Note: This contains different threads representing the end of Techtonicus’ brief stay in a particular part of the Canonical Story World. And thus did Techtonikus the Troll found her own Realm. Some of the opinions expressed below have changed since their original posting.

I cannot resist indulging my misunderstanding and general ignorance about this case. So please disregard this as I am merely talking to my own, boring self. Nonetheless, I will be very soon posting an essay called "Love Thy Neighbor- Revenge." The first was about the intrepid cleric. But the next one is about my favorite nosy neighbor. As a result, I feel compelled to state my hopelessly wrong belief that Phyllis Vermillion is not trustworthy. She had no interest in the case until after the trial had already been underway. She followed it in the newspapers, but had nothing to say to the police or anyone else until she saw something terrible. Not anything that may, or probably didn't, happen in the house next-door. Despite following the saga of the house that was 3-4 feet away from her, she had nothing to say. Then a terrible wrong occurred. It was time for her to stand up and right the wrong! And that wrong was....some newspaper ran a picture of Coy Hubbard and said that he was Paula's boyfriend. Then she decided to shout it from the housetops that that no good Coy Hubbard was NOT Paula's boyfriend. Now she calls the prosecutor's office. She then creates the story of 2 visits..well..she was over there..she just didn't see what she said she did. Coffee with Gertrude..and that was probably bad enough. And both are remarkably similar, featuring Sylvia with a black eye. The first visit includes...you guessed it...Paula's anonymous..anonymous..boyfriend. And Coy..and Paula's boyfriend is bigger..so it's not Coy! We know that..he's Stephanie's boyfriend. Doesn't matter! She will make sure that the world knows the truth! I don't recall any other testimony stating that Paula's boyfriend was present in the house. It is Paula's boyfriend that matters to Vermillion...and she will defend his honor..suggesting the possibility that there was some connection to him- which I'm sure there wasn’t. And what a lame story. Roy Julian isn't allowed to see Sylvia...the social services nurse isn't allowed to see Sylvia. But Vermillion is! And as soon as she walks into the house...the action begins. And what a show! Roll the cameras. It's not like there isn't plenty of time when Vermillion isn't there to indulge Paula's fictional bloodlust. I would think they could hold off long enough for Phyllis to finish her coffee. After all..she might call the police. It is a pathetically mendacious story...Vermillion getting 2 matinee showings..both featuring Sylvia with a black-eye, and Paula as the bad guy. Just one of a plethora of duplicates in this case.

But Phyllis had a serious axe to grind. She relates exactly what it is. Coming home from White Castle, she and her husband witness Gertrude arguing with a young man on the porch. The nosy neighbors sit and watch. The police arrive, and the man is arrested! For what? Breaking and Entering! And, as Vermillion states...he didn't do it! What? Breaking and Entry? No he didn't...he walked up to Gertrude's front door. And if arguing with combative Gertrude got you arrested..I suspect many people in the neighborhood would have been in jail. But just like Paula's anonymous boyfriend that set Phyllis off on her holy mission..so too in this case! She goes down to the police station to intervene on the man's behalf with the police. And! If Gertrude prevails..this poor, hapless victim will get 20 years in prison! For standing on the porch? Nonsense. This man was arrested for something else...something else that had happened that created a serious conflict between him and Gertrude. He wasn't supposed to be at her house..but he showed up anyway. It is probably irrelevant that the cop she spoke to was...Kaiser! The one too afraid to go in the basement because of the dark...the one who a certain someone pulled aside before anyone really had any idea of what was going on and began laying out the story...who spoke to the same person at police headquarters later that night..leaving him confident enough to threaten Ricky Hobbs and tell him he knew he was involved..and not the 5 boys..oops!...nobody else says 5 boys..except Marie says 2 or 3..which could be 2+3...but that's absurd! A gang or bunch anyway. But why be so pessimistic? Gertrude gives Dixon a note that night...he gives it to Kaiser...and oh my! Kaiser arrives downtown to talk to a certain someone in order to continue the spinning the story..and wow! There sits Gertrude. And..here officer Kaiser...have another note! Two! A stupid digression on my part though.

So Phyllis Vermillion swoops into action, saving the reputation, and even the freedom, of two anonymous..anonymous… young men that she has appointed herself protector over. From whom? Gertrude of course. The strange event that took place on the front porch put a chip on the nosy neighbor’s shoulder. The call to arms over the misidentification of Coy as Paula's boyfriend leads her to court, where she tells two ridiculous stories of two private showings of wanton abuse that are not believable..except..that's the way it happened, so I know that I am wrong about this. But hah! She made the neighbors pay..that’s for sure! And now..everybody is piling on. That's the canonical story. A canonical story based on the ridiculous lying testimony of all those involved. Still, that is the story handed-down for 50 years, and it must be correct, so I have simply shown how cynical, pessimistic, careless, and wrong that I am. Still, her testimony reads like polemic..where the stated reason for the narrative is not what the person behind it actually reveals it to be. Nonetheless, I must plead guilty to polemic myself…obviously. So anyone unlucky enough to read this should disregard it.

 **********************

I was about to finish another piece of excruciatingly dull doggerel, when I saw the thread posted here. So it seemed like this was an even better place. Boy was I surprised to hear what I said! So, I would offer a different interpretation of my words. Of course, I make the all the usual disclaimers I have made before. Enigmatic scribbles are annoying to say the least; almost as much as lying testimony. Almost. How closely did nosy neighbor lady follow the dramatic stories of Gertrude’s House of Horrors! And how odd is the context. Doghouse Riley wouldn’t be able to track down the truth. Of course, if you lived 3-4 feet away, and you could actually hear the scraping of a shovel on the basement floor of the house next to you, one might expect you to hear so much more! And if you could hear hollering in that same basement, one might expect you could hear so much more! Our neighbor lady says that she could sit in her house and hear her neighbors talking to one another. So I would think she could hear so much more! I wonder if Gertrude had curtains on the basement window. Stupid question, I’m sure, but I raise it only because our “love thy neighbor” neighbor lady told us that if you walk over to the side of the house and bend down, you could look directly down into Gertrude’s basement. Not a smart place for a torture chamber, Gertrude! Of course, Phyllis says that she would not do such a thing as peek in someone’s window. Too right! That would be intrusive and nosy! It’s somewhat different when she spies on Gertrude’s private altercation with the man on the porch. Sitting in the car, watching and listening…almost a stake-out! Who cares if Gertrude is arguing with some guy? Nobody, unless you knew him, and liked him, and had some connection to him, which I’m sure she didn’t. And he didn’t do it! So what? I wish I had a dime for every time I’ve been told that so-and-so and so-and-so took it upon themselves to go to the police station to plead on behalf of someone who got arrested during an altercation with an annoying neighbor. I would have a whole..a whole..well, nothing. Her children stole his things? Nonsense. If so, the Baniszewskis would have been arrested for B&E..not this poor man who is so important to Phyllis. And then to speak to some cop named Kaiser…I’m still trying to figure out where I’ve heard that name before. It’ll come to me. Maybe I should ask Jenny. Such a story in the midst of so many lies, appears to be true. Why? It provides a hidden motive. And one not nearly as good as the outrage so many people must have felt when the newspaper called Coy Hubbard Paula’s boyfriend!

