Forthcoming Book About Old Shakespeare Murder

[barnflatwyngarde]

Coronary ?

Close, but no Glaswegian cigar.

[Pcdunn]

Thanks for the heads up. This case has fascinated me, and I have even read some accounts of it in the archives of New York papers.

[SuspectZero]

I’ve seen the autopsy photos. There is no way this was a Ripper murder.

[Wolf Vanderlinden]

Finished Mr. Dekle's book a couple of days ago. Spoiler Alert, he concludes that "Ben Ali was guilty all the time and that Wellman and the D.A.'s office were fighting the good fight all along." Who saw that coming?

Was it well researched? Yes, but unfortunately an example of Live by the research, Die by the research. The most interesting part of the book was Mr. Dekle's analysis of the trial where he explained what testimony was important, and why, for each side; showed what mistakes were made in court and, in some cases, what he, himself, might have argued. Unfortunately, a good deal of evidence that did not support Dekle's theory was ignored or downplayed or simply waived away with convenient, but not satisfactory, explanations. This is not an objective look at the murder of Carrie Brown. Also, the book was littered with errors, both large and small, which I found disappointing. Dekle ends the book with an evaluation of the evidence as it pertains to Ben Ali's guilt and, after earlier supplying three different scenarios offering three different solutions, declares Ameer Ben Ali guilty of the murder of Carrie Brown.

Case Closed? Sadly, no. There are holes in Dekle's theory that tend to shred his theory, or at least, leave inconvenient questions about what exactly happened in 1891. Questions involving the police, the D.A's office and the blood evidence that loomed over the case.

Wolf.

[barnflatwyngarde]

Finished Mr. Dekle's book a couple of days ago. Spoiler Alert, he concludes that "Ben Ali was guilty all the time and that Wellman and the D.A.'s office were fighting the good fight all along." Who saw that coming?

Was it well researched? Yes, but unfortunately an example of Live by the research, Die by the research. The most interesting part of the book was Mr. Dekle's analysis of the trial where he explained what testimony was important, and why, for each side; showed what mistakes were made in court and, in some cases, what he, himself, might have argued. Unfortunately, a good deal of evidence that did not support Dekle's theory was ignored or downplayed or simply waived away with convenient, but not satisfactory, explanations. This is not an objective look at the murder of Carrie Brown. Also, the book was littered with errors, both large and small, which I found disappointing. Dekle ends the book with an evaluation of the evidence as it pertains to Ben Ali's guilt and, after earlier supplying three different scenarios offering three different solutions, declares Ameer Ben Ali guilty of the murder of Carrie Brown.

Case Closed? Sadly, no. There are holes in Dekle's theory that tend to shred his theory, or at least, leave inconvenient questions about what exactly happened in 1891. Questions involving the police, the D.A's office and the blood evidence that loomed over the case.

Wolf.

Thanks for this Wolf.
A very good synopsis of your impressions of the book.

It seems like the kind of book that I would ask my library to buy, rather than buying it myself.

Interesting that Dekle concludes that Ben Ali was guilty.
I'm certainly no expert on the case, but the up to date research on the case that I've read, tends to lean towards Ben Ali's innocence (or at least that there was not enough evidence to support a guilty verdict)

I'll have to dig into it again

[Howard Brown]

I see the Ill Wind From The North ( who moaned back in November 2016 when I began sharing information concerning George Damon on JTR Forums with people) and has some 'splainin' to do for his unsupportable position ( December 2017 Whitechapel Society Journal) that 'Jenalli' was Frenchy # 2 has read Professor Dekle's work and naturally, since Prof. Bob was the first to have a book published about the case, thrown his 'two cents' in.

Let's look at what Wolf is complaining about this time :

Finished Mr. Dekle's book a couple of days ago. Spoiler Alert, he concludes that "Ben Ali was guilty all the time and that Wellman and the D.A.'s office were fighting the good fight all along." Who saw that coming?

