Carrie Brown : Murder In The East River Hotel

 I might wind up eating crow for remarks made on occasion concerning Thompson as not being a viable suspect.
 Nina believes we can't or rather, shouldn't, dismiss him outright, for his track record.

 I based my comments not on an agenda but rather on the official reports ( Miniter, Shine, Fitzgerald, and Thompson himself) which stated he was at home at the
time of the crime.  I didn't depend on newspaper articles but rather testimony in open court.  I ain't that stupid to put a lot of faith in the press, particularly
in the Brown Murder reportage.  I have been aware of these articles for years.

 I may have been wrong...certainly not a first.  I almost hope I am because a few things that have always bothered me seem to make sense if the following
is true or reasonable to pursue as a theory.


Today, I compiled a list of things we do know about the man and some ideas that I overlooked. Maybe others have, too.



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

* Thompson is said to have been drinking with a friend that night. He became very intoxicated as stated below :

New York World
April 1, 1900
------------------



 * In the article, Thompson got so hammered that he put Shine in charge of the bar, which Shine was on the night in question.
    Shine could have lied about Thompson not being in the hotel.

* His house was 10 miles from the hotel
    * Would a man very intoxicated venture out at that time of night and attempt to make it home ?
       
       Thompson lived on 96th Street and 2nd Avenue, shown below :

   


   Transit lines were on a different schedule, as they are today, during the evening and less frequently around midnight.
* Thompson was, going by his life resume, not the kind of man who would worry about being home on time, wife waiting with a rolling pin.
* Thompson, as manager, could have any unused room to sleep the drunk off if so desired.
* Thompson, as manager, had a master key and access to every room in the hotel.
* The stories in the NY World and Evansville Courier only appeared in print after Thompson died. If they were true, that makes sense.
   His 1886 assault on Slattery would only be found in a half dozen newspapers, all in April.  No more is heard about the incident until we
   read the coroner inquest testimony recorded on May 14, 1891, in which Thompson states the charge against him was dismissed by a
   jury in the court of Oyer & Terminer by Judge Barrett. No date is given. One report mentions that his employer, James Jennings, provided
   support for him.
   In one article, the police, despite not being present in the hotel bar at the time of the event and well before Thompson turned himself, 
   are quoted as having said  Thompson didn't intend to kill Slattery. It would hard to find an article anywhere in which something along
   these lines is attributed to the police while a person of interest was on the lam or avoiding turning themselves in for further questioning.
   I don't know about anyone else, but this is very strange, IMO. 



New York Sun
April 12, 1886





Evansville Courier
September 16, 1906
******************



 This idea or theory doesn't affect the Damon/Danish Farmhand/room key theory one bit.

1. Having the key or rather leaving the key in Cranford wasn't absolute proof of the Farmhand's guilt in the first place.
2. If C.Kniclo left earlier than previously theorized around...closer to 11:30 and not 2 AM...then according to the time table Bernie Wagenblast
   shared with me/us, there was a train that rolled into Cranford at approximately 1:50 to 1:55 AM, giving him ample time to return to Cranford
  before Damon went to the living quarters the Dane shared with Broken Armed Man at 6 AM.
3. In this scenario, the theory or fact that the farmhand left the key might take on a new twist.  It meant nothing to him. He had committed no crime. 
   That he stayed a few days, according to Damon,  might be an indication that he wasn't worried in the least about the events in Lower Manhattan.
4. That he made it back to Cranford at all, in whatever shape, might be a sign that he knew he was expected back in Cranford and had not made any plans
   at any point while in the Lower East Side to 'call in sick' on the 24th.   Damon certainly expected him there.  The Dane WAS there but in no shape to
   work.
5.  It would have made more sense for him to only stay briefly in the hotel room if he planned on being on time for Friday
      I'm sure quite a few men took women to the rooms only for sex and left shortly afterwards.  C.Kniclo may have done that, too.
     We have Ali's track record to support that...where he'd go in rooms right after the original client had left.


One of the articles mentions 'six people' connected to the hotel being in the know about Thompson's involvement.
One would probably be Jennings, who had already backed him up in 1886 for the Slattery affair.
Two women, Miniter and Corcoran, were there...as were Fitzgerald and Shine.  I can't think of another employee but will continue to look.

 If I haven't put you to sleep yet, I saved Glenmore Man for last.

 Glenmore Man might be a problem. GM certainly wasn't Thompson but GM may not have been C. Kniclo.
One thing in opposition to the Thompson as killer idea is the remarkable similarity between Miniter and Kelly's descriptions of
C.Kniclo/Glenmore Man.  I still think this is a very compelling piece of circumstantial evidence,,,but as we have seen, several men of similar
physical features were picked up during the early days of the investigation....so it is admittedly like so many other things in this case, not
etched in stone.

