Carrie Brown/Ameer Ben Ali Discussion Thread Including The Trial & Aftermath

[Howard Brown]

Good points, Mike....thanks.

I would opt for this murder being a 'one-off' murder due to his behavior at the Glenmore Hotel at this point in time. On the other hand, he could have asked Brown to go down an alley and lift her skirt like Ali had done with one woman ( not sure if it was Alice Sullivan) to and she told him no....and then it was decided to go indoors. By going down an alley, that would reduce the number of people who had seen him with her. He would have had to be present with Brown in front of Miniter to pay for the room. To me, that he allowed himself to be seen by as many people as he had sort of diminishes the likelihood of him being a multiple murderer.

I don't recall whether there were any other murders involving post-mortem mutilation AND a prostitute in 1891 or 1892 in the metropolitan New York area, Mike.

Let me run this by you because it's one of my top motives for C. Kniclo ( I know I asked about Ali).

Here's a guy who gets a day off during the workweek. He goes to Manhattan and schleps through the LES. He goes from bar to bar... He eventually, after a lot of drinking, hooks up with Brown
at Spekeman's Saloon. They have a few snorts and since it's getting late ( You have to wonder whether he intended to take Friday off. Did he plan on staying the night in the hotel ? Something for us to consider later on), he and Brown take Room 31.

After he's spent the day drinking...spent time with Brown ( indeterminate amount of time), spent money on her, paid for the room and a tin can full of ale....when they get to the room, she decides
she's gonna go to sleep. Now this would piss a lot of men off....but even more so if the guy had planned and taken on a day off from work, spent his money and time on a prostitute and then at
the last moment, she decides to nod out. No telling what some guys will do in that situatio.... but it happens and in the C.Kniclo/Brown liaison, it might have.

He may have gone there with an intent to kill...yet I think it might have been down to a woman in her late fifties being too pooped to pop one final time that morning after a typical day of insufficient diet and a sufficient amount of alcohol.

One thing, Mike, I wished we knew is whether that 'X' on the wall from the NY Evening World sketch was put there on the morning of the murder, Even though the various newspapers did collect
a lot of data from the case there doesn't seem to be any acknowledgement one way or the other from people who should have known (Corcoran, Thompson, Jennings, maybe even Fitzgerald). Not that the 'X' was necessarily symbolic of something but I'd like to know whether it was old or recently made.


I'll get back to the Ali motive later on. I don't buy the motive the prosecution attributed to Ali. Just wondering what you thought of it.

[Michael Banks]

Good points, Mike....thanks.

I would opt for this murder being a 'one-off' murder due to his behavior at the Glenmore Hotel at this point in time. On the other hand, he could have asked Brown to go down an alley and lift her skirt like Ali had done with one woman ( not sure if it was Alice Sullivan) to and she told him no....and then it was decided to go indoors. By going down an alley, that would reduce the number of people who had seen him with her. He would have had to be present with Brown in front of Miniter to pay for the room. To me, that he allowed himself to be seen by as many people as he had sort of diminishes the likelihood of him being a multiple murderer.

I don't recall whether there were any other murders involving post-mortem mutilation AND a prostitute in 1891 or 1892 in the metropolitan New York area, Mike.

Let me run this by you because it's one of my top motives for C. Kniclo ( I know I asked about Ali).

Here's a guy who gets a day off during the workweek. He goes to Manhattan and schleps through the LES. He goes from bar to bar... He eventually, after a lot of drinking, hooks up with Brown
at Spekeman's Saloon. They have a few snorts and since it's getting late ( You have to wonder whether he intended to take Friday off. Did he plan on staying the night in the hotel ? Something for us to consider later on), he and Brown take Room 31.

After he's spent the day drinking...spent time with Brown ( indeterminate amount of time), spent money on her, paid for the room and a tin can full of ale....when they get to the room, she decides
she's gonna go to sleep. Now this would piss a lot of men off....but even more so if the guy had planned and taken on a day off from work, spent his money and time on a prostitute and then at
the last moment, she decides to nod out. No telling what some guys will do in that situatio.... but it happens and in the C.Kniclo/Brown liaison, it might have.

