Forthcoming Book About Old Shakespeare Murder

[Wolf Vanderlinden]

The Blood Evidence (Part 2).

On its own, as evidence, the trail of blood supposedly found between rooms 31 and 33 is not that important. Without it the New York Police and the District Attorney’s Office could still point to all the blood supposedly found in room 33, the blood on Ben Ali’s clothes and the blood allegedly found under his fingernails. However, according to the police the blood trail led them to the blood on the door and then into the blood spattered room 33, as if without it they never would have looked in the room. It was seen as an important part of the evidence pointing directly at Ben Ali’s guilt. The blood trail takes on greater significance, conversely, when the newspapers quickly, and continuously, pointed out that reporters had not seen any evidence of it when they had searched the 5^th floor of the hotel on the 24^th of April:

“But everybody will assume that the physicians and chemists believe what they say. Some of them are counted upon to declare that bloody marks were found in “Frenchy’s” room, on its door, chair and bed, and that there was a faint trail of blood from the one room into the other. But if any such marks exist they escaped the attention of the reporters who came in upon the scene while the murdered woman yet lay where she fell, and to do that they must have been very faint indeed.” (The New York Tribune, 2 May, 1891.)

In fact, in 1902 affidavits by newsmen, stating that they had seen no blood in the hallway, would help in getting Ameer Ben Ali’s sentence commuted. As I have already pointed out Dekle doesn’t mention newspaper denials of a blood trail until late in his book, and therefore takes them out of their chronological context, but there is more – much more – to the blood trail supposedly found in the hallway between rooms 31 and 33 than you will find in Mr. Dekle’s book. A comparison of the testimony, from the inquest and the trial, of several policemen shows that the police changed their stories about the facts surrounding the trail of blood in order to fill holes in the District Attorney’s case.

We know from interviews Inspector Byrnes’s gave to the press that the blood trail was allegedly found on Friday the 24^th of April, the first day of the police investigation. Information about the trail was then fleshed out when various members of the police gave testimony at the inquest into Carrie Brown’s death. Let’s start with who actually found the blood trail, since there is some confusion about this.

At least one report claimed that the trail had been found by “chemists” from the Health Department (early CSI New York?), but this was wrong. A claim that Captain Richard O’Connor of the Oak Street Police Station had found the blood trail was also incorrect. O’Connor said on the stand at the inquest that he was with Captain McLaughlin and Detective Sergeant Crowley when the trail was found but that “I can’t say which one of us first discovered the spots.” (The New York Telegram, Wednesday 13 May, 1891.)

The man who reportedly found the blood trail was Captain William McLaughlin of the 1^st Precinct, the Acting Chief of Detectives. Detective Sergeant Michael Crowley, of the Detective Department, said during his testimony at the inquest that McLaughlin had found the blood trial: “Did you see spots of blood outside of the room?”
“Yes, sir. Captain McLaughlin called attention to blood spots on the floor and on the door of room 33. We also found blood spots on the inside of the door and on the bed ticking.” (The New York Telegram, Wednesday 13 May, 1891.) McLaughlin agreed:
“Captain McLaughlin told of the discovery of the drops of blood in the hall between Room 31 and 33…. They were discovered by Captain McLaughlin and Detective Sergeant Crowley, as they were cutting some bloodstained paper from the wall to the right of Room 33…. (The New York Tribune, Thursday, 14 May, 1891.)

What, exactly, did the blood trial look like? Unfortunately we don’t have an exact description of it, or, at least, the various members of the police who gave descriptions can’t seem to agree on the point. At the inquest Captain O’Connor thought that there were only “a few blood spots on the floor of the hall leading from room 31 to room 33,” (The New York World, Wednesday, 13 May, 1891). O’Connor also reportedly said that “There were three spots of blood in the hallway…” (The New York Evening Sun, Wednesday, 13 May, 1891). Captain McLaughlin apparently agreed with O’Connor and was reported as saying that “There were three small drops and they were about a foot from the door of Room 33,” (The New York Tribune, Thursday, 14 May, 1891). The New York World (Thursday, 14 May, 1891) gave the most detailed description of the blood trail:
“In the hallway between room 31, where the dead woman lay, and room 33, which it was later learned was occupied by Ben Ali, there were several spots of blood. The distance between the two doors was less than four feet. The first spot of blood was a foot from the door of room 31. Two feet further there was another single spot and then three spots in a group,” which by my math makes it five, not three.

What, then, did O’Connor, McLaughlin and Crowley do with this evidence? According to O’Connor and Crowley Captain McLaughlin took out a knife and cut the blood evidence out of the floor and the other locations, with the exception of one long blood stain supposedly found on the door of room 33, then carefully put them in his pocket. This blood evidence was supposedly then given by McLaughlin to Dr. Edson of the Health Department. Most of this seems to be a fairly simple story. Until it wasn’t.

Detective Jeremiah J. Griffin took the stand right after O’Connor, Crowley and McLaughlin. Griffin was an Oak Street Precinct detective, not one of Byrnes’s men, and was one of the first policemen to arrive at the hotel on the morning of the 24^th. He was asked by Frederick House, of the Defense, if he had seen the blood that his three police colleagues had testified to. Griffin testified that he had, but not on the Friday. He had seen the blood on Saturday, the 25^th; a day after the inquest had just been told it had been cut from the floor. Griffin was asked twice to repeat this and he did so without changing his testimony. This caused a bit of a sensation.

Dekle gives a quick recount of Griffin’s testimony and adds that the New York World pointed out that Griffin had contradicted the earlier witnesses. That’s it. That’s all. He quickly moves on. He doesn’t comment on Griffin’s testimony nor does he offer any speculation or thoughts on what it might mean. Was there a mix up? Was someone confused or lying? Apparently police eyewitness testimony that contradicts other police eyewitness testimony is not worth remarking on in a case that is considered a miscarriage of justice (but which Dekle argues was not).

This little fly in the ointment had to be addressed. And it was when Detective Sergeant William Frink, of the Central Detective Bureau, was called to give testimony the next day. According to newspaper reports Frink stated that he had seen the blood trail in the hall as well as the blood on the door to room 33 on Friday, the 24^th. Frink added that Captain McLaughlin had cut out only some of the blood trail on the Friday and so Detective Griffin could have seen the blood spots that were left. Frink, himself, had cut out more of the blood on Wednesday the 29^th of April. Mystery solved.

Except… why hadn’t Griffin seen any of the blood evidence on the Friday? And why had the newspapers been told as early as the 30^th of April, that all the blood evidence was cut out on the Friday, a story corroborated by O’Connor and Crowley at the Inquest, if it hadn’t? Also, why did newspapers point out that their reporters, who returned to the East River Hotel on the Friday, Saturday or Sunday, failed to see any blood or any evidence that blood had been cut from the floor, or anywhere else? Once again we are left with conflicting and dubious, police testimony that suggests that they couldn’t keep their stories straight.

In the end, the inquest jury found Ameer Ben Ali complicit in the murder of Carrie Brown and, when the Grand Jury found a true bill, he was given over for trial. This gives us a second shot at getting answers about the blood trail supposedly found in the hallway of the East River Hotel.

Wolf.

[Wolf Vanderlinden]

The inquest was basically a dry run of the District Attorney’s trial case. The defense had been able to score some important points against Assistant District Attorney Wellman and his witnesses and Wellman, therefore, made changes. As we shall see, the police testimony about the blood trail in the hallway, which had caused significant problems, would now change drastically from what had been said under oath at the inquest. Therefore, for instance, if you think that we probably don’t have to go back to the question of who found the trail of blood in the hallway (Captain McLaughlin, according to Inquest testimony) you would be wrong.

Captain O’Connor was the first police witness up. Wellman didn’t ask him who had first found the trail of blood in the hallway again but Frederick House, the lead Defense Attorney, did. Once again O’Connor couldn’t, or wouldn’t say: “…I can’t tell whether it was Crowley or McLaughlin, either one of the two of them…. we all seen them, who seen them first, I don’t know.” (Trial testimony of Captain Richard O’Connor.)

