|
Post by John S. Damm on Dec 3, 2010 10:02:53 GMT -5
I think that the two dissenting groups on the source of John's death will have to agree to disagree. It seems those of us(including me) who believe a disturbed lone man killed John are as sincere and passionate as those who believe that it was part of a government conspiracy.
I hope that we can all unite on the undeniable fact that John's death, whatever the cause, was a real tragedy that profoundly effected many, many people even beyond John's family and small circle of friends. It ripped at our hearts as fans.
I'd hate to see friendships lost here when we should "come together" over this senseless tragedy which it was whether by lone gunman or government plot. Yoko was right, there was no need to kill John whoever was responsible.
|
|
lowbasso
A Hard Day's Knight
Posts: 2,776
|
Post by lowbasso on Dec 3, 2010 12:42:35 GMT -5
I think that the two dissenting groups on the source of John's death will have to agree to disagree. It seems those of us(including me) who believe a disturbed lone man killed John are as sincere and passionate as those who believe that it was part of a government conspiracy. I hope that we can all unite on the undeniable fact that John's death, whatever the cause, was a real tragedy that profoundly effected many, many people even beyond John's family and small circle of friends. It ripped at our hearts as fans. I'd hate to see friendships lost here when we should "come together" over this senseless tragedy which it was whether by lone gunman or government plot. Yoko was right, there was no need to kill John whoever was responsible. Amen. But it would be nice to leave the killer's name out of any discussion of the event. It does not deserve to ever be associated with John's. Whether you think he did it or not. For John's sake.
|
|
|
Post by mikev on Dec 3, 2010 14:31:53 GMT -5
I think that the two dissenting groups on the source of John's death will have to agree to disagree. It seems those of us(including me) who believe a disturbed lone man killed John are as sincere and passionate as those who believe that it was part of a government conspiracy. I hope that we can all unite on the undeniable fact that John's death, whatever the cause, was a real tragedy that profoundly effected many, many people even beyond John's family and small circle of friends. It ripped at our hearts as fans. I'd hate to see friendships lost here when we should "come together" over this senseless tragedy which it was whether by lone gunman or government plot. Yoko was right, there was no need to kill John whoever was responsible. Amen. But it would be nice to leave the killer's name out of any discussion of the event. It does not deserve to ever be associated with John's. Whether you think he did it or not. For John's sake. Then there are those of us that are pretty certain this was just a loner, but still remain suspicious of the extreme right G. Gordon Liddy / Dick Cheney/ "Duke" types, that could be inspiring nefarious dealings. But you can't tell me that the Reagan assailant _ _ _clone was also part of a conspiracy...even from the extreme left...he was just another loner in the same mold as the other.
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Dec 3, 2010 17:16:07 GMT -5
Maybe this documentary was aimed at us more invested Lennon fans, invested meaning those of us who have bought the music, read the books and articles, know more than the casual fan about John's history. These things revealed about John don't upset me because I have read about them for years. I think John himself regretted, after the fact, all of that complained of conduct but that was his nature: very impulsive and explosive. I was just noting my surprise at reactions to this film by two people I know who have a more than passing interest in John Lennon but certainly not the investment in John that we here have all made. Understandable. All I was wondering though was why this documentary in particular? I should think those people would have felt the same way if it had been GIMME SOME TRUTH or IMAGINE JOHN LENNON they'd watched. Maybe they somehow felt Lennon was "all peace and love" going in? I'm just saying I don't think it's some kind of inherent problem with this documentary in particular; John's story would include these things in any form, visual or text.
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Dec 3, 2010 17:35:55 GMT -5
I think that the two dissenting groups on the source of John's death will have to agree to disagree. It seems those of us(including me) who believe a disturbed lone man killed John are as sincere and passionate as those who believe that it was part of a government conspiracy. I hope that we can all unite on the undeniable fact that John's death, whatever the cause, was a real tragedy that profoundly effected many, many people even beyond John's family and small circle of friends. It ripped at our hearts as fans. I'd hate to see friendships lost here when we should "come together" over this senseless tragedy John, you are right. You mentioned that John Lennon was explosive now and then, and would regret things. This is part of the reason I guess I've always related to Lennon somewhat; I have some similarities at times, and that is one of them. So I would like to extend an apology to Ursamajor and whomever else I may have offended by the way in which I worded my views. I still think the conspiracy theory is silly, but I'm sorry for the nasty/insulting way in which I expressed it. JSD - you have cut me some slack many times in the past for these occurrences, and I thank you for it (I am talking about even before you were a moderator). I'll try harder in the future to not "go off". I know I don't like it when other members do/have done that to me. You're correct. we have Beatles friendships here on this board.
|
|
|
Post by John S. Damm on Dec 4, 2010 0:25:42 GMT -5
Maybe this documentary was aimed at us more invested Lennon fans, invested meaning those of us who have bought the music, read the books and articles, know more than the casual fan about John's history. These things revealed about John don't upset me because I have read about them for years. I think John himself regretted, after the fact, all of that complained of conduct but that was his nature: very impulsive and explosive. I was just noting my surprise at reactions to this film by two people I know who have a more than passing interest in John Lennon but certainly not the investment in John that we here have all made. Understandable. All I was wondering though was why this documentary in particular? I should think those people would have felt the same way if it had been GIMME SOME TRUTH or IMAGINE JOHN LENNON they'd watched. Maybe they somehow felt Lennon was "all peace and love" going in? I'm just saying I don't think it's some kind of inherent problem with this documentary in particular; John's story would include these things in any form, visual or text. Good question, Joe. Maybe there is more interest in John this year with it being his 70th birthday so more casual fans are watching. I don't know. You are right that there was unflattering stuff on John in those other documentaries. I am not trying to pick on this one as I rather enjoyed it. I was surprised by my friends' reactions. Each claimed that they still like his music so all is not lost with them.