He may have gone there with an intent to kill...yet I think it might have been down to a woman in her late fifties being too pooped to pop one final time that morning after a typical day of insufficient diet and a sufficient amount of alcohol.

One thing, Mike, I wished we knew is whether that 'X' on the wall from the NY Evening World sketch was put there on the morning of the murder, Even though the various newspapers did collect
a lot of data from the case there doesn't seem to be any acknowledgement one way or the other from people who should have known (Corcoran, Thompson, Jennings, maybe even Fitzgerald). Not that the 'X' was necessarily symbolic of something but I'd like to know whether it was old or recently made.


I'll get back to the Ali motive later on. I don't buy the motive the prosecution attributed to Ali. Just wondering what you thought of it.

You could certainly be right on that motive How. Who knows what might have been simmering beneath the surface of a guy who had shelled out some or all of his spare cash expecting sex only to get Brown wanting sleep.

The main thing that makes me see this murder as perhaps more than that is the wrapping of the head. It’s not a slam dunk of course but this to me might mean that there was more to it than just the anger of the moment. Perhaps it’s just that I can see no other logical reason for a spur-of-the-moment killer doing it? The ‘x’ on the buttocks is interesting too. Was this the equivalent of a signature saying ‘my property’ or, perhaps more fancifully, was it like an artist signing his work. A kind of ‘I did this,’ thing? Or, and perhaps I’m stretching it again here, but might she have refused him anal sex so he puts his mark there. Perhaps I’ve seen too many movies How? I won’t be applying to the CIA for a job.

….

The mention of the ‘x’ on the wall was something I’d intended to mention to you but I completely forgot. Was it only mentioned in that one paper? And as you say, none of the witnesses mention it do they? Can you recall which Echo the article was in so I can have a look at it again?

[Howard Brown]

Mike:

I never put one together about the X or cross on the wall....I've included the Evening World edition from April 25th which only shows the sketch of an x or cross

[Howard Brown]

Here's the list of tenants on the Fifth Floor.....one name which appears but I can't find at the moment is James Wilson. I've no idea whether Wilson's name was erroneously listed in place of another, but I've added it just for the record. I'll try to run down that newspaper that it appeared in.

By the way....where's William C. Mannix and wife ? They'd been there for a few days at the time of the murder.

[Michael Banks]

Here's the list of tenants on the Fifth Floor.....one name which appears but I can't find at the moment is James Wilson. I've no idea whether Wilson's name was erroneously listed in place of another, but I've added it just for the record. I'll try to run down that newspaper that it appeared in.

By the way....where's William C. Mannix and wife ? They'd been there for a few days at the time of the murder.

And they were possibly in room 34 or 35 why weren’t they named? Did Jennings know that Mannix had a prostitute under lock and key? Maybe the Mannix’s were known to the Police and so staff at the EHR suddenly ‘forgot’ the name of the couple in room 34 or 35?

[Howard Brown]

And they were possibly in room 34 or 35 why weren’t they named?
Did Jennings know that Mannix had a prostitute under lock and key?

Good question and one I thought of a while back when I first read the names on the existing register. It should be remembered that although newspaper reports ( not all ) state Miniter was responsible for writing C.Kniclo on the register ( Evening World or Sun states that early on), it was Thompson who wrote down the name and stated as much at the Coroner's Inquest, not the trial which, for some reason, he was not issued a subpoena.

My guess that the reason Thompson wrote the name on the register was less to do with complying with the NYC statutes and more towards avoiding additional bad publicity for the hotel
which was notorious for being a whorehouse.

Jennings may not have been aware of the individuals' identities...most hotel managers aren't. Even if he did, he undoubtedly wouldn't care one bit. It was how he made his money.
What's truly strange is that in a couple of upstate New York papers and at least 2 Canadian papers ( The Canadians apparently shared the same source that provided the upstate New York
papers) stated that Jennings was a respectable church going man.

[Michael Banks]

And they were possibly in room 34 or 35 why weren’t they named?
Did Jennings know that Mannix had a prostitute under lock and key?

