DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
Carrie Brown : Murder In The East River Hotel
HTML https://carriebrown.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: 1901-1902
*****************************************************
#Post#: 1982--------------------------------------------------
Philbin's Folly
DIR By: HowBrown1953
Date: August 9, 2023, 6:39 am
---------------------------------------------------------
It really was a folly, in a sense, in that DA Eugene Philbin, as
competent as he was, did not recognize crucial details in
Damon's affidavits that, had he realized them, might have
stopped the organized 4th pardon effort in its tracks.
"(Also) instructive is the summary of all the evidence compiled
by new District Attorney (Eugene) Philbin. He noted some
evidence from Mr. James Jennings, the hotel proprietor at the
time, suggesting that the key now produced may not have been
from the hotel after all ( he could not verify this himself
because the hotel building had been renovated after a fire).
Philbin concluded that although "the verdict in question was
found upon legal evidence fully warranting the same, yet the
proof ( at trial ) was not so conclusive as to render the claim
that after all the defendant was not guilty of the crime an
absurd one."
"Lawyers all know that affidavits are not worth much as
evidence, because, while submitted under oath, they are mere
hearsay if offered for the truth of the matters asserted in
them. But governors are not bound by the rules of evidence. It
is not hard to see why Governor Odell acted as he did".
"There are two affidavits from George Damon..." Page 77
-Richard H. Underwood, Gaslight Lawyers, 2017, pages 78 and 79.
It is notable that Professor Underwood is under the impression
that Damon filed only two affidavits when in fact we have all
four Damon swore to.
It is also notable that in the above quote from Prof. Underwood,
he mentions, without providing a source, that Jennings 'could
not verify this himself because the hotel building had been
renovated after a fire."
The fact is, is that the only fire that took place from 1883 to
the end of Jennings's stint as hotel proprietor in 1891,
occurred 2 days after Brown's murder in the room of Mary
Corcoran, housekeeper, when a curtain caught fire. There was no
renovation and there was no switch in what type of key was used
after the fire was extinguished. The hotel would be condemned
just a few years later because it was falling apart, its
foundation deteriorating to the extent that tenants were
evacuated and given temporary shelter elsewhere. After
extensively scouring newspapers for news of a fire in the hotel
and discovering there had not been one, it seems that the
Corcoran Room Fire would be what Philbin referred to as the
'fire' and had exaggerated the effects of that fire, possibly
based on flawed information he had been given.
On June 4th, 1901, one month before Damon's July 2nd affidavit
was even prepared, DA Philbin wrote to the Secretary of the
Governor, James G. Graham, and acknowledged he was in receipt of
Graham's telegram of June 3rd and that he was enclosing
affidavits & key relative to the application for the pardon of
'George Frank'. He then pledged to give the matter his immediate
attention.
This would mean that Jennings had been handed the key by
Robillard prior to June 4th and 6 days before Jennings would
file his affidavit in which Jennings is clear on the key, based
on the tag affixed, was not one used at the time he was the
hotel proprietor.
This is Jennings' affidavit which doesn't mention any remodeling
or renovations made at the hotel.
There is no, with all due respect to Prof. Underwood, "may not
have been from the hotel after all " to be found in Jennings'
clearly made statement about the key
HTML https://i.imgur.com/ERB3Vs8.jpg
HTML https://i.imgur.com/SBE8KmU.jpg
****************************************************************************************************
It should be mentioned here that according to Jennings he had
been proprietor for five years which is found in his affidavit.
Tommy Thompson, in his May 14th Coroner's Inquest testimony,
states he began working for the Hotel in 1883. He may, in all
fairness, have been referring to Heinrich Steichler, the
building's owner. Nevertheless, Jennings had been its owner for
at least 5 years and possibly, 8, if Thompson was, in fact,
referring to Jennings.
HTML https://i.imgur.com/9kQowiF.jpg
In an official letter from Philbin's office dated July 10th,
1901 to Governor Benjamin Odell, Philbin refers to Damon's
comments ( from Damon's July 2nd affidavit) as follows :
HTML https://i.imgur.com/l6577vd.jpg
HTML https://i.imgur.com/8Th3mWI.jpg
Philbin can't be faulted for not realizing that there was never
a need for Damon to see what Ali looked like as if to
differentiate the two, a condition of which of all people he'd
have been the first to know as he had already sworn that his
hired hand was in Cranford for 2 ( I have seen one reference to
4) days after Ali had been arrested. Damon was actively
over-egging the pudding to give the impression that he was
sincere.
In an official letter from Philbin to the Governor on July 15th,
after Damon's trip to Mulberry Street with Robillard and Butler
on July 1st, Philbin lets the Governor know that the photo of
Ali that the Governor had sent to him was shown as instructed to
Damon and that Damon 'emphatically' stated that his hired hand,
'Frank' ,was an entirely different type than 'Frenchy'.
Philbin also enclosed an affidavit from Damon, undoubtedly the
July 2nd affidavit.