                                                Thompson got away with what most would consider murder in 1886.
                                                     Could he have gotten away with it a second time five years later ?

The Thompson story is an intriguing one How. Any suggestion that a known killer might have been at the scene of a murder is worth considering imo. Thompson was clearly a dangerous man (especially after sampling a few of the ERH’s delightful craft beers)

He certainly appears to have had a volatile personality....and the jail time to prove it.  His coroner inquest testimony also reveals his cockiness.


Of the 6 unnamed witness who were ‘in the know’ (you’ve named 4 - could Jennings be considered another?) they were all dependent on their jobs at the ERH and if Thompson was part of a gang a bit of intimidation would have been par for the course and been an added incentive for them to have kept quiet. Also wouldn’t the police have focused more on questioning those that were in the Box on the night of the murder as they would have seen Shakespeare and those in her company? I even wondered (for a few seconds) if the x on Brown’s buttocks might have been some kind of gang branding/warning but the police would surely have recognised it straight away if that was the case? Then again, as per the article about Slattery with the police going straight away for ‘accidental,’ might this hint at corruption?

Mike...it may have been six people who were at the hotel and not six employees. We know Miniter ( who went to a room with a man subsequent to her encounter with Brown and C. Kniclo) was there. Corcoran lived there. Shine was there tending bar in the 1900 and 1906 stories and according to his inquest and trial testimony. Jennings MAY have been there but I doubt it was 'next door' to Room 31 as was reported in one paper.  I seriously doubt that. Fitzgerald was probably there, too.  That's five.

The police did interrogate women who were in the Box and in their social circle.  Mary Cody, Lizzie Carter, Mary Madigan, Florence May, Jennie Lynch, and Mary Healy ( or Healey) were all brought in to the Oak Street station. Healy was the lone woman of that group to testify.

  Not so sure that Thompson would be part of a gang that would leave marks or their 'sign' on people, but rather he was just one of a group or clique of streetwise toughs, IMHO.  I still think there's a likelihood that Thompson might have been an informant...more so now than before considering how cops who came to the hotel in 1886 somehow determined that Thompson 'didn't mean' to kill Slattery without having Thompson present to query him.  Part of Byrnes' success depended on having a considerable number of local informants, so rather than corruption, it might be more of a matter of Thompson's involvement in that cadre of informants that was behind the strange choice of words coming from the cops right after the incident.  We know Shine had a big mouth and undoubtedly would inform the police if something of interest to them materialized.    Fitzgerald, Corcoran, and Shine worked there. Miniter helped Corcoran out for the occasional quarter or fifty cents while maintaining her other avocation, but she was not an employee of the hotel.

If the alleged 'x' was a warning to others, I'm pretty sure the police would recognize it if it were. If the press corps had seen it before, you know they'd have mentioned it.

I can’t recall the exact layout (even though they went over and over it in the transcript) but if Thompson had been drinking in the bar would he have been aware that Brown was drinking in the box? And when she came back and took a room would he have seen them from where he was drinking? Also, would an angry, drunken Thompson have been up to killing Brown without any other guests hearing anything or could these other guest have been persuaded to say that they’d heard nothing?

It's very likely that Thompson was aware of not only Brown but any woman or man drinking in the bar. People who deal with the public, especially bartenders and managers, almost need to be able to recognize people in their saloons for a variety of reasons.
An intoxicated Thompson might have cooled down after the original flare up and from there, anything could happen.  Not saying I believe this possible scenario, but the fact that if he was hammered, he'd have to make it back to Yorkville almost 10 miles away at a late hour does make me wonder.  It didn't before, but that was because I didn't pay enough attention  to where he lived.


It would leave us though with a strange situation playing out that night. Kniclo and Brown take a room, Kniclo leaves, Thompson enters the room, kills her and then leaves, then Ali enters and gets Brown’s blood on him. Sounds a bit like a staged bedroom farce. And we’re left trying to explain how the key came into Damon’s possession?

It’s an intriguing possibility though.

It's a terrific scenario, Mike. Remember Thompson had a key and access to every room at the hotel at any time he wanted.  Even if C. Kniclo's key was the actual key and he locked the door when he left, this wouldn't prevent Thompson from entering the room and locking it after theoretically murdering her.

Thought: apart from being a name invented for the register could Kniclo himself have been an invention?

THAT is what I think the issue Byrnes had with Miniter was all about more than any other scenario.  These are my thoughts at present on the matter :
1. Miniter truthfully told the press and police about C. Kniclo's presence & description.  She would learn the fictitious name after Thompson entered it in the register on the 24th.
2. An all-points bulletin was created based on this description and that of Glenmore Hotel deskman Tom Kelly ( Most references I've found refer to him by that first name).
3. In one of the NY World papers I read yesterday, Miniter's original information was countered by another person ( I'm guessing a woman).  That person, I feel, was Mary Ann Lopez.
    I have no doubt that she wanted to get some payback on Ali and once she learned he had been in the hotel on the 23rd, it wouldn't be a stretch to think that
    she would tell anyone within earshot that Ali was the client with Brown.
 4. Now, add up all the lies that Ali told the police : add Lopez's input that he was there and was with Brown; and we can see why Byrnes might become irritated
and claim that Miniter had wasted their time, although, due to their desire to cover all bases, they continued to search for C. Kniclo, if only to get his possibly helpful
information on his movements that night.

