So the different versions of the slogan are presented by the Indi Star ("I am a prostitute") and the Indi News ("I am a prostitute and proud of it"). If you were a reader of the Indianapolis News, you find something that seems very strange today. Normally, we get a newspaper once a day, published at night for the next morning. But that’s boring. Instead, readers of the News had three, separate versions of the newspaper: The Home Edition, The City Edition, and the Blue-Streak Late Afternoon Edition. And that, in my mind, creates a highly chaotic presentation of news. On a given day, would I read all three? Perhaps yes, if I’m unemployed and have nothing to do other than try to get my hands on all three. No one would do that. And that means that I would, for instance on October 27th, get only one-third of the news that was published on that day as far as the Sylvia Likens case is concerned. All three present three different articles, with three sets of different information. Is it any wonder that the Sylvia Likens Drama became such a chaotic mess? It was highly likely that a group discussion of the news that day would be talking on the basis of the same information. The Indianapolis News was highly inclined to created a bizarre, intricate, buffoonish story such as the Canonical Story. Different things were all over the place.

The Indi News had much more to draw upon, for two reasons. First, Gertrude and Ricky had appeared in court. Second, the police had, that morning, interrogated Paula and Johnny and received coerced statements from them. And even more importantly, they had Jenny feeding them the information they were seeking in order to create the Canonical Story. Jenny had discussed Gertrude with her sister Dianna at this point:

Q. Then where did you go - after you left police headquarters where did you go?
A. I went to my sister's, Diane Shoemaker, and stayed all night.
Q. Where was that?
A. In an apartment on West Washington Street, I think, I am pretty sure.
Q. What time would that be?
A. I'd say around 11:00 or 11:30, maybe later.
Q. You must have been at police headquarters more than an hour.
A. You said talking about Gertrude.
Q. You went with Diane Shoemaker where?
A. On West Washington Street.
Q. What time did you arrive there?
A. I'd say 11:00 or 11:30.
Q. Not what the conversation was - but did you talk about Gertrude there - not what it was?
A. At headquarters?
Q. No, Diane's house?
A. Oh, she wanted to know what all happened.
Q. Not the conversation - did you talk about Gertrude Baniszewski?
A. Yes.
Q. How long did that conversation last?
A. I'd say about forty-five minutes and we went to bed.

It seems a bit strange that Jenny did not go to stay with her grandparents Tuesday night. We know they had a phone. And the next night…the night of the 27th:

Q. Where did you spend the second night, not the night of the death, the day you was over at your sister's house - the next day, where did you spend the night?

A. I think my Grandma Grimes.
Q. Where is that?
A. 333 South Temple.
Q. What time did you arrive there that night?
A. Around 1:30 or 2:00 o'clock.
Q. In the afternoon?
A. Yes.

And we know that whereas Sylvia did go visit the Grimes, Jenny stated that she never did. She and Dianna returned to the police station the following day, and Jenny spoke with several people:

Q. Then the next morning where did you go?
A. Headquarters.
Q. Who did you talk to at that time, if anybody?
A. I am pretty sure it was Sgt. Kaiser.
Q. Sgt. Kaiser - what time that morning?
A. He told us to be here around 9:00 or 9:30.
Q. Did you get here then?
A. Yes.
Q. What time?
A. 9:00 or 9:30.
Q. On the next day, the 27th, was it?
A. Yes.
Q. Not what the conversation was, but was it about Gertrude Baniszewski, yes or no?
A. Yes.
Q. How long did the conversation last?
A. Forty-five minutes to an hour.
Q. Forty-five minutes to an hour, was any lawyers there at that time, yes or no?
A. No.
Q. Was Mr. New there at that time?
A. No, I don't remember seeing him.

So she spoke with Kaiser the night before, at the scene of the crime. She returned the next morning to talk further with him. Of course, there was no attorney present. But Kaiser wasn’t the only one she spoke to:

Q. When was the next time that - that was from 9:00 to 9:45 or 10:00 o'clock, then what did you do?
A. Talked to this policewoman.
Q. Policewoman - what is her name?
A. I don't know, she told me something about Juvenile Aid.
Q. Not what the conversation was in itself - was Gertrude Baniszewski mentioned in the conversation?
A. Yes.
Q. How long did you talk to the policewoman?
A. Till about 11.00.
Q. Around and hour or an hour and fifteen minutes?
A. Yes.

So after speaking to Kaiser, she then spoke to an unnamed policewoman...was she Policewoman Sanders, Policewoman Warner at the time of the events? She is the only Policewoman to appear in the testimony, and she and Leo Gentry interrogated Paula. The conversation was about Gertrude, and then, strangely, she spoke to Jenny about Juvenile Aid. That seems a bit strange given the fact that her grandparents were in town, so was her sister, and her parents soon arrived. It’s almost as if Jenny had no plans to stay with any of them. And the policewoman who spoke to Jenny for as much as an hour and fifteen minutes did not testify about this conversation at the trial.

