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

[Howard Brown]

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...

[Michael Banks]

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.

[Howard Brown]

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 ?!

[Howard Brown]

NY Evening World
June 29, 1891
****************

[Michael Banks]

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 ?!

I’m not looking forward to looking through the trial transcript to be honest How as it’s so difficult to read. I’m leaving that for a week or so as I’m waiting for new glasses. Magnifying glass on standby. We could do with someone transcribing it but it would be a big project for one person (to put it mildly) The result would be a massive bonus though.

[Howard Brown]

I’m not looking forward to looking through the trial transcript to be honest How as it’s so difficult to read. I’m leaving that for a week or so as I’m waiting for new glasses. Magnifying glass on standby. We could do with someone transcribing it but it would be a big project for one person (to put it mildly) The result would be a massive bonus though.
-Mike Banks-

It'd be a bonus indeed if it was transcribed. You might consider getting a Hubble telescope instead of a magnifying glass. Fortunately, a lot of the testimony from the witnesses is easy to read, for the most part, but that damned 4th volume is a doozy. I had to stop for several minutes on numerous occasions after going through the 4th volume and not look at anything other than my surroundings. Nina won't even think about that volume...too much on the eyes and gives you a headache.

Prof. Bob has the patience of Job to have accumulated as much as he did from the 4th volume.

[Howard Brown]

NY Evening World
June 30, 1891

[Howard Brown]

NY Evening World
July 1, 1891
***************

[Howard Brown]

NY Evening World
July 2, 1891
**************

[Howard Brown]

NY Evening World
July 3, 1891
***************

[Howard Brown]

NY Evening World
July 4, 1891
***************

[Howard Brown]

NY Evening World
Monday
July 6, 1891
**************

[Howard Brown]

NY Evening World
Monday
July 7, 1891
**************

[Howard Brown]

NY Evening World
Monday
July 10, 1891
**************

[Howard Brown]

Many people are probably unaware that in 1890, Brooklyn was a separate city within the conterminous New York City area. Like the borough of Queens, it would be added to Manhattan on January 1, 1898. Today, many probably think Manhattan is the most populous borough in New York City. It isn't. Brooklyn has the largest population followed by Queens, the largest by area, and then Manhattan.

Brooklyn was the 4th largest city in America in 1890....larger than Boston and San Francisco combined.

While the Brown murder made the front page of Manhattan papers ( Tribune, Sun, Evening World, Press, Herald, etc..), articles concerning the murder and June/July trial of Ali were relegated to the back page in this Brooklyn paper, the Daily Eagle.

Here are the April 24, 25, 26, and 27, 1891 editions of the Brooklyn Daily Eagle :