This might explain Byrnes attitude to Miniter which has always seemed over the top.

Do you think it possible, however unlikely, that when Brown returned to the ERR to get a room she might actually have been alone before getting together with Thompson and getting room. Then after killing her he gets Miniter to back him up on the ‘Brown and Kniclo’ story? Did Ali enter the room later or did he run into Thompson who transferred blood during a scuffle?

It’s easy to get carried away with these scenarios.

Bossman...the press reporters could have over-stressed Byrnes' sudden about face on the value of Miniter's description.  We both know that they were out to make headlines, first and foremost, considering the city they worked in and the competition in beating the other paper to a scoop.

Plus, they weren't above completely screwing up a story. In fairness, the occasional reticence of the locals in talking to police which still exists and the natural reticence of the police to give away everything they had to the hack reporters contribute to the inherent issues with so many stories.

Brown wouldn't have been given a key to the fifth floor, Mike.  Only 'married couples' made it to the 'penthouse suites'.  In addition, it appears she was bereft of funds...C. Kniclo coming up with the dosh for the room...and ale.

 Miniter may have not known that Thompson decided...in this hypothetical scenario.....to stay at the hotel that night until Friday morning.

She had gone off with a man to a room shortly after Brown and C. Kniclo arrived.  We don't know, again in this hypothetical scenario, when Thompson decided to call it a night and opted to stay at the hotel rather than making the trek of nearly 10 miles to his home.

If the Evansville and NY World articles are on the money, then Shine, above all others, would know whether he stayed the night or had split to all the way up to the Upper West Side.
One reason I think this it's more likely he would know as opposed to anyone else is that Thompson, as the story goes, assigned Shine to take his shift.
Shine claimed at the inquest he, like Fitzgerald, had only worked there for two months.  I find this hard to swallow and I think the transcriber at the Inquest meant to write down Shine had been there since 1890.  Then again, maybe Shine lied when he said he'd only been there for two months. However, since we're left with the claim of him being there only two months or so, then I go along with that until it can be proven otherwise.

One or two of the local women ( the women in The Box) may have known he stayed the night but they weren't asked nor called to the inquest or trial to testify one way or the other.

It is VERY easy to get carried away with these scenarios, sir.

Its just a goddamned shame that there wasn't a hefty reward offered.  Money makes things happen and unlocks tight lips.

I’d forgotten about the ‘married couples’ rule How but I guess it’s still possible that she could have returned alone just for a drink after leaving to earn some cash. Then she and Thompson decided to take a room, unless Thompson had already decided to bed down there rather than the trek home. If Jennings wasn’t around Thompson might even have taken the room without paying if no one was keen on spilling the beans given his reputation.

It’s all speculation of course but it’s all that we can do on this. Remind me How, is there any way of discerning if the suggestion of Thompson’s guilt came from the same source? By this I mean are there different versions in different papers?

Mike:

This is the entire text of the Evansville Courier article. 

I’m with you in that I’ve never placed much significance in the reporters not seeing any blood given the lighting and the conditions combined with the fact that there were so many reporters crammed into those narrow corridors (hardly conducive to any Sherlock Holmes-like investigation of the floor). Also, as it says in the article, they were under the definite impression that Brown had been killed by the man that she’d shared a room with and who had left unseen by anyone (Kniclo)

Perhaps I’ve been a little fixated on Brown at the crime scene as I’ve always felt that this didn’t look like any kind of murder in a moment of anger - the cross on the buttocks, the bound head etc. It looked more like the work of someone fulfilling some kind of fantasy (a potential serial killer) but…considering Thompson again. According to the article he died as a result of delirium tremens so this guy was a serious drinker (basically an alcoholic) Alcoholics can have blackouts and can do the strangest things as we know so who can tell what might have exploded from a paralytic and angry violent man like Thompson?

Of course we need an explanation for the blood but, if we can suggest the possibility that Ali entered the room after Brown had been killed by Kniclo, it’s no real stretch to say - Kniclo leaves, Thompson enters and kills Brown then leaves and then Ali enters.

This just leaves the key to explain.

Mike...
It just dawned on my dumb ass that selecting Brown would make sense if you had planned on killing one of the women.
Being somewhat older, it might facilitate the murder considering she may have been perceived as being easier to subdue and would make less noise in the commission of the crime.