|
|
|
Post by John S. Damm on Dec 4, 2010 0:36:44 GMT -5
I think that the two dissenting groups on the source of John's death will have to agree to disagree. It seems those of us(including me) who believe a disturbed lone man killed John are as sincere and passionate as those who believe that it was part of a government conspiracy. I hope that we can all unite on the undeniable fact that John's death, whatever the cause, was a real tragedy that profoundly effected many, many people even beyond John's family and small circle of friends. It ripped at our hearts as fans. I'd hate to see friendships lost here when we should "come together" over this senseless tragedy John, you are right. You mentioned that John Lennon was explosive now and then, and would regret things. This is part of the reason I guess I've always related to Lennon somewhat; I have some similarities at times, and that is one of them. So I would like to extend an apology to Ursamajor and whomever else I may have offended by the way in which I worded my views. I still think the conspiracy theory is silly, but I'm sorry for the nasty/insulting way in which I expressed it. JSD - you have cut me some slack many times in the past for these occurrences, and I thank you for it (I am talking about even before you were a moderator). I'll try harder in the future to not "go off". I know I don't like it when other members do/have done that to me. You're correct. we have Beatles friendships here on this board. Heck, I was also getting too wound up on the convicted killer and wife even wishing Islamic Sharia punishment on them! This is a tough topic. While I do not necessarily agree with some of my friends here that we should not use the killer's name, I try to avoid writing it as much as I can out of respect for those here who are offended by it. I view John's death as a tragic historical event and we don't avoid the names of other infamous killers, i.e., John Wilkes Booth or Lee Harvey Oswald. Still, naming that man hurts and/or offends many here and I don't want to unnecessarily hurt or offend my friends. I thus use the person's name infrequently, but sometimes I can't avoid it.
|
|
|
Post by vectisfabber on Dec 4, 2010 4:37:57 GMT -5
I haven't seen the current documentary so I can't comment on how flattering or not it may be. With regard to previous documentaries, I would simply say that a) it's been a while since anything on Lennon was screened fresh and maybe this is the first time these people have seen anything about him, and b) maybe we didn't talk previously to non-Beatles people about how they perceived him from Imagine etc.. And it can be quite difficult to get your head around the fact that someone you greatly admire may not be as wonderful as you thought/hoped - in recent years I have had to face the fact that McCartney tends towards revisionism, control freakery, and throwing the odd tantrum (not to mention having made many more crap records than I had wished), and John never even made the effort to be as publicly nice as Paul did (not to mention having made many more crap records than I had wished).
|
|
lowbasso
A Hard Day's Knight
Posts: 2,776
|
Post by lowbasso on Dec 4, 2010 12:25:11 GMT -5
John, you are right. You mentioned that John Lennon was explosive now and then, and would regret things. This is part of the reason I guess I've always related to Lennon somewhat; I have some similarities at times, and that is one of them. So I would like to extend an apology to Ursamajor and whomever else I may have offended by the way in which I worded my views. I still think the conspiracy theory is silly, but I'm sorry for the nasty/insulting way in which I expressed it. JSD - you have cut me some slack many times in the past for these occurrences, and I thank you for it (I am talking about even before you were a moderator). I'll try harder in the future to not "go off". I know I don't like it when other members do/have done that to me. You're correct. we have Beatles friendships here on this board. Heck, I was also getting too wound up on the convicted killer and wife even wishing Islamic Sharia punishment on them! This is a tough topic. While I do not necessarily agree with some of my friends here that we should not use the killer's name, I try to avoid writing it as much as I can out of respect for those here who are offended by it. I view John's death as a tragic historical event and we don't avoid the names of other infamous killers, i.e., John Wilkes Booth or Lee Harvey Oswald. Still, naming that man hurts and/or offends many here and I don't want to unnecessarily hurt or offend my friends. I thus use the person's name infrequently, but sometimes I can't avoid it. Booth and Oswald are both dead. John's killer is still alive in prison so he has the opportunity to read about himself or see documentarys with his image and name in them. That's the difference. If they had given John's killer the needle 25 years ago, then I don't think I would object to his name being battered around, but until the scumbag dies, it matters to me.
|
|
|
Post by ursamajor on Dec 4, 2010 17:48:40 GMT -5
I think that the two dissenting groups on the source of John's death will have to agree to disagree. It seems those of us(including me) who believe a disturbed lone man killed John are as sincere and passionate as those who believe that it was part of a government conspiracy. I hope that we can all unite on the undeniable fact that John's death, whatever the cause, was a real tragedy that profoundly effected many, many people even beyond John's family and small circle of friends. It ripped at our hearts as fans. I'd hate to see friendships lost here when we should "come together" over this senseless tragedy which it was whether by lone gunman or government plot. Yoko was right, there was no need to kill John whoever was responsible. Thanks John, as you know I don't believe John was murdered by an act of sudden craziness by a deranged fan. Given this is a forum we should all have the right to post our opinions and views on certain topics. The police report into John's death is astonishingly lacking in detail and disappointing. There is no precise description of the crime itself, no narrative of where Lennon was standing when he was shot, no explanation of where Chapman was standing when he fired, no sketches, no names of witnesses, nothing of any consequence. Had Chapman not pled guilty months later, the prosecutors would have had little evidence to build a case against him. At a minimum, one would think the police report would contain names of witnesses. The report barely indicates that a crime occurred at all. Here is a summary of the rudimentary information found in the report: 1. John Lennon was the victim. 2. Mark David Chapman was the perpetrator. 3. Chapman was carrying $2,201.76 when he was arrested. 4. The crime location was 1 West 72 St. (the Dakota) at the archway entrance. 5. The weapon used was a ".38 caliber snub nose." 6. The crime occurred on December 8, 1980 at 10:50 PM. 7. The arresting officer was Stephen Spiro assisted by patrolman Peter Cullen, both of the 20th Precinct. Hopefully one day maybe on Wikileaks we may get some more information as to what really happened on that night.
