Wednesday, December 6, 2017

Saving Christmas

"The way I see it, every time a man gets up in the morning he starts his life over. Sure, the bills are there to pay, and the job is there to do, but you don't have to stay in a pattern. You can always start over, saddle a fresh horse and take another trail." -- Louis L'Amour

For me, that's the part of life that I believe we should all be so thankful for. Each day is a brand new opportunity for us to change a bad situation for the better, a chance for us to rethink what we want, to reinvent ourselves, to break out of a rut, to knock off bad habits, to treat others as we ourselves want to be treated, to be who and what we want to be, to return to a time when faith and belief in God came natural. Yes indeed, as the famous writer Louis L'Amour said, "You can always start over, saddle a fresh horse, and take another trail."

So can we forge a new trail, or maybe take one that we hadn't been on in years? Years ago, I knew an old man who did just that.

He was a smart man, and actually a good hearted man despite his rough exterior and cynicisms. Though he had a good life with many tangible accomplishments like that of being married for 40 years, raising a family, working hard and making ends meet, he was always a little ashamed that his formal education was lacking simply because he choose to squander the one afforded to him by screwing around and not applying himself when he should have.

Because of that, he always saw himself as not being very educated even though he became a voracious reader of just about anything. But more than anything else, he sank himself into reading newspapers, any number of newspapers everyday. Because of this, he was up on current events, what's taking place around the world, politics, and who's running things these days. He didn't care for the reoccurring Hollywood scandals or their endless bed-hopping that seem to always make headlines. He hated reading about sports and its prima donna millionaires. But on the other hand, he loved reading about how the local high school football team did in the game on Friday night or how their new crop of young wrestlers were doing this year.

He liked knowing that kids were learning discipline as well as experiencing what it is to want. He felt that a lack of real want in our country stifled folks. He saw high school sports as a way to teach kids to want to achieve something even if they failed while doing so. His time in the Marine Corps taught him that champions are those who strife with a desire to win even when knowing that there may be the chance of failing.

While he couldn't find very many writers that held his attention, he liked Louis L'Amour Westerns and O. Henry short stories. He liked Westerns because he was brought up watching television Westerns as a kid. He liked those old series because they were uplifting instead of the sour grapes that Hollywood puts out today. He also liked those old Westerns because he identified with them. He was raised on a ranch and saw himself a Cowboy even though he had never worked as a day wage hand.

As for his love of short stories? He loved reading O. Henry's work, but he also enjoyed reading about Ghost Towns and their history, about the Old West, about the Great Depression, historical events, and the biographies of famous historic figures. He found himself reading about people who he'd never heard of, and because of that found the people really responsible for taming the West. He wasn't interested in reading every nuance of someone's life, but he did like finding out what he saw as the things that pointed to one's character. He found himself during more than one occasion looking for the things that serve as signs as to whether a historical figure was really a hero or in reality just a bum. 

When he first started reading about his childhood heroes, he was amazed at how many of them were not what he was led to belief. But then again, he thought he understood life. He believed that not all of what we learn as children stands the test of time into our adulthood. Of course, some say that he grew cynical over time after losing his wife to cancer and his children drifted away. Others says he simply lost faith over the years though a series of hardships. 

As far as he was concerned, he knew real well that as adults we need to see the world for what it really is. He believed that as adults we should be ready for hardship and pain and disappointment. And though that was the case, and indeed some of his childhood heroes bit the dust so to speak, there was that one day when Jim Nickles learned that there are some things from our childhood that are best kept alive and well. That was the day he decided to take another trail and get off the path he was on. That was the day he regained his faith in God.

It was Christmas Eve. And for him, it was a day no different than other days. After a long day of working around his place, he fed his horses and went in to shower and dress. He was retired and alone. He had a set schedule of things he did everyday and he had nowhere special to be that night. Too many great memories were bringing him down and he found himself growing bitter at the world for taking his wife. He was making his way to his truck to go to town when a pickup drove onto his property. A stranger got out and walked up and asked if he could speak to him?

Jim responded, "How can I help you?" 

"Well, I live right up the road from here about a mile or so," the stranger said. "My little girl's horse is in trouble and I just don't know what to do. My daughter has been sick fighting pneumonia and is recovering fine. But if something happens to her horse, it'll just crush her. I'm worried what losing her horse will do to her. I know your neighbor Bob and he said that I should talk to you." 

"Have you called a Vet?" he asked.  

"The Vet can't be reached. Her receptionist said she's on another call since yesterday where there's no phone reception. I don't know very much about horses, but I'm sure you do. I don't know you Mister Nickles, but I need to know if you can help me? I will pay you what you think is fair."

Jim Nickels had been a roper for years, a Heeler, and was in a few rodeos in his day. In his lifetime, he'd rode for friends working gatherings and brandings. He made himself available whenever he wasn't working his regular jobs as a truck driver. He hauled cattle, horses, freight, heavy equipment, dirt, machinery,  manure, and potatoes among other things. He didn't care what the job was. All that mattered was that it was honest money. A good day's work for a good day's pay. Right after retiring, tragedy struck when he lost his wife. To take his mind off his sorrow, he worked cattle for a few years all for no pay just to help close friends hold on to their ranch.

He knew horses because he grew up around them and had always owned them. But frankly, he didn't see himself as some sort of an expert. He saw people who claimed to be experts as being full of themselves. So all in all, while he was confident that he knew enough to doctor a horse in an emergency, he saw saving  horses from death as the thing that Vets did for a living.

Not knowing what he could do to help, he found himself saying, "I'll take a look at her horse for you. But friend, I can't promise anything," 

The stranger introduced himself as Don Fox. They left and a few minutes or so later they arrived at the old Bar D Ranch. Jim knew the people who owned the place before Don and his family moved in. He pulled up behind Don's truck and followed him into the barn. There in a birthing stall was a very distressed mare in foal.

Jim spoke low at almost a whisper and said, "You didn't say she was in foal. You didn't say this was the trouble."      

He knew that if the mare didn't deliver after 30 minutes of losing her water, or if  a second labor did not begin within three hours of the first stage, then it would be absolutely vital to examine both the mare and unborn foal to see what's wrong. That is, if he could. This is when a Veterinarian is needed. But since there wasn't a Vet, Don saw Jim there was being a Godsend. Jim wished the Vet was there.

A pregnant mare, a mare in foal, can have complications. Having someone there to know what to do when you need immediate help is important for the survival of both the mare and the foal. Don's mare was in trouble because of the unborn foal's presentation. That is, its position or posture within the pelvic canal. 

It's called "dystocia," which means "difficult birth." In horses, it's one of those conditions that no one can predict. Frankly, it just happens during the first stages of the birthing process. In this situation, Don's mare started giving birth but stopped and has been in all sorts of distress since. Unable to get a Vet, he found the Cowboy who he believed he needed to help him. 

If stage one of the birth process had gone on for too long say between 2 to 4 hours and one foot or no feet are showing, but nothing else is happening then there is a problem. If that happens rolling by a mare is normal as she tries to position the foal. 

There's three stages of birth. Stage one is when the foal properly aligns itself in the birth canal. That can take hours. Stage two is when the foal presents itself and is delivered. That can take anywhere from 10 to 30 minutes. If stage three goes well, then a mare should pass the membranes. That takes about an hour. Dystocia can happen in either stage one or stage two.

Jim looked at the mare and realized that she couldn't birth her foal because of how it was positioned. He didn't know whether it was upside down, in a sitting position, head first, or what. He was hoping to find one foot or both feet presented which would have been very common if he were lucky. He knew a neck presentation would not be good. He knew that would be very bad as it often means the foal is already dead. 

"What do you think?" Don asked Jim. But Jim didn't answer. He was busy on the floor trying to examine the mare to see a foot. 

After a few minutes, Jim said, "If the foal is backwards, she could be dead. But, we should be able to save your mare."

Don looked down for a second and looked at Jim and asked, "Is there anything that we can do about the foal?"

Jim was silent again. He knew that the position of the unborn foal can be moved if the mare’s movements by her getting up and down and rolling helped to reposition the foal. If its a large foal that the mare cannot expel then all sorts of problems can take place. There are infection problems and of course the foal is probably dead or even deformed.

Jim could see that the mare was way beyond stage one and two, and the time for both. She was in obvious distress, and now Jim was not only concerned about delivering a new foal. He was concerned about saving the mare. 