O’Connor had originally said at the inquest that he thought that the supposed blood trial was made up of “a few” spots of blood, or “three spots of blood” when pushed. O’Connor was also reticent about an actual description of the blood trail at the trial. When questioned by Wellman he first said “a few spots of blood on the floor there.” Wellman, however, pressed him for something more detailed and O’Connor replied:
“Well I couldn’t tell you exactly. There were some---I couldn’t tell you how many.
“Q. As near as you can tell how many?
“A. Well there was four or five that I seen there, or probably more.
“Q. Four or five that you recollect?
“A. Yes, sir.”
(Trial testimony of Captain Richard O’Connor.)

O’Connor’s recollections apparently became clearer, however, when House questioned him:
“A. There was about five spots altogether, I cannot recollect exactly.
“Q. About five spots altogether?
“A. Yes, sir, on the floor of the hallway, yes, sir.”
(Trial testimony of Captain Richard O’Connor.)

We also now get a better description of the blood trail. Wellman asked O’Connor what was the size of the blood spots and the Captain answered:
“A. Well they were regular drops of blood that you might drop if your nose was bleeding and a drop fell. Just about that size.
“Q. An ordinary drop of blood?
“A. Yes, sir.”
(Trial testimony of Captain Richard O’Connor.)

This is interesting. O’Connor describes about five “ordinary” spots of blood on the hallway floor not “some small spots of blood” as Dekle describes (Dekle, page 232). In fact, since the hallway was extremely narrow, only three feet, six inches wide, according to measurements made for the trial, a blood trail of five spots probably shouldn’t have been hard to see.

O’Connor was also able to describe what the blood trial looked like. He was asked on cross examination where the blood spots were in the hallway. The first, he said, was “…about a foot from Room 31,” the second “might be a foot and a half off from that again,” the next “…was up against the door, there were two or three spots against the door [of room 33].” (Trial testimony of Captain Richard O’Connor.) So, O’Connor eventually describes four to six spots of blood, not the three he stated at the inquest. His description of the placement of the blood, however, was very similar to the description of the blood trail printed in the coverage of the inquest in the New York World (Thursday, 14 May, 1891) that I posted above.

What, exactly had happened to the blood evidence? O’Connor and Crowley had testified at the inquest that Captain McLaughlin had taken out a knife and cut it out of the floor right there and then. This testimony caused one of the significant problems faced by the prosecution when Detective Griffin said he had seen the blood trail the next day. What did O’Connor say about this now?

He stated under oath that he had seen McLaughlin take out a knife and cut out a piece of wallpaper from the wall beside the door to room 33. He was then asked about the blood spots on the hallway floor. He replied “Well them I didn’t see him take---I didn’t see nothing done with them at all, what I seen him take was from the side there.” (Trial testimony of Captain Richard O’Connor.)

So, O’Connor, now doing his best Sergeant Schultz imitation, knew nothing and saw nothing. Obviously he had either been lying at the inquest or he was lying at the trial. Dekle doesn’t mention this about face let alone explain its significance.

This was the start of Wellman’s attempts at tidying up his witnesses’ statements and present a more unified and orderly, or at least a less conflicting and inconsistent, story. Detective Sergeant Michael Crowley, who was the next policeman to take the stand, would add a little chaos to Wellman’s attempts.

Wolf.

[Wolf Vanderlinden]

Dekle only briefly references Crowley’s trial testimony, mentioning his “vivid description of the mutilations on Shakespeare’s body. He was particularly careful to say that Shakespeare’s intestines had been removed from her abdomen and were down between her thighs.” (Dekle, page 98.) That’s it. Nothing of any importance, apparently.

For our purposes I’ll point out that Crowley was asked about the trial of blood in the hallway. When examined by Wellman he said that there were “about three or five spots of blood.” When cross examined by Defense Counsel Abraham Levy he said “I seen four or five spots across the hallway.” Levy also asked him how the blood was distributed, to which Crowley replied, “As far as I can recollect there was but one or two spots near room 31 door, and there were two or three almost near the 33 door.” (Trial testimony of Detective Sergeant Michael Crowley.) So, three to five spots of blood found in a similar pattern described by Captain O’Connor. So far, so good. However, Crowley also added some astonishing new information.

Almost the first thing Wellman asked Crowley when he took the stand was the time he had first arrived at the East River Hotel. Crowley’s answer (which actually appears to be incorrect) is not important here. What is important is that Crowley had arrived at the hotel early on the morning of the 24^th and said he spent about twenty to thirty minutes searching the top floor. He was alone and he didn’t see anyone else on the floor when he was there. Wellman asked him a couple of times about the Coroner and his arrival:
“Q. Had the coroner (sic) been there when you got there?
“A. No sir.
“Q. How soon after you got there did the Coroner arrive - - did he arrive while you were there?
“A. I could not tell; I was not there.
“Q. Did he arrive when you were there?
“A. No sir.”
(Trial testimony of Detective Sergeant Michael Crowley.) The reason for this line of questioning would soon become clear.

One of the important points Ben Ali’s defense were able to score at the inquest was that the supposed trail of blood was not seen by Captain O’Connor when he first went to the East River Hotel early on the morning of the 24^th. In fact nobody claimed to have seen this trail until it was “discovered” by Captain McLaughlin sometime between 3 and 4 o’clock that afternoon (McLaughlin thought he arrived at the hotel around 3:30 p.m.). By that time over a dozen reporters, most of whom had been in the murder room, with its pool of blood on the floor, had tramped through the 5^th floor. The Defense was able to suggest that it was possible, therefore, that the blood trail could have been accidentally left by someone other than the murderer. Someone like a reporter. With this apparently in mind, one of the jurors asked if you had to pass room 33 when going towards the stairs after you left room 31. The answer was yes. Anyone, therefore, could have left the trail of blood. Wellman put a stop to this theory when he had Crowley on the stand at the trial.

Crowley, after describing the blood he claimed he saw in room 31, stated, “I noticed that on the “floor leading from that room to the opposite room there were two or three - -
“Q. On the hallway?
“A. Yes sir, on the hallway, about three or five spots of blood, going towards the room 33…”
(Trial testimony of Detective Sergeant Michael Crowley.)

This is stunning information. After he and O’Connor had testified at the inquest that it was Captain McLaughlin who had discovered the trail of blood in the hallway sometime between 3 and 4 o’clock in the afternoon, Crowley now claimed that it was he who had actually discovered the trail that morning before the Coroner and the dozen or so reporters had arrived on the scene. Crowley’s change of testimony allowed the Prosecution’s problem, of the blood trail having possibly been made by reporters, to magically disappear. If you don’t think this change wasn’t designed to help the D.A.’s case you’re not paying attention.

Crowley also claimed that he had found the blood on the outside of the door to room 33 at this time as well. The blood supposedly found in the afternoon with Captains O’Connor and McLaughlin was now only that found on the inside of the door to room 33 and inside the room itself (Crowley hadn’t seen any of this blood when he spent his twenty to thirty minutes exploring that morning apparently).

Under cross-examination Abraham Levy of the Defense asked Crowley about all this change of testimony:
“Q. Do you recollect having testified before the Coroner at the inquest?
“A. Yes sir, I do.
“Q. Do you recollect having testified at the coroner’s (sic) Inquest that the blood spots in the hallway you did not discover until the evening?”
Not surprisingly Crowley’s memory on that point failed him:
“A. I never recollect saying anything of the kind.”
(Trial testimony of Detective Sergeant Michael Crowley.)

Levy tried another tack and asked if Crowley had reported his important, and uncorroborated, findings to anyone else. Crowley’s answer is less than satisfying:
“I did not go back to the station house until after I had left the hotel. I went to the station house and I got there about fifteen minutes of twelve, and then I did not report anything to anybody because I had not finished what I was working on myself at that time. I had made no report at all to anybody.”
(Trial testimony of Detective Sergeant Michael Crowley.)

