In reading the trial transcripts, one must confess that the story gets more interesting with every line. And no testimony is more interesting than Stephanie’s testimony. This is true of various details she provides along the way. To begin, she provides 3 interesting dates:  October 18th; October 21st; and October 23rd. She says that on the 18th and 23rd, Sylvia was not allowed to eat. But on the 21rst, Sylvia is actually force-fed. That’s not exactly true. Gertrude attempted to force Sylvia to drink milk. In other statements, she said that the last time she saw her mother hysterical was on October 22nd, and it had to do with Sylvia not eating. Furthermore, on Friday, Sylvia refused to eat. Now one may question whether the dates are exactly correct. She was asked a lot of leading questions, and it was probably hard to remember everything precisely. But one might wonder, wrongly of course, whether the day she saw her mother hysterical was October 21rst, not the 22nd. Sylvia would obviously have been quite hungry, and yet she appears to have resisted drinking the milk. And a good reason comes to mind- well a theoretical possibility comes to mind; i.e. Gertrude had put something in the milk, and Sylvia knew it. It was critical that she drink it, at least as far as the plans of the woman of house were concerned. To make it more likely that the milk would not be refused, there may have been withholding of food. If so, then it did not work; Sylvia still resisted. Her refusal to drink the milk, spiked with some substance, sent Gertrude into hysterics. Perhaps the intake of whatever was in the milk was necessary to avoid taking other actions. It raises other possibilities; namely that Sylvia wasn’t eating because she knew something was being put in her food.

However, Stephanie’s account of where people were is important as well. No more so than when she describes the sleeping arrangements in the house. There were apparently 2 bedrooms upstairs; a front bedroom, and a back bedroom. She slept with her mother and the baby in the front bedroom. 5 children slept in the back bedroom: Shirley, Marie, Sylvia, Jenny, and Jimmy. There was a bed, and a mattress on the floor. This readily brings to mind the “room photo.” However, 2 people are missing. 2 people are not in the back bedroom, and Stephanie does not refer to them in tracing out who slept where; Paula and John Jr. They appear not to be living in the house. But she says something fascinating, when understood in light of symptomology.   She related the story about how the kids were playing at Judo and Karate in the house. They were taking turns flipping each other, and it seems certain that they were just rough-housing. Sylvia got hurt when she missed the mattress. And which mattress was this? Well she doesn’t say. But she also stated that in the middle of September, she and her mother began sleeping downstairs, when they decided that there wasn’t enough room. It is fascinating that she provides no more insight on the sudden lack of room upstairs. So one might entertain the incorrect notion that of the 5 kids sleeping in the back bedroom, 4 were moved out, leaving only 1 in the back bedroom. Stephanie refers to Sylvia’s incontinence issue. Thus when that began, the other 4 kids were moved out of the back bedroom, and into the front bedroom. Then Stephanie and her mother moved downstairs. If this medical issue actually existed, it wasn’t present from the beginning; i.e. since July. It must have developed suddenly, and as the result of a health condition. This would suggest that Sylvia was not moved to the basement as a result of this development, triggering the question as to what then brought that about.

Still, the last day of Sylvia’s life is the most interesting. The previous day, she said she came home around 5:00, and met her boyfriend in the alley. The two were on the couch, and she fell asleep on him, and then he left. This was at 6:00. But she also said that her boyfriend left before supper. So times are being confused, unless Stephanie slept through supper. Several references are made to a boyfriend or boyfriends of Sylvia, with an obvious intent, but the only girl with a boyfriend actually named was Stephanie. She woke up and did homework until 3:00 am (odd hours to keep for a child her age). She next refers to 6:45, when she and Paula were in the basement putting coal into the furnace. And that seems odd; from out of nowhere her older sister has materialized. Why is she there at 6:45 am? Where does she sleep? There’s a health issue with one of the children, who is not in the basement, and that caused a re-shuffling of the sleeping arrangements. Just for a moment, one might inexcusably conclude that her older sister was not there at 6:45 am, and that only one girl was putting coal in the furnace.

Monday is important in another regard, and I suddenly felt myself pulled back into the middle of the puzzle that’s not a puzzle; the old specter standing in the road. But based on what’s said, I can’t be blamed for doing so. It’s Monday night, and that is the last time Stephanie saw Sylvia alive. Oddly enough, she is said to be upstairs taking a bath. The only thing she saw on Sylvia was “that printing.” She was asked: “Did you ever talk to your mother about that printing?” And she said: “She said it was going away.” Unbelievably fascinating. She is saying that it is not a tattoo; not carved on her body; not the result of her mother and Ricky using a needle. It is actually writing. Well, she said “printing.” And one immediately remembers the fanciful description of the woman of the house writing out the slogan with a pen before beginning the tattoo. And her mother said it was going away! And what does that mean? That some kind of markings had been made on Sylvia. These were temporary. Going away? Obviously, they were fading, or washing off in the bathtub. Therefore! They were not the slogan that appears in the famous photo!

