Subject: Re: John Lennon's Death Certificate
Date: 2004-06-23 21:37:56 PST
>> > > The following information was just received and is
>> > > critical to Mark David Chapman's defense.
>> > >
>> > > CAUTION: The following link may take 30 to 60 seconds to
>> > > load graphics using dial-up modems.
>> > >
>> > >
[Steve and Donna]
>> > Not EVERYTHING is a conspiracy.
No, everything isn't. But when a superstar is shot to death
at his home, and the local police don't even bother
writing a proper police report, it's reasonable to ask
Why wasn't more information provided in the report?
It contains 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, 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. The following is a summary
of the rudimentary information found in the report:
- John Lennon was the victim.
- Mark David Chapman was the perpetrator.
- Chapman was carrying $2,201.76 when he was arrested.
- The crime location was 1 West 72 St. (the Dakota) at the
- The weapon found at the crime scene was a ".38 caliber
- The crime occurred on December 8, 1980 at 10:50 PM.
- The arresting officer was Stephen Spiro assisted by
patrolman Peter Cullen, both of the 20th Precinct.
The following are excerpts from the report which describe
the crime in extremely general terms:
"...the victim was shot with the described weapon by the
named suspect causing the victim's demise. ..."
"P.O. Stephen Spiro...of the 20th Precinct responded to
the scene of occurrence and arrested the perpetrator who
was identified as Mark D. Chapman. ... The Perp was
arraigned ... on 12/9, he was remanded, no bail. This
case is closed pending final court disposition."
That is essentially all the information of substance
provided in the NYPD police report. The rest is
bureaucratic paperwork, a whitewash. That's putting
The following is a copy of the NYPD police report for
John Lennon's murder:
>> Wasn't there a report that Chapman called out to
Yes, there was. Actually there are two versions in that
regard. At the sentencing hearing, on June 22, 1981,
Chapman told Judge Dennis Edwards that no words were
exchanged between himself and Lennon. And Edwards
accepted Chapman's version of events without question.
Click here to see the transcript of the sentencing hearing:
But the day after the murder, the news media propagated
another version of the crime where Chapman reportedly
called, "Mr. Lennon;" John half-turned and Chapman fired
five shots, four of them hitting John. This is the version
used in most books and articles describing the crime.
Although it has become conventional wisdom (which is
different from truth), I have never been able to clearly
identify the originator of that version, but I assume it
came from Jose Perdomo, the security guard (aka, doorman)
at the Dakota when John was killed. Perdomo was the
only known witness who actually saw Lennon get shot, so
it must have come from him. If it didn't come from
Perdomo, it was probably a cover story written in
advance and fed to the media from various well-connected
And Perdomo's credibility is dubious because he 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. 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. 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. I find this highly inappropriate.
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.
Regarding the unsubstantiated story that Chapman called
to John and John turned, the only name I've been able
to connect to the story's origin--other than Perdomo--is
an NYPD police officer, a Lieutenant John Schick. He was
quoted in the New York Times on the morning after the
murder. The following is an excerpt:
"Lieut. John Schick of the 20th Precinct said the
gunman let the Lennons pass him and enter the building's
passageway before shooting the singer. Lieutenant Shick
said the man called out 'Mr. Lennon' and then pulled
a gun from under a coat and started firing."
(Les Ledbetter, NYT, Dec. 9, 1980, "John Lennon of the
Beatles is Killed; Suspect Held in Shooting at Dakota",
Obviously Schick's description was second-hand information
because he did not witness the crime himself. Again, he
was probably repeating Perdomo's description. Ironically,
Perdomo was never officially linked to the version of the
story wherein Chapman called to John and John turned
around because Chapman confessed. Consequently, there
was no trial, which means no witnesses ever testified.
There was only a sentencing hearing. But again, Chapman
stated at the hearing that he and Lennon did not exchange
words. And the judge accepted Chapman's version of events
without question. So in the eyes of the law, Chapman
did not call to John and John did not turn because no
words were exchanged between the two men.
>> This would have caused Lennon to turn and Chapman could
>> have very well shot him in the left side of his chest
>> and shoulder.
