oh, we’re also suspending Dr. Ricky’s license to practice, unless that is a license to practice nonsense. Sylvia takes a bath, goes to bed…and…wait! Did that happen on October 26th? I don’t think so. I think it happened on October 25th. Mumbling incoherently and an accidental bowel movement? Easily head trauma. And as has been pointed out numerous times on this website, any fall down the basement steps leads directly into a concrete wall. That seems much more suited to produce fatal head trauma than Paula’s Warp Core Theory textbook. So we have a veteran homicide detective who actually headed the homicide division, who finds this case to be the most horrible he has seen? In a city, my apologies to Davenport and Kaiser, that was essentially being run by gangsters, who have been known to, from time to time, commit horrible murders simply to scare other people, this murderless murder is the worst thing he has ever seen? That makes me wonder just what murders he had seen before. If I were a traffic cop who accidentally got sent to a house with two dead bodies, one of which was indeed in a dreadful condition, having never seen anything worse than a parking violation, I too could say that that was the worst thing I ever saw! So apparently, Spurgeon Davenport was not familiar with the case of Karen Patterson, there being additional details about that case that I choose not to relate here. My opinion is that Davenport greatly exaggerated when he made his famous declaration, and the fact that he was receiving two promotions during 1966 had nothing to do his involvement in the Likens case? Inspector Davenport! Do not pick up Natty Bumpo’s book!  

What was I saying before? Oh, yes..inexperience! Ellis told the court that he had spent 30 – 60 minutes talking about the case with Dr. Kebel and a Mr. Gaither. The latter is Bethel E Gaither. The Indi Star (11/11/65) described him as a former homicide detective. His obituary states that he retired from the police department in 1964. The 1964 city directory lists him as a sergeant with the police department. In 1965 and 1966, the city directories describe him as an Investigator with the County Coroner’s office. Ellis described him as the Chief Investigator for the Coroner’s Office. Must I emphasize…Mr. Gaither? Not, Dr. Gaither. Is there a Paula in the house? So in Mr. Gaither, we have another rookie, with Mr. Gaither, not Officer Gaither, featured in his new role.

And so too Kebel. He received his Doctor of Medicine degree in 1961. He began practicing in May of 1962, but didn’t become deputy coroner until January 1965. So do we have the same situation with Kebel as we do with Ellis and Gaither? The presence of 3 men so new to their roles would appear to be remarkably convenient for the Great Travesty, and such inexperience might go a long way to provide a way out of serious trouble in the event that there should be a re-examination of this case. What is Inspector Davenport’s excuse?

Yet, Dr. Ellis states that between his graduation in 1964 and the time of the trial in roughly May 1966, he had performed 250 – 275 autopsies:

Q. How many autopsies have you performed, Doctor?
A. I would say roughly two hundred and fifty to two hundred and seventy-five.

So there are no records that would allow for an exact answer? And how many of these autopsies had he performed since graduating in 1964 and the extremely important autopsy he performed on the evening of October 26, 1965? Upon graduation, was he performing autopsies, or was he assisting? Assisting in an empty autopsy facility that lacked new-fangled things like…scales. Unfortunately, the fact that the number of autopsies he performed from his graduation to May 1966 is totally unsubstantiated, we can not be certain about how this relates to the question of inexperience. I find the number of autopsies he claimed to be difficult to believe. But he attests to his inability to clearly distinguish between burns and cuts, which seems impossible, but could be linked to either a case for inexperience, incompetence, or simply being pathetic. I would also note the fact that Ellis was new to his role supports an enhanced skepticism toward his testimony. In fact, one might wonder whether Kebel and Ellis were specifically chosen for this very reason.

 3. Ellis claimed that there was no x-ray machine in the morgue, and that he did not x-ray the body.

There was an x-ray machine “downstairs”, which could apparently be used if “it is available.” So no scales and no X-ray machine. Perhaps it would have been simpler to ask Ellis if he had anything in the morgue at all..Dr. Ellis, please tell the court..do you have a table in the morgue?” Perhaps the morgue was just a large, empty room. This claim about the X-ray machine, which may, like the scales, be a bizarre type of device akin to the clock in Gertie Wright’s front room..the one that appears and disappears, and when it’s there, it’s usually wrong. That is not a complete sentence. But here’s one…the reason for the absurd claim about the Invisible X-ray Machine, one that was perhaps more at home in Gertrude’s front room than an autopsy facility, I think may be clear from this exchange:

Q. Did you find any fractures?
A. No, sir.
Q. Did you - how did you look for fractures?

A. Well, I palpated all the extremities and bones, feeling them to see if there was any massive swelling around them, any abnormal bends, places where the bond would move, where there was no joint.