Levy would return to this point a little later on, causing Crowley to dance around the question and confuse his answers as much as he possibly could. The resulting testimony ends up with Crowley tying himself up in testimonial knots:
Levy: “Q. Now then, Mr. Crowley, I understood you to say that you had made no report up to that time that we have got to now, that is, your third visit, of the fact of your having discovered any spots of blood in the hallway - - is that not so?
“A. To the third visit - - I did not say that.
“Q. Well, up to the time of your second visit?
“A. I did not say anything of the kind.
“Q. Had you reported the facts of the blood stains at all?
“A. I said that when I went back to the station house the first time after visiting the hotel I made no report to anybody as I had no report to make. I didn’t have my investigation finished at that time.
“Q. Didn’t you inform the acting Inspector of Police of the fact of the discovery of blood stains in the hallway at the time of your second visit, Captain McLaughlin?
“A. On my first visit back?
“Q. After your first visit back to the station house?
“A. No sir. Not on the first; I did on the second.
“Q. When was it you first informed him?
“A. On the second time I went to the station house, when I went there to report that I discovered the woman who identified this woman Carrie Brown.”
By the Court.
“Q. That was after three o’clock, wasn’t it?
“A. It must be about half past one or two o’clock.
“Q. I understood you to say you came back with the McGovern woman; what time was that you took Kate McGovern there.
“A. I should judge it would be about half past one or two o’clock.”
By Mr. Levy
“Q. Up to half past one or two o’clock had you informed the acting Inspector that you had discovered blood spots in the hallway?
“A. No sir.
“Q. You had not?
“A. No sir.”
(Trial testimony of Detective Sergeant Michael Crowley.)

You can almost see the wheels turning in Crowley’s head, even 130 years after the fact. Wouldn’t he have told his superiors about the blood trail and the blood on the door of room 33 if he had indeed found it? Better say that he had told Captain McLaughlin. But what will McLaughlin say when he gets on the stand. Will he back up Crowley’s obvious lies? Better deny it and leave the whole thing in doubt; which is what Crowley did. In fact, Crowley refused to give a straightforward answer to the question if he had informed anyone about finding the blood trail in the hallway and on the door.

What did Crowley now say happened to all the blood spots he had at this point testified to – the blood trail, the blood on both sides of the door and the blood in room 33? Wellman asked him “Did anybody in your presence do anything to these spots of blood?” To which Crowley answered “Captain McLaughlin cut out the spots and put them in a piece of paper except the streak of blood which he left a part of it there.” (Trial testimony of Detective Sergeant Michael Crowley.)

Crowley seemingly confirms the point that had originally made at the inquest – Captain McLaughlin had cut out the blood from the hallway floor along with other blood evidence. Unbidden, however, he added some eyebrow raising information that, if true, must be unprecedented in the history of police evidence gathering:
“Captain McLaughlin took his finger and put it on the floor and got some dirt in his finger and rubbed it in these holes where he had cut the blood out of.” (Trial testimony of Detective Sergeant Michael Crowley.)

And why would a Captain, and Acting Chief of the Detective Department, of the New York Police do such an astonishing thing? What purpose does this absurd testimony serve? The answer seems fairly simple. Newspapers had stated that reporters who had returned to the East River Hotel in the days after the murder saw no evidence of any blood stains, and no evidence that anything had been cut from the floors and walls of the hotel. Crowley’s testimony suggests that the reason why the gouges couldn’t be seen was that McLaughlin had disguised them with filth that the captain had scraped up and then smeared on with his own fingers. Why had he disguised the cut marks with filth? The only reason can be that this was another loose end in the police/prosecution story about the trail of blood that had to be tidied up.

As I showed at the beginning of this post, Dekle mentions none of this in his book.

Wolf.

[Wolf Vanderlinden]

I’ll skip the next police witness who went on the stand, Detective Sergeant William E. Frink, for now and circle back to him a little later. What did Captain McLaughlin have to say for himself when he took the stand? Once again, if you’ve read Dekle the following will be a complete surprise.

McLaughlin wasn’t asked directly who had found the blood trial. Under cross-examination by House he was asked about his first visit to the hotel at around 3:30 p.m.: “And it was at this visit made by you that the blood stains on the floor of the hallway of room 33 as you have described them, were found?” To which McLaughlin replied “Yes, sir.” No mention of Crowley having first found the blood trial earlier that morning.

McLaughlin was asked by both Wellman and House to describe the blood trail itself, however. To Wellman McLaughlin replied:
“A. I found four or five spots of blood running catacornered from the entrance to room 31 to the entrance to 33.
“Q. How large spots?
“A. Well, there was two spots larger than the others which were afterwards cut out by Mr. Frink.
“Q. The largest spots were how large?
“A. About as big as the top of your thumb.”
(Trial testimony of Captain William McLaughlin.)

House asked him “Now, how many blood stains Captain did you find on the Hallway?” To which McLaughlin answered “There were about 5.”
House: “About 5?”
“A. I think about 5 - - - yes sir.
“Q. And where were they located with reference to the door of room 31?
“A. They were - - - they ran in a diagonal way from the entrance of 31 to the entrance of 33, the larger portions of them being nearer room 33….
“Q. Now did you notice the size and shape of these spots?
“A. Well, they were spots similar to a person who would cut their finger and let a blood spot drop. Two of them was larger than the other three….
(Trial testimony of Captain William McLaughlin.)

McLaughlin’s testimony about the blood trail matches fairly closely with O’Connor and Crowley’s testimony that the trail of blood was made up of three to five spots of blood, that there were more spots closer to the door to room 33 then 31, that they were of an “ordinary” size and that two of the spots were larger than the others. Once again, this seems a far cry from Dekle’s description of “some small spots of blood” easily missed by almost everyone.

McLaughlin was asked, first by Wellman, what he had done, if anything, with the spots of blood found at the hotel. The Captain stated “…I cut the three top spots off; that portion of the door that had the blood on them and left the other portion remaining there.” Wellman then asked about the wallpaper that both O’Connor and Crowley had mentioned: “And did you cut the wall paper?” To which he replied “Yes, sir; the wall paper too….”

The Assistant District Attorney then asked about any other blood evidence: “And did you cut out anything else at that time - - - any spots of blood other than you have spoken of - - - at that time (sic)” McLaughlin answered “No sir.” He now claimed that he had cut out no other blood evidence, even from the floor of the hallway. The question was raised by House during his cross-examination.

House: “Now you say that on this occasion that you made your first visit there that you yourself cut out two or three stains?
“A. Yes, sir - - - three.
“Q. Three?
“A. Yes, sir.
“Q. And where did you cut those three stains from?
“A. From the spots on the door of which there were six.
“Q. You didn’t cut any stains from the flooring did you?
“A. Not at that time.
“Q. Did you ever cut any stains there yourself?
“A. No, sir; but I directed that they be cut.
“Q. So that the only stains that you ever cut were the three that you took from the door [?]
“A. And those on the wall paper - - too.”

With McLaughlin’s denial that he cut any of the blood trail from the floor of the hallway he throws Crowley under the bus. O’Connor knew enough, apparently, to keep his mouth shut and say that, other than the wallpaper, he saw no evidence collected on that Friday afternoon. Safety in ignorance. Why this change in the police story? Perhaps Sergeant Griffin’s inquest testimony, that he had seen the blood trail the day after it was supposedly cut from the floor, was thought to be so damaging that it had to be addressed. That still doesn’t explain why they made the claim that the blood was collected on the 24^th to begin with if it wasn’t true (and apparently it wasn’t true).

One last thing. At the inquest it was stated that McLaughlin had given the blood evidence to Dr. Edson of the Health Department, the man who was doing the scientific examination of the blood. When asked at the trial what he had done with the evidence McLaughlin stated that he had taken the evidence to Headquarters and gave it to Inspector Byrnes instead. Seemingly all the blood evidence was given to Byrnes first and then passed on to the medical men sometime after. Why was never explained.

Wolf.

[Wolf Vanderlinden]

I’m going to post a little side bar here before I continue with the trail of blood. It has to do with part of Captain McLaughlin’s testimony and what Mr. Deckle has said about it.

Dekle’s section on McLaughlin’s testimony is short; only a paragraph long. He writes how McLaughlin describes the seizure of Ameer Ben Ali’s shirt and the collection of bloodstains from the mattress in room 31. Dekle then points out the importance of the blood evidence found in room 31 and states “Blood from room 31 was Carrie Brown’s blood. If somehow the blood was not from room 31, or if the integrity of the blood from room 31 was compromised, then the comparison of that blood to the bloodstains collected from Frenchy and from room 33 was worthless as proof that Frenchy killed Old Shakespeare.” (Dekle, pages 114 – 115.) This point “was so important,” writes Dekle, “that Wellman recalled John Jaudas to testify that he had locked room 31 on the morning of the body’s discovery, and that it remained locked until McLaughlin collected the blood samples from it.” (Dekle, page 115.) This point is important but not for the reasons Mr. Dekle suggests.