Q. Then what did you do?
A. She had another man with her.
Q. She had what?
A. Had this other man with her - I don't know his name.
Q. Do you know his name?
A. No.
Q. Was it a police officer?
A. I imagine it was.
Q. What did you do then. Not the conversation, but what did you do?
A. We talked.
Q. The three of you talked?
A. Yes.
Q. Not the conversation, but was Gertrude's name mentioned?
A. Yes.
Q. How long did that conversation last?
A. Till about noon.
Q. Then what did you do?
A. Ate lunch.
Q. Did you talk to him again, yes or no?
A. I can't remember how long we stayed up there now.
Q. Was all this in the City-County Building, here, Miss Likens?
A. Yes.
Q. After that what did you do?
A. Well, I think my parents came up the next day.

So Jenny did not know whether the man she spoke with, associated with the Unknown Policewoman, was actually a cop. I sure hope that he wasn’t a reporter with the Indianapolis News! One might be tempted, as noted above, to think that we are dealing with Policewoman Warner and Leo Gentry.

By the time the Indi News ran their multi-page article on the evening of October 27th, they could draw upon several sources:

1.  Information leaked to the Indi Star on the night of October 26th
2.  Information from interrogations, mainly Paula and Johnny, carried out on October 27th
3.  Information related to the appearance of Gertrude and Ricky in Municipal Court
4.  Information provided by Jenny Likens

It is clear that it was the Indi News that was being fed the Canonical Story, and distributing it to the public. It is also clear that that news was being broken up and disseminated in such a way as to create the chaos that would remain in this case up to this day. I read this! I read that! This wasn’t in what I read! Well…that wasn’t in what I read!

The Indianapolis Newses (I’m coining a term and am not going to try to identify when the different stories were fed to the people of Indianapolis) cite two different sources as far as the slogan is concerned:

So the cops said that the slogan said “I am a prostitute and proud of it.” Yet “investigators” said that it read “I am a prostitute” as reported in the rival to the Indianapolis Newses…the Indi Star. So which group of cops were right? Which group of cops can read only four words…while the other group of cops can read eight words? Another source:

The source here is Jenny. The source of the other article, which is among the two articles that do not mention the Number 3, as far as the slogan is concerned, is the Police. The other article has Jenny as its source. So:

Indi Star: no mention of the Number 3
Indi News 1: no mention of the Number 3
Indi News 2: no mention of the Number 3
Indi News 3: the sudden appearance of the Number 3, Jenny is the source

The Jenny Blue Streak article also states that Sylvia died as a result of the events of Saturday, which we know from the Canonical Story features the slogan, and the Number 3. But Sylvia died as a result of a severe head trauma, which has nothing to do with the slogan or the Number 3:

This follows the sudden appearance of the Number 3, and therefore stands in direct relation to the claim that Sylvia died as a result of what happened on Saturday. And the second claim is familiar:

Q. Now, directing your attention to October 26, 1965, did you go to school that day?
A. Yes.
Q. Is this the day Sylvia died?
A. Yes, it is.
Q. And did you see Sylvia before you went to school?
A. Yes - no, no.
Q. Where was she?
A. She was down in the basement.
Q. Had she been there all night?
A. Yes.
Q. And did you come home for lunch?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. About what time did you get home?
A. Around - we got out around ten till 12:00 or something like that, I can't quite remember.
Q. What did you do when you came home then?
A. Went down in the basement to see Sylvia.
Q. Sylvia was in the basement?
A. Yes, she was.
Q. Was anyone else down there?
A. Yes.
Q. Who?
A. Gertrude and me.

Straight forward enough. Let’s continue:
 

Q. Did you hear her make any sound?
A. Yes, she just - I don't know - would not talk or nothing, she just - I mean I could not understand what she was saying.
Q. Was she trying to talk?
A. Yes.
Q. Did you hear any words?
A. Not at that time.
Q. Did you later that day?
A. Later on, yes.
Q. When was this?
A. When I got home from school.
Q. Did Sylvia eat anything this noon?
A. No.
Q. Did any one take her food down in the basement?
A. No.
Q. Did Gertrude say anything to her when she was down in the basement?
A. I think she asked her if she was hungry.
Q. What did Sylvia say?
A. Yes, but she was out of her head.

By “out of her head” I assume that Jenny is describing what I would connect with the severe head trauma that caused Sylvia’s death. More:

Q. Did you see her eat any food then?
A. At noon?
Q. Yes.
A. No.
Q. Did you see anything else at noontime?
A. No, I went back to school.
Q. And then when did you come home from school in the afternoon?
A. Around - we get out - I can't remember, 3:00 or 3:30. I got home around twenty till 4:00.
Q. What did you do when you came home?
A. Went to the basement to see Sylvia.
Q. Who was down there then?
A. Paula.
Q. Anyone else?
A. No.
Q. What did you see then?
A. Sylvia was sitting on the floor, sitting up.
Q. What did you hear?
A. Paula said Sylvia -

MR. ERBECKER: We object to this conversation in the absence of Gertrude Baniszewski.
THE COURT: Objection sustained as to Gertrude Baniszewski.

Q. Just Sylvia and you and Paula were present?
A. Yes.
Q. What was said?

A. She told Sylvia to move her hand. She said she would jump on it if she did not move it. Sylvia moved it. She said she would broad jump on it. Sylvia did not get up.

THE COURT: The jury will ignore that answer in arriving at a verdict in the case of the defendant Gertrude Baniszewski.

Q. Was anything else said?
A. Gertrude came down and Rickie.
Q. Rickie Hobbs?
A. Yes.
Q. What did you see then?

A. Someone - Sylvia was pointing at Gertie and Rickie and said, "You are Gertie and you are Ricky". Gertrude said, "Shut up, you know who I am," or something like that.

Again, Jenny appears to be describing the result of head trauma.

Q. What did you see Mrs. Baniszewski do, if anything?

A. She just was telling Sylvia to get up and then I went over there and Sylvia said she felt like her teeth were loose. I tried to explain when she was seven she got a front tooth knocked out. She had another tooth chipped and a third was chipped. It must have been when she got hit in the mouth because it was not chipped.

Q. The third tooth was not chipped when you went to Mrs. Baniszewski's?
A. No.
Q. What else did you see or hear?

A. Well, that is all I said to her. I went upstairs. I was getting ready to leave. John came upstairs and got two cups of hot water and took down in the basement. Gertrude got the trend dish soap and poured it all over Sylvia's body.

MR. ERBECKER: We object.
THE COURT: Objection sustained. We went through all this yesterday.
MR. ERBECKER: We move that the court admonish the jury.
THE COURT: The jury will ignore the answer in arriving at a verdict in this case against all defendants.

Q. Did Sylvia eat anything at this time?
A. She had a pear in her hand but she could not eat it though.
Q. Did she try to eat it?
A. Yes.
Q. Did you see the pear?
A. Yes.
Q. What was it like?
A. It did not look too good.
Q. Did you see Mrs. Baniszewski do anything else at this time?
A. Yes.
Q. What?

A. I remember Sylvia was laying on the basement floor by the steps. Why she did this I can't tell you. She took both feet and stepped on Sylvia's head.

Q. Who did?
A. Gertrude.
Q. Did she stand on her head?
A. She was standing with both feet on Sylvia's head and face.                                 
Q. Did she put her full weight on Sylvia's head?
A. Yes.
Q. How long did she stand there?
A. Just a little while then she got off. I can't tell how long she was there.
Q. Was there any conversation at this time?

A. I just said, "Gertie, I want to go get ready to go rake leaves and try to make money". I went upstairs and I looked back down in the basement and they had soap all over her.

Of course, Jenny has just portrayed herself as Jenny the Total Monster. Having witnessed this terrible abuse, she clearly believed, despite the fact that her grandparents lived nearby and the fact that she knew exactly where her sister Dianna lived, that raking leaves was far more important than this terrible escalation of the supposed violence inflicted on her sister who was, according to Jenny, “out of her head.” And then we hear the nonsense of Gertrude standing on Sylvia’s head. That is significant. Why? For two reasons. First, Jenny has described a key symptom of a sudden, severe head injury..she has trouble recognizing people she knows well, and Jenny embellishes this with the bit about Sylvia saying that her teeth felt loose. But! This symptom existed prior to Gertrude standing on Sylvia’s head. So the real head trauma took place before Gertrude supposedly stood on Sylvia’s head, which, one may speculate, is Jenny’s attempt to account for the head injury that killed her sister. But she messed it up. Secondly, in the October 27 Indi News Jenny stated that it was the events of Saturday that caused Sylvia’s death…the slogan and the Number 3 were not head injuries…but in the same article she told the story about Gertrude standing on Sylvia’s head. That’s a problem! In her testimony, she states that the “standing on Sylvia’s head” event took place on Tuesday. In fact, the article entitled “Slain Girl’s Body Claimed by Parents”, which is the only one of three articles that references the Number 3, has only Jenny as it’s source. It describes the arrival of Betty and Lester Likens, that they began reading the statement that Jenny had provided to police, that they “hysterically burst into tears and could not continue,” then provides the story about Saturday- the slogan, the Number 3, and Gertrude’s Diabolical New Game. Yes, another Diabolical Game! What is that? Gertie Wright the Diabolical Acrobat! She does head stands…with the twist that she stands on other people’s heads. Perhaps she could have done her Diabolical Acrobatics in the Tunnel System under the McMartin Preschool! Finally, we read:

So when the Police are quoted…there is no Number 3. I suspect that the one article of the three that suddenly drops in the information about the Number 3 was the result of Jenny being questioned by reporters without any cops or restraining influences being present.