That might be his conclusion, but he leaves the solution up to the reader. You should too. You, despite your long held belief that you know more about the Brown murder than any one in the world( remember that post ?)....should consider more tact in assessing the first work ever produced on this fascinating case. A lot of what Bob wrote has never been published or presented on message boards before.


Was it well researched? Yes, but unfortunately an example of Live by the research, Die by the research. The most interesting part of the book was Mr. Dekle's analysis of the trial where he explained what testimony was important, and why, for each side; showed what mistakes were made in court and, in some cases, what he, himself, might have argued. Unfortunately, a good deal of evidence that did not support Dekle's theory was ignored or downplayed or simply waived away with convenient, but not satisfactory, explanations. This is not an objective look at the murder of Carrie Brown. Also, the book was littered with errors, both large and small, which I found disappointing. Dekle ends the book with an evaluation of the evidence as it pertains to Ben Ali's guilt and, after earlier supplying three different scenarios offering three different solutions, declares Ameer Ben Ali guilty of the murder of Carrie Brown.

Instead of sweeping generalizations, provide the examples of where he 'waived' ( sic) away with convenient , but not satisfactory, explanations.
I, for one, believe 'C.Kniclo' was Brown's murderer. I also understand the position Prof. Dekle has concerning Ali's possible guilt. What he didn't 'waive' away was the long held belief that Ali was framed by the NYPD....a position that now has been shown to be flimsy.

From the outset, Prof. Dekle gave his assessment of specific contentions ( some you have touched upon and apparently hold dear....that Wellman was a shyster, which is ridiculous......that the NYPD definitely planted blood evidence ( You know, since you've read the book, that he explains how things may be overlooked in a murder investigation) . Besides, as you also know, a man signed an affidavit in 1902 that stated a reporter boasted of placing blood in various places in order to create a Jack The Ripper scare. Riis and Russell ( biggest b.s. artist to ever write about the case) may not have seen blood where the police did......but were they looking for it in the first place ?

Case Closed? Sadly, no. There are holes in Dekle's theory that tend to shred his theory, or at least, leave inconvenient questions about what exactly happened in 1891. Questions involving the police, the D.A's office and the blood evidence that loomed over the case.

Again.....explain which holes in his theory that tend to shred his theory remain.

Your dismissal of his work was mean spirited and, at least by me, anticipated , since people might actually learn from what he uncovered. I don't agree or walk in lockstep with Bob on everything he wrote and we have different culprits ( only 2 in this affair) as to who committed the murder...but hey, he encourages anyone interested in the Case to do their own thinking. You've been superseded ( he wrote the first book on the case) and I can imagine it hurts. Your dismissal of his book is what I've come to expect of you....but on these boards, you're considered the 'expert' on the Brown murder and it might discourage others who haven't been spending the last 17 years basking in the glory of three articles in a now defunct magazine. To me and others who are still researching the case, you're like us... a person with interest in creating discussion on a very interesting case.

Get back to work on your own book, Wolf.....it's been 17 years or so since you were supposed to produce yours. I cannot wait to review it...that is, if I'm still alive.

Oh yeah....that Jenalli as Frenchy 2 nonsense.

1. To use a quote of yours to critique Michael Conlon's efforts years ago, the article in the WS1888 Journal wasn't worth the paper it was printed on.

A. Jenalli, a friend of Ameer Ben Ali, had not seen Ali for 10 days prior to the Brown murder. Yet, Frenchy # 2 had been in Ali's company prior to the murder with two local women..
B. Nothing whatsoever in the May 10th, 1891 edition of the New York Herald refers, hints, or suggests 'Jenalli' ( who certainly doesn't look as if he was blonde going by the Herald sketch) was being scrutinized as being 'Frenchy # 2.
C. Jenalli was a married man. Very unlikely that his wife would tolerate her husband to go schlep around in the LES with a fellow with a track record for poking anything with a heartbeat.
D. Jenalli was never taken to Manhattan for police questioning.


P. S. In 4 hours last July, I downloaded 171 PDFs which referred to Carrie Brown as 'Old Shakespeare'. I stopped at this point. Point made.
Regardless of what people in the LES called her.....she was known in the press and into this century as 'Old Shakespeare'.