Again, there is no evidence that Chapman called to John
at all, or that John turned around to either his right
or his left. The verifiable evidence--the LEGAL evidence--
indicates that John got out of the limo, walked past Chapman
and someone shot him. But he did not turn around. Since
we cannot determine who the source was for originating
the story that Chapman called to John and John turned,
we must therefore consider that information rumor.
But for the sake of argument, let's assume that
Chapman did in fact call out to John and John half-turned
as Chapman began shooting. If Chapman was standing
behind John to John's right, why would John turn to
the left? Keep in mind, virtually every account of
the story claims no one else was present at the entrance
of the Dakota--except Perdomo--when Chapman allegedly
called out. Many accounts (including Chapman's) claim
John looked at Chapman when he passed. So why would
John turn any direction but to his right which is where
Chapman was standing, according to the New York Times?
One might say he thought it was Perdomo who called out.
That's remotely possible, but from most accounts, John
knew Perdomo somewhat and was therefore probably familiar
with the sound of his voice. So when/if Chapman called
out, it would have been an unfamiliar voice. So acting
on reflex, John would most likely turn in the direction
of the stranger he just passed. In addition, the sound
would be coming from Chapman's direction, not from
Perdomo's; another reason for John to turn to the right
in this hypothetical scenario.
And if John turned to his right (or half-turned as most
versions claim), his wounds should have been on the
right side of his body because that's the side that
would be facing Chapman, not the left side. And if
one or more bullets had hit John in the left side
of his chest, even though Chapman was standing to
his right, that's not realistic either because
the autopsy report--as summarized by New York Times
writer Paul Montgomery--indicates the wounds to the
left side of John's back and the wounds to his left
shoulder were entry wounds.
The following is Montgomery's summary of the autopsy
report from an article published in the NYT on
Dec. 10, 1980, two days after the murder:
"According to the autopsy, four shots struck Mr. Lennon,
two in the left side of his back and two in his left
shoulder. All four caused internal damage and bleeding."
(Paul Montgomery, NYT, Dec. 10, 1980, "Police Trace
Tangled Path Leading to Lennon's Slaying at the Dakota",
But again, this is not a realistic scenario to begin
with because there is no evidence that Chapman called
out or that John turned.
>> (There is nothing on the death certificate
>> that indicates that the wounds to "left shoulder and
>> chest" were not entry wounds.)
Not in the death certificate, but again, it's apparently in
autopsy report, based on the stated summary of the autopsy
report provided by New York Times writer, Paul Montgomery.
So it looks like they were all entry wounds.
> Sal's theory doesn't leave room for Lennon turning to
> his left.
Again, there is no evidence that Chapman called out to
John, or that John turned; this is only rumor. Therefore,
we must conclude that John did not turn at all, not to his
right or his left. He simply walked straight ahead toward
the lobby door. But if he had turned at all (and that's a BIG
if), he would most likely have turned toward Chapman, not
away from him. And of course, Chapman was standing behind
John to John's right, according to the New York Times. So
the wounds should have been on the right side of John's
body, not the left side.
As the death certificate indicates, cause of death was
"multiple gunshot wounds of left shoulder and chest" which
damaged the "left lung and left subclavian artery" (an artery
located at the upper left side of the heart).
Speaking of the lobby door, bullet holes could not
be made in the lobby door from a gun fired where Chapman
was standing. This would defy the laws of physics. You can
barely see the steps leading to the lobby door from the
archway where Chapman was reportedly standing. The lobby
door is completely out of view from any spot under the
Here is a photograph of the steps leading to the
lobby from the spot where Chapman stood (under the
As you can see, a bullet would have to turn 90 degrees
to make a bullet hole in the lobby door. And at least
three bullet holes were made in the glass lobby doors.
But the bullet holes could easily have been caused by
shots fired from the door leading to the service elevator,
which is directly across from the lobby door.
Here's a photograph of the door leading to the
> You could probably dream up a theory that Lennon shot
> himself that is just as 'feasable'.
Hey Genius, people don't shoot themselves twice in the left
shoulder and twice in the left side of the back.
Ordering information for Salvador Astucia's books can be found at
Also see Astucia's homepage: