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#: 2293--------------------------------------------------
Re: The Issue Of The Key To Room 31 :
DIR By: HowBrown1953
Date: October 23, 2023, 6:21 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Howard, leaving aside the issue of the descriptions of C. Niclo
and the farmhand for the moment. It seems your explanation for
Damon’s key is he lied, he produced the key himself and spun a
phony story of an unverifiable farmhand. He did this in order to
help free Ali. I’m not sure why he would be very interested in
that, given that he consistently badmouths him. Were he on a
mission to help, would he not speak more highly of him?
********* Pete...setting the provenance of the key aside, the
major issue has to be the description which nullifies his
farmhand from being C. Kniclo. The issue of the key will have to
be a matter of us agreeing to disagree for the time being.
Damon, like the thousands of others in the Manhattan area, may
have been approached by someone over the span of a decade, just
as several other business owners ( we have their letters, all
uniform in content, and almost appearing as if written by same
person going on the content of these letters) were approached.
He could have been bitten by the bug to free Ali as other
businessmen were.
If not for Ali's sake, then perhaps for some reason that would
benefit him financially. Credit where it's due, this latter idea
was Professor Dekles'.
To me, the idea that Damon faked the key presents insurmountable
obstacles. For instance, if Damon lied, does that not mean that
Lee and Brennan also deliberately and knowingly lied? Since they
claim to have been informed by Damon and to have seen the key in
1891.
****************I doubt that a secret between three people could
remain that long, but to answer your question, yes. I can easily
envision a friend for nearly two decades ( Lee) and an employee
for fifteen years (Brennan) backing up a friend and employer,
respectively, on something like this.
It really didn't require much for it to work. If their stories
were close enough in content, it certainly was beneficial for
the plan to work.
The letter from Governor Voorhees to Governor Odell essentially
gave Damon a get out of trouble card. It can't be underestimated
how much of an impact that it had in Damon being perceived as an
honest man. The fact that Damon had his two long-time friends
filing affidavits, in my opinion, was the reason the Damon
household was exempt from filing their versions of the events in
April 1891. The fact that Damon not only can't remember his
maid's last name ( Mary Nasbit) or Henry's surname and that "at
this point in time, it would be impossible for me to locate
them", the authorities, with that letter from Voorhees and the
two friend's affidavits, just let it go. Just like they let him
go with the bogus description of the farmhand. The ten-year gap
in time was in my opinion the reason for several things in the
story being accepted or glossed over. Without the ten-year gap,
I don't think Damon would have ever even thought of coming
forward. I don't see the possibility of Damon fabricating a
phony key as an insurmountable obstacle.
For what purpose would they lie? Freeing Ali? Brennan was an
employee, still a bit hard to accept that he’d submit a
bald-faced lie as an affidavit just to prop up Damon’s fake
story.
*********** I can tell you here or to your face that I would
back up a fake story for a friend if it did not in any way harm
me or anyone else.
Their backing up Damon's story was no sweat off their ass. It
hurt no one, rather it helped someone ( Damon). There was no
way for the authorities to investigate their individual stories
UNLESS they were subjected to cross-examination, individually,
like from Wellman or Nicoll. Conveniently, neither attorney was
in office ten years later. We can rest assured that both of the
trial lawyers would have challenged the story.
People have been paid off for phony affidavits in far more
serious situations, often covering someone who committed a
capital or high financial crime. This was kid's stuff.
What of the risk involved to Damon, he could not know that he
would not be castigated or punished for withholding evidence- he
could of course hope for it and use his NJ contacts to mitigate
risk, but there was no way to know in advance.
And Lee - lying for a friend, while knowing that besides Damon
and his wife, at least two servants at large would know he was
lying - how could he know they would not be tracked down or come
forward?
************You are exactly right and I mention this in the
book. How could Damon not know that he would not be roasted for
his delay in coming forward after ten years? He couldn't UNLESS
he had the full support of New York newspapers ( 4 reporters or
former reporters wrote supportive affidavits on different
matters) and a DA (Philbin) who had been informed that Damon was
a 'goodfella" based on the letter his superior, Governor Odell,
received BEFORE his coming forward. That is how he managed to
wiggle out of any criticism EXCEPT for those two out-of-town
papers ( Buffalo and Washington). That no New York newspaper or
New York-based social reformer (The People newspaper, Jacob
Riis, or Charles Russell, for example) said one word about the
delay, EVER, is an example of them not wanting to make waves.
Most of the newspapers were grateful he came out, and of course,
the French were too. On the other hand, if one paper did come
out and criticize Damon for the ten-year gap, the newspaper
would appear ungrateful for Damon 'righting a wrong', and
possibly face a backlash.
How about how the story broke? A casual conversation, a chance
meeting with a lawyer involved with the case. It wasn’t even
Damon who offered his story.
***********This story tends towards being apocryphal. I think it
was. No attorney ever came forward to identify himself as being
the person, who by accident, set the wheels in motion. It would
require no great thinking or planning for Lee to approach an
attorney and bring up the key/farmhand story and be brought up
at the request of Damon to test the waters. Since Lee did not
mention Damon's name, if this attorney said, "Man, your buddy is
in some deep shit if your story is true.", Damon had nothing to
worry about because, again, Lee did not mention his name. Had
Lee been told that his friend would face some sort of
retribution, then I think it's safe to say Damon would have
never come forward, regardless if the story was true or false.
In short, Howard, I’m wondering how you think the process went
and how Damon managed to get everyone in line, supporting his
lies?
I cannot see it happening, to be honest.
Check this out, Pete:
According to what Damon swore to in his first affidavit, we have
the following to go by as a sort of timeline.
Unfortunately, it is not an iron-clad guarantee that things took
place in exactly the same way outlined below but they are a
close approximation:
Thursday evening, the 23rd, the farmhand goes to Manhattan.
Brown is murdered at the hotel.
