Where there’s smoke there’s…mirrors; no, where there’s mirrors there’s smoke. That’s not right either. Done with smoke! No, done with mirrors. Done with smoke and mirrors, to coin a phrase. It’s all smoke and mirrors as far as the jury was concerned. We know that Dr. Ellis provided testimony about burns, and even “severe burns.” That said, he would not state that any of the l-e-s-i-o-n-s were actually burns from a cigarette. Yes, the diameter of some of the lesions were “approximately” the diameter of the end of a cigarette. As concerns the back of the neck and the upper back, he was open to the possibility that burns present in this area were the result of hot water. I pointed out in “Pathos” that this was meant to be an allusion to the ‘hold Sylvia’s head under the faucet’ element of the Canonical Story. The impossibility of this element as approaching anything near believable is manifest. The same is true of the only trauma which, if it existed, could be considered torture. We are, of course, talking about the cigarette burns supposedly found on Sylvia Likens. I think a closer look at this subject, as it is found in the witness testimony, would be helpful. Perhaps then this theme can be left behind once and for all.

The beginning of this claim really rested with Paula, who stated in her forced confession that Gertrude had burned Sylvia with a cigarette 15 times over a period of 7 days. I have discussed before that the time-line provided by Paula is fatally flawed. Dr. Kebel multiplied this number by a factor of 10, producing 150 such cigarette burns, an absurd number that required the appearance of the Queen of Cigarette Burns, Darlene McGuire, to help Gertrude out. This was necessary, since the number of people at Gertrude’s house who smoked was limited. Paula was described as rarely smoking. Gertrude said this about Paula’s cigarette use:

Q. In the course of that time, did you ever have occasion to know whether or not your daughter Paula smoked?
A. She does not smoke.
Q. Did you ever see her smoke any time around your house?
A. I think once or twice. Just one puff. She does not like smoking, sir.

Phyllis Vermillion confirmed this:

Q. Did you ever on occasion see her smoke?
A. Paula - no, I don't think she does.
Q. Did you ever see her carry cigarettes, lighted?
A. Not that I know of.

Did he say, “lighted?” Perhaps Mr. School, and no doubt Paula, would say “lit.” Randy was also asked about Paula’s cigarette use:

Q. Did you ever have occasion to see Paula smoke?
A. Well, I -
Q. Yes or no, do you remember any time you ever saw her smoke?
A. I don't know.
Q. You don't recall ever seeing her smoke?
A. No, sir.

Marie:

Q. Did you have occasion to see your sister Paula smoke?
A. The only time I ever saw Paula smoke was when she was awful nervous.
Q. Did you ever see her smoke more than once or twice?
A. I only seen her smoke three times. That was when she was awful nervous.
Q. Ever more than one cigarette?
A. One cigarette every time she smoked.
Q. She was not what you would call a confirmed smoker?
A. No.

I envy Paula, I wish I had been nervous only three times! And so! It is well established, a rather rare thing in our Great Story, that Paula wasn’t a smoker. What did Gertrude say of her own cigarette use?

Q. Did you smoke cigarettes during the time Sylvia lived at your house, Mrs. Baniszewski?

MR. ERBECKER: We object.
THE COURT: Overruled.

A. Off and on, yes, sir.

During the trial, Darlene as a smoker and the source of endless cigarette burns comes into existence with Marie:

Q. Was there - did your mother run any of the other neighbor kids out of the house other than Randy and Anna Siscoe?
A. Yes.
Q. Who?
A. Darlene MacGuire.
Q. When did that happen?
A. Darlene would come in and smoke and -
Q. Smoke? How old was she?
A. Fourteen.
Q. What would she do?
A. Put her cigarette out on Sylvia.
Q. Put her cigarette out on Sylvia, the MacGuire girl would do that?
A. Yes.
Q. You saw it?
A. Yes.
Q. Was your mommy there at that time?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. What did she say?
A. She would try to stop her.
Q. What did the MacGuire girl do?
A. Stopped it and put the cigarette out in the ashtray.
Q. How many times did the MacGuire girl do that?
A. A couple of times.

Darlene smokes…how old is she? Apparently, wherever Darlene was getting her cigarettes, they weren’t checking ids. Of course, this is Indianapolis in 1965, and I doubt that kids getting their hands on cigarettes was particularly difficult. So Marie was not asked whether Darlene was a smoker. I think Marie jumped the gun on this, not waiting until she was asked about her mother being the one who inflicted the cigarette burns. The dynamics of the claim are ridiculous. First, Marie says that Darlene only did this “a couple of times.” Second, she does not describe Darlene as having devised cigarette burns as a way to inflict torture on Sylvia. She describes Darlene as having finished her cigarette, and rather than snubbing out the butt in the ashtray, she decides to “put her cigarette out on Sylvia.” When stopped, Darlene then puts out the cigarette in the ashtray. Marie is trying to describe something she hasn’t seen, and is not cognizant of the fact that 150 cigarette burns can not come from simply using Sylvia as an occasional ashtray. Such a large number of such burns would require the sustained and continual use of cigarettes for the purpose of inflicting torture. Marie describes a couple of examples which give, in her statement, the appearance of afterthoughts on the part of Darlene. Third, and most indicative, Gertrude does not inflict the burns. In fact, Gertrude stops Darlene from doing it.

The initial claim made by Marie about Darlene was on the first day of her testimony. She returned to the stand the next day, having been upbraided and threatened about not having testified as the fraud of the trial required. Remember what she said on day one when you read what she said on day two:

Q. Now, Marie, I want you to look at this little lady and tell the jury if this is the Darlene MacGuire you said put cigarettes out on Sylvia?
A. Yes.
Q. Did you see Darlene actually take cigarettes and burn Sylvia with them?
A. Yes.
Q. How many times?
A. She would do it every time she came over.
Q. How many times would that be?
A. Every day.
Q. For how long?
A. Till the day she died, till the day before she died.
Q. Did you see this little lady in your home the day before Sylvia died?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Did you see her put cigarettes out on her the day before she died?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. What did Sylvia do?
A. Screamed and held on to her back.
Q. Did this little lady smoke?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. You saw her do that?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Now, over what period of time did Darlene MacGuire come into your home and put out cigarettes on Sylvia?
A. Right after I came home from school.
Q. How many days would you say you saw Darlene MacGuire in your home before Sylvia died?
A. Every day.
Q. Now, Marie, is it a fact Darlene MacGuire was not in your home later than the second week in September, never even in your home?
A. She was in our house every day.

Please! Initially, Marie said that Darlene put her cigarettes out on Sylvia “a couple of times.” Now it’s every day? I think that the attorney is trying to get Marie to change her story about Darlene because it was inconsistent with the Canonical Story. Marie stuck to her guns, and it makes me wonder whether Marie had an intense hatred of Darlene, who appears to have bullied smaller kids. That said, Marie is clearly lying about Darlene. How do we know? She says this:

A. I remember seeing somebody put a cigarette out on her neck. I could not see their face.
Q. Where was this?
A. In the front room.
Q. Who was in the room when somebody put a cigarette out on her face?
A. Richard Hobbs, Randy Lepper, Anna Siscoe, Mike Monroe, Paula, Johnny, Jenny, Stephanie and Shirley and Jimmy. I was holding little Denny.