|
|
|
Post by ReturnToPepperland on Dec 5, 2010 0:37:22 GMT -5
I also found it very moving when Yoko asked at the end of the documentary - He was an artist. Why would anyone want to shoot him? I don't believe there was any kind of conspiracy - all the work of the ahole who claimed responsibility. I bought that LIFE publication on John (recently put out) and was incensed to see his picture in it. I cut it out and threw it in the kitchen garbage. I didn't find that very moving. It implies that artist are somehow more important than others. I know she is probably referring to the idea that artists may be more against violence than non-artists, but I think that is a bit of a stretch.
|
|
|
Post by ReturnToPepperland on Dec 5, 2010 0:44:34 GMT -5
Yoko's plea at the end of the documentary of "He was an artist, why did you have to kill him?" is quite moving How did you guys miss this ? It's obvious Yoko is saying that John was assasinated as opposed to murdered. She knows but she won't say anything as she doesn't want anything to happen to Sean. Yoko will not come out and say it and she may not even say anything before she dies but I am sure that when the time comes Sean will. The comment does not make sense if MDC was just a 'deranged' killer. She is implying that artists are more sensitive and therefore more opposed to violence and would be the last ones to harm others, so why was he harmed. Her point is so wrongminded, it made you come to a completely wrong conclusion as to what she was saying. Artists do not have the market cornered on being against violence and its incorrect of Yoko to imply that. Either she is implying that or that somehow artists are more valuable to the world than non-artists. That is so ridiculous I don't think it was her intention.
|
|
|
Post by ReturnToPepperland on Dec 5, 2010 0:51:28 GMT -5
I guess we "missed" it because it doesn't ring as anything like Yoko feeling the goverment was involved. Not at all. I know you still harbor that bizarre belief, but I still think it's outrageous. I would have been more prone to believing this silly "conspiracy" if John had been murdered in 1972 under Nixon. But certainly not in 1980, when John was no longer politically motivated and controversial. Just absurd, IMO. It's obvious Lennon's killer did what he did because he was unhinged and had an identity crisis, among other things. Go seek out the book LET ME TAKE YOU DOWN, by Jack Jones. Let me ask you -- what reason would the goverment have to kill John in 1980, in your view? In my view John Lennon was more dangerous to the government in 1980+ than in the early 70s as he could command airtime on TV, radio and any of the major print publications. The mass media era was in full swing so the government would always have to contend with the loud voice of John Lennon condemning every illegal action by the US government to start wars in other countries and expose their grubby and hypocritical policies. If John Lennon spoke everyone would listen especially now that he was making a comeback. I am not saying John was powerful enough to stop wars but he would be able to counter the propaganda out of the govenment and the largely government controlled media. You have to remember that the US was about to embark on alot of wars during this time especially in the middle-East and the last thing the US government wanted was a huge public outcry against them which would make them one term governments. You are really overstating John's influence on the Vietnam war. He didn't have anything to do with ending it. I'm old enough to remember. By the time he got on that bandwagon in 1969 it was the cause de celebre of the time. Give Peace A Chance, as nice an anthem as it is, did not have a hand in ending the war.
|
|
|
Post by ReturnToPepperland on Dec 5, 2010 0:55:55 GMT -5
I did not read into Yoko's plea anything along the lines of implying he was assassinated. To me it was a plea to all of us about the violent aspect of our society that still exists and contains such animals as the scum that killed John. The man was not just a deranged killer. He killed John to attain notariety for himself because of his sad existence as a nobody. He had a copy of "Catcher in the Rye" in his posession when he was arrested. The book is about a young man who cannot assimilate himself into society properly and fails to mature correctly. Read the book if you want to see where this guy was coming from. He needed to commit a violent crime in order to feel like he was important and John became his obsession since he was a Beatlfan. And John was easily accessible to just about anyone with the lifestyle he chose to live in NYC. I just don't see Yoko blaming John's death as politically motivated with her remark. She is just trying, like all of us, to make some sense out of a senseless act. I did appreciate the filmakers decision not to mention John's killer by name. I only wish everyone else would do the same, especially with the upcoming 30th anniversary of his murder in about a week. It only serves to give the man exactly what he craves; more notariety for committing the act. Well we will never know, MDC always maintained he was innocent and did not shoot John and pleaded not guilty. At the very last minute he changed his plea to guilty so an investigation into John's death was never officially conducted. It was considered and open and shut case based entirely on MDC changing his plea at the last minute. The autopsy report on John has never been released. The NY Times changed their story from one day to the next as to where MDC was allegedly standing when he shot John. The two police officers that arrived on the scene did not think that MDC was the killer. Its just not true that MDC always maintained his innocence. Fox News did a documentary shown this weekend on the subject. He pleaded not guilty because he thought he could get off on sanity issues. Eventually he changed that plea and no trial was needed and non took place. They interviewed the police officers who questioned MDC and at least two of them said he came out and admitted openly that he had shot John. Where do you get your information?
|
|
|
Post by ReturnToPepperland on Dec 5, 2010 0:58:27 GMT -5
I think that the two dissenting groups on the source of John's death will have to agree to disagree. It seems those of us(including me) who believe a disturbed lone man killed John are as sincere and passionate as those who believe that it was part of a government conspiracy. I hope that we can all unite on the undeniable fact that John's death, whatever the cause, was a real tragedy that profoundly effected many, many people even beyond John's family and small circle of friends. It ripped at our hearts as fans. I'd hate to see friendships lost here when we should "come together" over this senseless tragedy which it was whether by lone gunman or government plot. Yoko was right, there was no need to kill John whoever was responsible. Thanks John, as you know I don't believe John was murdered by an act of sudden craziness by a deranged fan. Given this is a forum we should all have the right to post our opinions and views on certain topics. The police report into John's death is astonishingly lacking in detail and disappointing. There is no precise description of the crime itself, no narrative of where Lennon was standing when he was shot, no explanation of where Chapman was standing when he fired, no sketches, no names of witnesses, nothing of any consequence. Had Chapman not pled guilty months later, the prosecutors would have had little evidence to build a case against him. At a minimum, one would think the police report would contain names of witnesses. The report barely indicates that a crime occurred at all. Here is a summary of the rudimentary information found in the report: 1. John Lennon was the victim. 2. Mark David Chapman was the perpetrator. 3. Chapman was carrying $2,201.76 when he was arrested. 4. The crime location was 1 West 72 St. (the Dakota) at the archway entrance. 5. The weapon used was a ".38 caliber snub nose." 6. The crime occurred on December 8, 1980 at 10:50 PM. 7. The arresting officer was Stephen Spiro assisted by patrolman Peter Cullen, both of the 20th Precinct. Hopefully one day maybe on Wikileaks we may get some more information as to what really happened on that night. There are extensive interviews from those who were on scene that gives us much more information.
