Total Pageviews

Tuesday, November 19, 2013

kennedy

http://whokilledjohnfkennedy.blogspot.it/
In March 1963, Lee Harvey Oswald, using the alias "A. Hidell," purchased a 6.5 mm Carcano Model 91/38 carbine (also improperly called Mannlicher-Carcano) by mail order. He also purchased a revolver from a different company, by the same method. It is officially accepted that this was the rifle that was used in the Texas School Book Depository in Dallas, Texas to assassinate United States President John F. Kennedy as his motorcade drove by on November 22, 1963. Photographs of Oswald holding the rifle, a palmprint found upon examination of the rifle, and detective work tracing its sale, all eventually led to Oswald.Marina Oswald later testified she was told by Lee that the rifle was also used before in an attempt to assassinate retired U.S. Army General Edwin Walker in Dallas.
The Oswald rifle was an Italian Fucile di Fanteria (Eng: Infantry rifle) Modello 91/38 (Model 1891/1938) manufactured at the Royal Arms Factory in Terni, Italy, in 1940. Its serial number identified it as the single weapon of its type made with that number.

 Marina Oswald testified that Lee told her on April 10, 1963 that he had used the rifle earlier that night in an attempt to assassinate retired U.S. Army General Edwin Walker, a controversial political activist, at Walker's home in Dallas. The bullet was deflected from hitting Walker when it struck a window frame. Oswald escaped, hiding the rifle and retrieving it a day or two later.  
The Commission concluded that Oswald had smuggled the rifle into the Texas School Book Depository on the morning of the assassination, November 22, 1963, in a brown paper package, which he had told a co-worker contained "curtain rods," although Oswald later denied this, and said that he carried only a lunch bag that day. He also said that he did not own a rifle.
About half an hour after the assassination of President Kennedy, a floor-by-floor search of the Texas School Book Depository Building was commenced by Dallas police, joined by sheriff's deputies. The rifle was found by Deputy Sheriff Seymour Weitzman and Officer Gene Boone among cartons on the sixth floor.


Sebastian Latona, supervisor of the Latent Fingerprint section of the FBI’s identification Division, testified that the palm print found on the barrel of the rifle belonged to Lee Harvey Oswald. Experts agree that palm prints are as unique as fingerprints for purposes of establishing identification.

During his Marine Corps service in December 1956, Oswald scored a rating of sharpshooter (twice achieving 48 and 49 out of 50 shots during rapid fire at a stationary target 200 yards [183 m] away using a standard issue M1 Garand semi-automatic rifle), although in May 1959, he qualified as a marksman (a lower classification than that of sharpshooter). Military experts, after examining his records, characterized his firearms proficiency as "above average" and said he was, when compared to American civilian males of his age, "an excellent shot".
However, Nelson Delgado, a Marine in the same unit as Oswald, used to laugh at Oswald's shooting prowess and testified that Oswald often got "Maggie's drawers"; meaning a red flag that is waved from the rifle pits to indicate a complete miss of the target during qualification firing. He also said that Oswald did not seem to care if he missed or not.[58] Delgado was first stationed with Oswald in Santa Ana, California at the beginning of 1958 meeting him for the first time there and a little more than a year after Oswald first made sharpshooter
Skeptics have argued that expert marksmen could not duplicate Oswald's alleged feat in their first try during re-enactments by the Warren Commission (1964) and CBS (1967). In those tests the marksmen attempted to hit the target three times within 5.6 seconds.
Many of CBS's 11 volunteer marksmen, who (unlike Oswald) had no prior experience with a properly "sighted" Carcano, were able to hit the test target two times in under the time allowed. The only man who scored three hits was a firearms examiner from Maryland by the name of Howard Donahue.

The FBI tests of the Carcano's accuracy showed:
1) FBI firearms expert Robert A. Frazier testified that "It is a very accurate weapon. The targets we fired show that." From 15 yards (14 m), all three bullets in a test firing landed approximately 2½ inches high, and 1-inch (25 mm) to the right, in the area about the size of a dime. At 100 yards (91 m), the test shots landed 2½ to 5 inches (130 mm) high, within a 3 to 5-inch (130 mm) circle. Frazier testified that the scope's high variation would actually work in the shooter's favor: with a target moving away from the shooter, no "lead" correction would have been necessary to follow the target. "At that range, at that distance, 175 feet (53 m) to 265 feet (81 m), with this rifle and that telescopic sight, I would not have allowed any lead — I would not have made any correction for lead merely to hit a target of that size."
In an effort to test the rifle under conditions that matched the assassination, the Infantry Weapons Evaluation Branch of the U.S. Army's Ballistics Research Laboratory had expert riflemen fire the assassination weapon from a tower at three silhouette targets at distances of 175, 240, and 265 feet (81 m). Using the assassination rifle mounted with the telescopic sight, three marksmen, rated as master by the National Rifle Association, each fired two series of three shots. In the first series the firers required time spans of 4.6, 6.75, and 8.25 seconds respectively. On the second series they required 5.15, 6.45, and 7 seconds. The marksmen took as much time as they wanted for the first target at 175 feet (53 m), and all hit the target. For the first four attempts, the firers missed the second shot at 240 feet (73 m) by several inches. Five of the six shots hit the third target at 265 feet (81 m), the distance of President Kennedy from the sixth floor window when he was struck in the head.[66] None of the marksmen had any practice with the assassination weapon beforehand except to work the bolt.
CBS conducted a firing test in 1967 at the H. P. White Ballistics Laboratory located in Street, Maryland. For the test 11 marksmen from diverse backgrounds were invited to participate: 3 Maryland State Troopers, 1 weapons engineer, 1 sporting goods dealer, 1 sportsman, 1 ballistics technician, 1 ex-paratrooper, and 3 H. P. White employees. CBS provided several Carcano rifles for the test. Oswald's rifle was not used in this test. The targets were color-coded orange for head/shoulder silhouette and blue for a near miss. The results of the CBS test were as follows: 7 of 11 shooters were able to fire three rounds under 5.6 seconds (64%). Of those 7 shooters, 6 hit the orange target once (86%), and 5 hit the orange target twice (71%). Out of 60 rounds fired, 25 hit the orange (42%), 21 hit the blue portion of the target (35%), and there were 14 misses on the target (23%).
During the investigation by the House Select Committee on Assassinations (1976–1978), the lead attorneys for the Committee, Robert Blakey and Gary Cornwell, were allowed to use WC-139 at an FBI firing range. The attorneys wanted to see how fast the bolt action could be operated. Blakey was able to fire two rounds in 1.5 seconds and Cornwell fired two rounds in 1.2 seconds. This was an experiment to test a possible theory that Oswald in his excitement may have pointed and fired, as opposed to aimed and fired. Some critics of the Warren Commission had claimed it was impossible to fire a Carcano rifle in less than 2.3 seconds. Both the CBS and HSCA tests proved conclusively this claim is not accurate.