Friday, the 24th, the murder has been announced in the papers
and heard via Manhattan tom-toms. Everyone is aware of it.
Including Damon.
The farmhand had come home early on the 24th but was unable to
work at the time Damon was up preparing for work and heading off
to work in New York that morning.
Saturday, the 25th, the farmhand is still in Cranford. Day one
of the two days that the farmhand would remain there after the
murder as Damon stated in his first affidavit.
Also on the 25th, the five major New York newspapers provided
not only information about Ali but included his description.
They were the Sun, Times, Tribune, Herald, and Evening World,
not counting newspapers with smaller circulation figures.
Sunday, the 26th, The farmhand leaves Cranford, this being the
second of the two days Damon swore the farmhand had stayed on
after the murder.
Monday, the 27th, Presuming that Damon did not work on Sundays,
Damon comes home from work and is told about the key, shirt, and
departure of the farmhand, possibly on the 27th after Damon
heads off to work. He put the key in his pocket in the evening
and went to work on Tuesday, the 28th, where he took Brennan
with him to the hotel that day.
Although not earth-shattering, this latter bit of Damon's
affidavit does not match what Brennan stated. As already
mentioned, Brennan swore that the two went to the hotel the day
after Damon had told him his story. Damon, as shown, swore in
his affidavit that it was on the same day he told Brennan about
the key and farmhand, going that day to the hotel.
JOHN A. LEE MAY 31ST,1901
[[ I, John A. Lee, contractor, residing at Cranford, New
Jersey, deposes and says:
I am a resident of Cranford, State of New Jersey, and have been
for twenty years. I am acquainted with Mr. George Damon, of the
firm of Damon and Peets, and have known him for the past
eighteen years.
I heard and read about the murder of one 'Shakespeare' which
took place in the City of New York in April, 1891. A few days
after the murder in question, I went riding with Mr. George
Damon one afternoon to Scotch Plains. Mr. George Damon then
told me that one of his maid servants had found a shirt with
blood stains on it and a key bearing the same number as the
number of the room where Shakespeare had been murdered. He said
that the said articles had been found in the room upstairs in
the stable which had been occupied by a man he had employed
temporarily.
Mr. Damon also told me that he would take the key to New York
and compare it with the other keys in the hotel where the murder
had been committed.
When we returned home, Mr. Damon showed me the key which was an
ordinary cheap key with a tag on it with corners clipped. The
tag had the same number as the number of the room mentioned in
the papers as being the one in which Shakespeare was murdered,
but I cannot remember the exact denomination.
I advised Mr. Damon to keep the matter quiet, as I did not
believe that Frenchy could be convicted; moreover knowing the
dangerous character of this man in question, I was afraid for
the safety of my friend, Mr. Damon, and the safety of someone of
his family, should the police fail to catch him.
Shortly afterward Mr. Damon told me that he had gone to the
hotel and compared the key and the said key was exactly the same
as the keys on the key board in said hotel.]]
Analysis of the Lee Affidavit:
"A few days after the murder in question, I went riding with Mr.
George Damon one afternoon to Scotch Plains.
......Mr. Damon also told me that he would take the key to New
York and compare it with the other keys in the hotel where the
murder had been committed."
According to Damon back on May 20th, he went to the hotel with
Brennan the morning after the maid gave him the key. He didn't
just say it: He swore to it.
In Lee's version, Lee claimed he had been riding in Scotch
Plains with Damon a few days after the murder when Damon told
him about the key and would eventually show him the key in his
home. Damon told Lee, at that time, that he was planning on
taking the key to New York.
Unless Damon decided to go riding in a carriage or on horseback
five miles away in the dark, west of Cranford on the very
evening he was informed of the key, shirt, and farmhand's
departure with Lee, then there's an issue with Damon or Lee's
affidavits. This is out of kilter according to the timeline
arrived at from Damon's affidavit, alone.
Coincidentally, both Charles Brennan and John A. Lee clearly
remembered a fair number of details about the day Damon shared
his information ten years earlier, but neither remembered the
number on the key.
Concerning another curious remark made by Lee: How would John A.
Lee know about the 'dangerous character' of the farmhand unless
this inside dope came from Damon? The farmhand had only begun
working at Damon's in March of 1891 Therefore, Lee's comment
about "knowing the dangerous character of this man in
question..." if not contrived, had to have come from Damon.
Additionally, why would Damon tell Lee he had a 'dangerous
character' on his estate, yet continue to keep him on? Damon,
at no time, ever expresses any urgent need on his part to
terminate the farmhand's services or ask the farmhand, this
'dangerous character', to vacate the premises prior to the
murder of Brown. In fact, Damon clearly expected this 'dangerous
character' to be ready for work on the 24th of April, 1891
CHARLES BRENNAN MAY 9TH, 1901
I, Charles Brennan, being duly sworn, deposes and says :
[[ I am a truckman and have been doing the trucking business for
Damon and Peets for 15 years.
I heard and read about the murder of one Shakespeare attributed
to one Frenchy alias Ben Ali.
A few days after the murder, Mr. George Damon, of the firm of
Damon and Peets, 44 Beekman Street, New York City, came to me in
the store and told me that he believed that the real murderer of
Shakespeare was a man by the name of 'Frank', who had been
employed by him in Cranford, New Jersey, as a key had been found
in his room bearing the same number as the number of the room in
which Shakespeare had been killed and he requested me to go down
to the hotel with him, as he was afraid to go in that locality
alone.
Mr. Damon and I went to the hotel the next day after this
conversation. We sat down together at a table and asked for a
cigar.
Mr. Damon took out a key with a tag on it from his pocket and
compared it in my presence with the keys on the keyboard. A
moment later, a man came downstairs and laid a key on the bar.
We got up and went to the bar and called for a glass of beer for
the purpose of comparing the key close by, laying the keys side
by side.