Q. That does not necessarily reflect a hairline fracture?
A. No, it does not.
Q. Did you X-ray the body for the presence of hairline fractures?
A. I did not, no.
Q. Did you know whether or not anyone else did?
A. I am not certain.
Q. Do you ever do that?
A. I have not X-rayed a body for fractures. I have X-rayed only for the finding of foreign objects.

One should stop here and think for a moment. Ellis is claiming that the body in the morgue wasn’t x-rayed. He checked the body for fractures by feeling around. Perhaps this is akin to determining the weight by bouncing the girl up and down in his arms. Of course, there is an x-ray machine “downstairs”, so perhaps Ellis felt it was a waste of time to use that machine, or perhaps it wasn’t available, or, what I find more likely, Ellis claimed it wasn’t used for a more likely reason. That reason, I believe, is connected with the pelvis and legs of the girl in the photo. It should be remembered that the witnesses describe numerous examples of pushing Sylvia Likens down stairs, and we hear about the Women’s World Champion Professional Wrestler, Stephanie, spending her time flipping Sylvia around the front room. There is a good explanation for these false claims, which intersects with Ellis’ nonsense about not x-raying the body; a body, by the way, that was deemed to be that of a murder victim before it was even removed from the house and ended up in Dr. Ellis’ empty autopsy room. One more thing…if Sylvia was actually pushed down the stairs as often as the witnesses would claim, how is it that she didn’t break any bones? If you don’t x-ray the body, which Dr. Ellis certainly did, then you couldn’t prove that an important form of abuse ever took place. Your Honor! The ‘pushing down stairs’ element of the Great Nonsense is totally unsubstantiated since a pathetic Pathologist performed the autopsy! The x-ray machine wasn’t available? Your Honor! Maybe Dr. Ellis didn’t ask nicely.

 4. Ellis described irregularities with microscopic slides.

He said the following when discussing his preparation for the trial:

Q. Reviewing the findings. What else, Doctor?
A. Time was spent, approximately two hours I would say, reviewing microscopic study of the case.

And:

Q. Surely, it is all approximation, is that about right, would you say - did you testify two hours microscopic study?
A. Approximately.

However, he also said the following:

Q. And the Anatomical Diagnosis you filed with the Coroner's Office did not include your microscopic findings, is that correct?
A. That is correct.
Q. When were they completed?
A. I can't give you the exact date but I would say approximately a month later.
Q. Approximately a month later?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. You filed this November 24th, did you?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Were they back then?
A. I -
Q. Your slides, Doctor, did you have your slides then?
A. I really don't know.

So here we have what gives the appearance of irregularities with the microscopic evidence. He did have this evidence when he prepared for testimony with the other two members of the Inexperienced Triumvirate! Also known as Dr. Kebel and Mr. Gaither. But we learn that when Ellis filed his Anatomical Diagnosis, he didn’t have the necessary evidence available because he didn’t have his slides. Then, relative to the November 24th filing, Ellis states that he doesn’t know whether he had his slides at the time. His filing was dated November 24th, and Sylvia Likens was buried on November 1, 1965. So the body had been buried for approximately 23 days before Ellis made his filing. And if Photo1Girl were buried on October 26th, with Ellenberger Park as her final resting place… Still, where were the slides?

He also describes a ridiculous amount of delay in getting his slides:

Q. Your slides, Doctor, did you have your slides then?
A. I really don't know.
Q. How long does it ordinarily take?

A. That is in the process or changing at the present time. Last July it took as much as - well I still don't have some of the slides from last July. I have most of the slides now from recent cases in approximately two to three weeks.

Q. In October, you could get them in two or three weeks?
A. I don't think so. I think in December I started getting slides pretty quickly.
Q. You don't know whether you had the slides?
A. At that time I am not certain.
Q. Did you make any notation with respect to the dates you received the slides?
A. I did not make a note in my records, no.