So the living room is crammed with about as many people as possible. In fact, Mike Monroe and even baby Denny Street are there. Who is not? Darlene! So despite the fact that Marie is setting Darlene up for the cigarette burn torture, a key incident involving the inflicting of a cigarette burn to the neck is described, and at a moment when the room is filled to the ceiling with witnesses, but Marie can’t tell who did it, although it couldn’t have been Darlene, who isn’t described as being in the room at the time. Let’s remember that according to Marie, Gertrude actually attempted to stop Darlene, and Paula rarely smoked. Still, it is interesting that there is another smoker in the list of the people who were supposedly in the room at the time.

Let’s make Marie’s testimony even more confusing. Speaking about her mother’s role, which she had earlier described as actually stopping Darlene from using cigarettes to hurt Sylvia, she says the following:

Q. How many times did your mother burn her?
A. Two times.
Q. Twice?
A. Twice.
Q. Did you ever see her burn her with a match any other time?
A. No, sir.
Q. Did you ever see her burn her with a cigarette?
A. No, sir.

For Marie, the cigarette burn torture rests squarely with Darlene. Jenny says that she saw Gertrude burn Sylvia with cigarettes:

A. What did I see her burn her with?
Q. Yes.
A. Cigarettes.
Q. How many times?
A. The only time I ever seen her burn her was three or four times.
Q. Where did she burn her?
A. I seen her burn her chest and back and her arms. That is about all.
Q. What did Sylvia do then?
A. She just backed away.
Q. What was said at this time, if anything?
A. She would go by her and stick the cigarette on her.

3 or 4, of course. Otherwise, it would be 2 or 3. It is interesting that Jenny saw these burns inflicted on Sylvia’s chest, back, and arms. She did not see the unnamed culprit burn Sylvia on the neck, despite the fact that Marie said Jenny was in the room with the rest of Indianapolis, minus Darlene, when it happened. It is also interesting that Jenny apparently did not see any cigarette burns on Sylvia’s legs, despite the fact that the burns were described as being on the “extremities.” Returning to Paula’s statement, the 15 or so cigarette burns her mother inflicted on Sylvia were “during the past week.” Johnny, in his statement, stated that Gertrude burned Sylvia with cigarettes “lots of times,” a statement that is basically useless. It would also seem that despite the fact that at least one police officer was going back and forth between the two rooms where the interrogations of Paula and Johnny were taking place… you the know ones, when the constitutional rights of two minors were being trampled on, the details about the cigarette burns were apparently not shared. Otherwise, one might expect Johnny to have known about the number 15 as it related to the cigarette burns. And no, 15 is not an enigmatic number…I think.

I would add an observation about the extremely long and rambling speech made by Mr. Erbecker, who was, admittedly, Gertrude’s attorney. This speech was intended to establish the case that Gertrude was not sane at the time she supposedly did what had supposedly been done to a girl supposedly known as Sylvia. So one would expect that he would exaggerate, but certainly not understate, what his client did to the girl. He said this:

She - meaning Gertrude Baniszewski - burned her with a cigarette a month ago.

So we have seen the claim made by Paula about Gertrude and the 15 cigarette burns. We have seen the claim made by Jenny about three or four cigarette burns. But apparently, a rival version of the canonical story stated that Gertrude burned Sylvia with a cigarette only one time. Of course, he also holds on to an earlier version of the canonical story in this regard as well:

“Further conversation between the police officer and the defendant, Mrs. Baniszewski, indicated her son Johnny had marked Sylvia with a hot poker.”

This was dropped from the Canonical Story. Or was it? I’ll discuss that later. What about Ricky’s role? Erbecker said this:

“There on said date, that your testimony indicates death was approximately seven hours prior to your examination, which would be around 3:00 o'clock P.M. on October 26, 1965, that someone called the police and the police on arriving there found the defendant, Gertrude Baniszewski, standing there at the house with other children around there, that the police officer in the case questioned the defendant and the evidence stated that she knew "that the kids had been mistreating Sylvia, that she knew a boy named Hobbs marked Sylvia with a needle and she had asked the girl if she knew what a tattoo was".

Erbecker doesn’t mention the slogan, and never mentions the branded Number 3. Or the eye-hook that supposedly made the Number 3, or Letter S, or, as one writer on this website showed us, the combined Number 3 and Letter S visible in the OM symbol. Fascinating! And, as far as Marie is concerned, Gertrude never burned Sylvia with a cigarette. Randy Lepper was not asked whether he saw Gertrude burn Sylvia. He was asked if he saw Paula burn Sylvia, and he also answered in the negative. But he knew that the Canonical Story stated that someone had inflicted cigarette burns on Sylvia. Strangely..well not strangely..Randy was never asked about Darlene McGuire, much less about her role in cigarette-burn torture. But he did claim to have seen someone burn Sylvia with a cigarette. Who? Well, the boy who was perhaps his rival in his effort to become one of the inner circle of Baniszewski kids:

Q. What did you see Richard Hobbs do?
A. Hit her and burn her.
Q. When was that?
A. Let's see, the beginning - I think about the middle of October.
Q. Who was present when he burned her?
A. I and the Baniszewski children and Mrs. Baniszewski.
Q. Where were you in the house?
A. I think in the kitchen.
Q. What did Richard Hobbs do?
A. He slapped her and hit her and burned her.
Q. Slapped and hit and burned who?
A. Sylvia.
Q. Where was Sylvia at the time he did this?
A. In the kitchen.
Q. Sitting down or standing up?
A. Standing up, sir.
Q. What did he burn her with?
A. Cigarette.
Q. Richard Hobbs did that?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. What did Mrs. Baniszewski do, if anything?
A. Slapped her.
Q. What did Sylvia do?
A. She just stood there.
Q. She did not walk away?
A. No, sir.
Q. Were you in the kitchen at the same time?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Did anyone else do anything to Sylvia at that time?
A. Not that I know of, sir.
Q. Where on Sylvia's body did Richard Hobbs burn her with the cigarette?
A. I think on the arms.
Q. Did you see it?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. How many times did he burn her with a cigarette?
A. I only saw him once or twice.
Q. Was it Richard Hobbs's cigarette he had?
A. I don't know, sir.