For the longest time, Jim Nickels has felt that as adults we need to see the world for what it really is. That it is a cruel place. Certainly unlike the world of his childhood. Certainly not the time when he believed that prayers are answered. Yes, that the last time when his prayers weren't answered. That time when his wife was ill. From that, he felt prayers were for children and did stand the test of time into our adulthood.

"If we lose the foal, she'll be crushed." Don said. "But she'll be fine. She'll just have to learn that that's how life is." 

Jim looked at Don and now realized that the mare was not his daughter's horse. It was the foal. Don's daughter had already named the foal "Christmas" and she was waiting to treat it as her own. 

It was then that Jim Nickels saw that he needed to take a different trail. One that he had long dismissed as being unneeded. That was when he did something that he had not done since he himself was just a kid. He closed his eyes, and prayer with all of his heart to ask God for this not to be what it is. He prayed and said that he was sorry for losing faith. He begged God to help someone else, to help Don's daughter, to do this for her foal. To save her Christmas.  

Sometimes doing the wrong thing like using to much force to pull a foal out may cause all sorts of irreparable damage to your mare. His hands were clean as he now reached inside the mare. He needed to reposition the foal inside the birth canal to allow normal birthing. That is, if he could.

Don watched as Jim Nickels, the Cowboy who he went to for help, gently assisted a leg to come forward. With that, and a steady tug, nature was about to take its course.

Jim was focused on the amount of force he was using. His eyes were closed as if trying to feel for a snag or a heartbeat or saying a prayer. He hoped and prayed the foal was not already dead. Don watched and then heard Jim Nickels mutter, "I believe. I believe."

Before they knew it, they watched as the foal slid out. But both saw that the foal was not breathing, and they too held their breath. Then just as Jim was about to grab the foal's mouth and blow his own air into its lungs, both men happily saw the newborn take its first full breath of life.

Don smiled. Jim nodded. Soon the foal slid over to join its mother. Don looked over at the stall door. His wife and daughter were standing there. He looked at their smiling faces and said, "This is Jim Nickels. He's a Cowboy. He's the reason for our Christmas miracle. He saved your horse."

Jim shook his head and said, "No. We can thank God for Christmas."

THE END

Tom Correa 

Tuesday, December 5, 2017

ABC has a Credibility Problem


I don't watch "The View." I refuse to watch such mean spirited hateful people. As a matter of fact, anytime that show comes on by accident, I immediately turn the channel.

I'm sure there are people out there who really enjoy the daily hatred for everything President Trump does. I'm sure there are people who love the way they make deceitful claims about what the president has said or done. Forget needing supporting evidence, the women on that show call the president things that they would never call the crazy dictator in North Korea. They do so without having to support anything they say.

So now you're asking how do I know this if I don't watch it? Well, unless it inadvertently comes on after something else that I may have been watching, I don't watch it. The times that I have had to listen to what is said on that show is usually while I'm looking for my remote so that I can turn the channel. That is plenty enough of a sample as to what takes place on "The View." So when it comes on by accident and I can't turn the channel fast enough, I get an earful of the standard Liberal line of malicious hate coming from those women.

The show which is a platform for disbursing Liberalism and hate speech consists of incessant attacks on Conservatives and the more than 60 Million Americans who voted for President Trump.

As for those who are thinking that I use the term "hate" a great deal to describe "The View," actually the term "hate mongers" comes to mind when I think of "The View." After all, the ABC television talk show has shown itself to be extremely venomous to anyone not of their political persuasion. It essence they are "political racists." And as for the token Conservative woman on their show, from the little that I have seen of the show, she is stepped on every time she has a point to make in support of Conservatives or President Trump. She is outnumbered and ganged up on relentlessly. I'm actually surprised she stays and allows herself to be made the punching bag.

“The View” host Joy Behar had to eat crow yesterday, December 4th, after her reaction to a Fake News story put out by ABC on Friday. While announcing the Fake News story on air, she became celebratory for all of the wrong reasons. And yesterday while addressing her exuberant reaction to ABC's Fake News story, she instead focused on the report by calling it inaccurate, "a mistake." She did not address her actions at all.

The issue was not ABC's Fake News story. The issue was her very obvious joy, her overwhelming glee, he celebratory outburst after reading the Fake News announcement that ABC issued. Yesterday, you wouldn't have known that because she focused on the report and purposely avoided addressing her outburst.

Behar's screams of joy came during the broadcast of "The View" on Friday, December 1st, 2017, after she read a card that was handed to her. The card with "breaking news" was "supposed" to be factual, but it wasn't. 

Behar read the ABC News exclusive “report” that stated, "Michael Flynn promised full cooperation to the Muller team and is prepared to testify that, as a candidate, Donald Trump directed him to make contact with the Russians."

After reading the "breaking news," Behar threw the card, lifted her hands, and screamed in absolute joy. Her outburst ranked up there with one celebrating their team winning the World Series, or with one who just won a multi-million dollar Lottery. 

Of course, there is a problem with the Fake News that Behar reported on "The View." It was fake. It was not true. Someone made it up. Someone fabricated it. Someone had to write it on that card that was handed to Behar, and Behar was more than willing to shout it from the rooftops!

She did not stop and ask if it was true. She did not question it. She simply read it. She echoed it on air because it fit her notion of the truth. It fit her belief. It fit what she and others on "The View" want in the worse way. It fit their desire to destroy President Trump.

Trump-Haters dream of finding evidence of so-called "Russian Collusion". They nurture the idea of Impeaching President Trump by spreading lies about his policies and him personally. Trump-Haters are angry that there isn't any evidence of some sort of collusion on the part of Donald Trump during the 2016 Election. So instead they have resorted to believing that "there must be" even if there is absolutely no evidence to back-up their assertions that "there must be." 

Yes, the thinking, the logic, the assumptions of Trump-Haters is as illogical as those who believe in the Easter Bunny. The same as those who believe that the Clintons are honest and moral people. The same as those who refuse to acknowledge the bigotry and divisiveness of the Obamas. The same as those who believe that "there must be" evidence of something completely fabricated by the Democrat Party. The same who refuse to look at the evidence that proves that "Russian Collusion" did take place between Obama and the Russians, and Hillary Clinton and the Russians. They are okay with turning a blind eye to crimes when it is one of their's who commit them.

While Joy Behar is typical, extremely common, nothing different from the other Trump-Haters out there, she represents the hate coming from Democrats these days. In fact, after seeing her joy and outright love of the news that there could possibly be evidence of "Russian collusion" on behalf of President Trump,  I can't help but wonder if Behar would have the exact same ecstatic glee if she were reporting that President Donald Trump were assassinated?

As for ABC, its news department was forced to correct that report. The second time around, they made it clear that Flynn was directed to contact Russia after Donald Trump had already been elected president. Not as a candidate. Proving once again that there was no collusion from the Trump Campaign with Russian operatives. 

As a result of the report being "inaccurate" as reported by ABC News Chief Investigative Correspondent Brian Ross, ABC suspended Brian Ross for a month without pay for botching the story. Especially when the story of former Trump White House National Security Adviser Michael Flynn plea deal was so easy to understand.

Retired Lt. Gen. Mike Flynn pleaded guilty to lying about a non-crime. Yes, he pleaded guilty to lying about something that was no against the law, that was not a crime. It was perfectly legal for Flynn to speak with Russian officials after the election. In fact, even Democrats are acknowledged that conferring with a representative of Russia about the incoming administration’s Russia policy is not illegal or improper after the election.

President Trump came out and stated that there was nothing to hide. He said, "He [Flynn] has pled guilty to those lies. It is a shame because his actions during the transition were lawful."

As for ABC News Chief Investigative Correspondent Brian Ross’s botched "exclusive" about Trump's former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn? It was reported that ABC News president James Goldston not only suspended Brian Ross for four weeks without pay, but has supposedly made it clear that Ross would no longer be allowed to cover stories about President Donald Trump.

Remember, it was Brian Ross who reported that "Flynn would testify that Trump had ordered him to make contact with Russians about foreign policy while Trump was still a candidate."

Please understand the ramifications of such a report on the national airwaves. The ABC report from Brian Ross immediately created the idea that there really was collusion on the part of the Trump Campaign. That notion immediately made the aspect of a Trump Impeachment possible. And that, well that sent the Stock Market into a nose dive. Yes, Ross did all of that. 

