Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

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

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Howard Brown
    replied
    NY Evening World
    June 29, 1891
    ****************
    Attached Files

    Leave a comment:


  • Howard Brown
    replied
    Exactly How. Even when I’m reading a book I tend to skip over the medical stuff because my brain simply starts switching off. I have to force myself to read it and take it in the best I can as a layman. It would have been much harder for men in 1891.

    I'm betting they never saw an episode of CSI. The medical evidence would have been little more than which scientist sounded the most authoritative and who did the better job: defence or prosecution. But present a jury with evidence that the man who shared a room with Brown appeared soon after at a nearby hotel with blood on him and bingo. I can’t see this other than a big mistake.

    -Mike Banks-

    This happens to be the only murder case that I ever felt I had to pay as much attention to medical evidence as I have , Mike.
    Even when reading the trial transcript, I had to force myself to plow through the medical evidence. It didn't help that a lot of the text is virtually indecipherable and to be frank, was a real pain in the ass and on the eyes as well.
    We both know more about criminal cases and crimes in general than the 12 jurists did and if it is a labor of love for us to trudge through it, you know it was a rough going for those gents.

    Regarding what you said about :

    The medical evidence would have been little more than which scientist sounded the most authoritative and who did the better job: defence or prosecution

    There's the rub. The defense medical experts accepted the findings of Flint & Formad with no objections to their conclusions. This act, alone, made things easier for the jury in one crucial respect. Who were they, the jurists, to dismiss the prosecution's findings if the defense team's medical experts accepted it ?!



    Leave a comment:


  • Michael Banks
    replied
    Originally posted by Howard Brown View Post
    I agree with you about the defense team missing a potentially crucial opportunity to get Ali off the hook. Everyone had been wondering as they do today...where was C.Kniclo ?
    The police felt he may have been Frenchy 2. This panned out as La Bruckman had an alibi,
    I also respect Prof. Dekle's opinion that Kelly may have been a poor witness....but I disagree with him on the defense not bringing him forward to testify. It is certainly not the only thing I find questionable that the defense did.....or didn't do. More on those things in the future.

    It also diminishes the theory that the police were responsible for Frenchy being convicted since this one act alone on the part of the defense could have overshadowed all the medical testimony, which was instrumental in his conviction. Here's how :

    Let's say you and I were on the jury. It's over 80 degrees outside at least and therefore warmer inside the room. It's filled to maximum capacity. Half the time you're in the jury section you're wishing you could get some relief from the heat. You can't. Smyth has the windows and door shut.

    Medical experts start rattling off medical terms and biological material that you are unfamiliar with. We're both intelligent men but it still is all Greek to us.
    Then, the defense recalls Miniter to the stand. It asks her to reiterate her previous description. It then calls Kelly to the stand.
    I know that I would take these two facts together and conclude that it was the same man. There are at least a half dozen points of similarity.

    All the medical testimony is fine and dandy but it would not trump the description of a man more than likely to have been her murderer or at least the man who had been with Brown when she entered the hotel ( C. Kniclo) and seen shortly afterwards 5 minutes away up the street with blood on his person ( Glenmore Man) with six points of similarity in common with C.Kniclo.

    Take some time in the future and look through the two East River Echo's with Dr. Flint's recollections of the trial. At some point during his and Formad's testimony, I would wager one or two of the jurors' minds had wandered and wondered what they'd be doing on the 4th of July. This is in no way. shape, or form a disparagement of the jury's intellect or a minimizing of the value of the prosecution medical expert's testimony.

    It's because people are generally pragmatic. As soon as the jury heard of the sighting at the Glenmore Hotel, I feel the jury would have shifted past the 6 for 6 against into a majority voting for acquittal.
    Exactly How. Even when I’m reading a book I tend to skip over the medical stuff because my brain simply starts switching off. I have to force myself to read it and take it in the best I can as a layman. It would have been much harder for men in 1891.

    Im betting they never saw an episode of CSI The medical evidence would have been little more than which scientist sounded the most authoritative and who did the better job: defence or prosecution. But present a jury with evidence that the man who shared a room with Brown appeared soon after at a nearby hotel with blood on him and bingo. I can’t see this other that a big mistake.

