Concerning The Planted Blood Theory

[Howard Brown]

Arguments proposing that blood was planted by the NYPD and fully endorsed by the District Attorney's office have been made elsewhere.

Far from scoffing at this theory, because nobody on Earth wants people to become involved with and accelerate discussion concerning the Brown murder than me....all I will say is this :

Let us assume for a moment that the police, under Byrnes' directive DID plant blood.
Let us also assume for a moment that the police, unable to locate Frenchy 2 or C. Kniclo, 'settled' for Ali to be the ersatz murderer. More on this one in the future.

For the first idea to float....it would have to be proven that the NYPD took Ali's fingernail clippings and immersed them into the
blood from Brown's corpse.

Why ? Because one of the things which sank Ali was the fact that her blood contained biological material identical to the material
extricated from under Ali's nails. If the Algerian was innocent as a lamb, how else would it appear there ?

We would have to believe that the hypothetical frame up consisted of:

1. Planting blood on the places where the police found them and apparently part-time investigator-slash-reporters didn't.
2. Taking nail clippings and placing them into her blood.

Of course, if the police did do these things, the leukemic cells found under his nails ( the nails were examined two months after removal by Drs. Flint and Formad ) would match the leukemic cells in Brown's blood. The police would have had no idea about the inevitable match up ( leukemic cells in both Ali's nail endings and her blood). They would have done so simply to put blood under his nails hoping jurors would put two and two together....not with the advance knowledge that the biological material would match.

Now....does anyone really believe that the NYPD would take his nail clippings and immerse them in her blood ?

Ali was not only a liar and a person with an apparent split social personality ( Just shy of being a member of the Brady Bunch when in Brooklyn with his friends, nice to women, nice to kids, hardworking, wished to see his family again, yada, yada, yada...while in Manhattan, he was a known ne-er do well, whore hopper, unkempt, and possibly most of all, he had a resume of confrontations with women ( Finnegan, Harrington, Lopez, etc..) while on the Lower East Side. The incident provided to the press by William C. Mannix, involving his wife on Thursday night ( 23rd) would give any junior G-man a reason to look hard at this loafer as being her killer. That's not even taking Nellie English's story into account.

With or without an agenda to frame Ali with planted blood evidence....there was enough circumstantial evidence to pursue inquiries into Ali's activities on the night in question and prior to that date, all beginning at the point Adam Lang arrested him on Water Street less than 20 hours later.


I don't believe Ali, at this point in time, was the murderer. I also have some doubts whether all of the Danish Farmhand story can be accepted in its entirety. Bob Dekle's book put Ali back into the picture and research by others, including Professor Dekle,
has given reason to reconsider George Damon's 1901 stories.

Nevertheless, what really swayed the jurors to elect to convict Ali was the medical testimony of Flint & Formad and Ali's behavior in court....in addition to the volume of lies Ali told up to the July 3rd conviction. Don't take my word for it. Read the East River Echo Number 19 I've attached to this post....... Even afterwards, he still fabricated stories....up to the days prior to his deportation from the United States.


While the various press reports ( the Brown murder reportage, unlike the Whitechapel Murder press coverage, had too much in the way of information and misinformation) do seem to make a possible case for believing the planted blood theory,
the bottom line is that what put Ali in hot water was his continual, almost pathological, persistence in telling lies, along with the prosecution's medical testimony which was accepted entirely by the defense team. Had he behaved himself at the trial, it might have led to a hung jury or acquittal.



The facts which led to him being on trial can be proven. At first, circumstantial, as Francis Wellman stated in Gentlemen of The Jury...and at last, the weight of medical evidence contributed to the inevitable second degree conviction

The State was not to be blamed for putting him on trial.
I believe he was in her room. In 1902, an article in the Buffalo Courier was published in which it was revealed that Ali's confession to having been in the room was apparently well known in some social circles ( he stated as much to Emile Sultan, an interpreter slash cigar store owner, employed at the time of the trial)


Finally, if Ali was an innocent victim of a frame up and had only gone into the room after the original client had left....a practice of his documented by trial transcripts (Nellie English)...and only burglarized her, rummaging through her meager possessions....what could he have done to avoid the conviction ?