How convenient. I don’t know? As concerns his most recent cases, it took only two to three weeks to get his slides back. But as concerns older cases, the turnaround time is absurd. In May 1966 he was still waiting on slides from cases dated to July 1965? And how convenient it is that he started getting slides “pretty quickly” in December, roughly two months after the Sylvia Likens investigation! Moreover, the dates surrounding the slides for the Sylvia Likens investigation are vague, indeterminate, uncertain, and highly suspect. Yet, Ellis does refer to microscopic evidence:

Q. Now, does shock, when it operates as the cause of death, leave any lesions observable grossly or microscopically at the time of autopsy?
A. If shock is present long enough, the kidneys in particular will show changes especially microscopically.
Q. They did not?
A. Microscopically it was observable in the lower nephron.
Q. The microscopical findings are not in the reports, is that correct?
A. They are not in the autopsy report.

Ah, so the microscopical findings verify the effects of shock being present in the lower nephron of the Kidneys, but those findings were not included in the autopsy report. But what a muddle using the slides, whenever he got them, can produce; particularly as they relate to what is probably the most important element in the Canonical Story. When we search for “torture” we are left focusing on one element, i.e. Kebel’s 150 cigarette burns, which is to say…Paula’s 15 cigarette burns. Determining this would seem to be fairly straightforward. But! It is not:

Q. Does anything happen to tissue - excuse me - what happens to tissue that is subjected to the heat equivalent to that in the end of a burning cigarette?
A. With heat there is coagulation of the protein and a breakdown of cell structure.
Q. This would be observable microscopically, would it not?
A. It is observable microscopically but it is perhaps better seen on gross appearance.
Q. It is?
A. I feel it is.

Q. Were there areas on the body where you testified it was either done with a hot object or a sharp instrument, you were unable to tell which?

A. There were areas I could not tell which.
Q. By gross observation?
A. By gross observation.

Q. Would - then would this phenomenon you have just mentioned have been identifiable microscopically by burning rather than by a sharp instrument, if you know?

A. I think they would be rather minute, not pronounced at all.
Q. They would be observable or not?
A. I think they would be observable but I still would not be able to say definitely they were burns. They were not that specific to say.
Q. Did you section them?
A. I looked at the sections microscopically.
Q. You were not able to tell?
A. I was not certain they were all burns. I did not section all, but I sectioned some of the lesions.

So, determining whether a wound or lesion is a burn can be done microscopically, but it is preferable to follow a more Dixonian approach and simply look at it, only to find that, using such an advanced technique as looking, he couldn’t tell. Nonetheless, he did look at them microscopically, but was not able to determine whether all of the lesions were burns. So a Dixonian examination did not allow Dr. Ellis to tell the difference between cuts and burns. And! The review of the microscopic evidence, examining the Magical Mysterious Slides that floated around Indianapolis, perhaps appearing and disappearing like Gertrude’s Magical Clock, did not allow him to make the proper distinctions relevant to all the lesions. So that means that the following manifestations are present:

 1. Lesions due to burns

2. Lesions made with a sharp object

3. Lesions that did not allow for a determination as to whether they are burns or cuts

Q. Doctor, you have testified you observed punctate lesions. Is it possible for you to indicate those on the body?

A. Well, this one in the palm appears essentially as a puncture wound, where the skin edges are extending down into a small wound, small diameter.

Q. Do you have an opinion as to the cause of those punctate lesions?

A. This on the hand, I would not be able to say what caused it. Many of the others are present, many are circular where there is denuding of skin. I think they were shown. Some are circular and are approximately one centimeter, which is less than one half inch, and these would be having sharp edges and they appear to have been done with an object approximately that diameter.

Q. Do you have an opinion how they were caused?
A. These appeared to be essentially burns.
Q. By some hot object?
A. Yes.
Q. Approximately the size of a cigarette?
A. Approximately so.

Here we have our cigarette burns, but notice that Ellis does not say that they are burns. They “appeared” to be “essentially” burns. In other words, they may not have been burns at all! They would obviously have been caused by a hot object if they were burns, but what does that mean if the wounds only “appeared” to be “essentially” burns? If they weren’t burns, then they weren’t made by a hot object. The size of a cigarette? “Approximately so.” Which means…they probably weren’t. A hedging of bets by our pathetic Pathologist! If a later examination indicates that the lesions were not the diameter of the end of a cigarette, then…I never said they were made by a cigarette! And as for diameter, I only said that they were “approximately” the diameter of a cigarette! So Ellis takes no position as to whether, if they happened to be burns, and therefore had to be made by a hot object, a cigarette was actually used to make the burns; assuming, of course, that they were really burns. Is it too late for a consultation with Dr. Paula?

