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#: 2303--------------------------------------------------
Re: The Issue Of The Key To Room 31 :
DIR By: HowBrown1953
Date: October 23, 2023, 8:15 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
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. (1)
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. (2) 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. (3)
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.
1- I don't think relying on newspaper versions of affidavits is
constructive. Just a thought.
2. Pete....the first time Damon officially uses the word Dane is
in the July 2nd affidavit....40 days later. In the first
affidavit the word 'Swede' is at the bottom of the document. So
why does he get quoted by the newspaper as saying 'Dane' along
with Robillard using it four times in one of the articles(don't
have it in front of me) he was interviewed?
3- Yes, they did Pete. See previous posts.
His old lady's 'word' was and is worthless unless it is sworn to
on an affidavit. For all we know, Damon could have just said his
wife said, 'Yeah, that was the number."
#Post#: 2304--------------------------------------------------
Re: The Issue Of The Key To Room 31 :
DIR By: Kattrup
Date: October 23, 2023, 8:36 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
I’m sorry, I don’t see where the key is mentioned as being in
Damon’s possession in 1901 in the links you provide?
The links go to the May 23rd article which refers to Damon and
Lee filing affidavits about having seen the key in 1891.
It’s not until the June 2nd articles that the key being actually
present in 1901 is mentioned.
Unless I missed something?
--- Quote ---
> In addition, the first affidavit referenced to in the May 23rd
article does not contain all of what Damon said.
>
--- End Quote ---
Since my theory is that there must have been two versions of the
affidavit, I don’t understand your argument here?
The reason the first affidavit does not contain all of what
Damon said is that he amended the version that the paper had
quoted.
I know that it’s in the press, so one shouldn’t expect much
accuracy, but if you believe the May 23rd article is inaccurate
when it states that “There is another affidavit from a
well-known businessman […] This man’s affidavit corroborates the
evidence […]” and this only means that Lee intended to submit an
affidavit, why is not equally inaccurate when stating that Damon
submit one? Maybe he too only intended to submit one at that
stage.
So I ask again: how do you conclude that the affidavit you have
was signed on the 20th and not the 29th?
It makes no sense, as you pointed out, for Damon to state in an
affidavit on the 20th that the key was in his possession if he
only afterwards figured out that his wife still had it.
The only thing that makes sense is if he included the new
information in an amended version and resubmitted it. Thus, the
signature indicating the 29th. From which point on the papers
begin mentioning the key’s being in his possession and being
sent to the governor.
#Post#: 2305--------------------------------------------------
Re: The Issue Of The Key To Room 31 :
DIR By: Kattrup
Date: October 23, 2023, 8:51 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: Howard Brown link ---
>
>
> 1- I don't think relying on newspaper versions of affidavits
is constructive. Just a thought.
> 2. Pete....the first time Damon officially uses the word Dane
is in the July 2nd affidavit....40 days later. In the first
affidavit the word 'Swede' is at the bottom of the document. So
why does he get quoted by the newspaper as saying 'Dane' along
with Robillard using it four times in one of the articles(don't
have it in front of me) he was interviewed?
> 3- Yes, they did Pete. See previous posts.
>
>
> His old lady's 'word' was and is worthless unless it is sworn
to on an affidavit. For all we know, Damon could have just said
his wife said, 'Yeah, that was the number."
>
--- End Quote ---
1. I think it must be taken into consideration that the paper
claims to quote the affidavit directly, while having an
interview with Damon.
2. My theory is that there must have been two versions, in the
May 23rd version quoted in the paper he uses Dane. That is why
the mention of a Dane seems to predate his use in the extant
versions that you have.
3. No they did not mention the key being still in Damon’s
possession in 1901, this was only discovered after the initial
affidavit, not the version you have.
Not sure what you mean about Damon’s wife’s word?
As far as I know, there are no statements from her. The point
was, you were wondering why he’d state in the affidavit that he
had the key in his possession, only to then tell a reporter that
after filing the affidavit, he went home and had to be told by
his wife that she actually still had it.