I’m amazed at the bifurcation of the torment going on in 3850 East New York Street. So many people abuse this girl, and then turn around and help her. Almost as if half the neighborhood is blundering around in an evasive fugue state akin to that which so plagued Johnny Favorite. Of course, immersion in a fugue states allows a person to do things that their conscience, their moral fiber, wouldn’t normally allow. So it is an odd scene! Enter the house and see some new horrible abuse? No! Gertrude is having coffee with Sylvia. I wonder if she took cream and sugar..but that’s irrelevant. How normal were things before the neighbor showed up. Will Gertrude watch my kids? No! She already complains enough about the half-feral brood she has already…I exclude Paula from that comment. What is Paula doing moments before? Apparently, leaving Sylvia alone. Then she looks up and sees neighbor lady. From the top! 3..2..1..roll’em! Some people work better with an audience. Hot glass of water time..hot enough to give off steam. Hot enough to burn Sylvia’s face. I wonder what would happen if I ran the water in the sink to be as hot as possible..hot enough to burn Sylvia, then filled a glass with it, holding it my hand. I might possibly burn my hand too! So Sylvia walks off with a pink face. I wonder if fictional Paula, or non-Paula, anti-matter Paula, walked off with a pink hand? Ow! And then something bizarre! Fake Paula smears yellow gunk on Sylvia’s face. How mean! What was it? Mustard? Wait! I know something else that is yellow and found in kitchens…butter. Perhaps this is that dreaded butter torture! Butter’s good for greasing the frying pan…and to put on toast. And in the past, people applied butter to…burns! So there’s our bifurcation! Fugue states usually last longer than this. But reality doesn’t apply to the strangely isolated, separate universe in this house. Or when we think about it now. Suddenly, Paula has no idea what she just fictionally did. And oh no! Sylvia has a burn! I’ll make it better by putting butter on it!

I wonder how many black-eyes Sylvia actually got. Not real Sylvia, fictional Sylvia. At least 2! Phyllis saw them. So fictional Paula is sort of a black-eye machine. That’s strange. Why? Someone else had a black eye on October 26th..not just Sylvia. Who? Gertrude! That what’s strange. So if Phyllis is to be believed, no longer having Sylvia to dispense black-eyes to like a vending machine, she must have turned around and punched Mom in the eye! Fictional Paula might…Sadistic Paula might…real Paula wouldn’t, not if she cared enough about her family to take over as virtual head of the household. I know how Gertrude got it! She swung a paddle at Sylvia..and missed. Then the paddle hit her in the eye! I think I saw that once in a 3 Stooges episode. Probably not..it happens all the time in real life. Still, I would not have picked Gertrude to play on my softball team. A good swing and a miss, and then she’d have another black-eye. Of course, it wouldn’t be strange if Phyllis had heard about the black-eye on Sylvia’s face. I’m sure that wasn’t in the newspaper! Then she mentions a busted-lip. I’m sure that wasn’t in the newspaper either. But Coy is Paula's Boyfriend!!!! We'll see about that.

So 2 black-eyes. And then there’s the week of the 15th? Stop. I’ve heard that date before. I know…Social Services nurse was there on that day. But she wasn’t allowed to see Sylvia, even though, Gertrude supposedly told the nurse that..oh, a child with sores? That’s Sylvia. Oh, may I see her? No! She’s not here…I kicked her out. Yes, I was boarding her. Yes, she’s only 16. And yes! She’s sick and has sores! But I kicked her out anyway. So if she’s found dead somewhere, I’ll be held responsible. So, Social Services nurse, I’m confessing ahead of time so you can tell the police. Still, nothing out of the ordinary here! File an index card, and write something like, “no follow up needed.” So the nurse can’t see her. But Phyllis can! At any rate, I wonder if Sylvia took her coffee up to…sorry, I forgot..down to..her room in the basement. At other times, Sylvia gets donuts, and they go good with coffee. If this was adorable Shirley’s story, then Sylvia would have thrown her cup of coffee on the floor. Wait a minute..coffee. Maybe Paula should have forgot about the glass of hot water that burned her hand. Coffee is close to scalding, but coffee mugs have handles…so you don’t burn your hand. Maybe Paula should have poured herself a cup of coffee and threw that at Sylvia’s face. Maximum burn, but not on your hand.

Revenge against Paula’s anonymous boyfriend? Oh my no. Nothing of the kind was said. Why is he anonymous? Why not name him? Well, we might not want his name mixed up in all this. Possibly. Whose fault is this situation? Gertrude’s? No! The stupid reporter that said that Coy was Paula’s boyfriend. And he’s not! Oh well, put down your paper and forget about it? No way! The record must be set straight! Maybe call the newspaper. What? Call the prosecutor’s office! I will testify in court..about something nobody cares about…except Phyllis! What’s Paula’s boyfriend’s name? Hah! I didn’t say. What’s the name of the man who argued with Gertrude? Hah! I didn’t say. So, two anonymous men who the neighbor was so concerned about that she thrusts herself into society’s legal institutions to be their defender. Go to the police to plead for one…and then to court to plead for the other. Another duplicate. Two visits to Gertrude’s house. Another duplicate. Two black-eyes..I am starting to grow weary of duplicates. So…two birds with one stone (oops, I guess that’s a duplicate too)…set the record straight about one (Paula’s boyfriend), and get revenge against Gertrude for the other (the man on the porch).

Now if you hear that notorious scraping in the basement, and you could look in the basement window, which we would not do because that is nosy, we’d see what was happening. Or the neighbor lady can look out through her own window and see..directly into Gertrude’s house! She can see the dining room, she can see the kitchen, and she can even see the dreaded basement door (not that she would do that). But a non-nosy woman can’t be faulted for looking out her own window..and that’s true. But what a view! How much carnage has taken place in the kitchen and dining room? One might think she would have seen far more going on in Gertrude’s house to be concerned about than a bizarre shovel scraping sound. I wonder if Gertrude had air-conditioning. We’re told she didn’t have a stove. We know she didn’t have a phone. It seems likely that clothes were washed in the sinks in the basement, and dried on a line. According to Randy, there was no clock downstairs, except for the clock that was downstairs. It doesn’t matter! Why? Marie said it didn’t work so good. So air-conditioning? If not, Paula would have to open those windows! Gets awful hot in those parts in the summer! Now, you can not only watch, but you can hear! So can so many others..that’s odd.

Still, hot water on Sylvia. This is a major leitmotif in the testimony. Like, hold Sylvia’s head under the faucet and run scalding hot water on her. Hot water torture. Of course…oops! Reality just made a timely, or untimely- depending on your perspective, entrance from the hole in the universe. Sylvia squirms, she fights, and she carries on. Scalding hot water hurts! So for the sake of badly written fiction, we’ll ignore the fact that whoever is holding Sylvia’s head under the faucet is…getting scalding hot water on themselves! Plenty of it! 3rd person abuse…and 1rst person abuse. “Ow!” cries Sylvia. “Ow!” cries Paula. Or even, “Ow!” cries Gertrude. This was as bad an idea as Paula’s glass of hot water! Of course, if your head was covered in weeping sores leaking pus, not from torture or abuse, but because you had a scalp infection, like Gertrude said Sylvia had, then warm water, which wouldn’t hurt Paula or Gertrude, would hurt Sylvia when it hit those sores. She might cry and carry on. I would too. But it has to be done! The sores have to be kept clean if they are to heal. You might also do something like…cut her hair short. Why? Easier to wash her scalp. And! Marie said that although it was crooked in places, it didn’t look all that bad. But if children needed to make up abuse stories, fictional ones, Sylvia crying and fussing as Paula or Gertrude washed her scalp with warm water in the sink…that’s easy to re-cast. Turning normal things into abuse stories that does happen. Think what you can do with a simple tonsillectomy! But hot water…yes! I wonder what would happen if you forced somebody into a bathtub of scalding hot water. You’d be being mean! True, and they don’t want to go in the tub of scalding hot water. They squirm, writhe, kick, and carry on. And then..Ow! So says Sylvia? Yes! “Ow!” yells Johnny. “Ow!” yells Paula. Why? Because the scalding hot water is getting all over them too. Of course, if Sylvia were ill, and covered in sores, one would have to keep the sores as clean as possible. That would require warms baths. Now these are normally relaxing, and some people look forward to them. But if you had sores on you…I bet it wouldn’t feel so good, and you might not look forward to them. You might refuse; but it’s for your own good. And once in the tub, you cry and carry on. So once again..an easy retelling will give your handlers want they want. And Trend soap…that’s mean too! It does make me wonder about silly things; such as, what a fantastic invention baking soda is. The number of uses for it is astounding. You can cook with it, you can get the smell out of your refrigerator with it, and you can add it to toothpaste to get your teeth whiter. And it suddenly occurred to me that I have box of it in the laundry room to put in the wash cycle. So I can use it when washing clothes, the usual raison d’etre of laundry detergent like…Trend! Suddenly I remembered that when I got Chicken Pox, baking soda was put in the bath water. If you have Chicken Pox…oh my! That’s a malady that leaves itchy sores all over you isn’t it? I digress. Have Chicken Pox? A little baking soda in your bath water does a world of good. So I can brush my teeth with it, de-odorize the fridge with it, bake things I eat with it, wash my laundry with it, and…and…put it in the bathtub for a child with sores to soak in. Maybe it wasn’t soap or Trend that was being put on Sylvia…just a thought. Ah! To change that into something sinister..just change the name on the box! But that didn’t happen.