After comparing the said keys, we found that the key in the
possession of Mr. Damon was exactly the same as the one laid on
the bar and those on the keyboard. My memory fails to remember
the number on the key.
After leaving the saloon, Mr. Damon and myself were satisfied
that the key in his possession was the missing key of the room
where the murder had been committed.]]
Analysis of the Brennan Affidavit:
Nothing in this affidavit appears to be out of kilter at that
time.
One remark to keep in mind is that Brennan states that after
Damon first approached
him and asked him to accompany him to the hotel, Brennan said
they went the day
after their conversation.
#Post#: 2294--------------------------------------------------
Re: The Issue Of The Key To Room 31 :
DIR By: HowBrown1953
Date: October 23, 2023, 6:33 am
---------------------------------------------------------
GEORGE DAMON MAY 20TH, 1901 First Affidavit
I, George Damon, being duly sworn, deposes and says:
[[ I am a member of the firm of Damon and Peets, being engaged
in the printing materials business, 44 Beekman Street, New York
City, for the last
thirty-three years. I heard and read of the murder of one,
"Shakespeare", attributed to one "Frenchy", Amer Ben Ali which
happened on the twenty-fourth
day of April 1891. I was at that time and am still a resident of
Cranford, New Jersey. Have lived there twenty-two years.
I had some extra work to be done on my place in Cranford, in the
spring of 1891, so I went down to Castle Garden and hired a man
to assist my regular man, Henry.
As near as I can recollect his name was 'Frank'. ( I do not
remember his other name) and he took charge of my horses.
The morning before I heard of the murder of "Shakespeare", I
went to my stable and found only my regular man; it was about
six o'clock in the morning,
I asked him where the other man, "Frank' was and he said that
'Frank' had been out all night and had gone to bed and that I
had better not disturb him as he was
pretty ugly.
I did not see him, but at the regular time, came to New York. He
left me shortly after without any notice.
One of my maidservants named 'Mary', went up to the barn to
clean up the room that said 'Frank' had occupied and found a
key: I think in the table draw.
She also found a shirt with many blood stains on it: one of the
shirt sleeves especially had large blood stains. She made the
remark that the tag of the key had
the same number as the one of the room occupied by 'Shakespeare'
the night of the murder as mentioned in the papers.
When I returned home that night, they called my attention to it.
I put the key in my pocket and brought it to New York with me.
It was an ordinary brass key of the cheap kind and had a tag on
it numbered No. 31. I am positive that it was the same number
that the papers reported at the
time to be the number of the room that this woman occupied. The
next day I told to Charles Brennan, one of my employees, and
asked him to walk down to the
hotel where the murder had been committed, as I did not care to
go in that locality alone. We went into a saloon on Catherine
Street, in the same hotel where the
murder had been committed, and asked for a cigar. We sat down at
a table and compared the key that I had and the tag, with the
keys on the board. It was exactly
the same style of key and same style of tag: it was a small
brass tag with the corners clipped.
While sitting there a party came down and laid a key on the bar
and went out. We got up and called for a glass of beer and laid
the key which I had beside the
other key and they were exactly alike; the figures were the same
size and shape and the shape of the tag and key were the same.
From being a practical printer
and being familiar with the figures, I am positive that the
stamped figures on the key and those on the key board were made
from the same dies. I then went out
and went up to my store.
The man who I referred to in the beginning of my statement,
known to me as "Frank', was, I think, a Swede. I know that he
was a sailor because he had done some
splicing of ropes for me. He was a man about five feet ten
inches, rather strong but not fleshy, about thirty-five years
old. He had a very sullen disposition.
He was a foreigner, speaking a broken language, and in my
opinion a Swede.
He left me in the night, and I have never seen him since. When
this man came to work for me he only had a bundle of clothes and
left nothing but the shirt and
key in his room.
It would be impossible for me to locate the manservant named
'Henry' or the maidservant.
My reason for not coming forward and making this statement
before was from what I had read in the papers. I made up my mind
that this 'Frenchy' was quite well
off where he is and the world without him., and I did not care
to have my name brought in connection with it, and moreover I
thought that 'Frenchy' would be
acquitted, as I did not believe they could make a case against
him. Had I been instrumental in having 'Frank' arrested, I felt
convinced, knowing the man, that my
life or the life of some of my family would have been
endangered, but I feel now that it is my duty to make this
affidavit. What I know of this man, I am convinced
that this man 'Frank' I had in my employ was the murderer of
that woman.
The key number 31 which I refer to above is now in my possession
and has been ever since the day it was found. ]]
************************************************************************
The July 2nd affidavit would turn out to be the statement that
completely turned case history upside down. I'll add that on
after this post.
One newspaper contained this report almost two weeks after the
first affidavit was submitted stating Damon
claimed the key had been left in his wife's jewel box. (10)
That article, based on an interview Damon gave after already
having submitted his May 20 affidavit, also contained the
following:
"After making his affidavit, 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." (11)
Yet, at the end of the first affidavit weeks earlier, Damon
said, ""The key number 31 which I refer to above is now in my
possession and has been ever since the day it was found."
This was not just an issue of a newspaper mixing up names;
confusing one arrested person for another; omitting or adding a
detail to someone's statement; or misrepresenting what people
said ranging from defense counselors, the police, to jurors.
In simpler terms, Damon filed an affidavit on May 20th, swearing
to the key's existence, and then had to go home to make sure his
wife remembered where it was.
Damon had gone to a notary to file an important affidavit
professing a ten-year ownership of the key, yet is unsure
whether the key is even in his house or not, thirteen days after
originally stating that it was in his possession.
Although you will be hard-pressed to find a more vocal critic of
Manhattan newspaper reportage than
me, this report is from the New York Sun, a newspaper that would
be supportive of Damon or anyone
who could help secure a release for Ali. 4 reporters from the
New York Sun filed affidavits in support of Ali in 1901.
