DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
Carrie Brown : Murder In The East River Hotel
HTML https://carriebrown.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Editorials & Essays
*****************************************************
#Post#: 6591--------------------------------------------------
A Key Problem
DIR By: HowBrown1953
Date: February 27, 2026, 4:39 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Some may question whether James Jennings' position, as stated in
his affidavit, on the key George Damon turned in during 1901,
was accurate.
It has been suggested a while back that Jennings was probably
not the person who purchased the keys, so that
when he stated that the Hotel used keys made from a different (
iron ) metal than brass, he was mistaken. Jennings confirms that
he assigned someone ( Tommy Thompson) to purchase keys for the
hotel, sort of like when my wife assigns me to get specific
items from local stores.
Let's consider the following scenario: My wife asks me to
purchase cleaning sponges for our home. She wants sponges
of one type with cellulose on one side ( a durable, hybrid
sponge) and others with no cellulose. The more durable cellulose
sponges are for the
bathroom, and the non-cellulose sponges are for other areas of
the home, such as for dishes and glasswork. My wife didn't
purchase the sponges
but knows which ones are for what room and for what use.
What's the difference between Jennings sending someone to
purchase keys for his hotel and my wife sending me to the store
to purchase sponges for her home?
Nothing, as far as I can detect.
My wife knows exactly what sponge is for what purpose and where
it goes, and Jennings, in his affidavit, is clear in his
detailed deposition
that iron keys....not brass....were used on the fifth floor. No
hesitation. No pause for reflection or contemplation. He
examined the key
in front of Ovide Robillard, Ali's attorney. Unless Robillard
went deaf, dumb, and blind when Jennings filed his affidavit, he
knew there was a potentially big problem
with the key Damon turned in. There are no two ways about it.
The only alternative is that Robillard may have felt Jennings
was mistaken and let it slide, but at least
he was cognizant of the potential problems with Jennings not
attaching the key to Room 31.
The other scenario, the one I believe in but won't try to prove,
is that Robillard didn't care whether the key was authentic or
not. The key represented a means
of getting Ali out of prison and a new, bright feather in his
hat as an attorney if the pardon campaigners could pull it off.
Other points in favor of Jennings not being mistaken:
1. Is it remotely believable that Thompson, a manager of the
Hotel and employee of Jennings for 8 years, and Jennings, were
never together
with the keys Thompson purchased and Jennings not knowing which
keys went where? Is it possible that during the eight years they
are together,
Thompson never once comes back from purchasing the keys, shows
them to Jennings, and the floors or rooms where the different
types of keys go aren't mentioned?
2. Is it believable that Jennings, in all the time he was
proprietor, never entered a room on the fifth floor, using an
iron key or not knowing what type of key
was for those rooms?
3. Jennings had no dog in the fight and probably didn't care one
way or the other whether the pardon campaigns flopped or
succeeded.
District Attorney's Office
City & County of New York
June 1901
In The Matter Of The Application For Pardon Of 'Frenchy' Alias
Amer Ben Ali
State, City, And County Of New York
James Jennings, being duly sworn, deposes and says that he
resides at 2106
Madison Avenue, in the Borough of Manhattan, in the City of New
York; that he
was the proprietor of the East River Hotel, # 14 Catherine Slip
in said City and
Borough at the time of the killing in said hotel of the woman
known as
'Shakespeare'; that he had been the proprietor of said hotel
some four of five years
prior to the time of said murder; and that he gave up the place
and moved away
from there about four or five months after said murder.
That a man named Thomas Thompson, since deceased, had charge of
and
attended to the letting of the rooms and had charge of the keys.
That the brass key shown him, deponent, in the presence of Mr.
Robillard, counsel
for the prisoner, so far as he is aware, was never used in the
hotel of which he was
then the proprietor; that Room 31 was on the top floor; that as
far as he has any
recollection all the rooms on that particular floor, at the time
of said murder, had
iron keys with brass oblong tags attached; that the keys on the
other three floors
of the hotel were some of brass and some of iron; that all the
keys had brass tags
some round and scalloped, some oblong, some may have been
square, but all the
tags varied from about an inch to an inch and a half long, and
from an inch to an
inch and a half wide, and that no tag was as small as the one on
the key now
produced.