With all this hot water scalding going on, I hope Gertrude has plenty of yellow gunk..I mean butter..in the fridge. Look at all those Baniszweski children walking around with butter all over them! No. It might be hypothetically possible that the “scalding Sylvia with hot water” theme, be it under the facet, in the bathtub, or fake Paula’s glass of water, are fictional elements. Well, the scalding part is. Washing her itchy infected scalp under the faucet, warm baths with baking soda or an equivalent, closer to the truth? And “Ow! Stop it…leave me alone! It hurts! It itches!” “Yes! And it will get worse if we don’t cleanse it.” Even closer to the truth? No way! I could ask Dixon, but he might tell me that that would be boring.

I looked up the international sign for “help! I’m being abused, tortured, and will soon be murdered!” And I found it; well, not really. I have to say, that I was rather surprised at finding what I didn’t find. I thought the sign was…scraping a shovel on the ground. But it turns out that yelling: “help! I’m being abused, tortured, and will soon be murdered!” is more effective. After all, what does it mean to hear a shovel scraping? If I was there, and taking a short-cut by walking between the Vermillion residence and the Baniszewski residence, and I heard scraping, I would stop in horror as I recognized that shovel-scraping sound for what I now know it is! I wonder what would happen, if I were in the basement, and I had a shovel. I might do something far more stupid than scrape the floor with it. Like..smash the window with it. Then I could yell “Help! I’m being abused, tortured, and will soon be murdered!” That will get a lot more attention than scraping the shovel on the ground. Another thing I could do..it just occurred to me. I could hit Gertrude over the head with it! And she has it coming! Maybe on a school day..when the other kids are gone. Just me and my tormentor and my shovel and…light’s out for Gertrude! I wonder if that’s the only thing that would make a good weapon down in the basement. Wait! The iron furnace poker! There must be more things…even Marie’s rake is down there! How ‘bout tools? A hammer? I wonder how many girls and young women, imprisoned in some sick, sadistic, psychopath’s basement wished desperately that they had such an arsenal of potential weapons. But that seems unnecessary. Maybe go upstairs and scream out the window. Or maybe, and it’s truly absurd, but I include it simply to keep my list of possibilities as complete as possible…walk out the door. There’s a phone across the street. Call Mom and Dad. Call Grandma Martin. Call Grandma Grimes- she’s a few blocks away. Big Sis. Maybe Mr. Burton, the family friend Jenny suggested call Mom and Dad in Florida the night Sylvia died. Or even better…call the police! Just don't ask for Dixon! No, don’t do any of these things. Scrape the basement floor with a shovel.

I make a concluding comment about neighbor lady. There was something I was impressed by! Sylvia looked like “she didn’t care whether she lived or died.” Now, I have been trying to picture what that facial expression looks like. And I have to admit, I’m at a loss. I’ve seen sad, I’ve seen depressed, I’ve seen anxious, I’ve seen despondent. But I’ve never seen “don’t care whether I live or die.” Now I’m not a mental health professional. Not by any means. So what I say here is best disregarded. But if I were to guess, I would think that psychiatrists, psychologists, therapists, counselors, and so many other types of mental health professionals would have to do something rather archaic when trying to determine whether someone really doesn’t care whether they live or die; such as…talk to them! But not the neighbor lady. She reminds me of venerable officer Dixon, who can tell that Sylvia is dead, not by doing something that other emergency responders would do, something archaic and outdated like checking for a pulse; no! He does it by looking! Yup, she looks dead. Must be. What? Take her pulse? Don’t need to! I said, she looks dead. Strange how children like Dr. Ricky and Dr. Stephanie describe their more than comical antics as they check for vital signs. They should have just looked..it’s far more accurate than checking to see if the person is breathing or the heart is beating. Dr. Shirley would tell us to listen for the death-gargle! And don’t let go of the tongue!

So it would seem that Mrs. Vermillion truly missed her calling. It would have revolutionized the diagnosis of those in need of emotional help if she could have shared this remarkable ability with the rest of the world. "How to Diagnose Mental States just by Looking," by Phyllis Vermillion. Truly, a waste. But Marie never told us the secrets of Sylvia’s brain-washing technique either. Not that anyone who has hair on their head has to worry about that. But that it is the subject of a different, even more enigmatic essay.

 ********************************************

Perhaps you're right, so I should say: Phyllis Vermillion made up the abuse stories up so she could get revenge against Gertrude relative to her actions taken against the man on the porch. This also offered her the opportunity to protect the honor of Paula’s boyfriend, which I believe was the original impulse. There are a few elements in her story that I think are accurate, especially her statement that Gertrude expected the Likens girls to have gone back to their parents prior to October 26th; and I think that this date being exactly 21 days since October 5th could not be more important. This didn’t happen, and the problems this caused for Gertrude are not difficult to see. But I also believe that Stephanie’s account of Sylvia’s last words encapsulates the truth, and shows the emotional trauma Sylvia suffered by being left with someone else. That said, I do not believe Vermillion’s abuse stories. I tried to document my reasoning in parts 1 and 2. If I'm right, Phyllis, Roy Julian, the church lady, and the social services nurse did not tell the truth on the stand. I have already stated my reasons relative to the cleric in “Love Thy Neighbor” and relative to church lady in “Say you are my Sister.” In the latter I take a very different view of who Paula was than I have seen elsewhere, presented the reasoning upon which that assessment is based, and am aware that others will strongly disagree with my conclusions. As for dear Mrs. Vermillion, I am inclined to believe, at least for now, that she was being mendacious in her testimony. She was in the house, saw Sylvia, but did not see the abuse she said she did. In short, what she says is not credible. I called into question a few types of abuse stories, which can be grouped together and easily placed under various types of leitmotiv. I discussed the hot water stories, and indicated how they represent the conversion of examples of doing things to benefit someone into stories of abuse. I plan to upload an essay about another leitmotiv in the testimony; i.e. "childhood games." Just like the hot water stories, the games children play..football..Karate, etc. are easy to turn into abuse stories. I explored that theme, in part, in my essay “Things hoped for, things not seen.” The problem is, this conversion process is executed in a very poor manner, and I believe that the proper argumentation can show that this is the case. But that is for later. And I say this without making any judgements. I am only too aware of my own total lack of infallibility, so please take no offense since it is a normal part of human life that people disagree, and I believe that they can do so without feeling threatened or making someone feel threatened..but I don't believe the shovel scraping story. I am also not of the same opinion of her sister that you expressed above. I should probably be more specific about that, since there are some elements in all the testimony that I believe are the truth, or approximate the truth, or represent distortion of the truth. But I am working on a piece about her sister’s actions, inactions, and the problematic claims that she made; but most of all, the actions taken with officer Kaiser, whose testimony, that is part of the testimony, I call into question. For what's it worth I have tried to follow what I would call, possibly wrongly, but I think possibly correctly, at least of my own making, a Wellhausian approach to examining what the other side is saying. Not relative to any participants in the blogs, but rather to the claims made by people in court; people who have been transformed into characters playing roles in a Melodrama that had once started from real events. For me, this transformation has essentially turned the testimony into a literary phenomenon which, if true, would suggest applying literary criticism to the corpus as a whole. That said, I greatly appreciate hearing what other people think on such matters, since I have no problem with changing my views upon hearing a better, more logical, more rational argument. This is something I have done often- hence my reference to Socrates in my first essay. For that matter, I have changed my views about particular elements of this case a number of times. I come from an academic background, so I’m only too aware that I approach things from a different perspective than others do at times. I would say that one can be an exegetical theologian, or be a systematic theologian, or even be an uneasy hybrid of both. And whichever one is, that does not negate the other. In some ways, it takes both to come to the truth…or least what one believes is the truth, which is often the most important thing.