Good question and one I thought of a while back when I first read the names on the existing register. It should be remembered that although newspaper reports ( not all ) state Miniter was responsible for writing C.Kniclo on the register ( Evening World or Sun states that early on), it was Thompson who wrote down the name and stated as much at the Coroner's Inquest, not the trial which, for some reason, he was not issued a subpoena.

My guess that the reason Thompson wrote the name on the register was less to do with complying with the NYC statutes and more towards avoiding additional bad publicity for the hotel
which was notorious for being a whorehouse.

Jennings may not have been aware of the individuals' identities...most hotel managers aren't. Even if he did, he undoubtedly wouldn't care one bit. It was how he made his money.
What's truly strange is that in a couple of upstate New York papers and at least 2 Canadian papers ( The Canadians apparently shared the same source that provided the upstate New York
papers) stated that Jennings was a respectable church going man.

If true then he was a hypocrite How. Not the first either.

[Howard Brown]

Mike:

It's tempting to think that this photo from a 1903 film made by The Edison Company might feature the East River Hotel....under the arrow. 5 stories and situated just like the ERH....................................

But, unfortunately, the film crew is heading from the south end of Manhattan island north....the Brooklyn Bridge appears at the end of the film....a short distance from this would have been the area ( all the different Slips and Water Street). I thought I might have had something here but as fate would have it, the photo below appears south of the bridge and the area was just north.
Damn It.

I've attached the film so you can see the panoramic view of the LES almost 120 years ago.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fD-X...=CinemaHistory

This is the same film at a slightly faster speed from the LOC....Library of Congress

https://www.loc.gov/item/00694364/


Joel Goldberg, a native New Yorker, on The Carrie Brown File on Facebook told me that the site was completely razed in 1938....the hotel long gone before that. FYI.

[Michael Banks]

Mike:

It's tempting to think that this photo from a 1903 film made by The Edison Company might feature the East River Hotel....under the arrow. 5 stories and situated just like the ERH....................................

But, unfortunately, the film crew is heading from the south end of Manhattan island north....the Brooklyn Bridge appears at the end of the film....a short distance from this would have been the area ( all the different Slips and Water Street). I thought I might have had something here but as fate would have it, the photo below appears south of the bridge and the area was just north.
Damn It.

I've attached the film so you can see the panoramic view of the LES almost 120 years ago.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fD-X...=CinemaHistory

This is the same film at a slightly faster speed from the LOC....Library of Congress

https://www.loc.gov/item/00694364/


Joel Goldberg, a native New Yorker, on The Carrie Brown File on Facebook told me that the site was completely razed in 1938....the hotel long gone before that. FYI.

It certainly looked like it How. My money is still on you or Nina finding a photograph of it one day. I don’t know which one of you it might be though and even though I’ve never met Nina I’m guessing that she won’t let you forget it if she finds it first. She may hand you one of these.

[Howard Brown]

...and probably across my head too, Mike.
I'll keep looking, that's for sure.

[Howard Brown]

Hypothetical question time, Mike....

Same crime, same two suspects, but it's 2022, not 1891. There's DNA technology available.

Somehow, C. Kniclo/GM/DF is arrested before he can leave the Damon estate. The key and bloody shirt were in his possession
and now they're in the possession of the police.

Meamnwhile, Ali is in jail under arrest. Blood located on the door handle, his shirt, and all the wonderful and wholesome attributes he possesses encourage the police to keep him there. Shortly after his arrest, the concept of dredging his inch
long nails comes up. Tests on that material wouldn't take two months like it did in 1891. Results would be provided as quickly
as the results of the test on C. Kniclo's shirt to see whether Brown's blood is in fact the blood on the shirt. They could not determine if the blood on C. Kniclo or Ali's, for that matter, was from Brown. But, fortunately, it's 2022 and we sure as hell
can do that now.

Methinks the blood on C. Kniclo's shirt was from Brown which is why he'd ditch it back in 1891. A bad memory of an even worse
night. Had it been his blood, he might get it cleaned. He didn't arrive at the Cranford estate with a wardrobe, only a bundle of clothes.
Ali, on the other hand, could fall down in a pigsty and come up smelling better than he did before. He's been walking around with
socks and a shirt with bloodstains and there's no telling how long the fella will keep them on.

