Mirror Reflection
It can be asked: “when is a tattoo not a tattoo”? Obviously, when there’s no ink. When is a tattoo a tattoo? When there’s ink. That’s true. But it may be that a tattoo with ink is in fact not a tattoo. Or, a different kind of tattoo. Ricky’s story about the slogan is a sneaky one. And it’s easy to miss what he’s doing. Or, it’s easy to miss what I think he is doing…what I think the essential purpose of the story is. Perhaps it is legerdemain..a bit of sleight of hand. How many magicians there were in the Great Saga! Ricky’s story is fascinating.
Q. Sylvia came up from the basement. What happened after that?
A. Well, we started talking and somehow the conversation got around to tattooing and Gertrude asked me if I knew how a tattoo was put on a person and I told her "yes" and she asked Sylvia if she knew what a tattoo was and she said "yes" so she said something like. "Well, you branded my children so now I am going to brand you".
Q. Who said that?
A. Gertrude.
Q. She said that to whom?
A. Sylvia.
Q. Then what happened?
A. She had Marie or Shirley go get a needle - they had a sewing kit, a little plastic box. Gertrude had Marie or Shirley go get that.
Q. A minute, Ricky, what did Gertrude mean by "branded my children and I am going to brand you"?
MR. NEW: We object.
MR. ERBECKER: We object.
THE COURT: Objection sustained.
Q. Is that what was said?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Then she sent whom for what?
A. Either Marie or Shirley, to get - they had a sewing kit in a little plastic box that had needles and thread and stuff like that.
Q. That was brought in the kitchen?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Then what happened?
A. Gertrude selected a sewing needle and said she was going to brand her with it.
To follow the story through, the event in the kitchen begins with the word “brand”. Brand! That’s what happened in the basement. That’s what was done with the iron furnace poker that was really an EYE-HOOK. That never gets old. Well, I guess it does. So we have a strange juxtapositioning of:
- Tattoo
- Branding
And note too that the word “children” is used. Not daughters. Not Stephanie and Paula. Did Sylvia brand little Jimmy? Johnny? I take this to be a device. Maybe it can be called “Juxtaposed Contradiction”, if one felt like coining more imaginary terms. The statement: “Well, you branded my children so now I am going to brand you" is a very literary one. It is highly stylized. The use of “children” may in fact be one indication that the story we are about to get is a fiction. Is what happens in the kitchen accurately described as “branding”? It most definetly is not. True, there is an implement, and heat is applied to it. The same fictional construct appears with the number 3. But the implement here is a sewing needle, and the heat applied to the sewing needle serves one purpose:
A. I took the needle. I had Marie go get me matches from her mom's bedroom.
Q. Then what?
A. Well, I had Marie light one of the matches and I sterilized the needle in it and then I went ahead and started.
That’s the purpose! And a “detail of absurdity” it clearly is! Why? As they set about mutilating the girl, a girl they were supposedly torturing and abusing, they sterilize the needle. We wouldn’t want Sylvia to get an infection. Such concern for her well-being. It’s like treating her sores. The sterilization of the needle conveys the idea that an obvious “Juxtaposed Contradition” is taking place. As the event plays out, where is the branding? There’s isn’t one.
Q. You had already scratched words on her stomach?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. With a hot needle?
A. No, sir.
Q. With a needle?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Did you say the needle was heated?
A. It cooled before I started.
Ricky did not use the needle on Sylvia while it was hot. He let it cool. After all, the needle was heated only to sterilize it out of concern for Sylvia getting an infection. But “hot needle” suggests “branding”, and although Ricky set it up this way, he would then move away from this. The attorneys would not.
Q. How do you know that?
A. Because I sit and held it till it cooled.
Q. Which end did you hold?
A. The one with the eye.
Q. Not the hot end?
A. No, sir.
Q. You don't know that the hot end cooled?
A. I touched it to myself.
Q. Why heat it if you were going to let it cool?
A. To sterilize it.
Q. You did that more than once?
A. Two or three times.
Why do you think, Mr. Lawyer? Ricky already answered that question. So it should be that we dispense with “hot needle” since it really was a “cool needle”.
Q. That was your idea to heat the needle?
A. Yes.
Q. You wanted the needle to be clean?
A. Yes, sir
Poor Ricky! How many times do the attorneys need to be told the same thing before moving on? But it gets better:
Q. You went on and she continued to flinch and you continued to brand her?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. It was after that you went down in the basement and put the hot iron on her chest?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. It was your idea?
