Great posts, gents !
By the way, I made a mistake on the pardon dates. It should have read 1893 and 1897.
I also stated that Damon was respected in the printing business and held patents...and of course, was buddies with the Governor.
What I forgot to add was that when you look up articles about Damon in the local Cranford ( and NY Herald), you find:
* an article about him buying a previously believed dead cow.
* his involvement ( third man in !) on a fight on a ferry
* his brief role as Two Gun Damon...when he shot at two suspected burglars
* his role in extinguishing a fire in Cranford just before the murder. You've gotta wonder if the Farmhand was there tossing buckets as well.
* his over the top whining about a $1.98 vase in the NY Herald
* his stint in court when he sued a man for 10 bucks ( he lost).....he also was asked questions about the affidavit. He clammed up. This was 3 months after he presented it to the authorities.
*his affidavit and story recounted in June 1901. He also was called 'Publicity's Pet', a short sarcastic paragraph about how his voice was heard all across the land.
************************************************** **********************
The Defence appeared confident that Ali would be acquitted (which seems more than a little naive to say the least if it was partially based on them believing that any information they got from Ali would turn out to be true and useful) so I was going to speculate - was it a combination of, the Press not being too keen on rocking the boat with the Police and the Defence believing that they wouldn’t need their evidence anyway leading to them not being called?
-Mike Banks-
Great question, Mike. None of the reporters said a word during the ten year Gap ( 1891-1901) concerning any offers to assist the defense.
I also felt, at one time, that it was likely that the following scenario might have been played out, which is in line with your idea:
I don't know how it is in Canada, England, or Denmark during the Gilded Age....but in NYC, 'beat' reporters virtually lived in police stations ( I have a photo of some
playing cards in Mulberry Street station...Byrnes's headquarters). They got the news of a crime the moment the police did in the station and were often, as they were
in the Brown murder, there at the scene at the same time as the constables were. In fact, as we know, a dozen of them were there before the police were.
I'm not sure if all of them came from Oak Street ( closer) or Mulberry Street.
It might have been something some or all would think twice about after House blabbed in the press that reporters said they hadn't seen blood ( again, why were they in a room where a murder didn't happen ? ) where the police said it was. Losing a seat in the station house might have been counterproductive to the reporter who aligned
himself with the defense.
If I was on the Defence team Kelly and the Reporter's would have been in the box and Ali would have been nowhere near it.
You're preaching to the choir, Pastor Banks. Can't agree with you enough.
************************************************** ***********************************************
A clearer picture is emerging of the business man and his dealings and activities which he thought egregious enough in this context of an association with a murder suspect to warrant a "white lie" or two and the odd attempt to throw a good light on himself. Getting cigars while there were investigating at the East River Hotel and then getting up and ordering beers when someone checking out of the hotel brought a key down and left it on the bar so they could compare keys without being noticed....
-Mark Franzoi-
Can't agree more with you either, Mark. I think Damon overegged the pudding too much....too much and to our benefit.
If he had...and I thought about this just today....just said he was fearful of the Dane and worried about his reputation, he might have gotten away with it with us in 2022.
He DID get away with it in 1901 because he was part of the Old Boy Network....there's no way Voorhees or Damon read his affidavit correctly if they didn't challenge his
assumed role as judge and juror....not asking why he didn't come forward in 1893 or 1897...asking him why he came forward in 1901 ( reference to John R. Lee was in the NY Sun, not the affidavit), and not bringing in old lady Damon for a chat. The bottom line is and was this : Damon had the key to a room where a murder was committed. His affidavit should have been challenged.
Put yourself in the spot of having a tangible piece of evidence in a murder and not coming forward for ten years. Does anyone think that the presentation of said evidence would not be accompanied by a cross examination by an attorney for the State ? I don't think so, dude.
By the way, I made a mistake on the pardon dates. It should have read 1893 and 1897.
I also stated that Damon was respected in the printing business and held patents...and of course, was buddies with the Governor.
What I forgot to add was that when you look up articles about Damon in the local Cranford ( and NY Herald), you find:
* an article about him buying a previously believed dead cow.
* his involvement ( third man in !) on a fight on a ferry
* his brief role as Two Gun Damon...when he shot at two suspected burglars
* his role in extinguishing a fire in Cranford just before the murder. You've gotta wonder if the Farmhand was there tossing buckets as well.
* his over the top whining about a $1.98 vase in the NY Herald
* his stint in court when he sued a man for 10 bucks ( he lost).....he also was asked questions about the affidavit. He clammed up. This was 3 months after he presented it to the authorities.
*his affidavit and story recounted in June 1901. He also was called 'Publicity's Pet', a short sarcastic paragraph about how his voice was heard all across the land.
************************************************** **********************
The Defence appeared confident that Ali would be acquitted (which seems more than a little naive to say the least if it was partially based on them believing that any information they got from Ali would turn out to be true and useful) so I was going to speculate - was it a combination of, the Press not being too keen on rocking the boat with the Police and the Defence believing that they wouldn’t need their evidence anyway leading to them not being called?
-Mike Banks-
Great question, Mike. None of the reporters said a word during the ten year Gap ( 1891-1901) concerning any offers to assist the defense.
I also felt, at one time, that it was likely that the following scenario might have been played out, which is in line with your idea:
I don't know how it is in Canada, England, or Denmark during the Gilded Age....but in NYC, 'beat' reporters virtually lived in police stations ( I have a photo of some
playing cards in Mulberry Street station...Byrnes's headquarters). They got the news of a crime the moment the police did in the station and were often, as they were
in the Brown murder, there at the scene at the same time as the constables were. In fact, as we know, a dozen of them were there before the police were.
I'm not sure if all of them came from Oak Street ( closer) or Mulberry Street.
It might have been something some or all would think twice about after House blabbed in the press that reporters said they hadn't seen blood ( again, why were they in a room where a murder didn't happen ? ) where the police said it was. Losing a seat in the station house might have been counterproductive to the reporter who aligned
himself with the defense.
If I was on the Defence team Kelly and the Reporter's would have been in the box and Ali would have been nowhere near it.
You're preaching to the choir, Pastor Banks. Can't agree with you enough.
************************************************** ***********************************************
A clearer picture is emerging of the business man and his dealings and activities which he thought egregious enough in this context of an association with a murder suspect to warrant a "white lie" or two and the odd attempt to throw a good light on himself. Getting cigars while there were investigating at the East River Hotel and then getting up and ordering beers when someone checking out of the hotel brought a key down and left it on the bar so they could compare keys without being noticed....
-Mark Franzoi-
Can't agree more with you either, Mark. I think Damon overegged the pudding too much....too much and to our benefit.
If he had...and I thought about this just today....just said he was fearful of the Dane and worried about his reputation, he might have gotten away with it with us in 2022.
He DID get away with it in 1901 because he was part of the Old Boy Network....there's no way Voorhees or Damon read his affidavit correctly if they didn't challenge his
assumed role as judge and juror....not asking why he didn't come forward in 1893 or 1897...asking him why he came forward in 1901 ( reference to John R. Lee was in the NY Sun, not the affidavit), and not bringing in old lady Damon for a chat. The bottom line is and was this : Damon had the key to a room where a murder was committed. His affidavit should have been challenged.
Put yourself in the spot of having a tangible piece of evidence in a murder and not coming forward for ten years. Does anyone think that the presentation of said evidence would not be accompanied by a cross examination by an attorney for the State ? I don't think so, dude.
Comment