Confess that he had been in the room, finding her dead, and subsequently deciding to rob her ( assuming he did take anything at all ) ? Placing himself at the scene of the crime ?
I doubt that would have been a wise maneuver. I believe I would have voted for first degree murder had I been a juror.
The planted blood theory can't be proven. In fairness, neither can it be disproven. It may be down to an individual perception of the Case.

And you ?

By the way, it would also have to be explained why the police went to such extremes in their effort to locate C. Kniclo if Ali had been chosen as a patsy with planted blood evidence.
Michael Banks has suggested the problems which would have occurred had C. Kniclo had been found and arrested.....Of course we now know that that didn't happen and if the Danish Farmhand story and Damon's irresponsible delay in coming forward was bona fide, then it may never have happened had John H. Lee not 'outed' Damon, much to Damon's chagrin, I imagine, in 1901, a full decade after Ali's conviction.

[R. J. Palmer]

I don't believe Ali, at this point in time, was the murderer.

Hi Howard.

I can appreciate your uncertainty, but are you at all leaning in that direction?

If the leukemia evidence is at all trustworthy, isn't it pretty damning?

The rate of leukemia in the general population appears to be about 1 in 61,000.

There were about 2.7 million people in New York in 1891, spread out over 65 square miles or so.

So, let's visualize what this means. It means that, statistically, only about 44 of these 2.7 million people throughout greater NYC had leukemia.

One of these 44 was dead in the hotel, and the suspect has leukemic cells under his nails.

It looks damning. How the heck does one get someone's cells under their nails unless during physical interaction?

Here's a possible catch, however.

How certain are we that the medicos correctly identified the cells as leukemic?

If they were seeing 'smudge cells'--cells without a cytoplasmic membrane--were they calling them leukemic when they actually weren't? Could the victim Brown have had another condition--a more common condition-- that could have explained the abnormal cells?

I don't know. I'm asking.

I haven't even read Dekle's book yet, but provided the analysis was correct, it would be pretty damning.

I guess I'll get back to this topic when I get around to studying Professor Dekle, but the question might be an avenue of research.

Maybe it's already been answered; I don't know.

RP

[Howard Brown]

Thanks for the reply, Rajah....

When you asked about 'my uncertainty', I am certain that if leukemic cells were found under his nails and in her blood, then he was ,at least, in her room, and, at most, her killer. I opt for the former. The fellow Mike Banks christened 'Glenmore Man', who may or may not have been the Danish Farmhand but was at least 'C. Niclo', is my preferred suspect.


Despite any objections to Bob's conclusions...that Ali was probably but not definitely guilty, he was the one who brought up the modern alternative solution that Ali merely burgled the room.....a theory which sprang up from a Buffalo Courier article that I wrote a piece about for The Rip ( # 167), but that Prof. Bob had seen prior to my discovery of it by a few months.

Ali could have gotten the blood from coming into contact with her corpse....a gruesome thought, but hey, he was a complete pig of a man.
Prof. Bob also mentioned traces of lint along with the blood under his nails...and can see the Burgled Only theory being feasible.

You stated :


Here's a possible catch, however.

How certain are we that the medicos correctly identified the cells as leukemic?

If they were seeing 'smudge cells'--cells without a cytoplasmic membrane--were they calling them leukemic when they actually weren't? Could the victim Brown have had another condition--a more common condition-- that could have explained the abnormal cells?

Nina looked into the possibility that the leukemic cells were misidentified for pernicious anemia, about 2 minutes after finding out about it, months ago

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15043340/

Yet, whatever she had, he also had under his nails. What are the odds on that ?

P.S. Thanks again for responding, buddy.

[Michael Banks]

What time did Schultz arrive? I just checked Dekle and he said that Connor went and briefed Byrnes at the station then returned to the ERH with Crowley and another (McLaughlin?) at 11.00 and was there for Coroner Schultz’s examination. The blood in the corridor was discovered later at 4.00.

So would the Police have planted blood evidence after Coroner Schultz had seen that corridor along with the crew of Reporters that accompanied him?