There are so many elements in Randy’s statements that clearly indicate that what he is saying is nonsense. First, it will be the official story that Sylvia stood in front of Ricky in the kitchen when he made the slogan. Although Randy doesn’t mention the slogan event, he appears to be drawing from it, and it was made clear that Randy came to the door after it was done, or, following Shirley, when it was mostly done, Shirley stating that it was finished in the basement. It is clear from the Canonical Story that although Ricky was allowed to look at Sylvia, Randy was not, well, not at that moment. Sylvia was taken down into the basement when Randy showed up at the house, but then the Canonical Story runs roughshod over itself by having Sylvia emerge from the basement, and Randy is allowed to gaze at her. One finds such self-defeating and contradictory elements wherever one looks. The fictional story does reflect the non-fictional idea that Randy was not part of the group, no matter how much he longed to be. So he places himself in the kitchen when Ricky hurts Sylvia. He and Ricky are now equals, and equal members of the group..which Randy wasn’t. Second, Randy doesn’t know whether the cigarette Ricky used to burn Sylvia was actually Ricky’s cigarette. It was or it wasn’t, and if he was standing in the kitchen, he would have known. The reason he doesn’t know, is because he couldn’t remember if Ricky smoked or not. Third, Randy doesn’t actually remember for sure that this happened in the kitchen. If there was indeed a separation of witnesses, then he may have been having trouble remembering the story that had been told to him. Fourth, we have the type of abuse that appears so frequently in Randy’s testimony…slapping. In fact, he duplicates that in his claim. First Ricky slaps Sylvia. Then, when Randy is asked what Gertrude did to Sylvia, his instant reply is that Gertrude slapped Sylvia. This is duplicative, and is in fact the “recycling” discussed elsewhere. Indeed, Randy is recycling within a couple lines of testimony. Fifth, he is not sure where Ricky burned Sylvia; he thinks it was on the arm. For a boy who stood and watched all of this, he sure does seem uncertain of just about all of what he says. As for the burn, if he indeed never saw a cigarette burn on Sylvia, he may have been having difficulty remembering where on Sylvia’s body he was told that cigarette burns were supposedly present. That’s not surprising, given that he is a used-to-be-eleven-year-old child. Finally, he utilizes one of the most bizarre elements of the whole Canonical Story; one that, when combined with the fingernails and other evidence, shows the whole story to be a fiction. What is that? Silent, Suffering Sylvia. When she’s being abused, she just stands there and takes it. She won’t walk out the front door. She doesn’t fight back, although I’ll bet Paula would contest that. Sylvia tells Jenny that she knows that she is going to die..but won’t do anything about it. She meekly submits to the frightful slogan-mutilation and branding. There is a whole house full of potential weapons that she will not use in self-defense. And! I’m sure that I do not have to launch into yet another critique of our shovel-scraping friends by pointing out that a coal shovel would make an excellent weapon! And, apparently, there are two coal shovels in the basement!

As Dr. Kebel so ingeniously pointed out, to know how many there are of something, you have to count them. In this case, you could count cigarette burns, although I’m sure the Count wouldn’t, seeing how gruesome this is, and he would no doubt have to leave Sesame Street and move into the empty house at 3850 East New York Street, if he did so. If we take Paula’s statement at face value, although it has no validity to it at all, but playing Devil’s Advocate, we take Kebel’s 150 cigarette burns, subtract the 15 that Paula says her mother made, that leaves Darlene with 135 cigarette burns to inflict. Of course, if Jenny is right about three or four cigarette burns being inflicted by Gertrude, then 146-147 such burns must be attributed to Darlene. If Erbecker is right, then 149 cigarette burns must be attributed to Darlene. Perhaps we’re safest to attribute all 150 cigarette burns to Darlene. And yet the charges against Darlene were dropped? Of all the injuries that were supposedly inflicted on Sylvia, the only true example of torture rests with the supposed cigarette burns. And the charges against Darlene were dropped?

Of course, clearing Gertrude of having inflicting cigarette burns was also the result of Ricky’s testimony. He acknowledged that Gertrude smoked:

A. I asked Gertrude how she was, I believe, I don't remember exactly.
Q. You asked Gertrude who?
A. Baniszewski.
Q. Asked her what?
A. How she was.
Q. You mean Gertrude herself?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. What did she say?
A. She told me she was not feeling well, she was having a hard time breathing.
Q. Where was she at?
A. Sitting at the kitchen table smoking.

I would suggest that this is a “detail of absurdity.” Gertrude was asthmatic, and if she were having trouble breathing at the time, I doubt that she would be smoking. People with asthma do smoke, but probably not at a time that their asthma is acting up. What about burns?

Q. You want to tell the jury you have not seen Gertrude Baniszewski burn Sylvia with cigarettes? Is that your testimony here this morning?

A. Yes, sir.
Q. You have never seen that?
A. No, sir.

Another writer on this website took the position that at some point Ricky began resisting the screw-job he was getting. The question asked here implies that Ricky was not answering the questions the way the adults told him to answer the questions. So Marie and Ricky clear Gertrude, and it is rather amazing that Jenny comes very close to clearing Gertrude as well, giving us only 3-4 cigarette burns.  One might think, given the fact that the weight of the testimony is that Gertrude is basically cleared of a campaign of inflicting cigarette burns on Sylvia, and the main culprit is made out to be Darlene, that when the latter was on the stand, the extent of her own cigarette use would be examined. We saw that the smoking habits of Paula and Gertrude were examined, and very explicit accusations were made by Marie against Darlene. But! Darlene is never asked how much she smoked, and, most telling, she isn’t even asked if she smoked.

Q. Did you ever burn Sylvia with a cigarette, Darlene?
A. No.
Q. Did you ever burn her with anything?
A. No.

Why is this? It might be held that on the question of cigarette burns, Marie broke ranks and rallied to her mother’s side. The cigarette burns would be laid at the feet of Darlene, against whom the charges had been dropped. And yet, if a campaign of inflicting cigarette burns had gone on, it more than anything else would support the claim of systematic torture. The issue isn’t pursued with Darlene because those involved in the trial sought to end a potentially trial-threatening development, just as they did with the question of the fingernails.

To further illustrate the problem with the whole “who smokes?” and “cigarette burn torture,” we can state the following. Darlene didn’t live at 3850 East New York Street. Surely anyone who lived in the house would be more likely to have been behind the cigarette-burn phenomenon. Paula was essentially a non-smoker. Gertrude smoked “off and on,” a claim that I think is reliable based on her asthma. But someone else in the house smoked:

Q. Miss Likens, did you smoke around the house at that time?
A. When I first went there I smoked some.
Q. And you did not smoke after you stayed there a while?
A. No.