A. I don't know.
Q. Gertrude Baniszewski did not make you do that, did she?
A. No, sir.
Q. She did not even go with you?
A. No.
Q. It was your idea entirely?
A. I don't know.
Q. Was it Shirley's idea?
A. I don't know.
Having just told the attorney three times that the purpose of the heating the needle was sterilization, and having told the attorney that the needle was cool when he used it, the attorney insists on using the word “brand”. This is wrong, but also right. Ricky had his Gertrude character describe this event as “branding”, even though it wasn’t. Whose idea was it to carry out the branding in the basement? Not Gertrude’s. Other than that, Ricky doesn’t know whether it was his idea, Shirley’s idea, or what. These “I don’t know” statements clearly signify a false confession.
Q. She certainly did not want you to scratch her with a needle?
A. I imagine not.
Q. Why do you imagine not. Did you have some suggestion she might want you to burn her with a needle?
A. No, sir.
This despicable questioning continues. Why is it despicable? Because we already established that the needle was heated to sterilize it, but not used until it was cool. Every use of words denoting “burn”, and every use of the expression “hot needle” are deliberate attempts to misrepresent the, albeit fictional, event Ricky is describing.
Q. Did you get sick when you put the hot needle to her, scratched the words on her?
A. Kind of.
Q. How kind of sick, where?
A. Just everywhere.
Q. What sort of sickness did you experience?
A. I can't describe it.
Q. Sick at your stomach?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Sick with yourself?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. But you did not stop?
A. No, sir.
Back to the “hot needle”. Notice that what Ricky is doing makes him sick to his stomach. Yet he continues. This is a detail of absurdity. He has taken over for Gertrude, who only made the first letter. She quit because it made her feel sick:
Q. Did you testify Gertrude said she was getting sick and handed you the needle and left?
A. No, sir.
Q. What did you say?
A. She handed me the needle and told me to finish it.
Q. Did she say she was getting sick?
A. Yes.
Q. That is what she did do and say?
A. Yes.
Bizarre! Gertrude starts, but then stops because she’s feeling sick. Ricky takes over. He too feels sick, but keeps on going. Who had the vested interest in what was happening? Gertrude. The reason that Ricky doesn’t stop is because Ricky actually did this…sort of.
Q. Then she sent whom for what?
A. Either Marie or Shirley, to get - they had a sewing kit in a little plastic box that had needles and thread and stuff like that.
Q. That was brought in the kitchen?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Then what happened?
A. Gertrude selected a sewing needle and said she was going to brand her with it.
Q. Did she?
A. She started to.
So again, Ricky uses the word “brand”. I think that he is trying to emphasize the fact that it is actually not “branding” that is taking place in the kitchen. If the listener or reader is paying attention, they should note this too. So Ricky is calling it something that it is not, and this indicates a false confession. Jenny:
Q. Do you remember testifying, when Miss Wessner was asking you questions, that you were there one afternoon and Gertrude Baniszewski started with a hot needle putting some on your sister's stomach?
A. Yes.
Q. Were those started with a hot needle?
A. Yes that is what I seen them using.
Q. You said those words "I am a prostitute and proud of it" were started with a hot needle?
A. Yes.
Q. That was burned on with a hot I-screw? Those words he just scratched the remaining words?
A. With a hot needle.
Q. With a hot needle?
A. Yes.
Q. Now, did you see him heat the needle?
A. Shirley Baniszewski striked the matches.
Q. Who did?
A. Shirley Baniszewski.
Q. How did she do that?
A. She would strike the matches and hold them up to the needle till the needle got hot.
Marie:
Q. What did he have in his hand?
A. A needle.
Q. Was the needle hot?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. How do you know?
A. Because Shirley lit a match and he told Shirley to light a match so he could heat the needle on it.
Q. He scratched the rest without heating the needle?
A. Yes.
For some reason, the questioning of Marie became bogged down in who lit the matches to heat the needle. It’s hard to see why. According to Ricky, the point of heating the needle was to sterilize it. Technically, whoever lit the matches and heated the needle had a direct role in ensuring that Sylvia didn’t get an infection. The match-lighting element seems irrelevant.