Both have circumstantial evidence pointing at them. Ali has his somewhat sneaky exit from the hotel ; the aforementioned blood and not too stellar references from a variety of women in the area who didn't just know him, they were intimate with him. His lies and general track record make him a good suspect even without DNA.

Same with C. Kniclo. Being the man who took Brown to Room 31 and having the key and a bloody shirt....the quick in n' out at the Glenmore spell out good circumstantial evidence.

Now...the test results are in. The blood on C. Kniclo's shirt came from Brown...and the junk under Ali's nails, which we knew was from someone with leukemic cells, can now be matched to Brown by blood type. In 1891, determining whether the blood on Ali came from Brown without a reasonable doubt was impossible. This is why the nail scraping which led to linking Ali to Brown, in fact the only medical way that could have been accomplished, was a smart move, whether intentional or not. The blood on Ali's shirt which he claimed came from an old wound that mysteriously still leaked ( preposterous) is also shown to have been from her.......

While this has just been a hypothetical yet entirely possible scenario, I think it demonstrates that solving this crime in 2022 would have been just as difficult as in 1891. I can also imagine each man being tried in separate jurisdictions and being both found guilty.

A great many crimes in which tangible evidence was left but impossible to link with persons of interest in the 19th century would be
solved today. This case in my mind is one that might be an exception to that rule. In several ways, the Brown murder is not only unique, but an exception to all known cases.

Almost forgot.....

To make matters even more mysterious, there is nothing etched in stone that the story George Damon told was absolutely true.
The key resting up in Albany was the key that got Ali out of jail along with other factors....and to be honest, that might be as far as it goes.

Whether a farmhand existed is not etched in stone. No one provided an affidavit other than Damon that confirmed his existence. Neither his wife, two former servants, or anyone else from Cranford including his three teenaged sons who lived there on 3 Madison Avenue in 1891....was asked to swear to his existence.

The three teenaged sons would have been 23, 24, and 26 in 1901. To support the story Damon provided the authorities, why wouldn't he take one of these
men to back his story up ? Not that they necessarily had much personal contact with him but there was no way that they did not know what he looked like.....why, one may have even recalled his last name .

He'd been there for a month at Damon's home. Brennan, the wagon man from Beekman Street, likewise did not acknowledge seeing this farmhand. Only Damon did. There's no doubt that C. Kniclo existed or Glenmore Man existed....but can we say that about the Danish Farmhand ?

[Michael Banks]

Hypothetical question time, Mike....

Same crime, same two suspects, but it's 2022, not 1891. There's DNA technology available.

Somehow, C. Kniclo/GM/DF is arrested before he can leave the Damon estate. The key and bloody shirt were in his possession
and now they're in the possession of the police.

Meamnwhile, Ali is in jail under arrest. Blood located on the door handle, his shirt, and all the wonderful and wholesome attributes he possesses encourage the police to keep him there. Shortly after his arrest, the concept of dredging his inch
long nails comes up. Tests on that material wouldn't take two months like it did in 1891. Results would be provided as quickly
as the results of the test on C. Kniclo's shirt to see whether Brown's blood is in fact the blood on the shirt. They could not determine if the blood on C. Kniclo or Ali's, for that matter, was from Brown. But, fortunately, it's 2022 and we sure as hell
can do that now.

Methinks the blood on C. Kniclo's shirt was from Brown which is why he'd ditch it back in 1891. A bad memory of an even worse
night. Had it been his blood, he might get it cleaned. He didn't arrive at the Cranford estate with a wardrobe, only a bundle of clothes.
Ali, on the other hand, could fall down in a pigsty and come up smelling better than he did before. He's been walking around with
socks and a shirt with bloodstains and there's no telling how long the fella will keep them on.

Both have circumstantial evidence pointing at them. Ali has his somewhat sneaky exit from the hotel ; the aforementioned blood and not too stellar references from a variety of women in the area who didn't just know him, they were intimate with him. His lies and general track record make him a good suspect even without DNA.

Same with C. Kniclo. Being the man who took Brown to Room 31 and having the key and a bloody shirt....the quick in n' out at the Glenmore spell out good circumstantial evidence.