Philbin, like anyone else who wasn't well-versed in case details
and after the ten-year gap, unlike the extremely well-versed
Robillard, could not pick up on the dramatic and critical
differences in how Damon described his hired hand, 'Frank' as
not having a mustache, walking with a limp but one not noticed
by either Miniter or Kelly; and a flat nose unlike what Miniter
mentioned. A Wellman, Nicoll, or a Byrnes would have. And
especially Robillard, the most well-versed person on case
details.
Philbin, being unaware of the layout of the hotel, cannot be
faulted for not sizing up Damon and Brennan's story of sitting
in the saloon looking at keys on a board when this was
absolutely impossible.
So.......while DA Philbin cannot be faulted for overlooking the
phony bar room scene: the graphic disparity in the hire hand's
description with C. Kniclo, the unnecessary trip to Mulberry
Street on July 1st when Damon already knew his hired hand wasn't
Ali, whether they looked like identical twins or not, the fact
that he accepted the key as legitimate may have been impressed
upon him from Robillard, who Jennings told point-blank the key
was not 'the' key.
It is for this reason that I firmly believe, more than ever,
that Robillard was not about to see the shutdown of the 6th
pardon campaign over glaring lies Damon made and the sworn
affidavit towards the inauthenticity of the key.
There was too much at risk for the efforts of the French and
their self-image to suffer yet another setback. There is no
doubt that this would be the final push one way or the other.
Had it failed due to someone picking up on the contradictions in
the affidavits and appraising Governor Odell, that would have
been the end.
It is also a possibility that after the relentless and tenacious
efforts of the French, the Governor's compromise solution of
simply commutating Ali's sentence, regardless of whether he was
aware of the contradictions and lies or not, is why we're at the
place we are today directly as a result of the following :
He may have just said," The hell with it, let's get rid of this
pain in the ass prisoner once and for all, and in doing so, I'll
spare the next Governor a year from now from yet another pardon
campaign."
#Post#: 1983--------------------------------------------------
Re: Philbin's Folly
DIR By: HowBrown1953
Date: August 9, 2023, 10:02 am
---------------------------------------------------------
He noted some evidence from Mr. James Jennings, the hotel
proprietor at the time, suggesting that the key now produced may
not have been from the hotel after all ( he could not verify
this himself because the hotel building had been renovated after
a fire
-from Underwood's quote above-
Upon re-reading this, what difference would it make if the hotel
had been renovated after a fire for the authenticity of the key
to come into question?
Jennings is clear that the tag on the key was not in use when he
was in charge of the hotel.
If a fire had occurred before April 23rd, Jennings would have
remembered a renovation and a change made in the type of key tag
they used.
He mentions nothing of the sort happening.
Any fire after April 23rd was irrelevant if one had occurred
because Damon's 'key' was taken from the hotel on the 23rd or
early 24th.
#Post#: 2120--------------------------------------------------
Re: Philbin's Folly
DIR By: HowBrown1953
Date: September 10, 2023, 2:30 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Instead of retitling the thread, what DA Philbin did was
perfectly understandable in consideration of a couple of things
that I came across.
D.A. Eugene Philbin's
Investigation
The following report was written by New York City DA Eugene
Philbin on June 21, 1901, after being contacted by Governor
Odell in the same month.
"Your communication informs me that:
"A renewal of the application is now made on the same ground
as before, and some further evidence consisting of affidavits
and of a certain key therein referred to has been submitted.
These affidavits and key are enclosed herewith for your (my)
inspection and with the request that you return them, when
through with them, to the Executive Chamber.
Governor Odell directs me respectfully to request that you
examine these documents and make such investigation concerning
the matters alleged as you may be able and report thereon to
him."
In conformity with this request, I have the honor to submit the
following:
It is now claimed that the key in question furnishes newly
discovered evidence of the innocence of the prisoner. The door
of the room in which the body of the murdered woman was found
was locked and the key thereof could not be found, nor was any
key found in possession of 'Frenchy' when he was arrested.
The key submitted for my inspection and examination was
discovered some four days after the murder in a room at
Cranford, N.J., occupied by a man employed by Mr. George Damon.
On the night the murder occurred this man had not been home all
night, and three or four days after the the murder, while the
newspapers were filled with accounts of the tragedy, this man
left his employer's service and was never heard from afterward.
When he went away he left behind him the brass key in question
and a shirt stained with blood. The shirt was thrown away but
the key was placed in a safe (2), whence it was brought when
recent publications in the newspapers again directed public
attention to the murder. (3)
The details of the finding of the key, together with such
proofs as bear upon its alleged genuineness, will be found fully
set forth in the additional statements and affidavits herewith
submitted.