This is, of course, Jenny. So Jenny was one of two people who lived in the house and can be said to have smoked. Paula was essentially a non-smoker. No attempt was made to determine the extent of Darlene’s smoking habit. This may be due to the fact that if the matter were fully examined, it would turn out that she was an occasional smoker like Gertrude and Jenny. The idea that Gertrude was not a heavy smoker is plausible based on the testimony of the witnesses, Jenny’s in particular since she was a hostile witness, and the fact that Gertrude’s asthma would have put a limit on her smoking. It was determined during the trial that Marie lied about how often Darlene McGuire was at Gertrude’s house. Darlene said that she had not been over to Gertrude’s house after the second week of September, and it will be remembered that the attorney, angered by Marie’s stubborn refusal to shift the blame onto her mother, reminded Marie of this. Gertrude claimed that that wasn’t actually the last time Darlene had been in the house, but she did indicate that at a certain point she told Darlene that she was no longer welcome. What makes her claim credible is the fact that she gave a compelling list of reasons for having told Darlene to stay away:

Q. Did you hear Darlene MacGuire testify yesterday the last time she was in your house was the second week in September? Did you hear her say that?

A. Yes, sir.
Q. Was she there after that?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. What did you see her do after that?

A. The last time Darlene was in my house, she had a habit kind of tormenting little Denny all the time, taking his bottle away, to hear him fuss and cry. She was rather argumentative with the smaller children, plus she smoked and did not use very good language sometimes in front of the little ones. I was having enough trouble with mine anyway, just trying to discipline them and so she got kind of smart with me - I mean she talked back to me and I told her I thought maybe she had better not come over there.

Argumentative with the little ones? Perhaps this is another way of saying that Darlene was a bully, which, as noted earlier, may be the reason that Marie suddenly shifted the scene to a bizarre coronation where she crowned Darlene “Queen of Cigarette Burns.” But the concerns noted above indicate that the bulk of the testimony on this subject is to be wholly rejected. Stephanie was the second main witness for the prosecution, yet was never asked about who around the house smoked, or whether cigarette burns had been inflicted on the girl she would later say was her “twin.” It is of course interesting that if we make a list of those who could theoretically be posited as a “cigarette burner,” Jenny Likens must be added to the list.

Kebel clearly indicated that he approximated the number of these lesions, giving us 150 of them. He obviously didn’t count them seeing how 150 is a nice, round number. But while that is true, the equation 15x10=150 shows us where this number came from. Nonetheless, he left the courtroom with the impression that he had at least approximated the number of the lesions. Dr. Ellis, on the other hand, did not:

A. These appeared to be essentially burns.
Q. By some hot object?
A. Yes.
Q. Approximately the size of a cigarette?
A. Approximately so.
Q. How many of those did you saw you were able to count - did you make a count?
A. I did not make a count of these. There are several in this photograph alone I can see -

MR. BOWMAN: We object.
THE COURT: Objection sustained. The photograph speaks for itself.

Sorry, but the photograph does not speak for itself. It has been shown elsewhere that the two main supposed crime scene photos, the Room photo and the Mattress Girl photo, are devoid of any validity. The former was staged, and the latter was seriously altered. But there is another problem with the photos, i.e. beyond staging and falsifying…incompetence:

Q. I will hand you, sir, what has been marked for the purpose of identification as State's Exhibit No. 4 and ask you to examine that and tell whether or not that is the body about which you have been testifying?

A. Yes, that is the body, as a matter of fact, that is my hand on the photograph.

Perhaps it would be best if photographs were taken without Dr. Kebel’s hand being in the shot. A good reason for not counting the lesions is that they weren’t made by burning with a hot object or cutting with a sharp object. The witnesses do not describe inflicting wounds on Sylvia that would appear as lesions, and we have completely dispensed with the inane cigarette burn torture. No knife is ever described as having been used on Sylvia, and the only cutting, which Shirley mistakenly referred to as “carving,” was the slogan, although it was said to have been inflicted with a sewing needle, not a knife, and no other sharp objects are described.

Dr. Kebel said something interesting that is a clear contrast to what Paula said in her false confession. He said this:

Q. You indicated some lesions were in various stages of healing and some were fresh and some were old, you said that?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. Did you indicate some of them were as much as three or four weeks old?
A. It is entirely possible, Mr. Erbecker.

But Dr. Ellis:

A. They had not shown a lot of healing. I did not feel they were of over two weeks duration. They might have been up to that, with that degree of healing.

It will be remembered that when Paula stated that Gertrude burned Sylvia with a cigarette about 15 times, a number that Kebel converted into 150, she specified said that the burns were made during the last week of Sylvia’s life. If Kebel is right, Paula is not. If Paula is right, Kebel is not. Ellis said that the trauma on the body was no older than two weeks. So if Ellis is right, Paula can also be right, but Kebel is wrong. If Kebel is right, then Ellis and Paula are wrong. If Paula is right, then Ellis is right, but Kebel isn’t. Alas.

So Ellis contradicts Kebel. Ellis balks at stating that the lesions were older than two weeks, whereas Kebel, wholly unreliable and given to exaggeration, is willing to say that some of these lesions may have been as old as four weeks.

Kebel asked Gertrude a fascinating question. It is also a strange topic of conversation if Kebel believed that the body he saw was a murder victim, and even stranger if Kebel actually believed that the lesions he saw could have been cigarette burns:

A. I asked the lady why she did not call a doctor or call the police when she saw the lesions on this girl, and she said - well, she was taking care of them, had poured some alcohol and first aid supplies, and was taking care of these lesions.

Amazing! If Kebel, while at the scene, believed that Sylvia had been murdered, and was covered in 150 cigarette burns, then why would he ask Gertrude whether she had been treating them? Why in the world would she be? I would suggest that Kebel saw lesions on Sylvia, but at that moment did not believe that Sylvia had been murdered, and did not believe that the lesions were cigarette burns. If so, it would make sense that Kebel asked this question. The lesions, or sores, were actually found on two girls…Sylvia Likens, and also Photo 1 Girl. And Gertrude’s claim that she had been treating at least one girl’s sores was an honest one, realizing that the sores, or lesions, to which reference is being made were not made by burning or cutting.

During the testimony, it became clear that Sylvia had sores. Some very specific sores were discussed. First, she had a scalp infection. This necessitated the cutting of Sylvia’s hair, which was converted into an example of Paula abusing Sylvia. The stories about Sylvia’s head being held under the kitchen faucet, and Sylvia crying and carrying on, is to be linked to the scalp infection. Jenny admitted that Gertrude had actually shown her Sylvia’s scalp, admitted that there was pus, and admitted that Gertrude stated that if it wasn’t kept clean, it would only get worse. The warm, not scalding, water no doubt felt pretty awful, and it would be easy to convert Gertrude’s attempts to keep the scalp clean into torture, especially hearing Sylvia crying and fussing about it. Gertrude indicated that Sylvia had a sore on her foot. This was caused by a pair of new shoes, and it was established that Lester Likens had left money with Gertrude to buy Sylvia some new shoes. This was irksome to Jenny, no doubt, seeing how she was forced to walk around with only one shoe until a dirty, nasty one was found in the park. It was also noted by some of the witnesses that Sylvia had a sore on her knee, and one on her elbow, that appear to have resulted when Sylvia fell down. In fact, one of the attorney’s provided us with an invaluable clue when he identified the wound on Sylvia’s knee described by Judy Bit..Judy Duke, as “floor burn.”