The explanation is that in his initial affidavit he had not yet
rediscovered the key - so the initial affidavit would not have
included that sentence.
3:51 a.m. here - going to bed now!
#Post#: 2306--------------------------------------------------
Re: The Issue Of The Key To Room 31 :
DIR By: HowBrown1953
Date: October 24, 2023, 3:31 am
---------------------------------------------------------
The explanation is that in his initial affidavit, he had not yet
rediscovered the key - so the initial affidavit would not have
included that sentence.
Pete:
I see your point on the matter. Let's leave the discussion
there for a while. I understand your position that there had
been an earlier affidavit not given to the DA for submission to
the Governor...and that the one dated May 29th is a slightly
amended affidavit, the majority of the May 29th affidavit having
already been submitted prior to the May 23 articles starting to
surface.
If possible, let's condense everything down to the sentence you
wrote above, if you don't mind.
I am not certain what you mean about him 'rediscovering' the
key. Your use of the word might reflect a different meaning,
which is why I ask.
Correct me if I am wrong, boss....but are you suggesting that he
wasn't sure whether the key was still in his house before he
came out with his story?
Because, to me, it would make no sense for him to be unsure of
where the key was prior to taking the initial steps coming
forward in the first place. The key, not his barroom story, not
his description of the farmhand, or anything else, was the
tangible piece of evidence required to even get the Governor to
consider his story.
What I meant about Damon's wife was that she could say anything
from the cozy confines of Cranford and it wouldn't have amounted
to spit.
Damon said she acknowledged the number of the key....as if her
word alone was sufficient to be the only requirement for it to
be considered a 'sworn' statement. Of course, it wasn't and
still isn't.
#Post#: 2307--------------------------------------------------
Re: The Issue Of The Key To Room 31 :
DIR By: HowBrown1953
Date: October 24, 2023, 5:04 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I thought I had already posted this a while back but I guess I
hadn't.
Washington Times
May 23, 1901
***********
HTML https://i.imgur.com/FdQ1KlP.jpg
#Post#: 2308--------------------------------------------------
Re: The Issue Of The Key To Room 31 :
DIR By: Kattrup
Date: October 24, 2023, 5:43 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: Howard Brown link ---
>
>
> Pete:
> I see your point on the matter. Let's leave the discussion
there for a while. I understand your position that there had
been an earlier affidavit not given to the DA for submission to
the Governor...and that the one dated May 29th is a slightly
amended affidavit, the majority of the May 29th affidavit having
already been submitted prior to the May 23 articles starting to
surface.
>
--- End Quote ---
Yes, that’s fine, I’ll spend some time constructing a timeline
detailing what I think happened.
I don’t actually think there was an earlier affidavit, there may
have been, but mostly I think Robillard was publicizing, around
the 21-22 of May that he intended to submit new sensational
affidavits to the governor, and the May 23rd version quoted in
the paper was a draft or written statement intended as Damon’s
affidavit.
--- Quote from: Howard Brown link ---
>
>
> I am not certain what you mean about him 'rediscovering' the
key. Your use of the word might reflect a different meaning,
which is why I ask.
>
> Correct me if I am wrong, boss....but are you suggesting that
he wasn't sure whether the key was still in his house before he
came out with his story?
> Because, to me, it would make no sense for him to be unsure of
where the key was prior to taking the initial steps coming
forward in the first place. The key, not his barroom story, not
his description of the farmhand, or anything else, was the
tangible piece of evidence required to even get the Governor to
consider his story.
>
--- End Quote ---
I do mean that when he made his initial statement or affidavit
to Robillard around the 20-22., he was not aware that the key
was still in his house. He learned this or was reminded of it by
his wife. Initially, the affidavits of seeing the key back in
1891 were the main thrust of Robillard’s effort, together with
questioning the blood spots.