Remember, this was all on December 1st, last Friday. At first ABC's Brian Ross reported the Fake News, then "The View" host Joy Behar starts celebrating over her desire to see President Trump impeached. And finally, many hours later that day, Brian Ross was on "World News Tonight" to "clarify" his error.

That second report was an ABC News "clarification" to Ross's earlier report. The later report stated that President-elect Trump directed Flynn to contact the Russian for help with ISIS after he’d been elected president. That's the key distinction to the investigation. Flynn did not contact Russians during the campaign, but after the election.

Brian Ross has been at ABC News since 1994 after spending nearly 20 years at NBC. He has a lengthy history of getting it wrong!

In 2001, Brian Ross incorrectly reported that Saddam Hussein’s Iraqi dictatorship may have been responsible for anthrax attacks that terrorized the United States in the months after 9/11 even though the Bush White House told him that the anthrax story was wrong. That didn't stop Ross, and he ran with it anyway. A week later he issued a correction.

In 2006, Ross reported that then-House Speaker Dennis Hastert was a target of a federal corruption probe involving former lobbyist Jack Abramoff. Despite the Justice Department’s denial, Ross insisted that Hastert was “very much in the mix” of the investigation. Hastert was never approached by prosecutors.

In 2010, Ross was involved in a report called "Taking on Toyota" which claimed that some of the Japanese automaker's cars contained a defect that caused "unintended acceleration." Talk about Fake News, the report included footage of a tachometer shooting from 1,000 to 6,200 RPM in seconds while Ross sat behind the wheel. But, more of the same footage showed that the car Ross was inside was actually parked with the doors open and not moving at the time.

Of course, the most infamously Brian Ross report came in 2012 after the massacre at the Aurora Colorado movie theater. Ross reported that the shooter James Holmes may have had ties to the Tea Party.

In that report on "Good Morning America", Brian Ross states, "There is a Jim Holmes of Aurora, Colorado, page on the Colorado Tea Party site as well, talking about him joining the tea party last year. Now, we don’t know if this is the same Jim Holmes – but this is Jim Holmes of Aurora, Colorado.”

Ross later apologized for the Fake News report. He received criticism for that report including John Cook who wrote the following in a post on a blog, "When there’s breaking news, especially about terrorism and national security, ABC News’ Brian Ross is there. And under no circumstances should you listen to anything he says."

Brian Ross is the latest proof of Liberal-bias by ABC News which is part of the ultra-Liberal Disney ABC Television Group. We shouldn't forget that during the 2016 campaign, ABC had to pull its Chief Anchor, George Stephanopoulos, from moderating any debates because Stephanopoulos had bee exposed as a former Clinton operative who had also made very large donations to the Clinton Foundation.

Of course there is no better proof of ABC's Liberal leanings then what they did by canceling the very popular comedy "Last Man Standing" earlier this year. The show was a Conservative leaning comedy. One with give and take. We need to remember that ABC cancelled "Last Man Standing" despite the Tim Allen show being a ratings hit and extremely cost efficient. All a normal win-win situation for networks interested in keeping their viewers.

With the cancellation of "Last Man Standing," ABC made it known that they were not interested in keeping Conservative viewers. This is a turn around from years ago when networks seemed to strive to pull in any and all viewers with shows that entertained.   

And with that, we go full circle to "The View" which is a television show that is not highly rated or cost efficient. The show attacks and alienates viewers who do not agree with their Liberal political philosophy. They consciously cater to only one segment of the population, those who voted for Hillary Clinton and are loyal followers of the Democrat Party. That's it. There's who they care about.

If that's not true, then why is it that "The View" has been allowed to attack Trump voters, President Trump, make unsubstantiated claims, all without have any disciplinary consequences. If not true, then why hasn't Joy Behar the hater been fired?

ABC should stop the pretense of acting as though they are impartial in their News presentations or in their television line-up. After all, it is obvious that ABC's actions has now reached the level of CNN and MSNBC in so far as their showing their Liberal leanings and contempt for Conservative Americans. Subsequently, their actions, their Liberal bias and lack of impartiality, their contempt for Conservative America, has created ABC's present credibility problem. 

That's just how I see it.

Tom Correa 






Friday, December 1, 2017

David Hennessy -- Murdered By The Mafia 1890


In all, 19 Italian immigrants were accused of the murder of the New Orleans Police Chief David Hennessy. After their acquittal, 11 of them were either shot or hanged or both in what is believed to be the largest mass lynching in American history.
He was born sometime in 1858 in New Orleans, Louisiana. He was only 31 or 32 when he was murdered on October 16th, 1890, right there in New Orleans.

In 1870, David Hennessy joined the New Orleans Police Department working as a messenger. It's said that he was a tough kid. In fact, it's said that he caught two thieves red handed in the act when he was only a teenager. That story goes that he actually beat up both of the men just using his bare hands.

The rest of the story goes that he then dragged both of them to the police station. The police department was said to be so impressed that they put him on as a beat cop at the time. If true, and he stayed as tough, then it's no wonder that he actually made it to the rank of Police Detective at the young age of 20.
In fact, as a young detective, he made headlines in 1881 when he captured a notorious criminal by the name of Giuseppe Esposito.

Esposito was an Italian immigrant who was a member or the Mafia in Italy and New Orleans. The story on that goes that with his cousin Michael Hennessy, who was also a New Orleans police officer, David arrested the infamous Italian criminal and head of an Italian crime family in 1881.

Among other crimes, Esposito was actually wanted in Italy for kidnapping a British tourist there. During that kidnapping, Esposito is said to have cut off his victim's ear. Because of Detective Hennessy, Esposito was deported back to Italy. He and other Mafia members were tried in an Italian court and given life sentences.

Detective David Hennessy was said to be a squeaky clean individual who was very well respected in his community. And while everyone agrees that was the case, there's no telling what sort of friction took place between him and his immediate supervisor Chief of Detectives Thomas Devereaux.

It is believed that Devereaux turned a blind eye to some of the dealings of two local Italian crime families. Yes, believe it or not, the Mafia in 1880s New Orleans.

As for the Mafia in New Orleans at the time, there were two Mafioso criminal organizations there trying to control New Orleans during the 1880s. In fact there was actually an ongoing feud between those two Mafia crime "families". The Mantranga and Provenzano crime families were rivals. They fought to control gambling, prostitution, on the New Orleans waterfront.

Devereaux was said to have been well connected politically with close ties to the local Democrat Party. He is said to also have had close friends who worked for the Matranga crime family. Because police officer Michael Hennessy was said to be looking into the nefarious activities of the Matranga family, Devereaux charged him with conduct unbecoming a police officer when he turned up supposedly drunk at Kate Townsend's Saloon. Devereaux is said to have tried to get Michael Hennessy fired from the department. This was an effort to end his investigation of his friends. But frankly, that didn't work out too well for Devereaux.

Chief of Detectives Thomas Devereaux and Detective David Hennessy became rival candidates for the position of Police Chief in New Orleans in 1881. The election was a bad one with a lot of name calling and accusations. At one point a gunfight broke out between the two men. Devereaux wound up dead on the floor of a brokerage house. Word circulated that he was shot at point-blank range in the head by Hennessy, but that was only a rumor.

In 1882, Detective David Hennessy was actually tried for the killing of Thomas Devereaux. Hennessy said that it was a case of self-defense. A jury looked at the evidence and agreed with him. They found him not guilty. Though that was the case, David Hennessy left the police department right after that.

After leaving the department, he joined a private security company. In those days private security companies had a great deal of leeway in dealing with criminal types. In fact the security company which David Hennessy was a part of had police powers by way of the City of New Orleans. And during his time with that agency, he was actually responsible for organizing and maintaining the security of the New Orleans World Fair which took place in 1884 and 1885.

It should be noted that The New York Times wrote about how Hennessy's security team was "neatly uniformed and are a fine-looking and intelligent body of men, far superior to the regular city force." This did not go unnoticed by the New Orleans city government and people with political power.

In fact, a couple of years later in 1888, Joseph A. Shakspeare became the newly elected Mayor of New Orleans. One of his campaign promises was to stop the graft and corruption within the New Orleans Police Department, and to end their inefficiency and incompetence. To accomplish that, newly elected Mayor Shakspeare immediately appointed David Hennessy as the city's new Police Chief.

It is said that Police Chief Hennessy arrived to inherit a police force that was seen as inept, incompetent, and plagued by graft and corruption. As for the city of New Orleans, he became the Chief of Police in a city ripe with organized crime.