    Leave a comment:


  • Howard Brown
    replied
    Mike....
    Almost forgot :

    I also find it pretty surprising that the prosecution didn't call William Mannix to the stand either at the May Coroner's Inquest or June trial.
    On April 25th, he told an Evening World reporter the following story...in the PDF.
    Tell me what you think.
    Thanks...
    Attached Files

    Leave a comment:


  • Howard Brown
    replied
    Good question. Surely this can only have been Damon but, as you say, why the years delay? Could it have been the case that they’d heard of the Damon story (via Lee?) but that Damon was still reluctant to come forward? Might it have taken a year to persuade him to step up to the plate?

    No idea at this point, Mike. It's something worth investigating. As it stands, I could find no articles in the NY papers mentioning Damon during the year 1900 in two repositories. That, of course, does not mean your suggestion of his dirty little secret being known but just not reported is wrong or something to dismiss.

    If his secret had been known in 1900...the extra year in not coming forward only makes Damon look worse to some of us now than he appeared to some folks in 1901....at least to me, that is.



    Was there ever anything against Byrnes personally as far as corruption went How? Or was Roosevelt just being the ‘new broom’ who saw Byrnes as a part of the old guard? Or was Byrnes close to one of Teddy’s political opponents?

    Not that a politician would ever act on such motives of course


    Roosevelt was doing his job and was a very capable administrator His attitude towards Byrnes, as Byrnes was the big dog in his own circle, was based on wide ranging corruption such as payoffs and turning an eye to open vice which Roosevelt felt Byrnes had permitted. His cause was just and Byrnes, despite all the positive things he had done, made his own bed....having to resign a rich man in 1895.


    On a different topic How, out of curiosity have there ever been any discussion threads on here on the subject of the Wallace Case in Liverpool 1931?

    Not that I'm aware of, Mike. There may be one. Check the search function and put the name Wallace into it.

    Leave a comment:


  • Howard Brown
    replied
    I agree with you about the defense team missing a potentially crucial opportunity to get Ali off the hook. Everyone had been wondering as they do today...where was C.Kniclo ?
    The police felt he may have been Frenchy 2. This panned out as La Bruckman had an alibi,
    I also respect Prof. Dekle's opinion that Kelly may have been a poor witness....but I disagree with him on the defense not bringing him forward to testify. It is certainly not the only thing I find questionable that the defense did.....or didn't do. More on those things in the future.

    It also diminishes the theory that the police were responsible for Frenchy being convicted since this one act alone on the part of the defense could have overshadowed all the medical testimony, which was instrumental in his conviction. Here's how :

    Let's say you and I were on the jury. It's over 80 degrees outside at least and therefore warmer inside the room. It's filled to maximum capacity. Half the time you're in the jury section you're wishing you could get some relief from the heat. You can't. Smyth has the windows and door shut.

    Medical experts start rattling off medical terms and biological material that you are unfamiliar with. We're both intelligent men but it still is all Greek to us.
    Then, the defense recalls Miniter to the stand. It asks her to reiterate her previous description. It then calls Kelly to the stand.
    I know that I would take these two facts together and conclude that it was the same man. There are at least a half dozen points of similarity.

    All the medical testimony is fine and dandy but it would not trump the description of a man more than likely to have been her murderer or at least the man who had been with Brown when she entered the hotel ( C. Kniclo) and seen shortly afterwards 5 minutes away up the street with blood on his person ( Glenmore Man) with six points of similarity in common with C.Kniclo.

    Take some time in the future and look through the two East River Echo's with Dr. Flint's recollections of the trial. At some point during his and Formad's testimony, I would wager one or two of the jurors' minds had wandered and wondered what they'd be doing on the 4th of July. This is in no way. shape, or form a disparagement of the jury's intellect or a minimizing of the value of the prosecution medical expert's testimony.

    It's because people are generally pragmatic. As soon as the jury heard of the sighting at the Glenmore Hotel, I feel the jury would have shifted past the 6 for 6 against into a majority voting for acquittal.

    Leave a comment:


  • Michael Banks
    replied
    On a different topic How, out of curiosity have there ever been any discussion threads on here on the subject of the Wallace Case in Liverpool 1931?

    Leave a comment:


  • Michael Banks
    replied
    Originally posted by Howard Brown View Post
    Several thousand signatures and none from the local lumpen proles or Water Street wastrels.....still wasn't enough to persuade Teddy to turn the convict loose.

    And...before I forget....if anyone thought that Roosevelt was maintaining the status quo here to protect Inspector Byrnes in some way....think again.

