The Enigmatic Number 3: Solved — Realm of Tektonikus

“The Enigmatic Number 3: Solved”

This enigmatic Number 3 has been the subject of many submissions on this website. And explanations abound. I have yet to see a convincing solution; though I mean that with all respect, so don’t kick me off for being trollish. After all, as will become clear, and I am indeed on a troll..I mean, a roll. Still, it was interesting to read all the material about this Number 3, and I do think that all the things that come in 3’s in the Likens case can’t be a coincidence. However, I am inclined to believe that the Number 3 found on the girl’s body was utilized and exploited to send people down the wrong road; all kinds of 3’s were then back-loaded into the canonical story. Perhaps it is the Nihilist in me, but I have come to the conclusion that all the efforts to find the significance of the enigmatic Number 3 have been in vain, and any further efforts to uncover the significance of the meaning of this strange, ephemeral numeral will likewise be in vain. Why? Because it has no significance in the reality of it all. It does..but it doesn’t. It doesn’t mean anything. I will discuss the elements of the Inherited Wisdom that I find necessary to, like some noble knight in times of yore, slay this three-headed dragon once and for all. I will avoid reinventing wheels, and in many instances I will resign myself to discussing what elements of the canonical story are relevant to see that this Hydra is eliminated from the debate altogether.

The first point I would make is that the Gang of Boys note, although it mentions the slogan, and even the sores, doesn’t mention the Number 3. Other submissions on this website have offered explanations for this. Of course, these flow from the assertion that the kids who found the girl on the other side of the double had seen the slogan on Photo 1 Girl before the evening the girl’s body was found. But! The best explanation for the lack of any reference to the Number 3 in the Gang of Boys note is simple; it was not present on the body of Photo 1 Girl. The slogan was. The Number 3 was present on the body of Sylvia Likens. But the slogan wasn’t. No Number 3, so no reference to a Number 3, and Occam is now finally happy.

Perhaps one of the keys to solving the puzzle is the inability of the witnesses, including the one most credited with having done it, to explain what it was. The slogan is clear, but it is then followed by a meaningless act of mutilation. Just a sort of, hey Shirley! What? Let’s do this! Ok. This juxtaposition of two unconnected acts is forced and contrived. We have all read elsewhere on this website fascinating observations. First, Kebel and Ellis state clearly that the mark was a Number 3. But they both give very different dimensions for this numeral. One saw perfect circles...and one saw ovals? Dr. Ellis tells us that the IRON FURNACE POKER THAT WAS ONCE JOHNNY’S BUT THEN BECAME RICKY’S STEEL EYE-HOOK could have made this mark. Really? How can the perfect circle at the end of this item make the ovals? Did Dr. Kebel really replace the drain pipe in the laundry sink of his house so he knew the diameter of the standard drain in such a sink and then could give us the dimensions of it in court when shown the picture of the eye-hook sitting in the sink? Why can’t they agree? Well, that’s a silly question.

It comes as no surprise that Jenny affirms the claims made by Kebel and Ellis about this Number 3. But she is not credited with having made it. Still, Jenny’s testimony does start us down the very lame, not to mention pointless, debate over whether Shirley or Marie was the kid who was lighting the matches. Who cares? Ricky insisted that Shirley be his 50% partner in making the meaningless mark on the girl’s body. Each made half? I find it likely that what has been said elsewhere is true; i.e. Ricky chooses Shirley to discredit the false testimony he gave and the confession found therein. I would not dare to play “sock and smack” with the leader of “all the kids”; the one who told us that an injured Sylvia was practicing her ABCDs in the basement before she died; the one who started off by admitting that she didn’t know what it meant to tell the truth. However, Shirley got the whole story wrong. When it came to the slogan, she used the word “carve.” This is completely at odds with the ridiculous story that Ricky used a sewing needle to make scratches that were not deep enough to draw any real blood. But she also said this:

Q. What happened down in the basement?
A. Richard finished carving on her.
Q. And did he do anything else to her down in the basement?
A. No, I don't think so, not that I saw.
Q. Did you ever see anyone put a figure three on her stomach?
A. No.
Q. Did they put anything else on her stomach besides the hot needle?
A. Not that I know of.

So according to Shirley, what Ricky did in the basement was simply to finish the slogan, an act so rudely interrupted by Jocko’s younger brother, Randy Lepper. So no Number 3, and all the other testimony that asserted that the slogan was done before going down into the basement are false; at least as far as Shirley was concerned.

Q. Shirley, I will show you what we have admitted in evidence as State's Exhibit No. 11. Have you ever seen this before?
A. Yes, I have.
Q. Where did you see that?
A. Downstairs in the basement.
Q. Did you ever see that used?
A. No - yes, I think I have. My brother John hit her with it, I think.
Q. Your brother John hit Sylvia with it?
A. Yes.
Q. When was this?
A. In the two weeks.
Q. Where did he hit her?
A. On the leg.
Q. Did you see anyone put this on Sylvia's stomach?
A. No.

So Shirley continues in her unwitting role of dragon-slayer. Yes, she saw the eye-hook, but no one put it on Sylvia’s stomach. Johnny hit Sylvia on the leg with it.

Q. Who put the S mark on Sylvia?
A. I am not sure.
Q. Were you there when it happened?
A. It was cold, that is all I knew.
Q. What?
A. It was just cold, that steel thing.

Hold on, attorney! Perhaps you didn’t hear Kebel, Ellis, and Jenny. It was a 3, not an S. And! What happened in the basement, as far as the little girl who didn’t know how many brothers she had or how many dogs lived in her house, was not a branding. Indeed, the eye-hook was actually “cold.” Shirley’s story is that what happened in the basement was that Ricky finished his “carving.” Most of it was done in the kitchen, the rest was done in the basement. And! The eye-hook wasn’t placed on Sylvia’s stomach…oh, no..Johnny hit Sylvia on the leg with it.

