Carl Tanzler


carl_tanzler_1940

Carl Tanzler, or sometimes Count Carl von Cosel (February 8, 1877 – July 3, 1952), was a German-born radiologic technologist at the United States Marine Hospital in Key West, Florida who developed a morbid obsession for a young Cuban-American tuberculosis patient, Elena Milagro “Helen” de Hoyos (July 31, 1909 – October 25, 1931), that carried on well after the disease had caused her death. In 1933, almost two years after her death, Tanzler removed Hoyos’s body from its tomb, and lived with the corpse at his home for seven years until its discovery by Hoyos’s relatives and authorities in 1940.
Name

Tanzler went by many names; he was listed as Georg Karl Tänzler on his German marriage certificate. He was listed as Carl Tanzler von Cosel on his United States citizenship papers, and he was listed as Carl Tanzler on his Florida death certificate. Some of his hospital records were signed Count Carl Tanzler von Cosel.

Early life

He was born as Karl Tänzler or Georg Karl Tänzler on February 8, 1877 in Dresden, Germany. Around 1920 he married Doris Anna Shafer (1889–1977) and he was listed as “Georg Karl Tänzler” on the marriage certificate. Together they had two children: Ayesha Tanzler (1922–1998), and Crystal Tanzler (1924–1934), who died of diphtheria.

Tanzler grew up in Germany. The following “Editorial Note“ accompanying the autobiographical account “The Trial Bay Organ: A Product of Wit and Ingenuity” by “Carl von Cosel,“ in the Rosicrucian Digest of March and April 1939, gives details about his stay in Australia before and during World War I and his return to Germany after the war:

Many years ago, Carl von Cosel travelled from India to Australia with the intention of proceeding to the South Seas Islands. He paused in Australia to collect equipment and suitable boats, and to become acquainted with prevailing weather and sea conditions. However, he became interested in engineering and electrical work there, bought property, boats, an organ, an island in the Pacific—so that he was still in Australia at the end of ten years. He had just begun to build a trans-ocean flyer when the war broke out and the British military authorities placed him in a concentration camp for ‘safe-keeping’ along with many officers India and China who were prisoners of war. Later he was removed to Trial Bay to a castle-like prison on the cliffs, and there the work in this narrative was accomplished. At the end of the war no prisoner was permitted to return to his former residence, but all were shipped to the prisoner’s exchange in Holland. When Carl von Cosel was released he set out to find his mother from whom he had not heard since the beginning of the war. Finding her safe, he remained with her for three years, witnessing the chaos that followed in the wake of the war. … Finally, she suggested that her son return to his sister in the United States …

Tanzler’s account of Trial Bay Gaol, his secret building of a sailing boat, etc., is confirmed by Nyanatiloka Thera, who mentions that he planned to escape from the Gaol with ”Count Carl von Cosel” in a sailing boat, and provides other information about the interment of Germans in Australia during WWI.

Tanzler emigrated to the United States in 1926, sailing from Rotterdam on February 6, 1926 to Havana, Cuba. From Cuba he settled in Zephyrhills, Florida, to where his sister had already emigrated, and was later joined by his wife and two daughters. Leaving his family behind in Zephyrhills in 1927, he took a job as a radiologic technologist at the U.S. Marine Hospital in Key West, Florida under the name Carl von Cosel.

During his childhood in Germany, and later while traveling briefly in Genoa, Italy, Tanzler claimed to have been visited by visions of a dead ancestor, Countess Anna Constantia von Cosel, who revealed the face of his true love, an exotic dark-haired woman, to him.
Maria Elena Milagro de Hoyos

On April 22, 1930, while working at the Marine Hospital in Key West, Tanzler met Maria Elena “Helen” Milagro de Hoyos (1909–1931), a local Cuban-American woman who had been brought to the hospital by her mother for an examination. Tanzler immediately recognized her as the beautiful dark-haired woman that had been revealed to him in his earlier “visions.” By all accounts, Hoyos was viewed as a local beauty in Key West.

Elena was the daughter of local cigar maker Francisco “Pancho” Hoyos (1883–1934) and Aurora Milagro (1881–1940). She had two sisters, Florinda “Nana” Milagro Hoyos (1906–1944), who married Mario Medina (c.1905–1944) and also succumbed to tuberculosis; and Celia Milagro Hoyos (1913–?). Medina, Nana’s husband, was electrocuted trying to rescue a coworker who hit a powerline with his crane at a construction site.

On February 18, 1926, Hoyos married Luis Mesa (1908–?), the son of Caridad and Isaac Mesa. Luis left Hoyos shortly after Hoyos miscarried the couple’s child, and moved to Miami. Hoyos was legally married to Mesa at the time of her death.

Hoyos was eventually diagnosed with tuberculosis, a typically fatal disease at the time, that eventually claimed the lives of almost all of her entire immediate family. Tanzler, with his self-professed medical knowledge, attempted to treat and cure Hoyos with a variety of medicines, as well as x-ray and electrical equipment, that were brought to the Hoyoses’ home. Tanzler showered Hoyos with gifts of jewelry and clothing, and allegedly professed his love to her, but no evidence has surfaced to show that any of his affection was reciprocated by Hoyos.
Morbid obsession

Despite Tanzler’s best efforts, Hoyos died of terminal tuberculosis at her parents’ home in Key West on October 25, 1931. Tanzler paid for her funeral, and with the permission of her family he then commissioned the construction of an above ground mausoleum in the Key West Cemetery, which he visited almost every night.

One evening in April, 1933, Tanzler crept through the cemetery where Hoyos was buried and removed her body from the mausoleum, carting it through the cemetery after dark on a toy wagon, and transporting it to his home. He reportedly said that Elena’s spirit would come to him when he would sit by her grave and serenade her corpse with a favorite Spanish song. He also said that she would often tell him to take her from the grave. Tanzler attached the corpse’s bones together with wire and coat hangers, and fitted the face with glass eyes. As the skin of the corpse decomposed, Tanzler replaced it with silk cloth soaked in wax and plaster of paris. As the hair fell out of the decomposing scalp, Tanzler fashioned a wig from Hoyos’s hair that had been collected by her mother and given to Tanzler not long after her burial in 1931. Tanzler filled the corpse’s abdominal and chest cavity with rags to keep the original form, dressed Hoyos’s remains in stockings, jewelry, and gloves, and kept the body in his bed. Tanzler also used copious amounts of perfume, disinfectants, and preserving agents, to mask the odor and forestall the effects of the corpse’s decomposition.

In October, 1940, Elena’s sister Florinda heard rumors of Tanzler sleeping with the disinterred body of her sister, and confronted Tanzler at his home, where Hoyos’s body was eventually discovered. Florinda notified the authorities, and Tanzler was arrested and detained. Tanzler was psychiatrically examined, and found mentally competent to stand trial on the charge of “wantonly and maliciously destroying a grave and removing a body without authorization.” After a preliminary hearing on October 9, 1940 at the Monroe County Courthouse in Key West, Tanzler was held to answer on the charge, but the case was eventually dropped and he was released, as the statute of limitations for the crime had expired.

Shortly after the corpse’s discovery by authorities, Hoyos’s body was examined by physicians and pathologists, and put on public display at the Dean-Lopez Funeral Home, where it was viewed by as many as 6,800 people. Hoyos’s body was eventually returned to the Key West Cemetery where the remains were buried in an unmarked grave, in a secret location, to prevent further tampering.

The facts underlying the case and the preliminary hearing drew much interest from the media at the time (most notably, from the Key West Citizen and Miami Herald), and created a sensation among the public, both regionally and nationwide. The public mood was generally sympathetic to Tanzler, whom many viewed as an eccentric “romantic”.

Though not reported contemporaneously, research (most notably by authors Harrison and Swicegood) has revealed evidence of Tanzler’s necrophilia with Hoyos’s corpse. Two physicians (Dr. DePoo and Dr. Foraker) who attended the 1940 autopsy of Hoyos’s remains recalled in 1972 that a paper tube had been inserted in the vaginal area of the corpse that allowed for intercourse. Others contend that since no evidence of necrophilia was presented at the 1940 preliminary hearing, and because the physicians’ “proof” surfaced in 1972, over 30 years after the case had been dismissed, the necrophilia allegation is questionable. While no existing contemporary photographs of the autopsy or photographs taken at the public display show a tube, the necrophilia claim was repeated by the HBO Autopsy program in 2005.
Later life and death

In 1944, Tanzler moved to Pasco County, Florida close to Zephyrhills, Florida, where he wrote an autobiography that appeared in the Pulp publication, Fantastic Adventures, in 1947. His home was near his wife Doris, who apparently helped to support Tanzler in his later years. Tanzler received United States citizenship in 1950 in Tampa.

Separated from his obsession, Tanzler used a death mask to create a life-sized effigy of Hoyos, and lived with it until his death on July 3, 1952. His body was discovered on the floor of his home three weeks after his death. He died under the name “Carl Tanzler”.

It has been recounted that Tanzler was found in the arms of the Hoyos effigy upon discovery of his corpse, but his obituary reported that he died on the floor behind one of his organs. The obituary recounted: “a metal cylinder on a shelf above a table in it wrapped in silken cloth and a robe was a waxen image”.

It has been written (most notably by Swicegood) that Tanzler had the bodies switched (or that Hoyos’s remains were secretly returned to him), and that he died with the real body of Elena

 

elena2
Maria Elena Milagro de Hayos corpse

 

Advertisements

Sir Jeffrey Hudson


(c) National Trust, Hardwick Hall; Supplied by The Public Catalogue Foundation
(c) National Trust, Hardwick Hall; Supplied by The Public Catalogue Foundation

Sir Jeffrey Hudson (1619 – circa 1682) was an English court dwarf at the court of Queen Henrietta Maria. He was famous as the “Queen’s dwarf” and “Lord Minimus”, and was considered one of the “wonders of the age” because of his extreme but well-proportioned smallness. He fought with the Royalists in the English Civil War and fled with the Queen to France but was expelled from her court when he killed a man in a duel. He was captured by Barbary pirates and spent 25 years as a slave in North Africa before being ransomed back to England.

Early life and rise to prominence

Jeffrey was baptised in Oakham in Rutland on 14 June 1619. His parents, three brothers, and a half-sister were all of typical size. Hudson’s father John was keeper of the baiting bulls for George Villiers, Duke of Buckingham. Jeffrey’s marvellous smallness and normal proportions became apparent in early childhood. Various theories existed for his size, including that his mother choked on a gherkin while pregnant, but he in fact suffered from a growth hormone deficiency caused by a misfiring pituitary gland.

