I have to say that, and talking to myself of course, that I came across some information that causes me to emend part of what I put in a previous blog. I was wrong! And I’m thrilled to find out that I was! What I learned in school today…well, I wasn’t in school today, and what I learned isn’t taught in school anyway (I hope), makes the old specter in the road even more interesting. I learned about home-made tattoos. Now I have to say, and just to give myself some redemption, that the matter is confused in the trial transcripts by the use of the expression “brand” and “burn.” Yet saying that, the use of the word “brand” may have a rather interesting component to it. I speak, of course, about the slogan.

I return to Ricky Hobbs, and must state that I underestimated how accurate, almost lost in all the inaccuracies, he was in details about the slogan. When thinking about tattoos, my mind was stuck, and I wasn’t fully aware of it until now, in the world of professional tattoos. By that I mean tattoo artists in some type of tattoo parlor. But then there is the world of home-made, amateurish, tattoos. I discovered that there are 2 types:  “stick and poke” and “scratch.” I’m sure there are others, but these two types are fascinating, in light of things certain witnesses said.

Before proceeding, I have to point out that there is a possible subtlety in Ricky’s testimony. Maybe I’m seeing what’s not there, but it’s interesting nonetheless. In his testimony, the conversation in the kitchen turns to tattooing. He attributes this to Gertrude. She asks him, and Sylvia, if they know how tattoos are made. Both answer in the affirmative. Then Gertrude declares:  “You branded my children, so now I’m going to brand you.” Now I find this fascinating. She says “children,” not daughters. And she doesn’t mention the word “prostitute.” And we don’t know what was written on the piece of paper. For that matter, we don’t know what she wrote on Sylvia’s stomach. The most she did, was use the needle to make a letter “I” and part of an “A.” Then she felt sick, and stopped. Ricky took over. He took responsibility for the following: "I am a prostitute and proud of it." And when I read this again, I realized that the slogan actually says: “I’m a prostitute…” Strange. So technically, we don’t know what Gertrude was going to write, at least not completely. It had a letter “I” and part of an “A.”

However, I completely missed the subtlety of the story; namely “branded a prostitute” is actually an expression, used fairly commonly. It seems to be used in the sense of retaliating against a woman for some facet of her behaviour other than promiscuity. Stephanie recounted the very odd story that one day at school, a boy approached her and asked her how much she charged for her services. The boy reveals that Sylvia told him that Stephanie was a prostitute, and being exceptionally gullible, believed her. Hence his decision to check the prices on the menu. Back home, Stephanie slugs Sylvia in the jaw, and Gertrude spanks her for the sleight. Sylvia was supposed to have said this about Paula too. And Paula also, at some point, is credited with slugging Sylvia in the jaw. Odd parallels, more like duplicates, in my book at least, and suggest that they are intentionally so. My opinion is that the statement supposedly made by Gertrude is highly stylized: “Well, you branded my children so now I am going to brand you.” Too highly stylized for either of the 2 people held responsible for it. The other I would note is that in Stephanie’s recounting of the embarrassing question posed by the brainless boy at school, and there are problems with believing this story anyway, this cattiness is resolved with a punch to Sylvia’s jaw, and the spanking Gertrude gave Sylvia. So it is odd that it suddenly became a problem again, a much more serious one. And Gertrude doesn’t even say with what name Sylvia branded her “children.” And all we know from the story that she actually put on Sylvia’s stomach is the letter “I” and part of an “A.” That’s odd too, because it presupposes “I am,” whereas the contraction is used “I’m.” It is tempting to conclude that the slogan came first, and then two things questions had to be answered; the first- how it was done, and second- why it was done. Stephanie’s story presupposes the existence of the slogan, and is meant to answer the second question. But only in so far as why it was done within the story. That question is also answered by Gertrude; but not really.  It gets stranger, because an attempt is made to spin this ahead of time:

Q. Now, was there any conversation about Sylvia calling Stephanie and Paula prostitutes?
MR. NEW: We object. That is leading.
THE COURT: Objection sustained. It is leading.