Sworn to me on the 10th day of June,1901
William H. Broderick, Notary Public
All arguments to the contrary welcome. ;)
#Post#: 6595--------------------------------------------------
Re: A Key Problem
DIR By: Kattrup
Date: February 27, 2026, 11:35 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: Howard Brown link ---
>
> Let's consider the following scenario: My wife asks me to
purchase cleaning sponges for our home. She wants sponges
> of one type with cellulose on one side ( a durable, hybrid
sponge) and others with no cellulose. The more durable cellulose
sponges are for the
> bathroom, and the non-cellulose sponges are for other areas of
the home, such as for dishes and glasswork. My wife didn't
purchase the sponges
> but knows which ones are for what room and for what use.
>
> What's the difference between Jennings sending someone to
purchase keys for his hotel and my wife sending me to the store
to purchase sponges for her home?
> Nothing, as far as I can detect.
>
--- End Quote ---
One difference is that your wife runs your home, Jennings had
little to do with day to day running of the hotel. By the time
he was asked, he hadn't even owned the hotel in years.
The police at the time - 1891 - stated the key was brass.
Someone would have told them that. Jennings, ten years later,
including about six years of not even owning the hotel, stated
keys of both sorts were used in the hotel, and he believed the
ones on the fifth floor were iron.
I think it likely he was mistaken.
So the difference is Nina sending you to buy some sponges for a
property she rarely goes to, then the property burning and Nina
not owning it for years, until ten years later, she's asked what
kind the sponges were. Although she may remember asking for a
specific type of sponge, does she know or remember which kind
you actually bought?
#Post#: 6596--------------------------------------------------
Re: A Key Problem
DIR By: Kattrup
Date: February 27, 2026, 11:40 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: Howard Brown link ---
>
> The other scenario, the one I believe in but won't try to
prove, is that Robillard didn't care whether the key was
authentic or not. The key represented a means
> of getting Ali out of prison and a new, bright feather in his
hat as an attorney if the pardon campaigners could pull it off.
>
--- End Quote ---
I agree, it was not his job to authenticate it, he simply
presented the new evidence and it was for others to
authenticate.
--- Quote from: Howard Brown link ---
>
>
> Other points in favor of Jennings not being mistaken:
>
> 1. Is it remotely believable that Thompson, a manager of the
Hotel and employee of Jennings for 8 years, and Jennings, were
never together
> with the keys Thompson purchased and Jennings not knowing
which keys went where? Is it possible that during the eight
years they are together,
> Thompson never once comes back from purchasing the keys, shows
them to Jennings, and the floors or rooms where the different
types of keys go aren't mentioned?
>
> Probably not belieable, but does that mean the Jennings would
automatically remember such details?
> 2. Is it believable that Jennings, in all the time he was
proprietor, never entered a room on the fifth floor, using an
iron key or not knowing what type of key
> was for those rooms?
> Yes, both questions are believable.
>
> 3. Jennings had no dog in the fight and probably didn't care
one way or the other whether the pardon campaigns flopped or
succeeded.
>
> Agreed. I don't think he lied.
>
--- End Quote ---
#Post#: 6598--------------------------------------------------
Re: A Key Problem
DIR By: HowBrown1953
Date: February 27, 2026, 12:29 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
The other scenario, the one I believe in but won't try to prove,
is that Robillard didn't care whether the key was authentic or
not. The key represented a means
of getting Ali out of prison and a new, bright feather in his
hat as an attorney if the pardon campaigners could pull it off.
I agree, it was not his job to authenticate it, he simply
presented the new evidence and it was for others to
authenticate.
True, Pete....but I wasn't suggesting Robillard would attempt to
authenticate the key....just that he didn't care if it was or
not.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Is it believable that Jennings, in all the time he was
proprietor, never entered a room on the fifth floor, using an
iron key or not knowing what type of key
was for those rooms?
Yes, both questions are believable.
We'll have to agree to disagree on this..probably for forever. I
don't think there's any possibility at all that Jennings avoided
going into a fifth floor room during
the eight years he ran the hotel.