Shirley wasn’t alone. Marie went off track too, and much more so. She got caught up in the stupid “did Shirley or Marie strike the matches” nonsense. But as concerns the so-called branding, she went so far off track that she accused Paula and Johnny of having done it. Why? One can’t be sure. But she was forced to lie. I think that Marie may have accused Paula of doing the branding because she knew the truth about how the mark was actually made. She had to lie. And Ricky made the mark, he just didn’t do it the way the canonical story insisted he did. So she lied, but in doing so, she clung to the truth. If the mark wasn’t made by branding, then Ricky couldn’t have made it because he did it in a different way. And although Marie saw Paula and Johnny in the basement, and Paula was heating up the eye-hook to put it on Sylvia’s stomach:

Q. Did you see them actually put the iron to her stomach?
A. No, sir.
Q. You did not see that?
A. No.

So she sets Paula and Johnny up for the blame, only to then say that she didn’t see them do it. Watch Marie really go off track:

Q. How about downstairs with the branding iron. Was Richard Hobbs down there?
A. Not that I can think of. He was at school.
Q. Richard Hobbs was at school?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. I thought you said it was not - there was not any school?
A. Not when that thing was lit.
Q. Was that some other time?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. I am sorry?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. It was another day?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. What day was it this iron was heated and she was branded on the stomach?
A. The week she died.
Q. What day?
A. On Monday.
Q. Was it a school day?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Was it the day before she died?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. You were not in school?
A. I was in school, it was after school.
Q. Richard Hobbs was not in school?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Yes, sir, he was not in school?
A. He was in school.
Q. Alright, it was after school, after 3:15, you said was the time you got out of school, correct?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. You were down in the basement and saw this?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Richard Hobbs was not there?
A. He was at home.
Q. Richard Hobbs was at home, not at school?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. How do you know that?
A. Because he had not come over to our house that day.
Q. Do you know that for a fact?
A. Yes, sir.

Again, Marie insists that the branding wasn’t done by Ricky. Paula and Johnny? They were planning on it, but she didn’t see them do it. And! Marie admits to being in the basement when it was done, but Ricky wasn’t there. Was she sure?

Q. How do you know he was not there?
A. I went to my aunt's that Monday and I came back and I can't remember what all happened.

I think that of all the witnesses, Marie was the one who was fundamentally an honest person. And such a person does a very bad job of lying. And did she ever do a bad job of lying! Of course, “I can’t remember what all happened” can probably be translated “I can’t remember the lies I’m supposed to tell about what all happened.” I can not resist, given what I just said, to quote the most heart-breaking exchange during the trial:

Q. Did you tell anyone Paula was downstairs with Johnny putting a brand on Sylvia's stomach with a hot iron?
A. No, sir.
Q. You just went out and raked leaves?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Now, Marie, if Shirley says you are the one who lit the paper, started the fire to heat the iron, and stood there while she was branded, is that the truth?
A. I did not.
Q. Shirley is not telling the truth? Did Shirley not tell the truth about that, Marie, or are you not telling the truth?
A. Oh, God help me.

Q. We want everything that happened, Marie, and we want the truth. You tell it the best you can remember it. Do you think you can tell it, Marie, really what happened, tell it all, no matter what happened?

Now, Marie testified on two different days. Her testimony on day one was different than her testimony on day two. I think that during the evening, she was bullied and berated about her initial testimony. And what does she mean by “Oh, God help me!” I feel confident in saying that she is not referring to her earlier testimony. No, she is deeply troubled by the fact that she will be lying to please the people behind the canonical story. Her pain causes her to call out to God. Please forgive me God for the lies I have to tell because I know you hate lying. Marie will be forgiven. I suspect that there are other people from the canonical story who will have a much harder time obtaining forgiveness.

Q. Was Richard Hobbs at home?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Paula was heating the iron for branding Sylvia on the stomach?
MR. RICE: We object. That was not the testimony.
THE COURT: Overruled.
Q. Is that what you said?
A. Yes, sir.

In Marie, Ricky has found his most ardent defender..she will give up Paula, sort of, but Ricky wasn’t there!

Q. What is the fact?
A. I went downstairs and got the rake and then came upstairs and Mom told me to go take the rake back.
Q. That is when you saw the burning paper?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. You saw Paula with the iron in her hand?
A. Yes.
Q. You saw Johnny holding her down with a gag in her mouth so she would not scream?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. This was all Monday, from the time you got home from school and before you went to your aunt's, is that what you are telling the jury?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. No one was down there except who you have said?
A. Yes, sir.

I’m sure she didn’t realize what exactly she was doing here, but she was the only witness to separate what Paula and Johnny were planning to do in the basement from the slogan event. Nonetheless, she is inadvertently right in so far as the two supposed mutilations have no demonstrable connection between them.

Q. Did you see him scratch the rest of the words on?
A. No, sir.
Q. You just said you did. Did you?
A. I did not. I was only there when he got the second word done.
Q. The second word was what?
A. Prostitute.
Q. Did you see him scratch that on there?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Did you see any other words scratched on there?
A. It was "I am a prostitute and proud of it"

Yes! Marie memorized the slogan. But that’s all she did. What is the second word in the slogan? “am” not “prostitute,” which is in fact the fourth word. Still, I think that Marie is initially pretty close to the truth about how the slogan actually read. I will address this below.