So! Did Ricky make a tattoo? The answer is no. Was there ink? Yes, but the ink was used to trace the outline of the letters:
Q. Then what happened?
A. Gertrude pulled up a chair in front of her and started - well before this they made out - got a little scrap of paper and wrote down on the paper what she was going to put on Sylvia's stomach.
Q. Who did that?
A. I believe we all contributed to it.
Q. Then what happened?
A. She started - first she went over with a ball point pen the outline of it.
As if we needed another note! And:
Q. What did Gertrude do with the ball point pen?
A. She outlined the words on Sylvia's stomach.
Q. On her stomach?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Prior to, or after you made the markings?
A. Prior.
Q. In other words, she made the pattern for you to follow?
A. Not for me to follow. She was going to do it but she got sick and give me the needle to finish it.
Further:
Q. How long did it take Gertrude to make this outline with the ball point pen?
A. Two minutes. Not really that long. One minute.
And:
Q. Who was it got the ball point pen and did the outline of the words on her stomach?
A. I believe it was Gertrude. I am not sure.
Q. Did she write all the words?
A. I believe she did.
Q. Did anyone touch the scratches or lacerations after you scratched her with the needle?
A. Not that I know of.
Q. The ink or ball point pen was done before the scratching?
A. Yes.
Q. I think you testified Gertrude selected a sewing needle, is that right?
A. Yes.
Q. Where was the sewing needle at that time?
A. In a little sewing kit.
Q. Whose idea was it about tattooing, originally, Gertrude's or yours?
A. It was Gertrude's. She was the one asked me if I knew what a tattoo was.
Q. What did you see. Did you see - what did you see on this particular picture when you were putting the tattoo on her Saturday?
A. I don't know exactly.
Q. You were tattooing just above that. Did you see those bruises then?
A. No.
Q. Would you describe the basement in which you said you scorched or burned or tattooed Sylvia to the jury? Describe it at the time you did this.
Jenny said this about the letters and ink:
Q. Now, had somebody gone over those words with an ink pen?
A. Yes.
Q. Who was that?
A. Shirley Marie had an ink pen in her hand - I mean Shirley Baniszewski.
Q. What did she do with the fountain pen?
A. She just put ink in them.
Actually, the 10 year old’s name is Shirley Ann. But Shirley says Ricky did it:
Q. Now, after that Saturday, did you ever see anyone go with a fountain pen and put ink on those letters?
A. It was that Saturday.
Q. Who was that?
A. Richard.
Q. He did that with what?
A. An ink pen.
Q. Was it a fountain pen?
A. Yes, it was.
As noted above, Ricky said that no one did.
So is what Ricky did a tattoo? No, it wasn’t. There are two types of homemade tattoos. One is called “stick and poke”, and that involves taking a needle, such as a sewing needle, poking holes in the skin and applying ink. So we have the sewing needle, but Ricky isn’t poking holes. He describes making scratches. There are also “scratch tattoos”. These are not made with a sewing needle. Why? Sewing needles are not cutting implements. They don’t have a cutting edge. If you take a sewing needle, and drag it across the skin, it will make a mess. Something with a very sharp cutting edge, like a razorblade, would be used. Is there ink in the fictional story? Yes. In most descriptions of the event, the ink is used to create a template for the letters. A template is often used when real tattoos are made, i.e. in tattoo parlors by tattoo artists. And then a “tattoo gun” with a needle punches the holes and inserts the ink. With a scratch tattoo, ink has to be applied to what are basically cuts. In our story, Jenny said Shirley did this, almost as if Sylvia was one of Shirley’s coloring books. Shirley says Ricky did. Ricky says that no one did, and Ricky is right. This is what Ellis said:
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.
Q. By sharp object, could that have been a needle or pin?
A. Yes, it could.
Q. Now, within these words and letters of "I am a prostitute and proud of it" did you detect any ink or pencil marks?
A. No, I did not.
So there was no ink in the letters. And! Ellis says that the slogan could have been made with a needle or pin. Kebel said this:
Q. Now, Doctor, will you describe those? That etching there in front, what does it say there on the exhibit?
A. It says, "I am a prostitute and proud of it".
Q. How would you say that was placed on there, by what method and means?
A. Well, this picture is not adequate to show a close-up. When I examined it myself it looked as though some sharp instrument was used to scratch the skin and the skin would pop open. That is the way it looked to me.
