DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
Carrie Brown : Murder In The East River Hotel
HTML https://carriebrown.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Sketches & Photographs
*****************************************************
#Post#: 2921--------------------------------------------------
Why Wasn't Damon Asked To Look At The Sketch Of C. Kniclo ?
DIR By: HowBrown1953
Date: August 16, 2024, 8:24 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I think it's a real sore thumb in the developments of 1901 that
George Damon wasn't shown the following sketch of his farmhand.
He was shown the photo that Pete Damgaard located in 2023 which
was in the 1900 book by Allen Lane Hamilton. The Governor had
sent
D.A. Philbin that photo Pete located and then Philbin had it
shown to Damon.
Since Damon was in the company of Robert Butler, an editor at
the newspaper that published this sketch.....why didn't Butler
simply show him this sketch?
Butler mailed this sketch and a letter to Governor Odell on the
same day Damon filed his third affidavit at the notary public.
The sketch appears on at least three occasions in newspapers I
can think of off the top of my head.....and they are carbon
copies.
So why wasn't Damon shown this between March 1901 to July 1901?
The sketch is clearly unlike the description Damon gave. er,
swore to, in his third affidavit.
The July 2nd, 1901 description of his farmhand, sworn to by
George Damon:
He walked with a hitch to his step
Flat nose
Clean Shaven
No whiskers or mustache while he worked with Damon
Keep in mind, the alleged farmhand was still there in Cranford
for at least two days after the murder occurred. Still, Damon
stated that his farmhand had no mustache while he worked for
him.
New York Sun
May 1, 1891
**********
HTML https://i.imgur.com/H80HbAg.jpg
If Damon had been shown this sketch before he provided the
description of the farmhand, then why did his description not
match that of the one in the sketch?
If Damon had been shown this sketch after filing his affidavit
and the glaring differences between the description and the
sketch were noticed by authorities, how would or could he have
avoided immediate scrutiny for his whole story? Did they even
look at the third affidavit ( the one with the description) ????
Even if the sketch was a fabrication of Mary Miniter's, the
critical fact remains....that the sketch and his description are
completely at odds with each other.
Any thoughts?
#Post#: 2922--------------------------------------------------
Re: Why Wasn't Damon Asked To Look At The Sketch Of C. Kniclo ?
DIR By: Kattrup
Date: August 16, 2024, 10:17 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I’m sorry Howard. I am not sure I understand why you find this
so important.
Why would anyone want to point out to an important witness that
his description is at odds with another witness’s?
What does Damon have to do with the sketch or Miniter’s
description? Nothing. It’s for the police and court to decide if
there’s a conflict between descriptions which is the more
believable. Should they have asked him leading questions like
“hmm, thanks for the description but it doesn’t match what we
already have. Are you SURE he didn’t walk funny, like maybe a
hitch? wink wink”
Damon was just someone providing a statement with a description
of a possible suspect, as was Miniter. Why would they confront
one with the other?
And the very simple reason why the sketch does not match Damon’s
description is so obvious I don’t understand your puzzlement:
they’re describing two different men.
I just don’t understand why you’re so focused on the idea that
there’s something “wrong” if the descriptions don’t match?
Unless you find a source that claims the authorities believed
Miniter’s suspect was the farmhand? As far as I can recall, no
one (except possibly you?) is claiming they must be the same
person?
#Post#: 2924--------------------------------------------------
Re: Why Wasn't Damon Asked To Look At The Sketch Of C. Kniclo ?
DIR By: HowBrown1953
Date: August 16, 2024, 11:37 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I’m sorry Howard. I am not sure I understand why you find this
so important.
Damon had not described his farmhand, officially, for 100 days.
When he does, it runs contrary to the description given by
Miniter AND if one accepts that this man was the man who went to
the Glenmore Hotel after the murder, the description provided by
Mike(or Tom) Kelly.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Why would anyone want to point out to an important witness that
his description is at odds with another witness’s?
Well, for one thing, in order to see if they were on the same
page. If Damon's description did not match the sketch....which
we know it didn't...then there's an issue with his deposition.
Why wouldn't the authorities try and make ends meet by comparing
what Damon's description was to what Miniter's was? It would
only solidify what Damon told them if they matched. It had been
10 years since the murder. The only way Miniter could serve in
some shape or form as a witness was to use the sketch drawn by
Butler's paper.
There was not going to be a re-opening of the case: no new
trial: only Damon's alleged evidence and how the State viewed
it.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What does Damon have to do with the sketch or Miniter’s
description? Nothing. It’s for the police and court to decide if
there’s a conflict between descriptions which is the more
believable. Should they have asked him leading questions like
“hmm, thanks for the description but it doesn’t match what we
already have. Are you SURE he didn’t walk funny, like maybe a
hitch? wink wink”
Damon has everything to do with the disparity between the sketch
and his description, Pete. He is describing the features of the
man that worked for him: went to Manhattan: murdered Carrie
Brown: left a key and bloody shirt: and then split. It's two
different people. And, the prosecution, the defense team and the
police had all accepted that Miniter's description was valid.
