By Salvador Astucia, May 10, 2003

Full article (37 pages) can be viewed at:

http://www.jfkmontreal.com/john_lennon/lennon_intro.htm

Here is a summary of the findings:

* Lennon’s wounds are on the wrong side of his body from where Chapman reportedly stood when he allegedly shot Lennon. Chapman was reportedly standing behind Lennon and to his right. (to Lennon’s right) Before firing, Chapman

reportedly called to Lennon who turned towards Chapman. All four wounds were on the left side of the body. They should have been on the right.

* The doorman at the Dakota on the night of the shooting was an anti-Castro Cuban, Jose Perdomo; Chapman’s primary accuser. It is widely known that Cuban exiles have been used extensively by the intelligence community since the Bay of Pigs in 1961.

* Patrolman Peter Cullen, one of the officers in the first police car responding to the shooting, believed the shooter was a handyman at the Dakota, not Chapman. Cullen thought Chapman "looked like a guy who worked in a bank." Perdomo convinced Cullen that Chapman was the assailant.

* Hours after the shooting, the New York Times reported that Lennon was shot near concierge stand next to the courtyard gates in the Dakota entryway. The next day the NYT reported that he was shot near the entrance of the Dakota, nearly 40 feet away from the spot originally reported. The shift in location was apparently needed because police and witnesses found Chapman at the entrance of the Dakota building, not 40 feet inside.

* Lennon’s true assassin was probably the handyman (aka, elevator operator) who fired from inside or near a service elevator located across from the concierge stand where Lennon collapsed after being shot. Shooting from the service elevator would easily hit the left side of Lennon’s body which is where the wounds were located.

* Mark David Chapman has never been judged legally insane, although opinion leaders within the American news media continually portray him as crazy. He pled guilty to the crime, thereby forfeiting his right to a trial. As a result, he has spent the last 22 years of his life in Attica State penitentiary for a crime he did not commit.

* Facts indicate that Chapman was likely the victim of mind control—a combination of drugs, hypnosis or both--which caused him to commit numerous self-incriminating acts; however, murder was not one of them. Ironically, Chapman himself believes he shot Lennon, although he cannot recall several key details of the crime. The power of suggestion is a powerful tool.

* There are no known witnesses to the crime; however, several "crime scene witnesses" observed events shortly before and after the shooting. But I have found no statements from any person who actually observed Chapman shoot Lennon; not even Yoko Ono.

http://www.jfkmontreal.com/john_lennon/lennon_intro.htm […]

======= Message # 2 ======

From: Willie Nelson (the_liquid_moamo@yahoo.com)

Subject: Re: Rethinking John Lennon’s Assassination

Newsgroups: rec.music.beatles

Date: 2003-05-11 15:50:00 PST

salvadorwriter@cs.com (Salvadorwriter) wrote in message news:<20030511000735.29137.00000237@mb-m16.news.cs.com>...

> Rethinking John Lennon’s Assassination

> New research exonerates murder suspect Mark David Chapman.

>

> By Salvador Astucia,

<bullshit snipped>

Take your crap elsewhere you spamming creep.

======= Message # 3 ======

From: Sean Carroll (sean@kua.net)

Subject: Re: Rethinking John Lennon’s Assassination

Newsgroups: rec.music.beatles

Date: 2003-05-11 16:41:17 PST

On 11 May 2003 15:50:00 -0700, the_liquid_moamo@yahoo.com (Willie

Nelson) wrote:

>salvadorwriter@cs.com (Salvadorwriter) wrote in message news:

>> Rethinking John Lennon’s Assassination

>> New research exonerates murder suspect Mark David Chapman.

>> By Salvador Astucia,

><bullshit snipped>

>Take your crap elsewhere you spamming creep.

How exactly was that 'spam'? There was a link at the very end where you could buy this guy's book, but that was all the way down in his signature; the rest of it was a straight link to an article with a summary of some of the ideas in it. Spam is unsolicited commercial advertisements. I don't see how the word 'spam' even remotely applies.

And as far as taking it elsewhere, where exactly do you think would be a more on-topic place for something about John Lennon's murder than a Beatles newsgroup? Perhaps you think it would have been a better idea for him to post it to alt.tv.er, or sci.physics, or a mailing list for sharing cake recipes?