In order to trace and verify, if possible, the genuineness of
said key, I cause an investigation to be made of the premises,
formerly known as the East River Hotel, the house in which the
old woman known as 'Shakespeare' was found murdered on April 24,
1891. This investigation was conducted by Detective Sergeant
McNaught, of the Central Office, at present on special duty in
the District Attorney's office, and he reports in substance as
follows:
That he diligently followed my instructions and ascertained
that not a vestige of the old house as it existed at the time of
the murder--save the walls--in now left. That some few months
after the tragedy occurred the then proprietor--Mr. James
Jennings-- retired from the hotel business and moved away; that
the place was then closed and remained closed for about three
years; that while it was thus closed, a fire occurred in the
place which did considerable damage interiorly; that the inside
of the house was afterward changed and altered into a tenement
house; that it is occupied as such at the present time, with a
bar-room on the ground floor and several rooms "for gentlemen
only", evidently reserved to meet the requirements of Raines
Law.
In the renovation of the place about five years ago, the rooms
that existed when the place was run as a hotel were ripped out
(Note: that would be during 1896), the locks and keys being
disposed of at the time with the other debris of the place and
carried away, nobody knowing what became of them.
I have examined Mr. George Damon in relation to the finding of
the key and reiterated all the statements contained in his
affidavit(4).
He further informed me that the man "Frank" mentioned in his
affidavit, had worked for him for about four weeks; that about
three days after the murder "Frank left him (Mr. Damon's) employ
without any notice; that no money was due him at the time, and
that he had not seen or heard of him since. Concerning the
servant-maid Mary-- also mentioned in his affidavit--Mr. Damon
informed me that she had left his employ some nine years ago and
that he did not know her present whereabouts.
Mr. Damon further stated that his wife, shortly after the key
was found by the maid Mary, had put it away in the safe at their
house in Cranford, N.J. where it remained and---
At this point, the letter ends abruptly.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is now clear that there had been no fire at the hotel while
Jennings was in charge, neither were there any renovations while
he was hotel proprietor.
Jennings wasn't the least bit unsure of the authenticity of the
key.
James Jennings' affidavit was submitted eleven days before DA
Philbin wrote this report and Philbin was obviously aware of
Jennings' rejection of the key. Yet this didn't warrant a
further investigation by the D.A.'s Office for a very good
reason.
That was because Philbin had no other way of ascertaining the
authenticity of the key. The hotel's new doors and its new locks
were not like those from when Jennings was in charge. There was
no way to verify Damon's claim or that of Jennings, despite
Jennings obviously being more well-versed on which keys were in
use on the fifth floor and throughout the hotel. It was a
matter of Philbin dealing with, on the one hand, Damon's story,
the key, the affidavits, letters, and this latest pardon
campaign, while on the other, only James Jennings' dismissal of
the key as being the type used in 1891,
Faced with this decision of what to do, he did what many others
in his situation would probably do.
After including the content of other affiant testimonies (
Berbenich, Jennings, Riis, Coleman, Butler, and comments from
Dr. Jenkins ) in his 12-page missive he concluded with the
following and sent it on to Albany:
"While I fully concur, in a technical sense, in the view
expressed by my learned predecessor( 5 ) in his communication to
the Governor of the State of New York ( 6 ) in November 1894, in
relation to this case, that the verdict in question was found
upon legal evidence fully warranting the same, yet the proof was
not so conclusive as to render the claim that after all the
defendant was not guilty an absurd one. For that reason,
therefore, and in view of the doubt that may be created because
of the alleged newly discovered evidence, I can well understand
the executive being moved to grant the petition made to him in
this case, and it would seem to me that such a disposition of
the matter would not in any way conflict with the ends of
justice."
I have the honor to be, Sir
Very respectfully
Your obedient servant,
Eugene Philbin
District Attorney
Philbin, having done what Governor Odell had asked him to do,
would now leave the matter up to Governor Odell to decide
whether to release Ali or not.
1- Damon claimed the hired hand left two days later. Some
newspaper reports claim he said three or four days later.
2. The New York Sun edition for June 2, 1901, finds Damon
claiming the key had been left in his wife's jewel box, not a
safe. The article also features Damon going through this
rigamarole:
'After making his affidavit ( May 20th affidavit, as the others
were never discussed in print), Mr. Damon went home and asked
his wife if she could swear to the number which the key her maid
had found had borne and she replied that she could and that the
key was up in her jewel box where it had been ever since it had
been found."
In other words, Damon filed an affidavit on May 20th, signed
said affidavit swearing to the key's existence, and then had to
go home to make sure his WIFE remembers where it was.
He goes to file an affidavit professing a ten-year ownership of
the key, yet is unsure whether the key is even in his house
anymore?
3- The lone Manhattan-based article I found mentioning '
Frenchy' that was published before Damon came forward in 1901
was the March 27, 1901 edition of the New York Sun. I can't
find 'recent publications' in the plural tense.
4- DA Philbin says, "...and he reiterated all the statements
contained in his affidavit."
Damon had filed two affidavits, the first on May 20th and the
second on June 12th, each before Philbin wrote his report. The
second affidavit was a repetition of the first affidavit as it
was almost entirely about the key he had in his possession.
5- DA John Fellows 1894-1896
6- Governor Roswell Flower 1892-1894
*****************************************************
Page 1 of 1