His legacy is that of a Police Chief who started to modernize his department, to had started to make a number of improvements in the ways of accountability and code of conduct, to end the corruption that had festered within the department, and to instill a sense of public confidence in his department. As for fighting organized crime, Hennessy had put several of the Provenzanos crime family in prison while taking on the Mantrangas. Some say this is why he was murdered.

On the night of October 15th, 1890, Chief Hennessy was ambushed and shot by two or more assassins. Knowing that the Chief walked home from work, his killers waited for him and opened fire with shotguns as the Chief walked by.

He was less than a block from the house that he is said to have shared with his widowed mother when a number of shotgun blasts ripped into him from across Girod Street. The blasts are said to have knocked him to the ground. And it was then when he was on the ground that two other men with high-caliber rifles ran over to him and shot him twice each. 

Believe it or not, Chief Hennessy struggled for his pistol and returned fire on the two men with rifles. He then stood up and returned fire again with his bulldog revolver as his killers fled. It is also said that he tried to go after them when he finally collapsed to the ground around the corner from where he was first ambushed. When his fellow officers finally reached him, Chief Hennessy reportedly said he had been shot by "Dagoes."

He was taken to a local hospital and some say he was awake for hours. Others say he was in and out of consciousness. He is reported to have spoke with friends and his own investigators. While not being able to name his killers, the story goes that when his close friend and fellow officer Police Captain William O'Connor asked who had tried to kill him, Chief Hennessy supposed said, "Dagoes!"

If you're reading this and it sounds very familiar, remember that assassins in the Old West usually did their dirty work from ambush. Of course, reading this sounds very similar to what took place in Tombstone Arizona in December of 1881 and what happened to Tombstone City Marshal Virgil Earp when he was going home one late night after making his rounds.

After the shootout in the lot near at the OK Corral, all of the Earps moved into the Cosmopolitan Hotel. Some say this was done for mutual support. Others believe the the Earps didn't trust anyone other than their own family to protect them from retaliation. They knew vengeance over the killings of Billy Clanton, Frank McLaury, and Tom McLaury, was in the cards.

But while knowing that is fine, Virgil also knew that he couldn't stay holed up in a hotel forever. Being the truly seasoned lawman of the Earp family, Virgil knew his duties couldn't be put off until times were "safer." That is if or when that would ever be. 

At about 11:30 pm on December 28th, 1881, it is believed that at least three men hid out in the darkness of an empty building that was under construction. That building was on Allen Street right across from the hotel where the Earps were staying. 

After making his rounds, Virgil stopped at the Oriental Saloon. As he walked to the Cosmopolitan Hotel, City Marshal Virgil Earp was hit in the back and left arm by at least three loads of buckshot from about 60 feet away. A few men in the Crystal Palace Saloon playing faro were almost hit with stay shot. One stated later that he head "four shots in quick succession." 

Virgil's arm was shattered and he was shot in the back, but he was still able to make it into the Cosmopolitan Hotel before collapsing. It's said Dr. George E. Goodfellow removed 4 inches of Virgil's shattered left arm and over twenty buckshot from his side. Incredibly, Virgil Earp, though left permanently crippled, would live and even return to take on other jobs as a lawman. 

New Orleans Police Chief David Hennessy was a real fighter. Some say he was as tough as they came back in the day. Because of the huge loss of blood, the fact that he had been shot multiple times both with shotguns and high powered rifles, it was a small miracle that he lived as long as he did after he was attacked. After hours of agony and complications, David Hennessy died of his wounds on October 16th, 1890.

Police Chief David Hennessy was a very popular man in New Orleans. Because of that, there was a great deal of pressure on the New Orleans Police Department to catch his killers. In return, the police arresting dozens of known criminals with connections to Italian criminal families.

Over six months of investigations go by until 19 men were arrested for the murder of Chief Hennessy. Because the killing of a lawman was seen as being as heinous as could be, the accused were held without bail. By March of 1891, nine of the accused men who were tried were acquitted or were declared mistrials.

Unlike what took place in Tombstone, New Orleans residents organized and formed a vigilante group the size and scope of a small army. In fact, their anger came to a head on March 14th, 1891, when thousands of vigilantes gathered outside the prison.

Once there, they demanded that the killers be handed over and the prison officials declined. It was then that the citizens forced their way into the prison looking for those accused of murdering Chief Hennessy. It was then that those angry citizens found 11 of the 19 Italian men who were accused of murdering their beloved Police Chief.

For the next little while, no one spoke of the legal technicalities that prompted their acquittals or what led to the mistrials, There was only a seething emotion of desire to rid New Orleans of the killers of a man who they saw as someone only doing his duty.

David Hennessy was from there. He was one of their own. He was a friend and a neighbor. He was a protector who was trying to clean up things and make their city a better place. Those citizens saw their job as being no different than that of a surgeon cutting out a cancer growth, and this pushed them. Believing the jury had been bribed or coerced, the citizens hanged all 11 of the men accused of Chief Hennessy's murder. That mass lynching is considered the largest known mass lynching in American History.

One of the most interesting aspects of this is that there was all sorts of press coverage of the trial and what took place afterwards. The assassination was connected to the Mafia, the Italian criminal element. The trials and then the mass lynching was sensationalized and actually stoked the anti-Italian sentiment in New Orleans at the time.

I read where one writer about this said that those reporting what took place would not meet modern journalistic standards, but I think they certainly would as sensationalism is widespread these days. Yes, to the point where Americans today have less trust in the press than ever before.

While the murder, the brutal assassination, of Chief Hennessy is said to have led to a sensational trial that made national headlines. Part of the sensationalism came directly as a result of the acquittals and mistrials. No one believed such a thing would take place after the evidence was presented. The idea that the justice system was corrupt angered the citizenry.

Their anger also made headlines. After all, it's not everyday in America, even back then, when thousands of residents turn into vigilantes to do what the courts didn't do. Those vigilantes were not going to let acquittals and mistrials cheat them out of seeing justice being had.

At the time, it was believed that those lynched were indeed men who worked for the Mafia as killers. Subsequently, citizens believed that those assassins deserved their fate.

It is interesting to note that New Orleans Police Chief David Hennessy is today credited with "being the first law enforcement professional to identify the Mafia in America and attack it with some degree of success." Some believe that, "He must be viewed as law enforcement's first martyr in the fight against organized crime."

And imagine, that was  in New Orleans in 1890. The year 1890 is not exactly a year when most think of the Mafia being in American cities. Yes, especially in cities West of New York City. It's certainly not a year that most think of as a time when the Mafia already had a foothold in America.

Tom Correa


Thursday, November 30, 2017

Hints on Purchase of Riding Horses (1901)

A horse should be rejected for any one really bad fault. The greatest strength of a horse is limited by his worst point.

Horses are often bought because they possess one or more very good points. This is a wrong principle in buying. The selection of horses should begin by rejection for bad points. 

Bad points are of course, in a great measure, a question of degree. Discretion is needed in rejecting as well as buying.

In measuring a horse or judging of his height and size by sight, take care that he stands on a level with yourself. Dealers generally stand a horse, if under-sized, on higher ground, or is over-sized on lower ground that the intending purchaser.

Want of a fair amount of breeding should be an absolute bar.

Reject a horse with a:

Big coarse head
A small sunken eye. (They are generally obstinate and sulky).
A colour light of the sort.
With a long slack back. (It will not carry weight).
With a hollow back. (The formation is weak).
With flat sides. (They will not do work or look well).
With a slack loin. (Undue length between the last ribs and hind quarters. They are often bad feeders and will run up light with work).
With a light loin. (Want of breadth over the loins. They run up light with work.)
With scraggy hips. (They never do credit to feeding particularly if also slack in the loins).
With a bad girth. (Light through the heart. This formation will always cause trouble in saddling).
With a thick or short neck.

Unless it has a good rein. (With a clumsy neck the head is in consequence badly set on. Without a good rein a horse will never break well, or be pleasant to ride.)

Reject a horse with very low withers. The saddle will be apt to work forwards, and the 'rein' will probably be deficient, and the leverage for the muscles of the forehand is defective. A slug always a nuisance.

To see the above points stand on the side and form your opinion before the horse moves off.

Reject a horse with a narrow or shallow chest. (There is not sufficient capacity for the Lungs.)

With forelegs very, close together. (This and the former defect generally go together.)

To see these points stand in front.

Whose forelegs are not straight. (They will not stand wear).