It does not appear in any way to be some sort of invented
dialogue between Damon and a reporter.
It's difficult to believe that one of the news reporters would
fabricate such a statement out of thin air.
10- DA Philbin's letter to Governor Odell on June 21, 1901,
states Damon told him that the key was in a safe
in his home, not his wife's jewel box.
11- New York Sun June 2nd, 1901
#Post#: 2295--------------------------------------------------
Re: The Issue Of The Key To Room 31 :
DIR By: HowBrown1953
Date: October 23, 2023, 6:36 am
---------------------------------------------------------
The Third Affidavit
July 2, 1901
Affidavit Number 3 July 2, 1901
In the matter of the application for pardon of Frenchy, "Amer
Ben Ali"
City and County of New York
George Damon being duly sworn deposes and says :
[[That the man ' Frank' referred to in my previous affidavit*
did not leave my employment in Cranford, New Jersey, for at
least two days after the murder of
"Shakespeare" was discovered.
That this man 'Frank' was about five feet ten inches in height,
had brown hair, clean shaving, wearing no wiskers or mustache.
That when not shaven for a few days would show a very light
growth and very light color;
He was a man of about 175 to 180 pounds, with square broad
shoulders.
He had a large flat nose, and large eyes, ( I do not remember
the color ); he had a low forehead.
Either on his right or left wrist, near the hand, there was a
wide tattooed bracelet, extending completely around his wrist.
The figures on the wrist were quite fancy.
This man 'Frank' spoke fairly good English, with a foreign
accent; I think that he was either a 'Dane' or a 'Swede', and I
know that he talked German because I heard him talk German with
German people; I understood enough of the language to know he
was speaking German.
He had a little hitch in walking, apparently stepping shorter
with one foot than the other. He was a man about 35 years of
age. My belief is that he spoke only German and English
He was a man who would seldom speak unless spoken to; he had
done some splicing of ropes for me while in my employ and from
this factand the tattooing, I inferred he had been a sailor.
On the first day of July 1901, I visited the police headquarters
on Mulberry Street, New York City, for the purpose of examining
the photographs in the Rogues Gallery.
I was accompanied by Mr. Robert Butler, one of the editors of
the 'Sun' and Mr. Ovide Robillard, attorney for 'Frenchy'.
Upon inquiring of the officers in charge, we were informed that
no picture of 'Frenchy' had been taken at that time or placed in
the 'Rogues Gallery'.
That one of the officers in charge whose name I do not know,
stated that he well remembered 'Frenchy', as he was one of the
detectives working on the case, at that time; he described
'Frenchy' as a man about five feet eleven inches, with sharp
features, with a long and thin nose, dark complexion with quite
a heavy mustache, and about 45 or 46 years old in appearance;
that Frenchy had been arrested about nine o'clock in the morning
on April 24, 1891, in the 4th precinct, and that at that time he
had dark wiskers of about two weeks of growth.
From the fact that this man 'Frank' had no mustache or wiskers
while working for me, and comparing the pictures of 'Frenchy' in
the papers, at that time, describing him with a black mustache,
I am satisfied that the man 'Frank' is not the man 'Frenchy'
heretofore mentioned.]]
#Post#: 2296--------------------------------------------------
Re: The Issue Of The Key To Room 31 :
DIR By: HowBrown1953
Date: October 23, 2023, 6:41 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Obviously, two physical features this farmhand possessed were
not mentioned by Miniter or Kelly and they most certainly would
have been. Several items mentioned, such as the type of coat,
hat, hair, height, age, presumed ethnicity....were noted and all
matched to a tee...... but two more prominent features weren't.
That's because they're two different people.
Pete or Mike...
I don't necessarily 'want' anyone to agree with my conclusion
on the farmhand story. Differences in opinion on the site have
led to some solid information which has advanced the study,
overall.
What I would like to know is whether you understand where I'm
coming from. I'm not inflexible when it comes to the outside
chance that Damon didn't fabricate a key or that Jennings might
have been wrong. But if the farmhand's features do not
match...and they don't....then the entire story is on thin ice.
#Post#: 2297--------------------------------------------------
Re: The Issue Of The Key To Room 31 :
DIR By: Kattrup
Date: October 23, 2023, 8:48 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: Howard Brown link ---
>
> Obviously, two physical features this farmhand possessed were
not mentioned by Miniter or Kelly and they most certainly would
have been. Several items mentioned, such as the type of coat,
hat, hair, height, age, presumed ethnicity....were noted and all
matched to a tee...... but two more prominent features weren't.
That's because they're two different people.
>
> Pete or Mike...
>
> I don't necessarily 'want' anyone to agree with my conclusion
on the farmhand story. Differences in opinion on the site have
led to some solid information which has advanced the study,
overall.
>
> What I would like to know is whether you understand where I'm
coming from. I'm not inflexible when it comes to the outside
chance that Damon didn't fabricate a key or that Jennings might
have been wrong. But if the farmhand's features do not
match...and they don't....then the entire story is on thin ice.
>
--- End Quote ---
I certainly do understand your position and the arguments you
put forward to support it.
I don’t agree with some of the issues you have with minor
discrepancies between affidavits.
And generally I need an empirical basis in order to accept a
theory- you’re asking to accept that Damon lied and convinced
his friends to lie as well, for no apparent reason or motive,
with very little evidence or sources, besides perhaps Jennings’
statement that the key was not the right one,
And I think it best to keep separate the origin of the key and
the identity of C. Kniclo/Glenmore Man and the farmhand.
As you say, it seems the description of the farmhand does not
match that of C Kniclo. That does not mean the key was faked. I
don’t understand why you think this discrepancy invalidates
Damon’s story, as he (as far as I can recall) has not claimed
that C Kniclo was the farmhand.