I have to say that based on some of the comments made by others participating in this thread about the mysterious shovel scraping sound heard by Phyllis Vermillion, I decided to go back and take a second look at this subject. It wasn’t until sometime after starting to re-examine this that I realized that my initial opinion on this was problematic in regards to one point. Namely, I was looking at this part of Phyllis’ testimony from the perspective that the shovel was being scraped on the floor by Sylvia in some sort of bizarre way of crying for help. I still believe that this is false, for the reasons I have stated in previous postings. However, it wasn’t Phyllis Vermillion who put this spin on the matter, or offered that explanation. In fact, she didn’t even hint at it. That appears to be a much later interpretation of the shovel-scraping sound. Phyllis said this:

Q. Directing your attention to October 25, 1965, did you work that day?
A. Yes.
Q. And what time did you go to work?
A. At 3:00 o'clock.
Q. And what time did you return?
A. Twenty five minutes till 1:00.
Q. Is that in the morning?
A. Tuesday morning.
Q. Did you hear a sound of any kind at this time?
MR. ERBECKER: We object. It is too vague.
THE COURT: Objection sustained.
Q. What did you do then, Mrs. Vermillion?
A. Well, my husband and I always set down and eat before we go to bed. I heard scraping noises on cement that sounded like a shovel being drug over cement. I heard some noise like a shovel being scraped over cement.
Q. Where did the sound come from, Mrs. Vermillion?
A. It was coming from Mrs. Wright's basement.
Q. What did you do then, if anything?
A. Well, like I said, we heard the noise and a lot of hollering and went outside to look and my husband said -


Furthermore:


A. I went out on the front porch and I looked. I went out on the back porch and looked and did not see anything. I went back around in front and went out doors and down the steps. I could see a light on in Mrs. Baniszewski's basement. That is where the noises and hollering were coming from.
Q. Did you recognize the voice you heard?
A. Yes, Mrs. Wright.
Q. How long did this sound from scraping - that sounded like scraping last?
A. Twenty or twenty-five minutes.
Q. And then how long did the hollering last that you heard?
A. Till about 3:00 o'clock in the morning. I could not sleep and threatened to call the police.
Q. Did the scraping sound continue while you heard the voice hollering?
A. Yes.
Q. In all, how long did the scraping noise last?
A. Two hours, maybe two and a half hours.
The light in Gertrude’s basement was on, and there was hollering.
Q. On the morning of October 26th, around what time, 1:00 or 1:30?
A. About 1:00 o'clock.
Q. You husband was with you?
A. Yes, he looked at the back.
Q. When you went out the front door, did you go out the front door and get on the steps there?
A. Yes, I went down the steps and around the side of the house.
Q. Then you came back out in front, right?
A. No, I came back up and went in the house.
Q. You went in back?
A. No, around and back in front and back up my steps.
Q. That is when you observed the light in the basement?
A. Yes, it was on when we came in from work.


Further:


Q. You saw the light, did you?
A. Her basement is right next to my dining room window.
Q. Is there a window on the west side of the Baniszewski basement?
A. Yes.
Q. You looked through the window and saw the light, did you?
A. Yes.
Q. And that is where you heard the sounds emanating, coming from?
A. I heard it before, that is why I went outside to find where it was coming from.
Q. When did you first hear it?
A. I did not pay too much attention. I don't know, ten or fifteen till 1:00. I could hear her hollering.
Q. Who hollering?
A. Mrs. Wright.
Q. What was she saying?
A. I don't know. It sounded like she was angry at somebody.


So it is clear that Phyllis offered no explanation for the bizarre sound she heard. Nor does it figure in her claims about witnessing abuse in Gertrude’s house, and she attaches no particular significance to it beyond the fact that the ruckus coming from Gertrude’s basement was annoying her to the point that she told her husband that she wanted to call the police:


Q. How long did this sound from scraping - that sounded like scraping last?
A. Twenty or twenty-five minutes.
Q. And then how long did the hollering last that you heard?
A. Till about 3:00 o'clock in the morning. I could not sleep and threatened to call the police.
Q. Did the scraping sound continue while you heard the voice hollering?
A. Yes.
Q. In all, how long did the scraping noise last?
A. Two hours, maybe two and a half hours.


So Phyllis regarded what was going on in the basement as a nuisance that was keeping her from sleeping. Since she did not attribute the scraping sound as having anything to do with any action a desperate Sylvia might have taken, and indeed, does not offer an explanation for it or attach any specific significance to it, I take a different position than I did before. That is, of course, as long as the later interpretation of the scraping sound is set aside as exactly that, i.e. a later interpretation of the relevant narrative.

When Gertrude was asked about Phyllis Vermillion’s statements about the ruckus in her basement in the wee hours of the morning of October 26th, she stated:


Q. Now, you stated yesterday, Mrs. Baniszewski, that Paula and Stephanie were the ones who were in the basement at 1:00 o'clock in the morning of the 26th of October, is that correct?
A. Repeat that.
Q. Did you say they were the ones who were in the basement at 1:00 o'clock in the morning?
A. So I was informed, yes, sir.
Q. Did you state they were stoking the furnace?
A. Yes.
Q. Could you tell the jury why they were stoking the furnace at 1:00 o'clock in the morning?
A. Well, I imagine the house was cool.
Q. Did you send them down there?
A. No, sir.
Q. Were you in the basement the night before she died?
A. No, sir.
Q. Did you hear Mrs. Vermillion say you did?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Is she lying?
A. Yes, she is. I know who was down in the basement.
Q. Who was in the basement?
A. Stephanie and Paula Marie.
Q. What were they doing?
A. Shovelling coal and Stephanie dropped a lump of coal on Paula's foot.
Q. Were you there?
A. No, sir.
Q. How long were they down there?
A. You would have to ask Paula and Stephanie.


I have actually read this a couple of times, but did not make the connection with what Mrs. Vermillion said. Part of that may be due to the fact that I made a mistake that is all too easy to make when reading about the past. Having studied sacred texts and ancient history, I am only too aware of how difficult it is to follow a basic procedure that is absolutely vital if one’s study is to have any value…not to allow oneself to subconsciously relate to material about the past from the perspective of the time one lives in now. This is very difficult to do, even if you are trying not to do it. And, as I have many times in the past, I made that mistake here. I have never lived in a house with a coal furnace in it. I’m glad of that, I note, seeing what a pain they appear to be. They are certainly hard on toes! And I have never so much as seen a lump of coal in real life, although I was told as a child that if I misbehaved, Santa would put one in my stocking. But, based on what Phyllis says, and what Gertrude says, it would seem most likely to me that the coal in the basement was piled up on the floor, so when Stephanie and Paula were shoveling coal into the furnace, the shovel would scrape along the floor as the coal was being scooped up before being fed into the furnace. This, then, is the source of the sound of a shovel scraping the basement floor in the morning hours of October 26th. It would then be Paula and Stephanie who were responsible for the scraping sound heard by dear Mrs. Vermillion, and not Sylvia.