Go Leafs !

[barnflatwyngarde]

Oh, this one's going to run and run.!

As it should, because by respectful debate we can only advance the knowledge relating to this case.

Go boys go!

[Wolf Vanderlinden]

When I posted my short critique of George R. Dekle’s new book The East River Ripper, I didn’t really expect the Spanish Inquisition (and, no, I’m not riffing on Monty Python). However, having said that, I guess I’m not surprised that Howard has decided to slag me for it, although what his reasons are I could not tell you. Having been caught unaware by Howard’s outburst it will take me a little bit of time to respond in full. So bear with me.

Hi Howard.

I see the Ill Wind From The North ( who moaned back in November 2016 when I began sharing information concerning George Damon on JTR Forums with people) and has some 'splainin' to do for his unsupportable position ( December 2017 Whitechapel Society Journal) that 'Jenalli' was Frenchy # 2 has read Professor Dekle's work and naturally, since Prof. Bob was the first to have a book published about the case, thrown his 'two cents' in.
Let's look at what Wolf is complaining about this time :

First off, since this is a board dedicated to Mr. Dekle’s new book, a board which invites comments and opinions, I did add my “two cents.” Was I not supposed to do that? Or, was I only supposed to offer an opinion that didn’t differ from Dekle’s or yours? For whatever reason the very fact that I did post my opinion seems to have greatly bothered you, how else to explain this:

“the Ill Wind From The North (who moaned back in November 2016 when I began sharing information concerning George Damon on JTR Forums with people) and has some 'splainin' to do for his unsupportable position ( December 2017 Whitechapel Society Journal) that 'Jenalli' was Frenchy # 2…”

None of this relates to Mr. Dekle’s book or what I said about it but does, apparently, relate to some animosity that you feel towards me personally. Again, what your reasons are, I couldn’t say, but your entire post can be read in this light.

Look, Howard, I don’t know what crawled up your ass but all I did was to read Mr. Dekle’s book and then write a brief review based on what I thought of it. If you then want to call that “complaining” then apparently you either don’t understand how reviews work or this is just another personal crack at me.

There is a lot to unpack from the rest of your post so, as I said earlier, just bear with me. I’ll try and answer your other demands fully so that my “brief review” will become something much more detailed, long and in depth. Can’t say fairer than that.

Wolf.

[Howard Brown]

Wolf:

Since you're a little butthurt by my remarks, let's look at the following. I don't dislike you, in fact, I'm very much like you in that I am one of the very few people in true crime circles who is interested to the degree we are in this fascinating case. I owe you a debt for the New York Affair...I can safely say that no one in the world has read and re-read and re-read again, that pioneering study of the Case you wrote. But you are stifling, I feel, a voice that needs to be heard and could accelerate discussion and interest into the case we both hold dear by your flippant dismissal ( "great research but unfortunately live by the research, die by the research..is littered with mistakes..etc..) of his book you shared a few days ago.

Since, as I stated, you are considered an expert of the Brown murder here on Casebook, your pre-emptive strike and original final word on the book is not conducive to creating and expanding any potential conversation concerning the case.

On June 26th on this site you stated :

Dekle was apparently writing a book on the legal career of (shyster) lawyer Frances L. Wellman. He could probably expect to sell dozens, even hundreds of copies of this. He "discovered," however, that Wellman was involved in the prosecution of Ameer Ben Ali for the murder of Carrie Brown in New York in 1891 and decided that this needed its own book. He is, or was, also, apparently, working on another book about a "famous"case Wellman was involved in in Canada (one which I have never heard of) so that if he also continues with his original idea of a Wellman biography, it would mean writing 3 books about the lawyer. If this is so then what are the odds that he will expose Wellman's illegalities and his prominent part in railroading Ben Ali? Probably slim to none. My guess is that Dekle will conclude that Ben Ali was guilty all the time and that Wellman and the D.A.'s office were fighting the good fight all along. (emphasis mine).