He would also know what type of key was used for rooms on the
respective floors.
---------------------------------------------------------
Let's consider the following scenario: My wife asks me to
purchase cleaning sponges for our home. She wants sponges
of one type with cellulose on one side ( a durable, hybrid
sponge) and others with no cellulose. The more durable cellulose
sponges are for the
bathroom, and the non-cellulose sponges are for other areas of
the home, such as for dishes and glasswork. My wife didn't
purchase the sponges
but knows which ones are for what room and for what use.
What's the difference between Jennings sending someone to
purchase keys for his hotel and my wife sending me to the store
to purchase sponges for her home?
Nothing, as far as I can detect.
One difference is that your wife runs your home, Jennings had
little to do with day to day running of the hotel. By the time
he was asked, he hadn't even owned the hotel in years.
The police at the time - 1891 - stated the key was brass.
Someone would have told them that. Jennings, ten years later,
including about six years of not even owning the hotel, stated
keys of both sorts were used in the hotel, and he believed the
ones on the fifth floor were iron.
I think it likely he was mistaken.
How did you come to the conclusion that Jennings had 'little to
do with the day to day running of the hotel' ? You've said this
before. Where is there
any evidence of him not being there frequently?
P.S. Thanks for replying, boss. ;D
#Post#: 6599--------------------------------------------------
Re: A Key Problem
DIR By: Kattrup
Date: February 27, 2026, 12:55 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: Howard Brown link ---
>
> Is it believable that Jennings, in all the time he was
proprietor, never entered a room on the fifth floor, using an
iron key or not knowing what type of key
> was for those rooms?
>
> Yes, both questions are believable.
>
> We'll have to agree to disagree on this..probably for forever.
I don't think there's any possibility at all that Jennings
avoided going into a fifth floor room during
> the eight years he ran the hotel.
--- End Quote ---
Well, that was not quite what you asked. You asked whether it
was believable that he did not enter a room on the fifth floor
with an iron key.
I think that is believable, because in my opinion the keys were
not iron, or he may have not had to open the doors himself, i.e.
if he did do a tour of the hotel rooms, for instance to check on
state of repair or similar, he might have had his manager with
him who opened all the doors.
So taking at face value, I think it is believable that he never
used an iron key to enter a fifth floor room.
--- Quote from: Howard Brown link ---
> He would also know what type of key was used for rooms on the
respective floors.
--- End Quote ---
hmm, probably, but he might have forgotten, or there might have
been several sets of keys, for instance locks might have been
changed over the years, leading him to mistake one set for
another.
So I think it's believable that he did not necessarily know for
certain at all times which keys were used where.
--- Quote from: Howard Brown link ---
>
>
> How did you come to the conclusion that Jennings had 'little
to do with the day to day running of the hotel' ? You've said
this before. Where is there
> any evidence of him not being there frequently?
>
>
--- End Quote ---
good question, perhaps I'm just assuming he was an absent boss
because there's no evidence he was there frequently. I'll have
to look up on what little we know of him. He was on the witness
list, but never called, I think? So that implies he had nothing
to add.
The main reason I think he had little to do with running the
place is that he hired a manager? So the manager was there
running the place, this to me implies the proprietor would be
there less. Where is the evidence Jennings was there frequently?
--- Quote from: Howard Brown link ---
>
> P.S. Thanks for replying, boss. ;D
>
--- End Quote ---
No problem!
When I studied historical methodology, a main principle was
drilled my into then-supple mind: earlier is always better. We
see this again and again in memoirs, where people's memories of
things ten, twenty or thirty years earlier har completely wrong,
when compared to original sources.
So other things being equal, a source stating in 1891 the key
was brass will usually trump a source in 1901 stating the key
was iron. Ten years is a long time to misremember, adjust
memories and narratives etc.
It doesn't mean Jennings must be wrong, but to me, being ten
years late to the party lowers his value significantly.
#Post#: 6602--------------------------------------------------
Re: A Key Problem
DIR By: HowBrown1953
Date: February 27, 2026, 4:12 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Nice follow-up, Pete.
Your finding a reference to the key being brass in the NY Sun is
impressive. I really didn't think one existed.