If you want to say this guy is an idiot and a jackass who deserves to be ignored, then just *say* that -- or, better yet, take your own advice and ignore him. But calling something spam when it's not spam, and pretending that it's unrelated to the topic of this newsgroup when it clearly *is* related, are not good ways to convince people you're much more worthy of attention than the original poster of this thread.

--Sean

http://www.livejournal.com/users/spclsd223/

======= Message # 4 ======

From: voice from the past (timagine@hotmail.com)

Subject: Re: Rethinking John Lennon’s Assassination

Newsgroups: rec.music.beatles

Date: 2003-05-11 20:06:05 PST

the_liquid_moamo@yahoo.com (Willie Nelson) wrote in message news:<aa1a1cbf.0305111450.4c45e5b0@posting.google.com>...

> salvadorwriter@cs.com (Salvadorwriter) wrote in message news:<20030511000735.29137.00000237@mb-m16.news.cs.com>...

> > Rethinking John Lennon’s Assassination

> > New research exonerates murder suspect Mark David Chapman.

> >

> > By Salvador Astucia,

>

> <bullshit snipped>

>

> Take your crap elsewhere you spamming creep.

Willie:

Are you on the road again?

voice from the past

======= Message # 5 ======

From: Beatlles4ever (beatlles4ever@aol.com)

Subject: Re: Rethinking John Lennon’s Assassination

Newsgroups: rec.music.beatles

Date: 2003-05-11 16:20:25 PST

To clarify whether Yoko witnessed the shooting or what happened after the shots were fired ..Yoko was questioned by the police very early that next morning and she said that after the shots at first she didn't realize that John had been hit because he was still walkin sometimes ahead of her sometimes behind until she realized what happened and told John in her panic to lay down in the office where he then collapsed..There is a transcript of what she said in a book I think called "Lennon... his life in pictures and words" sadly it took just one nut to take away a musical genius.

May 23, 2003

In my research of the Lennon case, I quickly realized that details about the crime scene are sketchy at best. Clear unobstructed photographs of the Dakota's entrance are simply unavailable to the public. Internet photos of the Dakota have the entrance blacked out. This fact alone suggests there is more to the Lennon case than previously thought.

To remedy the situation, I traveled to Manhattan--on the weekend of May 18, 2003--and personally photographed about 35 pictures of the Dakota complex with emphasis on the entrance, the area where Lennon was shot. At this time I would like to present these photographs to the world.

To read the entire article about Lennon's murder, click here:

http://www.jfkmontreal.com

====

To view the new crime scene photos, and accompanying text, click here:

http://www.jfkmontreal.com/john_lennon/lennon_report.htm#crimescene

====

To view an interactive map/photo gallery of the Dakota complex, click here:

http://www.jfkmontreal.com/john_lennon/app_a_intmap.htm

Salvador Astucia [...]

==== message # 7 =====

From: dlarsson (derek larsson@attbi.com)

Subject: Re: John Lennon's Murder - Rare photos of crime scene

Newsgroups: rec.music.beatles

Date: 2003-05-23 14:09:10 PST

[…]

Salvador, I think you seriously discredit yourself with all that wild stuff and ranting in there about Jews and Hitler and Jews and Christians, etc. and suggest that you delete this from your presentation.

This just detracts from the otherwise factual conflicts and serious intelligent questions that you have raised about the specific details of the crime scene .. which appear unresolved and do merit serious objective study and investigation.

If Lennon was killed by the U.S. Intelligence community, then the motive here would be the exact same motive that also caused them to engage in illegal and abusive 24-hour surveillance against him, wage a punitive and destabilizing Deportation heist against him, and attempt to set him up for a ( planted by FBI ) drug bust, and to have extensive stacks of FBI files on him .. many of which are still "Classified" (withheld) due to "National Security" reasons. ( all of which did happen ).

This U.S. Intelligence " Get-Lennon " campaign occurred because of Lennon's progressive and anti-war political activism, outspokenness, his willingness to contribute financially and in-person to progressive causes including the mobilizing of support against Nixon, and his large cultural influence.