Unless someone is willing to suggest she was lying, it would be
incumbent on them to show cause for that likelihood.
Damon was just someone providing a statement with a description
of a possible suspect, as was Miniter. Why would they confront
one with the other?
How hard would it have been for someone to show Damon the sketch
and just ask....since the authorities accepted his story anyway,
lock, stock, and barrel ( the key, along with Lee and Brennan's
affidavits)..."Did he resemble this sketch?" It would be to
their benefit if they did and that they did match. They accepted
the key without authentication and they accepted his description
without authentication.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
And the very simple reason why the sketch does not match Damon’s
description is so obvious I don’t understand your puzzlement:
they’re describing two different men.
That's the point, Pete. They are two different men. Damon's
description of his farmhand does not match the description of C.
Kniclo.
I don't follow you here. What, then, IS the reason that they
don't match? What would be the only reason they don't match?
Very simply, one of the descriptions is incorrect or a
fabrication.
I just don’t understand why you’re so focused on the idea that
there’s something “wrong” if the descriptions don’t match?
As stated already, if they don't match, we're talking about two
separate men.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unless you find a source that claims the authorities believed
Miniter’s suspect was the farmhand? As far as I can recall, no
one (except possibly you?) is claiming they must be the same
person?
Who else could they have been? The NY Sun published at least two
sketches of the man. In one, they goofed and said he was the
'prisoner', when it should have stated the suspect.
The man who entered the East River Hotel with Brown looked like
the man in the sketches. There were no other guests registered
for that room after her death. That man was given the key to
Room 31. Damon's man, allegedly, HAD that key.
That's why they're stated as being the same man.
It's why I believe that either Damon was not shown the sketch or
someone overlooked it and possibly intentionally.
It would have been far easier for them to show Damon the sketch
of the man than to wait around for a photograph of Ali.
Damon insisted his farmhand...his theoretical man with the
key...the last man seen with Brown...was the killer ( Remember
George was positive that his farmhand was the killer. He says so
in his affidavit) and had no mustache or facial hair.
Even if he were wrong.....then if Damon presents a key...the key
to Room 31 that was missing....then how the hell did it wind up
in Cranford if his farmhand hadn't been in Room 31 and taken it
with him?
HTML https://i.imgur.com/b88G0YD.jpg
HTML https://i.imgur.com/8AuAkmZ.jpg
As soon as the authorities accepted Damon's story, it no longer
mattered what Miniter or Kelly or anyone's description of the
man was. I believe they either just brushed the glaring
disparity aside or did not think to compare the sketch to the
description Damon gave.
#Post#: 2925--------------------------------------------------
Re: Why Wasn't Damon Asked To Look At The Sketch Of C. Kniclo ?
DIR By: HowBrown1953
Date: August 16, 2024, 12:02 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Damon was just someone providing a statement with a description
of a possible suspect, as was Miniter. Why would they confront
one with the other?
And the very simple reason why the sketch does not match Damon’s
description is so obvious I don’t understand your puzzlement:
they’re describing two different men.
I just don’t understand why you’re so focused on the idea that
there’s something “wrong” if the descriptions don’t match?
'Possible' suspect? After all that rigamarole of going to the
hotel: matching keys: getting his friends to back him up with
affidavits? Damon himself says that he was 'positive' that his
man was the killer.
The key is the key. Sine qua non. If his man doesn't have the
key, then all the trouble he went to was for nothing. A bloody
shirt after a night out on the town isn't out of the question
for a farmhand or even a businessman.
My bottom line on this is that if Damon had been shown the
sketch and said, "Yeah, that's the sonofabitch who worked for
me!", we'd be talking about something else. There'd be no reason
to pursue this aspect of his deposition(s). Indicating that the
sketch matched his farmhand's description would be tough to
reject.
If Damon hadn't seen the sketch and yet swore in an affidavit
that the man had a long nose and a mustache, I'd be twirling my
thumbs over this part of the story and looking for something
else to do. Once again, that would be an almost insurmountable
obstacle for anyone who doubts this part of his story to
overcome.
But, he didn't, in either scenario.
If he had a farmhand besides Henry....which I'm sure you'll
agree is a possibility....who wasn't Brown's murderer....had a
flat nose, and no facial hair.....then how does this man get his
mitts on the key to room 31?
#Post#: 2974--------------------------------------------------
Re: Why Wasn't Damon Asked To Look At The Sketch Of C. Kniclo ?