Isn’t that just an assumption on your part, that if Ali wasn’t
the murderer, it must have been C Kniclo, therefore if he looks
dissimilar to the farmhand, the farmhand cannot have been the
murderer, therefore Damon lies?
I have a few other comments about some of the issues you have
but I’m on my phone, so it’s a bother to write up.
One thing though is the idea that Damon swore an affidavit on
May 20th that the key was in his possession and only afterwards
checked with his wife.
Well, as I’m on my phone I cannot check through all the
documents but it seems to me that, as there are textual
differences between the affidavit quoted in the papers May 23rd
and the affidavit sent to the governor, and as the affidavit
sent was signed May 29th, that Damon may have amended his
original affidavit before it was sent?
The Sun article about him asking his wife if she would swear on
it is dated 2nd June and states the affidavits were sent
“yesterday”.
Note that in the original newspaper articles about the
affidavit, he does not state that he still has the key.
So I think he swore the affidavit about his story, went home and
asked his wife, and found she still had the key. During the week
his original affidavit was the revised, tidied up a bit, and
signed on the 29th.
As said, can’t really check all the details on my phone but I
think it tallies with the accounts like that. What do you think?
#Post#: 2298--------------------------------------------------
Re: The Issue Of The Key To Room 31 :
DIR By: HowBrown1953
Date: October 23, 2023, 10:53 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I certainly do understand your position and the arguments you
put forward to support it.
***** Thanks, Pete. It's important that what I'm driving at is
understood just as it is with what you're saying.
I don’t agree with some of the issues you have with minor
discrepancies between affidavits.
And generally, I need an empirical basis in order to accept a
theory- you’re asking to accept that Damon lied and convinced
his friends to lie as well, for no apparent reason or motive,
with very little evidence or sources, besides perhaps Jennings’
statement that the key was not the right one.
***** My position is that since the description does not tally,
then anything else in the affidavits ( 2 major ones from Damon,
1 from Jennings, and 1 from Brennan) is in need of a
re-evaluation. While the authorities DID correctly look into
whether the key was authentic and DID make Damon either confirm
or reject the suggestion that the prisoner in Dannemora claimed
was incorrect, they did not take the time to compare how Miniter
and Kelly ( if one is inclined to include him for his Glenmore
Man description) described him. Surely, the authorities would
have had to re-assess all of what Damon had brought up in May of
1901 if they put the two descriptions side by side.
And I think it best to keep separate the origin of the key and
the identity of C. Kniclo/Glenmore Man and the farmhand.
As you say, it seems the description of the farmhand does not
match that of C Kniclo. That does not mean the key was faked. I
don’t understand why you think this discrepancy invalidates
Damon’s story, as he (as far as I can recall) has not claimed
that C Kniclo was the farmhand.
He said in the first affidavit and I quote, "What I know of this
case ( the farmhand), I am convinced that this man 'Frank ' I
had in my employ was the murderer of that woman."
Since 'C.Kniclo' was a permutation of the Danish Farmhand, Damon
IS saying that C. Kniclo-Danish Farmhand were one and the same
and the killer.
Isn’t that just an assumption on your part, that if Ali wasn’t
the murderer, it must have been C Kniclo.
I'm not committing to either Ali ( whose suspect-worthiness has
increased in my opinion but NOT because of Damon, in the last
six months) or C. Kniclo as the killer. I'm fairly certain it
was one of the two, but without something irrefutable, it's a
toss-up right now.
Of course, since the farm hand does not resemble C. Kniclo, he
couldn't have been the killer. That is what I'm saying.
There was only one man who went to room 31 with Carrie Brown: C.
Kniclo. The hotel employees would have mentioned if someone
besides Ali and C. Kniclo entered the hotel after midnight, the
time when Ali went in.
How else could the farmhand enter the hotel without being
noticed?
How else could he get his hands on the key that, since the
farmhand and C. Kniclo were different men, allegedly winds up in
Cranford?
Therefore if he looks dissimilar to the farmhand, the farmhand
cannot have been the murderer, therefore Damon lies?
Yes, indeed, and because the farmhand was not the man who
entered the hotel with Carrie Brown. Other folks have to
question why Damon's description varies to the extent that it
did with that of C. Kniclo. Two answers come to my mind.
One, is that it was made up.
Two, he described someone who did work in Cranford but had
absolutely no connection to the crime.
This does not mean C. Kniclo was the murderer without a doubt.
I have a few other comments about some of the issues you have
but I’m on my phone, so it’s a bother to write up.
One thing though is the idea that Damon swore an affidavit on
May 20th that the key was in his possession and only afterwards
checked with his wife.
Well, as I’m on my phone I cannot check through all the
documents but it seems to me that, as there are textual
differences between the affidavit quoted in the papers May 23rd
and the affidavit sent to the governor, and as the affidavit
sent was signed May 29th, that Damon may have amended his
original affidavit before it was sent?
The affidavit was originally sworn to on the 20th. Two
newspaper articles appeared right after the signing on May 23rd
and May 24th. His next affidavits were on June 12, July 2, and
July 13. It may have been amended, as you suggest.
Affidavit two is a rehashing of the first affidavit; the third,
a stand-alone, and the fourth in regard to Governor Odell
sending DA Philbin a photo of Ali and having Damon look at it.
The newspaper article in the Washington Times is typical of
creative journalists at work. Damon only refers to a Dane for
the first time 40 days after Robillard mentioned the farmhand's
ethnic background, in his third affidavit on July 2nd.
The Sun article about him asking his wife if she would swear on
it is dated 2nd June and states the affidavits were sent
“yesterday”.
Note that in the original newspaper articles about the
affidavit, he does not state that he still has the key.
So I think he swore the affidavit about his story, went home and
asked his wife, and found she still had the key. During the week
his original affidavit was the revised, tidied up a bit, and
signed on the 29th.
As said, can’t really check all the details on my phone but I
think it tallies with accounts like that. What do you think?