G. Gordon Liddy ( CIA ) confirmed that this indeed was the motive for their efforts to neutralize Lennon when he stated right on VH-1:

"John Lennon was not Britanny Spears; this was not just another pop singer. He had a kind of power and influence that no other singer had back then or for that matter has had since."

-G. Gordon Liddy ( CIA clandestine criminal, Right-wing radio host ).

This is why Lennon was targeted. What is then left to demonstrate was whether the 1980 murder was related to this same offensive effort perpetrated by the U.S. clandestine network. Given their demonstrated track record, history and demonstrated anti-Lennon motive and capacity for murder and violence - they have to be regarded as the prime suspect to which Mark Chapman may have been either an active or a passive contributory component. - Derek [...]

==== message # 8 =====

From: Sixties Gen (sixtiesgen@yahoo.com)

Subject: Re: John Lennon's Murder - Rare photos of crime scene

Newsgroups: rec.music.beatles

Date: 2003-05-23 20:31:39 PST

[...]

Very well said, Derek. It's unfortunate that this Salvador character is an anti-Semite, and holocaust denier...otherwise he would have more credibility. The questions he raises about Lennon's assassination are valid, and deserve more scrutiny.

==== message # 9 =====

From: Dale Houstman (dmh7@citilink.com)

Subject: Re: John Lennon's Murder - Rare photos of crime scene

Newsgroups: rec.music.beatles

Date: 2003-05-23 21:56:16 PST

[...]

The fact that he is an anti-Semite and holocaust denier merely "diminishes" his story in your eyes? What would he have to do to completely banish himself from your consideration: kill and eat a woman in the Rose Garden? dmh

==== message # 10 =====

From: Sixties Gen (sixtiesgen@yahoo.com)

Subject: Re: John Lennon's Murder - Rare photos of crime scene

Newsgroups: rec.music.beatles

Date: 2003-05-24 10:35:56 PST

[...]

I'm not sure I understand what you're getting at here, Dale. So, I'm guessing that you don't think it's possible that Lennon's murder was something more than one crazed gunman, angry at Lennon because John made money from recording his songs, and thus, in the murderer's mind made John a hypocrite. Fine, it's a nice tidy analysis. I happen to think there is a possibility more was involved. I've thought so for many years, not since this Salvador character appeared on RMB. I think that Salvador is correct that there may have been a plan to eliminate John. I don't think his idea as to how it happened is accurate. I tend to favor the "Manchurian Candidate" aspect. In my previous post, I was saying that his Jew-hating and absurd claims about the Nazi Holocaust counters whatever he is trying to accomplish, however, as misguided as Salvador's assessment is, it may get others interested in finding out the truth about the Lennon assassination. All I want is the truth, just gimme some truth. As far as eating a woman in the Rose Garden...I'll bet Clinton did.

==== message # 11 =====

From: UsurperTom (usurpertom@aol.com)

Subject: Re: John Lennon's Murder - Rare photos of crime scene

Newsgroups: rec.music.beatles

Date: 2003-05-24 16:04:51 PST

[...] Derek has been posting this bullshit on this newsgroup for five years. Tom

==== message # 12 =====

From: dlarsson (derek_larsson@attbi.com)

Subject: Re: John Lennon's Murder - Rare photos of crime scene

Newsgroups: rec.music.beatles

Date: 2003-05-25 20:13:26 PST

[...] U.S. Intelligence has a history of collaborating with all kinds of low-lifes, Mafia, Cuban-exiles, thugs, as well as people in private industry. Chapman's background ( Japan, Hawaii, YMCA, Georgia, etc. ) along with doorman Jose Perdomo ... appear to fit in with other intelligence scenarios ... rather than conflict.

[…] Hoover's ( FBI ) Counter-Intel department was precisely that a domestic "dirty tricks" operational program .. which has historically included murder. It is widely believed Dr. King's death was a direct result of the FBI ( Ray was proved not guilty in a civil court case ).

[…] Lennon was factually targeted by the FBI, CIA. Jon Weiner's documents show that FBI tried to set him up for a drug bust (planted). He was followed 24 hours and had his phones bugged. He was deported and would have been thrown out of the Country had the timing of "Watergate related" resignations .. not helped him out.