However, the stories about putting salt in Sylvia’s sores are a central element in the story. I believe that these claims are essentially true, with Paula and Gertrude held forth as those responsible. The sores in question were not those enumerated in the preceding paragraph. The sores in question were those seen by Kebel. In his rendition of this, he claimed that Gertrude acknowledged their existence and was actively treating them. Another central element in the story is the placing of Sylvia in the bathtub, with her fussing and carrying on as she did when her scalp was being washed. We can start with Jenny:

Q. Did you ever see anyone give Sylvia a bath?
A. Yes.
Q. When was this?
A. Oh, every other night.
Q. Were you present?
A. Well, I'd be standing in the bathroom and Stephanie told me to go to bed.
Q. What happened?
A. Well, I heard Sylvia screaming.
Q. Sylvia screaming?
A. Yes.
Q. Did you see how they gave her a bath?
A. Well, Gertrude would take her by her arms and Paula by the leg and put her in hot scalding water.
Q. How many times did this happen?
A. I could not answer that, too many times.

As I said, this theme is essential. However, we must dispense with the bath as a form of torture. Why? That’s obvious. In the case of holding Sylvia’s head under the faucet, if the water were scalding hot, it would also have gotten all over Gertrude as Sylvia squirmed and tried to pull away. The same situation exists with the bath. If the water were scalding hot, it would have been splashed all over those putting Sylvia in the bath. So in neither case was the water anything but warm. However, Sylvia did cry and fuss, making it easy to convert the “putting Sylvia in the bath” element into an example of torture. And! If we no longer have faucet torture, no longer have bathtub torture, and no longer have cigarette burn torture, we are essentially left without…torture.

So why did Sylvia object to getting in the bathtub? And why, if the water is merely warm, is Sylvia making such a fuss about it? Let’s let Jenny continue:

Q. Did anything else happen then?
A. I think they gave her a bath that night.
Q. Who gave her a bath?
A. Gertrude and Paula.
Q. What did they do when they gave her a bath?
A. Filled the tub with hot water and tied her hands behind her back.
Q. Who did this?
A. Gertrude or Paula. I am pretty sure they tied her feet.
Q. Go ahead and describe what happened.

A. Well, they had her lay in the water a little while. I heard her screaming. I just looked in the bathroom. I did not stay in there very long.

Q. Did you see Mrs. Baniszewski do anything to her hair at this time?
A. Yes.

MR. ERBECKER: We object to the leading and suggestive question.
THE COURT: Overruled.

Q. What did she do?
A. Take her head and hit her head against the tub about five or six times.
Q. What did Sylvia do?
A. Just scream.

5 or 6! Not, 3 or 4; and not, 2 or 3! But yet again we see that Jenny does a poor job of improvisation. The attorney asked about Sylvia’s hair, but Jenny decides to tell some nonsense about Gertrude and Paula smashing Sylvia’s head against the side of the tub. If the water is only warm, why would they tie Sylvia’s hands behind her back and then tie her feet? I think that there is a kernel of truth here, i.e. Sylvia did not want to get in the tub, and it had nothing to do with the temperature of the water. Why the bit about Sylvia’s head? Here’s an idea…Jenny places this at 3-4 days before Sylvia died. The claim is just one of several made by the witnesses who grope around looking for the cause of the head trauma that caused Sylvia’s death. She will now return to the story:

Q. Now, Miss Likens, you have testified that at one point in the course of your life in the Baniszewski household you had stood in the corridor upstairs in the bathroom and seen your sister carried by Mrs. Baniszewski and Paula to a tub of water and put into the tub, is that correct?

A. Yes.
Q. Precisely where were you standing when this happened?
A. Sometimes at the door, the bathroom door.
Q. You were upstairs?
A. Yes.
Q. Were you in the bathroom before these three people entered it?
A. Sometimes I have.
Q. Was the tub at that time filled with water?
A. Yes.

To continue:

Q. On this specific occasion, which you testified here, had you been in the bathroom then to inspect it prior to your sister being taken to that room?

A. Did I go in before they brought her in?
Q. Yes, did you go in the bathroom before your sister was taken in?
A. Yes, I went in there.
Q. You were in there. Had you taken a bath there?
A. I have taken a bath there.
Q. On that occasion, had you taken a bath in that bathroom on that occasion?
A. Not that I remember.
Q. Was there water in the tub on the occasion you were discussing now?
A. When they put her in the water?
Q. Was there water in the tub when you saw it on that occasion?
A. Yes.
Q. You saw this yourself?
A. Yes.
Q. Did you yourself make any test concerning the temperature of this water?
A. I put my hand in the water.
Q. Why did you do that?
A. To feel how hot it was.
Q. Why.
A. I don't know. I just wanted to see how hot it was.
Q. You were not yourself going to take a bath at that time?
A. No.
Q. Are you sure you put your hand in the water?
A. Yes.
Q. What did you do then?
A. Took my hand out of the water.
Q. You did not have a thermometer with you at that time for the purpose of testing?
A. No.
Q. Did you then leave the room?
A. I stayed in there a little while.
Q. Why did you remain in the bathroom?

MR. NEW: We object. It calls for a mental observation why she stayed.
THE COURT: Overruled.

Q. Answer the question, if you can.
A. I don't know why I stayed in there.

Not that I would be sarcastic, and indeed the attorney making the objection is correct in that the reason for remaining in the bathroom calls for a mental observation, I would think that this would be acceptable given the fact that it is Jenny’s own mental observation as to why she stayed in the bathroom. Do we have, as the attorney suggests, a new manifestation of Jenny? Methinks so! It is at this point that we meet Jenny the Bathroom Inspector! Your Honor, I’m just a kid, but I have been tasked with inspecting the bathroom prior to other kids taking a bath. Jenny does not know why she remained in the bathroom? Perhaps in her role as Bathroom Inspector? I believe that she remained in the bathroom because she was involved in convincing Sylvia to get in the tub. Did she have a thermometer? Jenny not only didn’t have a watch, she only had one shoe until Sylvia found one for her in the park. Yes, sir, I always carry temperature measuring devices with me in my back pocket. I don’t have a watch, but that’s ok, seeing how I have a thermometer. Well, she could have borrowed one from Dr. Ellis…wait, no, I’m sure that the autopsy facility wouldn’t have a thermometer either. Maybe the scales and x-ray machine are in the upstairs back bedroom of Gertrude’s house! Jenny Likens, young lady, give Dr. Ellis his slides back! Perhaps Jenny also had a microscope, and could have analyzed the slides for our Pathologist. Hey Dr. Ellis! Jenny said that you can borrow her thermometer and other scientific devices if you will give her a shoe that actually matches the other one.