|
|
|
Post by ReturnToPepperland on Dec 5, 2010 1:05:45 GMT -5
I think it's quite obvious that John Lennon was shot as a plot to silence him and not by some deranged nobody. Since you brought it up, let's talk about Jose Pedromo. Jose Perdomo was the doorman at the Dakota on Dec. 8, 1980, the night Lennon was killed. Jose Perdomo was at the crime scene when the murder occurred. Jose Perdomo asked accused assassin Mark David Chapman, immediately after the shooting, if he knew what he had just done. Chapman replied that he had just shot John Lennon. Jose Perdomo told police Chapman was Lennon's assailant. One of the arresting officers, Peter Cullen, did not believe Chapman shot Lennon. Cullen believed the shooter was a handyman at the Dakota, but Perdomo convinced Cullen it was Chapman. Cullen thought Chapman "looked like a guy who worked in a bank." Jose Perdomo was an anti-Castro Cuban exile. Perdomo and Chapman discussed the Bay of Pigs Invasion and JFK's assassination a few hours before Lennon was killed. This suggests Perdomo was a member of Brigade 2506 during the Bay of Pigs Invasion in 1961, a failed CIA operation to overthrow Fidel Castro. Cuban Information Archives reveal a "Jose Joaquin Sanjenis Perdomo" (aliases: Joaquin Sanjenis, Sam Jenis) was a member of Brigade 2506 during the Bay of Pigs Invasion in 1961. Joaquin Sanjenis worked closely with convicted Watergate burglar Frank Sturgis (deceased) for about ten years on the CIA's payroll. Frank Sturgis claimed Joaquin Sanjenis died of natural causes in 1974; however, this was never confirmed by any other source. According to Sturgis, the CIA nurtured Sanjenis's anonymity and his family was not notified of his alleged death until after the funeral. Sanjenis may still be alive. You are completely wrong. Peter Cullen was on Fox News this weekend and talked about this. At first Cullen was confused as to who the doorman was pointing to. He thought he as referring to the handyman. But it was just a mis-communication. The doorman said, no not him, the guy over there, pointing to MDC. Cullen was not on the scene to be able to know one way or the other. Why would he have more insight than someone who was there? As the officer explained, it was merely a momentary mix up as to who Jose was pointing to.
|
|
|
Post by ReturnToPepperland on Dec 5, 2010 1:15:41 GMT -5
You know, I can see how some people were given a negative impression of John by this documentary. It does not surprise me that you are hearing such comments. Interesting. I watched it a second time last night with a friend. And this time I was particularly looking to see if it gave off some kind of "unlikable vibe" toward John. I just didn't sense that at all. On the contrary, he seemed most likable and down to Earth, except that he was a rotten drunk when he would indulge, and he did take that girl into the bedroom in front of Yoko. We all make mistakes, we all may do bad or insensitive things at one time or another in our lives which we feel sorry about and later apologize for. People are allowed to walk away from this documentary feeling "negatively" about John, but I personally just cannot see how, in the overall picture. Last night I felt so sad at the end, again realizing this wonderfully unique, one-of-a-kind and very special individual who intrigued so many is no longer with us. (And if RTP is reading, I have to say I again was reminded just how bland Paul McCartney is in comparison). The real Paul McCartney story is anything but bland.
|
|
gloi
Very Clean
Posts: 222
|
Post by gloi on Dec 5, 2010 2:52:17 GMT -5
The real Paul McCartney story is anything but bland. Agree with you here RTP. He is just less open about everything.
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Dec 5, 2010 5:45:25 GMT -5
The real Paul McCartney story is anything but bland. When I made my comment I specifically said Paul's story is bland "in comparison to John's". And I stand strongly by that, though of course opinions may vary and we'll see one day, probably after Paul's dead and the documentaries start. How many interesting aspects are there to Paul's life and personality, really? Try being objective against your love of Paul and really think about it. Paul had a good childhood... though he was dealt a blow by his mom dying when he was young, he was still a well-developed and mentally adjusted child and teenager, and young adult. He made it famous, never showed his feelings openly much. Met Linda Eastman and they had a fabulous marriage for 30 years. Linda died, and then he got mixed up with Heather Mils and went through a divorce and misery 'When I'm 64'. THE END. The only thing actually offbeat in Paul's story was his divorce with Heather. As I've said numerous times, the real dirt will be when Paul dies, to hear everyone step up and write some really nasty tell-all gossip about him... former band members saying how cheap he was, how he may have hit Linda, how their marriage wasn't really as "perfect" as they'd lead on, and all that type of tabloid gossip.
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Dec 5, 2010 5:47:49 GMT -5
Booth and Oswald are both dead. John's killer is still alive in prison so he has the opportunity to read about himself or see documentarys with his image and name in them. That's the difference. If they had given John's killer the needle 25 years ago, then I don't think I would object to his name being battered around, but until the scumbag dies, it matters to me. It would still matter to me even after he rots, because even in death his fame would grow and grow. He may not be alive to see it, but just knowing that he would still be a household name would irk me. One thing though about Booth and Oswald -- they're not the same because they did not kill their targets in order to "attain their fame", did they?