So the point is, whether or not Lennon was actually "a threat" the U.S. intelligence community had him on their own "blacklist". Once you are on the "blacklist" .. you stay there. During 1975-1979 Lennon was retired. In 1980, though he was an active music figure again .. so whatever was in the works from 1971-1974 would be pursued again. Since when do U.S. Intelligence clandestine creeps exclude murder from their repertoire -?

[…] Look at the Sirhan Sirhan situation in 1968. Sirhan was not an operative either .. he was just used. Sirhan shot at Robert Kennedy in the kitchen from about 4 yards away and facing him ... yet Robert Kennedy was hit from point-blank range in the back of the head ( by "security guard" Thane Eugene Ceasar ) and there were other people shot at and hit in the kitchen as well and other bullet holes on the doors and ceilings of the kitchen. So it was not a "one-guy" thing at all.

The research on this indicates that Sirhan was an MK-ULTRA ( hypnotized or psychologically induced ) to fire without really knowing what he is doing. In the commotion, the real fatal shooting is carried out. I am not saying this necessarily happened with Chapman. But the crime scene details do indicate problems with the accepted story .. and also a departure from the very first report (which would point away from Chapman based on where he was located ).

Was Chapman a decoy? Was he a "Sirhan shooter" ( while someone else killed Lennon )? Was he the shooter and murderer? The point is ... if there are loose ends and things that do not fit - then all of this should be objectively investigated. - Derek

==== message # 13 =====

From: SHERIFF OF HONK HONK (pawpaw_nbt@yahoo.com)

Subject: Re: John Lennon's Murder - Rare photos of crime scene

Newsgroups: rec.music.beatles

Date: 2003-05-25 11:20:42 PST

salvadorwriter@cs.com (Salvadorwriter) wrote in message news:<20030523030707.15778.00000231@mb-m28.news.cs.com>...

> John Lennon's Murder - Rare photos of crime scene

>

> May 23, 2003

>

> In my research of the Lennon case, I quickly realized

Piss off asshole.

By Salvador Astucia, May 30, 2003

I added a new section to the report on John Lennon's assassination. It explains the real reason why 'A Day in the Life' was banned by BBC radio in 1967. The drug thing was a pretext for something more serious, a matter of state. In addition, there is a strong possibility that Paul McCartney was recruited by Lennon's enemies to stab his friend in the back in order to thwart Lennon's political influence over his millions of fans. In return, strings were pulled and the media raised McCartney's artistic status to Lennon's level.

Here's an excerpt:

---quote on---

If someone wanted to weaken Lennon, the smartest thing to do would be to turn McCartney against him. Despite his vast success, in many ways, McCartney must have felt cheated. He lived in the shadow of Lennon's brilliance. He was quite talented, a powerhouse singer, a talented and prolific songwriter, a top-notch bass player, a not too shabby pianist, and a hot guitarist. (NOTE: McCartney played the cutting edge guitar break in the middle of Ticket to Ride, not Lennon or Harrison.) Few stars have grown as much as Paul McCartney after achieving such monumental early success. Still he lacked something. He simply did not have Lennon’s inspiration, his creativity, or his charisma. McCartney did not have Lennon’s mind or his wit.

---quote off---

To read the new section, click here:

http://www.jfkmontreal.com/john_lennon/lennon_report.htm#dayinthelife

To read the full article, click here:

http://www.jfkmontreal.com […]

==== message # 15 =====

From: mm (mm@mm.mm)

Subject: Re: Why 'A Day in the Life' was banned by BBC Radio

Newsgroups: rec.music.beatles

Date: 2003-05-30 09:31:40 PST

This is starting to get funny.... [...]

==== message # 16 =====

From: Danny (danny__grant///@hotmail.com)

Subject: Re: Why 'A Day in the Life' was banned by BBC Radio

Newsgroups: rec.music.beatles

Date: 2003-05-30 15:54:49 PST

"mm" <mm@mm.mm> wrote in message

news:MHLBa.16851$8g5.283233@news2.e.nsc.no...

> This is starting to get funny....