    Roosevelt was not necessarily a fan of the ( by this time) former Chief of Detectives.

    In 1895, the new president of the New York City Police Commission, future President of the United States compelled Byrnes to resign as part of Roosevelt's drive to rid the force of corruption.


    Poughkeepsie Eagle-News
    April 4, 1900
    *****************

    Was there ever anything against Byrnes personally as far as corruption went How? Or was Roosevelt just being the ‘new broom’ who saw Byrnes as a part of the old guard? Or was Byrnes close to one of Teddy’s political opponents?

    Not that a politician would ever act on such motives of course.

    Leave a comment:


  • Michael Banks
    replied
    Originally posted by Howard Brown View Post
    Buffalo Morning Express
    April 1, 1900
    *****************



    What, exactly, could Ali's support team bring to the table if their three previous efforts had failed ?

    Is it likely that Damon had made his presence felt by late March 1900 ?

    If so, why the ( over a ) year long delay in any reports such as the June 1901 NY Sun article which chronicle the story of Room 31's key and Damon's reticence in coming forward for 10 years ?
    Good question. Surely this can only have been Damon but, as you say, why the years delay? Could it have been the case that they’d heard of the Damon story (via Lee?) but that Damon was still reluctant to come forward? Might it have taken a year to persuade him to step up to the plate?

    Leave a comment:


  • Michael Banks
    replied
    .
    Considering that the defense went in to the coroner's inquest with confidence, according to their own statement to the press....and finding out during the actual trial that even more ( Nellie English, for one) damaging testimony was being presented, that they'd try anything. That they didn't call Kelly from The Glenmore sticks in my craw...can't figure that out, but Prof. Dekle believes that it might have been a case of Kelly not being a good witness.
    This is another thing that I meant to put to you but forgot to How. Why wasn’t Kelly called? I respect Prof. Dekle’s opinion of course but i can’t help wondering how bad a witness could he have been to get left out? The total absence of the man that actually shared number 31 with Brown was a huge point. In Kelly they had a man who’s description tied in perfectly with Miniter’s of that very man and he was seen in the early hours with blood on him acting suspiciously! I can’t help but see this as a big mistake on the Defence’s part. Although the blood evidence was really strong it still had to chime with a jury of laymen after hearing the Defence question it. This might easily have left them undecided on the issue of blood. If so the Defence would then have been able to present the jury with a blood covered C.Kniclo acting strangely at a nearby hotel. A definite opportunity of, at the very least, muddying the waters missed imo How.

    Leave a comment:


  • Howard Brown
    replied
    Several thousand signatures and none from the local lumpen proles or Water Street wastrels.....still wasn't enough to persuade Teddy to turn the convict loose.

    And...before I forget....if anyone thought that Roosevelt was maintaining the status quo here to protect Inspector Byrnes in some way....think again.

    Roosevelt was not necessarily a fan of the ( by this time) former Chief of Detectives.

    In 1895, the new president of the New York City Police Commission, future President of the United States compelled Byrnes to resign as part of Roosevelt's drive to rid the force of corruption.


    Poughkeepsie Eagle-News
    April 4, 1900
    *****************

    Leave a comment:


  • Howard Brown
    replied
    Buffalo Morning Express
    April 1, 1900
    *****************



    What, exactly, could Ali's support team bring to the table if their three previous efforts had failed ?

    Is it likely that Damon had made his presence felt by late March 1900 ?

    If so, why the ( over a ) year long delay in any reports such as the June 1901 NY Sun article which chronicle the story of Room 31's key and Damon's reticence in coming forward for 10 years ?

    Leave a comment:


  • Howard Brown
    replied
    It's good to keep in mind that Theodore Roosevelt and Jacob Riis were friends. Roosevelt called Riis as 'the most useful citizen in New York'.
    Where was New York's most useful citizen up to this point in time ?


    To me, this means that Riis was not involved with this 1900 pardon attempt, nor any of the prior efforts.




    Shown here trawling the streets together and coming up upon cops snoozing on the job




    https://www.loc.gov/exhibits/jacob-riis/ally.html

    Leave a comment:


  • Howard Brown
    replied
    Buffalo Courier
    April 1, 1900
    ****************

    Leave a comment:


  • Howard Brown
    replied
    New York Sun
    March 11, 1900
    *******************
    Attached Files

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X