On his seventh birthday, in 1626, Jeffrey Hudson was presented to the Duchess of Buckingham as a “rarity of nature” and she invited him to join the household. A few months later, the Duke and Duchess entertained King Charles and his young French wife, Queen Henrietta Maria, in London. The climax of the lavish banquet was the presentation of Jeffrey to the Queen, served in a large pie. When the pie was placed in front of the Queen, Jeffrey arose from the crust, 18 inches (45 cm) tall and dressed in a miniature suit of armour. The Queen was delighted and the Duke and Duchess of Buckingham offered Hudson to her as an amusing gift.
Jeffrey at the Queen’s court

Jeffrey moved into Denmark House in London in late 1626, where the Queen maintained her royal household, with its many French attendants and Catholic priests. He was one of several natural curiosities and pets, among whom were a giant Welsh porter named William Evans, two disproportionate dwarfs, and a monkey called Pug. He later developed a routine with Evans in which the porter pulled Jeffrey out of his pocket along with a loaf of bread, and proceeded to make a sandwich. As he “grew up” in years, if not in inches, Jeffrey learned to amuse and entertain with his wit and courtly behaviour as well as his appearance. Dwarfs were not rare in the courts of Europe but Jeffrey’s fine proportions and tiny size made him uniquely famous. His size was repeatedly described as 18 or 19 inches and he is reported to have grown little between 7 and 30 years of age. He was often cast in picturesque roles in the elaborate costumed masques which were staged by Inigo Jones for the amusement of the court.

Although the courtiers mixed for common events, King Charles I and his young wife maintained separate courts and households in London. Henrietta was French, and Roman Catholic, and her presence in London was a potential source of tension despite the value of the marriage in maintaining a friendly relationship with France. There were political disputes over the size of her court, especially the number of priests. She was allowed to have a chapel constructed in Denmark House for Roman Catholic church services, the only place in the kingdom where this was permitted. Over the years the relationship between Henrietta and Charles grew stronger as the relationship between Charles and much of England grew worse.

In 1630, at about 10 years of age, Jeffrey was included in a mission to France. Although the principal purpose of the mission was to return with a midwife for the Queen’s first pregnancy, it is likely that Jeffrey was sent for the appreciation of the French court. On the return journey across the channel their ship was captured by Dunkirk pirates, who plundered the ship but eventually released them to return to England. Hudson’s second trip across the Channel occurred in 1637, at age 18, when a group of courtiers travelled to the Netherlands to observe the siege of Breda, as the Dutch were attempting to expel the Spanish army.

Jeffrey was educated in the Queen’s household and learned the manners of the court. He was brought up in the Roman Catholic Church of her household. He learned to ride a horse and shoot a pistol. He was celebrated in a variety of poems and narratives of the day. However, despite his wit and intelligence, it was the novelty of his shortness that was most prized and all understood that if he had been of normal height he would have had no place at court. This is explicitly acknowledged in one of several adulatory poems.
The coming of the Civil War and the dissolution of the court

By 1640 the relationship between King Charles and the Parliament had deteriorated to the point of plots and attempted arrests. Armed conflict broke out between the Royalists and the Parliamentarians in 1642. As Charles led the Royalist army, the Queen took a small number of her retinue, including Hudson, to the Netherlands to raise money and support for him. By selling articles from her palace she raised enough to buy some supplies for the Royalist army but was unsuccessful in obtaining official support from the Protestant Dutch government. She returned to England with her courtiers and they found themselves in the middle of a civil war.

They were able to join Royalist forces at Oxford. The Queen appointed Hudson a “Captain of Horse.” It is not known whether he commanded troops or saw combat in one of Prince Rupert’s cavalry raids, but he considered the appointment an honour rather than a joke and later in life continued to style himself Captain Jeffrey Hudson.

As it became apparent that the war was broadening rather than concluding, the Queen fled to France in 1643 with a small group of courtiers and household staff, again including Hudson. Although they were warmly received in France and provided with space in the Louvre palace, the Queen was ailing after a difficult delivery and she soon moved her court in exile to the spa at Nevers.
Duel and disaster

Royalist courtiers collected around the Queen, but Hudson apparently had no interest in resuming his role of pet or clown and let it be known he would suffer no more jokes or insults. There is no record of the precise offence offered, but in October 1644, Hudson challenged the brother of William Crofts to a duel. Crofts arrived at the duel brandishing a large squirt, but his flippancy would lead to his death, as Hudson fatally shot him in the forehead. Crofts’ death was a disaster for Hudson. Duelling had been outlawed in France and this could be considered a transgression against hospitality, in addition to the fact that William Crofts was a powerful figure as the Queen’s Master of Horse and head of her lifeguard. He was initially sentenced to death, but the Queen had this commuted to exile, and he was sent back to England.
Slavery and redemption, poverty and death

Hudson’s movements after leaving the Queen’s court in late 1644, aged 25 years, are unknown. Within months he was on a ship captured by the Barbary pirates. Hudson was taken to North Africa as a slave, where he spent perhaps his next 25 years labouring. The date and circumstances of his rescue or redemption are not known but it was in the 1660s that several missions were sent from England to Algeria and Tunis to ransom English captives, and his first documented presence back in England was in 1669. No details of his captivity were recorded except one fact: he claimed to have grown to 45 inches during this time, doubling his height after 30 years of age, which he attributed to the buggery he had regularly suffered at the hands of his captors.

The few contemporary records of Hudson’s years between 1669 and his death in 1682 consist of a few receipts for grants of money from the Duke of Buckingham and the new King. He did not return to the Queen’s court, even after the royal Restoration in 1660 and her return at the invitation of her son, Charles II. She resided in London only 5 years, fleeing to France during the London plague of 1665. She died in France in 1669, the year Hudson first reappeared in English records.

Jeffrey Hudson lived in Oakham for several years, where he was interviewed and a short record of his life made, by an antiquarian named James Wright. In 1676 Hudson returned to London, perhaps to seek a pension from the royal court. He had the misfortune of arriving at a time of turbulent anti-Catholic activity, which included the “Popish Plot” of Titus Oates (also from Oakham), and was imprisoned “for a considerable time” at the Gatehouse prison. Being a “Roman Catholick” was his only recorded offence, but he was not released until 1680. He died about two years later on an unknown date, in unknown circumstances, buried in an unmarked Catholic paupers’ grave

Radovan Karadžić


phpThumb_generated_thumbnailjpg

Radovan Karadžić ( born 19 June 1945) is a former Bosnian Serb politician and convicted war criminal who served as the President of Republika Srpska during the Bosnian War and sought the direct unification of that entity with Serbia.

Educated as a psychiatrist, he co-founded the Serb Democratic Party in Bosnia and Herzegovina and served as the first President of Republika Srpska from 1992 to 1996. He was a fugitive from 1996 until July 2008 after having been indicted for war crimes by the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY). The indictment concluded there were reasonable grounds for believing he committed war crimes, including genocide against Bosnian Muslim and Bosnian Croat civilians during the Bosnian War (1992–95). While a fugitive he worked at a private clinic in Belgrade, specialising in alternative medicine and psychology under an alias. His nephew, Dragan Karadžić, has claimed in an interview to the Corriere della Sera that Radovan Karadžić attended Serie A football matches and that he visited Venice using a different alias (Petar Glumac).

He was eventually arrested in Belgrade on 21 July 2008 and brought before Belgrade’s War Crimes Court a few days later. Extradited to the Netherlands, he is in the custody of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia in the United Nations Detention Unit of Scheveningen, where he was charged with 11 counts of war crimes. He is sometimes referred to by the Western media as the “Butcher of Bosnia”, a sobriquet also applied to former Army of Republika Srpska (VRS) General Ratko Mladić. On 24 March 2016, he was found guilty of genocide in Srebrenica, war crimes and crimes against humanity, 10 of the 11 eleven charges in total, and sentenced to 40 years’ imprisonment.

Early life

Radovan Karadžić was born on 19 June 1945 in the village of Petnjica in the Socialist Republic of Montenegro, SFR Yugoslavia, near Šavnik. Karadžić’s father, Vuko (1912–1987), was a cobbler from Petnjica. His mother, Jovanka (née Jakić; 1922–2005), was a peasant girl from Pljevlja. She married Karadžić’s father in 1943, aged twenty. Karadžić claims to be related to the Serbian linguistic reformer Vuk Stefanović Karadžić (1787–1864), although this claim cannot be confirmed. His father had been a member of the Chetniks—the army of the Kingdom of Yugoslavia’s government-in-exile during World War II—and was imprisoned by the post-war communist regime for much of his son’s childhood. Karadžić moved to Sarajevo in 1960 to study psychiatry at the Sarajevo University School of Medicine.

He studied neurotic disorders and depression at Næstved Hospital in Denmark in 1970, and during 1974-75 he underwent further medical training at Columbia University in New York. After his return to Yugoslavia, he worked in the Koševo Hospital. He was also a poet, influenced by Serbian writer Dobrica Ćosić, who encouraged him to go into politics. During his spell as an ecologist, he declared that “Bolshevism is bad, but nationalism is even worse”.
Financial misdeeds

Soon after graduation, Karadžić started working in a treatment centre at the psychiatric clinic of the main Sarajevo hospital, Koševo. According to testimony, he often boosted his income by issuing fake medical and psychological evaluations to healthcare workers who wanted early retirement or to criminals who tried to avoid punishment by pleading insanity. In 1983, Karadžić started working at a hospital in the Belgrade suburb of Voždovac. With his partner Momčilo Krajišnik, then manager of a mining enterprise Energoinvest, he managed to get a loan from an agricultural-development fund and they used it to build themselves houses in Pale, a Serb town above Sarajevo turned into a ski resort by the government.

On 1 November 1984 the two were arrested for fraud and spent 11 months in detention before their friend Nikola Koljević managed to bail them out. Due to a lack of evidence, Karadžić was released and his trial was brought to a halt. The trial was revived and on 26 September 1985 Karadžić was sentenced to three years in prison for embezzlement and fraud. As he had already spent over a year in detention, Karadžić did not serve the remaining sentence in prison.
Political life

Following encouragement from Dobrica Ćosić, later the first president of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, and Jovan Rašković, leader of Croatian Serbs, he cofounded the Serb Democratic Party (Srpska Demokratska Stranka) in Bosnia and Herzegovina in 1989. The party aimed at unifying the Republic’s Bosnian Serb community and joining Croatian Serbs in leading them in remaining as part of Yugoslavia in the event of secession by those two republics from the federation.

Throughout September 1991, the SDS began to establish various “Serb Autonomous Regions” throughout Bosnia-Herzegovina. After the Bosnian parliament voted on sovereignty on 15 October 1991, a separate Serb Assembly was founded on 24 October 1991 in Banja Luka, to exclusively represent the Serbs in Bosnia and Herzegovina. The following month, Bosnian Serbs held a referendum which resulted in an overwhelming vote in favour of staying in a federal state with Serbia and Montenegro, as part of Yugoslavia. In December 1991, a top secret document, For the organisation and activity of organs of the Serbs people in Bosnia-Herzegovina in extraordinary circumstances, was drawn up by the SDS leadership. This was a centralised programme for the takeover of each municipality in the country, through the creation of shadow governments and para-governmental structures through various “crisis headquarters”, and by preparing loyalist Serbs for the takeover in co-ordination with the Yugoslav People’s Army (JNA).

