The Numbers Game: The Enigmatic Number 3- Part 1
Many numbers are important in the Likens Saga. None more so than the number 3. Why? Because Dr. Ellis found it branded on the chest of the girl who lay on his autopsy table. There is no question about this. Kebel claims that it was present on the girl he examined in the upper back bedroom of Gertrude’s house. That person was Sylvia Likens, the real Sylvia Likens. Were they the same person? The number 3 is an important indicator of the answer to that question. Essentially, it is pivotal in demonstrating that Kebel and Ellis looked at two different bodies. The number is also instrumental in destroying the story told about how the mark was made, finally dispatching the stupid eye-hook.
On the point as to whether Kebel and Ellis saw the same girl, the best starting point is a description of the number 3 that Dr. Ellis saw:
"Present in the midline of the abdomen, between it - this is essentially the level of the umbilicus or belly button - between it and the end of the sternum, in this area was another numeral, this being a 3, which was the 4 I described earlier was scratched. This is what I would call a block 3. It had the height of eight centimeters, which is approximately three and a fourth inches and a total width of one inch."
Notice in passing, at least for the moment, that there were actually two numbers found on the body; a number 4 that had been scratched into the shoulder. Scratched? Sounds like the way Ricky said he cut the slogan into Sylvia’s abdomen. Strange, he didn’t mention a number 4. But! The brand! Based on the dimensions that Ellis provided, I have produced a number 3 that may approximate it:
It should be noted that the dimensions given by Ellis result in a very distorted number 3. A very strange number 3. One is used to seeing a far more circular number 3. In fact, one might wonder whether the object that made it really was something representing a number 3. Perhaps it suggested the number 3 to someone. Perhaps the implement used to make it was actually turned sideways. Still, Kebel said that he saw it too; saw it on the body in Gertrude’s back bedroom This is what he said:
A. There is a 3 and this looked as though it had been branded on there, it looked as though an object was hot when it was put up against the skin - a burn.
Q. How big was the brand, the size of it?
A. I'd say four inches high and perhaps two and a half inches wide.
Now I’ll produce a number 3 as described by Kebel, and put it next to the number 3 described by Ellis:
I could say “wow”, but that would be an understatement. Here are the dimensions as stated by both Kebel and Ellis:
Height Width
Kebel 4 inches 2 ½ inches
Ellis 3 ¼ inches 1 inch
One is more than justified in wondering how could Kebel and Ellis could have been looking at the same body. Of course, Kebel has given dimensions that produce what we’re used to seeing with a number 3, i.e. round, as opposed to the oval shape indicated by Ellis’ dimensions. Why are Kebel’s dimensions so different? I think that that has a fairly straightforward answer. The same will become apparent in the discussion of the slogan. The same is true of the 150 punctate cigarette burns Kebel said he saw. I think the number he was actually searching his memory for was 15 burns. When Kebel was asked to provide numbers or dimensions of something, and he didn’t know the right answer, or was having difficulty remembering it, he exaggerated. Grossly exaggerated. This will also be discussed in relation to the slogan. But his tendency didn’t just apply to numbers and dimensions. Notice this rather inappropriate exaggeration when being quizzed by the girl’s apparent state of malnourishment:
Q. Then would it be your answer a person suffering from malnutrition has as much resistance to shock as a person who is not?
A. No. You are talking about this individual case?
Q. Yes.
A. External evidence of starvation was not in the extreme. She did not look like somebody from a concentration camp.
A concentration camp? I would venture to say that for most people, this is not only a ridiculous exaggeration, but it is highly offensive as well. But as far as exaggeration and a flare for the unprofessional goes:
A. You must recall, Mr. Erbecker, at the time I saw the body I had no way of connecting any of the defendants with what I saw. As a matter of when I left the house that night, I still had no idea anybody in this courtroom would be here today accused of this crime. Based on what I saw, I thought it was the work of a madman.
A madman? Really? I venture to guess that if you consult any of hundreds of books on psychology, psychiatry, medicine, forensics, etc., you will never find "madman" as a diagnosis. Kebel has a distinct ability to discredit himself. As for Gertrude being a madman...this will discussed further shortly.
Kebel saw the 3. But it wasn’t on Sylvia Likens. I don’t think he saw the body Ellis autopsied. I think Kebel was shown pictures of the body. But! As concerns the number 3, along with the slogan, I think he was shown a close-up of it. Why? Because if he had seen the whole body, or even just the upper and lower torso, then he would not have given the dimensions he did. The problem with a close-up is that the eye is lacking visual cues that would enable one to give a more accurate assessment of its size. It was a close-up. But if Ellis never discussed the dimensions of the number, and Kebel never saw it on the body or saw only a close-up, then he was taken by surprise when he was asked to state the dimensions of what he saw. Of course, Ellis measured the size of it. Kebel would have done the same if it was present on the body he saw. Sylvia Likens’ body. He didn’t measure it, because it wasn’t there. And he wasn’t prepared for the question as he sat on the stand in court. One is therefore tempted to conclude that Sylvia Likens’ did not have a number 3 branded on her chest. One is also very much justified in maintaining that Photo 1 Girl did have a number 3 branded on her chest. If so, there were two different bodies, two different girls. But these two girls were turned into the same girl, producing a composite Sylvia Likens, if you will. Nonetheless, although Photo 1 Girl’s very much there, and we know exactly what she looked like from Photo 1, she disappeared. She became invisible. If there is any truth in any of this, and perhaps there isn’t any, what happened to Sylvia Likens was a horrible thing. So too what happened to Photo 1 Girl.