In the Canonical Story, the cigarette burns are the foundation of the claims of torture. Ellis would not say whether any lesions were caused by a cigarette; he is asked whether the diameter of the lesions were roughly akin to that of a cigarette. His answer is that they were “approximately so.” But burns were essential:

Q. Doctor, based upon your examination of this girl, have you formed an opinion as to the cause of her death?

A. I determined her cause of death was increased intracranial pressure due to brain contusion. Underlying and contributing are shock from severe burns and lacerations, malnutrition being an added factor.

Q. When you state "increased intracranial pressure" are you speaking of the subdural hematoma about which you spoke?

A. Subdural is edema. This caused this increased pressure.
Q. You are talking about the same thing as the cause of death, pressure inside the brain?
A. Yes, sir.

Q. And the underlying causes of shock and severe burns, how do you assess that as secondary cause of death? Contributing to the cause of death?

A. The extent of these injuries, superficial injuries, would be of such nature as to cause rather extensive loss of plasma portion of the blood into the bruises and probably also through the areas where the skin was lost and with the loss of plasma there would be falling blood pressure, which is a factor in shock. There is also an element of pain causing a neurogenic type of shock and with the injuries and the fact her lip was chewed, it appeared to me she had pain and would have this added element to give her shock.

So we have “severe burns,” but then we are told that the injuries are “superficial injuries.” But Ellis does not, in the testimony quoted above, designate any specific superficial injuries as burns.

Q. Did I understand you to say on direct examination your opinion as to the cause of death was "increased intracranial pressure due to brain contusion, secondary to shock from severe burns and laceration"?

A. No, I think they were underlying factors.
Q. Being from severe burns and lacerations?
A. That is what I said.

Touchy, touchy! Providing veracity-compromised scientific testimony can make a Pathologist a bit grumpy! Again, severe burns?

Q. The bruises which you have described and which you stated, along with the burns, caused shock - could they have been caused from striking blows at the body?
A. The bruises could be caused from, are caused by forceful contact.

It is interesting how Dr. Ellis, when speaking about bruises, starts with “could be” and transitions to “are.” Wow! At least he knows a bruise when he sees one! Of course, everyone living at 3850 East New York Street were well acquainted with bruises! Hey, Shirley, what is that purple mark on Sylvia’s arm? A bruise! How do you know? ‘Cause I gave it to her!

Q. Doctor, would it be correct to say those multiple wounds you have testified to had a cumulative effect on the person who died?
A. I feel they did.
Q. And what is the direct relationship between the severe burns and bruises and the death?
MR. BOWMAN: Oh, Your Honor, he has been leading the witness. This is another example of it.
THE COURT: Overruled as to that question.
A. I feel death was due to a combination of this injuries and the head injury.

 In all fairness, The Court, it would seem that Dr. Ellis could use a little “leading.”

Q. Will you describe what is depicted on that chart in front of you with reference to what the photograph shows, State's Exhibit No. 20 shows?
A. Well, the exhibit shows, the photograph shows bruising along this portion of it.
Q. Caused by what?
A. I would not be able to say what caused the bruise.
Q. What did your examination show it was then, was it burns, what was it?
A. A bruise is a collection of blood underneath the skin surface. That is what I am describing, a bruise. Also the areas of patchy loss of skin, these having sharp edges seen in the photograph and at the time of autopsy and being scattered over the arms, of variable sizes and shapes.

Was it burns? Was it a burn? Were they burns? Indianapolise. No comment, though, on the possibility of a burns.

Q. Take the stand again then. Now, Doctor, in your description of those various appearances on that chart, which are shown by those photographs which were admitted in evidence, some of them were burns?
A. I feel some of them were burns.

Ah! Some of them were burns. Which ones? More wishy-washy statements about burns:

A. This region, the base of the neck and the upper portion of the shoulders, are described both in my notes and in the picture.
Q. Consisting of what?
A. I felt this was an area of probable burn.
Q. Go ahead.

A. Both in the picture - where it has an irregular outline - and in my notes I described the edges of the skin, the edges of the lesions, and also some damage to surrounding skin, suggesting a burn. The remainder of the marks on the back, were more from the autopsy reports than from the picture.

“Probable burn” and “suggesting a burn.” It’s too bad they weren’t bruises! At least Dr. Ellis could be a little more certain.