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Dec 5, 2010 6:01:11 GMT -5
Thanks John, as you know I don't believe John was murdered by an act of sudden craziness by a deranged fan. But it was not "sudden". If you ever followed the whole pre-story of the killer you'd see that he had this brewing within him for years well before the murder, and he had been struggling with mental demons and a love/hate affair with Lennon for a long, long time. He had traveled to NYC on one occasion before December to kill John (in October), but could not go through with his plan, and returned to Hawaii. He did not just pop up one day in Manhattan and think "I guess I'll kill John Lennon because I'm feeling crazy today!". This was many years in the making, and hit something that was in any way impulsive. It was completely pre-meditated. I have several hours of TV news coverage from the day John was murdered and the week or so afterward. There are many recreations of the murder scene shown on the news, including sketches and precise points of where the killer and John were standing, how the shots were fired, where John was struck, etc. If this material does not actually appear on the police report then the report may be "disappointing", in how it was handled. But that report alone isn't conclusive as to what did or did not occur. Ursa, I don't mean this to insult you when I suggest that I think you are simply not very knowledgable on what transpired that evening, and certainly you have not read the detail-by-detail accounts. Maybe because you're younger (I am not sure what year you were born) and didn't live in NY and weren't hit with the news the evening it happened. And you have not read all the material on the killer and heard the several interviews with him. We do not need a "Wikileaks" to tell us what happened; I have those actual TV news reports, which contain interviews with people like Paul Goresh the fan photographer, and various psychiatrists, and all sorts of forensics specialists and photos of the crime scene. Also presented are many, many of the sketches you desire, which show "Point A", "Point B", etc, etc, and have the kiler in cartoon form in his "crouched combat stance", and where he was positioned and where John was standing -- and the physical reaction drawings of John being hit, and reacting. These images are still grimly etched into my brain even though I rarely ever pull these tapes out to view. The doorman and Yoko Ono were witnesses, though in Yoko's case she was walking ahead of John. And I am still not clear on one thing. Are you saying you feel this man did pull the trigger, but was a patsy for the government? Or are you suggesting he was not actually the murderer? I think you'd have an easier time if you believed this guy was the actual killer but may have been used as a hitman. It's just impossible that he did not shoot John himself. I really think that book LET ME TAKE YOU DOWN, by Jack Jones, would open your eyes to all of this. I bought and read it simply because I needed some kind of closure and understanding to John's murder, and because I knew the killer would not receive profit off it.
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Dec 5, 2010 6:23:10 GMT -5
Its just not true that MDC always maintained his innocence. Fox News did a documentary shown this weekend on the subject. He pleaded not guilty because he thought he could get off on sanity issues. Eventually he changed that plea and no trial was needed and non took place. They interviewed the police officers who questioned MDC and at least two of them said he came out and admitted openly that he had shot John. Where do you get your information? The killer WANTED everyone to know that he murdered Lennon. That was the entire reason for his plan. He admitted it from the moment the doorman asked him if he realized what he had just done after he'd pulled the trigger. There were NY newspapers immediately with the quote: "I JUST SHOT JOHN LENNON!" on the front page. As a person living in the New York area, I remember them. I have copies of them still. Yes, in the days and weeks that followed, the gunman decided that maybe he'd plead "Not Guilty" by reason of insanity, but then I'm pretty sure (if memory serves from my reading) within his jail cell he ultimately decided he wanted to plead GUILTY for religious reasons, to serve God and accept the full consequences for what he did -- that and, of course, the basic plan that he did this in the first place to be a "Somebody" instead of a "Big Nobody".
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Dec 5, 2010 6:38:35 GMT -5
She is implying that artists are more sensitive and therefore more opposed to violence and would be the last ones to harm others, so why was he harmed. Her point is so wrongminded, it made you come to a completely wrong conclusion as to what she was saying. Artists do not have the market cornered on being against violence and its incorrect of Yoko to imply that. Either she is implying that or that somehow artists are more valuable to the world than non-artists. That is so ridiculous I don't think it was her intention. How about you "inferring" this opinion, rather than saying that Yoko "implied" it? I just took it to mean that John was just an artist, not someone who was worth killing or would cause any trouble. I didn't sense any "we artists are so opposed to violence" schtick. It could just as well have been "why would anyone want to kill a school teacher?" I think the stretch is in your interpretation of her words. There is nothing there whatsoever about her claiming "Artists are peaceful and more important to everyone, so why kill them?". I think it probably just meant an artist isn't hurting anyone or causing any kind of harm to the world. It's not like going out there and killing a dictator or criminal, or something.
|
|
|
Post by ReturnToPepperland on Dec 5, 2010 16:31:27 GMT -5
She is implying that artists are more sensitive and therefore more opposed to violence and would be the last ones to harm others, so why was he harmed. Her point is so wrongminded, it made you come to a completely wrong conclusion as to what she was saying. Artists do not have the market cornered on being against violence and its incorrect of Yoko to imply that. Either she is implying that or that somehow artists are more valuable to the world than non-artists. That is so ridiculous I don't think it was her intention. How about you "inferring" this opinion, rather than saying that Yoko "implied" it? I just took it to mean that John was just an artist, not someone who was worth killing or would cause any trouble. I didn't sense any "we artists are so opposed to violence" schtick. It could just as well have been "why would anyone want to kill a school teacher?" I think the stretch is in your interpretation of her words. There is nothing there whatsoever about her claiming "Artists are peaceful and more important to everyone, so why kill them?". I think it probably just meant an artist isn't hurting anyone or causing any kind of harm to the world. It's not like going out there and killing a dictator or criminal, or something. Fair enough. You gave me a different insight with your first point. I'm still not sure what she meant though.