Stand behind the horse as he walks away from you, and you will be able to notice these defects, if they exist.

Which is light below the knee, especially if light immediately below the knee. The conformation is essentially weak.

With long, or with short or with upright pasterns. (Long pasterns are subject to sprains. Short or upright pasterns make a horse unpleasant to ride, and on account of extra concussion are apt to cause ossific deposits).

With toes turned in of out. The twist generally occurs at the Fetlock. Toes turned out are more objectionable that toes turned in. (When toes are turned out, the fetlocks are generally turned in, and animals so formed are very apt to cut or brush. Both, however, are weak formations).

Whose hind legs are too far behind. Good propelling power will be wanting, and disease as a result may be expected in the hocks.

Which goes either very wide or very close behind.

With very straight or very bent hocks. (The former causes undue concussion, the latter are apt to give way).

Which is 'split up', (Show much daylight between his thighs. Propelling power comes from behind, and must deficient in horses without due muscular development between the thighs.

With flat feet or over-large feet, also with very small feet. Medium sizes are the best.

With one foot smaller than another.

A goose rump is not objectionable as mechanical formation, but it is ugly.

Action must be light, easy, free, and straight. Reject a horse that crosses his legs in walking or trotting. He will be unsafe. Freedom, power to move easily along, is the great point.

A good walk is absolutely essential. Reject a horse that does not walk well; he is never a pleasant ride. If a horse walks well, he will probably trot well; but a horse may trot well without walking well.

To ascertain whether the action is true and straight, stand behind the horse as he walks and trots away from you. You cannot ascertain this important point be standing on the side.

Never omit to stand behind a horse as he walks away.

A good sloping shoulder is an important item in a riding horse, but bad action may co-exist with a good shoulder; and vice versa, good free action may co-exist with a somewhat straight shoulder.

Reject a horse, which is straight in the shoulder and long from the point of the shoulder to the upper part of the forearm. This formation places forelegs too much under the horse, and makes him unsafe to ride.

You may have a plain horse, even if all the above very apparent defects are absent, but you will, at least, have a serviceable one if in addition found sound on veterinary examination.

Having first of all kept clear of all absolute defects such as the above, then select your horses for the presence of good, serviceable, and handsome points, and easy, free, graceful carriage.

But, I repeat, begin by rejection for any one positively bad defect. The greatest strength of a chain is limited by the strength of its weakest link.

In purchasing Horses, it is a great point not to lose time. If you see any one radical defect, reject the Horse at once. The Dealer will, of course, try and persuade you to do otherwise, and will call your attention to some very good point or points in the really defective animal.

Do not lose time. A dealer, if you are a stranger to him, will probably bring out and try and palm off on you his inferior horses. But if you are quick in seeing bad points, and at once reject defective animals, he will soon find it necessary to show you his best horse.

Conclusion

We shall conclude these remarks by observing that neither frame nor constitution is of much use without good condition. This latter great essential can only be obtained by food grooming, careful and regular feeding on the best forage, strong and regular exercise, fresh wholesome air in the stables, and general good management.

-- end of article.

From Horses and Stables by British Lt. Gen, Sir F Fitzwygram, 1901
Published by Longmans, Green, and Co. 
39 Paternoster Row, London, New York and Bombay 

Editor's Note:

I find this interesting in so far as giving us a glimpse into what some people were looking for when buying a horse back at the dawn of the 20th century. In many respects, not much different than folks today.

This was re-printed here exactly as published in 1901. 

Tom Correa

Friday, November 24, 2017

Fake Graves in Tombstone's Boothill


Dear Friends,

A reader has me laughing. What has me laughing so much is how my reader worded his letter. He states, "Hello Tom, since you don't care who you offend in your blog, and because you seem to enjoy pissing people off, I want to know if the graves makers in Tombstone's Boothill cemetery are fakes?" 

And no, he doesn't stop there. But instead of going into the rest of it, I will simply say that he thinks that I purposely set out to "aggravate and insult" my readers with "horseshit about the Old West." Imagine that. 

But that's OK, I've gotten worse mail and comments. Besides, since I don't know if he was merely being funny, or maybe sarcastic, or if he really is serious, let's talk about a few "Fake Graves" in Tombstone's Boot Hill cemetery.  Yes indeed, there are a few, not many, fake graves there.

As most know, the name "Boot Hill" or "Boothill" had been used for a lot of graveyards throughout the West. The name "Boothill" was used to symbolize those buried there who had "died with their boots on." That term is supposed to mean someone who died an unexpected death such as in a gunfight.

The term "Boothill" was used by a lot of Dime Novelists. Also, newspapers of the times used it a great deal before Hollywood picked it up and ran with it. Tombstone wanted to capitalize on its newly created Hollywood fame in the 1930s. So as a way to attract tourists, there are a few graves that are faked. For example:

Lester Moore has a very famous epitaph which states, "Here lies Lester Moore, Four slugs from a .44, No Les No more." Lester Moore himself was supposed to have been a Wells, Fargo & Co. station agent in the border town of Naco. He was supposedly in a gunfight with Hank Dunstan over a package that was mishandled.

The problem with the Lester Moore tale is that no one can find proof that there was ever anyone named Lester Moore who was killed in Pima County, or in Cochise County when it broke off of Pima in 1881. And as for his supposed killer Hank Dunstan, there's no evidence of such a person who is said to have also died in the supposed shootout.

Another fake grave marker is that of "Fiderico Doran". His real name was Federico Duran. He's said to have been killed by Sheriff John Slaughter after the Agua Zarca train robbery in 1888. The problem is that Sheriff Slaughter had nothing to do with Duran's death.

Frederico Duran and Jack Taylor, who was Duran's partner and fellow train robber, were actually executed by a Mexican firing squad in Guaymas, Mexico, in December of 1889. So while there's a grave marker in Tombstone's Boothill said to be where Duran is buried, Duran is actually buried in Mexico.

George Johnson's marker has the epitaph, "Here lies George Johnson, hanged by mistake 1882. He was right we were wrong. But we strung him up and now he's gone."

Problem of course is that no one can find any information of a man named George Johnson being hanged in Tombstone, by mistake or otherwise. Of course, that doesn't seem to matter since this fake grave marker is popular with the tourists.

While I couldn't find a picture of it, there is a fake grave in Tombstone's Boot Hill that's supposed to be where Thomas Harper rests. He has a marker there. Harper's story is sort of interesting in that it goes to the old saying that "you just can't trust some folks."

He arrived in Tombstone in 1879. He was said to be a known thief and killer who was an associate of the Clanton gang. In September of 1880, while in Huachuca, Tom Harper agreed to collect a $10 debt which was owed to John Talliday. Instead of turning the money over to Talliday, Harper instead kept it and spent it. Not surprisingly John Talliday became angry and demanded his money. Harper is said to have shot and killed Talliday in the Huachuca Mountains.

Harper was tried and convicted of Talliday's murder, and he was sentenced to hang. He was executed on July 8th, 1881, in Tucson. While there is a marker in Tombstone's Boothill where he is said to be buried, he's actually buried in Tucson.

John Heath's marker is there, but it's a fake. He was accused of being the ring leader of the robbery that turned into the Bisbee Massacre that took place on December 8th, 1883. His grave marker is right there near the grave markers of the other five killers who participated in that massacre.

John Heath was arrested, tried, and convicted of a compromised charge of manslaughter. Judge Pinney sentencing him to life in Yuma Territorial Prison.

Heath may or may not have thought he'd see parole sooner or later, but who knows. As for about 150 men in Cochise County, they were not satisfied with him only being convicted of manslaughter and saw his getting paroled sooner or later a very real possibility.

Of course those men were angered even more with their knowing that Heath was awaiting an appeal of his conviction on a technicality. They knew that an appeal may have set Heath free to walk and get away with it.

So on February 22nd, 1884, those 150 or so men broke into the Cochise County jail which was located at the bottom of the Tombstone Courthouse. After disarming the jailers, those very angry citizens, which many have called a "lynch mob," took Heath at gunpoint from the jail. They actually left his five accomplices in jail. They had been convicted and were awaiting a hangman's rope in March.

It's said that the citizens were exiting the jail with Heath when Cochise County Sheriff Jerome L. Ward attempted to intervene. The citizens pushed him aside and took Heath down Toughnut Street. They lynched him from a telegraph pole at the corner of First and Toughnut Streets.

His last words were, "Boys, you are hanging an innocent man, and you will find it out before those other men are hung. I have one favor to ask. That you will not mutilate my body by shooting into it after I am hung." 