Q. Who else was holding Sylvia down?
A. Shirley was holding Sylvia by the feet.
Q. Shirley was down there?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. You are sure?
A. Yes.
Q. You said a moment ago she was not. Are you sure she was there?
A. I am getting all confused.

Shirley was? The 10 year old was holding down the feet of a 16 year old who left a 17 year old with a broken wrist? Earlier, Paula’s evil henchman was Johnny. The reason Marie was getting “all confused” was the fact that she had the truth flashing in her mind as she was trying to remember the lies. It is too bad that it's too late to obtain justice for Marie. She more than anyone else involved in the Sylvia Likens Saga deserves it.

Q. Shirley was holding her feet and John was holding her shoulders. Did Johnny put a gag in her mouth?
A. Yes.

Of course, Johnny needs help. Perhaps Paula needs a better henchman.

Q. Now, where was Richard Hobbs?
A. At home.
Q. He was not down in the basement?
A. No, sir.
Q. O.K. Paula heated the iron?
A. Yes.
Q. Then what did she do with it?
A. Put it on Sylvia.
Q. What part?
A. I think on her chest.

Hey, Marie! Ricky called to say, “thank you!”

Q. Now, did you see how many times Paula put the iron to Sylvia's stomach?
A. I think she only did it once.
Q. Just once?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Are you sure?
A. Yes, sir.

More off track. Hey, Marie! Did you really get a good look at the IRON FURNACE POKER BRANDING IRON STEEL EYE-HOOK? What mark was on Sylvia? It certainly wasn’t a letter “O,” which would be the result of putting the eye-hook on Sylvia’s stomach only one time.

Q. I see. Now, we have, Marie, a statement in evidence marked State's Exhibit No. 18, which is signed by Richard Hobbs. The jury has seen his statement, in which he says, "I branded her with the top part of S on her chest". That is Richard Hobbs. You testified to this jury that Paula was the one who held the hot iron in her hand.

A. That is what I saw.
Q. Is Richard mistaken or are you mistaken?
A. I guess I am mistaken.
Q. Do you want to think about it a minute and tell the jury what actually happened?
A. Richard Hobbs really done it.
Q. You did not mean to tell the jury Paula did?
A. I thought Paula did it. I am not thinking right.
Q. Then Richard Hobbs was down in the basement?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Did you ever see Richard with that iron in his hand, marked State's Exhibit 11?
A. No, sir.

Marie was also the easiest kid to push around, and so the attorney, despicable and devoid of a conscience, finally gets Marie to retract all the things she said before, and bullied her into putting Ricky in the basement. Finally. But! She never saw him with the eye-hook!

Q. You do honestly remember Paula holding the iron in her hand, heating it over the paper?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. What did she do with it?
A. Handed it to Richard.
Q. Did he take it?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. What did he do?
A. Placed it on her stomach.
Q. On whose?
A. On Sylvia's.
Q. It was actually Richard that put the brand on Sylvia's stomach?
A. Yes.
Q. Once or twice.
A. I don't know.
Q. Do you remember any events about when Richard was putting it on Sylvia's stomach?
A. No, sir.

She didn’t see it in Ricky’s hand because she was too busy seeing it in Ricky’s hand. Paula heated the stupid paper and then put the even more stupid eye-hook on Sylvia once. “Are you trying to tell the truth?” Good question! How many times did Ricky put it on Sylvia...once or twice? Don’t play your hand so openly. Marie said “once” before, of course that was when Paula did it, accidentally making a letter “O.” So after so many hours of agonizingly getting Marie to state that Ricky did it…it would be a shame if Ricky made the same mistake that Paula made earlier…make a letter “O.” Of course, Marie didn’t see how many times Ricky put the eye-hook on Sylvia. Now for a statement by the attorney that ultimately reveals the truth about the mark on Sylvia; of course, he did this purely by accident, and may have spent considerable time kicking himself for doing so:

Q. Now, I told you this morning that Ricky Hobbs said in his statement, which is Exhibit No. 18, that he had branded Sylvia with the top part of the S on her chest. Did Paula make the bottom part of the 3 on her chest?

A. I don't know.
Q. You don't know? You stated Richard Hobbs was the one who actually put the brand on her?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Did he put the whole brand on?
A. He just put the S part.
Q. Did you see anyone else putting anything to that brand that he had started?
A. No, sir.

Yes, read it again. The mark on Sylvia… it consisted of a letter “S” and a number 3. To repeat, the mark on Sylvia consisted of a letter “S” and a number 3. Herein lies the solution. Herein also lies the confusion about whether the mark was an “S” or a “3”; it was, in fact, both. Perhaps someone caught this gaffe, this monumental gaffe:

Q. Now, on Sylvia's chest there was a letter 3 or was it an S?
A. I think it was either a 3 or S. I don't know.
Q. You were there. What was that supposed to stand for if it was going to be an S?
A. Sylvia.

That’s rather sneaky! What is it an S or a 3? What was it supposed to be if it was an S… Your Honor, I object! It calls for an assumption! Besides, what would it mean if it were a 3? Actually, it was a 3S. So we are conveniently moved away from the truth, which was made rather clear earlier, to get us back into the middle of the nonsense. Wait! One more permutation of this lie; this time, from Jenny:

Q. What did they do with the poker, Jenny?
A. Branded the figure 3 on Sylvia's stomach - anyway I don't know - it was close to her chest, I guess.

Q. What part of the poker did they use on Sylvia's stomach?
A. This part right here.
Q. Describe it.
A. I don't know. They would hold it up to her. They were trying to make an S on her and it turned out to be a 3.