Now...the test results are in. The blood on C. Kniclo's shirt came from Brown...and the junk under Ali's nails, which we knew was from someone with leukemic cells, can now be matched to Brown by blood type. In 1891, determining whether the blood on Ali came from Brown without a reasonable doubt was impossible. This is why the nail scraping which led to linking Ali to Brown, in fact the only medical way that could have been accomplished, was a smart move, whether intentional or not. The blood on Ali's shirt which he claimed came from an old wound that mysteriously still leaked ( preposterous) is also shown to have been from her.......

While this has just been a hypothetical yet entirely possible scenario, I think it demonstrates that solving this crime in 2022 would have been just as difficult as in 1891. I can also imagine each man being tried in separate jurisdictions and being both found guilty.

A great many crimes in which tangible evidence was left but impossible to link with persons of interest in the 19th century would be
solved today. This case in my mind is one that might be an exception to that rule. In several ways, the Brown murder is not only unique, but an exception to all known cases.

Almost forgot.....

To make matters even more mysterious, there is nothing etched in stone that the story George Damon told was absolutely true.
The key resting up in Albany was the key that got Ali out of jail along with other factors....and to be honest, that might be as far as it goes.

Whether a farmhand existed is not etched in stone. No one provided an affidavit other than Damon that confirmed his existence. Neither his wife, two former servants, or anyone else from Cranford including his three teenaged sons who lived there on 3 Madison Avenue in 1891....was asked to swear to his existence.

The three teenaged sons would have been 23, 24, and 26 in 1901. To support the story Damon provided the authorities, why wouldn't he take one of these
men to back his story up ? Not that they necessarily had much personal contact with him but there was no way that they did not know what he looked like.....why, one may have even recalled his last name .

He'd been there for a month at Damon's home. Brennan, the wagon man from Beekman Street, likewise did not acknowledge seeing this farmhand. Only Damon did. There's no doubt that C. Kniclo existed or Glenmore Man existed....but can we say that about the Danish Farmhand ?

That’s an interesting way of looking at it How. It ties in to what we’ve said about what would have happened had Kniclo killed again, been arrested and admitted to killing Brown with Ali in prison for life? How would they have explained Brown’s blood being on Ali. Byrnes would have had to have come up with an excuse that would have made Damon look like a novice.

It has to be a possibility that Damon’s story of how he came into possession of the key was a lie. The fact that he allegedly didn’t know that his wife had it - the fact that he appeared to know nothing about the farmhand (even his name) - the fact that neither he or his wife could remember the servants name - plus the pointless trip to the ERH given that he obviously had no intention of handing in the key. If this had happened today we might perhaps be able to suggest that there was a corner of the net where people bought and sold famous crime scene memorabilia and he was hoping to sell it for big bucks but that wouldn’t have been the case in 1891. I can’t really come up with an explanation of how else he might have acquired it though other than the farmhand. Unless…..

Could he have known the killer? Scenario - Damon suspects one of his workers after finding the key and shirt, perhaps one that had worked for him for years. The guy confesses and pleads with Damon not to turn him in saying that it was done in a moment of drunken madness. He promises to disappear and to never touch a drop again. Damon agrees but keeps the key as insurance that this guy never shows up again. Or he says that if he hears of another ripper-like murder he’ll go to the Police?

Im clutching at straws here How.

[Howard Brown]

That’s an interesting way of looking at it How. It ties in to what we’ve said about what would have happened had Kniclo killed again, been arrested and admitted to killing Brown with Ali in prison for life? How would they have explained Brown’s blood being on Ali. Byrnes would have had to have come up with an excuse that would have made Damon look like a novice.

It has to be a possibility that Damon’s story of how he came into possession of the key was a lie. The fact that he allegedly didn’t know that his wife had it - the fact that he appeared to know nothing about the farmhand (even his name) - the fact that neither he or his wife could remember the servants name - plus the pointless trip to the ERH given that he obviously had no intention of handing in the key. If this had happened today we might perhaps be able to suggest that there was a corner of the net where people bought and sold famous crime scene memorabilia and he was hoping to sell it for big bucks but that wouldn’t have been the case in 1891. I can’t really come up with an explanation of how else he might have acquired it though other than the farmhand. Unless…..

