Contents

Lennon Home Page

Main Home Page

By Salvador Astucia

Within hours after the shooting, on the morning of December 9, 1980, the New York Times ran a front-page article about the murder. This initial story indicated that Lennon was shot across from the service elevator which is about 30 feet from the archway entrance to the Dakota building where Chapman was reportedly standing. (See Location # 2 in Figure 11) Here is an excerpt from the NYT article, written by Les Ledbetter:

Ledbetter’s article raises several points. Point # 1: Ledbetter’s article indicates that Lennon was shot near the main lobby rather than by the left front gate. Ledbetter's version places Lennon about 20-to-25 feet beyond where Figure 11 indicates he was standing when he was first hit. (See Location # 3 in Figure 11) Ledbetter’s version is completely different from the accepted version which matches Figure 11. Ledbetter claims the "shooting took place…in the entrance way…just past the lobby attendant’s office." Let’s back up. What is a "lobby attendant’s office"? I think he means the main lobby. The "lobby attendant’s office" is certainly not the area where the doorman was stationed. Figure 11 indicates that the doorman’s work area is actually called a "guard booth" and is nowhere near a lobby. In addition, Ledbetter’s reference to the "entrance way" is probably different from the "entrance" proper. Figure 11 uses the term "entryway" do describe the 47- foot walkway between the entrance of the Dakota and the courtyard. Consequently, when Ledbetter uses the term "entrance way," he is likely referring to the "entryway," the walkway between the entrance and the courtyard gates. Putting it all together, I interpret Ledbetter’s description to mean Lennon was shot in the vicinity of the main lobby.

Point # 2: Ledbetter claims after being shot near the main lobby, "Mr. Lennon then struggled up six stairs and inside the alcove to a guard area where he collapsed." The term "guard area" is not the guard booth in front of the Dakota building. It means one of two things: (a) The guard area is the lobby where a desk clerk is stationed, or (b) The guard area is the concierge stand. Both locations are within a few feet from each other, so it becomes a moot point. Consequently, Lennon was apparently shot near the main lobby, he climbed up six steps which led to the lobby, then he collapsed near the front desk where desk clerk Jay Hastings was stationed.

Point # 3: Ledbetter indicates Lennon's body was moved to desk clerk Jay Hastings’ office after collapsing by the concierge stand. Ledbetter wrote: "Mr. Lennon was taken into the office after being shot." Where exactly was he moved? Figure 11 shows a front desk in the main lobby and a concierge stand behind it. Perhaps the concierge stand is in a separate room. Since I was not allowed enter the main lobby, I cannot determine whether they were two separate rooms or not. I have read accounts which state that Lennon’s body was turned over before being transported to Roosevelt hospital. Ledbetter might have mistaken the act of turning it over with moving it from one area to an adjacent area. That is my interpretation of Ledbetter’s description.

The next day, December 10, 1980, the NYT changed its story; even supplied a diagram of the crime scene (Figure 11) which does not match Ledbetter’s initial description. Here is an excerpt from that article, written by Paul L. Montgomery:

Point # 4: Montgomery’s article shifts the location where Lennon was shot by about 20-to-25 feet. Recall that Ledbetter indicated Lennon was shot near the concierge stand. (see Point # 1) Montgomery now asserts that Chapman "emptied his pistol at the singer" as Lennon and Ono "walked by" Chapman who was reportedly "standing in the shadows just under the arch." (See Location # 2 in Figure 11) To clarify the location where Lennon was shot, Montgomery includes a diagram. (Figure 11) Changing the spot where Lennon was shot is apparently necessary because Chapman was seen by several people standing in the vicinity of the entrance. This is apparently where he was apprehended by police.

Point # 5: As previously stated, Montgomery’s version would require Lennon to run about 20 feet after being fatally wounded, then climb six stairs before collapsing (a total sprint of about 35 feet). Montgomery writes: "[Lennon] staggered up six steps to the room at the end of the entrance used by the concierge, said ‘I’m shot,’ then fell face down." This part of the story is similar to Ledbetter’s, except Montgomery does not explicitly state that Lennon ran 20 feet before staggering up six steps to the lobby. Nevertheless, a diagram accompanies the article with a long line indicating that Lennon ran quite a distance after being fatally shot.

If Chapman did in fact call out, "Mr. Lennon," then Lennon would likely have turned to the right. Yet all four bullet wounds are on the left side of his body. In fact, based on Chapman’s description in an interview, we know that Lennon would certainly have turned to Chapman because Lennon reportedly looked at Chapman after getting out of the limousine; and no one else was around. "He looked right at me," Chapman said, "and I didn’t say anything to him. And he walked by me. I know he remembered me because I had this hat… and I had my coat on, you know, I looked the same."²⁸ Chapman stood out because he was still wearing a black fur Russian hat with earflaps, the same hat he wore six hours earlier when Lennon autographed Chapman’s Double Fantasy album.²⁹ Chapman was certain Lennon remembered him because of the distinctive hat.