>

Starting?

==== message # 17 =====

From: Shemp (richard_hell@excite.com)

Subject: Re: Why 'A Day in the Life' was banned by BBC radio

Newsgroups: rec.music.beatles

Date: 2003-05-30 17:37:24 PST

[....]

Is that why he used to give the Heil Hitler to the Germans? Shemp

==== message # 18 =====

From: Salvadorwriter (salvadorwriter@cs.com)

Subject: Re: Why 'A Day in the Life' was banned by BBC radio

View: Complete Thread (83 articles)

Original Format

Newsgroups: rec.music.beatles

Date: 2003-05-31 11:24:40 PST

[...]

[Shemp (richard_hell@excite.com) asked:]

> Is that why he used to give the Heil Hitler to

> the Germans?

From what I've read, Lennon and the other Beatles often gave Nazi salutes to large crowds, not just Germans. This was in the early years, 1964-65, but it was done in a humorous way. It wasn't really a political statement, but it showed an irreverence for something that would later become quite sacred: the Holocaust story, which is half true, half myth.

I am not prepared to claim that Hitler was a great guy, but it is absurd to portray him as a monster and not criticize President Truman for dropping two atomic bombs on Japan.

Many Germans are driving an historical revisionist movement to tell the full unbiased story about World War II and Hitler. To read about revisionists in general, click the following

URL:

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

Germar Rudolf is one of the better German revisionists. He has written some excellent things which refute the conventional view that gas chambers were used in a lethal manner. Here is a good example of his work:

"Some considerations about the Gas Chambers of Auschwitz and Birkenau" by Germar Rudolf http://vho.org/GB/c/GR/Green.html

Because of Lennon's intellect and the time he spent in Hamburg, and the friends he made there, I expect his views on the Holocaust were closer to Germar Rudolf's than Meryl Streep's.

(NOTE: My research indicates that a huge propaganda campaign began in 1978—two years before Lennon’s murder--to "re-educate" the public about the period from 1938 through 1945 known as the Holocaust. In fact the word Holocaust was introduced in 1978 in the TV mini-series, The Holocaust, directed by Marvin Chomsky and starred Meryl Streep and James Woods. Before 1978, the term Holocaust was not associated with Nazi Germany and Jews. In 1976, William Stevenson wrote a book, A Man Called Intrepid, which discussed the deaths of six million Jews during World War II a great deal, but Stevenson never used the term Holocaust because that term had not been introduced to the public in 1976.)

Salvador [...]

==== message # 19 =====

From: Shemp (richard_hell@excite.com)

Subject: Re: Why 'A Day in the Life' was banned by BBC radio

Newsgroups: rec.music.beatles

Date: 2003-05-31 12:11:11 PST

salvadorwriter@cs.com (Salvadorwriter) wrote in

news:20030531142341.28330.00000219@mb-m06.news.cs.com:

>

> I am not prepared to claim that Hitler was a

> great guy, but it is absurd to portray him as

> a monster and not criticize President Truman

> for dropping two atomic bombs on Japan.

We were at war with Japan. Japan attacked the US. The war needed to be stopped. How would you suggest that this could have been accomplished? Asking the Japanese to please stop it? Thus, the bombs were dropped on a hostile nation. Comparing Truman with Hitler is just plain idiotic. So there.

Shemp

==== message # 20 =====

From: Salvadorwriter (salvadorwriter@cs.com)

Subject: Re: Why 'A Day in the Life' was banned by BBC radio

Newsgroups: rec.music.beatles

Date: 2003-05-31 15:08:42 PST

[…]

Shemp (richard_hell@excite.com)

> […] Comparing Truman with Hitler is just plain idiotic. So there.

The same argument can be made about Nazi Germany. Prior to 1938, Germany was being strangled economically by worldwide Jewish groups. What did you expect him to do? Ask THEM to please stop?

He struck back. Again, I am not saying he was a great guy, but there was one outcome of his regime that was extremely positive and remains with us today. He destroyed the colonial empires of England and France. He did to them what they had been doing to others for centuries. He lost the war but he struck at the heart of imperial oppression and destroyed it. For that one thing, he deserves some credit.