Kebel is right. Ellis is wrong. Ellis waffled on the conclusion that he often did: cut or burn? He seems to have considerable difficulty with that. A sharp object, or a hot object, or a sharp and hot object? I wish he’d stop being so specific! But! A needle or pin can not have done it, because neither of these things are sharp. They are pointed. You can use them when making a stick and poke tattoo because you are poking holes into the skin. That is not what Ricky described. For a scratch tattoo, you would use something very sharp, like a razorblade, not a needle or pin. What Ricky has done is very clever. He starts with the use of “tattoo”. He then introduces the sewing needle. But then! He doesn’t poke holes in the skin. He scratches letters. So he starts us out with what is about to be a stick and poke tattoo, but then suddenly shifts to what might be a scratch tattoo. Except! He still has the implement that would be used to make a stick and poke tattoo. Then he scratches letters. The sewing needle doesn’t have a cutting edge. It will not cut the skin. It will make a terrible mess as it rips open the skin. So we get set for a tattoo, proceed to a stick and poke…only to suddenly shift to a scratch tattoo that can’t be made with the sewing needle, and if it were to be done with the right implement, would require applying ink to the cuts. Ricky denies this happened. So it is doubly NOT a scratch tattoo. Despite the claims of Jenny and Shirley, Ellis is right when he says that there was no ink in the letters. And that’s what Ricky said. WHAT RICKY DID WAS NOT A TATTOO OF ANY KIND! Even Marie realized this. She said:
Q. Now, that was the same day that your mother asked Paula if she knew what a tattoo was?
A. Asked Paula about a tattoo?
Q. Asked if she - asked Sylvia - I am sorry - she asked Sylvia if she knew what a tattoo was?
A. I think Mom said to Sylvia, "Do you know what a tattoo is"?, and she said, 'I think I do. This is when they punched holes in a certain shape and filled it with some kind of color".
Q. Now, when Ricky came, he came there to the back door, did he?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. When he came in did your mother ask Ricky if he knew what a tattoo was and if he knew how tattoos were made?
A. I don't know.
“They punched holes in a certain shape and filled it with some kind of color”. Marie knows how tattoos are made. A certain shape? She might be thinking of the tattoos she’s seen, e.g. a tiger, a guy from the navy with an anchor tattooed on his arm...etc. So Ricky’s story is fictional. In many ways, but in other ways, it’s not. Why did Ricky get saddled with having done all of this? Because he did, but with a major twist. I would start with a strange thing Kaiser said:
A. He told me he had been involved in the beating of Sylvia Likens, that he had branded her on the stomach with a pencil the words "I am a prostitute and proud of it". He told me he also branded her on the stomach with a piece of iron and he also had slapped her several times.
Ok, ok…just ask Shirley, the eye-hook is made out of steel, so Kaiser is wrong. You can’t brand with a pencil, so Kaiser, who more than once makes such statements, makes one here. But, why a PENCIL? Not a pen, like the one that appears in Ricky’s story. A pencil? I think that’s stupid, but also not. I think there’s a good reason why he used the word pencil. Note something that Kebel said:
A. Well, some of the wounds looked like craters where the skin is missing and appear to be healing in. Some of the areas look like second degree burns and the skin is missing but the epidermis is still present. There is tattooing of some kind across the abdomen the left side of the face there is an extensive ecchymotic post mortem area of some kind, it is difficult to determine.
Nothing could be more important! I’ve said that a lot, so…this is one of many most important things! Having already described the slogan, for which he gave letters that were too big, he states that “there is tattooing of some kind across the abdomen”. Ellis doesn’t mention this. So are we to believe that in addition to the slogan that has been cut into the skin, which is along the abdomen, there was also tattooing? Tattooing that Ellis didn’t see? “Tattooing of some kind”? If you go to a tattoo parlor, pay for your tattoo, and walk away with no one being able to tell what it is…you would get your money back. Actually, this would never happen with tattooing made by a tattoo artist. So! The body Ellis saw had no tattooing on the abdomen, but the body Kebel saw did. Again, two different bodies. Sylvia had tattooing on her abdomen? Yes and no. Ricky described what he did to Sylvia as tattooing, then started out with a stick and poke tattoo, only to shift to a “scratch tattoo” that would never be made the way he described, and then Ricky and Ellis confirm that no ink was in the letters. So what is the answer to this puzzle? Maybe Stephanie can help:
Q. What time did you go to bed Saturday night?
A. I said about 10:00.
Q. Was Sylvia there then?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Did you talk to her?
A. Just a little bit.
Q. What time did you first talk to her on Saturday?
A. Right before I went to bed.
Saturday around noon is when the event took place in the kitchen. Stephanie said that she was out cold all day because of some unspecified medicine. Was she doped? No, this claim was made so that she was spared any involvement in the slogan event.