According to the trial testimony Wellman asked Captain McLaughlin what he had done with rooms 31 and 33 after his visit to the East River Hotel on Friday, the 24^th of April. McLaughlin answered that “I saw Captain O’Connor and made arrangements with him to have locks and keys put on the doors.” Padlocks, apparently. Wellman then asked McLaughlin “And did you see that that order of yours was carried out?” To which McLaughlin responded “Yes, sir.”

However, under cross-examination House asked the Captain “And what time was it on that afternoon that you directed Capt. O’Connor to put the padlocks on the door of 31 and 33?
“A. After I went to the station house.
“Q. Yes. What time on that afternoon, do you know - - -with (sic) those securely locked?
“A. That I couldn’t tell you.
“Q. Do you know whether they were locked at any time on the afternoon of the 24th or not?
“A. No sir.
“Q. Can you give me now any information as to when the padlocks were put upon those doors?
“A. I found them there on Tuesday.”
Tuesday was five days later. House pressed this point further and pointed out that “…from the time that you left on Friday afternoon until you got through noon time of Tuesday following, you are not able to say when those doors were padlocked - - - are you?” To which McLaughlin could only answer “Yes, sir.”

This was the reason why Doorman Jaudas was then recalled. Asked by Wellman whether he had padlocked rooms 31 and 33, Jaudas said he did. When asked when he had done this Jaudas replied “I put it on the evening after the murder was committed,” to which Wellman asked “The evening of Friday, April 24?” Jaudas answered “Yes, sir.”

McLaughlin’s claim that he had seen that his order to lock both doors was carried out was a lie exposed by House. Dekle doesn’t mention this. To Mr. Dekle, it seems, Jaudas’s recalled testimony, that he had padlocked the two rooms later that Friday night, is proof enough that this did indeed happen when Jaudas said it did. Therefore, there was no way any of the blood evidence could have been tampered with. As we have seen, faith in the truthfulness of the police’s testimony is greatly misplaced.

Those who have been paying attention might remember that, according to several press reports, room 31 was not locked up “on the morning of the body’s discovery,” as Dekle suggests, nor for days after that:

“Despite the horrible murder that had been committed within its walls, the East River Hotel did a rushing business yesterday. The door of the room in which the old woman was butchered was wide open all day, and many curious persons gratified their morbid taste by going up and peering in.” (The New York Times, Sunday, 26 April.)

“I learned that business went on as usual at the house on Friday night and that most of the rooms on the top floor had been occupied. In the room where “Shakespeare” was cut up her bloody clothing lay in a pile. The police do not seem to want it.” (The New York Herald, Sunday, 26 April.)

“On Friday night and last night, the East River Hotel did as big a business as ever. It was filled with lodgers both nights. Room 31 was unoccupied. It was open to visitors all day, and many went up to see the ghastly marks of the crime which yet remained.” (The New York Sun, Sunday, 26 April.)

“Business at the East River Hotel was going on as usual, and many of the rooms had occupants during the day and night. Outside the number of curious ones was large, and among them were many detectives scrutinizing faces closely and listening to every word uttered on the prevailing topic. In the room where the crime was committed the evidences of the deed still remain. Even the blood stained mattress and bedclothes are untouched, while in one corner is a bundle containing the clothes of the dead woman, which the police have neglected to take away.” (The New York Press, Monday, 27 April.)

In fact, it wasn’t until Tuesday, the 28th, the only day McLaughlin could definitely say the rooms were padlocked based on his own knowledge, that the New York World stated that “Room No.31 in the East River Hotel, where the foul crime was committed, has been locked up by order of the police, and no one can visit it without obtaining a permit from Capt. O’Connor.” Interestingly, based on the description that the reporter gives of the room, he described its unchanged state from the night of the murder, it’s apparent that he had entered the room, or, at least, looked in; permit or no permit.

I’m assuming that Dekle is aware of all this reportage. After all, he mentions a New York World reporter who entered room 31 on the Saturday as the door “stood wide open” (Dekle, page 18). Apparently, though, Dekle does not believe these press stories. He would, as his theory demands, rather trust in the seemingly ever changing stories of the police.

Why was the padlocking of the doors important? As I have stated before, if the police had found blood evidence in the hallway, on both sides of the door to room 33 and inside the room itself – evidence that pointed directly to Ben Ali’s guilt – then why didn’t they close off the fifth floor and lock the doors to the two rooms? The various press reports prove that they did neither. In fact, it seems that the floor was only secured after the police realized that they were not likely to find the murderer and had decided to railroad Ben Ali instead. Those who disagree with this statement have to be able to do two things: First, they have to ignore several press reports that prove that the rooms weren’t locked. Second they have to ignore the various lies from the New York Police witnesses which make their testimony worthless. It seems that Mr. Dekle is comfortable with doing both.

Wolf.

[Wolf Vanderlinden]

So who did supposedly cut the blood trail from the floor of the hallway? Time to circle back to Detective Sergeant Frink, the final police witness to testify about the trail of blood.

Allow me to refresh your memories about Detective Sergeant William E. Frink. Frink was called to give testimony at the inquest after Sergeant Griffin had dropped his bombshell. Frink reportedly stated that he had seen the blood trail in the hallway of the East River Hotel on the Friday, the 24^th. He had also explained that Captain McLaughlin had only cut out part of the blood trail and that’s why Griffin had been able to see part of it the next day (except, as we have just seen, McLaughlin would state at the trial that he hadn’t cut out any of the blood trail).

Almost the first thing Wellman asked Frink when he took the stand at the trial was “When did you first go in relation to this case to the East River Hotel?” Frink’s answer to Wellman was “On Tuesday, April 28th.” Frink very quickly joins the list of policemen who changed their story from that given at the inquest.

Frink stated that he had gone that Tuesday to the East River Hotel with Captain McLaughlin and Detective Sergeant “Chesty George” McCluskey so that Frink could be shown all the blood evidence that he was to collect, including the blood trail in the hallway. When asked about the blood trail Frink stated that “There was stains of blood on the floor, of the hall leading from that room and across diagonally to room 33.”

Frink testified that he and Detective Sergeant Crowley returned the next day, Wednesday, the 29^th of April, and Frink chiseled out “three or four pieces of flooring” that had blood spots on them. According to the earlier testimony that was almost all of the blood trail since O’Connor and Crowley, and later McLaughlin, said there were three to five spots of blood on the hallway floor. According to Frink, however, there were now “six or seven” spots of blood, not three to five.

When asked to describe the size of the blood spots and the trail of blood itself Frink stated
“About three or four inches from the threshold of room 31 in the hallway…. And about that threshold were two spots.” They were “about the size of a ten cent piece.” The other five spots were “…about the same relative distance of room 33 as it was of room 31, except that they were a little nearer the right hand side of the casing of the door as you enter the room.”
“Q. And were they about the same size and shape as the two spots nearer room 31?
“A. No sir, what looked to me like a drop that had been smeared like as if something had been run over it.
“Q. It looked more like a smear than a drop?
“A. yes sir.”
It was the three or four more prominent drops of blood that Frink stated he chiseled from the floor and delivered, along with all the other blood evidence, to Captain McLaughlin that same day.

Considering that Crowley was standing right next to him while he did all this, you have to wonder why Crowley’s testimony was so at odds with Frink’s and McLaughlin’s. Or why Frink’s testimony was at odds with O’Connor’s. Or why nobody’s testimony seemed to match anyone else’s. Also, seven drops of blood? As I have stated above, the hallway was only three feet six inches wide; that’s less than a stride and a half yet curiously Ben Ali left 7 drops of blood? His hands must have been dripping with blood yet he dropped no blood on the floor in the murder room or on either side of the door when he opened, closed and locked it? Not bloody likely.