After watching How I Won the War, I am confident that John Lennon held a similar view. This is why A Day in the Life was banned. Lennon plugged the movie and the book on which the movie was based.

Salvador

PS. If the BBC was truly concerned about drug related lyrics, why didn't they ban Lucy in the Sky With Diamonds? Food for thought.

==== message # 21 =====

From: BlackMonk (BlackMonk@email.msn.com)

Subject: Re: Why 'A Day in the Life' was banned by BBC radio

Newsgroups: rec.music.beatles

Date: 2003-05-31 17:47:04 PST

[....]

[Salvador:]

> The same argument can be made about Nazi Germany.

> Prior to 1938, Germany was being strangled economically

> by worldwide Jewish groups. What did you expect him

> to do? Ask THEM to please stop?

Fuck off, you idiot scumbag.

==== message # 22 =====

From: Shemp (richard_hell@excite.com)

Subject: Re: Why 'A Day in the Life' was banned by BBC radio

Newsgroups: rec.music.beatles

Date: 2003-05-31 17:52:02 PST

[....]

[Salvador:]

> The same argument can be made about Nazi Germany.

> Prior to 1938, Germany was being strangled economically

> by worldwide Jewish groups. What did you expect him to do?

> Ask THEM to please stop?

Oh of course. Now I see the whole picture. You are in fact a neo-fascist. Have you had tea with Herr von Ribbentrop lately? Have you shattered any windows lately? You are ignorant my friend. Just plainly ignorant. It is your kind that caused the holocaust, but you don't believe in that, right? You'd better get wise to yourself palsy..........

Shemp

==== message # 23 =====

From: BlackMonk (BlackMonk@email.msn.com)

Subject: Re: Why 'A Day in the Life' was banned by BBC radio

Newsgroups: rec.music.beatles

Date: 2003-05-31 17:46:19 PST

[…]

[Shemp (richard_hell@excite.com) :]

> […] Comparing Truman with Hitler is just plain idiotic. So there.

Since an idiot is doing it, that makes sense.

==== message # 24 =====

From: Stephen X. Carter (steve@[127.0.0.1])

Subject: Re: Why 'A Day in the Life' was banned by BBC radio

Newsgroups: rec.music.beatles

Date: 2003-06-01 02:00:34 PST

On 31 May 2003 18:23:41 GMT, salvadorwriter@cs.com

(Salvadorwriter) wrote:

> (NOTE: My research indicates that a huge propaganda

> campaign began in 1978—two years before Lennon’s

> murder--to "re-educate" the public about the period from

> 1938 through 1945 known as the Holocaust. In fact the

> word Holocaust was introduced in 1978 in the TV mini-

> series, The Holocaust, directed by Marvin Chomsky and

> starred Meryl Streep and James Woods. Before 1978,

> the term Holocaust was not associated with Nazi

> Germany and Jews. In 1976, William Stevenson wrote

> a book, A Man Called Intrepid, which discussed the

> deaths of six million Jews during World War II a great

> deal, but Stevenson never used the term Holocaust

> because that term had not been introduced to the

> public in 1976.) You grossly mis-represent Stevenson's

> book. Yes, it does mention Hitler's policy on the Jews.

> It does NOT - that I can find - discuss "the deaths of six

> million Jews during World War II". The book's sub-title

> is "The Secret War 1939-1945" and that's of course it's

> main focus. It's a detailed book written by an honorable

> man who fought the Nazi's - not someone who devotes

> themselves to an apologia. Don't associate him with your

> views. Thanks. [...]

==== message # 25 =====

From: Salvadorwriter (salvadorwriter@cs.com)

Subject: Re: Why 'A Day in the Life' was banned by BBC radio

Newsgroups: rec.music.beatles

Date: 2003-06-01 22:53:54 PST

Comments below are reactions to the following article:

Why ‘A Day in the Life’ was banned by BBC Radio

http://www.jfkmontreal.com/john_lennon/lennon_report.htm#dayinthelife

To read the entire report on John Lennon's death, go to:

http://www.jfkmontreal.com

Comments begin here:

================

[…]

[Stephen Carter:]

> […] Don't associate [William Stevenson] with your views.