But according to the Indi News, the branded Number 3 appeared on October 27th, but in only one article, whereas the other two articles give the slogan as “I am a prostitute and proud of it.” And the Gang of Boys Note includes the slogan in that form, but not the Number 3. So it must have been produced on October 27th before the statements made by Jenny in the third article. One might conclude that the branded Number 3 was not originally intended to be part of the Canonical Story at all, but ended up in the Canonical Story because Jenny was sounding off to the press.

There is something more to say at this point. The article that appears to be based purely on Jenny speaking to a reporter was run in the late afternoon paper…the Blue Streak. The other two articles, possibly one being from the city edition and one being from the home edition, appeared in the evening editions. The Blue Streak ran late afternoon. So Jenny had the jump on the evening editions. If the police, quoted by the other two articles, but not the article in the Blue Streak, are cited as sources for the long version of the slogan, yet know nothing about the Number 3, a fascinating possibility results. What is that? The police were the source of the information in the Indi Star October 27th edition, which ran in the morning. So the information derived from the evening of October 26th, and as a result, that version of the slogan is the correct version. So why would police turn around the next day and provide the incorrect version of the slogan? That is where a plausible explanation is possible. The police provided the long version of the slogan to the Indi News for the evening editions because Jenny had provided the wrong version to the press in the Blue Streak afternoon edition. In other words, a reporter caught up to her, and asked her to talk, something that I think Jenny Likens was never hesitant to do. She then provided an incorrect version of the slogan, earlier that day. The police had to scramble to provide matching information to the press, but did not notice the claim she made about the branding of the Number 3. So they had to suddenly change the slogan based on Jenny’s statement to the press, and were also stuck with the “Gertrude stood on Sylvia’s Head on Saturday but Sylvia didn’t Die until Tuesday Afternoon” nonsense. While scrambling to change the story, they missed her claim about the Number 3. And it didn’t make it into the forged note which was produced after the adjustment of the reading of the slogan, and the police awareness of the claim about the Number 3.

Now I must double back yet again. I do not have a doctorate in Indianapolis Daily Newspapers of the 1960s. I do have a doctorate in Old Testament Exegetical Theology, and that required the ability to read a bunch of languages, including ancient ones like Greek, Latin, Hebrew, and Aramaic..along with the complicated and intricate scholarly German of the late 1800s – 1950s. And it seems to me that, compared to understanding the proliferation of various newspapers and the multiplicity of competing and contradictory news articles on the same day in Indianapolis, my degree was obviously the easier of the two. There was also another version of the Indianapolis Star, and it ran an article on October 27th titled “Brand on Stomach- Find Girl’s Body Slashed, Beaten.” Wait...find? Methinks that they omitted a word! One like…police! “Police Find Girl’s Body Slashed, Beaten.” All verbs need a subject..and that way you can have grammar an impeccable as Jenny’s grammar when, trying to remember how the slogan read when confronted by a reporter before the Blue Streak ran that afternoon, she remembered it incorrectly…turning 4 words into 8 words, and showing that she knew grammar better than she speaked it…spoke it…I think. But we’ll give “find” a subject, and speculate that the source is the same as the other Indi Star article that day…police…namely…Kaiser. And I like the description of Betty and Lester’s current occupation:

A traveling show! Pretty cool. They’re on tour! Still. The slogan:

And so it is. The Indi Star articles have the same, obviously correct, version of the slogan. But! In the case of the other article, the slogan is “carved” into the stomach, whereas here, its is burned. And remember…it is Shirley who, during the trial, used the word “carve” until the attorney attempted to move her away from the word “carve.” Why? Because the Canonical Story holds that Ricky only scratched the skin, and that very little blood was drawn. Not so if you’re carving. And there’s where it gets interesting. Why? Because two of the articles in the Indianapolis Newses on October 27th use the word “etch.” But the only article to refer to the Number 3, i.e. the one where the only source was Jenny Likens, said this:

So while the other articles in the Indi Newses use the word “etch”, which I would say is consistent with “carve” in so far as both indicate “cutting,” Jenny gives us “branding,” and it is perhaps on the basis of this article that the other article in the Indi Star (third edition) uses the word “burned.” And herein is the source of Dr. Ellis’ inability to tell a burn from a cut. The testimony during the trial sought to bridge the gap between the two by claiming that Ricky heated the needle and then made the slogan. The reason he gives is a Detail of Absurdity…I’m going to mutilate this girl, but I’ll sterilize the sewing needle...which is itself a Detail of Absurdity in that you can not cut with a sewing needle. The attempt to combine “brand” with “cut” is forced and unconvincing, and Dr. Ellis simply chose to say it could have been made either way, or both ways…and I admire a man with an open mind. If there is any validity to any of this, then a developing Canonical Story was totally messed up by Jenny Likens:

1.  The wrong slogan
2.  A branded Number 3
3. The slogan was branded, not cut, etched, carved…
4. Gertrude killed Sylvia by standing on the girl’s head on Saturday

It would appear that the Indi Star had some scrambling to do on October 28th. The slogan had doubled in size, and so it would be reported that the slogan said “I am a prostitute and proud of it.” With no exclamation point...thank goodness. The slogan was “etched”, and now we are told that the letters were one inch high, there being two rows of words. That is four words per row

I AM A PROSTITUTE
AND PROUD OF IT

Hey! That’s not bad! If you etch, carve, burn, or brand them correctly, the two rows sort of line up. I’ll try this:

I AM A PROSTITUTE
AND PROUD OF IT !

I add Dr. Ellis’ exclamation point, albeit with a little creative spacing…and they balance perfectly! And such good grammar! So what happened on the evening of October 26th? Hey, Kaiser…what do you see carved, etched, cut, burned, branded, scorched...whatever...on this girl’s stomach? What, are you blind? It says: “I am a prostitute.” Oh. Oops! I forgot a second row of 4 words and 12 letters! No one’s perfect. Let’s let the Indi Star set us up for the “burn” and “cut” of the trial:

And so the Star is catching up with the Newses. And notice “admitted doing that job.” How about…admitted doing that Saturday. Why the word “job?” And it is also clear that the October 28th Indi Star has become crazy to say the least. It is on this day that we hear about “Enslaved Sylvia,” which is meant to provide a motive for the girl’s mistreatment. Sylvia do this…Sylvia do that! And if not…blamo! This was lame and was eventually dropped in favor of…Sylvia calling Paula, or Stephanie, or Paula and Stephanie, mean names. Actually, the article says both, but eventually the one would be dropped while the other wouldn’t. Both are ridiculous, and this only highlights the fact that there has never been a remotely satisfying motive offered for the Canonical Story. Not only did the Enslaved Sylvia character have to disappear; what is wrong with this:

That’s right! According to that statement, Little Jimmy was an equal participant in the victimization of Sylvia. Oops! We’ll have to back that out during the trial. But!

Are you telling me that Johnny claimed that Marie (11); Shirley (10); and Jimmy (8) were also smokers and were inflicting cigarette burns, which we know if we take Paula’s 15 burns and multiply that by a factor of 10 we get Kebel’s 150 burns. I’m glad to hear that Gertie Wright’s baby doesn’t smoke!

Wait! Did I say that the Indi Star has caught up with the Indi Newses from the previous day? I was wrong...the Indi Star has omitted any reference to…the Number 3! So:

No Number 3:

Indi Star October 27th Article 1
Indi Star October 27th article 2
Indi News October 27th article 1 (evening)
Indi News October 27th article 2 (evening)
Indi Star October 28th article
Gang of Boys Note

Includes a Number 3:

Indi News Blue Streak edition- October 27th

Does nobody read the Blue Streak? That is 5 against 1. And the Indi News ran an article that was very similar to the one in the Indi Star, or vice versa, depending upon your perspective. It included the bit about Enslaved Sylvia, the slogan, and…no Number 3! So:

No Number 3:

Indi Star October 27th Article 1
Indi Star October 27th article 2
Indi News October 27th article 1 (evening)
Indi News October 27th article 2 (evening)
Indi Star October 28th article
Indi News October 28th article
Gang of Boys Note

Includes a Number 3:

Indi News Blue Streak edition- October 27th

Does the Indi News not read the Indi News Blue Streak? What about October 29th? This is what I found in the Indi News:

Wait…that’s not her. Strange, seeing how Betty Likens will turn out to be a singer. How about…Saucy Jenny: The New Comedienne who is Destroying a Perfectly Good Canonical Story by unscripted interviews with the press! It’s a good thing that there was no Twitter back then! Otherwise, Jenny could have been President Circus Clown and messed everything up by unintelligent and self-defeating tweets!

Wait…where is Florida? Just kidding.

Wait…

Q. Did you write to your daughters after October 5?
A. My wife did.
Q. Did you write to your daughter after October 5?
A. No, I was too busy, my wife done all the writing.
Q. Did you ever telephone your daughter?
A. They did not have a phone.
Q. Did your deceased daughter write to you?
A. No, sir, I can't remember. I don't think so. We were not any one place too long to receive mail.

Although I do like the whole...I was too busy working while my wife was goofing off so I thought she could send President Jenny some tweets…or she could send some postcards to Indianapolis’ Newest Comedienne. Typical male chauvinist! One more:

Q. I thought you said you had a fair concession stand in Florida?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. How long did you have that?

A. We was there approximately three weeks. We were not at one fair three weeks. We went to one fair that was not too good and we did not work.