Another very important issue is raised by Ellis’ number 3. It isn’t round. Kebel’s number 3 is at least round. Now, to rule out the possibility that it is the width of the line itself, I tried different possibilities:
So as the thickness of the line increases, the more distorted it becomes. Simply put, the dimensions provided by Ellis do not allow for a round number 3. And herein lies the problem with the eye-hook. Like most eye-hooks, the end is round. This is the picture of the eye-hook found in the sink:
Now, one can not state absolutely what the dimensions based on the photo actually are. But based on the hook end relative to the drain, one can tell is rather small. And! It is circular.
However, there is sufficient information to extrapolate, and it must be acknowledged dimensions can have been different in 1965, although I don’t suppose they would have been too different if plumbing has always been as standardized as it is now, the pipe for the drain of a utility sink, also called a laundry sink, and it seems pretty certain that the two sinks in Gertrude’s basement were laundry sinks, is 2 inches in diameter. The 2 inches in the diameter of the lowest part of the sunken drain, and not the exterior ring of the drain. The common size for a kitchen sink is 1 ½ inches. One can tell by looking at the inner part of the drain, that the circular end of the eye hook is smaller than 2 inches. With a circular end, and seeing how you could hypothetically make a number 3, which would look just short of a number 8, by making a top mark on one go, and then a bottom mark on the second go, you would essentially be putting one circle on top of another. So, if
- The circular end of the eye-hook is 2 inches in diameter, making it the diameter of pipe commonly used today for the drain pipe in a laundry sink, then the dimensions of the figure made by putting the one circle on top of the other circle is 4 inches tall x 4 inches wide. Notice how close these dimensions are to Kebel’s dimensions:
- 4 inches tall x 2 inches wide: Hypothetical dimensions from drain pipe diameter
- 4 inches x 2 ½ inches: Kebel’s dimensions
So Kebel’s dimensions are very close to the diameter of the drain pipe for a modern laundry sink. If he had seen the picture, then he could have approximated the size of the drain, and given his dimensions for the diameter of the circular end of the eye-hook based on that, knowing that since the end of the eye-hook is a circle, the dimensions should be based on the height being twice the width. So here he may have had the benefit of using the drain pipe of the sink on which to base his estimate. However, his numbers are too big.
Ellis is a different situation. Kebel was asked the size of the number 3 he said he saw. He was not asked what he thought may have made it. He was not shown State’s Exhibit No. 11. Unlike Ellis, Kebel specifically identified the number as a result of the flesh being branded, i.e. a burn. Ellis waffled on this point, being unwilling to state whether the mark was the result of a hot item, or a sharp item. It was noted earlier that it is hard to believe that Ellis couldn’t tell the difference between a cut and a burn, and it is telling that Kebel was able to tell the difference. However, the most important point in relation to Ellis’ dimensions are that a circular object could not have made the mark. I think the diameter of the circular end of the eye-hook is notably less than that of the sink. Perhaps by as much as half. But note that if Ellis’ width is correct, i.e. 1 inch, then the brand would have been 2 inches tall, based on the fact that the end of the eye-hook is a circle. He said the mark was 3 ¼ inches tall. Unlike Kebel, Ellis was handed State’s Exhibit No. 11. So he held it in his hand. I think the dimensions he gave, unlike Kebel’s dimensions which could have resulted by seeing the picture of the basement sink, are the correct dimensions. So he should have realized that the dimensions he gave produced, not two circles one on top of the other, but two ovals. So what happened? It is possible that Kebel did not know the dimensions of the number 3 that he saw in pictures of the body he was shown. But he had also seen the picture with the eye-hook in the sink, and knowing that two circles on top of one another will make a mark that is twice as tall as it is wide, he went by an estimate that the circumference of the drain in the basement sink was 2 inches. If he reckoned that the circular end of the eye-hook was approximately the size of the drain circumference, you get pretty close to the dimensions Kebel gave. The problem is that the dimensions are too big relative to Ellis’ dimensions, and are based on what I think is too large of a circumference for the round end of the eye-hook relative to the drain in the sink. The ultimate problem is that the number 3 wasn’t on the body of the girl he examined in Gertrude’s house. As for Ellis…he held the eye-hook. He stated that the brand could have been made with it. If the circular end was 1 inch in diameter, which I think is the correct diameter of the end of the eye-hook, then the brand on the body should be 2 inches tall. He gave that dimension as 3 ¼ inches tall. So he had to have known that the eye-hook couldn’t have made it. But! If I were on the jury, and I was shown the eye-hook, I could have guessed the approximate diameter by looking at it. That would be relatively straightforward. But as to the height of the brand mark Ellis described..being able to judge whether the eye-hook could have made the mark based on it’s stated height, I would have to know that two circles on top of one another produce a mark that is twice as high as it is wide, and then plug in the 1 inch width and do the math, or try to imagine the two circles put on top of one another in my mind. I must admit that I might not have done either. If a juror could agree about the diameter of the round end of the eye-hook was an inch, and that the width of the brand mark described by Ellis was also an inch, he might have left it at that. That means that unless someone pointed out the discrepancy between the height of the brand mark and the height of two circles with one inch diameters put on top of one another, our juror might well is it.
As noted above, Ellis’ dimensions indicate that the object used to make the brand was oval shaped. This was what Ellis said about the eye-hook:
Q. Doctor, I will hand you what has been marked State's Exhibit No. 11. You have testified that below the sternum or breast bone you found there the figure 3 and I will ask you if you will examine State's Exhibit No. 11 and tell this jury whether or not, if the end of that particular exhibit were heated and applied to the body two different times - and I am speaking of the hooked end, the round end, whether or not it could have caused the numeral 3 that appears on her lower chest?