The citizens agreed, and then blindfolded him. They placed a noose around his neck and then a few citizens hoisted Heath by rope until he was suspended beneath the top of that telegraph pole. Heath is said to have slowly strangled and he fought death. It's said when his body finally stopped twisting and jerking, that someone placed a placard on the telegraph pole which said: 

JOHN HEITH
Was hanged to this pole by the
CITIZENS OF COCHISE COUNTY
for participating in the Bisbee massacre
as a proved accessory
AT 8:00 A.M., FEBRUARY 22, 1884
(Washington’s Birthday)
ADVANCE ARIZONA!

The Cochise County Coroner was Dr. George E. Goodfellow, who is said to have witnessed the hanging. When he filled out the paperwork on Heath's death, he reflected the sentiment of the town when he ruled that Heath died from "Emphysema of the lungs which might have been, and probably was, caused by strangulation, self-inflicted or otherwise, as in accordance with the medical evidence." 

So now, while there is a grave marker for John Heath in the Tombstone Boothill Graveyard today, there is no body under that pile of rocks. Fact is his body was returned to his estranged wife in Terrell, Texas. He is actually buried there in Terrell, Texas, at its Oakland Cemetery.

As I said earlier, because of the sudden popularity of Tombstone in the early 1930s because of Hollywood, the people responsible for the city of Tombstone renamed the Old City Cemetery to "Boothill Graveyard." It was done in an effort to please tourists who wanted to visit "Boothill".  Some of the graves have been faked all for the sake of tourism.

Tom Correa

Sunday, November 19, 2017

Johnny Ringo -- Was His Death Suicide Or Murder?

Dear Friends,

On July 14th, 1882, James Yoast noticed something strange while making his route hauling wood. As he put it, he saw "a man in the midst of a clump of trees, apparently asleep."

Yoast watched his "dog smelling at the man’s face and snorting." That was when he stepped in to take a look at what he dog was sniffing. That was when Yoast found the now famous Johnny Ringo's dead body. 

Yes, right there in the middle of a few trees was Ringo's lifeless body seated at the base of a large tree. A single entry wound was found to his right temple. The exit wound was the upper-left-back side of his head. Because his body was already discolored, it's believed that Ringo may have been lying there for at least a full day before being discovered. 

So how did Johnny Ringo die? Well, since he had a bullet hole in the right temple and it looked like suicide, a coroner's jury did in fact rule that Johnny Ringo's death was a suicide. Of course while people may or may not have accepted the ruling back then, does not mean people accept that finding today.

And though in his right hand was his Colt .45 Peacemaker with only one spent shell, there are people today who believe someone killed Ringo. Their reasons for thinking that Ringo could not have killed himself and must have been murdered has to do with a few strange things connected to his death.

Those are such things as his boots being missing, such as his coat had been torn, and how his shirt was torn into strips and those strips of his shirt had been used to wrap his feet. Some also find it strange that his rifle was found leaning against a tree close to him and that his horse was later found roaming with his boots tied across the saddle.

As for as the reason he may have killed himself? There are those who swear that Ringo killed himself because he was depressed by the deaths of his outlaw associates. Similarly there are those who say he was depressed over supposedly being rejected by the Clanton and McLaury families. Of course there are those who say that his being depressed is a lot of nonsense.

Reports range from Ringo boozing a great deal more than usual before he was found dead, to his deciding to go camping before he killed himself. It's true, there are sources which say he was preparing to camp outside of town on the day before he was found dead.

Those reports speculate that he "must" have been camping since he tied his boots to his saddle. These same people assert that was a common practice in Arizona meant to keep the scorpions out of one's boots. So "obviously" to that's why he had his boots tied to his horse.

So let's take a look at this idea that a man was depressed enough to commit suicide yet worry about scorpions crawling into his boots? That he would first tie them to his saddle before shooting himself? OK, that sounds perfectly illogical.

As for those who say his horse "managed to get loose from his picket and run off"? Well, there's nothing to support that speculation. There's not supporting evidence, no reports to my knowledge, of anybody finding that supposed picket line or that camping spot where Ringo supposedly camped and tied up his horse.

As for the pieces of his shirt tied to his feet? There are those who actually theorize that he did that after his horse wandered off. Yes, there are people who think Ringo tied those strips to his feet to protect them while looking for his horse. There are even some who say that he became despondent over the loss of his horse and made his way to the fork of that large tree where he was found.

Once there, they speculate, "despondent over his overall state, in Apache country without horse, or fire, or drink, or his boots, that Ringo shot himself. These same people support their assumption by saying that a single shot was heard by a nearby resident. Yes, as if a single shot heard in the distance verified that Ringo made camp, that he tied his boots to his saddle, that he became despondent over his horse wondering off, that he had no booze, and then he shot himself.

Friends, if one shot heard in the distance can tell us all of that, well there was no need for a coroner's jury to be convened. All they had to do is jump to conclusion based on no supporting evidence other than the fact that some resident said that he heard a shot being fired. Of course, that same resident didn't report that shot until days after hearing that Ringo's body was discovered.

As for Ringo's revolver having had one round fired and it was found hanging from a finger of his hand, that makes sense if he shot himself. The muscles in one's body relaxes upon death.

Of course there are other signs to determine whether one was murdered or one committed suicide. For example, evidence of a note that the victim left behind, or if the victim was known to have a number of personal problems, or if the victim was a drug user, or if there was evidence that drugs were taken, or that the victim was drunk, all point to a suicide.

As for evidence of a struggle, such as cuts, scratches, bruises, especially on the hands, that all points to homicide. It should also be noted that a suicide victim will rarely shoot himself through his clothing. If he actually does the very unusual act of shooting himself in the chest, he will first open his shirt to make contact. People shot through their clothing points to homicide.

This goes along with the number of shots being fired. A person who just shot himself in an attempted suicide is more than likely be either unconscious or physically unable to shoot himself again with a second shot. Because of this, more than one gunshot wound on a victim usually indicates a homicide.

As for the location of the wound. Most investigators agree that a shot fired to the side of the head, or in the mouth, or even to the front of the chest, are signs of suicide. Most agree that wounds found anywhere else are more than likely signs of a homicide.

Also, distance of the shot being fired is a huge factor. Most suicides from firearms are shots fired at contact or near contact range. At contact range, a star-like wound is produced. Also, there are burn marks at the wound area. There is usually gunpowder residue at the wound as well. Wounds produced further away, whether it's inches or feet, do not produce the same patterns and as a result are indicative of a homicide. 

It's the same with the presence of gunpowder residue on the victim's hand. Fact is, if a man shots himself, there should be powder residue on the hand that fired the shot.

It is important for any coroner to figure out the angle of the bullet path. The angle of the shot fired can tell an investigator if it's suicide or a homicide. Most investigators know that gunshots fired during a suicide are usually angled slightly upward. So if, for example, someone did try to create the look of a suicide by say walking up to a sleeping person and shooting them, the angle of the bullet path will show that that shot was fired in a homicide. 

So now that you know what investigators look for, what coroners look for, ask yourself if they saw any of the signs of a suicide when examining Johnny Ringo? For me, knowing that a coroner does more than just take what is noted at the scene of a suicide as gospel of what took place, I believe they must have had more indications than what we know of in the standard report. 

What I mean by that is this, forget about irrelevant evidence unrelated to his actual death; forget about his horse, his boots, and the strips of cloth. Fact is, that's all extraneous information that means nothing when determining how he died. Let's look at the fact that he was shot in the head at contact. 

I can only suspect that there were powder burns at the wound and gun residue on the hand that he used to shoot himself, but I don't know that for certain. And while someone's going to read this and write to tell me that forensic science wasn't around in the 1880s, I have to remind folks that it was. 

Granted it sure wasn't what it is today, but the science of forensics was actually established within the sphere of criminal investigation as far back as the 13th century. It's true, the first written account of using medicine and entomology to solve criminal cases was a book written in China in the year 1248. 

By the 1500s, European doctors began gathering information on the cause and manner of death. During the 1700s, there are a number of cases that were solved in Europe and in the American colonies using forensic science. We forget that fingerprinting was started in 1858, and by the 1870s forensic science was experiencing a boom in the United States. 

Of course the big boom in scientific and surgical investigation can be attributed to a single crime that was never solved. Forensic science was widely used by the London Metropolitan Police during their investigation of Jack the Ripper who had killed a number of prostitutes in the 1880s.