On 9 January 1992, the Bosnian Serb Assembly proclaimed the Republic of the Serb people of Bosnia and Herzegovina (Република српског народа Босне и Херцеговине/Republika srpskog naroda Bosne i Hercegovine). On 28 February 1992, the constitution of the Serb Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina was adopted and declared that the state’s territory included Serb autonomous regions, municipalities, and other Serbian ethnic entities in Bosnia and Herzegovina, as well as “all regions in which the Serbian people represent a minority due to the Second World War genocide”, although how this was established was never specified, and it was declared to be a part of the federal Yugoslav state. On 29 February and 1 March 1992 a referendum on the independence of Bosnia and Herzegovina from Yugoslavia was held. Many Serbs boycotted the referendum and pro-independence Bosniaks and Croats turned out.
President of Republika Srpska

On 6 and 7 April 1992, Bosnia was recognized as an independent state by the European Community  and the US. It was admitted to the UN on 22 May 1992. Karadžić was voted President of this Bosnian Serb administration in Pale on about 13 May 1992 after the breakup of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. At the time he assumed this position, his de jure powers, as described in the constitution of the Bosnian Serb administration, included commanding the army of the Bosnian Serb administration in times of war and peace, and having the authority to appoint, promote and discharge officers of the army. Karadžić made three trips to the UN in New York in February and March 1993 for negotiations on the future of Bosnia.

He went to Moscow in 1994 for meetings with Russian officials on the Bosnian situation. In 1994, the Greek Orthodox Church declared Karadžić “one of the most prominent sons of our Lord Jesus Christ working for peace”, and decorated him with the nine-hundred-year-old Knights’ Order of the First Rank of Saint Dionysius of Xanthe. Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew announced that “the Serbian people have been chosen by God to protect the western frontiers of Orthodoxy”.

On Friday, 4 August 1995, with a massive Croatian military force poised to attack the Serb-held Krajina region in central Croatia, Karadžić announced he was removing General Ratko Mladić from his commandant post and assuming personal command of the VRS himself. Karadžić blamed Mladić for the loss of two key Serb-held towns in western Bosnia that had recently fallen to the Croats, and he used the loss of the towns as the excuse to announce his surprise command structure changes. General Mladić was demoted to an “adviser”. Mladić refused to go quietly, claiming the support of the Bosnian Serb military and the people. Karadžić countered by attempting to pull political rank as well as denouncing Mladić as a “madman”, but Mladić’s popular support forced Karadžić to rescind his order on 11 August.
War crimes charges

Karadžić was accused by the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) of personal and command responsibility for numerous war crimes committed against non-Serbs, in his roles as Supreme Commander of the Bosnian Serb armed forces and President of the National Security Council of the Republika Srpska. He was accused by the same authority of being responsible for the deaths of more than 7,500 Muslims. Under his direction and command, Bosnian Serb forces initiated the Siege of Sarajevo. He was accused by the ICTY of ordering the Srebrenica genocide in 1995, directing Bosnian Serb forces to “create an unbearable situation of total insecurity with no hope of further survival of life” in the UN safe area. He was also accused by the ICTY of ordering that United Nations personnel be taken hostage in May–June 1995.

He was jointly indicted by the International Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia in 1995, along with General Ratko Mladić. The indictment charged Karadžić on the basis of his individual criminal responsibility (Article 7(1) of the Statute) and superior criminal responsibility (Article 7(3) of the Statute) with:

Five counts of crimes against humanity (Article 5 of the Statute – extermination, murder, persecutions on political, racial and religious grounds, persecutions, inhumane acts (forcible transfer));
Three counts of violations of the laws of war (Article 3 of the Statute – murder, unlawfully inflicting terror upon civilians, taking hostages);
One count of grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions (Article 2 of the Statute – willful killing).
Unlawful transfer of civilians because of religious or national identity.

The United States government offered a $5 million reward for his and Ratko Mladić’s arrests.
Bosnian genocide trial

Karadžić and Mladić were placed on trial for charges of genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes committed in Srebrenica, Prijedor, Ključ, and other districts of Bosnia. They were charged, separately, with:

Count 1: Genocide. On 28 June 2012, the trial chamber granted a defence motion for acquittal on this count as “the evidence, even if taken at its highest, did not reach the level from which a reasonable trier of fact could conclude that genocide occurred in the municipalities [in question]”. Motions for acquittal on nine other counts were dismissed. The Appeals Chamber subsequently concluded that the court had erred and reinstated Count 1 on 11 July 2013.
Municipalities: Bratunac, Foča, Ključ, Kotor Varoš, Prijedor, Sanski Most, Vlasenica and Zvornik.
Count 2: Genocide.
Municipality: Srebrenica.
Count 3: Persecutions on Political, Racial and Religious Grounds, a Crime Against Humanity.
Municipalities: Banja Luka, Bijeljina, Bosanska Krupa, Bosanski Novi, Bratunac, Brčko, Foča, Hadžići, Ilidža, Kalinovik, Ključ, Kotor Varoš, Novi Grad, Novo Sarajevo, Pale, Prijedor, Rogatica, Sanski Most, Sokolac, Trnovo, Vlasenica, Vogošća, Zvornik, and Srebrenica.
Count 4: Extermination, a Crime Against Humanity.
Count 5: Murder, a Crime Against Humanity.
Count 6: Murder, a Violation of the Laws or Customs of War.
Count 7: Deportation, a Crime Against Humanity.
Count 8: Inhumane Acts (forcible transfer), a Crime Against Humanity.
Count 9: Acts of Violence the Primary Purpose of which is to Spread Terror among the Civilian Population, a Violation of the Laws or Customs of War.
Count 10: Unlawful Attacks on Civilians, a Violation of the Laws or Customs of War.
Count 11: Taking of Hostages, a Violation of the Laws or Customs of War.

The Yugoslav war crimes court rejected on 27 June 2012 one of the two genocide charges against Karadžić. However, on 11 July 2013, the Appeals Chamber reinstated these charges.
Fugitive

Authorities missed arresting Karadžić in 1995 when he was an invitee of the United Nations. During his visit to the United Nations in 1993, he was handed a service of process for a civil claim under the Alien Tort Act. The Courts ruled that Karadžić was properly served and the trial was allowed to proceed in United States District Court.

Karadžić’s ability to evade capture for over a decade increased his esteem among some Bosnian Serbs, despite an alleged deal with Richard Holbrooke. Some sources allege that he received protection from the United States as a consequence of the Dayton Agreement. Holbrooke, however, repeatedly denied that such a deal was ever made.

During his time as fugitive he was helped by several people, including Bosko Radonjich and in 2001, hundreds of supporters demonstrated in support of Karadžić in his home town. In March 2003, his mother Jovanka publicly urged him to surrender.

British officials conceded military action was unlikely to be successful in bringing Karadžić and other suspects to trial, and that putting political pressure on Balkan governments would be more likely to succeed.

In May 2004, the UN learned that: “the brother of a war crimes suspect allegedly in the process of providing information on Radovan Karadzic and his network to the ICTY, was mistakenly killed in a raid by the Republika Srpska police” and added that “It is being argued that the informer was targeted in order to silence him before he was able to say more”.

In 2005, Bosnian Serb leaders called on Karadžić to surrender, stating that Bosnia and Serbia could not move ahead economically or politically while he remained at large. After a failed raid earlier in May, on 7 July 2005 NATO troops arrested Karadžić’s son, Aleksandar, but released him after 10 days. On 28 July, Karadžić’s wife, Ljiljana, made a call for him to surrender after, what she called, “enormous pressure”.

The BBC reported that Karadžić had been sighted in 2005 near Foča: “38 km (24 miles) down the road, on the edge of the Sutjeska national park, Radovan Karadžić has just got out of a red Mercedes” and asserted that “Western intelligence agencies knew roughly where they were, but that there was no political will in London or Washington to risk the lives of British, or U.S. agents, in a bid to seize” him and Mladić.

On 10 January 2008, the BBC reported that the passports of his closest relatives had been seized. On 21 February 2008, at the time Kosovo declared independence, portraits of Karadžić were on display during Belgrade’s “Kosovo is Serbia protest”.

Since 1999 Karadžić had been masquerading as a “new age” expert in alternative medicine using the fake name “D.D. David” printed on his business cards. The initials apparently stood for “Dragan Dabić”; officials said he was also using the name “Dr. Dragan David Dabić”. He lectured in front of hundreds of people on alternative medicine. He had his own website, where he offered his assistance in the treatment of sexual problems and disorders by using what he called “Human Quantum Energy”.
Allegedly evading capture in Austria

There were reports that Karadžić evaded capture in May 2007 in Vienna, where he lived under the name Petar Glumac, posing as a Croatian seller of herbal solutions and ointments. Austrian police talked to him during the raid regarding an unrelated homicide case in the area where Karadžić lived but failed to recognize his real identity. He had obtained a Croatian passport in the name of Petar Glumac and claimed to be in Vienna for training. The police did not ask any further questions nor demanded to fingerprint him as he appeared calm and readily answered questions. Nevertheless, this claim came into doubt when a man named Petar Glumac, an alternative medical practitioner from Novo Selo, Serbia, claims to have been the person the police talked with in Vienna. Glumac reportedly bears a striking resemblance to Karadžić’s appearance as Dragan Dabić. Dragan Karadžić, his nephew, claimed in an interview to the Corriere della Sera that Karadžić attended football matches of Serie A and visited Venice under the name of Petar Glumac.
Trial
Arrest and trial

The arrest of Radovan Karadžić took place on 21 July 2008 in Belgrade. He was in hiding, posing as a doctor of alternative medicine mostly in Belgrade but also in Vienna, Austria. Karadžić was transferred into ICTY custody in the Hague on 30 July. Karadžić appeared before judge Alphons Orie on 31 July, in the tribunal, which has sentenced 64 accused since 1993. During the first hearing Radovan Karadžić expressed a fear for his life by saying: “If Holbrooke wants my death and regrets there is no death sentence at this court, I want to know if his arm is long enough to reach me here.” and stated that the deal he made with Richard Holbrooke is the reason why it took 13 years for him to appear in front of the ICTY. He made similar accusations against the former U.S. Secretary of State Madeleine Albright. Muhamed Sacirbey, Bosnian foreign minister at the time, claimed that a Karadžić-Holbrooke deal was made in July 1996.

In August 2008 Karadžić claimed there is a conspiracy against him and refused to enter a plea, whereby the court entered a plea of not guilty on his behalf to all 11 charges. He called the tribunal, chaired by Scottish judge Iain Bonomy, a “court of NATO” disguised as a court of the international community.

On 13 October 2009, the BBC reported that Karadžić’s plea to be granted immunity from his charges was denied. However, the start of his trial was moved to 26 October so he could prepare a defense.

On Monday, 26 October 2009, Karadžić’s trial was suspended after 15 minutes after he carried out his threat to boycott the start of the hearing. Judge O-Gon Kwon said that in the absence of Karadžić, who was defending himself, or any lawyer representing him, he was suspending the case for 24 hours, when the prosecution would begin its opening statement. On 5 November 2009, the court forcibly imposed a lawyer on him, and postponed his trial until 1 March 2010.

