|
|
SALVADOR:
You're looking for "absolute proof," something I admit I cannot
provide. What I am doing is establishing reasonable doubt against the
official
story that Chapman committed the crime. If the case had ever been tried, I
believe there is a good chance Chapman could have been acquitted based on
the evidence I presented. Your argument about the photo being flipped is a
possibility, but that's all it is -- a remote possibility. The way Lennon
parts
his hair might give us a clue, but we can't really determine that from the
picture because it looks like it's combed back somewhat, in a
quasi-fifties/Elvis style...All I can say is this is a famous picture; it's
on lots of websites and I've only seen "one" version, which places Lennon on
the left and Chapman on the right.
Your other point is reasonable. Perhaps Chapman stood on the right side, but
moved to the left hours later. But then we're back to the second source, the
NYT sketch, which also shows Chapman on the right. Like I said, it isn't
absolute proof, it is only reasonable doubt. That's all the law requires.
TOM JOAD:
There's several problems with your conspiracy theory or other gunman theory.
First, you rely on a newspaper's account of what happened and their diagram.
Newspapers and the media are notorious for getting it wrong. Second, the
bullets that were taken from the body matched the weapon in forensic
testing. Third, Yoko Ono and the doorman witnessed the entire scene. Fourth,
Why would Chapman spend his life in prison and the rest of his life hated by
the world and unable to even be in a general population prison. He is
virtually isolated from any human contact less 3 or 4 of the same rotating
guards.
SALVADOR: Yes newspapers do get it wrong. But we also have a
photograph of Chapman standing beside Lennon, getting an autograph, a few
hours before the shooting. In that picture, Chapman is standing on the right
side of the entrance. That's two independent sources which corroborate one
another. In both cases, Chapman is standing on the right side of the
entrance to the Dakota.
Your second point about the bullets taken from John's body matching the
weapon in forensic testing seems quite dubious. How would you know that, or
are you merely making an assumption? Nevertheless, guns are planted all
the time to ensure convictions. It ain't rocket science.
Your assertion that Yoko Ono witnessed the shooting is factually incorrect.
Yoko did NOT see John get shot. She was in the lobby at the time. Virtually
every account of the shooting which mentions Yoko indicates she turned
around when she heard the shots, then she saw John run through the door and
collapse on the lobby floor. Fenton Bresler wrote, "Yoko screamed at Jay
Hastings, the front desk clerk until then quietly reading a magazine:
'John's been shot! John's been shot!'" (Bresler, p 229) If Yoko had been
standing with John under the archway entrance, she would have yelled at
doorman Jose Perdomo because his workstation was a gold-colored booth on the
left side of the Dakota entrance. But if she was inside the lobby, she would have yelled
at Jay Hastings who worked in the lobby. If she turned around and saw John
run through the lobby door and collapse, that means she was in the lobby.
In addition, Chapman told former People Magazine writer Jim Gaines that "Yoko was about 30 or 40 feet
in front of him" when John walked past. (Gaines, People Mag., Mar. 2, 1987,
"In the Shadows a Killer Waited," around p 65) That distance is consistent
with Yoko being inside the lobby when the shots were fired. Doorman
Jose Perdomo has never given an official eye-witness account of the crime,
not that I am aware of. And I'm fairly certain he's dead now.
Your last question regarding Chapman's motivation for being in prison doesn't
make any sense. He's serving the time because he confessed to a crime he
probably did not commit. You obviously have a lot of faith in confessions,
but we should be careful of relying too much on them. Why did five teenage
boys falsely confess to raping and severely beating a female jogger in the
notorious Central Park Jogger case? My point is Chapman's confession appears
to be false, but it is not the first instance of false confessions; not by a
long shot.
AARON
CLAUSEN: Tell me, what does your family think of you? Do they agree? Do
they just nod whenever you begin talking? I'm curious as to this bit of your
psychology.
SALVADOR: My family is no different from the public at large. Most
people don't like discussing things which might force them to rethink their
entire value systems. It's a question of intellectual maturity. I don't talk
to small children about adult issues and I don't discuss certain topics with
adults who I perceive as
being unprepared psychologically and intellectually to deal with it.
What this means regarding my family, is I try to avoid getting into
discussions that will make family members uncomfortable. If they can handle
it, I talk. Believe it or not, there are lots of people in the world who
like hearing unusual opinions without passing judgment or becoming afraid.
But most people I know on a personal level eventually know I don't believe
the Warren Report and have definite ideas about Kennedy's assassination. If
they choose to bring up the subject, they do. If so, I talk about it. If
not, I keep quiet.
And I avoid getting into serious discussions with people who are not
serious. I hate to say it, but that pretty much eliminates Jews. As a rule,
if I learn someone is Jewish, I only make polite conversation, and try to
avoid anything serious, even if they bring it up. From time to time,
however, I discuss politics with Jews and I almost always get them quite
frustrated. They quickly realize I know a lot more than the average Goy, and
it intimidates them. I think many of them believe
I'm fairly tolerant, and I am. I don't expect Jewish people to be as polite
as Christians or Moslems, for example, because Jews are not trained to be
polite. For example, if a Jew insults me at work, I'll let it roll off me
because I know they've never been taught to treat others with respect,
especially Gentiles. But if a Christian insults me, I'll get mad and respond
because they should know better. Christians are to taught to treat others as
they would be treated, so the bar is naturally much higher.
That's in real life. On the Internet, it doesn't matter. The point is to get
new information out there for people to read. I don't have to be selective
because the Internet is impersonal. People can read my website or not. They
can believe it or not. That is their choice.
Most people I've met who like the Beatles don't have a problem discussing
the possibility that Chapman might be innocent. I've never met anyone in
real life (as opposed to on the Internet) who thinks the notion is
completely crazy, although I admit I don't discuss it casually with just
anyone.
A final comment, Aaron. The very nature of your question reveals something
about yourself. You're very interested in what people think of you.
Otherwise, why ask the question? I can understand the desire to be liked and
accepted to a degree. It's a natural desire. But as we grow and mature we
should care less and less about our personal popularity and more about our
core values. This goes to the heart of ethics and morality. People who are
"grounded" have a moral center, regardless of cultural whims. Like anyone, I
want to have friends and be liked by others, but it's a matter of degree.
But if I'm doing research on something like John Lennon's murder, I can't
limit my research to things that will be viewed as popular by the general
public. The truth is what it is, and sometimes it's unsettling. But I can't
change the results of my research because I'm worried about my image.
Basically one has to develop two worlds. The intellectual world and the
social world. In the social world we say what needs to be said to maintain
relationships with other human beings. In the intellectual world we do as we
please. This is the essence of freedom and liberty.
|
|