--- Quote from: Howard Brown link ---
>
>
> What I meant about Damon's wife was that she could say
anything from the cozy confines of Cranford and it wouldn't have
amounted to spit.
> Damon said she acknowledged the number of the key....as if her
word alone was sufficient to be the only requirement for it to
be considered a 'sworn' statement. Of course, it wasn't and
still isn't.
>
--- End Quote ---
I don’t think that’s quite what he did. In my view, he didn’t
present her view as corroboration or something that would prove
anything in itself.
But Damon explained how he located the key in 1901: that he
asked her whether she could swear to the number she’d seen on
the key (i.e. when she saw it back in 1891). (Because he was
unaware the key was still in his home.)
She said she could, and she could also produce the key, which
was in her jewelry box. And that is how Damon rediscovered the
key.
But I’ll put together a timeline, maybe tomorrow night or the
day after, and then you can mull it over and see what you think
:)
#Post#: 2309--------------------------------------------------
Re: The Issue Of The Key To Room 31 :
DIR By: Kattrup
Date: October 24, 2023, 5:45 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: Howard Brown link ---
>
> I thought I had already posted this a while back but I guess I
hadn't.
>
>
> Washington Times
> May 23, 1901
> ***********
>
>
--- End Quote ---
Yes, you did, it’s in the thread Damon’s first affidavit, I
think
#Post#: 2310--------------------------------------------------
Re: The Issue Of The Key To Room 31 :
DIR By: HowBrown1953
Date: October 24, 2023, 6:21 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Thanks for the reminder, buddy,
Because he was unaware the key was still in his home.
I do mean that when he made his initial statement or affidavit
to Robillard around the 20-22., he was not aware that the key
was still in his house. He learned this or was reminded of it by
his wife. Initially, the affidavits of seeing the key back in
1891 were the main thrust of Robillard’s effort, together with
questioning the blood spots.
*******************************************************
Pete...for the life of me, I cannot understand why Damon would
even have said a word if he had not already known that the key
was still in the house. Seeing the key back in 1891 was
worthless as evidence and without tangible evidence, it may have
been ultimately viewed as an apocryphal tale...a tale along the
lines of Charles Jansen in June 1891...or even some quack trying
to make a name for himself.
Everything he 'said' was hearsay...the trip with Brennan to the
barroom, his discussion with Lee, the alleged bloody shirt found
by Mary Nasbit, all of it.... was worthless if it was intended
to get Ali out of prison. The Governor would naturally see that
everything Damon was saying was mere hearsay and without
something tangible, Ali ain't getting out of jail. There's no
alternative. There was zero chance of a million Robillards and
fifty million Frenchmen getting Ali out of prison without
something tangible. And here, it's being proposed that he was
unaware that he even had the key in May 1901.
The reason Damon came forward was to help get Ali out of prison.
It required something tangible. The sine qua non for Damon
coming forward in this case was the key.
I'm sorry, but I strongly feel that the whole story was crafted,
beginning with the alleged confrontation with the attorney who
never came forward to back Lee and culminating with Damon giving
a dissimilar description of a man he attempted to pawn off as
being C.Kniclo.
Let me say one other thing.....it appears that it's being
suggested that without Lee having this alleged confrontation
with the attorney, that this confrontation was the basis of
Damon coming forward. If what you suggest about Damon being
unsure of the key's location and that he had to make sure that
it was still on there at 3 Madison Avenue, Cranford, then it
does not appear that he came forward from purely altruistic
reasons in the first place, which Damon would, therefore, be
lying about as he mentions his conscience beginning to bother
him. He was more or less, as I once suggested a long while ago,
'outed' by John Lee, although a different Lee at that time. Or
am I mistaken?
One wonders if it took, as Dekle and I believe, for Roosevelt to
be out of office before Georgie came forward. His epiphany in
between Roosevelt's departure and Odell's ascent to the
Governorship is sort of coincidental, isn't it? ::)
Back to you, bossman.
*****************************************************
Page 3 of 3
DIR Previous Page