On 26 November 2009, Karadžić filed a motion challenging the legal validity and legitimacy of the tribunal, claiming that “the UN Security Council lacked the power to establish the ICTY, violated agreements under international law in so doing, and delegated non-existent legislative powers to the ICTY”, to which the Prosecution response was that “The Appeals Chamber has already determined the validity of the Tribunal’s creation in previous decisions which constitute established precedent on this issue”, therefore dismissing the Motion. The prosecution started its case on 13 April 2010, and completed it on 25 May 2012. The discovery of more than 300 previously unknown bodies in a mass grave at the Tomasica mine near Prijedor in September 2013 caused a flurry of motions which ended with the court denying reopening prosecutorial evidence. The defence began its case on 16 October 2012 and completed it in March 2014; Karadžić decided not to testify. Closing arguments in the case began on 29 September 2014 and were concluded on 7 October 2014, Karadžić having failed in his demand for a re-trial.
Conviction and sentence

On 24 March 2016 he was found guilty of genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity, and sentenced to 40 years imprisonment. He was found guilty of genocide for the Srebrenica massacre, which aimed to kill “every able-bodied male” in the town and systematically exterminate the Bosnian Muslim community. He was also convicted of persecution, extermination, deportation, forcible transfer (ethnic cleansing) and murder in connection with his campaign to drive Bosnian Muslims and Croats out of villages claimed by Serb forces.

Cuauhtémoc


El_suplicio_de_Cuauhtémoc

Cuauhtémoc (also known as Cuauhtemotzin or Guatimozin; c. 1502 – February 28, 1525) was the last Aztec ruler (Tlatoani) of Tenochtitlán and the last “Aztec emperor.” The name means “descending eagle,” from Nahuatl cuauhtli (eagle) and temoc (descent); by extension it can be interpreted as “setting sun.”

Most of what we know about pre-Spanish conquest Aztec history is derived from the Florentine Codex, which was compiled by Bernardino de Sahagún (1499-1590) in 12 volumes containing the fruit of his researches in Aztec religions and culture and his conversations with indigenous peoples . Previous Spanish editions were heavily censored. Given the extent of the cultural destruction that took place in the colonial period, what we know of such a ruler as the last emperor of the Aztecs helps a great deal in reconstructing an historiography that does not focus almost exclusively on the actions, voyages and conquests of Europeans.

Even though Cuauhtémoc’s rule was short and was almost completely overshadowed by the exploits of the conquering Spanish, as the last representative of a great civilization and imperial dynasty, he deserves his place in history. Cuauhtémoc has been described as a “winner in defeat,” since though executed by the Spanish he is now a revered figure in Mexico, after whom many roads and parks are named. In contrast, Hernán Cortés—the man who ordered his execution—is reviled.
Life

Cuauhtémoc took power in 1520 C.E. as successor of Cuitláhuac and was a nephew of the emperor Moctezuma II. Cuauhtémoc’s wife was one of Moctezuma’s daughters. He ascended to the throne when he was 18 years of age, as his city was being besieged by the Spanish under Hernán Cortés and was devastated by an epidemic of smallpox. He is said to have had considerable military experience before he became emperor. Unlike Moctezuma II, he did not think that Cortés was the god Quetzalcoatl and was determined—with an almost religious fervor—to defeat the Spanish. At first, he succeeded in pushing the Spanish back in a series of land and naval assaults before additional troops swelled the Spanish numbers.

On August 13, 1521, Cuauhtémoc went to call for reinforcements from the countryside to aid the falling Tenochtitlán after 80 days of urban warfare against the Spanish. Of all the Nahuas, only Tlatelolcas remained loyal, and the surviving Tenochcas looked for refuge in Tlatelolco where even women took part in the battle. Cuauhtémoc was captured while crossing Lake Texcoco in disguise on his mission to obtain assistance. He surrendered to Hernán Cortés along with the surviving pillis (nobles), offering him his own knife so that he could be killed.

At first, Cortés treated his foe chivalrously. “A Spaniard knows how to respect valor even in an enemy,” he declared. However, convinced that Cuauhtémoc knew the whereabouts of hidden treasure, Cortés allowed Aldrete, the royal treasurer, to have Cuauhtémoc tortured to make him reveal the treasure’s location. Cuauhtémoc, insisting that there was no hidden treasure, bravely endured the torture.

Cuauhtémoc was tortured by having his feet put to a fire, along with Tetlepanquetzal, the tlatoani of Tlacopán, and the Cihuacóatl (counselor) Tlacotzin, but even so they refused to divulge information about the treasures the Spanish coveted. It is said that during the torture, Tetlepanquetzal asked him to reveal the location of the treasures in order to stop the pain given to them, and Cuauhtémoc said, “Do you think I am in a bath or pleasure?” or “Do you think I am in a bed of roses?” The date and details of this episode are unknown. In the end, a shamed Cortés delivered Cuauhtémoc from Aldrete’s hands.

Eventually Cortez recovered some gold from one of the noble’s houses, but most of the tales about the “Aztec’s gold” is a myth. For the Aztecs, gold had no intrinsic value—they did not have big solid pieces of gold—they preferred wood covered with gold. After those pieces were melted, they only gave a fraction of the gold that Cortez and his men expected.

In 1525, Cortés took Cuauhtémoc on his expedition to Honduras, perhaps because he feared Cuauhtémoc would lead an insurrection in his absence. During this expedition, Cortés ordered Cuauhtémoc hanged on February 28, 1525, along with Teltepanquetzaltzin.

A story by the Chontal Maya of Acalan from the early seventeenth century records an account of the execution of Cuauhtémoc. Because the Spaniards only asked for food and lodging, Paxbolancha trusted them, staying for 20 days. During this time, Paxbolancha met with Cuauhtémoc, who tried to warn him about the Spaniards and asked Paxbolancha to join forces with him and kill them. Paxbolancha refused, but because Cuauhtémoc insisted for several days, Paxbolancha decided to warn Cortés. Cortés imprisoned Cuauhtémoc, and after the third day, baptized him as “Don Juan” and ordered that Cuauhtémoc be decapitated. His head was put on a tree in the town of Yaxzam.

Bernal Díaz del Castillo described a somewhat different version of the conspiracy. Convinced by an Indian convert to Christianity that Cuauhtémoc was conspiring against him, Cortés had him tried for treason. Although even some of the Spaniards—notably Bernal Diaz de Castillo—believed the former emperor innocent, the sentence was carried out. Cuauhtémoc’s last words to Cortés demonstrate his unconquerable spirit: “I knew what it was…to trust to your false promises; I knew that you had destined me to this fate since I did not fall by my own hand when you entered my city of Tenochtitlán.”

Tlacotzin became a puppet tlatoani under the Spanish, holding the title for three years but died before returning to Tenochtitlán. He was never regarded as emperor.
Legacy

The modern-day Mexican town of Ixcateopan in the state of Guerrero is home to an ossuary purportedly containing Cuauhtémoc’s remains.

Many places in Mexico are named in honor of Cuauhtémoc. These include Ciudad Cuauhtémoc in Chihuahua and the Cuauhtémoc borough of the Mexican Federal District. There is also a Cuauhtémoc Station on the Mexico City metro and the Monterrey Metrorrey. Cuauhtémoc is also a popular given name for Mexican boys, one of the few non-Spanish given names to be so.

Cuauhtémoc’s bravery in the face of defeat and his noble death are revered today throughout Mexico.

Albert Anastasia


Albert Anastasia

Albert Anastasia (born Umberto Anastasio, September 26, 1902 – October 25, 1957) was one of the most ruthless and feared Cosa Nostra mobsters in United States history. A founder of the Italian American Mafia, Anastasia ran Murder, Inc. during the prewar era and during most of the 1950s was boss of what would become the modern Gambino crime family. He is perhaps the most feared hit-man of the Italian American Mafia’s golden era, earning the infamous nicknames “the Mad Hatter” and “Lord High Executioner.”

Biography
Early years

Albert Anastasia was born on September 26, 1902, in Tropea, Calabria, Italy. His parents were Raffaelo Anastasio and Louisa Nomina de Filippi. The family name was “Anastasio”, but Albert started using “Anastasia” in 1921.

Raffaelo Anastasio was a railway worker who died after World War I, leaving behind nine sons and three daughters. Albert’s brothers included Salvatore, Frank, Joseph, Gerardo, and Anthony Anastasio. Anastasia was married to Elsa Barnesi; they had one son, Anthony Anastasia, Jr. They would have another son and two daughters.

In 1919, Anastasia and three of his brothers arrived in New York City, working on a freighter. Deserting the ship, the brothers illegally entered the United States. The boys soon started working as longshoremen on the Brooklyn waterfront.

On March 17, 1921, Anastasia was convicted of murdering longshoreman George Turino as the result of a quarrel. Anastasia was sentenced to death and sent to Sing Sing State Prison in Ossining, New York to await execution. Due to a legal technicality, however, Anastasia won a retrial in 1922. Because four of the original prosecution witnesses had disappeared in the meantime, Anastasia was released from custody in 1922.

On June 6, 1923, Anastasia was convicted of illegal possession of a firearm and sentenced to two years in city prison.
Rise to power

By the late 1920s, Anastasia had become a top leader of the International Longshoremen’s Association (ILA), controlling six union local chapters in Brooklyn. Anastasia allied himself with Giuseppe “Joe the Boss” Masseria, a powerful gang leader in Brooklyn. Anastasia soon became close associates with future Cosa Nostra bosses Joe Adonis, Charles “Lucky” Luciano, Vito Genovese, and Frank Costello.

In 1928, Anastasia was charged with a murder in Brooklyn, but the witnesses either disappeared or refused to testify in court.
Castellammarese War

In 1930, Luciano finalized his plans to take over the organized crime rackets in New York by destroying the two old-line Mafia factions headed by Masseria and Salvatore Maranzano. Luciano outlined his plot to Anastasia, who joined him and Benjamin “Bugsy” Siegel in the plot. Anastasia assured Luciano that he would kill everyone for Luciano to reach the top. Anastasia knew that if Luciano ran the National Crime Syndicate, he would eventually get a “piece of the action.” By this point, Luciano had secretly given his support to Maranzano.

On April 15, 1931, Anastasia allegedly participated in Masseria’s murder. Luciano had lured Masseria to a meeting at a Coney Island, Brooklyn restaurant. During their meal, Luciano excused himself to go to the restroom. As soon as Luciano was gone, Anastasia, Vito Genovese, Joe Adonis, and Bugsy Siegel rushed into the dining room and shot Masseria to death. The war ended and Maranzano was the winner. No one was ever indicted in the Masseria murder. In Luciano’s subsequent reorganization of New York’s mafia into its current Five Families, Anastasia was appointed underboss of the crime family of Vincent Mangano, the modern Gambino crime family.