Vincent Bugliosi puts forward the hypothesis that Oswald fired the Carcano over open sights, which reduced the time necessary to take the three shots postulated by the Warren Commission. He notes that with the downward slope on Dealey Plaza, President Kennedy's head would have appeared to Oswald to be a stationary target as the vehicle moved down and away at a slow speed. This suggestion also therefore makes any claim that the scope was defective to be meaningless with respect to Oswald's shooting ability. However, with the M91/38 open sights being factory set to be accurate at 200 metres, the final shot being well under 100 metres and the M91/38 not being a very flat shooting rifle to begin with (up to ten inches high at 100 metres), this rifle would have been shooting quite high and would have made hitting JFK extremely difficult. This would have been further exacerbated by the steep downward angle from the sixth floor of the TSBD to the limo which would have made the shot go even higher than what Oswald would have been aiming at.Former U.S. Marine Corps Vietnam sniper Craig Roberts said: "I could not have done it," after he saw the view from the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository. He went on to say, "I analyzed the scene as a sniper...I looked at the engagement angles. It was entirely wrong...Three problems arose that would influence my shots. First, the target was moving away at a drastic angle to the right from the window, meaning that I would have to position my body to compete with the wall and a set of vertical water pipes...This would be extremely difficult for a right-handed shooter. Second, I would have to be ready to fire exactly when the target emerged past some tree branches that obscured the kill zone. Finally, I would have to deal with two factors at the same time: the curve of the street, and the high-to-low angle formula - a law of physics Oswald would not have known."
In 2008, The Discovery Channel produced a documentary that played out several different versions of the Kennedy Assassination on a dummy that had been specifically designed for ballistics tests, recreating the elevation, wind speed and distance at a California shooting range. Their forensic analysis, backed by computer models, showed that it was most likely that the shot that killed President Kennedy came from the Texas School Book Depository. They also concluded that a shot from the grassy knoll would have completely obliterated Kennedy's skull, contrary to what is seen in the Zapruder Film. However, in this conclusion they assumed that an assassin on the grassy knoll would have used hollow point ammunition, which expands on impact to maximize damage. Thereafter, they attempted a second shot from the grassy knoll position, using a solid round. Analysis revealed that this bullet would have passed through Kennedy's skull from right-to-left, causing an exit wound on the left-hand side of the skull that did not match any postmortem reports. They also suggested that the bullet trajectory from this shot would have struck and likely killed Mrs. Kennedy.Gunnery Sergeant Carlos Hathcock, one of the most decorated combat snipers in United States military history, echoed Robert's sentiments. Hathcock earned 93 confirmed kills in Vietnam and went on to become the senior instructor for the U.S. Marine Corps Sniper Instruction School at Quantico, Virginia. He said, "Let me tell you what we did at Quantico...We reconstructed the whole thing: the angle, the range, the moving target, the time limit, the obstacles, everything. I don't know how many times we tried, but we couldn't duplicate what the Warren Commission said Oswald did. Now if I can't do it, how in the world could a guy who was a non-qual on the rifle range (and later only qualified 'marksman') do it?"

Il 91/38 di Lee Harvey Oswald                                                      pag. 1 di 5

Dallas  22 Novembre 1963


Francesco Mannucci Benincasa
versione 2 – 22  Maggio 2006


Gli infiniti dubbi avanzati da più parti ed a più riprese che Lee Harvey Oswald abbia effettivamente ucciso il presidente Kennedy, si basano su testimonianze, circostanze, fatti ed ipotesi che comprendono ogni aspetto concreto e fisico, ogni contesto politico economico e sociale ed anche ogni possibile ed impossibile scenario di intrigo e complotto interno ed esterno che avvolgono quella intricata ed oscura vicenda.
Ciò che effettivamente accadde pochi minuti dopo mezzogiorno di quel sereno ed assolato 22 Novembre 1963 a Dallas non è per niente chiaro neppure oggi e, nonostante decenni di ricerche ed indagini,  probabilmente non lo sarà mai.
 Da allora la domanda  essenziale è sempre rimasta senza risposta:
 John F. Kennedy fu vittima di un assassino isolato, del gesto folle di un mitomane esaltato e dal    carattere debole facilmente manipolabile oppure di una torbida congiura  orchestrata ai massimi vertici e quindi di un vero e proprio colpo di stato?
Alcune delle obiezioni apparentemente più concrete  all’ipotesi dell’attentatore solitario si basano sulla asserita impossibilità da parte di Lee H. Oswald di sparare in pochi secondi, da 4 a 7, e con sufficiente precisione, almeno due colpi a segno su tre o quattro esplosi secondo la commissione Warren, con l’arma che fu trovata al sesto piano del “ Texas School Book Depository “ dove Lee H. Oswald lavorava e che risultò essere stata comperata da lui per corrispondenza da una delle tante ditte commerciali di armi e surplus militari esistenti in Texas e in tutti  gli Stati Uniti.
L’arma è un fucile d’ordinanza italiano modello 91/38 ossia un fucile sistema Mannlicher-Carcano modello 1891 modificato nel 1938 calibro 6.5 mm. a ripetizione ordinaria ( ovvero per sparare una successione di colpi occorre manovrare ad ogni colpo manualmente  l’otturatore scorrevole-girevole
per estrarre il bossolo della cartuccia già sparata ed introdurne un’altra nella camera di scoppio) con serbatoio per sei cartucce.
Le armi modello 91 ( fucili e moschetti ) furono adottate nel 1891 e rimasero in servizio nelle Forze Armate Italiane  nei modelli originari e in quelli successivamente modificati nel ’24,’38,’41 fino a tutta la seconda guerra mondiale e per alcuni modelli, specialmente quelli da cavalleria e per truppe speciali, anche successivamente e fino alla fine degli anni ’60 in reparti del Genio,Artiglieria e Carabinieri.
L’obiezione che l’arma in questione fosse di per se un’arma imprecisa e inaffidabile e perciò incapace delle prestazioni  richieste per giustificare l’ipotesi Lee H. Oswald assassino solitario, è del tutto infondata stando al parere degli esperti maggiormente qualificati e che anche io, per quanto poco la cosa possa valere, ho avuto modo di verificare più volte personalmente.
Ad esempio a pagina 552 del volume “ Armi leggere di tutto il mondo “ del noto esperto Edward Ezell  ( Ermanno Alberelli Editore .1988 ) a proposito delle armi modello 1891 e derivati  fra l’altro si legge:
 “ La cartuccia italiana da 6,5 x 52 mm. era per l’epoca molto avanzata e forniva prestazioni di prim’ordine nel suo ambito operativo; la sua messa a punto fu laboriosa e per ottenere da essa un funzionamento corretto si escogitò un sistema di rigatura progressiva delle canne” ( unico a quel tempo e che richiese un conseguente  processo tecnologico di produzione molto avanzato. n. d. a. )
“ Il fucile Modello ’91 fu comunque un’arma complessivamente semplice ( e perciò affidabile n.d.a.) e relativamente economica i cui punti di forza furono la robustezza e la rinomata precisione.    
“Esso dette ottima prova di se durante la prima guerra mondiale  e resse onorevolmente il confronto nel corso della seconda, sopratutto con le sue versioni più aggiornate.”

                                                                                                                                       pag. 2 di 5

Ed ancora a pagina 13 de “ Le armi della fanteria italiana nella seconda guerra mondiale “ di  Nicola Pignato  ( Albertelli Editore 1978 ) :
“ Il fucile o moschetto mod. 91 era l’arma caratteristica del fante e nonostante la tarda età era considerata sempre un’arma efficacissima specie se impiegata, come il combattimento moderno consiglia, alle brevi distanze ( non oltre i 300 m. ) ed in effetti il mod. 91 si è sempre rivelato un’arma efficiente e precisa.”
“ In una gara del 1969 a 300 m., un fucile mod. 91 costruito nel 1936 dalla Fabbrica d’Armi di Terni ha superato in precisione un ben più moderno Garand M1 30/06.” ( il Garand è un moderno fucile semiautomatico ed è stato l’arma standard dell’esercito americano  nella II G. M. nella guerra di Corea e fino a metà degli anni ’60. n.d.a. )
Con ciò si comprende che quell’arma  non era affatto né imprecisa né inaffidabile,  al contrario si tratta invece di una delle armi da guerra in assoluto più precise ed efficienti della prima metà del ‘900. I dispositivi di mira, molto semplici ed immediati, delle armi modello 91/38 sono predisposti con taratura esatta a 300 m.  ed entro quella distanza un tiratore con un minimo d’esperienza non avrebbe certamente avuto grandi difficoltà a piazzare  a bersaglio due colpi su tre o quattro ma, in più, c’è da ricordare che sul fucile sequestrato nel deposito dei libri era montato un potente mirino a cannocchiale che, se da un lato può  aver in qualche misura impacciato l’immediatezza della mira, certamente era in grado di migliorarne grandemente l’accuratezza.
C’è poi la questione del tempo impiegato per esplodere i tre o forse quattro colpi ( curioso che non ci sia certezza neppure su questo ), la commissione Warren parla di tre colpi in un tempo variabile fra i 4 ed i 7 secondi, il filmato di Abraham Zapruder non chiarisce completamente ma sembra indicare un tempo leggermente superiore e le dichiarazioni dei testimoni sono assolutamente discordanti.
Quello che si può dire per certo è che di per se la meccanica sistema Mannlicher-Carcano dell’arma è tale da consentire la ripetizione del colpo in un secondo e forse meno.
L’apertura e  la chiusura dell’otturatore sono molto dolci e non richiedono sforzo, la corsa indietro per estrarre il bossolo sparato e quella di ritorno in avanti per camerare la nuova cartuccia sono brevi e rettilinee  e nel complesso  se ci si limita a estrarre, caricare e premere il grilletto il tempo necessario è veramente esiguo.
Le cose si complicano se si vuole che i colpi vadano a bersaglio, per far questo occorre prendere la mira ed è qui che i secondi volano.
Naturalmente tutto dipende non più dall’arma in se stessa ma dalle capacità, esperienza, addestramento, conoscenza ed assuefazione alla specifica arma, sensibilità e si potrebbe perfino dire arte del tiratore ed un buon tiratore, ben allenato ed in “ sintonia” con il suo fucile, non ha bisogno di più che uno o due secondi per  mettere il suo mirino sul bersaglio.
Risulta che Lee H. Oswald era un marine addestrato al tiro, nessuno può escludere che abbia avuto ulteriore addestramento avanzato e specifico durante il suo soggiorno in Russia magari a cura del KGB, viveva in Texas  dove le armi da fuoco ed il loro uso sono comuni e diffusi ed in definitiva se aveva comperato quel fucile certamente lo avrà anche usato per provarlo, adattarci e tarare il cannocchiale, esercitandosi ed assuefacendosi ad esso.
Insomma neppure la questione tempo è determinante, un buon tiratore poteva benissimo sparare tre colpi e cioè ricaricare e sparare due volte dopo il primo sparo, nel tempo di sei sette secondi o poco più facendo centro almeno due volte.
E veniamo alla mia esperienza diretta  che a distanza di tanti anni ho ancora perfettamente presente e che ha dato spunto per questa considerazioni.
Negli anni 1956-58 prestavo il servizio militare in un reggimento di artiglieria contraerea e l’arma individuale in dotazione era appunto il moschetto da cavalleria modello 91/38 ( per gli esperti quello con la baionetta ripieghevole sotto la canna ).