It wouldn't make much sense for the hotel personnel who told the
reporter what type of key was missing and
what it was made of to say it was made of one type of metal if
it was actually made of another.....although the
reporter may have simply guessed had he looked at other keys
behind the desk on the first floor.
That you found a reference does temper my position somewhat on
Jennings and the possibility that he was mistaken.
Thanks again !
#Post#: 6603--------------------------------------------------
Re: A Key Problem
DIR By: HowBrown1953
Date: February 28, 2026, 8:27 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Quick note:
I found two articles from Manhattan referring to the key being
brass back in October 2023. Both Pete and I
posted on the thread. The New York Sun, the only paper in NYC
to do so, did it twice. April 25th and April 26th.
It's so damn easy to forget things when you have so many things,
ain't it?
HTML https://carriebrown.createaforum.com/1901-9/the-issue-of-the-key-to-room-31/msg2262/#msg2262
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
One of the arguments against the 1901 testimony of James
Jennings is that he had little to do with the day to day
operations at the
East River Hotel.
Another is that the amount of time that passed between the
murder and his affidavit could or would affect his memory of
events and
things and, as a result, create real concerns for researchers as
to the accuracy of at least that part of his affidavit.
Furthermore, the discovery of a Manhattan newspaper article ( NY
Sun, April 25th, replicated in a Western Pa. paper) in which the
key was said to have been brass as well as the tag being brass,
likewise creates an air of doubt to Jennings' declaration that
the keys
used on the fifth floor were made of iron ( cast-iron).
These arguments are sound and cannot be ignored.
That Jennings wasn't glued to the hotel, having at least one
manager ( Thompson ) on the site, that the purchase of keys
would be the responsibility
of Thompson, and that a newspaper article that stated the key
and tag were brass, should be considered as counter arguments
against
Jennings' recollection of the key and the metal it was made of.
So, with that in mind, lets look at the testimony of someone who
spent virtually every hour of his day in the hotel, Eddie
Fitzgerald.
Eddie was the utility man at the hotel and lived there. In fact,
that was the first answer he provided when questioned about
his current residence at the Coroner's Inquest....he lived at
the East River Hotel.
Eddie dispensed keys to Ali at least twice and perhaps a fair
number of times to other would-be tenants ever since he started
working at
the Hotel in late February or early March ( Fitzgerald testimony
at the Inquest found him stating he began work there 'between 2
and 3 months' earlier. The Inquest was in mid-May.). Here's a
person who handled the keys and apparently could distinguish
between
cast iron and brass.
Eddie's testimony found below from the trial came 69 days after
he handed Ali the key to room 33. It's a very detailed
description.
I don't think we can dismiss his memory so easily.
He had several duties at the Hotel. He, not Jennings, was in
contact with Ali and it was he who handed Ali the key to room
33.
Furthermore, his memory can't be assailed, as it had only been
10 weeks since the murder when Eddie testified.
It was his job to dispense keys....not Jennings...and would
obviously remember what type of key went where.
*A more recent recollection of the type of key than Jennings...a
trial testimony from 1891 as opposed to an 1901 affidavit.
*An onsite employee who had more-to-do with the general, mundane
operations of the hotel than its proprietor.
* The NY Sun article from April 25th stated that an alarm had
been sent, providing the description given by Mary Miniter
and that a brass door key with a brass tag might be found in
his possession.
Unfortunately, it does not state who told the Sun reporter
that the key was brass and had a brass tag.
The first seven days of the case's press reportage were and
are notorious for its errors. Something to keep in mind,
considering
the April 26th edition of the New York Sun....which also
mentioned the key being made of brass...falsely claimed Officers
Doran and Griffin arrested Ali
on the 24th.
So, for now.....unless someone feels it is arguable that the
hotel used two different types of keys on the fifth floor...room
33, for one, which
opened with a cast-iron key, according to the person who
dispensed the keys and worked there...and room 31, with a brass
one according to a newspaper report.
Eddie Fitzgerald Trial Testimony: June 30, 1891
Page 265
Q. And, between 12 and 1 o’clock, you opened the door for this
man, when he rang the bell?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. What conversation did you have with him?