In September 1931, Maranzano was himself murdered and Luciano became the preeminent mobster in America. To avoid the power struggles and turf disputes that led to the Castellammarese War, Luciano established the National Crime Syndicate, consisting of the major family bosses from around the country and the so-called “five families” of New York. The Syndicate was meant to serve as a deliberative body to solve disputes, carve up and distribute territories, and regulate lucrative illegal activities such as racketeering, gambling, and bootlegging (which came to a close with the repeal of Prohibition in 1933). The Italian-American Mafia had their own body, known as the Commission.

In 1932, Anastasia was indicted on charges of murdering another man with an ice pick, but the case was dropped due to lack of witnesses.

In 1933, Anastasia was charged with killing a man who worked in a laundry; again, there were no witnesses willing to testify.
Murder, Incorporated

To reward Anastasia’s loyalty, Luciano placed him and Louis “Lepke” Buchalter, the nation’s leading labor racketeer, in control of the Syndicate’s enforcement arm, Murder, Inc. The troop, also known as “The Brownsville Boys”, was a group of Jewish and Italian killers that operated out of the back room of Midnight Rose’s, a candy store owned by mobster Louis Capone in the Brownsville neighborhood of Brooklyn. During its ten years of operation, it is estimated that Murder Inc. committed between 400 and 1000 murders, many of which were never solved. For his leadership in Murder, Inc., Anastasia was nicknamed the “Mad Hatter” and the “Lord High Executioner”. Unlike Lepke and many other members of Murder, Inc., Anastasia was never prosecuted for any of these murders. It is doubted by some that he even was involved, since as the underboss of a family, he had his own killers to use if needed. During this period, Anastasia’s business card claimed that he was a “sales representative” for the Convertible Mattress Corporation in Brooklyn.

On June 7, 1936, Luciano was convicted on 62 counts of compulsory prostitution.[8] On July 18, 1936, Luciano received a 30 to 50-year sentence in state prison.  Genovese became acting boss, but he was forced to flee to Italy in 1937 after being indicted on a 1934 murder. Frank Costello now became acting boss of the Luciano crime family.

In May 1939, Anastasia allegedly ordered the murder of Morris Diamond, an official of a trucking union in Brooklyn. Diamond was a Teamsters Union official who had opposed mobster Louis Buchalter’s attempts to maintain control of the Garment District in Manhattan. In the summer of 1939, Anastasia allegedly organized the murder of Peter Panto, an ILA activist. Panto had been leading a movement for democratic reforms in the ILA locals, and refused to be intimidated by ILA officials. On July 14, 1939, Panto disappeared; his body was later recovered on a farm in New Jersey.

With the 1941 arrest of Abe Reles on murder charges, law enforcement finally dismantled Murder, Inc. Reles was a gang leader from Brownsville, Brooklyn who had been supplying Anastasia and Murder, Inc. with hitmen for the past 10 years. Reles decided to testify for the government to save himself from the death penalty. His testimony convicted seven members of Murder Inc. Reles also had information that could implicate Anastasia in the 1939 Diamond and Panto murders. Fearful of prosecution, Anastasia offered a $100,000 reward for Reles’ murder.

On November 12, 1941, Reles was found dead on a restaurant roof outside the Half Moon Hotel in Coney Island. Reles was being guarded at a sixth floor room during an ongoing trial. In 1951, a grand jury ruled that Reles accidentally died while climbing down to the fifth floor using sheets tied to a heating radiator. However, many officials still suspected that Reles had been murdered.

In the spring of 1942, Anastasia allegedly ordered the murder of an associate, Anthony Romeo. Romeo had been arrested and questioned in the Panto killing. However at the end of June, Romeo’s body was discovered near Guyencourt, Delaware. Romeo had been beaten and shot multiple times.
World War II

During World War II, Anastasia reportedly originated the plan to win a pardon for Luciano by helping the war effort. With America needing allies in Sicily to advance the invasion of Italy, and the desire of the Navy to dedicate its resources to the war, Anastasia orchestrated a deal to obtain lighter treatment for Luciano while he was in prison, and after the war, a parole in exchange for the Mafia protecting the waterfront and Luciano’s assistance with his associates in Sicily.

In 1942, Anastasia joined the U.S. Army. He may have been motivated by a desire to escape the criminal investigations that were dismantling Murder Inc. Attaining the rank of technical sergeant, Anastasia trained soldiers to be longshoremen at Fort Indiantown Gap in Pennsylvania. In 1943, as a reward for his military service, Anastasia received U.S. citizenship. In 1944, Anastasia was honorably discharged from the Army and he moved his family to a mansion in Fort Lee, New Jersey. In 1958, less than a year after Anastasia’s death, comedian Buddy Hackett and his wife purchased the mansion, and after renovations they moved in and lived there through most of the 1960s.

In 1945, U.S. military authorities in Sicily returned Genovese to the United States to be tried for the 1934 Boccia murder. However, after the death of the main prosecution witness, all charges were dropped against Genovese. In 1946, New York Governor Thomas E. Dewey commuted Luciano’s sentence and the federal government immediately deported him to Italy.

In 1948, Anastasia bought a dress making factory in Hazleton, Pennsylvania and left his waterfront activities in the control of his brother Anthony.
Boss

In 1951, the U.S. Senate summoned Anastasia to answer questions about organized crime at the Kefauver Hearings. Anastasia refused to answer any questions.

Despite being a mob power in his own right, Anastasia was nominally the underboss of the Mangano crime family under boss Vincent Mangano. During his 20-year rule, Mangano had resented Anastasia’s close ties to Luciano and Costello. Mangano was particularly irked that Luciano and Costello obtained Anastasia’s services without first seeking Mangano’s permission. This and other business disputes led to heated, almost physical fights between the two mobsters. In early 1951, Vincent Mangano went missing and his body was never found. On April 19, 1951, the body of Philip Mangano, shot three times, was discovered in a wetland in Bergen Beach, Brooklyn. No one was ever arrested in the Mangano murders, but it was widely assumed that Anastasia had them killed.

After the deaths of the Mangano brothers, Anastasia, who had been serving as acting boss of the Mangano family, met with the Commission. Anastasia claimed that the Manganos wanted to kill him, but did not admit to killing them. With Costello’s prodding, the Commission confirmed Anastasia’s ascension as boss of the renamed Anastasia family. Costello wanted Anastasia as an ally against the ambitious and resentful Genovese. Anastasia was also supported by Joseph Bonanno, who simply wanted to avoid a gang war.

In March 1952, Anastasia allegedly ordered the murder of Arnold Schuster. Schuster was a young New York man who successfully identified fugitive bank robber Willie Sutton, resulting in Sutton’s arrest. When Anastasia saw Schuster being interviewed on television, he allegedly said: “I can’t stand squealers! Hit that guy!” On March 8, 1952, a gunman shot Schuster to death on a street in Borough Park, Brooklyn. This public accusation against Anastasia was made in 1963 by government witness Joseph Valachi, but many people in law enforcement were skeptical of it. No one was ever arrested in the Schuster murder.

On December 9, 1952, the Federal Government filed suit to denaturalize Anastasia and deport him because he lied on his citizenship application.
Conspiracy

To take control of the Luciano family, Genovese needed to kill Frank Costello. However, Genovese could not kill Costello without also eliminating Anastasia. To do that, Genovese needed allies.

Vito Genovese used Anastasia’s brutal behavior against him in an effort to woo away his supporters, portraying Anastasia as an unstable killer who threatened to bring law enforcement pressure on the Cosa Nostra. In addition, Genovese pointed out that Anastasia had been selling memberships to his crime family for $50,000, a clear violation of Commission rules that infuriated many high level mobsters. According to Valachi, Anastasia had been losing large amounts of money betting on horse races, making him even more surly and unpredictable.

Over the next few years, Genovese secretly won the support of Anastasia capo Carlo Gambino, offering him the leadership of Anastasia’s family in return for his cooperation. Genovese also received tacit approval from Meyer Lansky. One of Luciano’s earliest associates, Lansky handled most of Luciano’s U.S. business interests. Lansky and Genovese were also business associates from the 1920s. Genovese could not kill Anastasia and Costello without Lansky’s support.

Anastasia’s greed soon drove Lansky to help Genovese. During the 1950s, Lansky controlled all the casino gambling in Cuba, offering the Cosa Nostra bosses lesser shares of his profits. When Anastasia demanded a larger share, Lansky refused. Anastasia then started his own casino racket in Cuba. While Lansky had preferred watching Anastasia and Genovese battle each other from the sidelines, Lansky now threw his active support to Genovese.

On May 23, 1955, Anastasia pleaded guilty to tax evasion for underreporting his income during the late 1940s. On June 3, 1955, Anastasia was sentenced to one year in federal prison and a $20,000 fine. After his conviction, the federal government successfully petitioned a federal court to revoke Anastasia’s citizenship so he could be deported. However, on September 19, 1955, a higher court overturned this ruling.

In early 1957, Genovese decided to move on Costello. On May 2, 1957, gunman Vincent Gigante shot and wounded Costello outside his apartment building. Although the wound was superficial, it persuaded Costello to relinquish power to Genovese and retire. Genovese now controlled what is now called the Genovese crime family. Joseph Bonanno would later credit himself with arranging a sitdown where he kept Anastasia from immediately taking Genovese to war in response.

On June 17 of that year Frank Scalice, Anastasia’s underboss and the man identified as directly responsible for selling Gambino memberships, was also assassinated. According to Joseph Valachi, Anastasia approved the hit, and the subsequent murder of Scalice’s brother Joseph after offering to forgive his threats to avenge Frank.
Assassination

On the morning of October 25, 1957, Anastasia entered the barber shop of the Park Sheraton Hotel, at 56th Street and 7th Avenue in Midtown Manhattan. Anastasia’s driver parked the car in an underground garage and then took a walk outside, leaving Anastasia unprotected. As Anastasia relaxed in the barber chair, two men—scarves covering their faces—rushed in, shoved the barber out of the way, and fired at Anastasia. After the first volley of bullets, Anastasia allegedly lunged at his killers. However, the stunned Anastasia had actually attacked the gunmen’s reflections in the wall mirror of the barber shop. The gunmen continued firing and Albert Anastasia finally fell to the floor, dead.

The Anastasia murder generated a tremendous amount of public interest and sparked a high profile police investigation. Per New York Times journalist and Five Families author Selwyn Raab, “The vivid image of a helpless victim swathed in white towels was stamped in the public memory.” However, no one was charged in this case. Over time, speculation on who killed Anastasia has centered on Profaci crime family mobster Joe Gallo, the Patriarca crime family of Providence, Rhode Island, and certain drug dealers with the Gambino family.

Initially, the NYPD concluded that the Anastasia hit had been arranged by Genovese and Gambino, and it was carried out by a crew led by “Crazy Joe” Gallo of the Profaci family. At one point, Gallo boasted to an associate of his part in the hit:

“You can just call the five of us the barbershop quintet.”

However, detractors say that it was illogical for Profaci to kill Anastasia.  Profaci was allied with Bonanno and Anastasia on the Commission against Genovese, Costello, and Thomas Lucchese. By killing Anastasia, Profaci was eliminating an ally and gaining a potential enemy in Gambino.

