Tweet
April 28, 29, and 30 editions :
-
April 28, 29, and 30 editions : -
May 1, 13, & 14,.and July 5th editionsComment
-
NY Evening World
April 24, 1891
****************Comment
-
Is it possible or likely that so many of the Press misheard or misunderstood what Byrnes had said about his interest in Frenchy 2 as a suspect? He seemed very keen to distance himself from the suggestion which is strange as the first suspect must have been the occupant of room 31 who they initially suspected might have been Frenchy 2. The Press certainly weren’t acknowledging any error as they repeated the claim about Byrnes interest in Frenchy 2 the next day. New Jersey Police arrested La Bruckman so it’s obvious that there’s been no order from Byrnes that Frenchy 2 was no longer on his radar. Other men had also been arrested as possible ‘Frenchy’s.’
After Byrnes and McLaughlin had interviewed Ali on the evening after the murder they were only taking about him in terms of his cousin, Frenchy 2. So does this mean that there was no obvious bloodstaining on him? Were they just some stains that turned out to have been blood?
I get the impression that Byrnes ego was at play and that he just didn’t want to admit that he’d initially suspected Kniclo/Frenchy 2. Perhaps haunted by his earlier Jack the Ripper comments?Regards
Michael🔎
" When you eliminate the impossible whatever remains no matter how improbable......is probably a little bit boring "Comment
-
Is it possible or likely that so many of the Press misheard or misunderstood what Byrnes had said about his interest in Frenchy 2 as a suspect? He seemed very keen to distance himself from the suggestion which is strange as the first suspect must have been the occupant of room 31 who they initially suspected might have been Frenchy 2. The Press certainly weren’t acknowledging any error as they repeated the claim about Byrnes interest in Frenchy 2 the next day. New Jersey Police arrested La Bruckman so it’s obvious that there’s been no order from Byrnes that Frenchy 2 was no longer on his radar. Other men had also been arrested as possible ‘Frenchy’s.’
-Mike Banks-
I don't think the press reporters made a mistake at all as far as mishearing anything, Mike ( IMHO ).
Byrnes did appear to have tried his best in worming out of the remarks made early on. I think his flip-flop on his announcement concerning Frenchy # 2/ Man in Room 31 was Byrnes simply using his clout and not really caring what the press responded with at that point.
La Bruckman's alibi was checked out thoroughly by the NYPD as were all the other men resembling the man Miniter and Kelly described.
Something....whether it's right in front of us...or something we will never learn of...transpired between the arrest on the 24th and formal charge ( actually that was probably decided on the 29th at the latest) on the 30th that convinced the police, whether rightly or wrongly...that Ali was the killer...and since it was not a case of finding him in the room, red-handed : in possession of a bloody knife when arrested on Water Street...or a clear cut motive which really doesn't have to be proven if means and opportunity present themselves....it appears to me to have been a matter of him being charged on circumstantial evidence. D.A. Wellman said as much in one of his works later on.
If word of the Mannix story and English revelations were known by the police during the period of time : April 24-April 29...then one or both of these stories might have been the catalyst(s) in him being formally charged. This is just my guess and is, obviously, unprovable.
After Byrnes and McLaughlin had interviewed Ali on the evening after the murder they were only taking about him in terms of his cousin, Frenchy 2. So does this mean that there was no obvious bloodstaining on him? Were they just some stains that turned out to have been blood?
-Mike Banks-
The reference we hear time and time again about Ali's 'cousin' might have been Ali's description of a friend, not blood relative, which La Bruckman wasn't and to our knowledge to date, no one in the metropolitan New York vicinity was either. We hear similar phrases today and probably use them...calling people "Bro'...or 'Cuz" when in reality that's just a term we use to describe friends.
He, supposedly, had blood on his shirt which he claimed...er, lied about....as having come from him putting the boots to Alice Sullivan...but Sully wasn't riding the cotton pony at the time of the sexual encounter between Ali and herself. Again, another lie by our guy.
I get the impression that Byrnes ego was at play and that he just didn’t want to admit that he’d initially suspected Kniclo/Frenchy 2. Perhaps haunted by his earlier Jack the Ripper comments?
-Mike Banks-
I think he'd have been an idiot to not suspect Frenchy # 2. Mike....since he was the fellow ( as C.Kniclo in this case) who went into Room 31 with Brown.
Maybe the police cataloged all the lies he told and figured Wellman and the medical team would find additional incriminating facts to secure a conviction at the trial, if he didn't get past the Coroner's Inquest first.Comment
-
NY Evening World
April 25 1891
****************Comment
-
NY Evening World
April 27 1891
****************Comment
-
A little ahead of schedule...for Thursday the 28th :
NY Evening World
April 28, 1891
*****************Comment
-
For Friday's entry....
NY Evening World
April 29, 1891
****************Comment
-
Ahead of schedule....articles found in the Brooklyn Citizen
Unlike the Brooklyn Daily Eagle, the Citizen placed their articles on the front page.
Brooklyn Citiizen
April 24, 1891
******************Comment
-
Brooklyn Citizen....April 25-27, 1891Comment
-
'A Drunken Old Harridan of The Slums"Comment
-
Collection of links related to Ameer Ben Ali
Kent State University collection- Jonathan Goodman Archive
Comment
-
Book written by one of the Ali defense team medical experts, Dr. Justin Herold.
700 page PDF
https://ia803400.us.archive.org/26/i.../28410900R.pdf
He got lumped up but received a settlement from an accident in the late 1890's
Comment
-
Herold in agreement with the prosecution expert, Dr. Formad ( from the book above)
Comment
Comment