DIR By: Kattrup
Date: September 1, 2024, 1:54 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I just think that Damon's story and the administrative proces
connected with the pardon effort have very little to do with
other suspects.
The issue in 1901 was whether or not Ali had been rightfully
convicted. So Damon gave his description, it was ascertained
that it did not match Ali, but there was no reason to check
whether it matched anyone else.
The "authorities" as you say were not actually one entity, they
had different functions and interests. The police had relatively
little to do with the 1901-process, and was only used to check
out facts relative to Damon's story: was Ali the farmhand, was
the key the key?
The question was not who was the man described by Miniter. The
question was: was Ali innocent? Or at least, not convicted on
sufficient grounds?
Odell's commutation paper makes this clear, I think. "Whoever
committed the murder must have had the key and, if the key was
found as alledged, the prisoner could not possibly have had it."
Ali could not possibly have had it - because Damon was shown
photographs of Ali and stated he was not the guy. Ergo, someone
else had the key, and Ali was not the murderer.
Odell's office considered the possibilty that the affidavits and
the key were fake - but since they had no reason to think so,
they ultimately rejected the notion "No motive to misrepresent
is apparent; and, unless the affidavits are a pure fabrication,
there can no doubt that the prisoner was wrongfully convicted"
So they even allowed for some parts of the affidavits to be
inaccurate "unless [...] a pure fabrication", meaning some parts
could be, well, fabricated, misremembered or inaccurate, and
they would still represent a clear and compelling argument for
innocence.
It did not matter who the someone, who had the key, was - there
was no reopening of the case and the police was not requested to
investigate or try to find the farmhand.
So there was no reason for anyone to go around comparing witness
statements. It was simply not an issue. The only concern was
whether there was created enough doubt to justify releasing Ali.
Miniter's or Kelly's suspect descriptions do not enter the
picture at all.
One thing to consider is that since Ali was not pardoned, how
could the police actually investigate other suspects? They
already had the murderer! Yes his sentence was commuted, but
legally and bureaucratically, on what grounds could the DA or
the police have reopened the investigation without pardoning
Ali?
#Post#: 2975--------------------------------------------------
Re: Why Wasn't Damon Asked To Look At The Sketch Of C. Kniclo ?
DIR By: HowBrown1953
Date: September 1, 2024, 7:12 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I just think that Damon's story and the administrative process
connected with the pardon effort have very little to do with
other suspects.
I'm in agreement with you, Pete. On the other hand, the primary
objective of the pardon campaigners was to have Ali released
from prison, whether he was guilty or not. The majority, if not
the near totality of the campaigners, believed in his innocence.
Their sales pitch was that they only wanted to send him back to
Algeria and if you recall, one or more letters to the State
reflected that they, the campaigners, were not so much
challenging the decision that put him in prison ( i.e.
challenging the prosecution medical evidence), but that they
only wanted to have him returned to his homeland and out of the
hair of the Americans.
The issue in 1901 was whether or not Ali had been rightfully
convicted. So Damon gave his description, it was ascertained
that it did not match Ali, but there was no reason to check
whether it matched anyone else.
So, if Damon came forward and gave a description of the farmhand
as being 6 feet 6 inches tall and bald, wouldn't that raise an
alarm?
Of course, he didn't and I'm exaggerating but the description
was different from the easily available sketch in the papers,
and I think different enough to raise an eyebrow.
Just releasing Ali without going to the trouble of comparing
what Damon said his farmhand looked like to what was published
in the newspapers, indicates, at least to me, that no one
thought of doing this at the time. This simple, innocuous,
gesture and that it wasn't thought of...or perhaps it was done
and overlooked....is what puzzles me.
The "authorities" as you say were not actually one entity, they
had different functions and interests. The police had relatively
little to do with the 1901-process, and was only used to check
out facts relative to Damon's story: was Ali the farmhand, was
the key the key?
Actually, they, the NYPD, had virtually zero to do with the
process and you're correct. McNaught was taken from the Central
Office to work for the D.A. office in this matter. He had been
involved back in 1891 as NYPD detective and was still a
detective, but here he was working exclusively for Philbin's
office and not the NYPD. None of the NYPD that we know of, other
than Inspector Williams and his two mysterious letters to the
Governor, are just about the only examples of involvement by the
police and in his case, former policeman. The only authorities
involved with the process were the DA's Office in looking into
the authenticity of the key ( failure ) and Governor's Office (
the only person who could sign a pardon, commutation, or reject
the plea outright).
The question was not who was the man described by Miniter. The
question was: was Ali innocent? Or at least, not convicted on
sufficient grounds?