[Howard Brown]

So would the Police have planted blood evidence after Coroner Schultz had seen that corridor along with the crew of Reporters that accompanied him?
Mike Banks-

Mike:

In my opinion, a great point.

[R. J. Palmer]

Hi Howard - maybe you can clear up a small point that I'm missing.

I am not going to comment further until I read Dekle's book--which may not be for several weeks or longer-- but here's a final question from the cheap seats--ie., those of us who haven't looked into the case for a good while and might not be up to speed on the finer details.

Setting aside the blood in the hallway for a moment, how is the idea that the police planted blood on Ali's shirt sustainable? What am I missing? Is this too, being alleged?

The thing is, Ali didn't deny the blood on his shirt. He did not accuse the police of planting it, did he?

According to Dr. Flint, his defense team argued that--yes, he did indeed have a bloody shirt--but it came from a sexual encounter with a woman a day earlier:


plant.jpg

Okay, fair enough...so far.

But also according to Dr. Austin Flint, MD, who appears to be beyond reproach, this explanation is utterly wrong; the blood on the shirt was not menstrual blood; it contained tyrosin & etc.--which only comes from the ilium/small intestine. Unless the woman he had 'connection with' had been disemboweled, his explanation cannot be true.



shirt blood.jpg


Didn't Ali blow any chance of claiming the police planted the blood evidence when he gave a bogus explanation for the bloodstains on his shirt?

[Michael Banks]

That’s a great point Roger. Why didn’t Ali scream from the rooftops that he was being fitted up and that there had been no blood on his shirt when the police got hold of it? In such a short time the bloody would surely have been obvious as being blood so it would be interesting to know if Ali mentioned getting the blood from the woman in Jamaica as soon as they took the shirt from him? I’m guessing that How will know.

[Michael Banks]

Perhaps another point worth mentioning is this? Wolf makes very valid points about the confused testimonies from the Police at the trial but by the time of the trial Byrnes would have had more than ample time to have gotten those few officers together to ensure that they were all singing from the same hymn sheet. Let’s face it, this was hardly asking them to learn the script for Hamlet. All they’d have needed to get right was - who saw the blood first and when, who collected the blood and when and how many spots were there and their location. Would he have left this to chance on an issue of such importance knowing the grilling that his officers were going to get at the trial?

[Michael Banks]

How could the blood between the two rooms have been transferred accidentally by the Press or Police? Wasn’t the pool of blood beneath the bed ‘undisturbed?’ Where could the anyone have accidentally got blood on their shoes and transferred them? And why weren’t there spots leading from the blood to the corridor? From the descriptions they sound more like drips than smudges. If Ali was the killer then we might have expected his hands to have possibly dripping in blood but if he’d just come into contact with the blood after entering the room post mortem then perhaps not so much?

[Howard Brown]

The thing is, Ali didn't deny the blood on his shirt. He did not accuse the police of planting it, did he?
-R.J Palmer -

Not that I recall, Rajah....there are numerous 'interviews' to sift through concerning the bloody shirt,,,,I don't want to mislead you because ,in all honesty, Ali or one of the three defense attorneys may have made that allegation and I simply overlooked it. Sorry to be vague, boss.
Ali's claim was he got blood on the front of his shirt from an encounter with Alice Sullivan, a local widowed woman turned to turning tricks in order to make ends meet.

The woman who operated the basement whorehouse ( 49 Oliver Street ), Mrs. Mary Harrington, where Sully and Ali had connexion, clearly stated as did another hooker, ( it's 6 AM over here and the coffee ain't kicked in, either Lopez or another woman whose name escapes me) that Sullivan did not have her period on the date Ali was with her. Harrington was in charge of changing bed sheets and did not recall blood appearing on the sheets Sullivan and the other woman ( one of the women taken to trial....sorry for my brain not working at the moment) slept on in early April.


According to Dr. Flint, his defense team argued that--yes, he did indeed have a bloody shirt--but it came from a sexual encounter with a woman a day earlier:
-R. J. Palmer-

The encounter with Sullivan happened earlier than the day before.