Q. Would you describe the word lesion?
A. A lesion is essentially any deviation from the normal.
Q. Were there any lesions on the body of the deceased girl?
A. I described the bruises. These are lesions. I described burns. These are lesions. I described patchy losses of superficial skin. These are lesions.

Hey! If Dr. Kebel had to spell t-r-a-u-m-a, maybe we should make Dr. Ellis spell l-e-s-i-o-n. Ok, l-e-i-s-o-n. Wrong! Better yet, perhaps we should make him spell b-u-r-n. But I must say…don’t be so touchy! Bruises, lesions, burns..ok, ok! And! Did he really describe burns? He has actually not said that any specific lesion, wound, or injury was indeed a burn.

To repeat an earlier quote:

Q. Would - then would this phenomenon you have just mentioned have been identifiable microscopically by burning rather than by a sharp instrument, if you know?
A. I think they would be rather minute, not pronounced at all.
Q. They would be observable or not?
A. I think they would be observable but I still would not be able to say definitely they were burns. They were not that specific to say.
Q. Did you section them?
A. I looked at the sections microscopically.
Q. You were not able to tell?
A. I was not certain they were all burns. I did not section all, but I sectioned some of the lesions.

Q. You are talking about places where the skin was missing?
A. That is right.
Q. It was done with a sharp or hot object?
A. Yes.
Q. Could it be done with hot water?

A. Most of these did not appear to have been caused with hot water because water would have burned the surrounding area to a lesser degree. The skin surrounding looked somewhat normal.

Q. You did not find evidence of surrounding tissues having been scorched or burned?

A. On these particular wounds. Others on the upper part of the back appeared to have surrounding skin involved to a lesser degree.

Again…yes…a hot object or a sharp object. It is so hard to tell the difference between cuts and burns.

This fundamental disconnect, this inability to tell the difference between burns and cuts, was actually documented on State’s Exhibit 21, which was a large silhouette of a human; i.e. Sylvia’s body. On it, Ellis used three colored markers to illustrate different types of injuries. So Shirley wasn’t the only one who colored on Sylvia! What colors were used to denote what type of injury?

A. In starting, I have three colors of markers and as much as I can I will try to differentiate between the different types of injuries by using different colored markings. This is essentially a purple, which I will try to use for bruises, and the red will be essentially for areas where there is loss of the skin by either burning or cutting and I will use green where there is an injury but it is rather difficult to tell exactly which, whether it is burning or cutting that might have caused it.

So purple means a bruise; good choice of color for the bruises! Red indicates an injury that might be a burn or a cut, and green indicates an injury that might be a burn or a cut. So from the very start we find that Dr. Ellis will not designate a particular injury as a burn, except:

Q. What did that indicate?
A. More or less a burn received from liquid would burn around the edges to a lesser degree.
Q. Chemical?
A. It could be anything, including hot water.

Where was this found?

“Going to the back, there is a rather large area present over the back of the neck and the midline of the upper portion of the back. This region was a little different than many others in that instead of completely sharp edges there appeared to be a little damage to surrounding skin, where it was damaged to a lesser degree and not completely lost. This damage was somewhat reddened and small fragments of skin - where it was lost these fragments sort of curled up along the edges.”

Now I’m not a doctor, and I’m not a pathos-generating Pathetic Pathologist, although I did play one on TV, I feel safe in speculating that there is a big difference between the appearance of a hot water burn and a chemical burn. Back of the neck? Upper part of the back? Burns from, possibly, hot water? I know! We are talking about the area where holding Sylvia’s head under scalding hot water from the kitchen faucet could be expected to show such injuries. But! He still waffles…more or less a burn. “More or less?” Ellis continues to stick to his vague claims; claims that aren’t claims at all. And! If Sylvia were burned in the areas described, and we link this to hot water, which Ellis surprisingly isn’t willing to do, preferring instead to provide us with particularly valuable information by saying that anything could have caused this, then we expect the following two persons to show the same severe burns: Gertrude and Paula. If they really did inflict such maybe ‘more or less” hot water burns that could have been made by anything, Gertrude and Paula would have similar burns on their hands, their arms, and their faces, when you factor in just how much a screaming girl with her head forcibly held under a faucet gushing scalding hot water would squirm, writhe, flinch, and fight to get free. A round of scalding hot water for everyone! Speaking of faces:

Q. Did you examine the head and face?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. What did you observe?
A. The scalp, first of all, within the hairline I could see no laceration but over the forehead there were multiple abrasions and yellow brown discolorations of the face.

