Whodunit ? A Poll December 11, 2021

[Howard Brown]

I've put together a poll to gauge what other folks feel may be the final or best
solution as to who murdered Carrie Brown

If you've read George R. Dekle's 'The East River Ripper', you'll be aware that Prof. Bob
proposes three solutions to the mystery. He is objective and does not claim with absolute
certainty that his preferred theory is final. I've added a couple of others.

Wolf Vanderlinden has studied the case for over twenty years and
suggests rather strongly that the blood evidence used by the prosecution
linking Ali to Room 31 was planted, primarily on newspaper reportage which, as in most
crime stories found in the papers, whether as found in the Whitechapel Murder coverage or
the Brown murder coverage, are notorious for their errors and are on many occasions, contrary
to articles covering the same matter at hand.

Professor Dekle believes the better of the possible solutions is that Ali was found guilty
properly and a little lucky in that he didn't get the electric chair.

My theory, which at one time was firmly on the side of Ali being framed ( not for blood, but rather
the decision of the NYPD to 'settle' for Ali as they could not locate 'Frenchy # 2') and that
'Frank', the Danish farmhand said to have been an employee of George Damon over in New Jersey,
was the killer, has changed over the past 6 months.

I still think it's more likely that Ali was
innocent, but that her killer may have been 'Glenmore Man', so dubbed by researcher Michael Banks, who went to the Glenmore Hotel after
the murder and not necessarily the Danish farmhand. I think 'C.Kniclo/Glenmore Man' killed
Brown and that Ali burglarized the room afterwards, which is how he had leukemic cells and
lint under his nails.

[Howard Brown]

These are four scenarios as to what happened on the night of April 23rd and morning of April 24th, 1891.

Professor Dekle suggests three of these based on his view they are the most feasible. I've added one more.

If anyone else has a possible scenario, please don't hesitate adding it.


A. C. Kniclo murders Carrie Brown.....takes the key to room 31.... but leaves the door unlocked.
Ali, meanwhile, enters room 31...comes into contact with her body....leaves room 31 and locks it on the way out.

B. C. Kniclo murders Carrie Brown....takes the key to room 31....and locks the door behind him.
Ali, in this scenario has no contact with her body or the ability to enter room 31.

C. C. Kniclo does not murder Carrie Brown.....takes the room key...and leaves, but without locking the door.
Ali, in this scenario, goes over to room 31....murders Brown...locks the door behind him.

D. C. Kniclo leaves room 31 for one reason or the other but plans on returning.
In the interim, Ali goes over....murders Brown...leaves room...goes back to room 33 and leaves the door to room 31 unlocked.
Shortly afterwards, C. Kniclo returns....sees Brown's body....immediately leaves and locks the door behind him.


Which scenario do you find more feasible.....or scenarios more feasible ?

[Markus Aurelius Franzoi]

I go with B. The previous survey went 3-1 with 3 for Ali getting in the room and locking the door. It’ll be interesting to see if I/we changed their minds or not.

B. C. Kniclo murders Carrie Brown....takes the key to room 31....and locks the door behind him.
Ali, in this scenario has no contact with her body or the ability to enter room 31.

[Kattrup]

Of the four listed, I think I favour A.
Biggest problem is it doesn’t explain how Ali locked the door (neither does C).

The two irreconcilable facts or considerations to me are 1. door locked, only key available to guests carried far away by Frank, and 2. Ali having blood on him in greater amounts and consistent with him dressing with bloodied hands.

I used to be convinced that having the key meant only Frank could have been the killer. I still lean that way.

But the blood on Ali is hard to explain.
I do not find it convincing that Ali would get that much blood on his hands if only burglarizing the room. Also, he would already be dressed, no need to put his socks on and get them bloody.

D is tempting.
A fifth scenario is the two men both being in the room, killing Brown by mistake or in drunken rage. Perhaps they met in the hallway and Ali came over to party. They both leave, Frank locking the door.
But I don’t think it works, if Ali knew anything about Frank - his appearance- would he not put the blame on him?

[Kattrup]

I'm not sure I understand the poll...some of the options are not mutually exclusive? So two or even three of the sentences could be simultaneously true, but I can only cast one vote.

[Howard Brown]

Kattrup:

Sorry if I wasn't more explicit.....it isn't a poll

I was just putting up a list of 4 scenarios....with no connection to the original thread starter. I didn't want to create another thread in order to avoid taking up more of the site's bandwidth.

Basically, what I was asking was for folks to state which scenario they thought more likely by posting it....sorry for any confusion.