Consequently, there is really no way that Lennon would have looked any direction but towards Chapman when Chapman called Lennon’s name. Because of Lennon’s stance, the right side of his body would be closest to Chapman. Yet all four wounds were on the left side. This is probably the most powerful bit of evidence which could possibly exonerate Chapman.

Point # 7: As previously stated, the "official version" (as I defined it because no one else has) indicates that five shots were fired, one missed Lennon completely, and at least three left bullet holes in the glass lobby doors.² (See Location # 4 in Figure 11) Montgomery’s diagram (Figure 11, the uncropped version) reveals that the bullets could not have come from Chapman’s gun because Chapman was aiming in the opposite direction. Of course, there is always the possibility that the bullets might have ricocheted somehow and traveled nearly 30 feet from Chapman’s gun to create bullet holes in the glass lobby doors. Anything is possible, although not likely. The bullet holes in the glass lobby doors indicate that at the shots did not come from Chapman’s gun. On the other hand, the glass lobby doors could easily be hit from the service elevator doorway across from the lobby.

Point # 8: Montgomery states that three witnesses—one being an "elevator operator"—saw "Chapman standing in the shadows just under the arch." I have not been able to identify the elevator operator. In fact I emailed Lennon researcher Jon Weiner and asked if he knew the elevator operator’s name. Weiner replied immediately that he did not know. The emergence of a phantom elevator operator introduces a more believable scenario that the elevator operator was the real assassin and Chapman was merely mind-altered patsy. Montgomery’s diagram shows a "service elevator" directly across from the six steps which Lennon reportedly staggered up before collapsing. (Note: After visiting the Dakota personally, I observed that the doorway to the elevator is directly across from the lobby stairs and service elevator is apparently several further down the entryway, not directly across from the lobby stairs.) If the elevator operator shot Lennon from the service elevator doorway as Lennon approached the main lobby, then the left side of Lennon’s body would have faced the assailant. This is not mere speculation; it matches Les Ledbetter’s description of the shooting in his New York Times article published hours after the murder. Ledbetter indicated that Lennon was shot near the main lobby. (See Point # 1) This scenario—that the shooter fired from the service elevator doorway—would explain why all four wounds were on the left side of Lennon’s body. And it would certainly refute the notion that a fatally wounded Lennon had the strength to run 35 feet—which included six stairs—before collapsing.

In 1987, Chapman allowed James Gaines, with People Magazine, to interview him. Afterwards Gaines wrote a series of articles. The following is an excerpt from one of them entitled, The Man Who Shot John Lennon:

Point # 9: Patrolman Cullen’s instincts were probably correct. The "handyman" was likely the "elevator operator" mentioned by New York Times writer Paul Montgomery two days after the murder. (see Point # 8)

Here is an excerpt from another article by Gainer, entitled In the Shadows a Killer Waited, written for People Magazine, published March 2, 1987:

Point # 10: The doorman at the Dakota was reportedly a Cuban exile, possibly linked to the intelligence community. It is widely known that Cuban exiles have been used extensively by US intelligence since the failed Bay of Pigs invasion in 1961. Jose Perdomo was Chapman’s primary accuser. In addition, it was Perdomo who first planted the suggestion in Chapman’s mind that he (Chapman) shot Lennon. "Do you know what you’ve done?" Perdomo asked. "I just shot John Lennon," Chapman replied.³²

I suspect Perdomo’s motive for asking the question was more sinister than it appears. Chapman later admitted he was fighting an urge to kill Lennon. Also, Chapman believes he killed Lennon but does not remember aiming the gun or pulling the trigger. If Chapman was the victim of mind control and someone working for the FBI planted the homicidal urge in Chapman’s psyche, then the first thing that needed to be done after Lennon was shot was to plant the idea in Chapman’s mind that he committed the murder, even if he did not.

In addition, Perdomo’s immediate reaction after the shooting was very strange. Perdomo reportedly told Chapman to flee, to run away.³³ I find this difficult to accept. Perdomo was not a doorman at a flop house in Harlem. In fact, he was not merely a "doorman," he was a security guard. He worked at a prestigious apartment building in Manhattan filled with wealthy celebrities. I find it difficult to believe that a key member of the Dakota’s security staff would tell someone to flee after witnessing him shoot an international celebrity which he (Perdomo) was paid to protect.