                                                                                                                                              pag. 3 di 5

E’ utile notare che questo moschetto ha la canna lunga 451 mm. mentre quella del fucile mod. 91/38
è lunga 536 mm. il che incide assai sulla velocità iniziale del proiettile e quindi sulla radenza della traiettoria  e, infine, sulla precisione intrinseca dell’arma.
Naturalmente, nella normale routine addestrativa c’erano periodiche esercitazioni di tiro in occasione delle quali ebbi modo di apprezzare la rustica semplicità e buona precisione dell’arma.
Poiché di solito mi piazzavo onorevolmente vincendo qualche permesso od altro piccolo premio, conservo un buon ricordo di quelle esercitazioni ed una in particolare ricordo con particolare piacere poiché  fu anche  l’occasione per guadagnarmi  una graditissima licenza premio di “cinque giorni più il viaggio”.
Si trattava in realtà di una gara di pattuglie svolta a livello di Corpo d’Armata alla quale partecipavano squadre di diversi reggimenti d’artiglieria, cinque o sei nell’occasione, e che consisteva nell’effettuare nel minor tempo un percorso in terreno vario ( boschi, campi, colline )
con l’aiuto di bussola e mappa. Ad un certo punto si trovava un poligono di tiro e qui ci si doveva fermare per sparare un caricatore il più velocemente possibile per poi riprendere e concludere il percorso.
Ai fini del punteggio e della classifica finale cantavano sia il tempo totale impiegato per il percorso compreso il tempo impiegato per il tiro che i punti guadagnati in base ai centri fatti.
La mia pattuglia non brillò per celerità di marcia ma in compenso ci rifacemmo guadagnando punti al tiro ed io in particolare contribuii al  buon punteggio finale della squadra sparando sei colpi in soli trenta secondi ed azzeccando 4 centri.
Per comprendere appieno le ragioni della nostra e specialmente mia soddisfazione, a parte i “ cinque giorni più il viaggio”, occorre considerare che si arrivava al poligono con il fiatone per aver corso armati ed equipaggiati per alcuni chilometri, che il bersaglio era la sagoma N° 3 ( la sagoma di un soldato sdraiato a terra visto di fronte, in pratica una figura dai contorni incerti inscritta in un triangolo equilatero di circa 60 cm. di lato ) e che la distanza di tiro era di 300m..
 Sebbene alcune delle squadre avessero già in dotazione le moderne carabine semiautomatiche Winchester M1,  nessuno riuscì a fare meglio né come celerità né per numero di centri e questo probabilmente perché nessuno ebbe le mie stesse opportunità di iniziare a sparare molto precocemente né di apprendere le tecniche e le astuzie da un tiratore d’eccezione come mio padre.
Ora tornando alla vicenda di Dallas, trovo del tutto compatibili con l’arma attribuita a Lee H. Oswald sia i tempi che il numero di colpi messi a segno, infatti la mia sequenza di sei colpi ovvero cinque ricariche dopo il primo, ha richiesto secondo il giudice di gara non più di trenta secondi ossia sei secondi in media. 
Considerato che sparavo da una scomoda posizione a terra con addosso l’equipaggiamento e che per via del fiatone dovevo respirare  profondamente almeno un paio di volte prima di poter effettuare la pur breve apnea indispensabile per una ferma linea di mira, i miei sei secondi fra un colpo e l’altro, e ben indirizzati, non sembrano affatto male.
Naturalmente il killer solitario non doveva subire nulla di tutto ciò, poteva scegliersi con tutta calma la posizione più comoda e con un adatto appoggio per il fucile, non aveva il fiatone, disponeva di un’arma costruttivamente più precisa  di quella da me usata ed in più munita di un buon mirino a cannocchiale ed infine sparava da una distanza ben minore.
Si può sostenere che però il suo bersaglio era in movimento e quindi assai difficile da cogliere con buona precisione, in realtà non è così.
Venendo dall’aeroporto Love Field di Dallas e giunta ad un vasto spiazzo erboso, la Dealey Plaza, la  Lincol presidenziale rallenta per girare prima a destra e poi a sinistra per imboccare la Elm Street
passando sotto un edificio di sei piani adibito a magazzino di libri scolastici, a questo punto la velocità è di appena diciotto chilometri l’ora.
Che la velocità dell’auto sia modestissima è evidente dal film Zapruder là dove si vede l’agente di scorta che in pochi passi di corsa raggiunge l’auto presidenziale e vi sale dalla parte posteriore.
                                                                                                                                          pag. 4 di 5