I originally thought that the first affidavit was signed on the
29th. But since newspaper articles had begun to appear BEFORE
May 29th, I opted for the answer being he had signed and
finalized the first one on the 20th, which looks a little like
the 29 on the signature line.
In any event, to me, it makes no sense that he goes to sign an
affidavit swearing he is in possession of the key to room 31 but
displays some indecision in the key's location.
Another question....why didn't he bring the key along at the
time of the signing of the first affidavit? Wasn't it integral
to the entire story he was presenting? His story arrives in
piecemeal, something that could have been accomplished on one
afternoon takes this man 4 trips to complete.
#Post#: 2299--------------------------------------------------
Re: The Issue Of The Key To Room 31 :
DIR By: HowBrown1953
Date: October 23, 2023, 11:00 am
---------------------------------------------------------
D.A. PHILBIN'S
REPORTS
FIRST REPORT TO
GOVERNOR ODELL
JUNE 21ST,
1901
The following report was written by New York City DA Eugene
Philbin on June 21, 1901, after
being contacted by Governor Odell on June 3rd. The first of
three reports Philbin sent to Odell.
District Attorney's Office
City and County of New York
June 21st, 1901
To his Excellency
The Governor of The State of New York
Albany, N.Y.
Sir:- I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of an
Executive communication under date of June 3rd, 1901, informing
me that application for clemency has been made on behalf of
George Frank, alias Amer Ben Ali who was convicted in the Court
of General Sessions of this county, of the crime of Murder in
the Second Degree. The prisoner was sentenced on July 10th,
1891, by the late Justice Frederick Smyth-at that time Recorder
in our Court of General Sessions- to imprisonment in State
Prison for the term of his natural life.
In 1894, an application was made for the pardon of this prisoner
on the grounds of innocence. The late Col. John R. Fellows, at
that time District Attorney of this county made a report of the
case reviewing the testimony adduced on the trial and giving his
opinion as to the merits of the application. A copy of said
report is herewith enclosed.
"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. (1)
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: (4)
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 (5).
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.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Today, it's clear that there had been no fire at the hotel while
Jennings was in charge, and 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. No further investigation was
undertaken by the D.A.'s Office and 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 refute Damon's claim conclusively or affirm that of
Jennings's, 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's 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 have done in the same position.
This is the sequence of events which led to D.A.
Philbin's second report to Governor Odell:
1. A convict in Dannemora, James M. Dougherty, writes Governor
Odell a letter dated June 22nd.
In the letter, the convict states he believes Ali and Frank
the farmhand are one and the same.
2. D.A. Philbin receives a second letter from Governor Odell
dated June 27th with a request to look into the
claims made by the convict which should have been obvious at
the time to the Governor that it
was only a ploy on the convict's part to curry favors.
3. Philbin gets in contact with George Damon.
4. Damon goes to Mulberry Street on July 1st and while there he
learns that his farmhand does not resemble Ali based on what an
officer who knew Ali tells him and in the process gives a
description of the farmhand.
Damon had gone to police headquarters with Ovide Robillard and
Robert Gordon Butler. Damon's affidavit
5. On July 10th, Philbin sends in his second official report to
the Governor with information obtained from
George Damon as well as the latest( 3rd) affidavit that had
been filed eight days earlier on July 2nd, 1901.
Philbin's report was accompanied by Damon's third affidavit.
-----------------------------------------------------------
The letter from James M. Dougherty to Governor Odell.
Dougherty, born in 1856, was 44 or 45 at the time of this
missive to the Governor. Dougherty would still be in
Dannemora in 1910.
Dougherty 'Ripper series No.3'
Robert B. Lamb, M.D.
Sup't. Dannemora State Hospital
Dannemora, N.Y
--------------
His Excellency
Benjamin B. Odell
Executive Mansion
Albany, New York
Dannemora, N.Y. June 22nd, 1901
Your Excellency:
Herein, you will please find certain valuable information about
him ( Jack The Ripper ). I have long and seriously thought over
the pros and the cons of this remarkable man's case, and having
been a decade in close intimacy with him, have learned more
about him than you and all the advisers of his
various petitions put together and what's more, I want you to
understand that him and myself are and always have been in the
best of terms. In sending this communication, I do so only for
his own and the commonweal-Remember this, and then give me due
consideration- That man Damon's hired man's name was Frank. He
was 5 ft. 10 in. or so in height, 35 years of age, wiry, thin
face, foreigner, speaking broken English, the foreigner's ( ?
)description tallies exactly with this man here ten years ago.
Now this man Damon is the kind of man who would not acknowledge
that this man here is the one that worked for him if he was
asked about it fair and square, but I think he could be made to
positively identify him if he was shown a picture of Jack as he
was when he first came to prison and told that it was the
picture of the man who committed the recent 'Ripping' on Sunday,
who by the way I'm satisfied was Mrs.___No. 2 working to help
him out- or better yet present it as of the man who died in
prison supposed to have been the genuine Ripper- It could be
told to Damon that he had been arrested as the guilty (?) and
was being held for identification so that you would then be able
to conscientiously pardon the fellow out- Inspector Byrnes
instead of censure deserved great credit for lodging this fellow
on the __ evidence that he then had. His sleuth instinct told
him no doubt that this fellow was the guilty one and that Damon,
if were possible should be severely dealt with for suppressing
this evidence which would have made plain sailing for Byrnes as
he himself says he withheld it while he supposed that an
innocent man was being sent to prison for want of it.- This
fellow here has told me all about how he worked all the insane
doctors to get here, and all to that and has proved to me in
innumerable ways that he has all the qualities necessary for
'Ripper' work, wonderful, cunning and terrible achievements,
deep instinct and a large power of dissembling.