|
|
|
Post by sayne on Dec 5, 2010 17:02:02 GMT -5
I didn't find that very moving. It implies that artist are somehow more important than others. I know she is probably referring to the idea that artists may be more against violence than non-artists, but I think that is a bit of a stretch. First, all murders are senseless, but don't think she was talking about the "importance" of artists or the artists are mostly against "non-violence." I think that there are people you expect to be killed (soldiers, politicians, police, postal workers, DMV workers, gang members, etc) and those you don't expect to be murdered (kindergarten teachers, nurses, florists, etc). Now, I think John often stepped outside of his artist role. Going onstage to sing I magine or even John Sinclair is much different that going on a march to promote the downfall of an administration and giving speeches. So, I could have seen someone taking John out in the early 70s, but not in 1980.
|
|
|
Post by ursamajor on Dec 5, 2010 19:28:45 GMT -5
Thanks John, as you know I don't believe John was murdered by an act of sudden craziness by a deranged fan. But it was not "sudden". If you ever followed the whole pre-story of the killer you'd see that he had this brewing within him for years well before the murder, and he had been struggling with mental demons and a love/hate affair with Lennon for a long, long time. He had traveled to NYC on one occasion before December to kill John (in October), but could not go through with his plan, and returned to Hawaii. He did not just pop up one day in Manhattan and think "I guess I'll kill John Lennon because I'm feeling crazy today!". This was many years in the making, and hit something that was in any way impulsive. It was completely pre-meditated. I have several hours of TV news coverage from the day John was murdered and the week or so afterward. There are many recreations of the murder scene shown on the news, including sketches and precise points of where the killer and John were standing, how the shots were fired, where John was struck, etc. If this material does not actually appear on the police report then the report may be "disappointing", in how it was handled. But that report alone isn't conclusive as to what did or did not occur. Ursa, I don't mean this to insult you when I suggest that I think you are simply not very knowledgable on what transpired that evening, and certainly you have not read the detail-by-detail accounts. Maybe because you're younger (I am not sure what year you were born) and didn't live in NY and weren't hit with the news the evening it happened. And you have not read all the material on the killer and heard the several interviews with him. We do not need a "Wikileaks" to tell us what happened; I have those actual TV news reports, which contain interviews with people like Paul Goresh the fan photographer, and various psychiatrists, and all sorts of forensics specialists and photos of the crime scene. Also presented are many, many of the sketches you desire, which show "Point A", "Point B", etc, etc, and have the kiler in cartoon form in his "crouched combat stance", and where he was positioned and where John was standing -- and the physical reaction drawings of John being hit, and reacting. These images are still grimly etched into my brain even though I rarely ever pull these tapes out to view. The doorman and Yoko Ono were witnesses, though in Yoko's case she was walking ahead of John. And I am still not clear on one thing. Are you saying you feel this man did pull the trigger, but was a patsy for the government? Or are you suggesting he was not actually the murderer? I think you'd have an easier time if you believed this guy was the actual killer but may have been used as a hitman. It's just impossible that he did not shoot John himself. I really think that book LET ME TAKE YOU DOWN, by Jack Jones, would open your eyes to all of this. I bought and read it simply because I needed some kind of closure and understanding to John's murder, and because I knew the killer would not receive profit off it. Hi Joe, I know you probably think I've lost it but as a John fan, if MDC did not act alone and was part of a bigger plot I think these people should be found out. All the information you just stated is fine but the problem I have with that is that since the NYPD provided no documented record of the crime scene, we must rely on newspaper accounts and television coverage to reconstruct events. For some reason the initial description of the shooting changed quite a bit from what was printed in the NYT on the morning of Dec. 9, 1980, less than eight hours after Lennon was murdered. NYT writer Les Ledbetter wrote the following: "The police said the suspect stepped from an alcove and emptied several shots into Mr. Lennon while standing in a combat position." What? The suspect stepped from an alcove? I thought Chapman was standing at the entrance. Ledbetter also wrote: "Witnesses said that the shooting took place in the West 72nd Street entrance way of the Dakota, just past the lobby attendant’s office." Past the lobby attendant's office? The lobby attendant's office is different from the doorman's booth, the latter being located in the general vicinity of where Chapman was standing. The lobby attendant's office is 20 to 30 feet inside the entrance of the Dakota. The doorman's booth is on the outside of the entrance gates. According to Ledbetter's early description of the shooting, the shooter fired from an alcove inside the Dakota entrance and the crime itself took place near the lobby. The next day, on Dec. 10, 1980, the NYT changed Ledbetter's story significantly by publishing a diagram of the shooting which placed Chapman under the arched entrance and Lennon a few feet inside the gate. This explains why a crime scene sketch similar to the one published in the NYT was not included in the NYPD police report. No cop wants to go on record telling a blatant lie. Hence, a bland police report was filed. Lennon was the victim. Chapman was the suspect. No NYPD cop in his right mind would say anything more than that, not in writing anyway. Otherwise they probably would have become vulnerable to perjury charges if Chapman had ever gone to trial. I think if the murder was black and white, all the witnesses would have been named, more information would be easily obtainable and that would have been the end of the story. If and when the truth ever comes out, it won't matter anyway because most of these people would be long gone. I think the fact that Sean Lennon feels it was a conspiracy means he's been asking the same questions with no answers. But I will read the book Let Me Take You Down and get another view as well.