Of some importance is the information that, other than Ben Ali’s shirt, three pieces of wood from the outside of the door to room 33 and a piece of wallpaper from the hallway, the police didn’t collect the majority of their evidence from the crime scene, evidence which they used to charge Ameer Ben Ali with the murder, until six days after they claimed to have discovered this evidence – seven days after the murder itself. They didn’t even take samples of Carrie Brown’s blood for comparison purposes until Wednesday the 29^th. Add to this the fact that it seems to have taken them five days to secure the fifth floor and rooms 31 and 33 after this same discovery and we are left with some serious questions about why they failed to protect the crime scene. Or if, indeed, there ever was anything to protect.

One final thought on Detective Sergeant Frink’s testimony. Frink stated that he had chiseled out the blood evidence from the hallway of the fifth floor of the East River hotel on Wednesday, the 29^th of April. A reporter from the New York World, who went up to the fifth floor the next day, the 30^th, stated:

“A careful examination of the hallway did not disclose any signs of a trial of blood having been left by the murderer, nor did it appear that any of the floor boards had been cut to remove such a trail, if such there had been.”

Wolf.

[Wolf Vanderlinden]

I have gone into the supposed trial of blood in the hallway of the East River Hotel in what some might call unnecessary detail. The reasons for this are clear (I hope): There is very much more than meets the eye going on here than Mr. Dekle lets on.

The police witnesses, the only people who claimed to have seen any of the blood evidence found outside of room 31, appear, by any reasonable interpretation, to have been lying through their teeth. Stories told at the inquest changed when told at the trial. Witnesses, who were sometimes supposedly standing right next to each other, gave conflicting testimony. Dates and times seemed to have been particularly hard to pin down and some witnesses, compared to the testimony of others, were days off with their dates. Getting straight, unambivalent answers to simple questions was like pulling teeth.

As for the supposed blood trail itself we are left with a range of descriptions: There were three spots of blood, four or five spots, six or seven spots of blood; the first spot was a foot from the door to room 31, or it was only three or four inches from the door to room 31, the next a foot to a foot and a half from the first, or it was actually near to the first spot; spots were the size of a dime, or the top of a thumb, or “regular” sized while others were smaller and some only smears. The blood trail was discovered on the morning of the 24^th, or on the afternoon of the 24^th. It was cut out that same day, or only some of it was cut out that day, or none of it was cut out that day.

Finding the supposed blood evidence wasn’t some tricky or taxing problem. It didn’t need a Sherlock Holmes. It was common, every day, police grunt work: A bloody mutilation murder had taken place so look for telltale blood stains in and around the crime scene. How hard could that be? Yet the facts behind this basic and simple police procedure became a Gordian knot of lies, changing testimony, obfuscation and double talk. Why?

The answer seems to lie in the chronology of events. The police investigation, we know, was botched from the start. One suspect was keyed on and it was announced that this suspect was the murderer and would soon be under lock and key. This proved to be a disastrous error and the police were left facing a long, tedious, slogging search for a man whom they probably would never find. Chief Inspector Byrnes and his Detective Department didn’t do long, tedious and slogging so, in order to save face, it became necessary to manufacture evidence against a patsy – Ameer Ben Ali. This manufactured evidence needed to be back dated to the beginning of the original investigation so the police, working from a hastily written script rather than actual events, Keystone Copped their way through the Inquest and Trial aided, I have no doubt by the District Attorney’s Office.

More to come.

Wolf.

[jmenges]

Great offerings again, Wolf.
Thanks



JM

[drstrange169]

I feel like we've got a book right here.

[Wolf Vanderlinden]

More Blood Evidence:

I’d like to go into a few more questions raised by some of the other supposed blood evidence. Like the blanket found in room 33.

When reporters first interviewed Chief Inspector Byrnes and Dr. Cyrus Edson about the arrest of Ameer Ben Ali the list of evidence against him included blood on the bedding of room 33. The bed had no sheets and the bedding consisted of only an old blanket. On this was found blood, or more specifically:
“…they also found evidences of blood having been wiped off someone’s hands with the dirty bedding of this room.” (The Brooklyn Eagle, 30 April, 1891.)
Or, as Chief Inspector Byrnes reportedly said: “On the bed blanket, which looks very much like an army blanket, were found clots of blood as though some one with gory hands had wiped them there.” (The New York World, 1 May, 1891.)

This seems fairly compelling: not just blood but the appearance that blood stained hands had been wiped on the blanket found in Ben Ali’s room. Dekle, however, states that “Byrnes was applying a liberal dose of interpretation to the character of the bloodstain evidence,” and that there was “no evidence that bloody hands had been wiped on the blanket in Frenchy’s room.” (Dekle, page 34.)

Well, if Byrnes was “applying a liberal dose of interpretation to the character of the bloodstain evidence,” then Dr. Edson was as well since he had said very much the same thing. Edson had first stated that the stains on the blanket were human blood and, when asked the nature of the stains on the mattress and blanket in room 33, said:
“Well, I should say that the man had triedto wipe the blood off from his hands on the mattress and blankets (sic), at least the spots seemed to indicate that, and had dried on the cloth.” (The New York World, 2 May, 1891.)

Supposedly both Byrnes and Edson had seen the blanket and both had said that it looked as if the murderer had tried to wipe his bloody hands on it. Dekle states that there was “no evidence” that bloody hands had been wiped on the blanket. Who is right? That’s actually a bit difficult to answer, however, for a couple of reasons.

The first is that the only description of the actual blood stains on the blanket seems to come from Captain O’Connor’s inquest testimony. He testified that he had seen only two spots of blood on the “army blanket” in room 33 – one, near the head of the bed, was “about the size of a man’s hand,” the second, further down the bed “was not nearly so large.” (The New York Evening Sun, 13 May, 1891.) This doesn’t sound like evidence that someone had wiped their hands on the blanket. However, at the trial Frederick House pointed out that O’Connor had been talking about the mattress, not the blanket, and O’Connor’s own trial testimony appears to confirm this. In actual fact, therefore, we have no description of the blood stains on the blanket.

The second reason is based on the simple fact that the blanket seems to then just disappear from the case. None of the police who saw the various blood evidence in room 33 mention the blanket at the trial, nor were they asked about it. None of the medical witnesses who examined the blood evidence mention it either: Dr. Edson doesn’t include it in his list of evidence that the police had given him; Dr. Formad doesn’t mention it in his list of blood evidence that he saw and examined and Dr. Flint makes no mention of it in either his trial testimony or in the article he wrote after the trial (the New York Medical Journal, 11 July, 1891), which listed the blood evidence.

Who is right about the blanket? Who can say. Dekle states that there was no evidence that bloody hands had been wiped on the blanket in Frenchy’s room. Well, in that we don’t actually know what the blood stains looked like, if indeed they existed at all, he’s right. There is no evidence to prove the point because the evidence seemingly disappeared. Dekle doesn’t mention this of course.

Wolf.

[Wolf Vanderlinden]

Another troublesome piece of blood evidence is that of a blood stain found on the back of Ben Ali’s shirt. This was also described very dramatically by Chief Inspector Byrnes and Dr. Edson:
“ When “Frenchy” was undressed at the station house it was found that he wore under his outer coat only a course marino shirt…. On the left shoulder was another [bloodstain] which looked as if a hand dripping with blood had clenched him there.” (The New York Herald, 1 May, 1891.)

“Frenchy’s shirt, according to the doctor, had no blood on the front or bosom but there was a stain on the left wristband and also on the collar as if a bloody hand had grabbed him around the neck….” (The New York World, 1 May, 1891.)

This paints a vivid picture of a murderer struggling with his bleeding victim. Dekle, however, points out that there was no bloody hand print on the back of Ben Ali’s shirt and, as pointed out by various newspapers, Carrie Brown had first been strangled to death and was only then mutilated after she was dead. To add to the impossibility of this evidence, it was also pointed out by the press that there was no blood found on Brown’s hands.

Dekle states that Byrnes (Dekle doesn’t mention Edson’s opinion of this) was, once again, “heavily interpreting the bloodstain evidence.” (Dekle, page 35.) And that “Later analysis of the bloodstains would show that the stain on the back of Frenchy’s shirt had nothing to do with the case.” (Dekle, page 35.)