Q. How long had the water been drawn in the tub, if you know, on this occasion?
A. Well, they got the tub half full.
Q. How long had the water been in the tub?
A. Oh, maybe a minute or two.
Q. How long?
A. A minute or two.
Q. Who drew the water?
A. I was downstairs and I can't remember who she told to go up and draw the water.
Q. You don't know who drew the water then, do you?
A. One time.
Q. Do you know who drew the water, Miss Likens?
A. No, I don't.
Q. Now then, do you know how long it was in the tub? You stated it was in a minute or two.
A. Well, someone said the water is ready. I can't place who said it.
Q. You were not there when it was drawn, were you?
A. No.
Q. You did not draw it, did you?
A. No.
Q. You don't know who did draw it, do you?
A. No.
Q. You actually don't know how long the water was in the tub, do you?

MR. NEW: We object. It in argumentative.
THE COURT: Objection sustained.

Q. What did you do after you discovered the tub was full of hot water in your stop in the bathroom, Miss Likens?

A. I just stood in the bathroom.
Q. You stayed in the bathroom?
A. For a little while.
Q. Just standing there, how long?
A. Three or four minutes, maybe.
Q. During this time, were you standing there all by yourself?
A. No.
Q. Who else was there?
A. Sylvia, Gertrude. Paula, Stephanie, sometimes, and me.
Q. All these people saw you there at that time?
A. I was in there.
Q. Which hand did you put into the water?

MR. NEW: We object. It is immaterial.
THE COURT: Objection sustained.

This is beginning to resemble the absolutely stupid droning on and on about something utterly meaningless. We saw this with the seemingly endless and totally inane discussion of who lit matches. It is completely irrelevant who drew the bath water, and asking which hand Jenny put into the water is simply an attempt to turn this event into one like that of the ridiculous matches. Who cares how long the water was in the tub? Yes, it was hot. Jenny put her hand in it without scalding herself, and apparently her hand didn’t melt off. And if you have doubts that the attorneys are essentially loading up meaningless details to lose the actual meaning of the event, we might repeat the question as to whether Jenny suddenly appeared in the bathroom and stuck a thermometer in the water. It was hot, and by that I will assert that it was particularly warm. After all, people speak about taking a hot bath all the time. And if the water in the tub was hot, but not hot enough to burn Jenny’s hand, then it wasn’t hot enough to burn Sylvia. So why would you have to forcibly put her in the tub? Why wouldn’t she be willing to take a bath?

Q. When you drew your hand out of the water, Miss Likens, did it have any effect shown as a result of putting it in the water?

A. No.
Q. None at all?
A. No.
Q. How long after you put your hand into the water was it before your sister was put into this tub of water?
A. About an half minute or so.
Q. Did she struggle against being put in the tub?
A. Yes, she struggled.
Q. Did you make an attempt to assist her to stay out of the tub of water?
A. What do you mean - stay out of it?
Q. Did you try to help her?
A. I told her it was hot.
Q. Did you make an effort to help by pulling or shoving, interposing yourself?
A. No.
Q. You did not touch any person seeking to put your sister into the water?
A. No.
Q. Was any effort made by any person to restrain you from giving such assistance?
A. No.
Q. You just stood there?
A. Yes.
Q. Were you there the whole length of time your sister was in the water?
A. Not all of the time. After I had been in there three or four minutes, I left.

And there it is. Hey, Jenny! Please provide the court with a definition of the word “interpose.” Jenny’s hand was fine after she put it in the water. So it’s not scalding, and it’s not hot water torture. So why is Sylvia so adverse to getting in the tub? I think there is a good answer to that question.

Q. Did you at that time possess a wrist watch, Miss Likens?
A. A wrist watch?
Q. Yes, a watch on the wrist?
A. I don't know what you mean.
Q. Did you possess one at that time?
A. No.
Q. How did you manage to get the length of time then your sister was in the water?
A. I am just guessing.
Q. Could it have been more than three or four minutes?
A. It could have been.
Q. Could it have been less than three minutes?
A. It could have been.

Q. Was anything said by anyone in your presence at that time of the reason why your sister was immersed in the tub of water?

A. No.

Q. Were you able to notice whether or not, while your sister was being put in the tub, whether any of the water splashed either Mrs. Baniszewski or Paula Baniszewski?

A. Well, they did not tie her up all the time.
Q. Did any of the water splash on them?
A. When Sylvia kicked it would.
Q. The water did splash?
A. Yes.

The girl with the thermometer not only doesn’t have a watch, she doesn’t seem to know what a watch is. And, this story is getting tiring. It’s a good thing that Jenny, like Randy, didn’t have a watch. If it wasn’t water resistant, it would have been damaged when she stuck her hand in the water in order to find out that the water wasn’t scalding, a tried-and-true way of determining this when you can’t find a thermometer. It doesn’t matter how long the water has been in the tub! And guess what! Sylvia kicked around in the water, getting it all over Paula and Gertrude. And that is just fine since the water did not burn them just like it did not burn the watch-less and thermometer-less hydrology expert.

Q. The water did splash?
A. Yes.

Q. Was it necessary for Mrs. Baniszewski and Paula to get their hands also in this water in order to put your sister into the tub?

A. I -
Q. I think you could answer yes or no, if you know.

MR. NEW: I think the question is "whether it was necessary".
THE COURT: Objection sustained.

Q. I will ask you whether or not -

THE COURT: Do you want to withdraw?
MR. RICE: I will withdraw the previous question.

Q. I will ask you whether or not you saw the hands of either Mrs. Baniszewski or Paula Baniszewski in the water in which your sister then was placed?

A. I remember a time when Paula would take her hands and splash water in Sylvia's face.

Q. Referring to the specific incident at that time when you were there, did you or did you not see the hands of Mrs. Baniszewski and Paula also go into the water where your sister then lay?

A. No, I did not. I did not.

Thankfully, the story was ended before even more lame details get tossed around, or, perhaps, splashed around. Jenny suddenly begins combining different stories, suddenly remembering having seen Paula splash water in Sylvia’s face. Such brutality! Of course Paula and Gertrude put their hands in the water, a natural consequence of putting a kid in the bathtub who didn’t want to be put in the bathtub. If Jenny’s hand was fine after she put it in the water, so too the hands of Paula and Gertrude. I like the last statement: No! I did not, I did not!

Marie was also asked about this, and this was her answer on day one:

Q. Did you ever see your mommy throw Sylvia in the bath tub with hot water?
A. No.

Throw her? How strong was Gertrude Baniszewski! If Stephanie, one day after school, was flipping Sylvia around the living room, I’ll bet that Gertrude could have walked into the living room, grabbed each girl at the same time, and flipped both of them around the living room. As with everything else, Marie’s testimony changed dramatically on day two.

