Recent Posts

Pages: 1 ... 8 9 [10]
91
General Discussion / Absence Of Blood- Reported In The Press
« Last post by Howard Brown on February 19, 2026, 08:52:39 am »
A few years ago, someone suggested that the press ( notably those reporters who were present on the fifth floor) would
be intimidated by the police, or worse, should reports be published that blood was not visible on the fifth floor, in
room 33, the hallway, the walls, etc., as maintained by the police.

Not only wouldn't the police harangue, hassle, or threaten reporters....but reports were published that ran contrary
to the police's findings.

Another myth eliminated.

New York Evening World
April 25, 1891
************


New York Evening World
April 30, 1891
************
92
General Discussion / Verily I Sayeth: 'No Women Shall Leave At Night....And No Single Men Alone Upstairs....'
« Last post by Howard Brown on February 19, 2026, 06:55:34 am »
A somewhat silly claim in this excerpt from the NY Times.....

New York Times
May 1, 1891
**********


--------------------------------------------------------------------

At the Coroner's Inquest, Sam Shine said that the hotel policy was to not allow single fellas up on the fifth floor.
Ali, for one example, did just that on Wednesday the 22nd and Thursday, the 23rd of April.

Coroner's Inquest- May 14, 1891



93
Inquest & Trial Testimonies / Re: Eddie Fitzgerald: Original Trial Transcript June 30, 1891
« Last post by Howard Brown on February 19, 2026, 06:26:57 am »
Part 6 of 6 below:
94
Inquest & Trial Testimonies / Re: Eddie Fitzgerald: Original Trial Transcript June 30, 1891
« Last post by Howard Brown on February 19, 2026, 06:26:37 am »
Part 5 of 6 below:
95
Inquest & Trial Testimonies / Re: Eddie Fitzgerald: Original Trial Transcript June 30, 1891
« Last post by Howard Brown on February 19, 2026, 06:26:03 am »
Part 4 of 6 below:
96
Inquest & Trial Testimonies / Re: Eddie Fitzgerald: Original Trial Transcript June 30, 1891
« Last post by Howard Brown on February 19, 2026, 06:25:40 am »
Part 3 of 6 below:
97
Inquest & Trial Testimonies / Re: Eddie Fitzgerald: Original Trial Transcript June 30, 1891
« Last post by Howard Brown on February 19, 2026, 06:25:17 am »
Part 2 of 6 below:
98
Inquest & Trial Testimonies / Eddie Fitzgerald: Original Trial Transcript June 30, 1891
« Last post by Howard Brown on February 19, 2026, 06:24:26 am »
I've added the entire 66-page original transcript of Fitzgerald's testimony to this thread.
A modern, but incomplete, transcription of the original transcript is on the thread below:

https://carriebrown.createaforum.com/general-discussion/eddie-fitzgerald-trial-testimony-june-30-1891-transcribed-by-michael-banks/msg3993/#msg3993

The original transcript has been delineated into six PDFs.

Part 1 of 6 below:
99
General Discussion / Re: Ovide Robillard: Letters & Correspondence- 1897-1901
« Last post by Howard Brown on February 18, 2026, 09:05:59 am »
Before I forget......at this point in time, I feel that the effort undertaken by the French was more an act of saber-rattling than an across-the-board
belief in him being innocent.  One reason for my position on this is that in the early days of the campaigns, the pleas for clemency stated that they
were not contesting the verdict, but rather, they were more interested in getting him back to Algeria.

Now, as we see in the 1901 letters*, etc., their position is that he was innocent all along, and in some missives, like Fuller's, the verdict was contested....the
tired old view that if since he was found guilty, why didn't he get the electric chair, completely and intentionally ( as they were attorneys) bypassing
the basis of second-degree murder convictions: the absence of premeditation.



*Not letters or opinions from civilians unaffiliated with the pardon campaigns.
100
General Discussion / Re: Ovide Robillard: Letters & Correspondence- 1897-1901
« Last post by Howard Brown on February 18, 2026, 08:56:49 am »
I don’t think I understand what Salomon and Robillard’s affidavit was meant to achieve?

They went to visit Ali - so what? Why did they think it necessary to swear to?

Good that you brought this up, Pete.

It has not been mentioned, as far as I remember, but I think it is rather strange that when Robillard and that unnamed reporter visited Ali in
Matteawan in October 1897.....Robillard spoke to Ali in English with no problem. An excerpt ( I'll put a link to the thread at the bottom....)


"
CONVERSES IN ENGLISH

"English is better," said Frenchy, with a smile. "Me speak English now: me talk only English; I study hard to understand English."
And during the six years that have passed since the crime, Frenchy must indeed have studied hard. His command of English is far better than that of the average fruit peddler on Park Row. He understands almost every thing that is said to him. His accent is only peculiar.
"Frenchy, to what country do you belong?" Mr. Robillard began.
"To France."


I think that their joint affidavit may have been submitted just to let the State know that they were in contact with him in 1899 as a demonstration of
their determination to seek 'justice' for their cause celebre.
By 1899, there are other reports which frankly demolish the claim in that affidavit that Ali 'speaks English brokenly and is almost unintelligible..'

I think that when they, and the French Consulate, and on occasion, reporters, brought up the 'Dead Horse' argument that he couldn't speak English, it
was a calculated ploy to elicit sympathy for their client, although Robillard and the unnamed 1897 reporter and Salomon knew better.

Just another element of the overall effort to get this guy out of prison/asylum/the country.



https://carriebrown.createaforum.com/general-discussion/pardon-may-be-granted-frenchy-new-york-world-october-4-1897-article/msg4273/#msg4273
Pages: 1 ... 8 9 [10]