This had been a song the pardon campaigners had sung before on
three other occasions. They argued then that he wasn't convicted
on sufficient grounds, in 1898, 1899, and the year before in
1900. Only something tangible ( a suspect other than Ali, of
course, and one who had some piece of incriminating evidence,
the key, to persuade the State to release him.
Odell's commutation paper makes this clear, I think. "Whoever
committed the murder must have had the key and, if the key was
found as alleged, the prisoner could not possibly have had it."
Well, we know that Damon brought a key to the party, but
Jennings' affidavit ran contrary to the original perception as
to its validity. Why bother Jennings at all if Damon's affidavit
was sufficient toward the State believing that it was from the
hotel? They, the D.A.'s Office, did due diligence and tracked
down Jennings and asked him to verify the claim made by Damon.
Had Jennings, who had nothing to gain or lose in this affair,
simply said, "Yes, that's the key..", we'd be doing something
else. But he didn't and since he didn't, it either meant that
the State didn't believe him but they never gave any reason why
they didn't believe his testimony.
Ali could not possibly have had it - because Damon was shown
photographs of Ali and stated he was not the guy. Ergo, someone
else had the key, and Ali was not the murderer.
Odell's office considered the possibility that the affidavits
and the key were fake - but since they had no reason to think
so, they ultimately rejected the notion "No motive to
misrepresent is apparent; and, unless the affidavits are a pure
fabrication, there can no doubt that the prisoner was wrongfully
convicted"
So they even allowed for some parts of the affidavits to be
inaccurate "unless [...] a pure fabrication", meaning some parts
could be, well, fabricated, misremembered or inaccurate, and
they would still represent a clear and compelling argument for
innocence.
I think they had every valid reason to dispute its authenticity.
* Philbin gets McNaught to go to the Hotel to determine if the
key was from the establishment. It wasn't since the renovations
included new doors and keys being made: Strike one against
the authenticity.
*Jennings is searched for: brought in: files an affidavit:
rejects the Damon Key as being the type used at the time. Strike
two against the
authenticity.
Two strikes against should have either required Damon to go
into further detail or, as it would turn out, accept the key as
authenticate without actual authentication, if you see what I
mean.
Ergo, what other clear and compelling argument for innocence
could Damon bring to the table? The description of his farmhand?
Affidavits from friends?
I believe the State was either not paying attention to this and
would ultimately took all those reasons we organized on another
thread and opt to release him anyway.
It did not matter who the someone, who had the key, was - there
was no reopening of the case and the police was not requested to
investigate or try to find the farmhand.
So there was no reason for anyone to go around comparing witness
statements. It was simply not an issue. The only concern was
whether there was created enough doubt to justify releasing Ali.
Miniter's or Kelly's suspect descriptions do not enter the
picture at all.
On this I also agree, Pete. The mere fact that Damon or anyone
could bring something tangible ( key and farmhand story) to the
table was enough to create reasonable doubt to the degree that a
release was now after three failed pardon efforts, a likely
outcome.
One thing to consider is that since Ali was not pardoned, how
could the police actually investigate other suspects? They
already had the murderer! Yes his sentence was commuted, but
legally and bureaucratically, on what grounds could the DA or
the police have reopened the investigation without pardoning
Ali?
You'll recall that Byrnes, 6 years out of his former position at
NTPD, said the Governor could do whatever he wanted and that it
wasn't his business what Odell did. In addition, there simply
weren't any other suspects to investigate. There wasn't a file
down on Mulberry Street with names of proposed possible suspects
to re-examine. It would be impossible to initiate a new inquiry.
Byrnes' reaction appeared to be the consensus of those who had
been involved a decade earlier.
#Post#: 2976--------------------------------------------------
Re: Why Wasn't Damon Asked To Look At The Sketch Of C. Kniclo ?
DIR By: HowBrown1953
Date: September 1, 2024, 7:19 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Pete....sorry I forgot to mention this:
When the key was brought in by Damon, it could have looked like
any key from any hotel in Manhattan or even New Jersey, for that
matter, which I'm pretty sure you'll agree is correct.
I believe that the key was compared to the sketches made early
on ( April of '91) in the newspapers when Philbin found out that
the hotel had renovated and after or maybe without Jennings'
denunciation of the key.
If they compared the Damon key to the sketch of the key....then
why not Damon's description, assuming that they paid attention
to what he stated, to the sketch of C. Kniclo?
My 'bottom-line' argument is that Damon not only walked between
the raindrops when his decade-long absence was poo-poohed and
forgiven....but the acceptance of the unauthenticated evidence
was based on his social class. I just cannot imagine Mary Ann
Lopez coming
forward ten years later with a key and a problematic description
of a man winding up with what she presented being accepted...and
Ali, or anyone, being released from prison.
Printers trump prostitutes in the pardon game.
*****************************************************
Page 1 of 1