Didn't Ali blow any chance of claiming the police planted the blood evidence when he gave a bogus explanation for the bloodstains on his shirt?
-R.J. Palmer-

That certainly didn't help his cause, R.J.



......by the time of the trial Byrnes would have had more than ample time to have gotten those few officers together to ensure that they were all singing from the same hymn sheet.
-Mike Banks-

Exactly, Mike. We're not dealing with cops in Mayberry RFD here. Getting a conviction was important to Byrnes' reputation. Since there are confusing statements
in the press, finding some put in print by eager beaver reporters is to be expected...but those made by the police while on the witness stand exacerbate things.
That they weren't all on the same page at all times indicates to me that there was neither the need to coordinate a polished, all encompassing and uniform statement and neither anything to cover up. Had there been something to cover up, as you wisely observed, they'd have all been on the same page....
I'm sure we see this in many trials today.


If Ali was the killer then we might have expected his hands to have possibly dripping in blood but if he’d just come into contact with the blood after entering the room post mortem then perhaps not so much?
-Mike Banks-

Even a pig like Ali would have known to wipe off as much of the blood from his hands as he could before leaving the room. I believe in either case.....A: as murderer or B. as simple burglar....this would have occurred.
I can speak from decades of experience, since I work with high speed and stationary blades, that it is extremely easy to transfer blood from your person to other places without being aware of doing so. No matter how clean Ali may have thought his hands were, there was always the likelihood of transferring it to those places that the police located them on.
One thing I'd like to mention is that what we, Mike, R.J. me, and anyone else interested in the early stages of the case, are trying to do is apply 21st century clinical, Columbo, Sherlock Holmes standards to the crime scene of someone that was a non-descript street walker with the coroner employing 1891 standards. That the coroner ( Schulze) effed things up by allowing all
those reporters up to the fifth floor is a classic case of 'How Not To Conduct A Crime Scene Analysis', is one thing, without a doubt..... but that every single detail was not catalogued immediately isn't too surprising.

[R. J. Palmer]

Hi Michael.

You will have heard about one of our more infamous cases on this side of the pond--football player/celebrity O.J. Simpson, who was charged and tried for the murder of his ex-wife Nicole Brown, and her male acquaintance, Ron Goldman.

It was widely assumed/suspected/believed that an overzealous detective named Mark Fuhrman planted a bloody glove at Simpson's house in his effort to secure a conviction.

The allegation was never absolutely proven, but the suspicion was enough to raise the specter of police misconduct, and Simpson was eventually acquitted. Some called it "jury nullification."

The thing is, even though it is possible that an overzealous detective did, in fact, plant the glove, the evidence was such that there was no real reasonable doubt that Simpson was guilty, and some years later he even penned a book, "If I Did It," giving his musings about the crime. He also lost a civil suit for wrongful death--the jury found him responsible for both murders.

So, the answer might be tricky. If there was police conduct--and I'm non-comital-- then the defendant, by all rights, should be acquitted, given a new trial, a pardon.

Yet--reality is a funny thing-- the alleged police misconduct, even if true, doesn't necessarily mean the defendant was innocent. The correct answer isn't necessarily the 'politically correct' one, or a satisfying one.

There's a famous quote by Oscar Wilde:

"The Pure and Simple Truth is Rarely Pure and Never Simple."

[Howard Brown]

So, the answer might be tricky. If there was police misconduct--and I'm non-comital-- then the defendant, by all rights, should be acquitted, given a new trial, a pardon.
-R.J. Palmer-

Undoubtedly true.
However, side stepping the evidence extricated from the nails to link Ali and Brown ( June 26th, 1891 is when Flint & Formad became acquainted with this crucial bit of
prosecution ammo ) would have been just as unlikely in a new trial where I feel he would have at least been convicted of second degree murder, if not first.
Again, not to sound like a broken record, had Ali told the authorities that he only burgled the room ( which was what he allegedly told one of the interpreters)....it would be hard for a juror to accept that as it would have been an admission of him being in that room.