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Dec 6, 2010 6:15:40 GMT -5
All the information you just stated is fine but the problem I have with that is that since the NYPD provided no documented record of the crime scene, we must rely on newspaper accounts and television coverage to reconstruct events. For some reason the initial description of the shooting changed quite a bit from what was printed in the NYT on the morning of Dec. 9, 1980, less than eight hours after Lennon was murdered. NYT writer Les Ledbetter wrote the following: "The police said the suspect stepped from an alcove and emptied several shots into Mr. Lennon while standing in a combat position." When this incident was still fresh and brand new, reports were coming from all over with different accounts and descriptions. I have them recorded on radio and off the TV. People were estimating "the guy was about 30 or 40", and it wasn't until later that it was confirmed that the killer was 25. Yes, there were all sorts of chaotic things going on initially. The media was constantly scrambling for facts, and by the morning of December 9th, everyone was STILL trying to piece information together. As we all went to work and discussed the night before, details were still not yet 100% solid in any way. People were still asking "How? Why?". I just looked in a dictionary for the word "alcove", and one of the definitions was: "any recessed space". I don't think it was the best choice of descriptive word, but it doesn't really mean much. I have words on radio news reports like "archway", "shadows", "entrance", everything. But what is the difference in the descrptive word(s) used? The point is, there had been this one guy standing around for days and bugging everyone there, and eventually he got up the nerve and on that evening he dropped to a combat stance and fired the shots at Lennon's back as John passed him walking through the entranceway. People saw him, people knew it was him. I recall over the years hearing recollections with people who were there and at least one person said: "When I heard that John had been shot, I immediately knew it had to have been that weird guy who was hanging around there". Well, who is this Ledbetter, anyway? Just one guy among many reporters. This news was still fresh, and details were transpiring as the hours and days ahead went on. Again, this is all very clear when you were living it every day and constantly checking the latest TV updates, (now preserved on my videotapes). How many mere hours after the murder do you suppose Ledbetter constructed his hastily-written morning news report? Do you think precise and correct details were known about any major crime within two or three hours after it was committed? John was murdered close to 11pm. What time did the NYT report get written, maybe by 1 or 2 am? How early did the papers hit the newsstands? I went to work the next morning at 6am and bought all sorts of papers ... each of them with only three or four hours to sort out all the details. It is all black and white. One of the simplest, blatant, and most obvious crimes of all time. You don't need Sherlock Holmes on this case. Sean Lennon was a 5 year old child when this murder occurred. He knew and knows nothing. Maybe he is someone with delusions of grandeur who gets a thrill out of finding fault with the government, but if he ever pursues his fetish here, he will just come across as foolish, IMO. I really hope you do, and would be very interested in hearing your views after reading it. There's more technical information in there with details before, during, and after the murder than anywhere else I've ever seen. So who do you think really murdered John, and where do you think he came from, where nobody saw him? I mean, he was not invisible, was he?
|
|
|
Post by ursamajor on Dec 6, 2010 7:05:20 GMT -5
All the information you just stated is fine but the problem I have with that is that since the NYPD provided no documented record of the crime scene, we must rely on newspaper accounts and television coverage to reconstruct events. For some reason the initial description of the shooting changed quite a bit from what was printed in the NYT on the morning of Dec. 9, 1980, less than eight hours after Lennon was murdered. NYT writer Les Ledbetter wrote the following: "The police said the suspect stepped from an alcove and emptied several shots into Mr. Lennon while standing in a combat position." When this incident was still fresh and brand new, reports were coming from all over with different accounts and descriptions. I have them recorded on radio and off the TV. People were estimating "the guy was about 30 or 40", and it wasn't until later that it was confirmed that the killer was 25. Yes, there were all sorts of chaotic things going on initially. The media was constantly scrambling for facts, and by the morning of December 9th, everyone was STILL trying to piece information together. As we all went to work and discussed the night before, details were still not yet 100% solid in any way. People were still asking "How? Why?". I just looked in a dictionary for the word "alcove", and one of the definitions was: "any recessed space". I don't think it was the best choice of descriptive word, but it doesn't really mean much. I have words on radio news reports like "archway", "shadows", "entrance", everything. But what is the difference in the descrptive word(s) used? The point is, there had been this one guy standing around for days and bugging everyone there, and eventually he got up the nerve and on that evening he dropped to a combat stance and fired the shots at Lennon's back as John passed him walking through the entranceway. People saw him, people knew it was him. I recall over the years hearing recollections with people who were there and at least one person said: "When I heard that John had been shot, I immediately knew it had to have been that weird guy who was hanging around there". Well, who is this Ledbetter, anyway? Just one guy among many reporters. This news was still fresh, and details were transpiring as the hours and days ahead went on. Again, this is all very clear when you were living it every day and constantly checking the latest TV updates, (now preserved on my videotapes). How many mere hours after the murder do you suppose Ledbetter constructed his hastily-written morning news report? Do you think precise and correct details were known about any major crime within two or three hours after it was committed? John was murdered close to 11pm. What time did the NYT report get written, maybe by 1 or 2 am? How early did the papers hit the newsstands? I went to work the next morning at 6am and bought all sorts of papers ... each of them with only three or four hours to sort out all the details. It is all black and white. One of the simplest, blatant, and most obvious crimes of all time. You don't need Sherlock Holmes on this case. Sean Lennon was a 5 year old child when this murder occurred. He knew and knows nothing. Maybe he is someone with delusions of grandeur who gets a thrill out of finding fault with the government, but if he ever pursues his fetish here, he will just come across as foolish, IMO. I really hope you do, and would be very interested in hearing your views after reading it. There's more technical information in there with details before, during, and after the murder than anywhere else I've ever seen. So who do you think really murdered John, and where do you think he came from, where nobody saw him? I mean, he was not invisible, was he? The FBI files on John are some 300 pages thick, he was being tracked constantly and the US government tried to have him deported. He was labelled an extermist and considered dangerous because he was famous and