A. Yes, sir, I feel it could.
So! The attorney actually calls attention to the fact that end of the eye-hook is ROUND. And:
Q. Now, in your autopsy report on page 3, you say a figure is present in the midline between the umbilicus and the xiphoid process. Then you say "This is an apparent numeral 3 which height of 8 cms, or 3 1/4 inches and has a total width of one inch over the lower abdomen". Now from your examination of this body and this figure that purports to be a figure 3, can you tell the court and jury what kind of instrument was used to make that letter 3? If you can?
A. At the time of the autopsy, I felt it was probably done by either a hot or sharp pointed object. However, I have seen, since being in this courtroom, another object which could very easily have formed this, if it was hot.
Q. The eye screw shown to you?
A. Yes, sir.
What Ellis says about the eye-hook being "hot", there is a possible concern with that. He stated that he wasn't sure if the mark is a brand, i.e. made by a hot object, or a cut, made by a sharp object. If he is willing to say that the eye-hook could make the mark if it was hot, but he wasn't sure that a hot object necessarily made it, then it would be equally possible that the mark was a cut, and it is was made with a sharp object, then the eye-hook couldn't have done it. In fact, based on Ellis' waffling on this point, he has actually created a situation in which the odds are 50% against the eye-hook having made the mark. How is that? Well, he gave us two options:
- A hot object (burn)
- A sharp object (cut)
So! Hypothetical testimony time!
Q. So Dr. Ellis, you stated that the number 3 found on the deceased's torso, State's Exhibit No. 11 could have made that mark?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. Do you feel that if the end of the object were heated and placed against the skin in a certain way that the mark could have been made with that implement?
A. Yes, I do.
Q. Is it true that the mark would then be the result of a burn?
A. Yes, indeed.
Q. Would you say that State's Exhibit No. 11 was a sharp object? One that could be use to cut a mark onto the skin?
A. No, I wouldn't.
Q. Did you not indicate that the mark on the body could have been made with a sharp object?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. So you're not sure? That was your testimony?
A. Well, yes.
Q. If the mark on the body is not the result of a hot object, and as you have testified, could have been made by a sharp object, than the eye-hook couldn't have made it..would that be true?
A. I suppose.
Q. So there is an equal chance that the eye-hook did not make the mark on the body?
Attorney: I object your honor!
The Court: Sustained
Q. I have no more questions, your honor.
The eye-hook lying in the sink is round, and I am at a loss as to how it could have made the number 3 given the dimensions provided by Ellis. One thing that seems absolutely clear is the intentional misrepresentation of the object designated “State’s Exhibit No. 11”. In Ellis’ testimony it is described correctly, but wrongly held out as something that could have made the number 3. The actual exhibit is officially introduced when Jenny testifies. The item represented as State’s Exhibit No. 11 was falsely labeled, as will be discussed shortly. Harmon testified that he found 2 separate items in the basement, a furnace poker, and an eye-hook in the sink. The labeling of the exhibit and the way the object was handled during the trial would seek to equate the two objects for a very important reason. The eye-hook couldn’t possibly have made the brand. But the one who gave the dimensions that prove this conclusively, i.e. Ellis, is the one, from the outset, who said that the eye-hook could have, despite the dimensions. So Ellis, not Harmon, is the one who sets the whole thing in motion.
Notice too how Ellis waffles. He said that the object used to make the mark was either hot, or sharp. So he is saying that he doesn’t know. The eye-hook isn’t sharp. And! How is it that the pathologist is unable to distinguish between a wound made by cutting, i.e. with a sharp object, and a wound made by branding, i.e. with a hot object? Believing that Ellis was a competent medical examiner, it is impossible to believe that he couldn’t tell the difference between a cut and a burn. So taking what he said at face value, one might be left concluding that anyone with a cursory understanding of basic first aid would have given a better opinion. What about the poker? It was a furnace poker, and appears in a list of the things Paul Harmon removed from the basement:
Q. A crowbar?
A. It was a furnace poker, about the same thing as a crowbar. They had a coal furnace.
Q. Did you get one screw hook?
A. I did.
So Harmon removed both items from the basement. Kaiser referred to Johnny marking Sylvia with a “hot poker”. He must be thinking of the item that looked like a crowbar. Where did he get the idea that the branding was done with a poker? The eye-hook from the basement was entered into evidence as State’s Exhibit 11, but was described as an “iron poker”. The actual poker to which Harmon refers was not produced as a state’s exhibit. One can surmise why that was; i.e. the lack of any certain idea as to what implement would have the brand visible on Photo 1 Girl. But the story would become that it was present on Sylvia, and had been made by something in Gertrude’s house. So the search was on. Kaiser:
"Mrs. Wright knew that her son Johnny had marked Sylvia with a hot poker"
And:
…she knew that the kids had been mistreating Sylvia and before Hobbs marked Sylvia with a needle…
And herein we have another major problem with the canonical story. Kaiser referred to the poker, and not the eye-hook, because, quite possibly, Jenny Likens told him that Sylvia was branded with the poker. That becomes clear from her testimony (see below). A major problem emerged during the trial. State’s Exhibit 11 was the eye-hook, but it was described as an “iron poker.” Harmon makes it clear that the poker and the eye-hook were two separate things. It’s as if someone was trying obscure this fact; as if someone recognized the problem that existed if the two items remained separate items. How is that? They started out with the poker, then realized it could theoretically make the brand, but not in reality. Studying the eye-hook, it was noted that it could theoretically and in reality make something like a number 3, but then, when Ellis’ dimensions were known, couldn’t make the brand in reality. But you can’t go back to the poker, so the two items were merged together; maybe something like, the eye-hook couldn’t have made it in reality, but the poker theoretically could. Perhaps “poker” and “eye-hook” used as synonyms could divert attention away from the fact that the item shown the jury, i.e. the eye-hook, would easily look like a number 3 could be made with it, but really couldn’t given Ellis’ dimensions. But if the item is also described as a poker, then the fact that the poker would allow for greater flexibility in making potential marks on the skin would prevent the conclusion that “State’s Exhibit No. 11” couldn’t possibly be the right item.