Ali, according to press reports, was with Brown on April 20th....just 3 days before the murder in the same room. Yet, he, at first, denied even knowing her. Of course, every juror knew he was lying...lying about something so trivial.
When all the lies Ali told are put together, it was almost as if he had a death wish.
These circumstantial, yet damning, pieces used by the State as evidence really put pressure on his defense...least of which was the terrible decision on Ali's part to take the stand in his own defense.
I discussed this decision, which at that point of time led me to believe the defense was throwing in the towel as I felt the defense team should have prevented him from doing so, with Professor Bob. He countered with the observation that a man has every right to take the stand in his own defense and that it is not uncommon for guilty and innocent defendants to do so although it may backfire in their face. It certainly did in this case.

He wasn't as smart as O.J. Simpson.


I can't tell you and Mike how glad I am that things seem to be on the upswing in terms of discussing this case.
And we ain't even got to George Damon yet, Rajah.

[Howard Brown]

Yet--reality is a funny thing-- the alleged police misconduct, even if true, doesn't necessarily mean the defendant was innocent. The correct answer isn't necessarily the 'politically correct' one, or a satisfying one.
-R.J. Palmer-

Precisely.
How would the 'Keystone Coppers' as one researcher described the NYPD.....know by tampering with his nail endings ( putting them in the blood of the corpse, since that's the only way the nails could be linked to the crime), the two most prominent medical experts in that field would find a link between her and Ali ?

Even if they had 'planted blood', which I seriously doubt, on the floor, door handle ,etc....that wasn't what Flint and Formad were focused on.
Ergo, the theorized blood planting was not what the case against Ali was based upon.. Ali's behavior prior to and at the time of the trial as well as the prosecution's medical team was what sunk him, not the hypothetical placement of blood to secure a conviction.

East River Echo Number 106 contains a few remarks from Dr. Justin Herold regarding the opposing side's conclusions. He, like Huidekoper, Mott, and Gibier, all accepted what Formad and Flint discovered linking him to her blood, unequivocally. They were that respected.

[Michael Banks]

Hi Michael.

You will have heard about one of our more infamous cases on this side of the pond--football player/celebrity O.J. Simpson, who was charged and tried for the murder of his ex-wife Nicole Brown, and her male acquaintance, Ron Goldman.

It was widely assumed/suspected/believed that an overzealous detective named Mark Fuhrman planted a bloody glove at Simpson's house in his effort to secure a conviction.

The allegation was never absolutely proven, but the suspicion was enough to raise the specter of police misconduct, and Simpson was eventually acquitted. Some called it "jury nullification."

The thing is, even though it is possible that an overzealous detective did, in fact, plant the glove, the evidence was such that there was no real reasonable doubt that Simpson was guilty, and some years later he even penned a book, "If I Did It," giving his musings about the crime. He also lost a civil suit for wrongful death--the jury found him responsible for both murders.

So, the answer might be tricky. If there was police conduct--and I'm non-comital-- then the defendant, by all rights, should be acquitted, given a new trial, a pardon.

Yet--reality is a funny thing-- the alleged police misconduct, even if true, doesn't necessarily mean the defendant was innocent. The correct answer isn't necessarily the 'politically correct' one, or a satisfying one.

There's a famous quote by Oscar Wilde:

"The Pure and Simple Truth is Rarely Pure and Never Simple."

Absolutely Roger. It’s certainly not impossible that one or two officers decided to help the case along by planting a bit of blood in the hallway. It just seems strange that they couldn’t get what should have been a pretty simple story straight at the trial. Maybe it wasn’t an across the board effort. Just a couple of ‘bad eggs?’

I remember reading a book on the Simpson case. To quote Edmund Blackadder (I don’t know if you’re familiar with him Roger but…) Simpson was “as guilty as a puppy sitting next to a pile of poo.”

[Michael Banks]

A question that possibly has no answer but if Brown was strangled (and the Coroner said that she was) and she didn’t have her throat cut like the Ripper’s victims, why did she have a necklace of congealed blood? The killer wouldn’t have had blood on his hands when he strangled her. I’m certainly not saying that this is relevant in any way but it seems a little curious?