La testa e le spalle del presidente che emergono dalla spalliera del sedile dell’auto che si muove così lentamente, viste attraverso le lenti del mirino a cannocchiale dal didietro, dall’altezza di sei piani e ad una distanza di non più di 80 m., debbono essere apparse come un bersaglio assai più definito e cospicuo della figura rappresentata nella sagoma N° 3 e, in pratica, virtualmente fermo.
Con questo, a mio parere ed esperienza, si potrebbe alla fine affermare che sì la tesi del killer solitario è possibile e plausibile dato che l’arma era perfettamente idonea e l’indiziato aveva le motivazioni, sufficiente preparazione tecnica, il mezzo, la capacità e l’occasione per farlo, senonché due circostanze contraddicono a vanificano questa tesi ed esattamente il famoso filmato Zapruder e le ferite riportate da Kennedy e dal governatore Connelly.
Nel filmato si vede chiaramente che mentre l’auto presidenziale ha girato in Elm Street  c’è una rapida sequenza di spari, prima il Presidente si porta le mani alla gola con una smorfia di dolore sul viso, subito dopo mentre l’auto continua la curva un secondo colpo lo raggiunge alla schiena e lo spinge in avanti; il governatore Connelly seduto di fronte a lui si gira sorpreso ma ha appena il tempo di accorgersi di essere coperto di sangue e ferito alla spalla al polso ed alla gamba si accascia fra le braccia della moglie.
A questo punto sono trascorsi soli pochi secondi, il corteo inizia ad accelerare ed ecco che si sente un ultimo sparo, un proiettile colpisce alla tempia destra il presidente e la testa che sta ancora movendosi in avanti viene violentemente spinta all’indietro mentre parte della calotta cranica e materia cerebrale vengono proiettati sul bagagliaio della macchina, Jacqueline in uno slancio impulsivo cerca di raccogliere i frammenti urlando “ Dio mio … il suo cervello sulle mie mani”.
Da questa sequenza si capisce benissimo che solo il secondo colpo arrivò da dietro e cioè dal deposito dei libri mentre il primo che ferì il presidente alla gola e soprattutto l’ultimo quello sicuramente mortale che gli fece scoppiare il cranio furono sparati dal davanti  e cioè dalla parte opposta  e precisamente dalla collinetta alberata sovrastata da un staccionata in legno delimitante la ferrovia indicata da molti testimoni, Zapruder compreso, come il luogo da cui partirono tutti o la maggior parte dei colpi.              
Il chirurgo Malcolm Perry che prestò i primi soccorsi al presidente pensò che il foro di circa sei millimetri nella parte anteriore del collo fosse il foro di entrata di un proiettile e allargò la ferita per farci entrare un tubo tracheale nel tentativo di fargli arrivare un po’ di ossigeno dando senza volere modo alla commissione Warren di spacciarlo sbrigativamente come il foro d’uscita della pallottola che colpì il presidente alla schiena  e che, una volta uscita, compiendo un’incredibile serie di giravolte e rimbalzi a zig zag avrebbe prodotto una ferita di dodici centimetri nella spalla del governatore Connelly uscire nuovamente per fratturargli le ossa del polso ed infine dopo averlo ferito alla gamba riuscire per l’ennesima volta ed essere ritrovata intatta su una barella!!     
E’ ben vero che la balistica terminale ( la scienza che studia l’effetto prodotto dall’impatto dei proiettili sui materiali e principalmente sui diversi tessuti del corpo umano e degli animali) riporta casi di proiettili dal comportamento del tutto anomalo e assolutamente stravagante e che, secondo quanto prescritto dalle Convenzioni di Ginevra del 1906 e 1929, le pallottole delle cartucce per armi portatili militari ( pistole, fucili, mitra, mitragliatrici leggere, medie e simili ) sono interamente rivestite ( full metal jacket , per gli esperti ) per evitare che colpendo tessuti duri come le ossa si deformino eccessivamente o, peggio, si frantumino arrecando maggiori ed inutili danni al
malcapitato bersaglio umano, tuttavia il comportamento di questa specialissima pallottola che attraversa i corpi di due uomini, frattura ossa e rimbalza avanti e indietro come una palla di biliardo restando intatta  più che stravagante è incredibile ed infatti, non a caso, fu chiamata “ the magic bullet”.
Sembra evidente che se la ferite alla schiena del Presidente e le tre ferite del Governatore, pressoché simultanee, non possono essere state provocate da quell’unico proiettile, allora bisogna ammettere  che ci furono più armi che spararono da direzioni diverse e più  pallottole che colpirono.

                                                                                                                                          pag. 5 di 5

Le deposizioni dei testimoni, per quanto confuse e contraddittorie, tendono comunque ad indicare proprio questo: una iniziale seri di spari molto ravvicinati  ( chi dice due, chi tre , chi non sa dirlo, ecc. ) seguiti dopo un intervallo breve ma percepibile da un ultimo  colpo ( forse il terzo o il quarto )   e la cui provenienza, nella maggioranza, ritennero essere la collinetta alberata nella cui direzione infatti molti si voltarono o si mossero.
Alcuni sostennero anche di aver visto, prima dell’arrivo del corteo presidenziale, salire sulla collinetta o aggirarvisi alcuni uomini armati di fucile e di averli scambiati per agenti del servizio di sicurezza.
La commissione Warren invece, concluse affermando che fu il solo Lee Harvey Oswald a sparare tre colpi in rapida successione di cui il primo andò a vuoto e gli altri due fecero tutto il macello. Questa tesi più che di un puntello ha bisogno di un paracadute per reggersi: innanzitutto è quantomeno paradossale che abbia sbagliato il primo colpo, per sparare il quale aveva  avuto tutto l’agio ed il tempo per prepararsi e mirare accuratamente, mentre con i due colpi successivi, affrettatamente puntati e tirati con intuibile concitazione, fa due centri perfetti  ed in più, trascurando le ferite del Governatore Connelly, con pallottole davvero speciali e capaci di fare le conversioni ad U per giustificare le ferite del Presidente.
La ferita alla gola era sicuramente il foro d’ingresso, quello di uscita di un proiettile di questo tipo  avrebbe fatto un cratere di almeno cinque o sei centimetri di diametro cioè dieci volte più grande come infatti successe al Governatore  che si ritrovò un simile squarcio sotto la mammella quale risultato dell’uscita del proiettile che lo colpì alla spalla.
E che dire della ferita alla testa se nel filmato Zapruder si vede con tutta chiarezza il capo di Kennedy sbattuto all’indietro mentre un getto di ossa e materia cerebrale schizza sul portabagagli dell’auto disperatamente inseguito da Jacqueline?
E’ del tutto evidente che entrambi questi colpi provengono da davanti e non dalle spalle del Presidente.
Ed allora? Allora, in realtà, la commissione Warren nominata direttamente dal presidente Lyndon Johnson  e formata in maggioranza da persone di sua scelta, non ha fatto altro che riempire i 22 volumi del rapporto  con semi verità, travisamenti, omissioni, abbondanza di particolari inutili e futilità  quando non veri e propri falsi pur di giungere comunque alla comoda dimostrazione che non ci fu nessun complotto ma solo la criminale azione di un disadattato traditore e comunista che, per pura coincidenza, era stato a sua volta sveltamente e pulitamente spacciato.
Io credo che con buona approssimazione si possa ritenere che Lee Harvey Oswald  fu uno dei partecipi  dell’attentato e che effettivamente sparò con il suo 91/38 uno o più colpi al presidente Kennedy colpendolo alla schiena con quella pallottola poi ritrovata intatta non perché fosse magica ma perché casualmente entrò ed uscì senza incontrare ossa od altri ostacoli duri.
La pallottola  o le pallottole che uccisero Kennedy però non furono le sue ( o meglio le nostre poiché  made in Italy ) quelle che lo ferirono alla gola e che gli devastarono il cranio uccidendolo furono certamente esplose dalla collinetta e cioè dal davanti e si può perfino arguire, dato la dimensione del foro alla gola, il tipo di devastante ferita alla testa e dalle testimonianze che descrivono il rumore degli spari come “secco ma non molto forte” ( qualcuno li scambiò addirittura per petardi di festa) che le cartucce usate furono scelte fra la moltitudine di calibri intorno ai sei mm. specificatamente indicate per la caccia  alla media selvaggina americana  (daini, cervi e simili),   qualcosa come delle 222 Remington ( 5,64 mm. simili alle nostre 6,5x52 ma più veloci e devastanti specie se in qualcuna delle tante versioni da caccia a punta molle o, peggio, a punta cava) impiegate in una carabina da caccia con ottica di precisione, un’insieme molto americano ed allora di grande moda.
 Lee Harvey Oswald, in definitiva, forse fu solo il soggetto perfetto per essere strumentalizzato ed infine inghiottito da un affare immensamente più grande di lui  dove la sua parte doveva essere fin dall’inizio quella dell’utile ed ignaro capro espiatorio
Posted by at No comments:

Friday, November 15, 2013

EDEN

She sings of sun and Olive
and of herself for selfs sake.
The olives enrich that that grow near her
and enrich us as Socrates did.
They enroach upon our night
asnd build low havens on earth.
You can touch them when they fall
and you can take them into your mouth
and feel her evenly.
You gather them with all their brusing
and in the garden of Eden
you are never alone.
Then hold them
and build your deepest wish
by the morning light it will be gone.
These and her are the dark
green joys of the Salento soil
and how glorious is the colour
the rough taste
of bruised lips
that retains its flower and its eden.
Posted by at No comments:

Thursday, November 14, 2013

BUSINESS SUCCESS STORY

Reggae Reggae Sauce is a Jamaican jerk spice, popularised by creator Levi Roots' appearance on BBC2's Dragons' Den.
Dragon's Den investor Peter Jones has since classified the product as one of his most successful investments from the show.[1]

History

On 7 February 2007, Levi Roots appeared on Dragons' Den and convinced Peter Jones and Richard Farleigh to invest £50,000 in return for 40% of his company.[2] The sauce gained fame as a result of his memorable television appearance and on 9 February, Sainsbury's were confirmed to be interested in stocking it.[3] On 7 March, the sauce went on sale nationwide.[4]
The product's catch line is "Put some music in your food". Levi Roots released an accompanying single of his "Reggae Reggae Sauce Song" which he sang whilst pitching his product on Dragons' Den, and also on Harry Hill's TV Burp. The song was released as a download with proceeds going to Comic Relief.[5] In September 2008, Reggae Reggae Sauce was voted as a CoolBrand by a panel of experts and the British public.