I think that the original part of the canonical story, i.e. Johnny in the basement with the poker, and Ricky in the kitchen with the needle, resulted because Jenny had actually told Kaiser that it was the poker, and not the eye-hook, that had been used to make the brand. The original canonical story was going to maintain that the brand was made with the furnace poker, and that Johnny was to blame. That changed when it was realized that the furnace poker couldn’t have made the brand. Then it was replaced with the eye-hook because when you look at it, you can see how, without further analysis, it could be used to make a number 3. Then Johnny was replaced with Ricky for the reasons discussed below. The problem was, and I think no one foresaw this, the dimensions of the mark on the body would indicate that the eye-hook couldn’t have made the brand. In order to displace the poker, it was sort of merged into the eye-hook, and this was facilitated by the court, since the eye-hook was displayed as Exhibit 11, but described as an iron poker:
THE COURT: Show Exhibit No. 11 in evidence.
WHEREUPON STATE'S EXHIBIT NO. 11 (being an iron poker) WAS ADMITTED IN EVIDENCE,
AND MADE A PART OF THIS RECORD AS FOLLOWS, TO-WIT:
STATE'S EXHIBIT NO. 11 FILED SEPARATELY.
The above presentation of this exhibit appears in the testimony of…you guessed it…Jenny Likens. And in her testimony, she continually refers to this item as a poker. In fact, she will be corrected by one of the attorneys, and she will actually correct him in return, as she insists on calling the item an iron poker. 7 of 11 uses of the word “poker” occur when the prosecution was examining Jenny. Jenny was not a defendant; she was a witness for the prosecution.
Q. And what was said at this time, if anything?
A. I think Randy Lepper knocked on the door so Gertrude said "Take her to the basement" and they rushed her to the basement.
Q. Who went to the basement with her?
A. Ricky and me and I can't think whether Shirley or Marie went.
Q. What happened in the basement, if anything?
A. Ricky took an iron poker and Shirley or Marie took a piece of paper - first she started striking matches to heat the poker but it did not get hot enough. Then she lit a paper in the furnace to heat the poker.
Q. Jenny, I will hand you what has been marked State's Exhibit No. 11 for identification purposes and ask you if you have seen that before?
A. Yes, I have.
Q. Is this the poker about which you have just testified?
A. Yes, it is.
Q. What did they do with the poker, Jenny?
A. Branded the figure 3 on Sylvia's stomach - anyway I don't know - it was close to her chest, I guess.
Notice in the above quote that the prosecutor refers to the implement as State’s Exhibit No. 11 and asks Jenny to confirm that it is a poker. And:
Q. What part of the poker did they use on Sylvia's stomach?
A. This part right here.
Q. Describe it.
A. I don't know. They would hold it up to her. They were trying to make an S on her and it turned out to be a 3.
In fact, during her testimony the poker was displayed, and Jenny continued to identify it as the thing used to make the brand:
Q. Who held the poker?
A. Richard Hobbs.
Q. And how was it heated?
A. First they started a match.
Q. Who do you mean by "they"?
A. I can't remember, Shirley or Marie.
Can’t remember? Can’t remember? Maybe it would be better to say: “I can’t remember which kid I’m supposed to say did it.” That’s not too surprising. After all, a substantial argument would appear in subsequent testimony as to whether Shirley and/or Marie were in the basement, and when.
Q. Was anything else used on her stomach other than the needle and the poker?
A. Not that I can remember.
4 of 11 uses of the word “poker” appear with attorney Nedeff, who represented Ricky. The word “iron”, which is used extensively in Marie’s testimony, appears only once with Nedeff. I have no doubt that “iron” as a noun used for State’s Exhibit No. 11 is meant to do the same thing as using the word “poker”, and the implement was officially stated to be an “iron poker”. More from Jenny:
A. Then I said, "No" and gave it back to him. I said, "I ain't going to burn her". Someone got a piece of paper out of the furnace and at first they tried with matches. They did not think it was hot enough and they got a piece of paper and burned it and got the poker hot and threw it in the sink in the basement.
And:
Q. He never did burn her with the poker?
A. Yes, he did.
Further:
Q. Did you say Shirley and Marie heated the iron?
Now this exchange is particularly telling. The attorney involved is Nedeff:
Q. He never did burn her with the poker?
A. Yes, he did.
Q. Where at?
A. Up above her stomach.
Q. What kind of mark did it leave?
A. It made a figure 3.
Q. Was that with the I-hook?
A. I am talking about the iron poker.
So! Ricky’s attorney has quite rightly attempted to correct the terminology. After all, State’s Exhibit No. 11, despite the intentional misrepresentation of it when described as evidence, is an eye-hook, and not an iron poker. Jenny knows that, but insists that the number 3 was not made with an eye-hook, but with an iron poker. I see no way around the conclusion that the “poker” part of the original canonical story came from Jenny, and a concerted effort was made during her testimony to divert the court’s attention away from the “eye-hook”, and toward the “poker”. Nedeff made one more attempt:
Q. Now, Ricky Hobbs, all he did was scratch the words on, did he?
A. He put the figure on.
Q. That was burned on with a hot I-screw? Those words he just scratched the remaining words?
A. With a hot needle.
Q. With a hot needle?
A. Yes.
Now I can’t say exactly what Nedeff was doing in this last exchange. For my part, if the witness would agree that the I-Screw (eye-hook) was used to put the slogan on the girl’s stomach, it would undermine the claim that Ricky did it, since it would be a sewing needle that was held out to the jury as the item responsible for the slogan, and not the eye-hook. As for Nedeff specifying that the brand was made by an “eye-hook”, see below.