"We was there." "We were not." With Lester, good grammar kinda comes and goes. So if the fair wasn’t so good…then I refuse to sell popcorn and cotton candy! For a guy who doesn’t make any money, he sure did seem to have considerable leeway…and besides…didn’t you just say that your wife didn’t do anything anyway? And:

Three! Three! Three!

I forgot…that’s our subject.  Based on what we’ve seen so far, Ricky is in danger of losing his number...which Steely Dan emphatically said he shouldn’t!

No Number 3:
Indi Star October 27th Article 1
Indi Star October 27th article 2
Indi News October 27th article 1 (evening)
Indi News October 27th article 2 (evening)
Indi Star October 28th article
Indi News October 28th article
Indi News October 29th- who appear to have lost interest
Gang of Boys Note

Includes a Number 3:
Indi News Blue Streak edition- October 27th

But Three! Three! Three! And so I think that we might have something on this page of the Indi Star:

Oops...that’s the wrong clipping. What’s with all the misogyny? Of course…if you ate enough of Lester’s hot dogs, cotton candy, and other health foods…you might find yourself confronting such a delicate situation too. Or so I’m told. Wait, I found it:

Hey! I’m in my New Comedienne phase! Saucy Tektonicus Live at the Comedienne-club! This week only! So…take my wife…please! Seriously…how does he do it…when his wife won’t do any work at these fairs! I’m going up North to a fair in Florida! What do you do when your lazy wife has constipation with bloating, fullness and fat indigestion? Wow…now that’s a cold shower! Boooo. Damn. Perhaps I could be a magician…I show you a Big Branded Number 3…now you see it…now you don’t! Hold on, I found it:

So we finally managed to find something other than Jenny Blue Streak to mention a magical Three! But wait. Didn’t Blue Streak Jenny say that a Number 3 had been branded onto her sister? So:

Indi News Blue Streak edition- October 27th- Sylvia had a Number 3 branded on her with a hot iron bar

Indi Star- October 29th- Sylvia had a jagged cut in the shape of a “3” made with a long screw

And! Kaiser doesn’t know when this was made. So what happened? We finally caught up to Jenny of the Blue Streak only to wipe-out! This sure is a different Number 3. In fact, this Number 3 is completely different, and it’s as if no one even read the October 27th Blue Streak…perhaps that’s why it’s not around anymore. After all, if I waited until the late afternoon to get a paper in Indianapolis, I might as well just wait another couple of hours for the evening edition! And of course…we have a Number 3; actually…we have 2 Number 3s! Two very different Number 3s! So why does Ricky insist that it’s a Letter S? Hey! I’ll trade you a branded Number 3 for a jagged cut that looks kinda like a Number 3 that was made…immediately after the slogan? No…I don’t know when it was made!

If we move one day further. We’re going to start losing something. Indi Star:

We seem to have mislaid our slogan! Didn’t we know what eight words were “burned” onto her skin? I guess we lost “carve” “cut” and “etch” too. And I like the parallelism- 8 others…8 words.

That’s a relief! We lost the slogan…but not Saucy Sylvia! Fortunately, we got the slogan back on October 31st, but then lost the Number 3:

Hey Ricky…she probably didn’t like you either! And if she was walking around, this must pre-date Kaiser’s 3 day coma! And if Ricky left after carving the words on her stomach, when did he do the branding? After all, as we saw earlier when the ridiculous chronology of the event was discussed..it took Ricky and Shirley 3 hours and 15 minutes to do it! So why no mention of it here? Now I must say that on October 31st, Gertie Wright made a big mistake:

Actually, there are a lot of mistakes here. First…Nurse Shirley brought the tea…so stop lying! Mistake number two- if Gertie did give Sylvia a cup of tea and the girl died five minutes later…hasn’t Gertie just confessed to poisoning Sylvia? Mistake number THREE- the tea didn’t kill Sylvia…lying back on the mattress killed her…just ask Dr. Stephanie. Mistake number four?

DON’T TALK TO THE MEDIA! YOU'RE GOING TO BE TRIED FOR FIRST DEGREE MURDER! SHUT-UP!

Let’s watch Gertie pull more dirt down on top of her Metaphorical Coffin:

So what did Erbecker tell Gertrude? His client was facing a First Degree Murder charge. And, of course, the jury will be drawn from the “good and decent” people of the Great City of Indianapolis. Now she has told the Indianapolis Weird World that she beat Sylvia, forced her to sleep in the Underground Inner Sanctum of Satanic Sadness, accessible only by walking backwards down the Stairway to Heaven, perhaps passing the Goat-man on your way down, and…most…significantly…that Sylvia was wetting the bed. Significant? Yes! The 16 year old was obviously very sick…and the Great Monster simply tossed her into the basement? So what did Erbecker tell Gertrude? If I were Gertie Wright’s attorney, although I am too busy trying to record my cover of Ricky Don’t Lose that Number…backwards…I would make it clear that she is to say nothing the press or media. Nothing. Nothing!