Like I said earlier, this testimony couldn’t be any more fascinating if one tried to make it so. The account of what was on Sylvia is completely different from what was told by others. And who is telling the truth? No one! At least in whole. But the stark contrast created by Stephanie’s description causes one to stop and think. When Kebel testified about his examination of the body, he said that it had been washed. Not just washed, but washed with an acidic compound. But we know that they washed the body; Stephanie and her brother. But the appearance of her brother on Tuesday evening is suspect. He was said to be one of the four people in the basement along with Sylvia. But in her testimony, she inadvertently tips her hand, and indicates that she lied about that. Could it be that Stephanie was the only one upstairs who washed the body? And could it be that Tuesday night is being confused with Monday night as to when Sylvia was in the bathtub? Washing a body, especially with an acidic compound, could be motivated by the desire to remove trace evidence. And that’s odd. If she had been nowhere else in the last 24 hours, and I think it likely that she was, then bathing the body would raise suspicion. In other words, police would expect trace evidence from the house to be found on the body. Washing the body would suggest that somebody in the house had something to hide. But you might also use an acidic compound in an effort to remove markings, made with ink or dye that had been placed on the girl for a specific reason. Not the slogan, but markings meant to outline or highlight; to focus the attention. As such they were temporary, but may not have been disappearing fast enough. And if investigators saw them, everything would become clear. So if one were given to challenging everything they’re told, certain that Gregory House is right in asserting that everybody’s lying, and prone to idle and baseless speculation, one might just think that something was then done to cover the markings that were originally there with something else..such as the slogan. If so, no one would ever see anything under it. But no would look any further; the outrageous words on the girl’s abdomen would see to that!

To pick the trail back up! Arriving home, she goes upstairs for half-an-hour. She doesn’t say why. But we are told something amazing. Coming back downstairs at 5:30 “all the kids” came inside the house and told her that somebody was cussing somebody out. Where “all the kids” were when she got home isn’t stated. But then they’re downstairs, complaining that somebody is swearing at somebody. Who? We’re not told. She asks these kids where her mother and “them guys” were, and they told her she was in the basement talking to Sylvia. Wow! I admit I had to read this over and over again. I would think that kids swearing at each other around that house was pretty common. But maybe not! I still don’t see why this would have upset “all the kids.” Nothing is said about fight. And who are “them guys” supposed to be with her mother? As certain as I am that I am completely wrong, one might wonder if she were indeed upstairs, and then heard a lot of cussing downstairs. Going downstairs, the only people were in the basement. Not kids, but adults. She mentions her younger sister, but what about the others? Where are they? And as soon as she finds out about “them guys”, “all the kids” seem to disappear back into the void out of which they suddenly popped out.

We’re told who is in the basement. We’re told who “them guys” are. And it’s fascinating. Suddenly, her older sister appears. In the testimony she sort of flits about like a ghost, gone indeed, and then suddenly walks through the wall; like an actress appearing on stage at the last moment to play her part. Her brother is there too. These are the two that she never accounts for as having a place to sleep in the house. Interesting, this is the second time in a row that her older sister is suddenly in the basement. But not just her sister is there; Sylvia’s sister is there. So we have two sets of sisters, and a brother. Sylvia is lying on the basement floor. Not on her back and not on her side. She said that she was half sitting and half lying. Apparently, she was resting her head on her elbow, and her legs were folded. It’s impossible to say of course, but legs folded and knees up the chest (a fetal position) is the closest mental picture I can get. She is said to be a mess around the lower abdomen, and she is being washed off with a hose. She is mumbling and groaning, and her eyes were open. At another point, she uses the word “incoherently.” That is a good word, and a big word, and an odd word given “them guys was.” But it seems clear that the “them guys” was not the people enumerated. Her mother told her that Sylvia had defecated. That was not the truth. And why mumbling? Well head trauma will do that. But so will being doped. The description of the situation then becomes rather confused, and Ricky makes his sudden appearance. But who carried Sylvia? This is what is said: “somebody took one end and somebody took the other.” “Who is somebody?” “I don’t know.” “You don’t know? Did you pick her up?” “As far as I remember, I did.” And there it is! A child in a stressful situation, and it all falls apart! The two people carrying Sylvia were none of the people enumerated in the house. They were two people who were not supposed to be named.  Indeed! Not supposed to be there. One wonders if, upstairs for some reason, someone suddenly heard frantic cussing as three adults suddenly enter the house, two of them carrying Sylvia. They go to the basement where the hose is. Something has gone seriously wrong. Something was supposed to have gone right, but it didn’t. Now it was wrong. I found it interesting to learn that apparently, the lady of the house had become friends with her ex-husband’s new wife. And she was there that night. But so was her ex-husband, who arrived after his wife called. The police were on the scene already, although Stephanie said the police didn’t do anything. And my leg is still bruised from tripping over the coffee table when I followed the first responder to the house only to find that other police were already there. But we didn’t see them, or talk to them, or know who they were. So there were a lot of people around that house on October 26th; some were there who were not there; some weren’t there who were there; but no one describes seeing the friendly German Shephard; a detail meant to hint that the house was under some kind of threat. Perhaps a touch of legerdemain to spice up the show. One last odd thing. Stephanie says that Sylvia told her that she wished her father was there. She wanted to go home. If memory serves, he said that he would return within 21 days from October 5th; which would be October 26th! Maybe she was expecting her father; maybe she thought she was going home.