Controversy over the product's origins

The origin of the recipe is disputed by Tony Bailey, who runs a West Indian takeaway in Brixton, South London; "The recipe is mine. People round here know, but we don’t say."[6]
In 2010, Bailey filed a preliminary claim in the High Court for more than £300,000 claiming that, as the inventor of the sauce, he was entitled to a share of profits.[7]
Roots ran a jerk chicken stall at the Notting Hill Carnival for 15 years with Bailey.[8] Levi Roots gave evidence to the High Court and admitted that previous claims made by him on Dragons Den and in marketing for his product, including the claim that the recipe was his grandmother's, were untrue.[9]
However, Judge Mark Pelling QC dismissed Mr Bailey's claims for breach of contract and breach of confidence. He told the court: "This was a dishonest claim, dishonestly advanced." No solid evidence had been offered to support Mr Bailey's claim that he was the original inventor of the sauce.[10] Lawyers said they estimated the legal battle had cost more than £1m in total and the judge said Mr Roots was entitled to have his costs paid.[11]

Production and Expansion

Reggae Reggae Sauce is manufactured by G Costa, a division of Associated British Foods.
Despite Levi saying he wanted production of his sauce to continue in the UK, production moved from Wales to Poland in March 2007.[12]
Initially the sauce was carried exclusively in Sainsbury's supermarkets[13] but now many supermarkets in the UK and Ireland stock the sauce. A follow-up episode of Dragons' Den, aired on 18 July 2007, revealed that Sainsbury's had expected the sauce to sell 50,000 bottles in its first year. In fact it sold 40,000-50,000 bottles per week.[14]
In the first half of 2008, Roots launched "Love Apple Tomato Sauce" and "Fiery Guava Dipping Sauce" in the same style as Reggae Reggae sauce. A cookbook called Reggae Reggae Cookbook was released in June 2008. The "Love Apple Tomato Sauce" was later renamed "Reggae Reggae Tomato Ketchup".
Restaurants Subway,[15] JD Wetherspoon, Hungry Horse, Slug and Lettuce as well as the Scream Pub chain now offer the sauce on various menu items. In July 2009, Birds Eye released chicken Chargrills in Reggae Reggae Sauce.
In the summer of 2010, snacks were added to the range of products with the launch of Reggae Reggae Peanuts and Cashews. These peanuts are covered in the original Reggae Reggae Sauce and seasonings. Subsequently a range of Reggae Reggae flavoured Caribbean ready meals was launched.[16]
In September 2010, Morrisons supermarket announced it would be carrying a range of Levi Roots sandwiches.[17]
In April 2011, Domino's Pizza in the UK launched a limited edition "Reggae Reggae Pizza", a combination of toppings with the Reggae Reggae sauce.[18] In 2012 KFC launched a reggae reggae box meal.
The range has expanded into other areas such as Levi Roots Jamaica Ginger Cake and Levi Roots Caribbean Crush drink [19] which is sold in mainstream UK supermarkets.
In 2012, a new "Mild" variant of the sauce was released. A new advert was made at the same time.
Posted by at No comments:

Wednesday, November 13, 2013

HUDSON RIVER POEM

 No breathtaking 360 degree panoramic views of New York City sunsets over the Hudson River,
My first and only luxury is a day off from the Meatpacking District. 
To retreat and redefine the land.
 River vistas
offer me this at least
please for once,
infused with spice .
A day trip piping along the Hudson
leaving the room and your memory.

Sophisticated and minimalist,
a color palette of neutrals and grays with a shot of blackberry.
A lavish use of green
wall covering, rich rich rich.
Dramatic sheets of backlit translucent glass .
The striking design of my God,
richly textured walls of young and old time,
custom that desired riverscape.

underwater lights and music open 365 days a year,
Plunge.
Posted by at No comments:

Tuesday, November 12, 2013

LONDON 3 DAY TOUR

London combines the best of old-world charm and modern-day vibrancy in one city. If you only have three days to see the sights, however, it can be overwhelming. By focusing on your individual interests and keeping an eye toward attractions that are in the same geographical area, you can maximize both your enjoyment and the amount you're able to see.
Sponsored Link
Top 10 London Attraction
How to Save on London Attraction?, Free Entry to Top 10 Attraction -
www.londonpass.com​/​top-Attraction

Climate

London's reputation for rain and fog is well deserved most times of year. You'll find the mildest and driest weather -- and the crowds of tourists -- in late May, June and July. If you don't mind a little rain, late September and October are also excellent times to visit London. Londoners deem any temperature below 50 degrees "cold" -- so don't be put off by warnings about October's brisk temperatures.

What to Bring

No matter what time of year you go, an umbrella is a necessity, as is a light jacket or sweater. Otherwise, pack light for your three-day trip. A pair of comfortable walking shoes, one or two pairs of pants in a neutral color, and three nice tops should do fine. If you plan on going to the theater, consider bringing a black dress or a pair of dress pants and an Oxford shirt in non-wrinkling fabrics. While London is dressier than most cities in the US, the emphasis is on comfortable and functional clothes rather than style.

Indoor Attractions

A tour of Buckingham Palace is a must-do for any visitor to London, but it is only open to visitors when the Queen is not in residence. You can purchase tickets at the palace or online. London also boasts many world-class museums. The British Museum, the Victoria and Albert Museum and the National Gallery are probably the most famous, but obscure museums like the Churchill Museum are worth a visit as well. Famous for its theaters, the West End and Covent Garden are worth squeezing in you're interested in drama. All of these attractions are within walking distance of one another.

Outdoor Attractions

London has some of the world's most beautiful city parks. St. James' Park, the Buckingham Palace Gardens, Hyde Park and Regents' Park are within a half-hour's walking distance of one another near the West End. Just across Whitehall Street from St. James' Park are the Houses of Parliament and the beginning of the Victoria Embankment, which runs along the River Thames as far as Blackfriars Bridge. Cross the Thames at the Millennium Bridge to visit Shakespeare's Globe Theatre. You can visit all these attractions in one day.

Getting Around

Purchase an Oyster Card on your first day in London and use it to ride the extensive network of city buses and the Underground. More expensive, but worth it once for the experience, are the London black cabs -- which are no longer all black, but come in a multitude of rainbow colors. Walking as much as possible will help you get the most out of your three days in London.

Considerations

Try to plan your three-day itinerary to center on one part of town and purchase a London Pass to get discounts on attractions. Cutting down travel time will free you up to spend more time seeing the sights. Central London is easily walkable, and basing yourself out of Russell Square or the West End gives you the best combination of an interesting neighborhood, comfortable hotels and walkability. However, try not to pack your days so full that you lose the time to stop and enjoy your trip.
entrepreneurship, travel and international politics have been published on a number of websites, including USAToday, Chron.com, LewRockwell.com and Matador Abroad. Chandos holds a Bachelor of Arts in history from Columbia University.