Let’s move on to Marie. She was stuck having to say that she was in the basement at the time of the branding. Actually, her story would be that she was down there as it was about to get underway, but left. Marie’s story would change this way and that way as she became more and more confused about what she was supposed to say. But it is important to notice that the deception that was carried on during Jenny’s testimony continued with Marie. What is that? The overlaying of the eye-hook and the iron furnace poker. In this case, the attorney will choose to use the word “iron”, thereby hearkening back to the description of State’s Exhibit 11 as an “iron poker”. The word “iron” is used 32 times in the questioning involving Marie. In one instance it was used as a contrast with “steel” by Marie, referring to the type of metal. The stats as they pertain to the remaining 31 instances, where it is used as a noun for the object that made the brand, are as follows: 24 times with New; 5 times with Rice; and 2 times with Bowman. It is highly significant that in all 31 instances except 1, it is the attorney, not Marie, who uses the word “iron”. In one instance, she uses the expression “iron thing”. It is important to note this:
Q. I want to show you this, State's Exhibit No. 11. I want you to look at it. Have you see it before?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. What is it?
A. A hook.
Q. Did you ever see that heated up?
A. No, sir.
Q. Did you ever see anyone put that to the paper you said Paula lit?
A. No, sir.
Q. Where did you see that iron?
A. Downstairs on - in the basement, hanging up on a nail.
I thought that this was somewhat despicable. New asks Marie to state what type of object State’s Exhibit No. 11 is, and she correctly identified as a “hook”. Otherwise, there are no other references to “hook” or “screw” in her testimony. So! Despite all the misrepresentations made about the eye-hook, Marie, when actually asked to state what she thinks the implement is, as opposed to having attorneys throw the word “iron” at her, gets it right. Way to go, Marie! I knew there was a reason I liked her! Then, to maintain the shameful pattern, the attorney does this:
Q. They were going to heat the iron marked State's Exhibit No. 11, this iron, is that what you are saying, she was going to heat it?A. Yes, sir.
Indeed! How frustrated the attorney must have been! In his attempt to lead or manipulate, which ever word you choose, an 11 year old girl, he got bested by her! So he attempts to shift the terminology away from “hook” back to “iron”. The only time Marie would use the word “iron” was an adjective. Interestingly, the word “poker” is not used anywhere in Marie’s testimony.
It is worth noting that the 10 year old witness, i.e. Shirley, really said something interesting. Actually, she said a lot of interesting things. In her testimony, the words “poker”; “iron”; “hook”; “eye-hook”; “screw” are never used. But I found this fascinating:
Q. Who put the S mark on Sylvia?
A. I am not sure.
Q. Were you there when it happened?
A. It was cold, that is all I knew.
Q. What?
A. It was just cold, that steel thing.
Marie acknowledged that she was familiar with the “hook”, which term she used to describe State’s Exhibit No. 11, and said that she had seen it hanging on a nail. Shirley is familiar with it too. In her case, she states that it was “cold”. And! She avoids the word “iron” altogether, preferring “steel”. Of course, it is highly unlikely that the eye-hook was made out of iron. The adjective “steel” is probably dead on. Maybe Shirley worked part time at the local hardware store! Probably not. Ricky will drag Shirley into the middle of the whole branding event, claiming that she did half of it. This is the Problem with Confessions. What is? A person making a false confession has several different devices that can be used to signal to listeners or readers that his confession is false. An earlier essay, one that dealt with John, sought to identify details that were not consistent with what was known about the specific facets of the case. Someone paying attention should notice that. Ricky uses another device. I could call this “details of absurdity”. This means that the person making a false confession throws in details that are so absurd that any rational, reasonable person with anything approaching a critical, and for that matter, open, mind will step back and say: “that’s absurd.” How many characters Ricky could have chosen! Johnny, Paula, Marie, maybe have Coy stop by or have Randy arrive just a little earlier, and then there’s….Gertie! He doesn’t chose any of them. He chooses the 10 year old girl as his dastardly assistant! Anyone who can take that in the least bit serious could probably use….well, something. Ricky won’t take the whole blame. For Ricky, someone else has to take the blame with him. In the case of the slogan, two share the blame with him. The first is the obvious choice, the arch-villain, the one who appears to know about the gang of five but denies it to the police. The fact that she didn’t know about them and never wrote the Gang of Boys note…Who is the other? Sylvia herself. The girl who stands and takes it, never fights back, never complains, never…walks out the front door. “Silent, Suffering Sylvia” is one of the main characters of the canonical story. The same approach to blame occurs with the branding; Ricky shares the blame with two others. The first, the arch-villain…no wait, the 10 year old girl. And then “Silent, Suffering Sylvia”. If Ricky had chosen Gertrude, then we wouldn’t have a “detail of absurdity” to know that he is making a false confession. I noticed, Ricky. If Shirley were involved, I would think that she would know that you can’t brand somebody with a cold piece of metal. Maybe all the more so if the little girl can actually identify the metal used to make an eye-hook. Still, if you ask a 10 year old, then you get the answer you deserve. Perhaps the attorney should have refrained from asking the question, and then he could have declared: “no I never!”