Could he have known the killer? Scenario - Damon suspects one of his workers after finding the key and shirt, perhaps one that had worked for him for years. The guy confesses and pleads with Damon not to turn him in saying that it was done in a moment of drunken madness. He promises to disappear and to never touch a drop again. Damon agrees but keeps the key as insurance that this guy never shows up again. Or he says that if he hears of another ripper-like murder he’ll go to the Police?

I'm clutching at straws here How.

Actually, Mike...I don't see you clutching at straws...in fact, Nina believes someone else from Damon's list of acquaintances may have left the key as she gives no chance of Damon and Brennan going to the East River Hotel, whatsoever. I think it's very possible that your last paragraph may have some basis in fact simply because Damon's story is too elaborate in some areas ( the whole, virtually scripted story of the two going to the hotel....you almost imagine Damon recalling what brand of cheap cigar he puffed on) and too sparse in other important areas ( name of farmhand, surnames of servants, not mentioning that 7 people from the house more than likely knew about the key...three sons, wife, two servants. The fact that people as well versed on the case as we are have been having to come up with answers to what should have required no questioning is all down to Damon's version of events, not our imagination.

Prof. Bob remarked ( either on a podcast or in his book) that it was a shame that Wellman didn't get a chance to challenge Damon's affidavit in 1901.

[Michael Banks]

That’s an interesting way of looking at it How. It ties in to what we’ve said about what would have happened had Kniclo killed again, been arrested and admitted to killing Brown with Ali in prison for life? How would they have explained Brown’s blood being on Ali. Byrnes would have had to have come up with an excuse that would have made Damon look like a novice.

It has to be a possibility that Damon’s story of how he came into possession of the key was a lie. The fact that he allegedly didn’t know that his wife had it - the fact that he appeared to know nothing about the farmhand (even his name) - the fact that neither he or his wife could remember the servants name - plus the pointless trip to the ERH given that he obviously had no intention of handing in the key. If this had happened today we might perhaps be able to suggest that there was a corner of the net where people bought and sold famous crime scene memorabilia and he was hoping to sell it for big bucks but that wouldn’t have been the case in 1891. I can’t really come up with an explanation of how else he might have acquired it though other than the farmhand. Unless…..

Could he have known the killer? Scenario - Damon suspects one of his workers after finding the key and shirt, perhaps one that had worked for him for years. The guy confesses and pleads with Damon not to turn him in saying that it was done in a moment of drunken madness. He promises to disappear and to never touch a drop again. Damon agrees but keeps the key as insurance that this guy never shows up again. Or he says that if he hears of another ripper-like murder he’ll go to the Police?

I'm clutching at straws here How.

Actually, Mike...I don't see you clutching at straws...in fact, Nina believes someone else from Damon's list of acquaintances may have left the key as she gives no chance of Damon and Brennan going to the East River Hotel, whatsoever. I think it's very possible that your last paragraph may have some basis in fact simply because Damon's story is too elaborate in some areas ( the whole, virtually scripted story of the two going to the hotel....you almost imagine Damon recalling what brand of cheap cigar he puffed on) and too sparse in other important areas ( name of farmhand, surnames of servants, not mentioning that 7 people from the house more than likely knew about the key...three sons, wife, two servants. The fact that people as well versed on the case as we are have been having to come up with answers to what should have required no questioning is all down to Damon's version of events, not our imagination.

Prof. Bob remarked ( either on a podcast or in his book) that it was a shame that Wellman didn't get a chance to challenge Damon's affidavit in 1901.

If anyone deserved thorough questioning it was Damon. I wonder if a donation to The Police Benevolence Fund allowed the spotlight to be faced in a different direction?

[Howard Brown]

Mike:

Had the police been the people he divulged his decade long deception to....that might work.

However, it wasn't. It was up to the District Attorney's office as the NYPD's role in the case was concluded back in 1891.

The D. A. in 1901 was this man, Eugene Philbin...who only served from 1900 to the end of 1901 :



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugene_A._Philbin