I have read several accounts of the crime, and witnesses are often mentioned, but only in a sketchy way. Based on my research, most of the details about the actual shooting of John Lennon came solely from the mouth of Mark David Chapman and no one else. Other details are not traceable to any identifiable individual. For example, it has been widely reported that Chapman called to Lennon; when Lennon turned around, Chapman was in a "combat stance" and began firing. I have been unable to find any witnesses who heard Chapman call Lennon by name, or saw Chapman in a combat stance. This appears to be a cover story likely created by the FBI before the crime was committed and immediately circulated to the media shortly afterwards. Who would question such a basic fact? After all, Chapman himself believes he killed Lennon.

The only witness I can pinpoint is doorman Jose Perdomo, but he never went on record as being an eye-witness to the murder because Chapman pled guilty, thereby forfeiting his constitutional right to a fair trial. In addition, Perdomo was an anti-Castro Cuban, as previously stated; possibly a government provocateur.

Attorney/author Fenton Bresler wrote a detailed account—in his book, Who Killed John Lennon?—describing the events that transpired on Dec. 8, 1980, the day Lennon was killed. Bresler’s facts match those presented by Jim Gaines in a series of articles Gaines wrote for People Magazine in June 1981 and later in February and March 1987. Here is an excerpt from Bresler’s book:

As I stated before, there are some anomalies in Bresler’s version. Point # 11: Bresler claimed that Chapman was "crouched in a combat stance less than 20 feet away." Who saw Chapman crouched in a combat stance? That description has been repeated by numerous writers but it is unclear where it came from. At Chapman’s sentencing hearing, he told Judge Dennis Edwards he was about 20 feet from Lennon when he fired the shots, but he never mentioned taking a combat stance.

Point # 12: After stating that Chapman was in a "combat stance less than 20 feet away," Bresler claims Chapman fired five shots from "his .38 fired at point-blank range." If Chapman shot Lennon from 20 feet away, or slightly less, that was not point-blank range. I suppose the term "point-blank range" can have several different meanings, but to me, point-blank range means very close. Point-blank range would be more like 5 feet than 20 feet. Why would Bresler make both statements? Was Chapman 20 feet away, or did he fire from point-blank range? It can’t be both.

Point # 13: Bresler states "there was hardly anyone around" when Lennon was killed. But in the next sentence he refers to a witness, Sean Strub, who claimed Chapman had "almost a smirk on his face." Was anyone around or not? Did Strub observe the "smirk" before, after, or during the shooting? Did Sean Strub observe Chapman crouched in a combat stance less than 20 feet away? Is he the person who made this claim? Not hardly.

I found an AP/UPI article dated December 9, 1980, which describes Sean Strub as follows:

I found other newspapers accounts which describe Sean Strub in a similar fashion as the cited AP/UPI article. He reportedly arrived at the crime scene AFTER the shooting occurred. Therefore, he did not actually see Chapman shoot Lennon.

Regarding the smirk on Chapman’s face, the New York Times reported—in the Dec. 9th edition (written by Les Ledbetter)—that "Mr. Strub" saw a "smirk" on Chapman’s face "when the police took him away."³⁶ So Ledbetter’s version refutes Bresler’s suggestion that Strub actually saw Chapman shoot Lennon and that Chapman had a smirk on his face while committing the crime. Whether Chapman smirked or not is a trivial point, but Bresler confused the issue by suggesting that a witness actually saw Chapman shoot Lennon, something that is absolutely false.

Again, as far as I can determine, no one in fact saw Chapman shoot Lennon. Even Yoko did not see Lennon get shot because she was walking in front of him. In fact, Chapman told Jim Gaines (People) that "Yoko was about 30 or 40 feet in front of [Lennon]."³⁷ As previously stated, my research indicates she was probably already inside the main lobby when Lennon was shot and consequently saw nothing; however, only she can say for sure. Nevertheless, I have found nothing to refute my conclusion that neither Yoko or anyone else saw Chapman shoot Lennon, but she would be the best person to set the record straight on that point.

So where did the description of Chapman "crouched in a combat stance" originate? As previously stated, the only person who might have made such a claim is Jose Perdomo, the anti-Castro Cuban doorman; and his testimony—had a trial been conducted—would be highly dubious at best given the widely known links between US intelligence and many Cuban exiles.

The distance between Chapman and Lennon when the shooting began may seem like a minor detail, but there is a big difference between 5 feet and 20 feet. By erroneously asserting that Chapman was only 5 feet away when he pulled the trigger, an impression is created that Lennon’s wife, Yoko Ono, must have witnessed the crime clearly. But I have already demonstrated that Yoko likely did not see Lennon get shot because she was most likely already in the main lobby with desk clerk Jay Hastings. The circumstances surrounding the actual shooting got blurred because a trial never took place. Consequently, Yoko was not required to testify about what she saw; nor was anyone else. From what I’ve read, Yoko first realized John was in trouble when he came through the door of the main lobby, said "I’ve been shot," and collapsed face down by the concierge stand.