As I thought about this, I actually became rather excited when the significance of these two pieces of testimony dawned on me. That may seem weird, but I having no qualms about being wrong, since if I am seeking the truth, being wrong means I’m actually getting closer to the truth. As the philosopher once said: the first steps to figuring out what is right is eliminating all the things that are wrong. But when I read these two pieces of testimony, I found myself dwelling on poor Paula, who had a lump of coal dropped on her foot. Stephanie said:


Q. Did you go down in the basement that night?
A. No, sir.
Q. Did Paula go down in the basement that night?
A. No, sir.
Q. Did anyone, to your knowledge, go down in the basement and shovel coal?
A. No, sir.
Q. Did you drop a lump of coal in the night, October 25th?
A. It was in the morning time.
Q. Did you drop a lump of coal on her?
A. Yes.


Gertrude said:


Q. Where was Stephanie?
A. I am not sure.
Q. Was she still stoking the furnace?
A. So I have been told, yes, sir.
Q. Did you ever see Stephanie again that night?
A. Yes, she - when she was putting ice on Paula's foot.
And:
A. I remember going to the doctor and I remember something else too. Paula mashed her toe that night and it was 1:00 o'clock in the morning.
Q. 1:00 o'clock in the morning on October 26th?
A. No, this was the 25th. Well, yes, it was early in the morning, yes, sir.


At first I thought that Stephanie had dropped a piece of burning coal on Paula’s foot. That would make me cry as well, but it would probably cause a rather severe burn, and I realized that no one said that the lump of coal was burning. And, of course, the burning coal is in the furnace, not in the shovel. But how heavy is a lump of coal? At this point, I don’t think it matters. The important point here is that it was heavy enough to give Paula considerable pain, well enough to make her cry and prompt Stephanie to do the sisterly thing and put ice on it. So I think now of the other claim Phyllis made in relation to this; i.e. she heard hollering coming from the basement. She said it was Gertrude who sounded angry, and Phyllis thought that she was yelling at one of the kids. I suggest that it is possible that Paula become quite angry when Stephanie dropped the lump of coal on her toe, and began hollering at her. Maybe Stephanie hollered back. Gertrude insisted that she was not down there, and that Mrs. Vermillion was lying. I believe Gertrude that Phyllis lied about a number of things, but I don’t believe that she lied about everything. Obviously! It may be that once Paula and Stephanie began yelling at each other, Gertrude, who slept on a mattress in the dining room, woke up as a result of the yelling, and headed toward the basement door to holler at them. The dining room was next to the kitchen, where the door to the basement was. Given the fact that this part of Mrs. Vermillion’s story does absolutely nothing to accuse Gertrude of abuse directed at Sylvia, and seems to function as her venting about her noisy neighbor, her statements on this subject are the more reliable. It would have been easy, given the fairly close proximity of the dining room to the basement door, which would undoubtedly would have been open, for the arguing in the basement to rouse her from sleep.

Gertrude said:


Q. Were you there?
A. No, sir.
Q. How long were they down there?
A. You would have to ask Paula and Stephanie.
Q. You stated it as a fact. If you were not there, how do you know?
A. I was woke up later.
Q. How long after?
A. I don't know.
Q. Did they tell you how long they were down there?
A. No, they did not.


This statement makes no sense, and Gertrude’s motive may have been to distance herself from the now infamous basement. Of course, she could easily fall back on her nauseating refrain of “I took Phenobarbital.” However, when she spoke about October 25th, she said that she had gone to Dr. Lindenborg’s office, and returned when the kids were home from school:


A. They get out at 3:15 or 3:30, I believe.
Q. They were home?
A. Yes.
Q. Do you think it would be around 4.30 P.M.
A. It might not have been that late.
Q. Could it have been 3:30, do you think?
A. I think so.
Q. What was your condition at the time?
A. I was pretty sick.
Q. What did you do when you got home?
A. Went to bed.
Q. Did you stay in bed the rest of the afternoon?
A. I remember that one of the girls - but I don't know whether it was Stephanie or Paula - wanted to go to the grocery, wanted to know if I wanted to make out a grocery list, and woke me up for that. I don't remember too much else that went on.
Q. Do you remember getting up that day?
A. I remember going to the doctor and I remember something else too. Paula mashed her toe that night and it was 1:00 o'clock in the morning.
Q. 1:00 o'clock in the morning on October 26th?
A. No, this was the 25th. Well, yes, it was early in the morning, yes, sir.
The times given here agree with Dr. Lindenborg’s testimony:
Q. Now, what time of day or night on October 25 did you see her? Do your records reflect that?
A. No, they don't because she had made - we go by appointment but she had called in and got an appointment in the place of a cancellation and she was written into the book at the bottom. The time was not entered there. Sometime, I would guess, around 2:00 or 3:00 o'clock.
Q. You did actually see her yourself?
A. Yes.
Q. How long did you attend her, Doctor, five minutes, ten minutes, half an hour, how long?
A. Well, I treated her for the same condition so many times and I would imagine I spent five minutes or less with her at that time.


So if she took Phenobarbital at around 3:30 pm, she would have been asleep for 9 ½ hours. Thus it is possible that Stephanie and Paula hollering at each other in the basement roughly 9 ½ hours later would wake her up, and, not happy about having to be awake, Gertrude headed toward the basement door in quite a bad mood. But I don't think that she actually went into the basement. She may have hollered at them from the top of the stairs, i.e. from the kitchen. If so, her voice may have been more audible to Mrs. Vermillion than the voices of Paula and Stephanie. So it would be Gertrude's voice that Phyllis heard. Gertrude said this:


Q. When Stephanie got up to stoke the furnace at 1:00 o'clock in the morning, did you hear her?
A. No, sir.
Q. Did you hear any movements during the night?
A. Only when I was awoke.
Q. What time?
A. I am not sure of the time.


Just how long would Paula have been crying? I think Gertrude is not telling the truth. She was awake when Paula was crying, which her daughter would have been doing immediately after she hurt her toe.


How long did Phyllis hear the scraping sound? This is the point at which I doubt Phyllis’ story again:


A. I went out on the front porch and I looked. I went out on the back porch and looked and did not see anything. I went back around in front and went out doors and down the steps. I could see a light on in Mrs. Baniszewski's basement. That is where the noises and hollering were coming from.
Q. Did you recognize the voice you heard?
A. Yes, Mrs. Wright.
Q. How long did this sound from scraping - that sounded like scraping last?
A. Twenty or twenty-five minutes.
Q. And then how long did the hollering last that you heard?
A. Till about 3:00 o'clock in the morning. I could not sleep and threatened to call the police.
Q. Did the scraping sound continue while you heard the voice hollering?
A. Yes.
Q. In all, how long did the scraping noise last?
A. Two hours, maybe two and a half hours.


She clearly says that she heard the scraping sound for 20-25 minutes. The hollering lasted about two hours. It was the hollering that continued until 3:00 o’clock in the morning. She says this clearly. But then the attorney does something that I have seen repeatedly in the testimony, and I think it is done to elicit the answer the attorney wants, and which he hadn’t received in prior answers to his questions; namely, combine two questions that were originally asked separately and received different answers, and ask again. So:

How long did the scraping sound last? 20-25 minutes

How long did the hollering last? Till about 3:00 o’clock

Now, combine them together:

“Did the scraping sound continue while you heard the voice hollering?”

