41
General Discussion / Re: Fuller, Berbenich, and Blood
« Last post by Howard Brown on March 10, 2026, 08:49:23 am »Affidavits filed by the 11th-hour, decade late, reporters declared that they had seen no blood.
Up until the time that these affidavits were filed, the position of the organized pardon campaign(s) was to not
refute the verdict or discount the blood evidence ( on the floor and in either room), carefully
avoiding the question of blood being absolutely found on Ali's body and material found under his nails.
However, here in late 1901, Fuller, speaking for the pardon effort, now refutes the blood evidence, giving his reasons,
but at the same time stating that if blood was found, it was left by reporters ( the Berbenich affidavit) ostensibly
placed to create a sensation.
Sounds a lot like a man wanting his cake and eating it, too.
Whether or not blood was found at the places the police said that they found blood, isn't the bottom line.
What was the bottom line, IMHO, is that the Damon story and key gave the pardon campaigners some leverage
in 1901 and that their refutation of the blood evidence was established on shakier ground, otherwise why bring
up Berbenich's explanation in the first place?
Damon's story and key, in a major way, allowed the pardon campaign crew to bring up issues such as Fitzgerald not
testifying to seeing blood: the police still looking for C. Kniclo....which would have been standard operating
procedure in 1891, if only to glean information from him on the night in question, and not necessarily as a suspect
after April 30th: and of course, the blood issue.
Up until the time that these affidavits were filed, the position of the organized pardon campaign(s) was to not
refute the verdict or discount the blood evidence ( on the floor and in either room), carefully
avoiding the question of blood being absolutely found on Ali's body and material found under his nails.
However, here in late 1901, Fuller, speaking for the pardon effort, now refutes the blood evidence, giving his reasons,
but at the same time stating that if blood was found, it was left by reporters ( the Berbenich affidavit) ostensibly
placed to create a sensation.
Sounds a lot like a man wanting his cake and eating it, too.
Whether or not blood was found at the places the police said that they found blood, isn't the bottom line.
What was the bottom line, IMHO, is that the Damon story and key gave the pardon campaigners some leverage
in 1901 and that their refutation of the blood evidence was established on shakier ground, otherwise why bring
up Berbenich's explanation in the first place?
Damon's story and key, in a major way, allowed the pardon campaign crew to bring up issues such as Fitzgerald not
testifying to seeing blood: the police still looking for C. Kniclo....which would have been standard operating
procedure in 1891, if only to glean information from him on the night in question, and not necessarily as a suspect
after April 30th: and of course, the blood issue.
Recent Posts