STOP TALKING TO THE MEDIA BECAUSE YOU ARE REALLY TALKING TO THE JURY THAT WILL HANG YOU!

Of course, it’s possible that Gertrude was told to talk to the press. Is it possible that statements were being given to the press that purported to come from Gertrude, but actually didn’t?

Q. Will you tell us where Sylvia Likens slept in your house?

A. Yes, upstairs with the girls, until this past week and a half. Sylvia Likens wet and shit on the bed, so Mom made her sleep on the pad down in the basement, and she was kept down in the basement in the daytime.

That comes from the statement of Paula, given to Leo Gentry and Policewoman Something on the morning of October 27th while the pregnant girl was forced to stand against a wall until she cooperated. So when Gertrude supposedly confessed to the press about keeping Sylvia in the basement, she forgot to include a reference to bowel issues...constipation, bloating, and fullness with fat indigestion aside.

A slight digression, that really deserves a more detailed discussion at some future time. The above lady is Constance A Dietz, and she was the Grand Jury Foreman for Marion County, the jury having retired on December 31, 1965. She had served in this capacity since June 1965. In the January 4, 1966 Indi Star she said this:

Now there are a couple things that make me a bit uncomfortable. First, assuming that the Likens case went before this grand jury, which is the Marion County Grand Jury, the fact that the death of Sylvia Likens and the accusations against Gertrude and the others was part of a whole bunch of cases involving terrible crimes against children…with “incest” and “battery” being referenced specifically. And where would the Likens Affair have figured in this group of such cases?

This is Stephanie’s grand jury indictment. Notice the date…December 30, 1965. So! This indictment occurred 1 day before the Dietz Grand Jury retired. I hope they weren't in a hurry to finish by December 31st. Was the Likens Case the very last case to be considered? Did it stand at the end of the grand jury hearing this long list of cases involving crimes against children? I am not impugning the grand jury, but it is fair to ask whether hearing the Likens Matter, that involved the purported torture and murder of a 16 year old girl, at the end of such a series of horrible cases just might work to the detriment of those involved. And the second concern I have? Mrs. Dietz that she had been receiving death threats. In other words, there were people in Marion county who were attempting to interfere with cases before the grand jury by threatening to kill the jury foreman.

I also, while not impugning the Dietz Grand Jury, would note that Judge Eugene M Fife Jr, a colleague of Judge Saul Rabb…better known to us as The Court, was very critical of the grand jury. A case involving jail conditions had been referred to the grand jury, who issued their report on the case.

In other words, the grand jury exonerated police authorities accused of brutality, and even a judge wasn’t buying their Canonical Story. Now I must point out that Judge Fife was not as critical of the grand jury as he was of another party:

Yes…Noble Pearcy, Marion County Prosecutor for whom Deputy Prosecutor Leroy worked. The judge felt that the Prosecutor was “obviously” manipulating the grand jury. So death threats, and manipulation by the Prosecutor’s Office. And Stephanie’s indictment was handed down one day before this grand jury retired? I will quote Mrs. Dietz again:

I disagree. Of course, many believe that police forcing false confessions out of people is a rare thing. Certainly those exact allegations were made relative to the confessions of Paula and Johnny. There was another interesting case involving the murder of Edward Banish, who was stabbed to death. Police arrested his son, Scott Banish, who confessed. But why?

Hmmm...

Good news indeed!

Ah yes…a frightened, bewildered youngster under duress. Sounds familiar. And yes…a confession had been obtained…a false confession…by police using disgusting tactics. Why? They believed he was guilty, and the ends always justify the means…unless you’re wrong and thus the ends are wrong, making the means reprehensible. And how easy it is manipulate Scott Banish…a “youngster.” Wasn’t he 18 years old? Wasn’t Paula a frightened, bewildered, pregnant 17 year old? Wasn’t Johnny a frightened, bewildered 12 year old boy? This frightens me:

You want the death penalty for a 13 year old boy based on his statement to the police? And none of the witnesses ever relate anything that leads to anything more than being mean to Sylvia? All parents...be ye warned! Keep your children off death row! Be sure that they aren't mean to the kid next-door, even if he's the son of the Goat-man. Stephanie is indicted for First Degree Murder one day before the jury retires, and the prosecution wants to kill her, until there isn’t any proof against her and she becomes a witness for the prosecution? I feel safe in saying that Scott Banish sure was lucky that he wasn’t caught up in the Likens Case…otherwise his forced confession would have stood and he could have been following the rest of the sheep to the slaughter.

Where was I? Oh yes..but what a difference a day makes at the Indi Star! Yesterday, we had a jagged cut that looked like a Number 3. That was disappointing, given the claim made by Jenny Blue Streak. So today…let’s catch up entirely at the Indi Star:

So now we have finally caught up. I wonder why the police didn’t print a retraction of the “Jagged Cut Number 3” from the previous day. At least this matches Jenny Blue Streak. But notice the problems. First, the Number 3 is made with an…anchor bolt! Eye-hook, screw-hook, IRON FURNACE POKER BRANDING IRON…yes…here too…an anchor bolt that is two feet long. Two feet long? Seriously? Who has an anchor bolt that is two feet long? Yes…you would find one at a construction site. But in Gertie’s basement? I suppose someone could have used it when they bricked up the wall separating the McMartin Junkyard from the Tool Shed of Gertrudian Suffering. Where is Archaeologist Paul Harmon? I'm sure he could find it.

That is 2 feet long? It is then immediately called a “poker”, which is the same mendacious nonsense that will be featured in the trial. So why is this? We worked so hard to catch up to Jenny Blue Streak. Could it be that clear misrepresentation of an anchor bolt with the furnace poker goes back to Jenny’s unscripted tweet:

That’s right…when we finally caught with the Newest Comedienne, we also caught up with her nonsense. The Number 3 was branded on her sister with a “hot iron bar.” Obviously, a Number 3 couldn’t be made that way. The anchor bolt was the way to go, but the Canonical Story was now hopelessly stuck with the eye-hook also being the furnace poker. Not only were things that are not branding irons or pokers represented in a totally reprehensible way as being exactly those things, we totally lose the distinction between two totally contradictory actions…burning/branding…and cutting/carving/etching. The following shows just to what extent this happened:

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.

Thank you…you most noble servants of the public good…William Kaiser. How can you “brand” someone with a pencil? And, of course, the eye-hook/screw-hook/anchor bolt is a piece of iron? And what is to be made of Kaiser’s earlier claim that the Number 3 was a jagged cut? What is to be made of his claim that he didn’t know when it was made? If he did know when the slogan was made…then Ricky’s first “confession” about the slogan omitted the Number 3. One explanation for this suggests itself. The words “I am a prostitute” were carved onto the body of Gertrude Wright. Her body was also covered in sores, and various types of wounds and trauma. When the body was found and examined, the “jagged cut” was not recognized as having the shape of a Number 3. It just looked like the other cuts and cutting wounds found on the body. But then the “tattooing” on Sylvia mentioned by Kebel was recognized as a Number 3, and with that in mind, when the body of Gertrude Wright was re-examined, the eye did something that was touched upon in the Devil Made Me Do It serial essay…the human mind seeks order from chaos; and when it doesn’t find it, it makes it. This was seen with the Face on Mars, and in the discussion of the dramatic and comic playing of Judas Priest songs backwards in court after telling the jury, in advance, what they would hear. And so they heard it…order from the chaos. Having now perceived the tattooed Number 3 on Sylvia, which Ricky had made, they now decided that the jagged cut which had, moments before, been simply a jagged cut and so a Number 3 didn’t appear in the Gang of Boys Note, was now a Number 3…on the dead body of Gertrude Wright. So it was decided that Ricky made it…the tattoo was thrown out in favor of the “jagged cutting,” something which would confuse Dr. Ellis. Actually…no. I think Ellis’s inability to tell cuts from burns was the Pathetic Pathologist trying to provide himself with a way out should the body be exhumed and another pathologist examine it. One somewhat less pathetic. How does that work? He never said they were cuts…he never said they were burns…they could have been either and they could have been both, and that would be the truth…and thus Ellis’ testimony could be chalked up to incompetence, rather than lying. And so, as a result of the considerations discussed above, I make yet another emendation to my incoherent ramblings rambled thus far…Photo1Woman had a cut on her that resembled a Number 3…at least that’s my incoherent take on this matter. It wasn’t a Number 3, but it became one once the tattooing on Sylvia was made out to be a Number 3…which is only half right. Am I saying that I really think it was a Number 6 that appeared on Sylvia? No. Ricky insisted the mark he made on Sylvia was a Letter S. Ellis insisted it was a Number 3. Both were half right..and no, I’m not talking about a Number 6 or anything that a Letter S might be half of. The OM symbol has a Letter S and a Number 3 within itself. I think no one ever realized what the “mark” actually was, and even Sylvia, who asked Ricky to make it, didn’t know…it just looked cool. But now you see the Number 3, so now you see the Number 3. You discover that Ricky made the harmless Number 3 on Sylvia..so he must have made the very harmful, jagged cut Number 3 on…Gertrude Wright. And so I stand corrected; but no one’s perfect, and like Dr. Ellis, if I’m found out, I can always plead incompetence. There are plenty of people who would believe that.

Ricky don’t lose that number, it’s the only one you own

Sad indeed, but unfortunately true…well…as far as the once enigmatic, but indeed no longer so mysterious, as far as the Number 3 is concerned.