We’ll let Shirley go and play; well, less brutal and far less absurd, games. Ricky’s testimony is even more telling. When he was being examined by his attorney (Nedeff), the word “eye-hook” was used 6 times. The terms “iron”, “poker” and Exhibit No. 11 were never used. It is hard to be certain, but what this pattern may suggest is that an attempt was being made to break the idea that: Exhibit No. 11 = “poker”, or more often, “iron”. This would illustrate that State’s Exhibit No. 11 was incorrectly described when presented as evidence. This would hearken back to the original story that Johnny was responsible for the branding, using the furnace poker, and that Ricky did not carry out the branding. At least when the canonical story was first being constructed. There is no excuse for describing State’s Exhibit No. 11 as an “iron poker”, and the careful use of “eye-hook” may be intended to highlight just that. Well done, sir!
When New, the prosecutor, was asking Ricky questions, the term eye-hook was completely avoided. Instead, the term “iron” was used 15 times, poker was used 2 times, and all 5 occurrences of “State’s Exhibit No. 11/Exhibit No. 11 occur when he was asking the questions. The term “screw-hook” was used once. It seems possible that New’s word choice was meant to undo what Nedeff was attempting to achieve. His preference for “iron” hearkens back to the description of State’s Exhibit No. 11, which was really an eye-hook, not an “iron poker”. The one occurrence of “screw-hook” was caused by the way Ricky answered one of New’s questions. New was using the expression “State’s Exhibit No. 11” to avoid using “eye-hook”, and perhaps then used “iron” to reestablish the trend of equating the two implements. On “screw-hook”:
Q. How soon did she find something?
A. I don't recall exactly.
Q. She found State's Exhibit No. 11, is that your testimony?
A. Yes, sir, she found two things.
Q. What else did she find besides Exhibit No. 11?
A. It was a long poker.
Q. How long was it?
A. Three or four feet.
Q. Did she bring that to you also?
A. She showed it to me. She did not bring it to me.
Q. What did you say?
A. I selected this.
Q. You selected this, so it was your choice to use State's Exhibit No. 11 to brand her with?
So New is using State’s Exhibit No. 11 instead of “eye-hook” because State’s Exhibit No. 11 was described, incorrectly, as an “iron poker”. New wants that incorrect description to be the one that the jury remembers. If Ricky had answered the original question differently (my hypothetical construct):
Q. She found State's Exhibit No. 11, is that your testimony?
A. Yes, sir.
If this is how the exchange occurred, the word poker may not have been used. The effect of Ricky’s answer was to call into question the validity of the description of State’s Exhibit No. 11, which was not an “iron poker”, but rather an eye-hook. This is what Nedeff may have been seeking to do, and his questioning preceded that of New. Now, Ricky having reminded the court that the poker and the eye-hook (State’s Exhibt No. 11) are two different things, New will do something interesting:
Q. While - neither of you said anything, while Shirley went upstairs?
A. I don't recall.
Q. Had she been able to hear your conversation with Shirley that you were about to brand her with a hot poker or screwhook?
A. I imagine.
What I think New has done is to attempt to reestablish the equating of the “poker” and the item designated as State’s Exhibit No. 11, by presenting “hot poker” as a synonym of “screw-hook”. The latter term appears only here in Ricky’s testimony, and I think New, who sought to reestablish the idea that the two implements were synonymous, nonetheless wanted to avoid using the correct term, the term used by Nedeff; i.e. “eye-hook”. New’s use of “State’s Exhibit No. 11” when referring directly to the implement in the picture is wrong, and allows him to avoid using the term “eye-hook”, while he continues to use the word “iron”. Erbecker, who was the last attorney to ask questions of Ricky, avoids the term “iron” altogether. However, 4 of 6 occurrences of the word “poker” are to be found in his questioning. The term “eye-hook” appears twice, although a reading of the material indicates that it was Ricky who suddenly used the term “eye-hook”. Then Erbecker equated it with “poker”:
Q. Whose idea was it to get the long poker?
A. Excuse me?
Q. Whose idea was it to get the long poker you testified about?
A. Long poker - you mean the eyehook?
Q. Yes, did you say the other day there was a long poker, three or four feet long?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Whose idea was that?
A. I don't recall.
Q. You selected something else, did you?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. What was that?
A. An eyehook.
Way to go Ricky! I knew there was a reason I like him! Put the lawyer in his place! The “long poker” was referred to in New’s examination. This was the point at which Ricky distinguished between “State’s Exhibit No. 11” and the other implement. Erbecker, who doesn’t use the word “iron”, seems to want to connect Ricky directly with the furnace poker. Ricky corrects him on this point. So Erbecker also seeks to avoid the word “eye-hook”. I think this would also reestablish the equating of the incorrectly described State’s Exhibit No. 11 with the furnace poker. It is Nedeff who wants to break this pattern, and to refer only to the eye-hook.
The specific references to the eye-hook as opposed to the “iron” or “poker” is of supreme importance. I can’t say exactly where Nedeff was going, but I would make the following argument in court, and do make it here. The difference between the eye-hook and the furnace poker is important when read in light of what Ellis testified in regards to the dimensions of the number 3 found on Photo 1 Girl. The implement described as a furnace poker, which in the examination of Paul Harmon was actually called, mistakenly, a crowbar, was one that could have been used without the shape-constraints presented by the eye-hook. What does that mean? The dimensions of the number 3 as stated by Ellis show conclusively that the eye-hook can’t possibly have been used to make the numeral. One might argue theoretically that an object like the poker, which looked like a crowbar, could have been heated in the furnace and then a number 3 burnt onto Sylvia’s skin by someone attempting to make it as if they were using a felt-tip marker. This would indicate that New and Erbecker obviated the conclusion that, based on the fact that the actual poker had been discarded and replaced with the eye-hook, Ricky could not have done what he accused of doing. Another conclusion would follow from that. What? Johnny was dropped as the one responsible for the branding. So Ricky couldn’t have done it with State’s Exhibit No. 11, which was an EYE-HOOK! And! The poker was not in evidence, so there would be no doubt that the branding could not have taken place in Gertrude’s house. Maybe all one needs is a teaspoon and an open mind.