Of course! They made a 3, but only by accident, since Ricky, or Paula, or Shirley, or Peter Pan, or the Man in the Moon was too stupid to make an S correctly. That must be it. So! It’s an S, or a 3, or a 3 that resulted when moronic kids couldn’t make an S, which, if it was an S, stood for “Sylvia.” No it’s not! It’s an S and a 3. This ludicrous story of lies that had momentarily crumbled into piles of the...truth...is resumed with Ricky:

Q. Now, down in the basement that day, did you do anything to Sylvia Likens?
A. Not at that time.
Q. Later on that day?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. What?
A. After Randy had been there about fifteen minutes, we took her down in the basement again and I don't know who thought of it. We had an eye-hook and we heated it up with matches and branded an S on her stomach.

Q. You say "we"?
A. Yes.
Q. Who do you mean by "we"?
A. Shirley and I -
Q. You did part?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. What part did you do?
A. The upper curve of the S.
Q. Shirley did what?
A. The lower part.

I see! The eye-hook was heated with matches. No paper in the sink. Ricky has suddenly fallen back on the statements he made about heating the sewing needle. Now for more of the truth, told by mistake, of course:

Q. You have heard testimony here in the courtroom, the words used about branding, carving and cutting?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Other than heating the eye-hook, did you ever burn her other than with the eye-hook, the part of the 3 or S on her lower abdomen?
A. No, sir.

What truth? According to Ellis, the 3, which is what he said it was, or the S, which he and Kebel clearly indicated it wasn’t, was on the lower part of the chest, not the lower abdomen. But! The attorney has inadvertently told the truth. There is no room for it on the girl’s lower abdomen, seeing how that is the location of the rather long and wordy slogan. But if that slogan was not on Sylvia, but the “3S” was, then it would have been located exactly where Kebel, though unaware of a tremendous gaffe he made in his testimony, implied it was actually located…on the lower abdomen. More on that shortly.

It was noted earlier that the basic story-line in the Canonical Story was that the branding immediately followed the slogan event. To hear Ricky tell it, the branding event, although it directly followed the fictional slogan event, was actually master-minded by Shirley:

Q. Now, sir, I will hand you what is marked for identification State's Exhibit No. 11. Do you see that there, sir?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Did you ever see that before?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Where did you first see it?
A. Down in the basement.
Q. I can't hear you sir.
A. Down in the basement of the Baniszewski home.
Q. When did you first see it?
A. Saturday, October 23.
Q. You never saw it before that?
A. No, sir.
Q. Where was it when you first saw it?
A. In Shirley Baniszewski's hand, I think.
Q. Was Shirley holding it in her hand first?
A. She is the one that handed it to me.
Q. Did she say anything?
A. Somehow the conversation had gotten around to marking her with it. She was looking for something to do it.

So it was really the 10 year old girl’s fault. And! Whereas the slogan was inflicted as vengeance for calling Paula and Stephanie prostitutes, so at least there was a semi-credible context, it is directly followed by a mutilation carried out because Ricky and Shirley were talking to each other, and somehow Shirley came up with the idea. Well, branding is more fun than sock and smack. So in this regard, there is in fact no connection between the slogan event and the branding except that the latter followed the former, and happened because Shirley thought it would be fun to do it.

There was considerable deceit involved in trying to keep the two mutilations linked, apart from a purely temporal link. This lay in the way that the slogan event was handled, and it was actually Ricky who laid the foundation:

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".

I love this. Who knew how poetic Ricky Hobbs really was? “You branded my children so now I am going to brand you.” Quite emotive! And this poetic verse was not composed by Ricky or Gertie Wright. The slogan event, which is the act of brutality following Ricky’s brief flirtation with poetry, is in fact not a branding at all. The story line, and it is a lame and impossible one, is that Ricky inflicted the mutilation with a sewing needle. This has been shown to be nonsense elsewhere on this website. Drag a sewing needle across your skin and see what happens! A sewing needle has a sharp point, but not a sharp edge; no cutting edge to make the letters. All the sewing needle could have made was an awful, and illegible, bloody mess. A razor blade would have worked quite well, making a quick cut with the utmost of ease. Why a sewing needle? Well, it was something Gertrude probably had lying around. After all, our beloved Emperor sits and knits while Rome burns. Do her talents extend beyond sitting and knitting?

Q. What did you see Wednesday?
A. He brung her upstairs and told her to show me.
Q. Who did.
A. Richard Hobbs.
Q. Brought who upstairs?
A. Sylvia.
Q. Where was your mother?
A. She was in the other room.
Q. She was in what room, where was she?
A. In the front room.
Q. What was she doing?
A. Sitting down crocheting.

Sitting and knitting…sitting and crocheting. I like the former better because it rhymes. I’ll bet Gertie right was a good sock-darner too.
Of course, I doubt anyone, including those on this website, would deny that Gertrude probably had razor blades lying about the place, at least in her shaver. But! The choice of a sewing needle, perhaps thought up by Ricky, may be one of those signals that his confession was false. I wish I knew Morse code! I would shovel-scrape with the best of them to announce to the canonical story-world the clear necessity to…wake up!

The artificial connection between the slogan event and the branding, following it’s sublime start, then becomes quite twisted. Ricky recounts that he heated the sewing needle, and we have all been bored stiff reading oodles of testimony about whether Shirley or Marie lit the matches. Of course, Marie demonstrated, after backing off her claim that she didn’t light the matches, to the court how to light matches while also holding a rake! A prodigy, no doubt. Why did Ricky heat the needle? The answer is another signal that Ricky’s story is nonsense, and that he wants people to know it:

A. Well, I had Marie light one of the matches and I sterilized the needle in it and then I went ahead and started.

So all sadists and psychopaths take note! If you are going to mutilate a girl, take care that she doesn’t get an infection! Still, the reason for heating the sewing needle makes a sort of sense. But watch how this was shamelessly manipulated by shameless manipulators:

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.
Q. How do you know that?
A. Because I sit and held it till it cooled.