The important part, if one exists, in your pre-release critique is less than honest. You knew, you didn't just 'guess' that Prof. Dekle's opinion...one not etched in stone, now that you recently claimed to have read the book and would know he accepts as being only one possible solution....is that Bob prefers Ali as being guilty of the three possible solutions to the murder. Big deal. It has to be one man or the other. It just doesn't jibe with your position which I suspect you want everyone else to maintain.

You come across as having no clue to what Bob would eventually promote as being his possible or likely solution.....but is this the truth ?

If you are as interested in the Brown murder as one would think ....you certainly saw what he said in January of 2021....8 months ago...on his webpage . If you knew he was writing a book about Wellman, your natural curiosity would have taken you to this:

http://bobdekle.blogspot.com/2021/01/writers-alliance-of-gainesville-talk.html

So, this crystal ball act of yours was just that...an act. You knew in advance he promoted Ali. I read the proofs to his book 2 and a half months ago but gave my word I wouldn't mention the contents of the book anywhere....


My irritation aimed towards you is that you slighted him BEFORE you actually read the book. I can only assume it's because you are, as I was, still chained to the belief that the evidence was not there to convict Ali. It WAS.

It was found under his fingernails....leukemic cells...which also were found in Brown's blood.

Is it likely that a man with leukemic cells, among other things under his nails was railroaded or had his case 'fixed' or was 'framed' when the victim also had these cells in her blood ?

It's very unlikely, in fact, it borders on impossible....but as he and I have discussed, there is an explanation for this fact....and that fact is that Ali, as he ostensibly alluded to Emile Sultan, WAS in her room....but only to burglarize her after she was murdered. There's an article ( some of which I regret writing) that is found in Ripperologist # 167 concerning the story actor William Thompson told the Buffalo Courier about this possible scenario. There's a little more to it which lets Ali off the hook....but not for robbing a corpse. I discuss this in my newsletter, the East River Echo, and on Carrie Brown File on Facebook and CarrieBrown.Net

You do yourself no service claiming Wellman was a 'shyster'. Wellman, and I don't care if the guy was or wasn't a bad lawyer, was a highly respected attorney in the 19th Century. I think you say this because it supports the out-dated theory that Ali was framed.

Ali hung himself with his behavior and as you certainly know...if anyone can be claimed to have 'framed' Ali, it was the performance of the three pro-bono attorneys who not only let him take the stand ( Strike One)....turn a blind eye to Wellman handing Ali a knife while on the witness stand where the creep waved it around ( Strike Two) and for some unknown reason not subpoenaing William or Thomas Kelly, the nightman from the Glenmore Hotel....whose description of the man who entered the hotel shortly after the murder seeking a room and then a place to wash up was the basis of the all points bulletin issued by the NYPD.....and which would have created even more reasonable doubt....if compared with the description Mary Miniter gave on April 24th and when she took the witness stand ( Strike Three ). If anything, the defense, NOT the prosecution, assisted with Ali's downfall....but the main visible, not scientific, reason was Ali himself.

Regarding the WS Journal article, I should have opened up a can of whoop-ass on that last year over on the Forums, but since you hadn't posted there since November 2016 when you acted a little prissy and were upset that I was sharing ( which I always do, you know that) material on George Damon, I held back out of respect. It's not germane to any solution and really is just one side issue in a case with dozens of internal mysteries.

I'll tell ya, Wolf....I don't necessarily buy the Damon story anymore. I also have a little doubt the Farmhand ever existed. More on that later.

What I still think is more likely is that C.Kniclo is more likely to have been the murderer.....but, hey ! That's just one theory among the underwhelming number of people who are interested and have theories about the solution to the case.

Just as I have always promoted the purchase or, at least, digestion of the material you have provided for some 15 years....I do so with Bob's book because it expands not stunts, further investigation into the murder and all that came after.