Mr. New and the court are right; it is leading! But it presupposes the statement made soon after by Gertrude. One that is highly stylized, one that uses “children” rather than daughters (technically, “children” includes male and female offspring), or what would be even better- “Stephanie and Paula.” So without the leading question, the person reading the transcript will not necessarily know what Gertrude is referring to by “branded,” what is on the paper, what she wrote on Sylvia’s stomach, and what she intended. All we know for sure, is that she wrote something on a piece of paper, wrote something on Sylvia’s stomach, knew about tattoos, and made the letters “I” and part of an “A.” And the sequence of that is wrong. The specifics of everything else put on Sylvia’s stomach are attributed to Ricky. So these elements are interesting:

1.         Gertrude’s statement- does not explain or even provide the slogan

2.         Ricky’s incorrect rendition of the slogan; he uses the word “prostitute”

3.         Stephanie’s story- the bridge between the slogan, Ricky, and Gertrude’s statement

4.         The leading question- spins Gertrude’s statement ahead of time; it connects what is known about the slogan, with Ricky’s use of the word “prostitute,” and Stephanie’s story.

If one reads Gertrude’s statement without reading anything into it, then everything else functions to link it to the slogan. That’s interesting.

Continuing on. Ricky states that he did not pierce the skin with the needle. And I chide myself for missing his explanation for heating it…to sterilize it. And isn’t that odd. This event is one of the key torture elements of the story; the most horrific of the crimes. And why sterilize it? To avoid Sylvia getting an infection! People who torture don’t care whether their victim gets an infection. So why does he say this? He brings Gertrude in as the prime mover, and then boots her out after one and half letters, only to finish it himself. We don’t want Gertrude running the tattoo! She later says that she had nothing to do with it, and this is highly suggestive given the fact that in Ricky’s story, she has very little to do with the tattoo on Sylvia’s stomach. Ricky does it, and he is concerned with doing so with due care not to leave Sylvia with an infection!  Could it be that he was shown the tattoo, asked how he would do it if he had done it, and proceeds to describe it, including the measure to be taken to prevent infection? This was a slip on his part, forgetting that he is supposed to be describing Sylvia’s torture. If he hadn’t done it, and couldn’t have done something like that, he might forget about the torture part of the story when asked how a home-made tattoo was made. If someone were suddenly confronted with a need for a tattoo, someone who knew how tattoos were done would be consulted to provide the “how.” I suspect that what happened in the house on the 26th involved a plan A that went wrong. This was followed by a plan B, which was hastily devised.

I have come to believe it possible, theoretically possible, or better yet, impossibly possible; well, idle speculation that can’t be true. Nonetheless, I have come to have serious doubts that there was a tattoo at all. I base this on a couple considerations. First, there appear to have been two different versions. The false note, Ricky, Kebel, Marie, Shirley and the pathologist all quote it:

“I am a prostitute and proud of it.”

This is not the tattoo that appears in the photo. It is also interesting that of all the references to a gang of boys/bunch of boys, Kaiser tells Ricky that he doesn’t believe that Sylvia died at the hands of the “five boys.” Then I think about the burned documentary evidence in the basement sink…actually, one of the basement sinks. Having a tendency to see things that aren’t there, two key parts of the whole story appear to have two versions:

“I am a prostitute and proud of it” and “I’m a prostitute and proud of it”

“Gang of boys/Bunch of boys” and “five boys”

As for the tattoo- “I am a” would never have been used. Not only is this too pleasingly written in literary English whereas body tattoos of this type would be expected to be as economical with letters as possible, and remember that this was being done against someone’s will, the whole thing is unbalanced. The tattoo in the photo can be seen as “I’m a” then “prostitute and proud” then “of it.”

Then there is what Stephanie said about it. She referred to it as “writing,” and also interesting is the fact that Kaiser said that Ricky had marked on Sylvia with a “pencil.” But then Stephanie said this:

Q. What did you see?
A. That printing.
Q. Printing?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. That was the words on her stomach?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. What else did you see?
A. That was all. I don't remember seeing anything else.
Q. Did you ever talk to your mother about that printing?
A. She said it was going away.