I still go with A

[Kattrup]

Kattrup:


I still go with A

So do I - but how does Ali lock the door?

I was thinking a combo of A nd D - C. Kniclo murders Brown, leaves momentarily (to pee or clean up). Meanwhile, Ali, stirred by the commotion, enters, rummages around for valuables, leaves. C. Kniclo returns, grabs his stuff, leaves, locking the door.

The conundrum of the key in New Jersey, out of Ali's reach, but Ali having blood on him proving that he was in the room after the murder but before the door was locked. One is forced to suggest unlikely scenarios to explain it.

[Howard Brown]

So do I - but how does Ali lock the door?

I was thinking a combo of A nd D - C. Kniclo murders Brown, leaves momentarily (to pee or clean up). Meanwhile, Ali, stirred by the commotion, enters, rummages around for valuables, leaves. C. Kniclo returns, grabs his stuff, leaves, locking the door.

The conundrum of the key in New Jersey, out of Ali's reach, but Ali having blood on him proving that he was in the room after the murder but before the door was locked. One is forced to suggest unlikely scenarios to explain it.

-----------------------------------

Pete...you may have overlooked or not read some of my comments on the matter of him being able to lock the door.
I think had it been an issue at the time, someone would have mentioned this back in 1891....and between 1891 and up until 2022....but I can't find any queries into the matter.
I believe he...or anyone else for that matter...could have locked the door by depressing a button on the side of the door.... and pulling it to.

IMHO, your suggestion isn't bad...the conflating of scenarios A & D.

In your theory above :
I was thinking a combo of A nd D - C. Kniclo murders Brown, leaves momentarily (to pee or clean up). Meanwhile, Ali, stirred by the commotion, enters, rummages around for valuables, leaves. C. Kniclo returns, grabs his stuff, leaves, locking the door.
-Kattrup-

...Ali could gain access to the room via an unlocked door...which is exactly what I believe.

[Kattrup]

you may have overlooked or not read some of my comments on the matter of him being able to lock the door.
I think had it been an issue at the time, someone would have mentioned this back in 1891....and between 1891 and up until 2022....but I can't find any queries into the matter.
I believe he...or anyone else for that matter...could have locked the door by depressing a button on the side of the door.... and pulling it to.

I am aware of yours and MAF's discussion of the doorknobs and locks, but so far I believe they've been inconclusive...I tend to believe that such a relatively new mechanism would be out of place in the lowly, unrenovated hotel; moreover it would be impractical because guests might repeatedly lock themselves out; furthermore the actual key itself does not, to me, suggest such a locking mechanism, being an old-fashioned and clunky key, even if button-lock locks existed with similar keys, as I believe you and MAF showed to some extent.

Nobody in 1891 or the years thereafter perhaps thought about the whereabouts of the key, because they did not know it ended up in New Jersey. They perhaps just figured that Ali got rid of it somehow.
The fact that the key had such an impact when it finally showed up indicates that the door could not actually be locked in any other way - therefore whoever had the key was bound to have been at the scene of the crime.

[Michael Banks]

I’m tending toward A which has been my position for the relatively short time that I’ve been interested in the case. The 2 issues of course are, 1) could the door be locked without the key, and 2) could the blood found on Ali have come from a source other than Carrie Brown? Personally I don’t like the ‘planted blood’ theory, so for me I’d need a medical expert to tell us that it was possible that the blood could have come from elsewhere. In the absence of this (so far at least) I’m inclined to Ali being in the room but not as the murderer. Kattrup makes a good point about how could he have got so much blood on him by simply burglarising the room but, when we look at Ali’s previous, I think that it’s possible that he might have entered the room for other reasons (and I don’t think that he was carrying a chess set at the time) I think that Ali might have entered that dark room and climbed onto the bed to cuddle up to a woman that he thought was sleeping, until he realised that he was covered in her blood. This doesn’t answer the lock question of course.

For me the most important issue in the case is whether the blood on Ali could have come from elsewhere. If not then Ali had to have been in that room. My apologies for stating the obvious.

[Nina Brown]

It all depends on the door lock.

B. C. Kniclo murders Carrie Brown....takes the key to room 31....and locks the door behind him.
Ali, in this scenario has no contact with her body or the ability to enter room 31.

or

A. C. Kniclo murders Carrie Brown.....takes the key to room 31.... but leaves the door unlocked.
Ali, meanwhile, enters room 31...comes into contact with her body....leaves room 31 and locks it on the way out.