Q. What time did you talk to her Saturday evening?
A. Around 9:30.
Q. 9:30 was the first time you talked to her?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. How did she look at that time?
A. Alright.
Q. She looked alright. How was she dressed?
A. She had some jeans on, I think.
Q. She had a shirt on?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. A blouse, did you say?
A. It was either a blouse or shirt.
Q. Did she complain of any pain?
A. No, sir.
So a girl who earlier that day had a third-degree burn inflicted on her, and had a long slogan scratched onto her abdomen, seemed fine by evening. Well, she was fine. Because what was said to have happened on Saturday afternoon, never happened. Sort of. Let’s hear Stephanie one more time:
Q. When you saw Sylvia the last time - when was it before you went to school Tuesday morning?
A. Monday night.
Q. Monday night?
A. Yes.
Q. Where was Sylvia?
A. She was taking a bath.
Q. Where?
A. In the bathroom.
Q. Upstairs?
A. Yes.
Q. She was allowed to use the bathroom?
A. Yes.
Q. Did you see her body?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Did you see any marks on it?
A. Yes.
Q. What did you see?
A. That printing.
Q. Printing?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. That was the words on her stomach?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. What else did you see?
A. That was all. I don't remember seeing anything else.
Q. Did you ever talk to your mother about that printing?
A. She said it was going away.
Q. She said it was going away?
A. Yes.
Q. Did she say who put it on there?
A. Someone said Ricky did.
Finally, we can remind ourselves that the Gang of Boys note refers to the slogan, but not the number 3. Now I think we have our answer. Well, a hypothetically possible answer.
Kaiser said “pencil” because the marks made with a pencil are not permanent. The tattooing that Kebel saw could not be made out because it was made with non-permanent ink. It was “printing”, i.e. writing, not cuts or scratches. Stephanie saw Sylvia in the bathtub, and saw the printing. Gertrude said it was coming off. So by the time Kebel saw it, it was in fact being effaced, so he could say that there were ink patterns on the abdomen, but he couldn’t make out what they were. I think Kaiser saw this too, and realized that what was there had been made with something that was not permanent, and “pencil” is what came to mind. The Gang of Boys note was written by someone who knew that the slogan, written in non-permanent ink, probably with a black marker, was present on Sylvia’s abdomen, but the number 3 wasn’t. But the girl on Ellis’ table had the same slogan cut into her abdomen. I think that this was done by choice. It would be next to impossible to do this by force, since the victim would writhe and squirm and scream…and the letters would not be made cleanly. Her abdomen would be a mess. Unless she wanted it done, then she would hold still for it, maybe after a few shots of whiskey or taking a drug like heroin. And how long the slogan is! Doing this on some girl against her will as she stands in front of you in the kitchen? Absurd. Well, not absurd if you’re a fictional character like “Silent, Suffering Sylvia.” I think that Photo 1 Girl was a prostitute. I think that Photo 1 Girl had “Self Harm” disorder. This is characterized by cutting words and phrases into the skin with something like a razor blade. What is cut into the skin is usually self-demeaning…like calling yourself a prostitute, a word you would only use if you were in fact involved in prostitution. There’s a twist! She’s proud of it! Take that world! Kebel described this:
A. The area between the top of the pubis and the umbilicus legible letters were cut and - may I read them?
Q. Whatever you saw, Doctor.
A. I am a prostitute and proud of it. There was also a triangle cut immediately above the hairline on the left over the upper extremities. There were numerous punctate lesions - round lesions - that looked like cigarette burns, something a cigarette would do.
A triangle! And just above the pubic hair. Ellis said this:
A. Present over the abdomen, again in essentially block letters, was - were the words "I am a prostitute and proud of it" with an exclamation point.