When did this happen? When did she see the writing on Sylvia’s stomach? Monday night; the night before Sylvia died. Now one might conclude, and be wrong of course, that the reference to the writing “going away” suggests that it is ink, and it is washing off in the bathtub. That’s not the really wrong part. The really wrong part would be to believe that Stephanie was told to say this by Ricky. The scratch tattoo Ricky described is a shallow one, and the ink used in the scratches will fade. If so, then what Stephanie says bridges back to what Ricky said, and thus both are saying that he didn’t do it.

The key thing here is that the tattoo, or slogan, has hogged the spotlight. The strange brand on the chest, which looks like its centred, has been overshadowed by an over-the-top visual element meant to do exactly that. Is it an “S”? Is it a “3”? The testimony goes back and forth as nobody gets it right. The story of the branding is nonsense. And then there’s Gertrude’s highly stylized “branding” quote. The lines are blurred. And while the tattoo is easy to explain, I can find no explanation for the odd brand on the body. The only witness that I have found give an explanation for the brand is Marie:

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

A somewhat clever suggestion by a rather intelligent child! One who thinks on her feet. The S stands for Sylvia! The only problem is that it’s not an S. This leads to a possibility; i.e. that no one can explain the brand was because none of them did it- it was on the body already. Seeing it, no one could explain it. Well, there was at least one person who could explain it, but the explanation would lead to a disturbing possibility; namely, there was more than one murder, and there wasn’t supposed to even be one! In fact, a very great stretch of the imagination is required to be sure, but if the brand is what I think it might be, then it gave the whole thing away. The tattoo was introduced to divert the attention from the things that were real- the brand, the sores, and the tell-tale signs of serious physical abuse, and thereby the second person. It is the brand that is most important. But that has gotten lost as attention is focused almost exclusively on what would have to be the lamest tattoo ever, if it actually existed.