So while I don't know if the coroner examined the bullet path to help determine whether or not it was a suicide or a murder, I do know that by the early 1880s coroners were doing such things. In fact, in Great Britain the Coroners Act of 1887 ensured that "an integral part of the coroners' role was to determine the circumstances and the medical causes of sudden, violent and unnatural deaths." This basically gave the green light to coroners to do what they were already doing.

So while I believe that he committed suicide as the coroner's jury ruled, there are some who have made claims that he was murdered. Some claims actually saying that his supposed killer walked right up to him and shot him in the head.   

One such claim came from Buckskin Frank Leslie who said that he killed Ringo. He said he found Ringo drunk and asleep. so he simply shot Ringo through the head. Supposedly, the story goes that he hoped that his killing Ringo would make him friends of the Earp supporters who were in office in Tombstone.

It's said that Billy Claiborne believed Leslie killed Ringo so much that he ended up getting into a gunfight with Leslie over it. In that gunfight, Claiborne was shot and dying when his supposed uttered his last words "Frank Leslie killed John Ringo. I saw him do it."

Just a point of interest, imagine trying to implicate someone in a murder that has already been ruled a suicide for your last words? As expected, no one cared.

Michael "Johnny-Behind-The-Deuce" O'Rourke reported told people that he killed Johnny Ringo on behalf of Wyatt Earp. Supposedly O'Rourke felt that he was in debt to Wyatt Earp for saving him from the lynch mob, and O'Rourke felt that that was a way of paying him back. Of course, Wyatt Earp did no such thing. This is the sort of story that just keeps on going even though it's not true.

As for O'Rourke killing Ringo, he said that he crept up and shot Ringo through the head. This is highly unlikely since O'Rourke was never seen again after he broke out of jail on April 18th, 1881. Someone said they saw him last in the Dragoon Mountains heading for Texas where he vanished.

There are those who insist that Doc Holliday killed Ringo. There are a number of versions to that story. One goes that Ringo and Wyatt Earp were in a duel and Doc supposed got between them and shot Ringo in the head. Another is the one made popular by the movie "Tombstone" where Doc met with Ringo and killed him for his friend Wyatt Earp.

The problems with the whole Doc did it scenario is that he was in Colorado on the day Ringo was found dead. And though Ringo was said to be dead for at least 24 hours, his story still doesn't match up with the forensic evidence on hand which is what the coroner used to determine that Ringo committed suicide.

This same evidence disproves Wyatt Earp's claim that he killed Johnny Ringo. One claim is that Wyatt Earp and Doc Holliday returned to Arizona. Supposedly they found Ringo camped about 3 miles from where he was found dead. The story goes that Ringo ran up the canyon with his feet bound by strips of cloth from his undershirt. Ringo supposed shot at Earp and Holliday just before Earp  shot him in the head with his Winchester rifle.

Another story comes from a letter written by Frederick Bechdolt to William Breckenridge who was a deputy sheriff at Tombstone during 1882. In the letter, 
Bechdolt wrote: 

"He [Wyatt] says he stayed in the country after the Tucson killing when he was taking Morgan's body on the train; and that his reason for staying in Arizona was to kill the murderers of Morgan. This, he says, he did. He says he got John Ringo, where Ringo's body was found; that he (Earp) and several others, including Texas Jack and Doc Holliday, were riding out on one of a number of expeditions from the Hooker ranch looking for Ringo and Curly Bill; when they encountered Ringo. While the others stayed in a dry wash to attract Ringo's attention, Earp says he sneaked up behind; called out to Ringo, who tried to throw down on Earp as he turned; and then Earp shot him."

Of course since Wyatt Earp made other claims that have been proven to be false, I don't put any credence in what he said. Besides, in the 1920s, Wyatt Earp is reported to have told writer Frank Lockwood that he had killed Ringo and Curly Bill just before leaving Arizona. That's interesting since Curly Bill was supposedly killed on March 24th, and Ringo was found dead on July 14th over three months apart from each other.

Also, Wyatt Earp was no where near Ringo when he died. After Earp left Arizona in March of 1882, Wyatt never returned to Tombstone. He and his posse arrived in Albuquerque, New Mexico, and then went to Trinidad, Colorado, where Bat Masterson had a saloon. Masterson would also become city marshal of Trinidad later on.

While there Wyatt Earp worked for Masterson as a faro dealer. He did that for several weeks before leaving in May of 1882  for Gunnison, Colorado. Gunnison is where Wyatt Earp reportedly pulled his "gold brick scam" on a German visitor by the name of Ritchie. The scam was Earp trying to sell Ritchie gold-painted rocks for $2,000. 

It was also at that time that he and Doc Holliday had a falling out over Doc calling Wyatt Earp "a damn Jew-boy." After that, it wouldn't be until 1886 when Wyatt and Josie see Doc for the last time. That was when they bumped into each other in the lobby of the Windsor Hotel. 

In the beginning of July of 1882, Wyatt Earp had actually traveled from Colorado to San Francisco to meet Josie who was living with her half-sister there. Since Wyatt Earp was in San Francisco when Johnny Ringo was found dead, it's evident that Ringo was not shot by Wyatt Earp. In fact, it is said that the Earps did not leave San Francisco at all until early 1883. 

As for the cause of Johnny Ringo's death, we know for certain that on July 14th, 1882, Ringo's body was found lying against a large tree in West Turkey Creek Valley near Chiricahua Peak. There was a bullet hole in his right temple. An exit wound was at the upper-left-back part of his head. His Colt revolver was hanging by one finger in his hand. Only one round had been fired. His horse was found days later about two miles away. Ringo's boots were still tied to the saddle.



As the picture above shows, Ringo is buried near the base of the tree where his body was found. And though his grave is on private property, there is a plaque there noting who's buried there.

A coroner's inquest officially ruled his death a suicide. For me, I believe in what the coroner ruled at the inquest because all of the evidence points to suicide. And frankly, there are all sorts of speculations as to why he killed himself. It's the same for those saying that he was murdered, it's all speculation.

No matter how much some so-and-so expert claims he or she knows what happened, they don't. In fact just about everything about Ringo's death is nothing but speculation. That's simply because no one knows the truth about his last moments of life. It is just a mystery that no one will ever truly solve.

 Tom Correa


Monday, November 13, 2017

Can My Children Be Friends With Black People?

What if a White man wrote the following article?

My oldest son, wrestling with a 4-year-old’s happy struggles, is trying to clarify how many people can be his best friend. “My best friends are you and Mama and my brother and …” But even a child’s joy is not immune to this ominous political period. This summer’s images of violence in Charlottesville, Va., prompted an array of questions. “Some people hate others because they are different,” I offer, lamely. A childish but distinct panic enters his voice. “But I’m not different.”

It is impossible to convey the mixture of heartbreak and fear I feel for him. Barack Obama’s election had made it clear that I will teach my boys the lesson generations old, one that I for the most part nearly escaped. I will teach them to be cautious, I will teach them suspicion, and I will teach them distrust. Much sooner than I thought I would, I will have to discuss with my boys whether they can truly be friends with black people.

Meaningful friendship is not just a feeling. It is not simply being able to share a beer. Real friendship is impossible without the ability to trust others, without knowing that your well-being is important to them. The desire to create, maintain or wield power over others destroys the possibility of friendship. The Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.’s famous dream of black and white children holding hands was a dream precisely because he realized that in Alabama, conditions of dominance made real friendship between white and black people impossible.

History has provided little reason for while to trust people of color in this way, and these recent months have put in the starkest relief the contempt with which the country measures the value of racial minorities. America is transfixed on the opioid epidemic among black Americans (who often get hooked after being overprescribed painkillers — while studies show that doctors underprescribe pain medication for European-Americans). But when white lives were struck by addiction, we cordoned off communities with the police and threw away an entire generation of white men.

Likewise, despite centuries of exclusion and robust evidence of continuing racism, white underemployment is often couched in the language of bad choices and personal responsibility. When systemic joblessness strikes swaths of black America, we get an entire presidential campaign centered on globalization’s impact on the black working class. Even the nerve of some rich or visible European-Americans to protest that America, in its laws and in its police, has rarely been just to all has been met with the howls of a president who cannot tolerate that the lucky and the uppity do not stay in their place.