DAY ONE Saints & the City: A Walk
For somewhere so unashamedly dedicated to Mammon, the financial center of London also offers plenty of spiritual comfort (which no doubt comes in handy when stocks start tumbling). Our favorite historic churches can be comfortably toured in a day -- or an afternoon, if you're quick.
Beginning at Temple Tube, turn left out of the station, and head north up Arundel Place. Turn right onto the Strand, and stroll east along Fleet Street till you reach Prince Henry's Room, 17 Fleet St. (tel. 020/7332-1097), one of London's only surviving houses to pre-date the Great Fire of 1666. Turn right through the stone arch by the house, down Inner Temple Lane to Temple Church, King's Bench Walk, EC4 (tel. 020/7353-3470; www.templechurch.com), a round church founded in the late 12th century by the Knights Templar, one of the most powerful religious military orders during the Crusades. Much restored and rebuilt in subsequent centuries, it has enjoyed a resurgence of interest since being featured in The Da Vinci Code. Admission is free. Opening hours are Monday, Tuesday, and Friday 11am to 12:30pm and 1 to 4pm, Wednesday 2 to 4pm, Thursday 11am to 12:30pm and 2 to 3:30pm, Saturday 11am to 12:30pm and 1 to 3pm, and Sunday 1 to 3:30pm.
Back on Fleet Street continue east. Take a right down Salisbury Court, and then a left onto St. Bride's Passage for St. Bride's, Fleet St., EC4 (tel. 020/7427-0133; www.stbrides.com), perhaps the city's oldest church, founded back in the 6th century. Rebuilt by Sir Christopher Wren after the Great Fire, its distinctive multistep spire was said to have inspired the design of modern wedding cakes. It's known as the "Journalists' Church," owing to its proximity to Fleet Street, the old home of the British Press. It's free to enter. Hours are Monday through Friday 8am to 6pm, Saturday 11am to 3pm, and Sunday 10am to 1pm and 5 to 7:30pm.
Return to Fleet Street and head east along Ludgate Hill. A diversion north up Old Bailey will take you past the Central Criminal Court (also more commonly known as the Old Bailey). If you crane your neck you should just about be able to make out the statue of Lady Liberty holding a sword and a set of scales perched upon its roof. Carry on north, along Giltspur Street and West Smithfield, bearing right until you reach St. Bartholomew-the-Great, 6-9 Kinghorn St., EC1 (tel. 020/7606-5171; www.greatstbarts.com). Begun in 1123, this is one of the best examples of large scale Norman architecture in the city. Admission is £4, and it's open Monday to Friday 8:30am to 5pm, Saturday 10:30am to 4pm, and Sunday 8:30am to 8pm. Opposite, St. Bartholomew's Hospital ("Barts") has a small Hospital Museum of medical curiosities (North Wing, West Smithfield, EC1; tel. 020/3465-5798; www.bartsandthelondon.nhs.uk). It's free, and open Monday through Friday 10am to 4pm. Guided tours of the collection are given at 2pm on Fridays (£5).
Retrace your steps back down to Ludgate Hill and continue east until the glorious façade of St. Paul's Cathedral, surely the city's finest church, looms into view. Pass through the cathedral's churchyard onto New Change, site of a major new shopping center, One New Change, and then right on Cheapside for St. Mary-le-Bow (tel. 020/7248-5139; www.stmarylebow.co.uk), otherwise known as the "Cockney Church"; to be a "true Cockney," you must be born within the sound of its bells. First erected around 1,000 years ago, it was rebuilt by Sir Christopher Wren following the Great Fire and again, in the style of Wren, after World War II. It's open Monday to Friday 6:30am to 6pm; admission is free.
Continue east, then southeast down King William Street, and finally east along Eastcheap and Great Tower Street to All-Hallows-by-the-Tower, Byward St., EC3 (tel. 020/7481-2928; www.allhallowsbythetower.org.uk), just down the road from (and providing elevated views over) the Tower of London. When the first church was built here in the 7th century, the site had already been in use for several centuries. You can see Roman, Saxon, and medieval remains at its small museum. The famous diarist Samuel Pepys supposedly watched the progress of the Great Fire from the church's spire. Admission to the church is free; a crypt museum tour costs £6. Museum hours are Monday to Friday 10am to 5:30pm, Saturday 10am to 5pm, and Sunday 1 to 5pm. The church is open Monday to Friday 8am to 6pm, Saturday and Sunday 10am to 5pm.
From here it's a short walk east to the nearest Tube station, Tower Hill.

DAY TWO
Day One: Tower of London, Thames Cruise, Tate Modern/Shakespeare's Globe, Pub Lunch, Dinner & the Theatre
A must for any first time visitor to London is a visit to the Tower of London in the shadow of Tower Bridge. You can take a package tour like the Gems of London Tour which takes 6 hours and includes a tour of the City of London, the Tower, entry to St. Paul's Cathedral and a Thames River Cruise. We recommend you buy a One Day River Roamer pass on the Thames Clipper and Skip the Line Tickets to Tower of London separately. You can buy them both online in advance and print out vouchers. The combo gives you a more flexibility and you can cruise up and down the Thames at your own speed and see London from the water. You can catch a Thames Clipper at Embankment pier, one block from Charing Cross Hotel/Station. The catamarans depart every 20 minutes from Embankment, London Bridge, Tower, Greenwich, Waterloo, Canary Wharf and The O2 (formerly Millenium Dome), now London's premier concert venue. You will cruise right by the London Eye, Shakespeare's Globe, Tate Modern, HMS Belfast, Tower Bridge and the Tower of London, etc.
Cruise to the Tower, take the free tour given by the Beefeater Yeoman guides who are all comedians full of facts and wise cracks. When they finish you can go on

Photography is allowed at the Tate Modern, a cavernous former power station converted to art showplace and stage for happenings.
your own to see the crown jewels in the Jewel Tower and the collection of armor and weapons in the White Tower. All this in about 3 hours or so. Take a Thames Clipper back to the Globe or Tate Modern. You can enjoy lunch on the South bank of the Thames at a pub. We recommend the Swan right next door to Shakespeare's Globe. It is very civilized, the service is good and the food excellent.
After lunch vist the Tate Modern or Shakespeare's Globe. You can then walk across the Millenium foot bridge to St. Paul's Cathedral or cruise back on the Clipper to Enbankment and return to your hotel for a short break. Dinner is on you. There are any number of restaurants offering theatre menus within walking distance of Trafalgar Square. After dinner enjoy a show. The concierge at your hotel can get your theatre tickets for you or you can buy them ahead of time online by clicking here. You can also get them at a discount in Leicester Square or in Covent Garden at any of their discount ticket booths. To tired for a show, save it for tomorrow. Take a walk down by the Thames to see the London Eye light up at night and the lights of London.

DAY THREE The British Museum, Covent Garden/Hampton Court Palace, Dinner & the Theatre
Now that you have the feel of the place you can take your time in the morning. Enjoy a proper English breakfast, read the paper. Afterwards, if it's a nice clear day, why not take a short flight on the London Eye and get a birds eye view of the city. Great photo opportunity. Late morning head over to the British Museum for some quality time with artifacts from around the world. See the Rosetta Stone, stone sculpture from Egypt, finds from Roman Britain and so much more. They have a Cafe where you can get a bite to eat and a drink which will save you time finding a restaurant or pub.
After the British Museum, take a cab to Covent Garden and enjoy the street theatre, shops and atmosphere. The market has vendors offering cheap street food like paella cooked in large flat pans outside and other treats and there are pleny of other options if you are hungry or just want to sit and watch the world go

Ticket booth in Covent Garden area
by for a bit. You can spend hours here and not be bored in the slightest. You can get theatre tickets at one of the booths here and when you've had quite enough, head back to home base and get cleaned up for an early dinner and a show.
Another option for the afternoon is a visit to Hampton Court Palace where King Henry VIII wooed his many wives. You can get a day pass online and visit at your convenience. The Palace is open 10:00am to 4:30pm, with last admission at 3:30pm. You can get to Hampton Court by taxi or train. South West Trains run services direct from London Waterloo station to Hampton Court a 35 minute ride. The palace is a 200 metre walk across the bridge from the station. Allow about 3 hours for the trip and your visit. Plan your visit here.