An exclamation point? Does the slogan really need proper punctuation? Is high school English class playing out across this girl’s abdomen? How is a triangle an exclamation point? It’s not. Ellis is describing the triangle, and interpreting it, because he doesn’t know what it means. He is wrong. Kebel is mostly right. What looks like a triangle but isn’t a triangle? Is that a riddle? Maybe. I suspect that the triangle is inverted. It is actually an arrowhead, and pointing down at the vagina. “Proud of it” after all. So the same slogan that is cut into the abdomen of one girl, is written in non-permanent ink on the abdomen of Sylvia Likens. How did it get there? She couldn’t have written it herself, even if she were looking in a mirror. Someone would have to do it for her. Who? Ricky. How did he know what to write, and how could he possibly have known what was on the abdomen of Photo 1 Girl? He couldn’t. Sylvia told him what to write. How did she know? Because she had seen it on the other girl. So it would be fun to put it on her abdomen, in non-permanent ink of course so that it would go away. And by the evening of October 26th, it was, but the ink marks were still visible. But! The Gang of Boys note made it clear what it said. And two other girls in the house knew it was there, Stephanie and Jenny. The person who wrote the note included the slogan, but not the number 3, because although the number 3 was present on Photo 1 Girl, Sylvia only had the slogan, i.e. without the number 3, put on her. Why no number 3? Obviously, she wasn’t number 3. Photo 1 Girl was number 3. Based on the note and what Jenny said, Kaiser bullied Ricky into admitting that he had “put”, as the note said, the slogan on Sylvia in “pencil” (Kaiser’s word). So Ricky admitted it. But surely that isn’t a big deal. I wrote in non-permanent ink! It is a big deal! If homicide had a murder victim in the morgue with “I am a prostitute and proud of it” cut into her abdomen, and Ricky had written the exact same thing on Sylvia, what would the police think? Well, Ricky, how’d you know to write that slogan on the girl? It wasn’t permanent. I didn’t ask that. Well, she told me to. The murdered girl in Gertrude’s house told you to write something like this on her? Baloney! Isn’t it odd, Ricky, that we have a murdered girl with the exact same slogan cut into her abdomen that you wrote on another murder victim? The only way you could have known that particular slogan, as unique as it is, is because you saw it on the other girl. You saw it, when you put it there! When you mutilated that girl before she was murdered. And then you did it on another girl. When were you going to get around to cutting it into her like you did to the other? The Gang of 5 Men didn’t kill Sylvia. You did, and we think you were involved with the other murder. Of course, Judy Duke would tell the police that Ricky was offered money by Gertrude to kill Sylvia. So it is fascinating that when Ricky tells his “I put the slogan on Sylvia in the kitchen” story, he combines the tattooing on Sylvia’s abdomen with the “cutting” of the slogan on Photo 1 Girl. Once again, two girls become one, and Ricky takes responsibility for what happened to both by combining the two into one, and telling a highly fictionalized story; a story that makes no sense, unless something like what I described above was actually the case. Gertrude gave the police the note. So! She knew about the gang of men, i.e. those who killed Photo 1 Girl. And she knew about the slogan. And! She was blaming the gang. How did she know about the gang of men? And how did she know about the slogan on Photo 1 Girl? I think, contrary to what the police said, Gertrude denied everything. Because she didn’t do it. She didn’t write the note. She wrote a note, but not the Gang of Boys note. One of the children gave her that note. Gertrude, we know you know the gang, and you’re going to help us get them. I don’t know about a gang. And! She just needs to stick to her guns. Ricky broke. He should never have spoken to the police without an attorney, his father, or an adult from child protective services being present. He stood no chance against Kaiser. But his initial confession was in fact the truth. Still, the police would never believe that the murdered girl told him to write that on her. So, Ricky was responsible for what happened to both girls. He wasn’t, and I think that all he did was write in ink, ink that was coming off, Monday’s bath no doubt helping that along. But now the murder of one girl, and the accidental death of another girl were…well, accidental in fact, but it would be very compelling to believe that she too was murdered...was directly linked to the murder of another girl, both killed by head trauma. By the gang? Photo 1 Girl yes, but not Sylvia. Not the Sylvia living in Gertrude’s house. So what connected the murders? Gertrude and Ricky. At least, that would be the inevitable conclusion of law enforcement. Perhaps the most important thing here is that Sylvia knew the other girl, the other Sylvia, and apparently quite well. That leads to another essay, and another enigmatic number..this time, the Enigmatic Number 2.