The photo that shows the tattoo, which is not the version of it that is consistently cited in the testimony, is highly suspect. First, every attempt is made to not show the face. Second, the rest of the body isn’t shown either. But looking at the photo, it looks like there is a bizarre transition in what is portrayed. The top part of the torso, where the rib cage is and the brand is visible, looks real enough. However, the part of the body from that point downward, where the tattoo is, looks extremely thin. In fact, it looks paper thin. In fact, it doesn’t look real at all. If you crop the word “I’m” and zoom in on it, you might see something fascinating. It appears readily…i.e. the letter “I” has a clear, perfectly straight line in the middle of it. Then the horizontal top and bottom lines also have straight lines. So too with the right leg of the “M.” These look distinctly like they were done with a ruler, and then a marker, with ink that bleeds, was used to write over the top. There’s no way this can be true, I readily concede. But just musing about things one sees or thinks he sees, the flatness of the body suggests paper or something akin to it…something flat, upon which someone outlined letters with a ruler, and then wrote over them with a marker of some type. In short, it looks like a fake. That’s crazy, and can’t be true, I must confess. Still, if it wasn’t there, and of course it would be easy to come up with reasons why characters in the story did such a thing, then all one would be left with is the brand, the sores, and the obvious physical abuse. And none of the defendants would be able to explain the strange brand. So, a touch of legerdemain, get everybody to look at something big and thereby miss the thing that’s real. Real, and a clear indicator of a stunning possibility. What was agreed upon for the tattoo to say, was not actually what was written on the paper, or paper thin body. People quoted what it was going to say, but not actually what ended up being written. A slight difference to be sure, but one which is repeated over and over again..and is wrong. A gang of boys? A bunch of boys? “Five boys?” One might speculate that the version of the note agreed upon said “five boys.” But that wasn’t what was written when the fake note was actually written, inadvertently producing two versions, like two versions of the tattoo. Still, only one version of the brand, which none of the defendants could even remotely explain, although Marie gave it a good shot. A lot of writing going on, and that doesn’t seem likely. But if it did, then one might dispose of it by burning it in the basement sink. That works well, if you remember to wash the ashes down the drain. However, if you have devised a plan, and then on the evening of October 26th, suddenly find that your plan has gone disastrously wrong, you might panic, and a girl coming downstairs hears you panic. If you’re in the basement, hosing someone off, how awful it would be to look up at the landing, and see her there. But a nosy neighbour might hear the shouting too, and the sound of a shovel scraping concrete. What an odd thing to hear! Unless, you’ve washed blood onto the floor and down the drain, and to avoid DNA on the basement floor, you scrape the surface of the cement floor with a shovel! In a bizarre, fictional story, you would have to come up with another plan. If so, you could theoretically end up with a body clad in long pants and a blouse that goes down to the elbows. Then, if you didn’t actually know that person, then removed the clothes to wash the body, you might find yourself staring in disbelief. Sores and signs of abuse covered by clothing possibly meant by the person to cover it all up. Then a bizarre brand. If you were about to have a household accident, like…falling down the stairs, which happens every day, and could produce fatal head trauma, the things not seen will be seen. Or, the things you didn’t see until you saw them will now be seen by others, like…paramedics. No household accident in their judgement. Foul play. Time for a new plan. A clever plan. One that seems like it would have to have worked. It just had one problem..it didn’t. Still, there’d be a lot to do. Such as, change the focal point from the upstairs bedroom to the basement. Then fix the scene in the basement. You’d have to change it around a bit. It’s a torture chamber now. Why two sinks? I have a big basement and don’t even have one sink. But if you didn’t have a washer and dryer, and you assigned chores to kids, then you might have one kid washing clothes in one sink, and then another kid would rinse the clothes in the other. Sensible enough. Now dry them. You might have to string up clothes lines…there are a lot of people in this house with dirty clothes. If so, you screw bolts into the wall that have eye-hooks, then fasten the clothes lines to the eye-hooks. But the basement will have to change now! You panic, you forget to wash the ashes down the drain in one of the sinks. Torture chambers don’t have clothes lines. So you fix the scene, you tear the bolts and eye-hooks from the wall. But one of them lands in the sink, and sits on top of the burnt paper. You miss it. Such things happen when you panic. A crime scene guy photographs it. Oh no! Another adjustment. Of course, if someone left something behind, something incriminating, you have to remove it. It wouldn’t hurt anyway to remove a bunch of silly, meaningless things from the basement as evidence. No warrant, but we don’t need no stinking warrants! Just a call, that’ll do. Of course, on the way out of the basement, one could remove things from the kitchen, especially if that’s what you really came for anyway. You could create a crime scene in the basement, and then muddle it. By, well, putting a garbage can full of tin cans down there. After all, the only way I can get the garbage man to empty my garbage is to drag the garbage cans to the road. But at that house, I would first have to drag the garbage can up the stairs and out of the basement. Then I have to drag it through the kitchen. Then out the back door. Then down the steps. Then around the corner of the house. Then down the driveway. That’s a lot of work. Maybe that’s why people don’t keep their garbage in the basement. Dog food could appear. And the good news is that Randy found the dog! He was running around the front yard. Coming over to see why all the police cars were parked in front of the house, he caught the dog by the collar. Then he asked a policeman if he could put him in the house. Sure! After all, the house is only a murder scene. Why wouldn’t you want a big dog dragging in all kinds of crap on his paws to contaminate the scene, and then run around excitedly getting in everybody’s way? Oh look! The deputy coroner just tripped over him! It makes sense to me. What kind of dog? Ask Shirley:

Q. Did any of the dogs sleep down there?
A. Yes.
Q. How many dogs did you have?
A. One.
Q. Did you ever get another dog?
A. No.
Q. What kind of dog was this?
A. I don't remember.
Q. Was it a big dog?
A. No.
Q. Was it a puppy?
A. Yes, it was.
Q. What about a police dog?
A. Oh, yes, a police dog too.
Q. It came to your house?
A. Yes.
Q. Whose dog was this?
A. My father's.

There it is! There were 2 dogs! A puppy, and if a child makes up a dog, she’s going to go with “puppy,” and a big police dog too. Maybe it’s the police dog’s puppy! A father-son team. So if Randy found the big dog, where was the little dog? Maybe still in the basement..it’s dark down there, so we didn’t go down there. There’s still a lot of work to be done for sure. But hey, hung juries have been known to happen.