[Kattrup]

For me the most important issue in the case is whether the blood on Ali could have come from elsewhere. If not then Ali had to have been in that room. My apologies for stating the obvious.

No need to apologize, I’ve asked the same thing: how certain is the science stating the cells found on Ali could only have come from the small intestine?

If certain - as it seems - Ali had to have been in the room. Doing what, and how did he lock the door with a key that was found in New Jersey?

[Howard Brown]

Kattrup:

Very good points there, buddy. I'd be the first to agree that ( speaking for myself and my input) that what I propose is inconclusive.

Often times, we never know exactly what triggers a series of events....such as if Ali had the same blood on his person on the 24th, why it took until the 29th ( reported on April 30th) for Byrnes to name him as the killer. It may be something he said or something he did that convinced the police that he fit the bill. Then again, and despite conflicting reports from the headline seeking reporters, maybe they had honed in on Ali days earlier than the subsequent announcement. They continued to look for C. Kniclo in May after Ali was already charged and in jail....but to be fair, it may have been a matter of finding him to get his story on the night in question and not necessarily as a potential murderer.

In this matter about the door and bell and button and buzzer and how one guy got in and one got out.....the best I can do is say that there was no real issue to them at the time...defense and prosecution....because they knew exactly what type of lock and type of door was there while we do our damnedest to figure this out from a disadvantageous position. I think the onus of the problem rested with the defense ( I believe Mark alluded to that earlier on another thread) and why, if there was an issue of how Ali could get in or lock the door, they did not broach the subject.

Nobody in 1891 or the years thereafter perhaps thought about the whereabouts of the key, because they did not know it ended up in New Jersey. They perhaps just figured that Ali got rid of it somehow.
The fact that the key had such an impact when it finally showed up indicates that the door could not actually be locked in any other way - therefore whoever had the key was bound to have been at the scene of the crime.
-Kattrup-

One possible caveat to the above is that Governor Odell didn't see or know what type of lock was on the door. What you say is definitely possible and Odell's remarks in his 1902 commutation of Ali indicates as much. I would factor in the absence of any reference to the door & lock by the defense particularly, the prosecution ( under no obligation to do so) or the 'professional reporters', who if they had been as observant as some claim would have had at least one among their number to question the situation...but didn't.

Although this doesn't fit in with the discussion, I have this sneaking suspicion that the police at one point early on thought that there was no C. Kniclo and that perhaps Mary Miniter was not being truthful.

In any event, great input, Kattrup....it's much appreciated.

************************************************** ***********************

Mike :

I'm with you on your line of thinking as you know. Thanks for pitching in pardner.

Nina:

Good points but you knew that. You're still walking to work.

Pete:

Regarding tyrosine which Dr. Flint said was found only in the small intestine ( I need to re-read his two reports to find out how he referred to tyrosine in the body to be certain in regard to his position on it).....I posted something last week about how it could be found in the liver. Nina also located material on this vital chemical. Dr. Paul Gibier's Bulletin of The Pasteur Institute had a note referring to tyrosine being found in other parts of the body in 1897, six years after the murder. Gibier, who died in 1900, was a defense witness. If he disputed Flint in 1891, I wonder on what basis ?

[Markus Aurelius Franzoi]

That is correct, Howard. I believe the onus was on the defence to bring up the lock issue. The reason they didn’t has to be because they believed that the killer left the key in the room or they couldn’t prove otherwise so there was no use. Otherwise they’re either incompetent or scared or payed off.

They did bring up the lack of blood near the doorknob. Even with a key you still would naturally pull the door shut with a knob or handle.

You can’t use the “blood on one hand” theory because they weren’t working with the simple burglary and scraping the intestines with one hand theory. He’d have blood on both hands presumably and so they asked about the lack of blood on the knob. Notice they didn’t bring up lack of blood on any spring latch release buttons.

No blood in either place and they didn’t follow up! Why? Because the prosecution would say he could have used a key.

But I believe the lock issue was resolved before this came up. Others like Kattrup seem to have locked onto it quickly.

[Howard Brown]

You can’t use the “blood on one hand” theory because they weren’t working with the simple burglary and scraping the intestines with one hand theory. He’d have blood on both hands presumably and so they asked about the lack of blood on the knob.

Yes we can. How many times were your hands covered in a liquid and in lieu of a towel, you wiped your hands on the side of your pants prior to using it to open or manipulate something ? If a bodily fluid, the chances are even greater a person will do that. Ali was a pig. I wouldn't be surprised if he didn't rub some of the blood... also found in his room....in his hair.