There are a couple of ways of looking at this. Dekle’s is to state that there was no bloody “hand print” on the back of Ben Ali’s shirt and, anyway, the blood turned out to have nothing to do with the murder.

Another way to look at this is that a dramatic bit of evidence – the victim’s bloody hand print on the back of the supposed murderer’s shirt – was quickly proved to be an impossibility by the Press and the description of it was then changed. By now it should be no surprise to learn that the two policemen who described the stain on the witness stand at the trial couldn’t agree on what it looked like. One described it as blood spots: “it looked as if it was put there by your fingers,” “four” “finger spots,” (testimony of Captain O’Connor), or a blood smear: “It looked to me like as if something had touched it with blood on it and dragged,” starting “nearer the centre of the back and ran towards the arm,” (testimony of Captain McLaughlin).

Dekle’s assertion that this blood evidence had nothing to do with the case is not accurate. Dekle is a lawyer and not a medical man and his grasp of the medical evidence is weak. He did consult medical text books and some online articles, however the text books all came from the 19^th century – fine, if you want to understand the level of medical knowledge at the time of the murder, but not if you want to know if that knowledge is trustworthy, or not, based on modern medicine.

Dekle, therefore, doesn’t seem to realize that not all the blood found at the murder scene had the unique admixture of intestinal contents; some of it was just blood that was unadulterated by the contents of the small intestine. The unadulterated blood was basically useless as evidence against Ben Ali since the medical men could only say that it was Mammalian blood, possibly Human, but they couldn’t say that it actually was Human. It, therefore, could have been argued that it was anybody’s blood, or even animal blood, so it was dropped as evidence by the prosecution. The blood, however, was still connected with the case as evidenced by Dr. Formad’s testimony.

When Dr. Formad was asked on the stand which blood samples didn’t have the admixture of intestinal contents he stated that “three of the scrapings from the shirt did not show positive evidence of intestinal contents.” Wellman asked “On the back of the shirt?” To which Formad answered “Yes. Not sufficient that I could swear to…” So Formad didn’t say that the blood stain on the back of Ben Ali’s shirt had no connection with the case only that there was an insufficient amount of the admixture in the blood stain to swear to.

However, Ben Ali stated that he had suffered a wound to his back while in the French Army and that the wound never completely healed. He stated that he had opened the wound by scratching his back, and that this was the source of the blood. Efforts to prove this by the defence were disallowed by the Recorder, so we don’t know if this was correct or not.

In the end, we still don’t know why this stain, possibly caused by scratches, was first described as looking “as if a hand dripping with blood had clenched him there.”

Wolf.

[Wolf Vanderlinden]

The blood found under Ben Ali’s fingernails:

The blood found under Ben Ali’s fingernails seems pretty damning, doesn’t it? But, as you should have come to expect by now, there is nothing straight forward about this evidence.

To start off, if anyone thinks that scraping evidence from under murder suspect’s fingernails was the standard procedure for the New York Police Department, think again. I can find no mention of New York authorities doing such a thing before the Brown murder. In fact, a nail scraper had to be purposely purchased to use on Ben Ali. Even 12 years later it was apparently not commonly done:

“(Coroner’s Physician) Dr. O’Hanlon suggested that it might be a good scheme to have the prisoner’s fingernails scraped, as was done in the Frenchy case. (Assistant District Attorney) Mr. Garvan was asked what he thought about it. He laughed.
‘This office,’ he said, ‘has not thought of scraping the prisoner’s fingernails and will not.’” (The New York Sun, 23 December, 1903.)

Why, then, did they decide to scrape Ben Ali’s fingernails looking for evidence, especially when they claimed to have a great deal of evidence linking Ben Ali to the murder? The reason may have been that the evidence that the police claimed they had was thought insufficient to convict Ben Ali and they decided to try something new. Or, as Inspector Byrnes stated, “‘Frenchy may be able to explain the presence of the blood on his shirt. He may be able to explain the presence of the blood on his shoulder, but how can he explain the blood under his finger nails?’” (The New York World, 1 May, 1891.)

In the earliest news reports, and at the inquest, Dr. Cyrus Edson, who examined the blood evidence found outside of room 31, had only stated that this evidence was made up of Mammalian blood, likely Human, but he couldn’t swear to it. He also couldn’t type the blood, connect it definitively to the victim or tell how long it had been in situ. This wouldn’t guarantee that Ben Ali would be found guilty. However, the New Jersey murder trial of Frank Lingo for the murder of Mrs. Annie Miller, which was reported on in the New York papers only six weeks before the Brown murder, included evidence that was collected from under the murder suspect’s fingernails. The scrapings were analyzed and were said to contain “blood and other matter” which pointed directly to the suspect’s guilt.

The “expert chemist” who performed the analysis turned out to be Dr. Henry Formad, the Microscope For Hire who made a great deal of money working for the prosecution in various trials, and who was used as an expert witness against Ben Ali. It was after Formad joined with Dr. Edson, and later Dr. Austin Flint, and just shortly before the trial, that blood and other matter (i.e. the intestinal admixture) was first identified (two months after the murder) in the blood samples from the Brown murder (Edson said that he had seen the matter during his initial examination of the blood but didn’t bother to identify it). This crucial discovery directly linked Ben Ali to the murder of Carrie Brown.

So who actually scraped beneath Ben Ali’s fingernails to obtain this evidence? Well, that’s an interesting question. Was it Chief Inspector Byrnes? –
“There were no bloodstains on ‘Frenchy’s’ hands, but when the Inspector found all the other red marks about him he took a bone nail cleaner and scraped out the insides of the fellow’s finger nails. He used a bone instrument, the Inspector said, rather than a knife so as to make sure that none of the prisoner’s own blood should be mixed with the shavings.
The dirt that he collected he saved and sent to Dr. Cyrus Edson for analysis.”
(The New York Herald, 1 May, 1891.)

Or was it Dr. Edson? –
“‘Myself (Dr. Edson) and some other physicians were called into the case on Monday by Inspector Byrnes as well as District Attorney Nicoll….
‘I scraped his finger nails, and the matter I gathered showed on analysis that there were human blood corpuscles in it.’”
(The New York World, 30 April, 1891.)

In actual fact it was supposedly Detective Sergeant Frink –
“I had previously bought a nail scraper in the drug store an instrument made of bone… and with that instrument I removed dirt of under the nails of the defendant at the bar…” (Trial testimony of Detective Sergeant Frink.) Byrnes would state the same years later “I ought to say a word for the detective who examined and scraped the man’s nails. He was Detective-Sergeant William E. Frink, as conscientious a man in the performance of his duty as ever lived.” (The New York Sun, 24 April, 1902. I love the bit about Frink being “as conscientious a man in the performance of his duty as ever lived,” It never fails to make me laugh.)

Why Frink was tasked with cleaning under Ben Ali’s nails, rather than, say, Dr. Edson, probably had more to do with Frink being one of Byrnes’ loyal apparatchiks, rather than his experience at fingernail scraping or forensic evidence gathering. Certainly Frink admitted on the stand that he had never done this job before. This inexperience might explain Frink’s claim as to how long it took him to scrape Ben Ali’s fingernails:
“Q. You scraped the nails of both hands?
“A. Yes sir; every one of them underneath.
“Q. How long did it take you to do that?
“A. Well fifteen or twenty minutes; fifteen minutes.” (Trial transcript.)
On the other hand, actually taking fifteen or twenty minutes to scrape under ten fingers (i.e. one and a half to two minutes each finger) is hard to credit.

When had Frink collected this evidence? On Wednesday, the 29^th of April, a little over five days after the murder (for some reason Dekle, page 232, says three days after the discovery of the murder, which is incorrect). If Ben Ali had actually committed the murder he had been able to wash any blood off of his hands – his hands were clean when he was arrested – yet he failed to rid himself of blood that was under his nails? Not in 5 days?

What had Frink done with the nail scrapings? He was asked this question at the trial and he answered that he had delivered the envelope containing the scrapings to Dr. Edson:
“Q. You delivered them in person to Dr. Edson?”
“A. In person to Dr. Edson at Police Headquarters. I think it was Dr. Edson or his assistant who was there at the time. I think it was Dr. Edson.” (Trial transcript)
But that’s not what Chief Inspector Byrnes claimed.