The Patriarca theory is that Anastasia’s killers came from the Patriarca Family in Providence/Boston. Genovese had traditionally strong ties to Patriarca boss Raymond L.S. Patriarca. In addition, it made sense to use out-of-town hitmen. The Patriarca hit team was allegedly led by mobster John (Jackie) “Mad Dog” Nazarian.

The drug dealers theory is that Gambino used some Gambino drug dealers from the Lower East Side of Manhattan to kill Anastasia, including Stephen Armone, Stephen Grammauta, and Arnold Wittenberg.
Aftermath

Carlo Gambino was expected to be proclaimed boss of Anastasia’s family at the November 14, 1957 Apalachin Meeting, called by Genovese to discuss the future of Cosa Nostra in light of his takeover. When the meeting was raided by police, to the detriment of Genovese’s reputation, Gambino’s appointment was postponed to a later meeting in New York City. Under Gambino, Anthony Anastasio saw his power curtailed, and in frustration he began passing information to the FBI shortly before his 1963 death.

Genovese enjoyed a short reign as family boss. In 1957, after Genovese’s disastrous Apalachian Meeting, Lansky, Luciano, Costello, and Gambino conspired to entrap Genovese with a narcotics conviction, bribing a drug dealer to testify he had personally worked with Genovese. On July 7, 1958, Genovese was indicted on narcotics trafficking charges. On April 17, 1959, Genovese was sentenced to 15 years in state prison.

Anastasia’s funeral service was conducted at a Brooklyn funeral home; the Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn had refused to sanction a church burial. Anastasia was interred in Green-Wood Cemetery in Greenwood Heights, Brooklyn, attended by a handful of friends and relatives.

Ernő Rubik


rubik

Ernő Rubik ( born 13 July 1944) is a Hungarian inventor, architect and professor of architecture. He is best known for the invention of mechanical puzzles including Rubik’s Cube (1974), Rubik’s Magic, Rubik’s Magic: Master Edition, and Rubik’s Snake.

While Rubik became famous for Rubik’s Cube and his other puzzles, much of his recent work involves the promotion of science in education. Rubik is involved with several organizations such as Beyond Rubik’s Cube, the Rubik Learning Initiative and the Judit Polgar Foundation all of whose aim is to engage students in science, mathematics, and problem solving at a young age.

Early life
Childhood and parental influence

Ernő Rubik was born in Budapest, Hungary, 13 July 1944, during World War II, and has lived all his life in Hungary. His father, Ernő Rubik Sr., was a flight engineer at the Esztergom aircraft factory, and his mother, Magdolna Szántó, was a poet.

His father, Ernő Sr., was a highly respected engineer of gliders. His extensive work and expertise in this area gained him an international reputation as an expert in his field. Ernő Rubik has stated that:
“     Beside him I learned a lot about work in the sense of a value-creating process which has a target, and a positive result too. Both figuratively and literally he was a person capable of ‘moving a hill’. There was nothing that could prevent him from doing what he decided or bringing a project to a completion, if necessary even with his own hands. No work was unworthy or undeserving for him.     ”
Education

From 1958 to 1962, Rubik specialized in sculpture at the Secondary School of Fine and Applied Arts. From 1962 to 1967, Rubik attended the Budapest University of Technology where he became a member of the Architecture Faculty. From 1967 to 1971, Rubik attended the Hungarian Academy of Applied Arts and was on the Faculty of Interior Architecture and Design.

Rubik considers university and the education it afforded him as the decisive event which shaped his life. Rubik has stated that, “Schools offered me the opportunity to acquire knowledge of subjects or rather crafts that need a lot of practice, persistence and diligence with the direction of a mentor.”
Career
Early professorship and birth of Rubik’s Cube

From 1971 to 1979, Rubik was a professor of architecture at the Budapest College of Applied Arts (Iparművészeti Főiskola). It was during his time there that he built designs for a three-dimensional puzzle and completed the first prototype of the Rubik’s Cube in 1974, applying for a patent on the puzzle in 1975. In an interview with CNN, Rubik stated that he was “searching to find a good task for my students.”
“     Space always intrigued me, with its incredibly rich possibilities, space alteration by (architectural) objects, objects’ transformation in space (sculpture, design), movement in space and in time, their correlation, their repercussion on mankind, the relation between man and space, the object and time. I think the CUBE arose from this interest, from this search for expression and for this always more increased acuteness of these thoughts…     ”
From classroom tool to Magic Cube to Rubik’s Cube

Starting with blocks of wood and rubber bands, Rubik set out to create a structure which would allow the individual pieces to move without the whole structure falling apart. Rubik originally used wood for the block because of the convenience of a workshop at the university and because he viewed wood as a simple material to work with that did not require sophisticated machinery. Rubik made the original prototypes of his cube by hand, cutting the wood, boring the holes and using elastic bands to hold the contraption together

Rubik showed his prototype to his class and his students liked it very much. Rubik realized that, because of the cube’s simple structure, it could be manufactured relatively easily and might have appeal to a larger audience. Rubik’s father possessed several patents, so Rubik was familiar with the process and applied for a patent for his invention. Rubik then set out to find a manufacturer in Hungary, but had great difficulty due to the rigid planned economy of Hungary at the time. Eventually Rubik was able to find a small company that worked with plastic and made chess pieces. The cube was originally known in Hungary as the Magic Cube.

Rubik licensed the Magic Cube to Ideal Toys, a New York-based company, who in 1979 re-branded The Magic Cube to the Rubik’s Cube before its introduction to an international audience in 1980. The process from early prototype to significant mass production of the Cube had taken over six years. The Rubik’s Cube would go on to become an instant success worldwide, winning several Toy of the Year awards, and becoming a staple of 1980’s popular culture. To date, the Rubik’s Cube has sold over 350 million units, making it the best selling toy of all time.
Other inventions

In addition to Rubik’s Cube, Rubik is also the inventor of Rubik’s Magic, Rubik’s Magic: Master Edition, Rubik’s Snake, Rubik’s Tangle, and Rubik’s 360.
Later career and other works

In the early 1980s, he became editor of a game and puzzle journal called ..És játék (…And games), then became self-employed in 1983, founding the Rubik Stúdió, where he designed furniture and games. In 1987 he became professor with full tenure; in 1990 he became the president of the Hungarian Engineering Academy (Magyar Mérnöki Akadémia). At the Academy, he created the International Rubik Foundation to support especially talented young engineers and industrial designers.
Recent work and engagements

Rubik has recently spent much of his time working on Beyond Rubik’s Cube, a Science, Technology, Engineering, Mathematics (STEM fields) based exhibition, which will travel the globe over the next six years. The grand opening of the exhibit was held on 26 April 2014 at the Liberty Science Center outside New York City. At the exhibition, Rubik gave several lectures, tours, and engaged with the public and several members of the speedcubing crowd in attendance, including Anthony Michael Brooks, a world-class speedcuber.
Influences

Ernő Rubik has listed several individuals who, as he said, “exerted a great influence over me through their work.” These include Leonardo da Vinci, whom Rubik regards as the Renaissance man, Michelangelo, whom he respects as a polymath, and painter, sculptor, and architect M.C. Escher, an artist who built impossible constructions and grappled with the explorations of infinity. As regards to philosophers and writers, Rubik admires Voltaire, Stendhal, Thomas Mann, Jean-Paul Sartre, Hungarian poet Attila József, Jules Verne and Isaac Asimov. In the field of architecture, Rubik is an admirer of Frank Lloyd Wright and Le Corbusier.
Cultural and leisure pursuits

Rubik admits to being a lifelong bibliophile and has stated, “Books offered me the possibility of gaining knowledge of the World, Nature and People.” Rubik has stated that he has a special interest in science fiction.

Rubik is fond of outdoor activities such as walking through nature, playing sports, and sailing on Lake Balaton. Rubik is also an avid gardener and has stated that, “collecting succulents are my favourite pastime.”

Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart


Musik-O-mozart

Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart (baptized as Johannes Chrysostomus Wolfgangus Theophilus Mozart) (January 27, 1756 – December 5, 1791) was a prolific and celebrated composer of Classical music. His enormous output of more than six hundred compositions includes works that are widely acknowledged as pinnacles of symphonic, chamber, piano, operatic, and choral music. A legendary child prodigy, Mozart is among the most enduringly popular of European composers, and many of his works are part of the standard concert repertoire.

The young Mozart toured as a child and won the patronage of both nobility and clergy in his native Austria. Unlike the music of J.S. Bach and the composers of the Baroque style, whose music was highly polyphonic and steeped in religious connotations, Mozart’s music is marked by an uncomplicated texture that would become a defining trait of the “Classical” era. This style, known as homophonic music, is characterized by a single melodic idea accompanied by a chordal underpinning, as opposed the countrapuntal conventions of the Baroque, in which multiple melodies are woven into a singular musical expression.

A significant way that Mozart would heighten the drama of a musical line was by his masterly manipulation of the tonic-dominant chord progression. Particularly in his operas, he created moments of tension followed by cathartic release by exploiting the polarization of the consonant and dissonant intervals within these two chords, and also by the shifting of key centers. Equipped with these new musical devices, Mozart could explore the depths of the human psyche in ways that were revolutionary for their time. He was, in some respects, the first modern psychologist of opera, a master of creating mood, drama, and atmosphere in his operatic works. The great facility and ease with which Mozart fused music to mood was perhaps his most important contribution to music.

Mozart’s greatest compositions, sometimes written at breakneck pace, contain passages of revelatory beauty. Albert Einstein once remarked that while Beethoven composed his music, Mozart’s music “was so pure that it seemed to have been ever-present in the universe, waiting to be discovered by the master.”
Life
Family and early years

Mozart was born to Leopold and Anna Maria Pertl Mozart, in the front room of nine Getreidegasse in Salzburg, the capital of the sovereign Archbishopric of Salzburg, in what is now Austria, then part of the Holy Roman Empire. His only sibling who survived beyond infancy was an older sister: Maria Anna, nicknamed Nannerl. Mozart was baptized the day after his birth at St. Rupert’s Cathedral. The baptismal record gives his name in Latinized form as Joannes Chrysostomus Wolfgangus Theophilus Mozart. Of these names, the first two refer to John Chrysostom, one of the Church Fathers, and they were names not employed in everyday life, while the fourth, meaning “beloved of God,” was variously translated in Mozart’s lifetime as Amadeus (Latin), Gottlieb (German), and Amadé (French). Mozart’s father, Leopold, announced the birth of his son in a letter to the publisher Johann Jakob Lotter with the words “…the boy is called Joannes Chrysostomus, Wolfgang, Gottlieb.” Mozart himself preferred the third name, and he also took a fancy to “Amadeus” over the years.