The conclusion to be reached as to how the terminology was used during the questioning of Ricky by Nedeff, New, and Erbecker, is that an attempt was being made to fool the jury. If the jury were fully aware that the EYE-HOOK shown as State’s Exhibit No. 11 was not an iron poker as it was described, and that the actual furnace poker found by Paul Harmon was not used in the branding story, then Ricky, and I omit Shirley, could not have done it. A sleight of hand producing a twist of fate? At any rate, these consideration would prove that Ricky was innocent. Of the branding. When the poker was an item of importance, it was so with Kaiser, who stated the opinion that Ricky was responsible for the slogan, but Johnny was responsible for the branding. I think that Johnny was dropped for the following reason. It was determined that the markings on the body, i.e. those that weren’t just wounds or injuries, those that represented putting words and a number on the body, must go together; i.e. they must have been done at the same time. That would be the view of the witnesses, except for Marie, who broke the connection, and put the two events on two different days. However, she did this as part of her constantly changing and meandering testimony that resulted from the attorney accusing her of lying, or pointing out the impossibility of her answers. The slogan and the number were desecrations of the living Sylvia, and as such were deemed as having to have been done at the same time. This meant that Ricky or Johnny would have to be blamed for both. The connection between Johnny and the branding was broken when the “hot poker”, which Jenny and Kaiser associated with Johnny, was set aside in favor of the eye-hook. As a result, Johnny was dropped and Ricky was stuck with both. Kebel and Ellis had conferred on what was found on the body. For Ellis, that was Photo 1 Girl. For Kebel, that was Sylvia Likens. The number 3 did not appear on Sylvia Likens. Kebel saw pictures, but not photos that showed enough of the body to allow him to give, off the cuff, the correct dimensions of the number. So the dimensions he gave were so different from those that Ellis gave that the number 3 took on a different form. When asked, I think he visualized the implement that would be presented to the jury as responsible for making the brand, and thus gave dimensions that result in a rounded number 3, consistent with the end of an eye-hook. Ellis’ dimensions are the correct ones. I do not believe that Kebel saw the number 3 on Sylvia Likens. One is tempted to believe that Ellis must have known that the eye-hook couldn’t have made a number 3 with the dimensions he gave. The eye-hook was entered into evidence falsely, and intentionally so, as an “iron poker”. New and Erbecker, the possible implication of their phraseology that is, participated in maintaining this so as to avoid the conclusion being reached that the eye-hook couldn’t have made the number. One might also conclude that Jenny and Kaiser originated the story that Ricky did the slogan and Johnny did the branding. Harmon collected both items from the basement, which, whether he knew it or not, would facilitate the switching of the two implements, and then combining them into one.
There are of course other considerations that could be brought in. One might question the whole idea that you could heat the EYE-HOOK sufficiently to actually do the branding. That takes us to….details of absurdity! What.. did Shirley just come in the house to, bored of more traditional childhood games, leave more carnage and devastation in her wake? No, she never. How much paper do you have to burn in the sink to get the EYE-HOOK (which is not a poker or an iron!) hot enough to brand the girl? I can’t resist, although it is an annoying, albeit short, digression. Hypothetically, I could be the neighborhood boy saddled with having made the brand:
Q. So you heated State’s Exhibit No. 11 and branded the girl? You used the iron, is that correct?
A. No.
Q. No? The other witnesses testified that you did. Didn’t you hear their testimony?
A. Oh, I’ve been charged with making the brand. That’s true! But you have it wrong.
Q. Aren’t you attempting to mislead the jury?
A. No! You see, sir, State’s Exhibit No. 11 is actually an eye-hook. You mistakenly called it an “iron”. As another witness stated, it is actually made of steel. So your use of the term “iron”, and other uses of the word “poker”, are factually incorrect. You need to learn more about hardware. The item, i.e. the eye-hook, was falsely entered into evidence with the description: “iron poker”. I’m sure you remember, that at the beginning of all this, my friend Johnny was accused of the branding, and law enforcement said that he did it with the iron furnace poker. Fortunately for him, I subsequently got saddled with the branding instead of him, and Johnny’s poker became my eye-hook! And on that point, if at all possible, it would be helpful if Dr. Ellis could make a sketch of a number 3 using his dimensions, and then we can overlay it with the item known as State’s Exhibit No. 11, which is an eye-hook! If they don’t match, then I think the appropriate thing would be to drop the charge made against me.
Q. Your Honor! Would you please admonish the witness?
The Court: That answer will go out. Please limit yourself to answering the actual questions.
A. Sorry.
The Court: You may you repeat your question.