On the witness stand at the trial Byrnes stated:
“…I directed, I think Capt. McLaughlin to either have himself or Frincke (sic) get a bone toothpick and have this man’s nails carefully examined and whatever was there to bring it up in an envelope. Also that was brought to me sealed and I turned it over to Dr. Edson.
“Q. Just as you received it?
“A. Yes, just as I received it.” (Trial transcript.)
Dr. Edson agreed with this version. Why, once more, there appears to be no clear chain of custody for this evidence is another question that can’t be answered.

Dekle doesn’t mention this, although he does bring up an interesting point about how the fingernail scrapings were carefully saved as evidence. He writes: “[Frink] did not fully describe the care he took with the collection. The scrapings from each fingernail were placed in separate envelopes, giving ten envelopes in all, each one carefully labeled to show from which fingernail the contents came.” (Dekle, page 113.) I found this to be impressive: that Frink, who had never before collected evidence from under a prisoner’s fingernails, would take the same kind of care that a modern forensic technician would. Unfortunately, that’s not what actually happened.

Mr. Dekle appears to be relying on the words of Chief Inspector Byrnes, found in the New York Sun in 1902, for this bit of information. An unwise choice. What Frink himself stated at the trial was that “…I removed dirt of under the nails of the defendant at the bar and put them carefully… I carefully folded them in a piece of paper and put them in an envelope…” (Trial transcript.) Not ten envelopes, each one carefully labeled to show which fingernail the contents came from. All the matter was simply scraped onto a piece of paper which was then folded and put into an envelope and then put in Frink’s pocket. Was the matter from each nail separated, or simply scraped together into one pile? We don’t know, but it seems highly unlikely that Frink knew how this evidence should be properly handled.

There is another curious thing that Mr. Dekle says concerning the matter under Ben Ali’s fingernails: the finding of “white cotton lint.” Dekle writes:
“Two other points were discounted completely by the doctors, but the prosecution should have realized their importance and emphasized them. The first completely missed point was that the bloodstains had white cotton lint in them. The significance of this finding is that bedsheets are made of white cotton. If a murder victim is killed and eviscerated in bed, it can be expected that the blood escaping onto the bedsheet will pick up lint. Fingernails dabbling in that blood are going to pick up blood containing white cotton lint. Frenchy’s fingernails had bloodstains (sic) containing white cotton lint under them.” (Dekle pages 123 – 124.)

Dekle believes that this fingernail evidence is extremely important, believing, as shown above, that the “white cotton lint” clearly and unmistakably connects Ben Ali to the white cotton sheets on the bed where the murder took place. How many murders involving mutilations and white cotton bed sheets had occurred around the time of Brown’s death? How could Ben Ali explain this away? Good questions. However, Dekle seems to have got this wrong.

Mr. Dekle’s “white cotton lint” appears to come from Dr. Edson’s trial testimony. Edson was asked to describe what he had found on a piece of the bloody bed tick of the mattress in room 31, the murder room. The point of his testimony was to compare these findings with blood stains found on Ben Ali’s clothes, under his fingernails and outside of room 31 in the East River Hotel. This is what Dr. Edson said:

“I did say the epithelial cells were stained yellow which upon tests proved to be normal biliary matter. But all foreign bodies, and there was a large amount of foreign bodies, naturally, such as lint, and cotton fibres and other fibres, all were stained yellow by bile.”
(Trial transcript.)

This makes no mention of Dekle’s “white cotton lint.” There is “lint,” “cotton fibres” and “other fibres” mentioned. None of these are described as being “white,” instead they are described as being “stained yellow” from contact with bile. In and of themselves, finding cotton fibres on the cotton bed tick, which was usually covered by a cotton sheet, is meaningless. If lint or cotton fibres were found under Ben Ali’s fingernails, no one could tell where they came from considering that cotton was, and is, a fairly common material. But was lint or cotton fibres found mixed with the matter under Ben Ali’s nails? The answer to this question is that we don’t really have a clear answer.

Edson was testifying that the blood on the bed ticking was mixed with the contents of the small intestines. He then testified that the blood found outside of room 31 and on Ben Ali, including the matter from under his finger nails, was also mixed with the contents of the small intestines. They were exactly the same, he said. What Dekle seems to have done here is to take “exactly the same” to mean that they also included the “large amount of foreign bodies… such as lint, and cotton fibres and other fibres,” something which he can only infer rather than know as a fact.

Edson, however, did mention the cotton fibres a second time during his testimony, though this second mention doesn’t actually make things clearer. The doctor was asked, under cross examination by Levy, if he could specify what he meant by intestinal contents. Edson listed tyrosine, biliary coloring matter etc., then said “foreign fibres” and “cotton fibres.” But, unless Carrie Brown ate her cotton napkin along with her last meal, they were not part of the intestinal contents. Edson, more realistically, was reading off, or remembering, everything he had found on the bed ticking and not just the intestinal contents.

In the end, Dr. Edson didn’t say that he had found lint or cotton fibres in the matter under Ben Ali’s nails, or anywhere else outside of the piece of bed ticking from room 31. Importantly, I think, neither did Dr. Edson nor did Dr. Flint, both when he testified at the trial and when he later wrote about the case and included a list of matter found mixed with the blood found on Ben Ali. This strongly suggests that lint, cotton and other fibres weren’t found under Ben Ali’s fingernails or anywhere else outside of the mattress in room 31.

More to come.

Wolf.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Although as a newbie to this case I can’t help having serious doubts about the suggestion of the police planting of blood evidence. Not that they physically couldn’t have done it of course but because of the huge risks that they would have been taking in doing so.

The question was being asked at the time about whether this might have been a ripper murder so the police weren’t ignorant of this possibility and even if they hadn’t thought that it was a ripper killing then they must have considered the likelihood that, due to the nature of the murder, there was a very real chance of this type of killer killer striking again. If another murder had indeed occurred and the killer had been caught they would have been left with two momentous questions to answer that would have been seriously damaging to the police’s reputation and the case against Ali and more specifically to Byrnes reputation and career. Firstly and obviously, what if this second killer was also Carrie Brown’s murderer; as evidenced by similarities of method? But secondly, and more damagingly, what if the killer had confessed to killing Carrie Brown too? How could Byrnes have explained Ali being covered in Brown’s blood? Would he have taken this huge and potentially career-ending risk of being found to have falsified the blood evidence?

Wolf’s right of course to point out the shortcomings and discrepancies of the testimonies of various police officers at the Inquest and the trial but I wonder if this was simply a reflection of their inefficiency rather than their dishonesty? After all, if Byrnes was indeed setting up Ali by falsifying blood evidence wouldn’t he at least have ensured that his men were all singing from the same hymn sheet? Would he knowingly have risked the Defence picking holes in the story of the discovery, the gathering and the transporting of the blood evidence, which would have introduced the possibility of incompetence (resulting in cross- contamination) or even of dishonesty? Would he really have risked them sowing the seeds of doubt in the minds of the jurors? I can’t help thinking that in a case of such importance Byrnes would surely have indulged in a simple bit of coaching had he been up to anything.

For what it’s worth I tend toward Ali not being the killer but I think that he was in room 31 that night. I think that the killer was the unknown man who was entered into the register by the invented name C. Knicklo and that he was probably the farmhand that worked for George Damon. I think that he was also the man seen later at the nearby Glenmore Hotel. Ali had form for roaming the hotel landings looking for sex with lone women and I think that’s what happened that night. After Brown had been murdered he entered the room and in the darkness leaned over Carrie Brown to wake her up for sex and in the process got blood on him. He then panicked and returned to room 33 and then fled the hotel (or sneaked out as Eddie Fitzgerald testified)

It’s an intriguing case.

[Wolf Vanderlinden]

A Pardon For Frenchy:

In his chapter A Pardon For Frenchy, Dekle looks at the work of lawyer Ovide Robillard in obtaining a commutation of Ben Ali’s sentence. Specifically he looks at the eight affidavits that were presented to Governor Odell which shed new light on Ben Ali’s innocence.