And:

Q. What else did you find about the face or head?
A. Both eyes demonstrated ecchymosis, essentially what is known as a black eye, and edema surrounding the eyelids. These black eyes were bluish-purple color.

Q. What else did you find about the head and face, if anything?
A. There was a large - multiple scratches over the entire face and there was a large area of scraping over the left cheek and down to the jaw.

Q. If you will, indicate while you are in that area on the diagram, take a proper pen and indicate where the skin is denuded.

A. This is a large area extending from slightly behind the left eye along the line of the jaw to approximately the midline and then extending back up to the - along the left side of the mouth and over the left cheek to the left eye and then extending also on to the forehead on this left side. This is an area where the epidermis or superficial skin is missing, the deeper layer of skin being present.

Q. Were there any other areas of that nature there?
A. Multiple cuts or scratches were present over the right cheek as well as another small area near the lateral aspect of the right eye, where there was a patchy loss of skin.
Q. What is a patchy loss of skin?
A. I am using the word patchy to differentiate from a scratch or linear length.

So there was significant loss of skin on the right side of the face, extending from the jaw to the forehead. There was a smaller such area near the right eye. It seems that Dr. Ellis is describing the left side of the face as far more injured than the right side.

Q. What does that indicate, Doctor?

A. This is another of the lesions that appears to be either a hot or sharp object. This large area of loss of skin described over the left cheek on this diagram, I can't tell where the direct border line is - the lateral side of the nose is involved in that one.

Q. What was that indicative of Doctor?
A. This is this area I have described as loss of skin, I felt was probably from a hot object or liquid.

Again, “probably” from a hot object or liquid. The flip slide to this is that it is “possible” than it wasn’t caused by a hot object or liquid. One more time:

Q. How about the area where the skin was denuded, on the face? What was your opinion there?
A. This, I think you are referring to the large area on the left cheek, sir?
Q. Yes, sir, what was the origin of that, in your opinion?
A. This area is perhaps one on the face that could have been something like hot water. I could not say for certain.

So here’s a good question:  if the left side of the face, apparently the cheek specifically, shows more loss of skin than appears to be the case with the right cheek, how could it be caused by hot water? How do you inflict burns from scalding water so specifically to the left side of the face, but manage to inflict such burns to the right side of the face in smaller measure? Do you dunk someone’s face in scalding hot water, burning yourself just as much, so that you hold the left side of the face in the water? Please. There is no way to inflict these burns from scalding water by holding the girl’s head under the faucet and not burn the right side of the face as much as the left side of the face. I will make a key observation about the left side of the face. It illustrates just how much the statements being made by Ellis are wholly questionable. Bear in mind the loss of skin on the left side of the face extending from the jaw to the cheek. Earlier he said this:

A. There was a large - multiple scratches over the entire face and there was a large area of scraping over the left cheek and down to the jaw.

Now I must ask…how can hot water “scrape” the skin off of this area of the face? An area of scraping caused by hot water? You can scrape the skin off of the left side of the girl’s face using hot water, and in such a way as to produce less ‘hot water scraping’ on the right side of the face? That’s absurd. The truth of the matter is that the loss of skin on the left side of the face is due to the fact that it was scraped off. Period. It was not scalded off. And! It is very much possible to experience far more scraping off of skin on one side of the face than the other; and that is something that I will be discussing further in the final installment of this essay. The conclusion that can be reached at this point is that Dr. Ellis is making a very concerted effort to uphold the ‘burning of Sylvia Likens’ element of the Canonical Story, one that the Great Fraud must have to hold it together, without identifying anything as specifically a burn, apart from the loss of skin on the right side of the girl’s face, which he concedes may be due to hot water. Otherwise, Ellis strictly holds to a line of testimony that smacks of nothing more than a well-planned CYA exercise…I couldn’t tell if they were burns or cuts, or made by a hot object or sharp object, or hot water or sharp water! And I stated this specifically on the stand. So if someone is smart enough to realize that this is all nonsense, and certainly not all of the Nonsense is mine, and the body is exhumed and found to not have burns at all, then you can’t accuse me of perjury. No! I was inexperienced, or simply a Pathetic Pathologist. “Burning” must be there. In fact, “severe burns” must be there. But how do I know if they are severe burns when I don’t seem to be able to feel sure that anything other than a left-side of the face hot-water-burn-scraping is present? If I can’t tell burns from cuts, then how can I say there were “severe burns?” How was the Number 3 made?