Q. How many splotches that you saw?
A. Her whole leg had the skin peeled off.
Q. How about her back?
A. It looked like sunburn.
Q. Do you know how she got that?
A. I think by being thrown in a hot tub of water.
Q. Who did that?
A. Richard Hobbs and Paula.
Q. When?
A. They did it to her quite a few times.
Q. Did you see it?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Where did they do it?
A. Upstairs, in the bathroom.
Q. Are you sure Paula and your mother didn't do it?
A. She was in on it too.
Q. What did your mother do?
A. Took some - a box of soap and poured it all over her.
Q. You mean powdered detergent used for dishes?
A. Yes.
Q. Was it trend soap?
A. Yes.
Q. Your mother poured soap on Sylvia?
A. Yes.
Q. Where was Sylvia?
A. In a hot tub of water.
Q. She used detergent soap, right?
A. Yes.
Q. Did she pour it on Sylvia before they put her in the tub or after?
A. After.
Q. Where was the tub?
A. Upstairs in the bathroom.
Q. Were you there?
A. I was going down stairs to see what was wrong with little Denny and I saw them put her in there.
Q. Was she tied?
A. Yes.
Q. Where?
A. Her arms were tied behind her and her legs were tied together.
Q. Who lifted her in the tub?
A. Paula and Richard.
Q. What was your mother doing?
A. Getting the soap.
Q. Was she standing there in the bathroom?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. O.K. What did Sylvia do when she got dumped in the hot tub?
A. Tried to scream but they had a piece of cloth in her mouth.
Q. Did you see that?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. How long did you see her in the tub?
A. Five minutes.

Wow! All the skin was scalded right off of Sylvia’s leg. It is a strange thing that this scalding hot water only managed to burn the skin on one leg. What about the other? What about her arms? What about her back? Oh, that’s right…it looked sun-burned. If I were to poke fun at this, which I would not normally do, I might suggest that this was a one-leg and just-her-back bath, explaining why she retained her skin everywhere else. Then we get the nonsense about tying Sylvia up, which she borrowed from Jenny. But! Jenny says nothing about a gag, and states that Sylvia could scream. And here comes a detail of absurdity…Ricky was involved in putting Sylvia in the bath. Really? How odd, given the fact that when Stephanie and Ricky dragged Sylvia up the stairs to put her in the bathtub, and Johnny suddenly appears in the bathroom, Sylvia has to go into the tub with her clothes on so the boys won’t see her naked. I think Marie is using an element of the “Dr. Ricky and Dr. Stephanie” nonsense story and misunderstood Ricky’s role in it. And do we need to start timing things again? The eleven year old child remembers being in the bathroom for 5 minutes, at least seven months later?

What is important here is that Marie maintains that Sylvia was put into the bathtub several times, and fussed and carried on about it. Why is she tied up? It’s not the temperature of the water since, even if Marie made the same mistake as Jenny and forgot her thermometer, the water was getting all over whoever was putting Sylvia in the tub. Oops! We forgot Mommy. Until prompted..and Mom was in on it too! Jenny added Stephanie, and Marie added Ricky. But what about this soap?

Q. O.K. How long was that before you saw the skin peeled off her back and neck?
A. It was in September.
Q. In September?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. How do you know it was that month?
A. Because Mom was - either Mom or Paula was complaining she smelt to bad.
Q. Smelled bad?
A. Yes.
Q. Did she?
A. She would not take care of her body.
Q. Who told you that?
A. That is what I heard.
Q. Who told you that?
A. I can't remember.
Q. She would not take care of her body?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. So they put her in a hot tub and put detergent soap on her?
A. Yes, sir.

If Sylvia smelled bad, then Marie should have done more than just hear about it. They slept in the same bedroom, and she would have been painfully aware if Sylvia stank. Why detergent soap? Plenty of people take a bath when they find themselves not smelling too good and manage to get by using an invention known as…a bar of bath soap, often times being the preferred cleansing agent. I can not remember the last time I took a nice, hot bath and used Palmolive. Or Trend. The inclusion of the “detergent” element is just another inexplicable detail in an inexplicable story-line that, strangely enough, can’t be explained. Well, it can. I think that Marie is essentially right about a box of powder being involved. While Sylvia is not in the tub, her sores are being treated with salt; not the best way to do this, but as Kebel testified, Gertrude was also using more appropriate topical treatments. I suggest that the box of powder was actually Arm & Hammer Baking Soda, not detergent, and that this was being put into the bathwater because Gertrude and Paula were treating Sylvia’s sores. And this is absolutely vital to understanding the nature of the sores, or lesions, however punctate, or not so punctate, they may have been. They weren’t burns, and they weren’t wounds made by cutting. No, Sylvia had broken out with something. I would suggest that it could have been Chicken Pox, Measles, or some similar malady that would manifest itself in a breaking out of sores. If Measles, this would explain why none of the other children were affected. Gertrude said this:

Q. Did John finish school the year 1964?
A. As far as I know, he did.
Q. He did?
A. No, he did not. I think they were all out with the measles, I am not sure.
Q. When did he get the measles?
A. That was shortly before he went to spend the summer with their father.

And so none of the other children were affected. But! Sylvia wasn’t the only one. Why did Barbara Sanders go to Gertrude’s house? Our favorite nurse made that clear:

A. The reason for being there at this time was I had received word - the Health Department had received word there were children that had open running sores in this household.

Ah! Not “a child” with running sores… “children” with running sores. Again:

A. I had told her I was there because a neighbor called and said there were children there with open running sores.

Once more:

A. I could not go back to find who called in the report on the open sores of the children in this household

So the neighbor who reported this to the Health Department did not really know what she was talking about if she called in a tip that there were children in the house with sores, if in fact only one child had sores..i.e. Sylvia. I think that whoever tipped Barbara Sanders very much knew what she was talking about, and that there were two kids associated with Gertrude’s house that had sores…Sylvia and Photo 1 Girl. Remember the Mattress Photo? The girl on the mattress has visible sores. So there were actually 2 kids at Gertrude’s house with sores, and both the anonymous neighbor, who suddenly becomes less anonymous, only to then become even more anonymous, as well as Barbara Sanders, were right about the use of the plural. Why did both girls apparently have the same thing? Because Photo 1 Girl lived with Gertrude. Photo 1 Girl had stayed in the mysterious third bedroom that no one wants to discuss. At one time, Paula, the baby, and Photo 1 Girl stayed in that room. Stephanie stayed in the remaining room with Gertrude. There was no Jimmy. Then! Gertrude and Stephanie moved downstairs and slept in the dining room. Why? Because Johnny began staying there after the summer? Why can’t Johnny sleep in the dining room? He’s just one 12 year old kid..that’s one twin mattress. Why does Mom give up her bedroom to sleep downstairs? Here’s a suggestion..Photo 1 Girl came down with something that looked like Chicken Pox or Measles, and since Paula and the baby were sleeping in that bedroom, Gertrude and Stephanie moved downstairs so that Photo 1 Girl could be moved into a bedroom by herself…quarantined, as it were. I think that this explains the otherwise bizarre sleeping arrangements at 3850 East New York Street. Then, Sylvia came down with it too. So both girls, both “children” in the words of Barbara Sanders, actually had running sores. Despite the fact that Sylvia had been attending Arsenal Tech High School, no school officials testified. To get a child into school, you have to give the school the child’s health and immunization history. Barbara Sanders actually inquired about this when she was at Gertrude’s house:

A. Well, I told her that I was there to talk to her about the children and she invited me in and I set down. We talked about the children a while, their immunizations, diet, general conversation. Then I inquired if any of the children had been ill, had any sort of diseases and so forth.