Mozart’s father, Leopold (1719–1787), was one of Europe’s leading musical teachers. His influential textbook, Versuch einer gründlichen Violinschule, was published in 1756, the year of Mozart’s birth (English, as A Treatise on the Fundamental Principles of Violin Playing, transl. E.Knocker; Oxford-New York, 1948). He was deputy kapellmeister to the court orchestra of the Archbishop of Salzburg, and a prolific and successful composer of instrumental music. Leopold gave up composing when his son’s outstanding musical talents became evident. They first came to light when Wolfgang was about three years old, and Leopold, proud of Wolfgang’s achievements, gave him intensive musical training, including instruction in clavier, violin, and organ. Leopold was Wolfgang’s only teacher in his earliest years. A note by Leopold in Nannerl’s music book—the Nannerl Notenbuch—records that little Wolfgang had learned several of the pieces at the age of four. Mozart’s first compositions, Andante (K. 1a) and Allegro (K. 1b), were written in 1761, when he was five years old.
The years of travel

During his formative years, Mozart made several European journeys, beginning with an exhibition in 1762, at the Court of the Elector of Bavaria in Munich, then in the same year at the Imperial Court in Vienna and Prague. A long concert tour spanning three and a half years followed, taking him with his father to the courts of Munich, Mannheim, Paris, London (where Wolfgang Amadeus played with the famous Italian cellist Giovanni Battista Cirri), The Hague, again to Paris, and back home via Zürich, Donaueschingen, and Munich. During this trip Mozart met a great number of musicians and acquainted himself with the works of other great composers. A particularly important influence was Johann Christian Bach, who befriended Mozart in London in 1764–65. Bach’s work is often taken to be an inspiration for Mozart’s music. They again went to Vienna in late 1767, and remained there until December 1768. On this trip, Mozart contracted smallpox, and his healing was considered by Leopold as a proof of God’s intentions concerning the child.

After one year in Salzburg, three trips to Italy followed: From December 1769 to March 1771, from August to December 1771, and from October 1772 to March 1773. Mozart was commissioned to compose three operas: Mitridate Rè di Ponto (1770), Ascanio in Alba (1771), and Lucio Silla (1772), all three of which were performed in Milan. During the first of these trips, Mozart met Andrea Luchesi in Venice and G.B. Martini in Bologna, and was accepted as a member of the famous Accademia Filarmonica. A highlight of the Italian journey, now an almost legendary tale, occurred when he heard Gregorio Allegri’s Miserere once in performance in the Sistine Chapel then wrote it out in its entirety from memory, only returning to correct minor errors; thus, producing the first illegal copy of this closely-guarded property of the Vatican.

On September 23, 1777, accompanied by his mother, Mozart began a tour of Europe that included Munich, Mannheim, and Paris. In Mannheim he became acquainted with members of the Mannheim orchestra, the best in Europe at the time. He fell in love with Aloysia Weber, who later broke up the relationship with him. He was to marry her sister, Constanze, some four years later in Vienna. During his unsuccessful visit to Paris, his mother died (1778).

Mozart in Vienna

In 1780, Idomeneo, widely regarded as Mozart’s first great opera, premiered in Munich. The following year, he visited Vienna in the company of his employer, the harsh Prince-Archbishop Colloredo. When they returned to Salzburg, Mozart, who was then Konzertmeister, became increasingly rebellious, not wanting to follow the whims of the archbishop relating to musical affairs, and expressing these views, soon fell out of favor with him. According to Mozart’s own testimony, he was dismissed—literally—”with a kick in the arse.” Mozart chose to settle and develop his own freelance career in Vienna after its aristocracy began to take an interest in him.

On August 4, 1782, against his father’s wishes, he married Constanze Weber (1763–1842; her name is also spelled “Costanze”); her father, Fridolin, was a half-brother of Carl Maria von Weber’s father Franz Anton Weber. Although they had six children, only two survived infancy. Neither of these two, Karl Thomas (1784–1858) and Franz Xaver Wolfgang (1791–1844)—later a minor composer himself—married or had children who reached adulthood. Karl did father a daughter, Constanza, who died in 1833.

The year 1782 was an auspicious one for Mozart’s career: His opera Die Entführung aus dem Serail (The Abduction from the Seraglio) was a great success and he began a series of concerts at which he premiered his own piano concertos as director of the ensemble and soloist.

During 1782–83, Mozart became closely acquainted with the work of J.S. Bach and G.F. Handel as a result of the influence of Baron Gottfried van Swieten, who owned many manuscripts of works by the Baroque masters. Mozart’s study of these works led first to a number of works imitating Baroque style and later had a powerful influence on his own personal musical language, for example, the fugal passages in Die Zauberflöte (The Magic Flute) and in the Symphony No. 41.

In 1783, Wolfgang and Constanze visited Leopold in Salzburg, but the visit was not a success, as his father did not open his heart to Constanze. However, the visit sparked the composition of one of Mozart’s great liturgical pieces, the Mass in C Minor, which, though not completed, was premiered in Salzburg, and is now one of his best-known works. Wolfgang featured Constanze as the lead female solo voice at the premiere of the work, hoping to endear her to his father’s affection.

In his early Vienna years, Mozart met Joseph Haydn and the two composers became friends. When Haydn visited Vienna, they sometimes played in an impromptu string quartet. Mozart’s six quartets dedicated to Haydn date from 1782–85, and are often judged to be his response to Haydn’s List of string quartets by Joseph Haydn’s Opus 33 set from 1781. Haydn was soon in awe of Mozart, and when he first heard the last three of Mozart’s series, he told Leopold, “Before God and as an honest man I tell you that your son is the greatest composer known to me either in person or by name: He has taste, and, furthermore, the most profound knowledge of composition.”

During the years 1782–1785, Mozart put on a series of concerts in which he appeared as soloist in his piano concertos, widely considered among his greatest works. These concerts were financially successful. After 1785, Mozart performed far less and wrote only a few concertos. Maynard Solomon conjectures that he may have suffered from hand injuries; another possibility is that the fickle public ceased to attend the concerts in the same numbers.

Mozart’s relationship to religion and the church has been the subject of much academic interest. He was influenced by the ideas of the eighteenth century European Enlightenment as an adult, and he became a Freemason in 1784. But his lodge—the same Masonic Lodge as Haydn—was a specifically Catholic, rather than deistic one, and Mozart worked fervently and successfully to convert his father before the latter’s death in 1787. Neither was Mozart’s lifelong interest in sacred music restricted to the time of his service for the church in Salzburg. “I cannot possibly live like other young men,” he once wrote. “In the first place I have too much religion, in the second too much love for my fellow men and too great a sense of humor.”

Mozart’s life was occasionally fraught with financial difficulty. Though the extent of this difficulty has often been romanticized and exaggerated, he nonetheless did resort to borrowing money from close friends, some debts remaining unpaid even to his death. During the years 1784-1787 he lived in a lavish, seven-room apartment, which may be visited today at Domgasse 5, behind St Stephen’s Cathedral; it was here, in 1786, that Mozart composed the opera Le nozze di Figaro.
Mozart and Prague

Mozart had a special relationship with the city of Prague and its people. The audience there celebrated the Figaro with the much-deserved reverence he was missing in his hometown Vienna. His quotation, “Meine Prager verstehen mich” (“My Praguers understand me”) became very famous in the Bohemian lands. Many tourists follow his tracks in Prague and visit the Mozart Museum of the Villa Bertramka where they can enjoy a chamber concert. In the later years of his life, Prague provided Mozart with many financial resources from commissions. In Prague, Don Giovanni premiered on October 29, 1787, at the Theatre of the Estates. Mozart wrote La clemenza di Tito for the festivities accompanying Leopold II, Leopold II’s coronation in November 1790; Mozart obtained this commission after Antonio Salieri had allegedly rejected it.
Final illness and death

Mozart’s final illness and death are difficult topics for scholars, obscured by romantic legends and replete with conflicting theories. Scholars disagree about the course of decline in Mozart’s health—particularly at what point (or if at all) Mozart became aware of his impending death and whether this awareness influenced his final works. The romantic view holds that Mozart declined gradually and that his outlook and compositions paralleled this decline. In opposition to this, some present-day scholars point out correspondence from Mozart’s final year indicating that he was in good cheer, as well as evidence that Mozart’s death was sudden and a shock to his family and friends. Mozart’s attributed last words: “The taste of death is upon my lips… I feel something, that is not of this earth.” The actual cause of Mozart’s death is also a matter of conjecture. His death record listed “hitziges Frieselfieber” (“severe miliary fever,” referring to a rash that looks like millet-seeds), a description that does not suffice to identify the cause as it would be diagnosed in modern medicine. Dozens of theories have been proposed, including trichinosis, mercury poisoning, and rheumatic fever. The practice, common at that time, of bleeding medical patients is also cited as a contributing cause.

Mozart died around 1 a.m. on December 5, 1791, in Vienna. Some days earlier, with the onset of his illness, he had largely ceased work on his final composition, the Requiem. Popular legend has it that Mozart was thinking of his own impending death while writing this piece, and even that a messenger from the afterworld commissioned it. However, documentary evidence has established that the anonymous commission came from one Count Franz Walsegg of Schloss Stuppach, and that most if not all of the music had been written while Mozart was still in good health. A younger composer, and Mozart’s pupil at the time, Franz Xaver Süssmayr, was engaged by Constanze to complete the Requiem. However, he was not the first composer asked to finish the Requiem, as the widow had first approached another Mozart student, Joseph Eybler, who began work directly on the empty staves of Mozart’s manuscript but then abandoned it.

Because he was buried in an unmarked grave, it has been popularly assumed that Mozart was penniless and forgotten when he died. In fact, though he was no longer as fashionable in Vienna as before, he continued to have a well-paid job at court and receive substantial commissions from more distant parts of Europe, Prague in particular. He earned about 10,000 florins per year, equivalent to at least 42,000 U.S. dollars in 2006, which places him within the top 5 percent of late eighteenth century wage earners, but he could not manage his own wealth. His mother wrote, “When Wolfgang makes new acquaintances, he immediately wants to give his life and property to them.” His impulsive largesse and spending often put him in the position of having to ask others for loans. Many of his begging letters survive but they are evidence not so much of poverty as of his habit of spending more than he earned. He was not buried in a “mass grave,” but in a regular communal grave according to the 1784 laws in Austria.

Though the original grave in the St. Marx cemetery was lost, memorial gravestones (or cenotaphs) have been placed there and in the Zentralfriedhof. In 2005, new DNA testing was performed by Austria’s University of Innsbruck and the U.S. Armed Forces DNA Identification Laboratory in Rockville, Maryland, to determine if a skull in an Austrian Museum was actually his, using DNA samples from the marked graves of his grandmother and Mozart’s niece. However, test results were inconclusive, suggesting that none of the DNA samples were related to each other.