Clearly, Ricky had gone off script. He was breaking the link between the slogan event and the branding.

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.
Q. Who held the match?
A. I believe Marie or Shirley.
Q. That was your idea to heat the needle?
A. Yes.
Q. You wanted the needle to be clean?
A. Yes, sir.

So we know that Ricky heated the needle to sterilize it. This is a completely different thing than using the eye-hook to inflict a second or third-degree burn. I think that the attorneys were intending to create the following equation: Hot eye-hook = hot needle. Unfortunately, Ricky was seriously undermining this.

Q. Did you get sick when you put the hot needle to her, scratched the words on her?
A. Kind of.

Come on, Ricky, hold your ground! I heated the needle to sterilize it so that the victim of my brutality would not get an infection! It was not hot when I used it! It appears to be the case that Marie was not aware of the purpose of heating the sewing needle as far as sterilization went. For her, the needle is simply hot:

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. Now, Marie, you are not telling the truth, are you?
A. I am telling the truth, sir.
Q. No, the truth is you lit the matches and you were heating the needle?
A. No, sir.

Q. But you lit the match and held it steady?
A. I tried to.
Q. What did Richard Hobbs do?
A. Put the needle on there.
Q. Put the needle over the fire?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. How long did he hold it there?
A. Until it got red hot.
Q. It got red hot - did you have to light any more to keep it hot?
A. No, sir.

I think one of the attorneys can do better:

Q. Now, Marie, let's get back to the time the letter I was branded. You state that you were there and you saw - you lit a match and heated a needle and did not know what Ricky was going to do with it, is that right?

The letter “I” was branded? Back to Ricky:

Q. Then what happened?
A. Gertrude selected a sewing needle and said she was going to brand her with it.

It should be remembered that this statement flows from the poetic beginning to the whole slogan story.. “you branded my children,” etc. More:

Q. What you did was hit her four or five times with the back of your hand?
A. Yes, sir.
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.

One of the most interesting elements in the slogan story was the combining of cutting with tattooing. Ricky:

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?

Q. You were tattooing just above that. Did you see those bruises then?

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.

What does the attorney intend in the last quote above? Is he using the word “tattoo” when describing what happened in the basement as part of the effort to connect the slogan event with the branding event? Or is he making a gaffe? He appears to be leaving open the possibility that what happened in the basement was not a branding at all; it may indeed have been a tattooing. I suspect that this was a gaffe. But more on this later.

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.

So we have a needle, which was heated to prevent infection; well, as far as Ricky told it. And indeed! Tattoo artists heat tattooing needles for exactly that reason. For a tattoo, we need ink.

Q. Then what happened?

A. She started to let her shorts down and she was going to hold them just right below her lower abdomen and Gertrude said, "Go ahead and drop them" so she dropped them.

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.
Q. Who did that?
A. I think it was Gertrude.
Q. Then what happened?
A. She started going over the letters with a needle.

So Ricky gives us our ink. And yet more! He gives us a template, which is not uncommon in making tattoos. After all, if you’re going to mutilate a girl, and put a nasty slogan on her, you minus well make it aesthetically pleasing.

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. 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.
Q. The purpose of the ball point pen markings was to make an outline where each letter was going to be?
A. I suppose so.
Q. Did you see Gertrude make the outline with the ball point pen?
A. Yes, sir.

Now another posting on this website discusses two types of homemade tattoos; “stick and poke” and “scratch.” The former are often made with a sewing needle, which is used to make small holes, and ink from a pen is then added. A “scratch” tattoo is made by making cuts, usually with a razor blade, and then applying ink to the cuts. Is this what Ricky is doing? Not according to him. The only ink used in Ricky’s story is Gertrude using a pen to outline the letters on Sylvia. However, Jenny was enlisted to help move things in this direction:

Q. Now, Jenny, did you ever see - after that particular afternoon - did you ever your sister - those words on her stomach?
A. Yes.
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.
Q. When was that done?
A. The same day, on Saturday.
Q. The same Saturday?
A. Yes.
Q. Where was that done at?
A. Up in the kitchen.

Wow! It’s not easy being a 10 year old. By the way, it’s Shirley Ann Baniszewski, not Shirley Marie. Of course, by putting ink in the scratches, we have our scratch tattoo. But Ricky indicates that this didn’t happen. What did Shirley say?

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.

So Ricky blames Shirley for wanting to brand Sylvia. Jenny blames Shirley for completing the scratch tattoo Ricky was making, even though Ricky says otherwise. Shirley blames Ricky for completing the scratch tattoo he essentially made. What did Ellis say?

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.

Ellis, apparently, agrees with Ricky. This is no scratch tattoo. Of course, Ellis never uses the word “tattoo,” and never finds any ink. What did Kaiser say?

Q. Now, on that evening, you had an opportunity to observe the body of Sylvia Likens?
A. Yes, sir, I did.
Q. Did you see that wording on her stomach?
A. Yes, sir, I did.

Q. Now, in your conversation, just talking about it with Richard Hobbs, did he also tell you if he, when he used the needle, ever pierced her body, ever pierced her stomach or drew blood?

MR. ERBECKER: We are going to object to any conversation.
THE COURT: Objection sustained as to defendant Gertrude Baniszewski.