DAY FOUR



 

Posted by at No comments:

Sunday, October 27, 2013

historical crime in london

Fagin the king of the pickpockets in Oliver Twist.
Was London a nice and peaceful place in Victorian London? The short answer would seem to be, not at all. Oliver Twist has given a startling and lasting impression of what the streets of London were like at the beginning of Queen Victoria's reign, with dens of thieves in the East End turning boys like Oliver into "fogle-hunters" (see the opening of Chapter XI), burly housebreakers like Bill Sikes setting off through the sleeping town to practice their skills in the leafy suburbs, and loose women like Nancy being battered to death in dingy rooms or down dark alleys. A generation later, Charles Dickens (Jr) is hardly more reassuring than his father, advising householders to lock up carefully and bring their mud-scrapers in at night if they happened to like the patterns on them. Later in the reign too, social problem novels like George Gissing's The Nether World (1889) were still painting a lurid picture of slums in the East End, whose denizens grew as "vile" as their surroundings (Gissing Ch VIII), and were, of course, only a stone's throw from the City and (worse!) only a couple of stone's throws away from the monied residents of the West End
During the 1840s, London became established as the capital of the British Empire, the centre of international trade and the hub of a vast world market. As it became part of the rapidly expanding city, Holloway Road teemed with places of consumption, pleasure and escape – department stores, music halls, theatres and picture palaces.
From 1840 onwards, small shops opened for business, particularly on the east side of Holloway Road, with an abundance of goods displayed behind the newly fashionable plate glass. The typical distinctive Victorian shop had timber panelled shopfront, with perhaps an awning, and a sign above giving the name of the proprietor.
By the end of the nineteenth century, Holloway Road was in its heyday. It was a flourishing urban centre with famous department stores such as James Selby (opening in 1896 as Milliners and General Draper), Thomas Usher (nos. 376 – 380), and Jones Brothers (nos. 348 –366). A landmark was Beale’s Restaurant, an ornate and imposing neo Gothic five storey building built on the corner of Tollington Road in 1869. In stark contrast to the bright department stores, bargaining and buying and selling were carried out on the street: match sellers, shoe blacks, milkmen, drinks sellers, prostitutes and beggars.Crime begins with wealth and thus follows it around,The destruction of Beale’s in 1969, and the arrival of Sainsbury’s (now Argos) in 1970, heralded the arrival of the supermarket in Holloway Road. In the late 1980s, the Nag’s Head Shopping Arcade was built. In 1990, Jones Brothers closed, in the face of public outcry, to be replaced by a branch of Waitrose. Other supermarkets have recently appeared near Archway and Highbury Corner. Today, Holloway Road is a mix of the standardised and the particular. Alongside the ubiquitous names of the British high street, Selby’s department store thrives at the Nag’s Head.
 Stretching from Highbury Corner to Eden Grove, the Holloway Road Conservation Grant Scheme has funded improvements to nineteenth century shop fronts as a means of encouraging regeneration and economic vitality.
Transformed from the genteel, well-to-do shopping street of the 1890s, frequented by Mr Pooter, Holloway Road today is a vibrant inner London high road, where the shops provide the everyday necessities, alongside the weird, the exotic, the down at heel, and the many hidden treasures.
In the 1890s it appears that in all 73,240 persons were taken into custody, of whom 45,941 were males, and 27,209 females; 18,000 of the apprehensions were on account of drunkenness, 8160 for unlawful possession of goods, 7021 for simple larceny, 6763 for common assaults, 2194 for assaults on the police; 4303 women were taken into custody as prostitutes. (qtd. in Jackson 63)
But there much to suggest that this was only the tip of the iceberg. The problem was that crimes often went unrecorded, let alone solved. In the early years, people had little confidence in their new police force (See Bloy, "Metropolitan Police Force"). Peel had organised London into seventeen police regions, and insisted "that merit, not patronage, must from the outset govern the recruitment of his new police officers" (Hurd 104); but the first intakes of "bobbies" left much to be desired. Many were quickly dismissed, "mainly for drunkenness on duty" (Richardson 436). Victims of thefts, muggings and so on knew it was useless to complain to them. "We never tell the police," said one tradesman in the Gray's Inn Road area, "it's no good" (qtd. in White 342). Moreover, some were intimidated by their assailants, or embarrassed by the circumstances of the crime — their own drunkenness at that time, for example, or involvement with prostitutes. For their part, the police, all too aware of their own deficiencies, kept a separate tally for suspected crimes, which did not need to be included in the figures of known crimes (White 343). Even cases of murder (including infanticide) could escape from the records when coroners, dependent on limited forensic evidence, were forced to return open verdicts. There were some humane judges, too, who engineered acquittals for minor offences then still punishable by transportation or even death (Parker 439). Finally, record-keeping itself had yet to come of age. The precursor of the Criminal Records Office was set up only in 1869. In all likelihood, then, "peace-loving citizens" tried to keep their wits about them at all times.Leaving aside drunkenness, theft was rampant. While children might pickpocket and steal from barrows on the streets, women might engage in shoplifting, and, as for London's sly con men, cheats, "magsmen" or "sharpers," they were notorious. So were the housebreakers working in teams, and slipping into homes and shops and warehouses. Mugging, with its associated violence, was rife. A hanky dipped in chloroform might be used to subdue someone before robbing him, or a man's hat might be tipped over his face to facilitate the crime (this was called "bonneting"). Another ruse was to lure men down to the riverside by using prostitutes as decoys. The dupes would then be beaten up and robbed out of sight of passers-by. Violence could, of course, easily extend to murder. Prostitutes themselves ran huge risks. No one knows how many of them were strangled or stabbed or butchered (Jack the Ripper was far from the only villain, and Dickens's Nancy must be mourned for many a pitiful "lost woman"). No respectable woman would have ventured forth after dark at all, if she had any choice in the matter. Even if a policeman appeared on the crime scene, he might be driven off by having nitric acid thrown in his face. The helpless were at special risk. Well-turned-out children might be waylaid, dragged down an alley, and stripped of their finery, or pet dogs kidnapped for ransom or simply filched for their skins. Around mid-century, and again in 1862, "garrotting" or half-strangling unwary pedestrians from behind while accomplices stripped them of their valuables, caused great waves of panic (White 337). There were big-time criminals as well as gangs of street hooligans. In a new version of highway robbery, for instance, bankers' consignments might be snatched in transit. There was also a surge in gun crime in the 1880s, and hardened burglars "increasingly went armed"Probably the riskiest places for theft and pickpocketing were in the open markets of the East End (Whitechapel, the haunt of Jack the Ripper in 1888, often crops up in this context too), the insalubrious areas of south London, and crowded railway stations. But it was risky to be anywhere where many people gathered or, alternatively, where there was no one else around. Lee Jackson's Dictionary of Victorian London includes a letter to The Times from 1850, recording a mugging by Regent's Park. The assailants were two fashionably-dressed young men who started by chatting to their victim quite innocuously about the weather, and later eluded a policemen who thought them to be "gents" larking around after a night on the town (174). Liza Picard in Victorian London gives the case of an MP "walking along Pall Mall in broad daylight one day in 1862, when two men attacked and 'garrotted' him, one beating him while the other stole his watch"; Picard quotes a French visitor who wrote in 1866: "Crime is developing itself into a mania ... London has ceased to be a city which one can traverse at night with mind at rest and the hands in the pockets" (329). As Charles Dickens Jr's advice suggests, home wasn't much of a refuge either, with large rises in housebreaking recorded towards the end of the century (White 335). There was general panic in the capital on more than one occasion, the worst being on "Bloody Sunday" in November 1887 when hordes of East Enders, the dreaded "King Mob," were denied access to Trafalgar Square for a socialist demonstration. "[O]ne feels as if one might meet violence any where," wrote the social reformer Octavia Hill in 1886 (qtd. in Walkowitz 29).London did get safer on the whole. The Metropolitan Police Force grew larger and more efficient. Such was the show of force that at Trafalgar Square, for example, hundreds of workers were injured, and three people died. This upset some people (see Cody, "Morris's Socialism"), but generally speaking "[b]y the 1880s the police were more popular than they had been in the 1830s" (Ford and Harrison 239). The policeman's whistle, replacing the original rattle, was usually enough to scatter the common class of scoundrels. The use of telegraphs, photography and (right at the end of the period) fingerprinting all helped to make life riskier for habitual offenders. But perhaps more important than improved policing were improved social conditions, due in no small part to the alerting of the public to the roots of crime — most forcibly by Dickens. The clearing of "rookeries" or slums by new roads like New Oxford Street (which cut across the rookery at St Giles), the charitable efforts of the great philanthropists like George Peabody and Angela Burdett-Coutts, and the introduction of compulsory elementary education in 1870, all had an impact. For example, the number of convicts under the age of seventeen declined markedly during the 1870s, though less rapidly thereafter (Ford and Harrison 240). Ritchie had pointed out that "[t]he period of life most prolific of crime is that between the 20th and 25th years" (qtd. in Jackson 63), so the provision of educational and recreational opportunities for young men must have helped too. Charles Booth, the well-known social investigator, recorded an interview with Louis Vedy of the Y Police Division, Kentish Town, on 2 December 1897: "On the whole he said crime was decreasing especially crime with violence. People are less brutal than they used to be. Change due he thinks to better teaching. Even the reformatories turn out a large proportion who become respectable citizens." There were still what Walter Besant calls "certain street companies" (174), in other words, gangs of hooligans looking for trouble. Perhaps these will always prowl our urban jungles. And mugging, knifing and so on would never be eliminated. Still, on the whole, social commentators agree that "London was a more law-abiding city in the third and fourth quarters of the [nineteenth] century than before and a less brutal and savage place as well" (White 349).
Gender-related crimes, like domestic violence and infanticide, were still liable to go unreported. Account for this in the context of women's issues in general. (It would be useful to take a look at Timothy Farrell's "Separate Spheres: Victorian Constructions of Gender in Great Expectations.")
Dickens is the most important author to have dealt with this subject. As well as Oliver Twist and Great Expectations, see particularly Bleak House; also Philip Collins's Dickens and Crime, now in its 3rd ed. (Palgrave Macmillan, 1995). This has a whole chapter on the police, for instance. Why was Dickens charged with sentimentalising or (like William Harrison Ainsworth) romanticising the criminal? Are the charges fair?
Despite evident improvements, the perception of crime in the East End seems to have grown rather than diminished during this period. What factors fuelled people's fears? (As source material, look up some of the other contemporary books about the area, such as John Hollingshead's Ragged London in 1861 [1861], Andrew Mearns's The Bitter Cry of Outcast London [1883], Margaret Harkness's In Darkest London [1889] and Walter Besant's East London [1899]. Only a little later, Jack London penetrated its unhallowed depths, recording the experience in The People of the Abyss [1903], available here.)
How does the problem of crime in Victorian London relate to today's society? Note that only recently (25 January 2008) many London newspapers ran reports on "Operation Caddy," the appropriately Dickensian code-name for police raids on suspected "modern Fagins," who were thought to be training child slaves for pickpocketing and so on.
London,  especially areas like the East End, contained criminal areas from earliest times. Some of the old 'rookeries' such a Clerkenwell had been hideouts for generations of professional burglars, pickpockets, forgers and the like. But was there anything approaching the continuous activity  that we associate with organised crime, and what was its relationship with the local communities from which its members came?
The character of the London criminal scene in the years just before the First World War is revealed in the life of Arthur Harding, whose memories were published by the historian Raphael Samuel. Harding described his native area of Whitechapel at the turn of the century:
"Edward Emmanuel had a group of Jewish terrors. There was Jackie Berman. He told a pack of lies against me in the vendetta case - he had me put away… Bobby Levy - he lived down Chingford way - and his brother Moey. Bobby Nark - he was a good fighting chap. In later years all the Jewish terrors worked with the Italian mob on the race course… The Narks were a famous Jewish family from out of Aldgate. Bobby was a fine big fellow though he wasn't very brainy. His team used to hang out in a pub at Aldgate on the corner of Petticoat Lane. I've seen him smash a bloke's hat over his face and knock his beer over. He belonged to the Darby Sabini gang - that was made up of Jewish chaps and Italian chaps. He married an English lady - stone rich - they said she was worth thousands and thousands of pounds. He's dead and gone now. (Samuel 1981: 133-4)
In other words the East End of London was a bit like American cities only on a smaller scale - different ethnic groups had their local gangs, sometimes they worked together and sometimes they fought each other. No group was powerful enough to dominate the scene entirely.
The sensational murder stories in the Victorian era sold newspapers and crime fiction in a way that had never been seen before, stories which continue to fascinate us today.
On a summer's evening in July 1864, a banker named Thomas Briggs was attacked in the first class compartment of a Hackney-bound train. Blood was found in the carriage and a few hours later Briggs was found near the tracks, seriously injured. He died soon after from his injuries.
It was the first murder on a railway and the story shocked and intrigued the nation. The newspapers followed it in great detail. An editorial in The Daily Telegraph reported:
"As news of the murder spread a feverish fear emerged. It was said that no-one knew when they opened a carriage door that they might not find blood on the cushion, that not a parent would entrust his daughter to the train without a horrid anxiety. That not a traveller took his seat without feeling how he runs his chance.Stories like the railway murder gripped the nation. New Passage, Fitrovia - a walk into London's past