Decreasing the distance between Chapman and Lennon and muddying the waters regarding Yoko’s general proximity to her husband when the actual shooting occurred creates the illusion that she was walking right beside him when he was hit.

I am not criticizing Yoko, but I seriously doubt that she could swear under oath with absolute certainty that she saw Chapman shoot Lennon. She only assumes he did it because (a) he was at the crime scene, (b) he reportedly had a gun, (at least a gun was found at the crime scene) and (c) he pled guilty to the crime. The power of suggestion worked as well on Yoko as it did on Chapman, not to mention the public.

As previously stated, Fenton Bresler’s description of Lennon’s murder seems generally accurate, anomalies notwithstanding; and I believe I have clarified most outstanding points of contention. Having stated that, I am amazed at some of the inaccurate accounts of the murder. For example, Hunter Davies wrote the following in his renowned book, The Beatles:

Point # 14: The only mistake Davies makes is the distance. Again, 5 feet is probably incorrect. Chapman claims it was about 20 feet. We’ll give Davies points for keeping his description brief. Also, we should give him extra points for not mentioning Chapman’s notorious albeit imagined "combat stance."

Peter Brown (aide to Beatles original manager, Brian Epstein) and Steven Gaines got several critical details wrong in The Love You Make, a controversial book about the Beatles’ inner circle. Here is their version of the murder:

Point # 15: Brown et al mention Chapman’s "combat stance." Apparently they’re using a boiler-plate version.

Point # 16: Brown et al claim Lennon and Yoko left for the Record Plant in John’s limousine. Bresler claims the limousine never showed up, so Yoko asked San Francisco radio producer Dave Sholin for a lift. Consequently, Sholin drove them in his limousine, dropping them off at the Record Plant on his way to La Guardia Airport. So which version is correct? Brown’s or Bresler’s? I tend to believe Bresler’s version because his story is more consistent throughout than Brown’s. In addition, Brown et al have several other mistakes.

Point # 17: Brown et al claim Chapman was only 5 feet from Lennon when he fired the shots. (big shock) We’ve already covered this erroneous bit of information so let’s move on to the next mistake.

Point # 18: Brown et al refer to the doorman by the wrong name. They claim the doorman was Jay Hastings. This is completely wrong. The Dakota doorman was not Jay Hastings. Jose Perdomo—the anti-Castro Cuban—was the doorman. Hastings was the desk clerk. Brown et al seem eager to cover up Perdomo’s identity for some reason.

Point # 19: Jay Hastings did not asked Chapman, "Do you know what you just did?" Jose Perdomo asked that question. In fact, as far as I can determine, Perdomo was Chapman’s primary accuser. (other than himself, of course) Again, Brown et al are taking great pains to conceal Perdomo’s presence at the crime scene.

It was Peter Brown and Steven Gaines who first unleashed this bit of disinformation to the world in their 1983 gossip book, The Love You Make. Later the rumor was propagated by Kol Nidre-master Albert Goldman in his 1988 book, The Lives of John Lennon. Given Brown’s and Gaines’ poor reportage of basic verifiable facts regarding Lennon’s murder, they can hardly be relied upon to tell the truth about such delicate matters as who had sex with who, homosexual or otherwise. It is common knowledge that the Beatles first manager, Brian Epstein, was homosexual. But it is a tremendous leap in logic to presume that Epstein and Lennon ever had a sexual relationship. They should present some facts to support their nasty rumors. Here is what Peter Brown and Steven Gaines wrote about Lennon and Epstein:

Unfortunately, people tend to believe whatever they want regarding rumors about sexual indiscretions regardless of the facts presented, or in this instance, lack thereof. Again, the power of suggestion is a dangerous but effective weapon. Once someone is dead, people can say anything they wish. As a footnote to the bisexual rumor, it should be noted that Lennon made the following comments about Peter Brown in a 1970 Rolling Stone interview:

That's some endorsement! I don't know if John Lennon was bisexual or not; I didn't know him personally. But I am certainly not going to give credence to Peter Brown, someone Lennon said had a "warped view of what was happening" regarding the Beatles. Keep in mind, Lennon publicly rebuked Brown thirteen years before he (Brown) wrote his sordid book about the Beatles, The Love You Make. As far as I can determine, Brown was the first person to start the rumor that Lennon was bisexual. After that it was pure gossip.

Go to Next Chapter

Contents

Lennon Home Page

Main Home Page

ORDER BOOK

http://www.jfkmontreal.com/order_hardcopy.htm