Q. Now, on October 26, you did observe the body of Sylvia Likens?
A. Yes.
Q. You observed these words on her belly?
A. Yes, sir, I did.
Q. And you observed that part that Richard Hobbs said he had scratched on her body?
A. That is correct.
Q. And you observed those letterings, did you not?
A. Yes, sir.

Q. That part he had written and admitted he had written, scratched on her body, could you tell and observe that - if this needle pierced and drew blood or was there any laceration or lesion in those words of "prostitute and proud of it"?

A. There were cuts on her body.
Q. We are talking about "prostitute and proud of it" those letters?
A. They were marked in her skin.
Q. Were those markings made by a pin or was it ink?
A. I would say a pin, sir.
Q. Alright, now in your conversation with Ricky Hobbs, he told you about scratching these words and those letters on her stomach?

MR. ERBECKER: We are going to object to this, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Objection sustained. It is repetitious.
MR. ERBECKER: We move the court to admonish the jury.
THE COURT: The jury will ignore the question in arriving at a verdict in this case.

Q. In your conversation with Ricky Hobbs, did you ever ask him about ink in those, traced on those letters?

MR. ERBECKER: Same objection, in the absence of this defendant.
THE COURT: Sustained. It is hearsay conversation as to Gertrude Baniszewski. Overruled as to defendant Richard Hobbs. You may answer the question as to Richard Hobbs only.

A. Actually, it was my understanding it was done with a regular pin.
Q. What do you mean by pin?
A. Like a safety pin or straight pin.
Q. Did you observe on the stomach of Sylvia Likens those letters - was there any ink on those letterings?
A. Actually I don't recall, sir.

Well played, Kaiser! I don’t recall. Of course he doesn’t. But! This statement about the slogan being scratched into the skin with a safety pin..this doesn’t agree with what he says elsewhere. The following quote illustrates just to what lengths witnesses were willing to go to keep the connection between the slogan and the branding. It is also highly significant in the final understanding of the Number 3:

Q. Then what else did he say?
A. He told me -
MR. BOWMAN: Same objection.
THE COURT: Same ruling. I will make a final admonition.

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.

Did he really say that Ricky branded Sylvia on the stomach with a pencil? A pencil? How do you brand someone with a pencil? Clearly, this is an earlier version of the canonical story. There is no sewing needle, there is no safety pin or straight pin, or any other lame thing. Notice that he has used “branded” twice…first in conjunction with “pencil” and the slogan, and then with a “piece of iron.” Notice also that he does not state what brand Ricky placed on Sylvia with the “piece of iron.” That’s more than interesting, since Kaiser seems to have a lot in common with the Gang of Boys note..neither refer to a number 3 or a letter S. Moreover, he refers to a “piece of iron.” Perhaps Kaiser should have asked the 10 year old girl in the story what kind of metal is used to make an eye-hook. Other postings on this website have made it absolutely clear that witnesses and the attorneys intentionally sought, by shameful deceit, to convince the jury that the steel eye-hook was in fact an IRON FURNACE POKER. Why was that? Because another feature of an earlier version of the canonical story placed the whole branding fiction in jeopardy. Kaiser:

Mrs. Wright knew that her son Johnny had marked Sylvia with a hot poker.

How is it that this police officer, a homicide detective, and probably one of the two homicide detectives breathing down Ellis’ neck during the autopsy of Photo 1 Girl, is allowed to get away with this? Johnny “marked Sylvia with a hot poker.” My how confused the lies were before the lies got even more confusing. Johnny used a hot poker on Sylvia, but Ricky merely wrote on Sylvia with a pencil. Of course, Johnny’s poker would become Ricky’s eye-hook, and Ricky's pencil would become Ricky’s sewing needle.

Before moving on to the final answer to the enigmatic Number 3, one more observation should be made. And I will preface this by re-iterating that this essay presents the final solution to the mystery of the enigmatic Number 3, not the slogan. But it is worth pausing at this moment to repeat a statement quoted above.

A. There were cuts on her body.
Q. We are talking about "prostitute and proud of it" those letters?

I’ll assume that everyone has now realized the significance of this quote. In so many postings on this website it has been pointed out how long, wordy, and grammatically correct the slogan actually is. In fact, too much so. But now we are presented with a FOURTH VERSION OF THE SLOGAN! Let’s compare:

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

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

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

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

A show of hands! Who feels that it is Version 4 that is more likely? And how similar is Marie’s version of the slogan to Kaiser’s version! Of course, Ellis’s statement was that, in effect, this slogan was cut into the girl’s abdomen over “many weeks.” This is highly indicative of the fact that the slogan was actually a voluntary mutilation…what today would be called “body modification.” In my mind there is no doubt! Version 4 is what the slogan actually said, and we can finally get rid of “I am a” although high school English teachers would be impressed by this opening phrase. If this was indeed how the slogan read, then how did we end up with the words “I am a” at the beginning? The answer to that is not complicated. The first appearance of the slogan in the canonical story is the Gang of Boys note. When the body was found by the children, I think that one of them took the note found on the girl. This was given to Gertrude, who gave the note to another child, possibly Stephanie or Jenny, to keep until the police began their investigation on the East New York Street side of the double. If that note was a threat addressed to Gertrude, but possibly threatening Paula and Stephanie, then it would give Gertrude the proof that she had nothing to do with the death of Photo 1 Girl. But! That note was switched out for a different note; one that was written by three of the children. When it came time to incorporate the slogan into the note, there was a problem. The children had only seen the body briefly before they went to tell Gertrude. So there was a problem remembering the slogan exactly. So they inadvertently added “I am a” at the front of the slogan. As a result, a key piece of evidence, i.e. the Gang of Boys note, contained an incorrect quote of the slogan. So the slogan would have to be changed to reflect the way it was quoted in the note. Jenny also misquoted the slogan. She probably was suddenly going by memory, and she rendered it as “I’m a” instead of the canonical version which began with “I am a” as it appeared in the note.