Q. Now, in your autopsy report on page 3, you say a figure is present in the midline between the umbilicus and the xiphoid process. Then you say "This is an apparent numeral 3 which height of 8 cms, or 3 1/4 inches and has a total width of one inch over the lower abdomen". Now from your examination of this body and this figure that purports to be a figure 3, can you tell the court and jury what kind of instrument was used to make that letter 3? If you can?

A. At the time of the autopsy, I felt it was probably done by either a hot or sharp pointed object. However, I have seen, since being in this courtroom, another object which could very easily have formed this, if it was hot.

So the Number 3 was a burn or a cut. Since this is described by witnesses as a brand, then we would surely expect a “severe burn” here. But…it could also have been made by a sharp object, i.e. a cut. What about the slogan?

Q. Now, you also say was present over the lower abdomen also were the words stating "I am a prostitute and proud of it". Then you also added "The edge of these letters are quite sharp and clear". Can you give an opinion how those letters were put on?

A. This again I felt was either a sharp or hot object or a hot, sharp object.

Excellent! Before we were given three options as to what kind of object could have made what might be cuts or might be burns:  a hot object, a sharp object, or, my favorite…anything! But now we get a fourth option, and here we have the ultimate hedging of bets..anything, a hot object, a sharp object, or a hot and sharp object! Alas! A hot and sharp object would make both a cut…and a burn! Perhaps Marie Antoinette would call this having your cake and eating it too! Wait, that was “let them eat cake!” Never mind. So it becomes nigh a chant echoing through the courtroom..maybe a cut, maybe a burn. The girl’s body has severe burns? If I gave Shirley three markers, and since she likes to color on Sylvia, she is the perfect person to be given Ellis’ markers, how would she color the Pathologist’s large silhouette diagram of Sylvia? Hey Shirley! Purple is for bruises. Draw your mom’s face, and include her black-eye! Use the green and red to…draw the same thing? When Dr. Ellis colors in his coloring book, green and red are basically the same, and both illustrate that it is best to talk about burns, and then refuse to designate anything as a burn, other than asserting that you can scald the left side of a kid’s face, without substantially burning the right side of her face. Hey Gertrude! Hey Paula! How’d you do that? Nosy Neighbor lady says she saw you throw a glass of hot water, which of course you held in your hand and so experienced the same thing, in Sylvia’s face. Hot enough to scald the skin off? Sorry, how’d you manage to scrape the skin off of the left side of Sylvia’s face with hot water anyway? You two are something! How did you manage to hold the left side of Sylvia’s face under scalding hot water from the kitchen faucet, but leave the right side of the face not so “scraped”? Hey Paula and Gertrude! How stupid you were to inflict such hot water scraping on Sylvia, while at the same time you inflicted it on yourselves! Riddle me this, riddle me that…what looks like a burn, but isn’t? What is actually called a burn, but isn’t one? We have burns aplenty in our Great Nonsense. We have burns from cigarettes; we have burns from matches; we have burns from scalding water. True! But we are missing one more type of burn. Remember what it is? Trash burning? Ok, I asked for that, how about…Burning paper in the basement sink! No, but that’s a good guess! Can you think of one more type of burning from our Canonical Story? Oh, and this type of burning is very, very important! No? I think that Judy Duke knows, and this is linked to one of the few intelligent things she managed to say:

Q. Had you had occasion to see Sylvia's knees before this was done?
A. She had skinned it. It was not bleeding till they put salt on it.
Q. Her knees were skinned?
A. They were burned, like you slide on your knee.
Q. Floor burn, perhaps, and salt was put on, and I believe you testified the amount put on there by Paula was a very small amount?