Peace.
Brown

[Howard Brown]

Previous post in need of correcting after conferring with Prof. Dekle :

Ali hung himself with his behavior and as you certainly know...if anyone can be claimed to have 'framed' Ali, it was the performance of the three pro-bono attorneys who not only let him take the stand ( Strike One)....turn a blind eye to Wellman handing Ali a knife while on the witness stand where the creep waved it around ( Strike Two) and for some unknown reason not subpoenaing William or Thomas Kelly, the nightman from the Glenmore Hotel....whose description of the man who entered the hotel shortly after the murder seeking a room and then a place to wash up was the basis of the all points bulletin issued by the NYPD.....and which would have created even more reasonable doubt....if compared with the description Mary Miniter gave on April 24th and when she took the witness stand ( Strike Three ). If anything, the defense, NOT the prosecution, assisted with Ali's downfall....but the main visible, not scientific, reason was Ali himself.
-Me-

On letting Ali take the stand: If the defendant insists on testifying, the defense attorney cannot ethically prevent it. On allowing Wellman to hand the knife to Ali. If they had objected, it would have looked like they were afraid of handing a knife to a murderer. On not calling Kelly: There was a newspaper on every corner in NYC during the Gilded Age. (1) There’s no guarantee that the defense team saw the story. (2) What looks good in the newspaper often doesn’t sound half as good from the witness stand. The defense may well not have called Kelly because he made an awful witness.
-Prof Dekle, 9/18/21

[Howard Brown]

3 minor errors from Bob's book which I mentioned to him months ago...
1. His naming Emma Smith "Emma Ellis Smith"
2. His calling Edwin Borchard, "Eugene"
3. He confused the Dear Boss letter with the From Hell letter in regard to the letter's authorship.
I tell ya, any more goofs like this and I'll ask for a refund !

On a Most Notorious podcast recently, he made the egregious, hanging offense mistake of 'recalling a woman who was murdered in the hotel around that time'...which is in reality the story of one Mrs. Cleary, who died in December 1891...she appears to have drank herself to death.

In his defense, he correctly categorized the man Tommy Thompson ( hotel manager and imho, a murderer) killed with a Japanese sword in 1886 ( Wolf stated in 2004 that Thompson murdered a seaman at the Hotel in 1888...or perhaps it was a legitimate typo, not being a wise-ass). That man was Morris Slattery, a postal messenger, who Thompson killed & probably murdered because Slattery was getting the better of him in a fight over, of all things, a nickel.

[Wolf Vanderlinden]

Hi all.

I’m going to start this off with an example of what I meant when I said “Live by the research, Die by the research.”

The Carrie Brown murder is not a Jack the Ripper story, it’s a Jack the Ripper related story so that, in order to explain what was going on in New York in 1891, you have to write about London in 1888. Mr. Dekle does this at the beginning of his book.

We are told that when Mary Ann Nichols was attacked “Many people heard her cries for help, but nobody came to her aid.” That “Emma Ellis Smith” was an early victim. That Annie Chapman’s throat was cut “from ear to ear,” that her heart was “removed” and that part of her intestines were “tied” around her neck. Also, that on the 23^rd of September, as part of the Ripper murders, “they found the body of an unidentified young woman near Newcastle-upon-Tyne” which “bore mutilations like those inflicted on Chapman and Nichols,” (Jane Beadmoore) and that “Lydia Hart” was identified as the Pinchin Street torso victim. Later in the book Dekle writes “A seventy-year old woman by the name of Mary Woolfe had been attacked and killed in Whitechapel…”

Although Mr. Dekle did an impressive amount of research for his book (there are 23 pages of notes), and he provides his sources for the above, all the information I’ve highlighted here is wrong. Dekle did his research, which at first glance looks impressive (i.e. he Lived by the research), but the above information, which he found through that research, and used in his book, was incorrect (he Died by the research). In other words, research alone doesn’t automatically make you right, although it might appear impressive. It takes as many sources as you can find, corroboration of information from those sources, weighing the information and interpreting that information. And it all has to be done with an objective mind set. Or at least should be, but that’s just me, apparently.

Wolf.

[Wolf Vanderlinden]

As another illustration I want to look briefly at what I like to call the Mystery of the Hotel Registry Book. On this subject Dekle writes:

“They had to notify the police, but first they had to pretty things up as well as possible. The register had no entry for room 31. This would not look good when the police arrived to investigate…Bartender Thompson entered ‘C. Knicklo and wife’ into the register as the occupants of room 31.” (Dekle, page 10.)
And then “Taking her lead from Thompson’s fraudulent entry in the hotel register, [Mary Miniter] told a huge lie about the man. She said he identified himself as “C. Knicklo,” and he was immediately entered into the guest register as “C. Knicklo and wife.” (Dekle, page 17.)
And that’s it from Dekle.

Was the register never filled in at the hotel? People who worked there said that it never was. They also said that it always was and also that only sometimes it was. They also said that the register was filled out but only the next morning, and in this case, after the discovery of the murder as Mr. Dekle points out.

Did Tommy Thompson enter the name in the register? Testimony was given that he did. Other witness testimony, however, stated that Thompson only “directed,” or “suggested” what to write in the register on the morning of the 24th. In fact, it’s impossible to say anything definite about who, or when, the register was filled in especially since, along with Thompson, Mary Miniter, Eddie Fitzgerald, Sam Shine and James Jennings, the owner of the hotel, were at one time or another also said to have filled in the register that morning, with Fitzgerald seemingly the one most named. Jennings originally said it was Fitzgerald, and pointed out that the names were all written in the same (poor) handwriting, while Inspector Byrnes, interviewed about a week after the murder by the Brooklyn Daily Eagle, stated “C. Knicklo” “was registered by Eddie Fitzgerald, the clerk, as C. Knicio…”

If the register was only filled in on the morning of the 24^th what about the other names listed for the fifth floor that night? Were they all added the next morning by Thompson or whoever? The names listed as renting rooms on the top floor of the hotel were all Irish with the exception of “C. Knicklo.” Did Thompson, or whoever, just run out of Irish names and decided to make one up (and of unknown ethnicity)?

What about the fact that the register lists two different names having rented room 30? “J. Buckley” and “J. Murphy” were said to have both rented the room at some point during the night, with, apparently, Murphy renting the room with a woman, then moving on before Buckley rented the room. The next day it was announced that “J. Buckley” was actually “Frenchy” and that he had stayed in room 33. But the register showed that no one had stayed in room 33 and that Buckley/Frenchy had stayed in room 30.

Why did the register become doubtful only after the police announced that Ben Ali was the murderer, and when they wanted the man who went up to the room with Carrie Brown out of the investigative picture?

When a reporter for the New York World had a look at the register on the 30^th of April he found that the room number for “J. Buckley” had been clumsily, and obviously, changed from 30 to 33. Who had done that and why? Why, after this was published in the World, did the police finally seize the register, a week after the murder?

Why did the story of the register then change so that at the inquest the staff at the East River Hotel claimed that, in actual fact, the names were first taken down on a piece of paper and then, later, transferred from this paper to the hotel register book and that, therefore, this paper was a truthful copy of who stayed where on the night of the murder (so the tampered with register was unimportant)?

Why were Ben Ali’s lawyers not allowed to see the register? Why did the D.A. state that the register would appear as evidence at the trial, and Ben Ali’s lawyers could see it then, and why, then, did the register disappear, as far as I know, never to be seen again?

As you can see above, Dekle mentions none of this but instead just goes by one version of the story given by the prosecution witnesses. Shades of grey are not what Dekle is selling. So what is, in my opinion, the takeaway from the Mystery of the Hotel Registry Book?

The probability is that the registry was never kept up to date and is useless as evidence in a murder trial. Did the murderer give the name “C. Knicklo” when he entered the hotel? No one can say but if he did it doesn’t mean that the police had only to find a man with that name and they had their murderer. No one had to prove that they were who they said they were so fake names could easily be given without fear that they would be checked. “C. Knicklo” is useless as evidence to prove anything. As for which room Ameer Ben Ali spent the night in it was probably, but not conclusively shown to be, room 33. In all likelihood the notation that “J. Buckley,” i.e. Ben Ali, spent the night in room 30 was a slip of the pen and the clumsy attempt at changing the room number to 33 was just an attempt at fixing that error after the room number grew in importance.

However, the fact that the story of the register changed whenever it seemed to go against the police and D.A.’s storyline and how the register ultimately just disappeared is of great importance. The defence team, especially in a first degree murder trial, had every right to see the registry and to use it against the prosecution’s case but this evidence was withheld by the D.A.’s office.

More to come.

Wolf.

[Howard Brown]

Although Mr. Dekle did an impressive amount of research for his book (there are 23 pages of notes), and he provides his sources for the above, all the information I’ve highlighted here is wrong. Dekle did his research, which at first glance looks impressive (i.e. he Lived by the research), but the above information, which he found through that research, and used in his book, was incorrect (he Died by the research). In other words, research alone doesn’t automatically make you right, although it might appear impressive. It takes as many sources as you can find, corroboration of information from those sources, weighing the information and interpreting that information. And it all has to be done with an objective mind set. Or at least should be, but that’s just me, apparently.
-Wolf

First of all, Dekle was just giving the readers a back drop to the Brown murder. He is not a Ripperologist, but it should be known that he got ALL his information from reading what Ripperologists have written.
Hence, his 'Jack the Ripper' material, as I alluded to previously by pointing out a couple of mistakes he made and is cognizant of are irrelevant in the scheme of things. His book is NOT about a 'Jack The Ripper' murder.

By the way, he reached out to you early on and you never responded to him. Your vast amount of 'Ripper' knowledge might have pre-empted what you criticize him for.

[Howard Brown]

As another illustration I want to look briefly at what I like to call the Mystery of the Hotel Registry Book. On this subject Dekle writes:

“They had to notify the police, but first they had to pretty things up as well as possible. The register had no entry for room 31. This would not look good when the police arrived to investigate…Bartender Thompson entered ‘C. Knicklo and wife’ into the register as the occupants of room 31.” (Dekle, page 10.)
And then “Taking her lead from Thompson’s fraudulent entry in the hotel register, [Mary Miniter] told a huge lie about the man. She said he identified himself as “C. Knicklo,” and he was immediately entered into the guest register as “C. Knicklo and wife.” (Dekle, page 17.)
And that’s it from Dekle.
-Wolf-

No 'mistake' here at all. Thompson did write the name in and he did so after the body was discovered.

Was the register never filled in at the hotel? People who worked there said that it never was. They also said that it always was and also that only sometimes it was. They also said that the register was filled out but only the next morning, and in this case, after the discovery of the murder as Mr. Dekle points out.

Au contraire. I have three names which I found in an article four years ago which list the names on the register. I will find it....one of them, Buckley, was allegedly written in to designate Ali's name. Another name was Warder and I remember these two easily because they are the surnames of my great-grandmom after she remarried in 1898.

Did Tommy Thompson enter the name in the register? Testimony was given that he did. Other witness testimony, however, stated that Thompson only “directed,” or “suggested” what to write in the register on the morning of the 24th. In fact, it’s impossible to say anything definite about who, or when, the register was filled in especially since, along with Thompson, Mary Miniter, Eddie Fitzgerald, Sam Shine and James Jennings, the owner of the hotel, were at one time or another also said to have filled in the register that morning, with Fitzgerald seemingly the one most named. Jennings originally said it was Fitzgerald, and pointed out that the names were all written in the same (poor) handwriting, while Inspector Byrnes, interviewed about a week after the murder by the Brooklyn Daily Eagle, stated “C. Knicklo” “was registered by Eddie Fitzgerald, the clerk, as C. Knicio…”
-Wolf-

Fitzgerald was a functional illiterate ( epileptic too) and according to his testimony at the trial could write his name but nothing much beyond that. Thompson wrote it in.
Miniter was not an employee of the Hotel which may have played a role in her being sent to the Tombs for 58 days while Shine, who took money from Fitzgerald, was not. Another reason may lie in Shine being, as I suspect Thompson was, an informant for Byrnes.