Of course, had any of the school officials testified about what they knew about a girl that very few people seemed to have ever saw, serious problems for the Canonical Story would have arisen. Be that as it may, another person living at Gertrude’s House of Magic came down with the same thing that the two “children” had. Dr. William A Shuck Jr had been a physician associated with the Marion County jail. Not an assignment in particular demand among doctors, I feel it safe to say. But he is important because he examined Gertrude on October 27, 1965. What he had to say is fascinating:

Q. Describe her appearance at that time, Doctor, her physical appearance with reference to her face or anything.

A. She was an anxious person whose personal cleanliness was in a state of neglect. She had many sores over her face and extremities.

Q. You mean hands and feet?
A. That is right, and arms and face, and was complaining of rather severe problems with her breathing.

This is rather amazing. I must preface this discussion by saying that the sores on Gertrude’s face, or so I believe, are totally different from the sores she had elsewhere. And! The presence of sores naturally parallels the situation involving Sylvia and Photo 1 Girl. But! I will re-quote Marie, who said this about Sylvia:

A. Because Mom was - either Mom or Paula was complaining she smelt to bad.
Q. Smelled bad?
A. Yes.
Q. Did she?
A. She would not take care of her body.
Q. Who told you that?
A. That is what I heard.
Q. Who told you that?
A. I can't remember.
Q. She would not take care of her body?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. So they put her in a hot tub and put detergent soap on her?
A. Yes, sir.

Wow! It sounds like Gertrude smelled bad too. Sylvia wasn’t bathing because getting in a tub of warm water was very uncomfortable. Why? Because of her sores. But! Keeping clean is essential to getting over this malady, and so Paula and Gertrude were insistent about Sylvia bathing, even though she put up quite a fuss. Jenny was even present at least once, no doubt to encourage her sister to get in the tub. The detergent is really Arm & Hammer, which is a good cleansing agent, can be used with your laundry, absorbs odors in your refrigerator, and has been used in bath water if you have Chicken Pox or some like ailment. Likewise, Gertrude was not bathing, and given the doctor’s statements about her outbreak of sores, it is not surprising.

Q. You say she had sores?
A. Eczemetoid type on her legs and on her face.
Q. You mean what?
A. Sores.

Eczemetoid essentially means something along the lines of “resembling Eczema, similar to Eczema.” And! This means that the sores were not Eczema. That condition can go along with asthma, but Gertrude never says that she had Eczema.

Q. Can you describe her appearance with reference to her weight, her appearance, whether she was thin or fat?
A. She was much thinner than she is now.
Q. Much thinner. Have you any idea what she weighed?
A. I'd say ten to fifteen pounds less than she does now.
Q. Ten or fifteen pounds less than she does now?
A. Yes.

The lack of scales continues! But the weight loss, that sounds familiar. Now I will quote what Jenny said about Sylvia, and it is interesting:

Q. Did Sylvia lose any weight while you were living with Mrs. Baniszewski?
A. Yes, she did.
Q. How much, if you know?
A. I say ten to fifteen pounds.

If Jenny is right, then Sylvia’s weight loss was exactly the same as Gertrude’s weight loss. So we have the exact same symptoms:

 1. Weight loss

2. Sores

3. Disinclination to bathe

But how did Dr. Shuck Jr treat Gertrude’s sores?

Q. You testified in response to a question put to you by Mr. Erbecker that when you treated Mrs. Baniszewski - for part of the treatment you were obliged to require cures for lesions and open sores you found on the face and body?

A. Yes.
Q. Could you have made use of a saline solution if you lacked other drugs or medication?
A. I think we did recommend she have some saline soaps.
Q. This could have been done without harm to her?
A. Yes.
Q. It could, in fact, have produced a healing effect?
A. Yes.

Q. In the event that you had not had salt in solution and you had applied moderate amounts of salt to an open cut or sore, what would have been the effect of that in terms of damage to the health or body of the patient?

A. Concentrated salt would probably create an extreme inflammation, I expect.
Q. It would be painful?
A. I think so.
Q. Would it be injurious to the health or ultimately reduce infection?

A. I don't think it would reduce infection as such. I think it would create a tremendous inflammatory. I am speaking from supposition. I never treated a patient this way, never seen it.

Q. Salt, in solution, would have an antiseptic curative?
A. Not antiseptic, just mechanical cleansing.
Q. But it would have some curative power over such cut or wound?

A. No, not curative power per se. It would be mechanical cleansing so the body could clean up it's own infection.

Q. It would be mechanical?
A. Right.
Q. It would not create permanent injury as an effect?
A. I don't think so.

So he used, in effect, salt. Salt in sores. Sound familiar? This was one of the ways Paula and Gertrude were treating Sylvia’s sores. The other was by bathing. It seems not to far fetched to suppose that Paula and Gertrude were doing the same thing for Photo 1 Girl. Even if you were to exclude Photo 1 Girl for the sake of argument, Sylvia and Gertrude are described as having the exact same symptoms, and one of the means of treating Gertrude’s sores was one of the means of treating Sylvia’s sores.

It is worth noting that we have dispensed with several key elements of the Canonical Story and Inherited Wisdom. I will list these elements, and add some from other postings on this website:

1. Scalding water- Sylvia’s head held under the faucet

2. Scalding baths

3. Cigarette Burns

4.  The Number 3 (a temporary tattoo)

5.  “Prostitute and Proud of it” (voluntary body modification)

I have been told that the writer of “Bottles” is finishing the final installment of that essay, and has indicated that the ultimate “bottle violence” did, in fact, never happen. Since I don’t want to be a Thunder-Stealer, defined as a Stealer of Thunder, I will be content to say that “bottle torture” will have to be added to the list given above.

Perhaps it would be fair to say that the Canonical Story is becoming a bit more boring. Well, I think that it’s becoming a whole lot more interesting. What did Shrek tell Donkey? Ogres are like onions…they have layers. So too does the Canonical Story; layers and layers of nonsense. And although it may seem to be a Herculean labor, peeling back these layers will eventually lead to…something. I remain hopeful that at the center of our metaphorical onion, lies the truth, or something akin to it. Dispensing with the cigarette burns and scalding water is a good start, although there is still a long way to go. All done with Smoke and Mirrors? Perhaps, a carnival mirror, Lester would know about that. A strange magical act? Well, it seems less so now. As far as our onion goes, there are still more layers to peel away. And that is exactly what I intend to do in “Ground Zero Part 4: Diabolical Games.”