And there it is! Floor burn. How do you get that? By falling down on a floor that is noticeably lacking any carpet. So we see what a supposed scraping-burn may look like to the naked eye. The skin was scraped off the left side of the face? And it was burned off? Hot water? Perhaps Dr Ellis shouldn’t have used the word “scraped” in his testimony. My statement is true, and false at the same time. A contradiction? A paradox? An enigmatic skin phenomenon? Hey! I think I just saw Dr. Ellis’ slides fly by! I can look at it microscopically, but it’s better to just look. When I just look, I can’t tell. That’s too bad! My statement is true in that he inadvertently provided us with one of the most important clues of the Great Gestalt. My statement is false in that he told the truth, and I swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth…so help me God. Now other authors have said similar things to what I am about to say. And contemplating “The Vermillion Effect” was particularly illuminating on this point. How important it is that we know, as far as logic, reason, rationality, critical examination, an open mind, and a teaspoon can tell us, just what sin it is that should hang over the head of which character in the Great Travesty! One might say…Cursed are you, Phyllis Vermillion! But cursed for having committed what sin? To follow the Canonical Story, Phyllis Vermillion is one of the main villains in the story. She saw, she knew, and she did nothing. And it is fascinating just what image of Jenny Likens has become a prominent feature of the Canonical Story! Cursed is Phyllis because she saw abuse…twice. That pales in comparison, to say the least, to the sin of Jenny! A sister who lived day-in and day-out watching all of the horrible abuse…doing nothing but offering a glass of water? Running off to get lunch meat? Raking leaves…raking leaves while Rome burns? A monstrous Raker indeed! Did you tell your grandparents? You hung around with those who slowly destroyed your sister. Yet, Jenny has been transformed into an angelic figure; almost having been canonized…and so we have Saint Jenny Likens…but what of Phyllis Vermillion? What of the Cleric? What of Barbara Sanders? Who is guilty of what? If doing nothing is the measure of the thing, then Jenny Likens is truly the most monstrous character in the story. If Gertrude did such horrible things…if Paula did such horrible things…if Shirley colored on Sylvia in a strange, prophetic prelude to Dr. Ellis and his Magic Markers…well, they are the perpetrators, and they did what they did, speaking Canonical Story-wise. But to spend months watching and raking leaves? Hanging around in the park? Walking around with only one shoe? I know, as Mrs. Bedwell declared, they fought Gertrude! Now I must say that I was relieved to find that Dianna was safe and sound after disappearing as she and her husband left the casino, only to…disappear. And to spend so much time in a car on a remote road, not very far from the main road, having inexplicably deciding to take a short cut through an area that you need an ATV or a horse to get through. I’m suddenly in a mood for pie, oranges, and rain water! But she was safe and sound, and that’s a good thing. But, as much as it pains me, I must tell you, Dianna…you lived in a very different Canonical Story World. Who fought Gertrude? Silent, Suffering Sylvia? The girl who could have simply walked out the front door, but didn’t, as if there were some kind of messianic nature to her suffering and dying? Did Jenny fight Gertrude? Jenny who doesn’t care enough to do anything or say anything to anyone…other than you? And what did you do? Sorry, I have been moralizing…sort of. Who is guilty of what? Perhaps we should see Phyllis’ sin as…not telling the truth in court. If she never saw what she said she saw, then there is no reason to declare… Cursed is Phyllis Vermillion! In fact, the only person she wronged, was not Sylvia, but Gertrude. Oh, and Paula. And that is a different take on the whole thing. We can say the same about the Cleric and the Nurse. What about Jenny? I think we must take her halo away, we must de-canonize her…if that’s a word. But guilty of what the Canonical Story implies she is? No. If the whole story about what happened to Sylvia Likens is false in most respects, then Jenny is guilty only of what everyone else is really guilty of having done. So she didn’t really have anything to tell Big Sis, who in turn did nothing because there was nothing to do anything about. Perhaps. It is strange, but when we follow the story through to the Darkest of Places, we may find that Gertrude is guilty of a far more horrible crime than the Inherited Wisdom would suggest. And what of Dr. Ellis? I don’t think he was pathetic. I suspect that he was quite good at his calling. I don’t know that for sure. But if the truth can be known about why he testified the way he did, then he is guilty of no more than what so many others were. I think he was a reluctant contributor to the Great Lie. And good men do lie. I suspect that considerable pressure was brought to bear as much on the Man of Science as it was on the Man of God. For the others to lie…that was easy. For cops to lie…that was easy. But God doesn’t lie, and neither does Science, so I think it’s very much to the credit of the not-so-pathetic Pathologist that his testimony played out as it did. Why? Because if one analyzes that testimony with a critical mind, then one conclusion becomes apparent. What is that? It is laden with indications that what was said, and what actually happened, are two different things. Perhaps he wanted us to know that. And if he did, now we do. So let us not call down curses on the Pathologist, no matter how much Angst and Pathos he may have left behind him.