beloved, the worst kind of "extremist" if you want to wage war and support illegal occupation of other countries. John was always capable of seizing the spotlight and speaking directly to millions of young people who venerated him and that's what the government feared most and what Sean Lennon pointed out when he made his remarks. When Jimmy Carter came into power those government forces working to harass John were no longer in power. When Reagan won power in 1980 those same forces were now running the show again. The paper trail that might support the conspiracy theory is a little thin. It doesn't extend much beyond the airline ticket found in Chapman's hotel room; a Hawaii-New York connection departing December 5. But Chapman had actually purchased a Hawaii-Chicago ticket to depart December 2, with no connecting flight. The ticket found after his arrest had apparently been altered. None of his friends knew that he traveled on to New York. They thought he went to Chicago for a three-day stay. While any mention of his name is now accompanied by the phrase "deranged fan," Chapman was anything but. Chapman even now has never had more than routine psychiatric care since entering his guilty plea. He was not sent to a mental hospital, but to Attica State Prison. He was judged legally "rational." He was no more or less ardent a Beatles/Lennon fan than anyone of his generation. His real rock hero was Todd Rundgren. After the murder, major media ran bizarre stories of Chapman's supposed growing identification with John Lennon - at one point he even "re-baptized" himself as Lennon, according to Newsweek. These stories were all quite fascinating, but there was no evidence to back any of them up. When Chapman signed up for a YMCA overseas program, he selected an odd destination: Beirut - a perfect place for a once gentle soul as his friends described him, to be "blooded," that is, desensitized to violence. A final note to the mystery of MDC, as he was ready to go to trial and his diligent public defender was winding up six months spent assembling Chapman's defense, the accused killer suddenly decided to change his plea to guilty. His lawyer was perplexed and more than a little perturbed. But Chapman was determined. He said he was acting on instructions from a "small male voice" that spoke to him in his cell. There are two conspiracies, one that MDC was programmed and all these "voices in his head" , " Do it do it do it" , The Catcher in the Rye were triggers for him to carry out the murder. The other is that he didn't do it and it was someone else from the elevator shaft which was diagonally opposite the entry to the concierge desk which supports the original sketch that the NYT had put in their paper of how the murder occurred. This would be consistent with the entry shots of the bullets into John's body so either MDC was not under the archway but in the "alcove" opposite the concierge desk when he shot John or it was someone else. The initial reaction of the policemen on the scene was that the bullets were not fired from the entrance way as is the commonly held belief. Growing evidence indicates Chapman could not have shot Lennon because all four entry wounds were on the wrong side of Lennon's body (the left side). There was a Dateline segment on NBC aired Nov 18 2005 which had a picture of Jose Pedromo with the caption , The Man Who Shot John Lennon. At the time of the shooting, it was widely reported that Chapman called to Lennon, to which Lennon responded by turning towards Chapman. At that point Chapman reportedly began shooting. Chapman, however, denies calling to Lennon, but he admits shooting him. If Lennon did not turn, this increases the likelihood that someone else shot him from the doorway leading to the service elevator. Accounts vary on the issue of whether Chapman called to Lennon or not, but compelling evidence has never been brought forth to indicate that Chapman called to Lennon causing him to turn. As for who I believe shot John, I don't know, all I know is that there are too many anomalies in this case which lead me to believe that there is a cover up and that MDC was a patsy one way or the other.
|
|
|
Post by acebackwords on Dec 6, 2010 10:48:55 GMT -5
I admit I've always been fascinated with the Kennedy conspiracies (Sam Giancana the Chicago godfather did it -- P.S. Oliver Stone is an idiot who smoked too much pot).
But there's no evidence, none, that Lennon's murder was anything but what it was: the work of a lone nut. Period.
The government did it? Name me one other prominent '60s radical that the government offed? Jane Fonda? Huey Newton? Abbie Hoffman? Timothy Leary? Eldridge Cleaver? Name me one.
P.S. I read "Let Me Take You Down" and its a good portrait of exactly what a nut MDC is. By the way, on another thread I brought up my one real criticism of the Beatles: how they wrote all those songs glamorizing drugs when they had an audience of millions of impressionable children. MDC was one of those kids. He got into popping acid like candy, just like his hero at the time John Lennon, when he was 14 and grooving to the Magical Mystery Trip. Like McCartney said: "You take acid and your mind is never the same again." Not that somebody like MDC had much of a mind to begin with.
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Dec 6, 2010 18:43:22 GMT -5
When Jimmy Carter came into power those government forces working to harass John were no longer in power. When Reagan won power in 1980 those same forces were now running the show again. I admit that Politics is not my strong subject. But at the time Lennon was shot, wasn't Carter still President? I know Reagan was "President-Elect"... At times, Lennon was a big hero of his. At times, not. But the killer was certainly "disturbed" and had "mental confusion" at that time of his life, when he was 25 and murdered Lennon. And for the years before this. He always knew exactly what he was doing, though; he was not "insane" in that regard. But he was certainly mentally disturbed and irrational at that time, no two ways about it. He can see how far gone he was back then in retrospect, when he reflects on that fateful time these days. You need to read that Jack Jones book before really making a conclusion. The killer said he called upon demons, or the devil, or powers of darkness & evil, or whatever, to give him the strength to kill Lennon at the Fatal Hour. He then claimed he was stuck with these intruders in his brain and body for some months after the murder, and had to have a ritual to have them cast out of him, while in prison. Again - Jose was a witness. Also - John was shot in the back. Where do you say the desk/elevator were? What "growing evidence"? You are the only person I know talking like this. And there was a 1986 TV doc called THE MAN WHO SHOT JOHN LENNON, and a 20/20 interview with the killer in 1992.... and a Larry King interview with the killer, as well. What amazes me is that you keep saying "ther is no compelling evidence" for this and that, yet the truth is that there is ZILCH evidence with regard to your own beliefs. "Someone else must have been in the elevator shaft" does not cut it. Oh, I know.. it's the same fella who "really" murdered Kennedy, and the same fella who "really" murdered OJ's wife. He has an uncanny knack to avoid any and all detection and traces of existence. I don't see any anomalies. I mean, anything can be twisted and turned and doubted, just to support an "agenda" or "conspiracy thrill"... but this is a straight forward case. And so for the past 30 years, the killer has just kept up his "facade"? Never decided he was going to "tell the truth about who REALLY killed John"? If he did not do the deed, or even if he was a hired patsy, what's he still play acting about?
|
|