A. He said “Give me a bed, John”.
Q. He called you by name ——John?
A. That ain’t my name.
Q. But that is what he said?
A. Yes, sir, and he paid me 25 pennies and I give him rooms ——
the key and matches and a
green candle.
Q. And what is a green candle?
By the Court.
Q. A fresh candle?
A. Yes, sir, a whole, fresh candle.
By Mr. Wellman.
Q. And the key to 33?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Now, what sort of key have you those hotels —— how large a
key?
A. Well, about that size (indicating) —— a cast iron key.
Q. What?
A. About that size ( indicating)---a cast iron key.
Q. It is a large key?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. About four inches?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And has it any ———.
A. It has a tag on it.
Q. Now, what sort of a tag has it got on it?
By the Court.
Q. Was it a paper or metal tag?
A. No, sir, a brass tag.
Page 266
Q. A brass tag?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. With a number on it?
A. Yes, sir.
By Mr. Wellman.
Q. What sort of tag on it?
A. A brass tag, with a number on it.
Q. Well, how large a brass tag and what shape ——— was it round
or longer than it was round?
A. It was more square.
Q. It was more square?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And how large? Show with your fingers?
A. About that long (indicating)
Q. Two inches and a half?
A. Yes, sir; and that wide (indicating)
Q. And about that wide —— two inches and a half by an inch and a
half?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And the key was four inches long?
A. Yes, sir.
#Post#: 6604--------------------------------------------------
Re: A Key Problem
DIR By: Kattrup
Date: March 1, 2026, 3:23 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Yes, I too remembered Fitzgerald last night.
Also, it was Jennings who ran from the hotel to the police
station to tell them of the murder, wasn’t it? At least some
reports say so. That means he was there that morning, I think,
so perhaps he was there most mornings, so perhaps not so absent
from the running of the hotel.
Assessing this conundrum, I still go for the key being brass.
Why? Well, ultimately Occam’s razor.
Which is the simpler explanation: that Damon, for no apparent
reason, decided to manufacture a fake key and convince other
respectable persons in swearing false affidavits which could
easily have been exposed as lies, OR Jennings misremembered, the
hotel used keys of both materials and Fitzgerald was either
confused, mistaken or room 33 had an iron key while 31 was
brass.
To my mind, the likelier explanation is the second one. As you
know, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and
the claim that Damon faked the key and involved his friends
family and political contacts in an elaborate hoax for no reason
- is an extraordinary one. Whereas Jennings misremembering etc.
is a mundane one.
#Post#: 6606--------------------------------------------------
Re: A Key Problem
DIR By: HowBrown1953
Date: March 1, 2026, 4:51 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Damon faked the key and involved his friends, family, and
political contacts in an elaborate hoax for no reason - is an
extraordinary one.
Pete....it really isn't that elaborate. His neighbor and his
employee were the only two people who could be claimed who were
directly involved
with a fake key story.
Governor Voorhees did not mention having actually seen or held
the key Damon was presenting as evidence, in his 'note' to
Odell.
He did say he'd known Damon for several years and held him in
high regard...but not seeing or handling the key.
The wife and kids were totally out of the mix. We have no
evidence that they were involved at all, even the old lady.
Damon's remarks concerning
her recalling where the key was stashed all that time are of no
evidentiary value.
There were an excessive number of excuses for Damon not coming
forward; too much time between first possessing and then
presenting the key, which combined with the differences in
the farmhand's features, encourages me to believe that there was
something, pardon the old expression, rotten in Denmark, about
Damon and his key.
The fella who wrote in Ecclesiastes 1:9..... 'There's nothing
new under the Sun..'...spoke too soon. Where is there another
instance of a story like this in legal history?
There have been many cases of people committing fraud with
accomplices that we do know of.
We'll undoubtedly get back to this in the future, boss. ;D
Needless to mention, but if the story was true, it isn't
iron-clad proof of the farmhand committing the murder and Ali
being innocent.
If it wasn't true and was a fabrication, it still doesn't get
Ali off the hook for the crime, and neither does it get C.Kniclo
off, either.
*****************************************************
Page 1 of 1