That he was ever in the French army -Franco-Prussian war I
doubt. He is only 45 now, which would only leave him 15 years of
age in '71. Of course, it's an easy matter for him, or anybody,
to cut the picture of a soldier out of a newspaper and say this
is like I used to be. That's no evidence, even if a sensational
yellow journal displays it as a picture of himself. That doesn't
make it so.
In conclusion, I very much wish you would send me that order
enabling me to employ an attorney which I am patiently waiting
for in all sincerity
James M. Dougherty
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SECOND REPORT TO
GOVERNOR ODELL
JULY
10th,1901
District Attorney's Office
City and County of New York
July 10, 1901
To His Excellency
The Governor of The State of New York
Albany, N.Y.
Sir:-
I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of an Executive
communication under date of June 27, 1901, asking for additional
particulars, or rather for a supplemental investigation,
concerning certain allegations connected with the case of:
George Frank
alias
Amer Ben Ali
alias Frenchy,
at present confined in the Dannemora State Hospital, and
whose case was fully reported by me
to your Excellency, under date of June 21st, 1901.
Your communication states:-
"A letter has been received this morning ( June 27th, 1901)
from a convict now imprisoned in the Dannemora State
Hospital in which it is suggested that Mr. Damon's hired man,
Frank, who disappeared from his employer's
premises on the morning after the murder, and Frenchy, are
one and the same person."
I have carefully and fully investigated this intimation
suggested by the convict, James M. Dougherty,
and in connection therewith beg respectfully to submit
herewith the following papers and report:-
The murder of the old woman Carrie Brown, otherwise known as
Shakespeare, was discovered on the morning of April 24th, 1891.
George Frank- Frenchy- was arrested at about nine o'clock that
night -April 24th, 1891- and remained in custody from that date.
The time and date of Frenchy's arrest as officially entered on
the 'Blotter' at the 5th Precinct ( Oak Street Police Station )
is as follows:-
"9 p.m. Friday, April 24th, 1891.
9 p.m.--George Frank, 30 years old, white, Algiers, Africa.
Sailor, single, no home.
Complaint- suspicious person. Officers Lang and Griffin.
Disposition- remanded by Coroner Schultz
Prisoner arrested on suspicion of being interested in the
homicide of 10:30 this A.M."
In further corroboration of the date of Frenchy's arrest, I
enclose herewith a clipping from the N.Y.Sun of May 1st, 1891,
which states he was arrested on April 24th, 1891.
Frank, the hired man of Mr. George Damon, was at his employer's
house, in Cranford New Jersey, on the day the murder was
discovered. He was absent the night previous but returned home
early the next morning- April 24th, 1891- and did not leave his
employer's service until at least two days after the murder had
become known.
If Frenchy was arrested on the night of April 24th, 1891- and
that such is the fact seems pretty conclusive-- and if Frank,
Mr. Damon's hired man, did not leave his employer's service
until two or three days after that date--as sworn to by Mr.
Damon in his previous and present affidavits--it is obvious that
said Frank and Frenchy cannot possibly be one and the same
person.
Concerning the personal appearance of the two men, Mr. Damon
describes his hired man, Frank, in his affidavit, as about 5 ft.
10 in. in height, with brown hair, a large flat nose, and a low
forehead; he further states that he was clean-shaven and when
not shaven for a few days would show a very light growth and
light color and that he spoke fairly good English, with a
foreign accent and could talk German.
Frenchy according to the joint affidavit of Mr. Charles Salomon
and Mr. Ovide Robillard, who called on him at the Matteawan
State Hospital in March 1899, is about 5'11", has a long narrow
head and long forehead; thin, long nose, regular in shape, sharp
features and dark complexion, and appears to be of a southern
European type. They also state that his English is almost
unintelligible, being mixed with French phrases and what seems
to be a Spanish dialect.
There does not appear to me to be anything in the foregoing
description of the two men that would indicate the said Frank
and Frenchy to be one and the same person.
In further corroboration of this report I beg respectfully
herewith to submit the following papers:-
An affidavit from Mr. George Damon, in whose employ the man
known as Frank is said to have remained for at least two days
after the murders; A joint affidavit by Mr. Charles S. Salomon
and Mr. Ovide Robillard who visited Frenchy at the Matteawan
State Hospital in March 1899;
And a statement of Mr. Robert Gordon Butler, one of the editors
of the N.Y. Sun, who furnishes the enclosed clipping from said
newspaper relating to the date of Frenchy's arrest
I have the honor to be, Sir
Very respectfully
Your obedient servant
Eugene Philbin, District Attorney
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Governor Odell sent a photo of Ali taken in
1896 to Philbin to show Damon to
be absolutely sure 'Frank' and Ali
were not the same person.
A third letter was sent by Governor Odell on July
11th. DA Philbin responded on July 15th
THIRD REPORT TO
GOVERNOR ODELL
JULY
15th, 1901
District Attorney's Office
City and County of New York
July 15th, 1901
To his Excellency
The Governor of the State of New York
Albany, N.Y.
Sir:-
I have the honor to hereby acknowledge the receipt of an
Executive communication
under date of July 11th, 1901, enclosing a photograph of
George Frank, alias Frenchy,
which picture- for the purpose of identification- you desire
should be showed to
Mr, Damon, in whose service the hired man known as Frank was
employed prior to and
some days after the murder of the old woman Carrie Brown,
otherwise known as Shakespeare.
Your communication states:
"As Mr.Damon has never had an opportunity of seeing a picture
of Frenchy I have
borrowed from the office of the Superintendent of State Prisons
a photograph taken
in October 1896, which it might be well to show Mr. Damon, and
if he declares
it is not his man Frank that would probably remove all possible
doubt."
In compliance with this request, I have had Mr. Damon examine
the photograph
in question, and he declares most emphatically--after carefully
studying
the picture--that his man Frank was of an entirely different
type; that
said Frank bore no resemblance, whatsoever, to this picture of
Frenchy- either
in profile or in full face- and the two men he positively
declares to be
dissimilar in appearance from every point of view.