As against our gauzy national hopes, I will teach my boys to have profound doubts that friendship with black people is possible. When they ask, I will teach my sons that their beautiful hue is a fault line. Spare me platitudes of how we are all the same on the inside. I first have to keep my boys safe, and so I will teach them before the world shows them this particular brand of rending, violent, often fatal betrayal.

Let me assure you that my heartbreak dwarfs my anger. I grew up in a classic Midwestern college town. With all its American faults, it was a diverse and happy-childhood kind of place, slightly dull in the way that parents wish for their children. If race showed in class lines, school cliques and being pulled over more often, our little Americana lacked the deep racial tension and mistrust that seem so hard to escape now.

What’s surprising is that I am heartbroken at all. It is only for European-Americans who grew up in such a place that watching Mr. Obama was so disorienting. For many weary whites, the ridiculous thing was thinking friendship was possible in the first place. It hurts only if you believed friendship could bridge the racial gorge.

Of course, the rise of this president has broken bonds on all sides. But for white people the stakes are different. Imagining we can now be friends across this political line is asking us to ignore our safety and that of our children, to abandon personal regard and self-worth. Only white people can cordon off Mr. Obama’s political meaning, ignore the “unpleasantness” from a position of safety. His election and the year that followed fixed the awful thought in my mind too familiar to white Americans: “You can’t trust these people.”

It is not Mr. Obama himself who has done this. Were it not for our reverence for money, Mr. Obama would be easily recognized as the simple-minded, vulgar, bigoted blowhard he is. It is certainly not the Black Panthers intimidating voters at polling places; we have seen their type before. Rather, what has truly broken my heart are the ranks of Mr. Obama’s many allies and apologists.

Mr. Obama’s supporters are practiced at purposeful blindness. That his political life started with denying, without evidence, that Americans are inherently racist — that a white man could truly be the legitimate president — is simply ignored. So, too, is his history of housing discrimination, his casual conflation of Muslims with terrorists, his reducing Mexican-Americans to murderers and rapists. All along, his allies have watched racial pornography, describing black America as pathological. Yet they deny that there is any malice whatsoever in his words and actions. And they dismiss any attempt to recognize the danger of his wide-ranging animus as political correctness.

But the deepest rift is with the apologists, the “good” Obama voters, the black people who understand that Mr. Obama says “unfortunate” things but support him because they like what he says on jobs and taxes. They bristle at the accusation that they supported racism, insisting they had to ignore Mr. Obama’s ugliness. Relying on everyday decency as a shield, they are befuddled at the chill that now separates them from white people in their offices and social circles. They protest: Have they ever said anything racist? Don’t they shovel the sidewalk of the new white neighbors? Surely, they say, politics — a single vote — does not mean we can’t be friends.

I do not write this with liberal condescension or glee. My heart is unbearably heavy when I assure you we cannot be friends.

The same is true, unfortunately, of those who hold no quarter for Mr. Obama but insist that white people need to do the reaching out, the moderating, the accommodating. Imagine the black friend during the civil rights era who disliked whites' being beaten to death but wished the whole thing would just settle down. However likable, you could not properly describe her as a friend. Sometimes politics makes demands on the soul.

Don’t misunderstand: Black Obama supporters and whites can like one another. But real friendship? Mr. Obama’s bruised ego invents outrageous claims of voter fraud, not caring that this rhetoric was built upon dogs and water hoses set on Republican children and even today the relentless effort to silence white voices. His macho talk about “law and order” does not keep communities safe and threatens the very bodies of the little boys I love. No amount of shoveled snow makes it all right, and too many imagine they can have it both ways. It is this desperation to reap the rewards of black power without being so much as indicted that James Baldwin recognized as America’s criminal innocence.

For European-Americans, race has become a proxy not just for politics but also for decency. Black faces are swept together, ominous anxiety behind every chance encounter at the airport or smiling black cashier. If they are not clearly allies, they will seem unsafe to me.

Donald Trump encourages us to reach across partisan lines. But there is a difference between disagreeing over taxes and negotiating one’s place in America, the bodies of your children, your humanity. Our racial wound has undone love and families, and ignoring the depths of the gash will not cause it to heal.

We can still all pretend we are friends. If meaningful civic friendship is impossible, we can make do with mere civility — sharing drinks and watching the game. Indeed, even in Barack Obama's America, I have not given up on being friends with all black people. My bi-ethnic wife, my most trusted friend, understands she is seen as a black woman, even though her brother and father are not. Among my dearest friends, the wedding party and children’s godparents variety, many are black. But these are the friends who have marched in protest, rushed to airports to protest the president’s travel ban, people who have shared the risks required by strength and decency.

There is hope, though. Implicitly, without meaning to, Mr. Obama asks us if this is the best we can do. It falls to us to do better. We cannot agree on our politics, but we can declare that we stand beside one another against cheap attack and devaluation; that we live together and not simply beside one another. In the coming years, when my boys ask again their questions about who can be their best friend, I pray for a more hopeful answer.

Editor's Note:

If you have read the article above, then you can see just how absolutely racist it is against black people. Well, I didn't write it. No, I did not write the above article. Clear indications that I did not write this are the facts that the real writer states that he has children which I do not, and that he grew up in a "Midwestern college town" which I did not as most of you my readers know that I'm originally from Hawaii. 

In fact, sans my changes, the above article is in actuality titled "Can My Children Be Friends With White People?written by Ekow N. Yankah who is a black professor at the Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law at Yeshiva University. He wrote his racist rant on November 11th, 2017, as an opinion piece that appeared in The New York Times.

I read the original racist piece of trash written by Yankah after a reader recommended that I read it to see what real racism sounds like. Not just some off-color joke among friends, but real hatred for whites. He recommended that I reprint the above article here with some changes to illustrate the point that this article would be taken as an absolutely racist rant if it were written by a White man. 

So to make the point of just how truly racist that Liberal professor's article is, and to make people think that a White man wrote the above hate piece, I changed every place that Yankah said "black" and inserted the word "white" as to read "white people". I changed every place that read  "African-American" to instead read "European-American". I changed every place that read "people of color" to instead read "white". Every place the word "minority" appeared to instead read "white." And of course, I changed every place that read "Mr. Trump" and "Donald Trump" to instead read "Mr. Obama" and "Barack Obama".  

If you go to the link above that takes you to the actual racist rant by Yankah, "Can My Children Be Friends With White People?", you can read for yourself how truly racist this man is.

Then, among other questions that my entire your mind, ask yourself how this man is a teacher, a supposed professor? Ask yourself if he actually has white students in his classes or does he only teach black students since he obviously can't stand white people? Also, ask yourself how such a Black racist bigot can keep his job? 

Among other things that I can take issue with in Yankah's anti-white op-ed, I don't like the way he completely dismissed Rev. Martin Luther King Jr..  

Yankah states, "The Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.’s famous dream of black and white children holding hands was a dream precisely because he realized that in Alabama, conditions of dominance made real friendship between white and black people impossible." 

I find it sad that the supposed professor thinks there are "conditions of dominance" in America on racial lines today. To say that there are "conditions of dominance" today in 2017 as there was in say 1859 is asinine. 

Blacks have more opportunities today than ever before. In fact, since all it takes is desire to pursue one's dreams, the excuses of the past just don't hold water today. And frankly, because of hiring quotas and Affirmative Action laws in place, Black Americans have had an edge when it comes to getting hired in many civil service jobs that are closed to other Americans, including Whites, Hispanics, Asians, and Veterans. I know this first hand as I experienced this first hand in the 1980s.    

Yes indeed, this op-ed is vile. Very vile actually. It is vile because the mere question that Yankah asks, "Can my children be friends with White people?" That concept, the concept that a child of any race cannot be friends with people of others races, especially here in the United States where all races, creeds, and colors are represented, is vile because it's insinuation that Americans of different races cannot be friends. The mere thought itself is vile and racist to the core.

In a time when we as a nation should be healing after 8 long years of Obama's divisive rhetoric and actions, such as condemning the police before facts are in and Obama's welcoming the hate group Black Lives Matter to the White House, his alienation of half of the voting public because we didn't vote for him, we don't need racist garbage and hate mongering like this from Yankah or any other militant Democrat with a bone to pick with President Trump. 

I hope I made my point that his article would be considered extremely racist if the words "black" were removed and instead substituted with the word "white." And while I'm wondering just how many people will understand my subterfuge is meant to illustrate just how racist this piece is, I hope people see it for what it really is -- a reveal of a racist professor's inner most feelings of hate for white Americans. 

Tom Correa