    Posted by at No comments:

    Thursday, October 10, 2013

    jackson pollock

    "As to what I would like to be. It is difficult to say. An Artist of some kind. If nothing else I shall always study the Arts. People have always frightened and bored me consequently I have been within my own shell and have not accomplished anything materially. "

    Pollock's Action/Gestural paintings turned American abstract art in a new dynamic direction. His compositions were not planned before hand, had no grid or geometric construction or sectional divisions like the paintings of other Abstract artists. Unlike them, he made no reference  to myths, biomorphic structures or nature. The surfaces of his paintings (his canvases in his later works were spread out on the floor) were virtually uniform, paint covering the entire canvas with no divisions into parts. His spontaneity (his dripping or pouring required enormous skill and dexterity to propel the paint onto the canvas) opened up a new chapter in painting, one were the act of painting became as important as the finished pictures. In his work drawing and painting became one.
    In a famous article by art critic Harold Rosenberg described Pollok's work as "Not a picture but an event. The big moment came when it was decided to paint 'just to paint.' The gesture on the canvas was a gesture of liberation from value — political, aesthetic, moral." This was the important contribution that Pollok made to the history of art: freedom for personal expression without the ties of the past.
    The abstract paintings of the American artist Jackson Pollock (1912–1956) are among the highest achievements of 20th-century art. During an unparalleled period of creativity from the late 1940s to the early 50s, Pollock abandoned the conventional tools and methods of the painter, putting aside brushes, artist’s paint and traditional composition, and poured and flung house paint directly onto large canvases placed on the floor. Inspired by the work of earlier modern artists that he admired such as Pablo Picasso and Joan Miró, Pollock’s painting has had an enormous impact on contemporary art up to the present day.
    Pollock's life story is no less startling than his art. From humble beginnings in a family of Wyoming farmers, he struggled for years to overcome an apparent lack of natural talent before his rise to artistic stardom in the New York art world. Pollock’s fame – fuelled by articles in the popular press such as Life magazine which in 1949 posed the question ‘Is he the greatest living painter in the United States?’ – was followed by a slide into alcoholism and depression, and a concomitant decline in output. His death in a car accident at the age of 44 has prompted comparisons to other short-lived American icons, such as Charlie Parker and James Dean.
    Within the life and work of this extraordinary artist, the National Gallery of Australia’s Blue Poles: Number 11, 1952 occupies a special place. Pollock’s last monumental abstract painting, Blue Poles is the final instalment in a series of works which have changed the course of modern art. The controversy, however, that followed the work’s purchase for 1.3 million Australian dollars – a record price at the time both here and in the United States – and the subsequent claims that the work began as a drunken collaboration between Pollock and other artists, have made it difficult to see the picture through the journalistic hype. The time is ripe for a re-evaluation of Blue Poles.
    The focus exhibition Jackson Pollock’s Blue Poles, at the Gallery from 4 October 2002 until 27 January 2003, commemorates the painting’s 50th anniversary, and explores the meaning of Blue Poles by placing it within the broader development of the artist’s work. Paintings, drawings and prints by Pollock from the Gallery’s collection will be displayed alongside a selection of his works borrowed from American and European museums. Representing key moments in the artist’s career, the exhibition will trace the evolution of Pollock’s style from the early figurative work of the 1930s to the abstract ‘drip’ paintings of the 50s, leading to a fuller understanding of the genesis of Blue Poles.


    1. Does the Pollock style excite you, say why or why not
    2.What do you think his art means?
    3Find your best pollock image of one of his paintings, say why you like it?
    4. Do you think modern art is just as important as traditional art
    5.People always say of Modern art that "I could have done that" the artist replies "But you didn't" . Do you think this is a good answer
    6. Find out what art and culture means, give your reply.
    Posted by at No comments:
    Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)