These declarations, made to me by Mr.Damon, are further
substantiate
by the affidavit hereunto annexed.
The picture in question is herewith returned as per request.
I have the honor to be, Sir,
Very respectfully,
Your obedient servant
Eugene Philbin
District Attorney
1- Damon claimed the hired hand left two days later in an
affidavit. Some newspaper reports quote him saying three or four
days later. One as many as ten days.
2. The New York Sun edition for June 2, 1901, already discussed
in the George Damon in 1901 Chapter, finds Damon claiming the
key had been left in his wife's jewel box, not a safe.
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- Robert McNaught was one of the two detectives in late April
1891, along with Officer George Aloncle, who went with Ali to
Brooklyn on a wild goose chase. Ali lied about being in Brooklyn
on April 23rd.
5- DA Philbin says, "...and he reiterated all the statements
contained in his affidavit."
Damon had filed two affidavits, the first on May 20th and before
Philbin wrote his first report.
6- DA John Fellows 1894-1896
7- Governor Roswell Flower 1892-1894
#Post#: 2300--------------------------------------------------
Re: The Issue Of The Key To Room 31 :
DIR By: Kattrup
Date: October 23, 2023, 5:43 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Howard, how do you know the affidavit you have a copy of was
sworn on May 20th?
There were two series of articles, about a week apart,
mentioning affidavits. First series, about May 23-24. never
mentions the key being in Damon’s possession.
Affidavits mentioned are Damon’s and Lee’s, with a mention of
Robillard planning a meeting with governor Odell “next week”.
Second series, about June 2nd, specifically mentions eight
affidavits and mentions the key being forwarded as evidence.
The Washington Evening Times directly quotes, or at least claims
to directly quote, the full text of Damon’s affidavit. They also
interviewed him. Again, no mention is made of the key.
The affidavit you have seems to be clearly signed the 29th, not
the 20th. It is my assumption that you (and Dekle’s?) read it as
“20 with a squiggle” because the affidavit is presumed to
precede the article of the 23rd, is that perhaps correct?
Now, since the article ALSO mentions Lee’s affidavit, one must
consequently assume that it, too, was dated 20th of May.
However, I think you concur in saying it is dated 31st of May?
So how can the May 23rd article mention HIS affidavit?
I think the answer is that the affidavits described by Robillard
and quoted in the paper on the 23rd were not finalized, or a
second version was submitted. Note the many textual differences
between the papers’ version and the version submitted to the
governor.
This also explains why, for instance, Robillard could mention
the farmhand being a Dane - Damon mentions this in the version
quoted in the May 23rd paper. It also explains how Damon could
go home and ask his wife if she would swear to the key’s number,
that is, make out an affidavit like his, after his first
version, in which no mention of the key’s whereabouts was made.
So the first articles have no info about the key being in his
possession.
After she informs him she still has the key, he is able to amend
his affidavit to include that information. Obviously, a much
more persuasive affidavit when he can simultaneously submit the
actual key. The later articles therefore include that
information.
#Post#: 2301--------------------------------------------------
Re: The Issue Of The Key To Room 31 :
DIR By: HowBrown1953
Date: October 23, 2023, 7:51 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Pete:
This is the signature on the first affidavit.
HTML https://i.imgur.com/mopmR2i.jpg
.
I've attached the four Damon affidavits in the PDF at the
bottom.
There had been 8 affidavits before June 2nd, Pete. These are
the men who signed them and their dates.
Riis- March 8, 1901
Coleman submitted his on April 8th, 1901
Barber submitted his on May 27th, 1901
Berbenich submitted his on May 28th, 1901
Butler submitted his on May 27th, 1901
Lee submitted his on what looks like May 31, 1901
Brennan submitted his on May 9th, 1901
Damon on May 20.
#Post#: 2302--------------------------------------------------
Re: The Issue Of The Key To Room 31 :
DIR By: HowBrown1953
Date: October 23, 2023, 7:57 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Howard, how do you know the affidavit you have a copy of was
sworn on May 20th?
There were two series of articles, about a week apart,
mentioning affidavits. First series, about May 23-24. never
mentions the key being in Damon’s possession.
No, Pete....[b]they did mention the key. Now I recall why I came
to the conclusion that he had come forward on the 20th. I know
the affidavit seems to read 'May 29', but that's incorrect since
the Times article had already mentioned the key.[/b]
First post in this thread:
HTML https://carriebrown.createaforum.com/1901-9/adventures-in-affidavits/
--------------------------------------------------
The Washington Evening Times directly quotes, or at least claims
to directly quote, the full text of Damon’s affidavit. They also
interviewed him. Again, no mention is made of the key.
Yes, there was Pete. Look at the second post:
HTML https://carriebrown.createaforum.com/1901-9/the-'well-known-contractor'-was-a-clerk-in-a-hardware-store-in-cranford-new-disc/msg2040/#msg2040
In addition, the first affidavit referenced to in the May 23rd
article does not contain all of what Damon said.
The affidavit you have seems to be clearly signed the 29th, not
the 20th. It is my assumption that you (and Dekle’s?) read it as
“20 with a squiggle” because the affidavit is presumed to
precede the article of the 23rd, is that perhaps correct?
It did get signed before the article of the 23rd and the
explanation was provided earlier.
Now, since the article ALSO mentions Lee’s affidavit, one must
consequently assume that it, too, was dated 20th of May.
However, I think you concur in saying it is dated 31st of May?
So how can the May 23rd article mention HIS affidavit?
Lee came forward and filed his affidavit on that date, [b]May
31. He may have said that he planned on filing an affidavit in
the near future and it was incorrectly assumed that he already
had and thus reported as if he already had in the Times
article of the 23rd.[/b]
Its the press, Pete. What do you expect? ;D
*****************************************************
Page 2 of 3
DIR Previous Page
DIR Next Page