Ellis found no ink or pencil marks in the letters. And wasn’t the earlier version of the canonical story wrong about pencil lead! Kaiser can’t recall if there was ink in the cuts. Ricky says nothing about inking the cuts, Jenny blames Shirley for putting ink in the cuts, and Shirley blames Ricky. And so we complete the circle and end up at Ricky..who says he didn’t do it. So what about ink? Kebel’s testimony is key:

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.

The importance of what Kebel has said here can not be overstated. He told us about the branded Number 3. He told us about the slogan. But in addition! He found “tattooing of some kind across the abdomen.” Stop! Obviously, this tattooing was in addition to the Number 3 and the slogan. What does “of some kind” mean? It’s a pretty bad tattoo if people can look at it, even if you are Dr. Kebel, and not be able to tell what it is. There is only one explanation for what Kebel has said, and I feel sure that he was not supposed to mention “tattooing of some kind.” For the answer, we need to turn to Gertrude and Stephanie.

According to Relkin, Gertrude told him that she had seen the writing on Sylvia:

A. I did not go into her conduct towards the deceased. All I know is what she told me, she woke up and knew about the writing and at that time she realized she should have reported it at that time but she took more drugs and went back to sleep.

This is completely consistent with what Stephanie said:

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.

But notice that while Stephanie used the word “printing,” it was the attorney who used the word “words.” Of course, both “writing” and “printing” do not necessitate “words.” Since the printing was coming off, wearing off, it was temporary. Kaiser knew this, and that is why his earlier version of the canonical story states that the slogan was written on Sylvia with a pencil. And pencil lead wears off human skin pretty darn fast! In fact, faster than ink. In reality, you can’t really write on the stomach of a girl with a pencil. But Kaiser saw the same thing Kebel saw, which is something that Ellis did not see. What was that? Ink. Kebel, the not so very sharp deputy coroner who has been the butt of endless jokes on this website, noticed the ink, and noticed that the ink he noticed was part of a tattoo. Ellis autopsied Photo 1 Girl, and as the Gang of Boys note clearly shows, there was no Number 3 on her. The earlier version of the canonical story simply held that Johnny burned Sylvia with a poker, not that he branded any kind of specific mark on her. The implication is clear; Ricky made a temporary tattoo on Sylvia. This was done in ink, and was done at her urging. Bathing was causing it to wear off. There was no branding. Was this done in the kitchen? Or maybe in the basement? It doesn’t really matter. Where was this tattoo? Ellis places it between the Umbilicus and the Xiphoid Process. One of the attorney’s, while questioning Ellis, said that it was “below the sternum.” Jenny made an interesting distinction between the chest and the stomach:

Q. What did they do with the poker, Jenny?
A. Branded the figure 3 on Sylvia's stomach - anyway I don't know - it was close to her chest, I guess.

It was noted earlier that one of the attorneys locates the brand on the “lower abdomen.” Kaiser located it on the “stomach,” which also the attorneys frequently did in their questions. Does this matter? Yes. Ricky stated that he planned to scratch the slogan on Sylvia’s stomach, and that this only required Sylvia to raise her shirt up, but did not necessitate Sylvia taking her shirt off. If the canonical story would locate the Number 3 higher up on Sylvia’s body, which is not consistent with earlier versions of the story that located the mark on Sylvia’s stomach or lower abdomen, then the girl’s shirt would have to come off to position the brand above the stomach. In reality, Sylvia probably stood in the kitchen holding her shirt up just high enough to allow Ricky to place the tattoo, not on her chest, but on her stomach/lower abdomen…the same place Kebel saw the tattooing and Kaiser saw what he thought looked like pencil markings.

If Sylvia did not have the slogan on her, then Photo 1 Girl did. And Photo 1 Girl didn’t have the tattoo on her, but Sylvia did, then a fascinating thing may have taken place. Photo 1 Girl would disappear, along with the entire crime scene on the North Denny side of the double. She would be merged with Sylvia, and the two girls would become one girl…and that girl would be Sylvia Likens. Sylvia had the tattoo, and now she had the slogan. But she also had all the other manifestations found on Photo 1 Girl, most notably, sores. So these sores would have to transferred to Sylvia, and the canonical story did a terrible job of trying to accomplish this. Sylvia would also inherit two black eyes, and Kebel would gaffe by not mentioning them. She would also inherit an obvious state of malnutrition, and the witness would do an equally terrible job of working this into the story. And one could go on and on, not that I would do that because that would be annoying, but the most damning manifestation that Sylvia would receive is ten fingernails, all broken backwards. Why most damning? Because these fingernails; which belonged to Fingernails Girl, aka Photo 1 Girl, were the clearest indication of murder. What about head trauma? Sylvia died of head trauma. But did she receive her injury by someone accidentally knocking her down the basement stairs where she hit her head? Let’s ask Kebel:

Q. This subdural hemorrhage or hematoma, could that be caused by a fall down the stairwell?
A. Oh, yes.
Q. By a person striking her head against a concrete wall?
A. Yes, sir.

Thank you Dr. Kebel! The photo below is supposedly that of Gertrude’s basement.