Q. Aren’t you attempting to mislead the jury?
A. No.
Dry paper, when you light it, flares up, and burns quickly. So potentially, a lot of paper may be needed, and I would think that as you keep burning paper and more paper and more paper to heat the EYE-HOOK, the metal shaft would probably be getting pretty hot as well. Wait. Another detail of absurdity, I think. There might a big metal thing, not the EYE-HOOK, that gets pretty hot. A big metal thing that you have to put coal in, and if your sister drops some coal on your foot in the wee hours of the morning it might just result in a shouting match that mom joins in and nosy neighbor lady hears. That would be a furnace..like the one in Gertrude’s basement! Now, I wonder if you can take a three-four foot long furnace poker, that by the way, is not an EYE-HOOK! And heat it in the basement sink by continually tossing in paper and lighting in on fire and…hold up! Let’s heat the furnace poker in the…furnace! Wow! That would seem to make a lot more sense than burning paper in the sink, which wasn’t there anyway until a child burned Gertrude’s notes down there. So! Standing next to the furnace, Ricky, and not to mention Shirley! chose to root around in the basement looking for an implement to brand Sylvia, then opted against the furnace poker, which originally was stuck in Johnny’s hands until someone realized that you couldn’t use it to make the number 3 anyway, chose the EYE-HOOK, and then opted against heating it in the…furnace. Oh, no! Hey Shirley! Put the giant iron poker back! We’ll use the…I refrain, it’s getting old, but not yet! EYE-HOOK to do the branding. What’s that, honey? Use the furnace to heat the…cold thing? Oh, no! That would not be a detail of absurdity! And that’s important..why do you think I brought you down here? We’ll just light lots of paper.
The implement that is not an IRON or a POKER or a jack hammer or a steel girder…or even a piece of copper tubing (sorry, Paul) is problematic. Really? Why? Well, think about the end. The end of the EYE-HOOK. Looking at it, one might think you could make a number 3. Well, not one like Ellis’ number 3. But you could make one like Kebel’s number 3…the one that is too big! But his number 3 was round, and one wonders that when asked for the dimensions of his ‘notably bigger than Ellis’ number 3’, he gave dimensions that made it round because he was thinking of State’s Exhibit No. 11, which is an….IRON FURNACE POKER! No, it’s not! Ok, but the end of the EYE-HOOK is circular. But! One could think of a branding iron, something used to mark cattle. If your ranch is the Lower Rivers Ranch, you brand your cattle so that if they are missing, and turn up at the Upper Rivers Ranch, you can prove that the cowpokes at the Upper Rivers Ranch are actually cattle-rustlers. So Lower Rivers Ranch has it’s own insignia. You get a branding iron made. What does it look like? What do you give your cowhands to use as they sit by the fire on a nice evening in the great outdoors? Obviously, you give them an EYE-HOOK. No, you give them…ok attorneys (except Nedeff), 3..2..1..an iron! Yes, a branding iron. It is a long piece of metal, like a furnace poker! Except Johnny isn’t one of your cowhands, and we got rid of the poker. Still, the implement has a long metal handle, and then a design located at the very end. It may be a small metal piece that is perpendicular to the handle. Or, the handle ends in the design piece. But think of the..SCREW-HOOK…Neither apply. Ah! And herein lies another problem with the canonical story. Another? Yes! It’s true, you can heat the circular end..I would use the furnace rather than burning the local Indianapolis newspaper in the sink..but that’s just me…and get it pretty hot. The handle’s not very long, so if you do heat it enough, then I think you’ll brand…your hand! That’s why the IRON FURNACE POKER is so long, it will take much longer for the heat to reach your hand as you poke around at the coal burning in the furnace. It’s designed for that. The eye-hook is designed to screw into a mount, and then you can hang things from it..like clothes lines..if you had to do your laundry in the basement. But think of it! When we brand the Lower Rivers Ranch cattle, we use a branding iron to sear the ranch’s insignia onto the poor cattle. That insignia has to very clear and distinct. If it’s not, it might not be so easy to make out, and I would hate for the cattle-rustlers at the Upper Rivers Ranch to get away with it. That’s the reason that a branding iron is the way it is. If we heat the eye-hook, the round part, the part that suggests a round number 3, is oriented straight with the shaft. That means, that once it is hot enough to burn our hands, oh, and brand our victim, a length of the shaft will have become just as hot as the circular end. So what? When the round part for the number 3 is set on the victim, the round part, the hook on the end, will sear into the skin. But so to will the part of the shaft that is also hot. The result will be something that will not look like a number 3. To actually do this, the eye-hook would have to be constructed so that the round hook at the end is perpendicular to the handle. That would be the only way to make a discernible number 3, as opposed to just a horrible burn. What we see in the sink, simply can’t do that.
Context is so important. Understanding a story within a context..that is what gives us the meaning. Unfortunately, it can also show us how absurd something is. The story of the slogan fits well in the context of the Gestalt. The words carved onto the girl, which are too numerous and too grammatically correct to be believable, nonetheless have a specific meaning that is linked to something that happened earlier. Never mind that that earlier thing had been resolved long ago, and never mind Ricky referring to “children” instead of “daughters”..oh, that’s right, we can’t make up our mind if it was Stephanie..or..Stephanie and Paula! But in and of itself, it functions well within the context. But no one can agree whether the brand is a number 3 or a letter S. And no one attempts to explain what either might have meant, except that Shirley, who I wish would stay out of the basement, tells us that “S” stands “Sylvia”. That’s cute. So what then do we have? Our context is now shot. Why? Well, having carried out an event laden with meaning and directly linked to something else within the Gestalt, the girl is then brought to the basement. And while there, it is suddenly determined that what was started in the kitchen isn’t really done yet. Something was left undone. Ricky and Shirley will fix that; they will make sure that the incomplete is completed. What wasn’t finished in the kitchen? A number 3! Wait, no it’s not! It’s a letter S! Oh, no…they tried to make an S, and messed it up and thus ended up making a number 3! No one knows the meaning of this mark, whether a number or a letter..and no, sweetie, it doesn’t stand for Sylvia. Ricky put so much work in scratching: “I am a prostitute and proud of it” (I leave off the final character, which is NOT an exclamation point! oops) on his victim, only to make a meaningless mark the meaning of which no one seems to know. It is clear that it is a number 3, and not a letter S. And I think it possible to guess what it means; what it signifies. For that, one must move on to Part 2.