Dekle divides these eight affidavits into a “topical order”: those that pointed to someone other than Ameer Ben Ali having murdered Brown, and those that suggested that at least some of the blood evidence was planted. For my purposes I’m dividing the eight affidavits into four groups: George Damon’s account (consisting of 3 affidavits), the accounts of newspapermen who were at the East River Hotel on the afternoon of the 24^th of April (3 affidavits), Henry Berbenich’s account and Frank F. Coleman’s account.

The information provided in these affidavits, if true, must of course be vigorously refuted by Dekle, with the exception of Berbenich’s, as we shall see, in order to keep his own theory alive. This is no easy task considering the people and the nature of the evidence involved, and while Mr. Dekle makes an attempt at diminishing the points raised in these affidavits he ultimately fails to convince.

First some background. The campaign to obtain clemency for Ameer Ben Ali began early, as early as August of 1891, only weeks after he was found guilty and sentenced to life in prison. Through the years four out of five Governors of the State of New York in office from 1891 to 1901were petitioned for clemency to no avail. In early April, 1900, Governor Theodore Roosevelt turned down a petition with the opinion that “no new evidence had been introduced which would warrant any clemency” (the New York Times, 1 April, 1900). Some months later, however, Robillard was offered new evidence to use in vindicating his client.

Wolf.

[Wolf Vanderlinden]

George Damon’s affidavit:

I have written about George Damon’s story more than once over the years, and my opinion of its legitimacy has changed as more information has come to light. Those who have paid attention to my posts on this subject (if they exist at all), both here and on Howard Brown’s site, would know that since 2009 I have been saying that George Damon has given us the answer, at least in part, to the mystery of who murdered Carrie Brown. We don’t actually know the man’s name or his real identity but Damon’s story, if true, tells us who killed Carrie Brown and therefore exonerates Ameer Ben Ali.

On March 27^th, 1901, it was reported that Robillard was putting together affidavits and a petition with 15,000 names for another attempt at pardoning Ben Ali. It wasn’t until sometime around the 9^th of May, 1901, however, that Robillard wrote to the new Governor, Benjamin B. Odell, telling him that he had new evidence which supported Ben Ali’s innocence and that he would like to have a hearing in order to present it. Odell wrote back and stated that he would prefer if the evidence was presented to him in document form so that he could decide whether a new hearing was necessary. On the 23^rd of May, 1901, the story broke in several newspapers that Robillard was making this new attempt at freeing Ben Ali, and he was doing so with some very intriguing information provided by an unnamed New York businessman.

The businessman, who had asked that his name be kept out of the papers “at his earnest request,” was quickly tracked down by a reporter from the New York World who interviewed him about his new information. The World didn’t name the man but by the 2^nd of June, 1901, the New York Sun identified him as 59 year old George Damon, a well-to-do owner of a foundry which manufactured and sold equipment and supplies for the printing industry.

Damon, when interviewed by the World on the 23^rd of May, stated that about a month before the murder of Carrie Brown he had gone down to Castle Garden, the then entry point to the U.S. at the Port of New York before the opening of Ellis Island, and hired some men to do some land grading at his home in Cranford, New Jersey. After the work was done he kept one of the men on to help his regular hand (Damon thought this man’s name was “Henry”), who had broken his arm in an accident, to do stable and grounds work.

After ten years Damon didn’t remember the details of this new man very clearly, he had only worked for him for about a month, but thought his first name was “Frank.” Damon also thought the man was Danish, and that he might have been a sailor. One thing that Damon did remember about “Frank” was that he was “of a sullen disposition, and altogether a dangerous customer to handle.” (All quotes, unless otherwise specified, come from the New York World, 23 May, 1901.)

At 6 o’clock on the morning after the murder of Carrie Brown (i.e. Friday, the 24th April, 1891) Damon went into his stables, where “Frank” had his room, but was warned by “Henry” not to disturb the man. He was told that “Frank” had been out all night and had only arrived home late that morning and that he was still asleep. The businessman was told that “I had better not disturb him, as he was pretty ugly.” Between five and ten days later (one source says the next day, another said after a few days) the man unexpectedly left in the middle of the night without telling anyone that he was leaving or where he was going. When a maid, Damon thought her name was “Mary” (possibly Mary Nasbit, who was listed as living in the Damon home in 1885), was sent to clean the departed man’s room she reportedly found a bloody shirt (some sources say a pair of blood stained pants, some say both) left by “Frank.” A key with a brass tag stamped (imperfectly) with the number 31 was also found, reportedly in the pocket of the shirt (or pants), although Damon also mentioned a table drawer.

The maid took the key to Mrs. Damon and, with the newspapers filled with coverage of the Brown murder and the missing key to room 31, they concluded, along with the bloodstained clothing and the strange disappearance of “Frank,” that this was a vital clue. When George Damon returned home from his office in New York, he got an earful.

The evidence must have been intriguing, especially since Damon knew that his hired hand had been away from home on the night of the murder, and that he seemed to fit the description of the wanted man. The very next day, in order to quietly check this supposed evidence, Damon and one of his city employees, a clerk (also given as a truck-man) named Charles Brennan (also given as Bremman), went to the saloon of the East River Hotel, only blocks from where Damon’s business was situated at 44 Beekman Street (Dekle incorrectly states “44 Beckham Street”), where they were able to compare, at a little distance, the key found at Cranford with the hotel’s keys hanging on a rack behind the bar. They seemed fairly similar. Soon after, however, a man came into the saloon and placed a room key on the bar and left. Damon and Brennan were able to closely compare this key with the one found in “Frank’s” room and, according to the two men, they matched; the distinct brass tag with its stamped number seemingly convincing them beyond reasonable doubt. “Frank” was likely the murderer of Carrie Brown.

This put Damon into a bind. Whenever his missing employee had left (from five to ten days after the murder) after six days it had been announced in the newspapers that the police had solved the crime and that Ben Ali was the killer. A bloody trail had been found leading from the murder room to Ben Ali’s room, Ben Ali’s room was covered in blood, as was his clothing, and there was even blood under his finger nails. The newspapers were also full of interviews with various police officials, as well as with Dr. Edson, which listed the case against “Frenchy” and apparently proved his guilt. Two weeks after this revelation the inquest jury had found Ben Ali guilty of causing the death of Caroline Brown and a Grand Jury had found a True Bill against him, sending him to trial for the murder.

What was Damon to do? As he later told the reporter from the New York World, “‘Why did I keep quiet? Well, because the murder was creating world-wide interest, and I dreaded the publicity that my evidence would be certain to give me. I dreaded it as a business man and in a social way for my family. Then, again, I felt certain that although ‘Frenchy’ was not guilty of the murder he was a dangerous character, better under restraint than at liberty. So I kept silent.’” Damon also admitted that he was afraid (another report said it was his wife who was terrified) that “Frank” might come back and harm his family, especially if the news of a new manhunt was splashed across newspapers thereby notifying “Frank” exactly who had informed on him.

It is also easy to see that Damon would be telling the world that the New York Police Department had not only arrested the wrong man but they would have to explain all the supposed blood evidence they claimed connected Ben Ali with the murder. Of course the police weren’t beyond just denying that they had ever said that they had found any blood evidence at all.

Damon eventually went to a friend, John Lee, a wealthy contractor, and asked him for advice on the matter. On hearing what Damon had discovered, and his concerns, Lee advised him to say nothing.

Damon’s evidence was eventually disclosed when “several months” before the story broke in the newspapers (23 May, 1901) “the man to whom the finder of the key had confided the secret (apparently John Lee) got into a lively argument with a well-known member of the New York bar. This lawyer had figured to some extent in the prosecution of “Frenchy,” (probably Charles Simms). Lee (if it was Lee) told Simms (if it was Simms) that he “had lent himself to the persecution of an innocent man.” When the lawyer demanded an explanation Lee told him about Damon’s discoveries in 1891. The lawyer then “insisted that the friends of “Frenchy” be instantly informed” (which is why it is likely to have been Simms rather than either Wellman or Nicoll). The information was then passed to Ovide Robillard who was able to get signed affidavits from Damon, Brennan and Lee.

That is George Damon’s story.

Wolf.