Now it is not far from the landing to the bottom step…not at all. But notice how close the concrete wall is relative to the stairs. If someone were knocked down these stairs, his or her head could easily strike the wall. And as Dr. Kebel says, a subdural hematoma like that which killed Sylvia Likens could be caused by hitting one’s head against a wall. So, returning to Photo 1 Girl…head trauma by itself may suggest murder, but does not necessitate it. This is illustrated by Sylvia, who was not murdered. But ten broken fingernails? That’s murder. So how did the canonical story handle these fingernails? Ellis mentioned them in passing, stating that they could not identify the greasy substance found under them:

A. The left hand, the middle finger, there was some blood present, underlying or in the nail bed and the middlemost portion of the fingernail was broken off. The remainder of the fingernails, when examined, showed that they were all broken, so that the broken portion extended toward the back of the hand. This was on both hands.

Q. Which would indicate to you?
A. It indicates a rather strong scratching motion or clawing so they were broken to the back.
Q. In other words, they were broken toward the upper part of the hand?
A. That is right.
Q. Was there anything under the nails?

A. The fingernails were scraped and this material was sent in for examination, which report was sent back as some greasy, nondescript material, nothing definitely identified.

Couldn’t identify the substance under the nails? Please! What kind of glop or goop or greasy stuff would be present that couldn’t be identified? She wasn’t killed at a top secret military base, or at the laboratories of some international chemicals company that was developing some new type of substance. The greasy, nondescript material under the nails could have, and probably was, identified. But it would provide clear proof that Photo 1 Girl was killed somewhere other than Gertie Wright’s magical house. So! We can’t identify it…the canonical story won’t allow it. Still, we’re still stuck with the fingernails. Did she claw at the door to the basement? That can’t be true, there is no indication that the basement door was ever locked, and Sylvia is described as coming out of and going down into, the basement. So what is there to claw at, seeing it’s not the door? The basement floor? At no point in the testimony is Sylvia described as incapable of walking until the evening of October 25th, when she is mumbling incoherently in the basement after hitting her head against the concrete wall, and then is, according to a rather buffoonish story, carried around the house. Surely the witnesses were asked about the nails? Ricky:

Q. Did you happen to notice her fingernails?
A. No, sir.
Q. Did you ever notice her fingernails?
A. No, sir.

The canonical story was at a loss to explain the finger nails, so a brief reference to them was tossed out, and then the jury was hit with a million other things, losing the critical element of the fingernails in a mass of nonsense like who lit the matches, or what Marie did in the basement when she went to get her rake. Notice how the attorney asked the same question twice. Why? Perhaps Ricky was supposed to say “yes” but chose to say “no” despite what he had been told. The attorney reminds Ricky by asking the same question twice… “Your Honor! I object; the witness already answered the question.”

Writing? Printing? Pencil? Ink? Tattooing? Words? Not words…words were on the other girl. We now know that the tattoo on Sylvia was an “3S” design. So what could this “3S” symbol be? Here is the answer:

This is the tattoo found on Sylvia. Here is our “3S” symbol. It is the Om symbol in meditation, and a popular tattoo. The 3 is visible to left, and the S is visible to the right. It should be noted that this design can be made in different ways. If the top curve of the “S” is drawn in such a way that it is pushed more toward the top of the “3” then it will look even more like an “S” to the witnesses. This is the tattoo that Sylvia had Ricky make on her stomach/lower abdomen. Ricky did not know what this symbol was, or what it meant. It was a 3, and it was an S. When the other kids saw it; they also didn’t know what it was. It was a 3, or it was an S. And! Stephanie saw this “printing” on Sylvia. Stephanie asked Gertrude about it, and her mother told her that it was starting to wear off, no doubt as a result of Sylvia taking baths. This is the “some kind of tattooing” that Kebel saw. This was the marking Kaiser thought had been done in pencil. Based on Kebel’s inability to make out the tattoo, we can postulate based on what Ellis clearly said he saw, that the right part of the design, i.e. the apparent letter “S” and the upper right part of the design had worn off. These images are intended to simulate, only approximately of course, the effect of water on the temporary tattoo. First:

Perhaps the design faded a bit more by the time Ellis commented on it:

Now we're left with a three. The above images are only approximate based on a common form of the design. But clearly, the so very confusing 3S, which could be a 3, or could be an S, depending on which kid, who had no idea what the symbol was, was looking at it, isn't quite so confusing after all. And what is the significance of this symbol? Or the remnants of it seen by Kebel and Ellis? Nothing; well, it’s no mark made by a murderous gang of five, or Ricky, or Gertrude, or even Shirley. It was a cool symbol, and a cool temporary tattoo. Made with a sharp object? Or a hot object? Or a sharp, hot object? No. With a Sharpee? Or perhaps some kind of make-shift device along the lines that Marie said that she saw it done with:

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".

And so the Number 3, once enigmatic, is now less so. Number 3s, shining stars painted against the canvas of an Indianapolis night sky, lose their luster. Done with mirrors? Yet another example of sleight of hand? Misdirection? Yes! They bid us look here, when we should be looking there. Numbers and more numbers. How many are enigmatic? Perhaps all of them. Or perhaps only one. How to hide a number? If you lived in the canonical story world, how would you hide a number? You might toss that number into a sea of other numbers. If a number is the key, you might give everyone a different number to think about. Imbue it with an enigmatic nature; one that attracts everyone’s attention. Wrap it up in mystery, and perhaps certain someones, and I’m not being a troll, will chase it to the ends of the canonical story world. That number is the Number 3. What’s that? It is no longer? If you look into a mirror, how many people do you see? One? A Number One? How many people are there? Two? If Sylvia looks into a mirror and sees Gertrude standing there like the woman in Card 13g, that’s two people. If Gertrude looks in the mirror and sees Sylvia, that’s also two. If Sylvia were the last person in the world and looked in a mirror, how many people would there be? It would be strange if there were…two.