In 1809, Constanze married Danish diplomat Georg Nikolaus von Nissen (1761–1826). Being a fanatical admirer of Mozart, he (and, possibly, Constanze) edited vulgar passages out of many of the composer’s letters and wrote a Mozart biography. Nissen did not live to see his biography printed, and Constanze finished it.
Works, musical style, and innovations
Style

Mozart’s music, like Haydn’s, stands as an archetypal example of the Classical style. His works spanned the period during which that style transformed from one exemplified by the style galant to one that began to incorporate some of the contrapuntal complexities of the late Baroque, complexities against which the galant style had been a reaction. Mozart’s own stylistic development closely paralleled the development of the classical style as a whole. In addition, he was a versatile composer and wrote in almost every major genre, including symphony, opera, the solo concerto, chamber music including string quartet and string quintet, and the piano sonata. While none of these genres were new, the piano concerto was almost single-handedly developed and popularized by Mozart. He also wrote a great deal of religious music, including mass masses; and he composed many dances, divertimenti, serenades, and other forms of light entertainment.

The central traits of the classical style can all be identified in Mozart’s music. Clarity, balance, and transparency are hallmarks, though a simplistic notion of the delicacy of his music obscures the exceptional and even demonic power of some of his finest masterpieces, such as the Piano Concerto in C minor, K. 491, the Symphony in G minor, K. 550, and the opera, Don Giovanni. The famed writer on music, Charles Rosen, has written (in The Classical Style): “It is only through recognizing the violence and sensuality at the center of Mozart’s work that we can make a start towards a comprehension of his structures and an insight into his magnificence. In a paradoxical way, Schumann’s superficial characterization of the G minor Symphony can help us to see Mozart’s daemon more steadily. In all of Mozart’s supreme expressions of suffering and terror, there is something shockingly voluptuous.” Especially during his last decade, Mozart explored chromatic harmony to a degree rare at the time. The slow introduction to the “Dissonant” Quartet, K. 465, a work that Haydn greatly admired, rapidly explodes a shallow understanding of Mozart’s style as light and pleasant.

From his earliest years Mozart had a gift for imitating the music he heard; since he traveled widely, he acquired a rare collection of experiences from which to create his unique compositional language. When he went to London as a child, he met J.C. Bach and heard his music; when he went to Paris, Mannheim, and Vienna, he heard the work of composers active there, as well as the spectacular Mannheim orchestra; when he went to Italy, he encountered the Italian overture and the opera buffa, both of which were to be hugely influential on his development. Both in London and Italy, the galant style was all the rage: Simple, light music, with a mania for cadencing, an emphasis on tonic, dominant, and subdominant to the exclusion of other chords, symmetrical phrases, and clearly articulated structures. This style, out of which the classical style evolved, was a reaction against the complexity of late Baroque music. Some of Mozart’s early symphonies are Italian overtures, with three movements running into each other; many are “homotonal” (each movement in the same key, with the slow movement in the tonic minor). Others mimic the works of J.C. Bach, and others show the simple rounded binary forms commonly being written by composers in Vienna.

As Mozart matured, he began to incorporate some features of Baroque styles into his music. For example, the Symphony No. 29 in A Major K. 201 uses a contrapuntal main theme in its first movement, and experimentation with irregular phrase lengths. Some of his quartets from 1773 have fugal finales, probably influenced by Haydn, who had just published his opus 20 set. The influence of the Sturm und Drang (Storm and Stress) period in German literature, with its brief foreshadowing of the Romantic era to come, is evident in some of the music of both composers at that time.

Over the course of his working life, Mozart switched his focus from instrumental music to operas, and back again. He wrote operas in each of the styles current in Europe: Opera buffa, such as The Marriage of Figaro, Don Giovanni, or Così fan tutte, and opera seria, such as Idomeneo; and Singspiel, of which Die Zauberflöte is probably the most famous example by any composer. In his later operas, he developed the use of subtle changes in instrumentation, orchestration, and tone color to express or highlight psychological or emotional states and dramatic shifts. Here his advances in opera and instrumental composing interacted. His increasingly sophisticated use of the orchestra in the symphonies and concerti served as a resource in his operatic orchestration, and his developing subtlety in using the orchestra to psychological effect in his operas was reflected in his later non-operatic compositions.
Influence

Mozart’s legacy to subsequent generations of composers (in all genres) is immense.

Many important composers since Mozart’s time have expressed profound appreciation of Mozart. Rossini averred, “He is the only musician who had as much knowledge as genius, and as much genius as knowledge.” Ludwig van Beethoven’s admiration for Mozart is also quite clear. Beethoven used Mozart as a model a number of times: For example, Beethoven’s Piano Concerto No. 4 in G major demonstrates a debt to Mozart’s Piano Concerto in C major, K. 503. A plausible story—not corroborated—regards one of Beethoven’s students who looked through a pile of music in Beethoven’s apartment. When the student pulled out Mozart’s A major Quartet, K. 464, Beethoven exclaimed “Ah, that piece. That’s Mozart saying, ‘here’s what I could do, if only you had ears to hear!'” Beethoven’s own Piano Concerto No. 3 in C minor is an obvious tribute to Mozart’s Piano Concerto No. 24 in C minor, and yet another plausible—if unconfirmed—story concerns Beethoven at a concert with his sometime-student Ferdinand Ries. As they listened to Mozart’s Piano Concerto No. 24, the orchestra reached the quite unusual coda of the last movement, and Beethoven whispered to Ries: “We’ll never think of anything like that!” Beethoven’s Quintet for Piano and Winds is another obvious tribute to Mozart, similar to Mozart’s own quintet for the same ensemble. Beethoven also paid homage to Mozart by writing sets of theme and variations on several of his themes: For example, the two sets of variations for cello and piano on themes from Mozart’s Magic Flute, and cadenzas to several of Mozart’s piano concertos, most notably the Piano Concerto No. 20 K. 466. A famous legend asserts that, after the only meeting between the two composers, Mozart noted that Beethoven would, “give the world something to talk about.” However, it is not certain that the two ever met. Tchaikovsky wrote his Mozartiana in praise of Mozart; and Mahler’s final word was alleged to have been simply, “Mozart.” The theme of the opening movement of the Piano Sonata in A major K. 331 (itself a set of variations on that theme) was used by Max Reger for his Variations and Fugue on a Theme of Mozart, written in 1914, and among Reger’s best-known works.

In addition, Mozart received outstanding praise from several fellow composers, including Frédéric Chopin, Franz Schubert, Peter Ilich Tchaikovsky, Robert Schumann, and many more.

Mozart has remained an influence in popular contemporary music in varying genres ranging from Jazz to modern Rock and Heavy metal. An example of this influence is the jazz pianist Chick Corea, who has performed piano concertos of Mozart and was inspired by them to write a concerto of his own.
The Köchel catalogue

In the decades after Mozart’s death there were several attempts to catalogue his compositions, but it was not until 1862 that Ludwig von Köchel succeeded in this enterprise. Many of his famous works are referred to by their Köchel catalogue number; for example, the Piano Concerto in A major (Piano Concerto No. 23) is often referred to simply as “K. 488” or “KV. 488.” The catalogue has undergone six revisions, labeling the works from K. 1 to K. 626.
Myths and controversies

Mozart is unusual among composers for being the subject of an abundance of legend, partly because none of his early biographers knew him personally. They often resorted to fiction in order to produce a work. Many myths began soon after Mozart died, but few have any basis in fact. An example is the story that Mozart composed his Requiem with the belief it was for himself. Sorting out fabrications from real events is a vexing and continuous task for Mozart scholars, mainly because of the prevalence of legend in scholarship. Dramatists and screenwriters, free from responsibilities of scholarship, have found excellent material among these legends.

An especially popular case is the supposed rivalry between Mozart and Antonio Salieri, and, in some versions, the tale that it was poison received from the latter that caused Mozart’s death; this is the subject of Aleksandr Pushkin’s play Mozart and Salieri, Nicolai Rimsky-Korsakov’s opera Mozart and Salieri, and Peter Shaffer’s play Amadeus. The last of these has been made into a feature-length film of the same name. Shaffer’s play attracted criticism for portraying Mozart as vulgar and loutish, a characterization felt by many to be unfairly exaggerated, but in fact frequently confirmed by the composer’s letters and other memorabilia. For example, Mozart humorously wrote canons on the words “Leck mich im Arsch” as party pieces for his friends. The Köchel numbers of these canons are 231 and 233.

Another debate involves Mozart’s alleged status as a kind of superhuman prodigy, from childhood right up until his death. While some have criticized his earlier works as simplistic or forgettable, others revere even Mozart’s juvenilia. In any case, several of his early compositions remain very popular. The motet Exultate, jubilate (K. 165), for example, composed when Mozart was seventeen years old, is among the most frequently recorded of his vocal compositions. It is also mentioned that around the time when he was five or six years old, he could play the piano blindfolded and with his hands crossed over one another.

Benjamin Simkin, a medical doctor, argues in his book, Medical and Musical Byways of Mozartiana, that Mozart had Tourette syndrome. However, no Tourette syndrome expert, organization, psychiatrist, or neurologist have stated that there were sociological and cultural aspects of Tourette syndrome since there was credible evidence that Mozart had this syndrome. Several have stated now that they do not believe there is enough evidence to substantiate the claim.
Amadeus (1984)

Milos Forman’s 1984 motion picture, Amadeus, based on the play by Peter Shaffer, won eight Academy Awards and was one of the year’s most popular films. While the film did a great deal to popularize Mozart’s work with the general public, it has been criticized for its historical inaccuracies, and in particular for its portrayal of Antonio Salieri’s intrigues against Mozart, for which little historical evidence can be found. On the contrary, it is likely that Mozart and Salieri regarded each other as friends and colleagues. It is well documented, for instance, that Salieri frequently lent Mozart musical scores from the court library, that he often chose compositions by Mozart for performance at state occasions, and Salieri taught Mozart’s son, Franz Xaver.

The idea that he never revised his compositions, dramatized in the film, is easily dismissed by even a cursory examination of the autograph manuscripts, which contain many revisions. Mozart was a studiously hard worker, and by his own admission his extensive knowledge and abilities developed out of many years’ close study of the European musical tradition. In fairness, Schaffer and Forman never claimed that Amadeus was intended to be an accurate biographical portrait of Mozart. Rather, as Shaffer reveals on the DVD release of the film, the dramatic narrative was inspired by the biblical story of Cain and Abel—one brother loved by God and the other scorned.
Trivia

Musicologist Alfred Einstein, the biographer of Mozart and twentieth century editor of the Köchel Catalog, is quoted as saying, “Mozart is the greatest composer of all. Beethoven created his music, but the music of Mozart is of such purity and beauty that one feels he merely found it—that it has always existed as part of the inner beauty of the universe waiting to be revealed.”
In his travels, Mozart acquired some competence in many languages: as many as fifteen, by some reports.
In 1770, Mozart was awarded the Cross of the Order of the Golden Spur by Pope Clement XIV.
Mozart was much taken by the sound of Benjamin Franklin’s glass harmonica, and composed two works for it: An Adagio in C and an Adagio and Rondo for armonica, flute, oboe, viola, and cello (K. 617), both composed in 1791, after he heard the instrument played by the virtuoso Marianne Kirchgaessner. He started a third piece, of which only the first few bars were completed.
Recordings of Mozart’s music have sold more copies than any other composer.