The right answer is “yes” in so far as when she heard the hollering, she also heard the scraping. But combine them together like this then you end up with:


Q. In all, how long did the scraping noise last?
A. Two hours, maybe two and a half hours.


The answer has completely changed. The scraping sound lasted around 20-25 minutes. I doubt it would have taken 2-2 ½ hours to put coal in the furnace. I also doubt that the hollering went on for nearly that long. There wasn't 2-2 1/2 hours worth of stuff to yell about. And the basement’s in the ground, and made of concrete. I think she heard the ruckus when she got home, and went over to take a look. It makes as no sense to think that Gertrude voluntarily got up from her bed, where it would seem that she preferred to spend most of her time, went down in the basement with nothing better to do than scream at Sylvia for 2 -2 ½ hours, when we know that there was an event that could easily have triggered a fit of anger from a cranky Gertrude woken up by bickering girls. I don’t think that she would have hollered at Stephanie and Paula for nearly that long, so I think Mrs. Vermillion is exaggerating. In fact, it may have been true that the scraping sound and the hollering sound last roughly the same amount of time, i.e. 20-25 minutes. The ice was upstairs, and all three would have come back upstairs to look after Paula’s toe.

I would make one final comment. Gertrude states that the two girls were up at 1:00 to stoke the furnace. This timing agrees with Mrs. Vermillion. Marie claimed to have been awake at the time, and so verified 1:00 am. The problem with Marie’s testimony is that she constantly changes it with every new question or statement by the attorney examining her. The point was well made in court that Marie was not up at this time of the morning, and didn’t know about what was going on in the basement. Paula may have woke up as a result of the house being cold, and going downstairs to put more coal in the furnace, found Stephanie doing her homework. Stephanie stated that she fell asleep at 6:30 pm, and woke up at 10:00 pm. She then did her homework until 3:00 am. So she was up at 1:00 am. And she does not say what she did after 3:00 am, so I would think she went to bed. Then she states that the coal-on-the-toe incident took place at 6:45 am. I think it possible that Marie’s testimony was meant to confirm her mother’s as far as 1:00 am went, and Stephanie, who had turned State’s Evidence, was doing the opposite. I find 1:00 am as stated by Gertrude to be convincing in that she fails to explicitly make two points:

1. That the scraping sound heard by Mrs. Vermillion was actually the scraping of the shovel as coal was scooped off the floor to be thrown into the furnace
2. That the hollering in the basement heard by Mrs. Vermillion also involved Stephanie and Paula

If she were inventing this to counter Phyllis’ claims, than I would have expected her to make the points more directly. Gertrude's apparent concern is to counter the claim that she herself was actually in the basement at the time. The odd thing would be that if she yelled down into the basement, i.e. from the kitchen, then she wasn't actually in the basement! Although I can sit in front of the testimony on my computer reading it over and over as often as I like, the jury would have heard this one time. If Gertrude were lying about the time to offer an explanation in contrast to Mrs. Vermillion’s, I would expect to her to have been very direct about who and what was responsible for what Phyllis heard.

***********************************************

Here I go! Observations have been made! In response, I will avoid using the same kind of language which has appeared elsewhere in, but not in my contributions, to this thread. So too will I avoid using particularly angry sounding language in the case, or cases as it may be, that someone has a differing opinion. My view is that people can discuss things, particularly when they have different opinions or conclusions about..well, whatever they have different opinions or conclusions about, in a dispassionate way. But that applies only to myself, and do not expect people to follow any personal guidelines I choose to follow. I say these things only to lay out a stylistic procedure that I will be following, which again, applies only to me.

I'm aware of the sleeping arrangements in the house. Stephanie was particularly helpful on this issue, and I think that she is a more reliable witness on this issue. I do have to say that I find the choice of the kid who would share the dining room to be a bit odd, but I find odd things in things that are probably not odd. I have been told that before, and I’m sure they’re right..I think. I just don’t think that the sleeping arrangements are relevant to the ‘shoveling coal into the furnace’ incident. I stated the opinion that given the time Gertrude went to bed, the hollering in the basement, if there was any, could have roused her. As to the amount of time it takes to shovel coal into the furnace..I can't say. I have never done this, I do not know how big Gertrude's furnace was, or exactly how much time it would take for someone to shovel enough coal into it. Nor do I know where in the basement the pile of coal was located, or how heavy a shovel, of non-delineated size, full of coal actually was. As for 10 minutes, I don't know where this number comes from. I did research coal burning furnaces, but there were so many different kinds...all kinds of different sizes that, when taking into account that I do not know the size of the furnace in Gertrude's house, I could not find an estimate of how long it takes to put the coal in the furnace. 10 minutes? 12 minutes? 15 minutes? Of course, 10 is a nice round number. I reviewed Phyllis' testimony and did not find a statement that the scraping sound was intermittent (but I may have missed it). And it would seem to me to be a remarkable coincidence..well set the scene. It's 1:00 am. The house is cold. Paula wakes up and heads toward the basement planning to shovel coal; though I don't know how fast she shovels coal. Stephanie is awake in the living room doing homework. Hey, Steph! The house is cold. Let's shovel coal into the unknown-size furnace. The two go into the basement, and behold! Sylvia's down there. Do they talk to her? I don't know. But there sits the big pile of coal. Gotta get it into the furnace. Now I guess that one could do this by hand...tossing each piece of coal into the furnace manually. But Paula and Stephanie (I wonder why it took 2 girls if it was so easy) would get dirty! I don't know much about coal other than the fact that it is..dirty. Most people moving coal use a shovel. So they begin. Maybe there are 2 shovels because Stephanie needs a shovel to get the coal into the furnace, and Sylvia needs one to scrape the floor with. So there they are, 3 girls and 2 shovels. Suddenly Gertrude appears in the basement. So while Paula and Stephanie shovel coal into the furnace for 10 minutes, Sylvia scrapes the floor with her shovel, and Gertrude hollers at Sylvia for doing that very thing. Just what woke up Gertrude? The scraping sound? Which shovel scraping sound? Apparently, the scraping sound was rather loud. Of course, I would think that since it is a coal-fired furnace, this scraping should have been heard before, assuming of course that it had been cold enough since the Baniszewskis moved in. And I think it may have. The Farmer’s Almanac historical weather data provided some useful information:

October 26th: high temperature of 64° with a low of 39.9°
October 25th: high of 59° with a low of 30.9°
October 24th: high of 49.9° with a low of 36°
October 23rd: high of 57.9° with a low of 44.1°

Of course, these numbers are based on a weather station at the Columbus Municipal Airport, which is approximately 43 miles from Indianapolis, so there may have been slight differences. But it was starting to get pretty chilly. Still, I’d bet that in the previous homes Gertrude dwelt in, or least one of them, they also had a coal-fired furnace, so I think it possible that Gertrude knew that a ‘shovel scraping the floor’ sound was related to putting coal into the furnace when it was chilly. I find it more likely that the two girls, Paula and Stephanie, since Sylvia is either sleeping upstairs, or somewhere other than in the house, ended up arguing and carrying on when Stephanie dropped coal on Paula's foot.

As to how distinctive Gertrude's voice was....I don't know since I never spoken to her, or heard her holler. As to an opinion on the distinctiveness of her voice, I'm convinced that this is not based on any testimony. So I have nothing to offer other than the fact that (and I totally agree, by the way) Phyllis would have known the sound of Gertrude’s voice. My suggestion was that Gertrude stood at the door, i.e. in the kitchen, and hollered down at the girls in the basement. This is why Phyllis heard Gertrude’s voice as clearly as she did.

As to how long the racket lasted. I was rather surprised that the very specific times and ‘amount of time passed’ during and between events were so precise. Does Randy have a watch? No. Yet he knows that 25 minutes passed. Was there a clock in the living room? He says no..how do you know how much time passed? The non-existent clock. And the non-existent clock, per Marie, does exist, but it doesn’t "work so good." I doubt the accuracy of Phyllis' time estimates. Which is it Mrs. Vermillion? Did the scraping last 20-25 minutes, or for over 2 hours? She says both within the space of...well I'm not wearing my watch, but I can say- within a couple of lines of testimony. So like Randy, and like Marie, and like most of the people in Gertrude's house...well, simply put, I don't believe the accuracy of times and 'amount of time passed' as stated, unless they are tied to something tangible- like Ricky knowing what time it was at one point because he was watching Lloyd Thaxton, a TV show. That is different from: “How much time passed?” “Well, 20-25 minutes.” “How do you know?” “I looked at my watch.” I would find that more convincing. I also believe that Phyllis was exaggerating the length of time she heard the shovel scraping- which is either the coal shovel scraping of Stephanie and Paula, or the S.O.S shovel scraping of Sylvia, since both would have happened at the same time. Then there is the amount of time that passed between October 26th, and the trial. She described the whole 'shovel scraping and Gertrude being obnoxious' event as a nuisance. I doubt that she would remember the specific time duration all those months later. Except she did. Of course, 2 hours is a long time to scream at poor Sylvia. And about her scraping the floor with the shovel? If I was Gertrude, rather than stand in the basement screaming at Sylvia because I am displeased with her shovel scraping, but not Paula and Stephanie’s shovel scraping, I would have saved the time and trouble, and if I were Gertrude I would rather hit my Phenos than scream for 2 hours at someone scraping the floor with a shovel, I would simply take the shovel away from Sylvia. With her being in the terrible physical condition she was (and I have never cast any doubt on that), I would think that it would be easy to wrest the shovel from her. And Paula’s down there. And Stephanie too. 3 people could take a shovel away from such a person.

I also stated, and still do state, that scraping the floor with the shovel does absolutely no good. But I could be wrong. Perhaps, most people who hear such a sound would instantly recognize that it meant…”please help me!” I guess this would be innate, not a taught thing I think, not something learned in school…well I was not taught this, but that may be irrelevant. I think it possible, and no more than that, that people who walk by a house and hear a scraping sound would not know that someone is in desperate need of help. I have already listed several things that make far more sense to do with the shovel..although I opted against smashing the window, as well as against clocking Gertrude with it (although she apparently deserved it), in favor of walking up the stairs, and then walking out the front, or back, door to get help. But that’s just me, and I do not claim infallibility. I have found nothing in the testimony to suggest that Sylvia was anything other than a rather intelligent young lady, and being such, would know that no one will understand her shovel scraping, even if it were, by way of hypothetical allusion, in Morse code, for example. Of course, I could mistakenly assert that during this whole time, and I mean between October 5th and October 26th, she could have left the house at any time, as I have not found any testimony stating that the basement door was kept locked. I would find it strange that there was a lock on that door at all. The front door, yes. The back door yes. They have in common that they are the point of ingress and egress, and so are locked to keep the bad people out. Some internal doors also have locks because of privacy needs. The basement is neither. Still, there are examples in the testimony of Sylvia going into and coming out of the basement without any indication that someone had to unlock the door. Of course, there is a lot of testimony, and I may have missed this. Gertrude told the cleric that she had locked Sylvia in the upstairs bedroom. I examined this in an essay called “Love thy Neighbor- Part 1” where I concluded that the pastor was less than honest in some of his testimony. This is clear from the fact that Jenny told him that Sylvia would sneak down at night to eat everyone’s food..even drink little Denny’s milk! This would suggest that she was not locked in the room. And, given the reason Gertrude proffered to the cleric for locking her in the room to begin with, night-time would be the most important time to lock her in. If..and I emphasize if, she were at that house- just walk out of it.

As to revenge against Gertrude. When Phyllis testified, she made it EXPLICITY clear that her decision to testify in court was linked to her horror that Coy was referred to as Paula’s boyfriend in some newspaper. This is a strange reason to decide to testify about something which, up until she found a mistake in a newspaper, something I would think no one cared about, was completely irrelevant to what happened to Sylvia. She makes this clear. But she did testify, and describes what no one else does…the presence of Paula’s boyfriend in the house, not named of course, and Coy, so Paula’s boyfriend isn’t Coy. And Paula attacks Sylvia while her boyfriend is apparently free of any wrongdoing. Who cares about who is whose boyfriend? Why is this the motive to testify? And then she manages to work into her testimony something that had no bearing on the trial…the man on the porch. She spends some time discussing this, including the highly telling description of going to the police station, only to be told that if Gertrude prevails, he will go to jail for 20 years. 20 years? Nonsense. There are offenses that can get you 20 years in prison, but I am no expert, and couldn’t say for sure what they were in Indiana in 1965. I’m sure that this sort of thing happens all the time. Still, it has no real bearing to the case and the horrible events it was really all about. So I find it telling that she goes into all this detail. I still maintain that this is the basis of her axe to grind with Gertrude.

Q. How old are your children, did you say?
A. Six and a year and a half.
Q. Six, and you have no interest in the outcome of this trial, do you?
A. I don't know what you mean by interest.
Q. What prompted you to call the authorities on April 25, 1966, months after this occurred?
A. I told you I saw a picture in the paper and it was not the boy I saw and that was supposed to be Paula's boyfriend and it was not.
Q. That is the reason you called the prosecutor?
A. Yes, it looks like him but it is not him.
I say fictionally of course, but I can almost hear the confusion if the attorney’s voice. But Phyllis did say something interesting, although I’m sure that it would have no effect on the chronological information that she presented:
Q. You did not know the boy?
A. No.
Q. That happened in September?
A. I guess, I don't really know when it happened. I would have to figure - dig out police files, I am not very good at remembering dates.

Oh my! But she sure is good at remembering times on dates she is not very good at remembering! That is, until the attorney rephrases the question. And the claim about not knowing the boy? To take such extraordinary steps to save him from Gertrude…

As to over-analysis. If I were to analyze that.. both the verb, then it’s nominal form, as the subject…. Oh, wait a minute. Subject leads to subjective, and whether there is over-analysis, or straight forward, sufficient but not excessive, more like an acceptable level of, analysis, well, I think that that is purely subjective. “It is what is”- paraphrased. Yes, I hear that all the time these days. Personally, I do not like this expression since it seems to be a signal of simply accepting something without qualification, i.e. not really looking at something or, to a sufficient but not excessive, analy….oops…examining that something. And I would think that in a murder trial, where the fate of people facing life in prison, or even, hypothetically since it depends on what state you live in, the death penalty, there would be no such thing as over-analysis. Guilty beyond a reasonable doubt? Don’t let analysis of the evidence and testimony bog things down if a hypothetical “it is what it is” juror has already made their up their mind, and minus well not waste any more time listening to testimony or reviewing the evidence, and tell the jury foreman that they’re guilty, and then go home. The way to the truth is analysis of the facts. Of course, if “analysis” and “over-analysis” exist..which I agree that they do, I would think that “under-analysis” exists too. That would involve making judgments or accepting long promulgated opinions without testing them against the available facts (I speak generally, with no accusations being made). And that is fine, and I offer no condemnation against doing that. I do have a problem with such a notion as that being shared by jurors in a murder trial since, I think, they are there to analyze the testimony and evidence relative to the case. So avoid over-analysis…and under-analysis. The latter too I think, since it could lead to a travesty of justice whereby innocent people are condemned for something they did not do. I do not speak of Gertrude or anyone in the Likens murder case, with the possible exception of Paula, at this point in my analysis, hopefully not over-analysis, of the case. Of course, avoiding over-analysis could lead to insufficient review of the testimony and lead to a judicial fiasco; not that that happened in our case..oh..but it could.

As to the fingernails- Now we're talking! Now it gets interesting! I agree that scraping her fingernails on a cement floor would lead to them breaking backwards. Indeed I do. But this would be true of any hard floor..maybe…probably not. I don’t mean to read anything into anything anyone said. So it is also possibly that the damage to Sylvia’s fingernails occurred when she either fell in the upstairs bedroom, or down the stairs, and then pulled herself across the floor. Such a fall could produce head trauma that wasn’t initially fatal. A split lip too and maybe a black eye and bruising. A cut on the forearm? I’m sure not. Did someone hit her on the head, or did her head hit something?

Q. Doctor, would you ever be able to distinguish or ascertain from a blow such as this whether it was caused by an object striking the head or the head striking an object?
A. No, sir, I don't think that distinction can be made unless there is some imprint of an object and then there would still be a question, if a movable object like a hammer left a mark, you might be correct in presuming the hammer was struck at the head. If there was a sharp edge, there would be no way.
Q. Did you find any imprint, Doctor?
A. No, I did not.
Q. Now, Doctor, how long after a blow is struck, or after the head strikes an object, resulting in a subdural hematoma, would it take a subject to die?
A. This would depend entirely on the size of the blood vessel that ruptured. A small calibre would take a long time. A large blood vessel might kill you immediately.
Q. It is possible it could range from immediately to what period of time, Doctor, within reason?
A. Several weeks.

And Sylvia’s head hitting one of the steps on the stairs, the stairs leading up to the bedroom, not down into the basement, is exactly what Stephanie said happened. However, the fingernails are one of the most important elements about the body, and point in a different direction. Ellis did what any ME would do with a body in this state, scraped beneath the fingernails, and had any substance found analyzed. What he reported is astounding:

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.

And now it gets crazy! A greasy substance the ME’s office couldn’t identify. There might be cans of greasy stuff in Gertrude’s basement. But the police had complete access to the basement, and everything in it. Not to mention, that any cans of greasy gunk of whatever kind were in the basement would have been normal enough things to have in a basement, or maybe in the garage. Stuff from the hardware store, or a gas station. I don’t know what the stuff was, but it was greasy, and relatively rare. The latter explains why it wasn’t in whatever base of chemicals were being retained in a police or other local agency’s facility for comparison to samples of stuff found on a body. It might be possible that this was some kind of highly specialized lubricant, possibly industrial. Maybe a lubricant or oil used in specialized industrial machinery of some kind. It was on the floor, or maybe in some kind of industrial bay, and Sylvia got in under her nails as she crawled through it, or as she tried to crawl out of it, also breaking her nails. Kebel said the body was scrubbed with a caustic chemical. If she did have some of this on her, having crawled through it, maybe somebody scrubbed the body to get it off. But they missed the fingernails. And of course there are the two crime scene photos featuring the body on the mattress! I will have much to say about the 4 main photos in another essay. However, the two that show the face and body, with the person in question lying on one of the most horrid mattresses I have ever seen, are amazingly convenient. They really are. First, the crime scene photographer took exceptionally lousy photos. But most important, these two were taken so as to show the body and the mattress, but the room the body’s in, is completely unidentifiable. It’s like wherever that was had no working lights, except the lights, like police flashlights, which somebody or somebodies brought with them. They had the photographic equipment which, with some kind of flash gear, was strong enough to photograph the body, but not the pitch black room, if it was a room..like it was abandoned, and had no functioning utilities. It seems awfully strange if that was either the upstairs back bedroom of Gertrude’s house, or the basement. Just turn the light on. And then! A photo taken in a brightly lit room! But how convenient is this one too! The body is positioned strategically. You can’t see the feet, which you can in the other two photos. But if you look carefully at the feet, they are black..covered in something. But the body was washed! And the upper part of the body, in the two lousy pictures, is white…so why two filthy feet? Not the bottom of the feet, but the top of the feet, except for a couple of toes, which may have been covered with something- like footwear of some kind. It's almost like she crawled along something, like a floor, getting some kind of substance on her feet, maybe a greasy hard to identify industrial substance used in machinery! Then of course, in the third photo to which I refer, the one where after taking two pictures in virtual darkness, they found the light switch! And now? Clearly the back bedroom of Gertrude’s house. But the feet aren’t visible…and so much more! The entire upper body has been intentionally covered and obscured! You cannot tell who lies on the mattress in the third photo. In reality, the two scenes are not the same! Like the body in the first two photos was found somewhere it wasn’t supposed to be, and then this was corrected by the third photo, the well-lit back bedroom of Gertrude’s house. Of course, this is crazy talk, because that would imply that the first two photos, the lousy ones taken somewhere dark, were not taken in Gertrude’s house. Somewhere industrial, possibly no longer used; maybe a large place, with no lights, where you could keep someone against her will, where even if she could scream, nobody would hear her. Then there is the tattoo. Ellis said this:


Q. Would you say it was instantaneously or over a period of time, basing your answer from the signs?
A. It appeared essentially the same, so at least it was not done over many, many weeks between the different parts of it. Other than that, I would not be able to say.
Q. The healing portion of the skin would indicate it was done about the same time?
A. Roughly.
 

It seems to me that Ellis is dancing around the admission that this was done over time. Why dance around that? Because if true, the whole Likens case could be blown. Why? Because every witness that claims to have participated in, or saw it done, states that the entire thing was done at one time..at one time…not over time..not over “not many, many weeks.” All the witness testimony has the tattoo event completely wrong. And, I note now and promise to no longer expound on it anymore at this time, but- I didn’t bring up the fingernails, although I’m glad they were brought up! I refer now to the brand. Some call it an “S”; some call it a 3. It’s described as done immediately after the tattoo in the kitchen, but nobody has even the slightest explanation for why! Having finished the scratch-tattoo, why would you then burn a completely inexplicable and completely unexplained number 3, and that is what is, on this poor girl? Why? Was something incomplete about the tattoo? Something that required a number 3? If so, up toward the top of the chest, nowhere near the slogan on the abdomen? Take a look at the picture of the tattoo and it is clear that Ellis is right about it being done over time. The 3 is not inexplicable, it just was to the usual suspects because they maybe didn’t do it, but claimed to do it, and with something that wouldn’t have worked, and in a way that wouldn’t have worked either. However, a very easy explanation for the number 3 jumps to the fore. Namely…this is the third, “my third”; like the body had been marked for the police..a sort of game of “cat and mouse.” This just might, although I’m sure it doesn’t, indicate that there was a “1” and a “2.” But, as I promised, I exit this part of the discussion, having dwelt on it too long already, and only include it as a totally impossible thing for the sake of making my list complete…and I’m fussy about complete lists. So don’t quote me! It’s all theoretical, I’m sure. And there are better explanations.

I would also comment on laziness. I have no problem with the statement as applied to Stephanie. I disagree completely with the accusation against Paula. She is presented in the testimony as having stepped into the void created when her mother was in full retreat from reality. She still goes to school, she works, and she is described as actively involved in the household. Sylvia is too. But not the others. Paula comes out, just analyzing the testimony of course, as the most respectable member of a family running head-long into collapse. Very few 17 year olds would do that, and it shows a character that well exceeded my own when I was her age. Consequently, I adamantly do not accept the description of Paula as lazy.

If Sylvia had sustained head trauma during a fall, and injured her lip at the same time, then I can well understand that during the evening of October 26th, she was clearly delirious. And, if you simply accept the testimony without sufficiently analyzing it, then, per Shirley, Sylvia was in the basement practicing the ABCs. I prefer Jenny’s testimony that Sylvia was even having trouble recognizing members of the household. Easily the effects of head trauma sustained during a fall? Something that, but didn't happen somewhere else? There is no doubt that she was a strong person- a fighter, and was, I agree, fighting for her life.

I do appreciate hearing the views of others. Comments made about the shovel scraping lead me to re-analyze and come to better assessment than I did originally. Of course, I understand that some are emotionally vested in the greater whole, whereas I am interested in it for other reasons. But I think that’s ok.