> Thanks

Look, Genius, I am not "associating" Stevenson's views with mine. I am merely pointing out that Stevenson's book, A Man Called Intrepid, was written in 1976 and did NOT use the word HOLOCAUST when discussing the time period from 1938 through 1945 in Nazi Germany. The book discusses what would today be called the Holocaust, but Stevenson did not call it the Holocaust in 1976, when the book was published, because the term Holocaust--for discussions about Nazi persecution of Jews--was not introduced until 1978. That was only two years before Lennon was killed.

Salvador [...]

==== message # 26 =====

From: Rynosseros, The Untouchable (avoiding.yucky.email@eotworld.com)

Subject: Re: Why 'A Day in the Life' was banned by BBC radio

Newsgroups: rec.music.beatles

Date: 2003-06-01 23:13:15 PST

[…]

[Salvador:]

> […A Man Called Intrepid] discusses what would today be

> called the Holocaust, but Stevenson did not call it the

> Holocaust in 1976, when the book was published,

> because the term Holocaust—for discussions about

> Nazi persecution of Jews--was not introduced until 1978.

> That was only two years before Lennon was killed.

Sally totally ignores facts:

From http://www.jerseyheritagetrust.org/holocaust/exhibition.html

Holocaust - Literally "fire that causes destruction", it has become associated virtually exclusively with the murder of six million Jews by the Nazis during WWII. As a term holocaust was first coined in 1189 by Richard of Devizes when describing the massacre of Jews in England following the coronation of Richard the Lionheart.

===========================================

Which might explain why the term was already in use in my hearing during my childhood. I was well into my twenties by 1978. [...]

==== message # 27 =====

From: Stephen X. Carter (steve@[127.0.0.1])

Subject: Re: Why 'A Day in the Life' was banned by BBC radio

Newsgroups: rec.music.beatles

Date: 2003-06-01 02:01:08 PST

On Sun, 01 Jun 2003 01:00:04 GMT, Shemp

<richard_hell@excite.com> wrote:

> Oh of course. Now I see the whole picture. You are in

> fact a neo-fascist. Have you had tea with Herr von

> Ribbentrop lately? Have you shattered any windows

> lately? You are ignorant my friend. Just plainly ignorant.

> It is your kind that caused the holocaust, but you don't

> believe in that, right? You'd better get wise to yourself

> palsy..........

Actually it's probably David Irvine writing under another name! […]

==== message # 28 =====

From: Salvadorwriter (salvadorwriter@cs.com)

Subject: Re: Why 'A Day in the Life' was banned by BBC radio

Newsgroups: rec.music.beatles

Date: 2003-06-01 22:01:02 PST

[....]

[Stephen X. Carter:]

> Actually it's probably David Irvine writing under another name!

You're really off the mark on that one Stephen. After communicating extensively with David Irving it became obvious that he is an agent of Zion, not a neo-Nazi as you claim. Read the following emails:

David Irving, Another False Prophet (?)

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

Salvador […]

==== message # 29 =====

From: UsurperTom (usurpertom@aol.com)

Subject: Re: Why 'A Day in the Life' was banned by BBC radio

Newsgroups: rec.music.beatles

Date: 2003-06-01 19:42:53 PST

[Shemp:]

> Oh of course. Now I see the whole picture. You are in fact a

> neo-fascist. Have you had tea with Herr von Ribbentrop lately?

> Have you shattered any windows lately? You are ignorant my

> friend. Just plainly ignorant. It is your kind that caused the

> holocaust, but you don't believe in that, right? You'd better

> get wise to yourself palsy..........

It would be better ignored this insidious troll. Replying to him only gives him the attention that he wants.

Usurper

==== message # 30 =====

From: Salvadorwriter (salvadorwriter@cs.com)

Subject: Re: Why 'A Day in the Life' was banned by BBC radio

Newsgroups: rec.music.beatles

Date: 2003-06-01 22:05:03 PST

[...]

[usurpertom@aol.com (UsurperTom):]

> It would be better ignored this insidious troll. Replying

> to him only gives him the attention that he wants.

> Usurper

Nothing like sharing ideas in an open discussion. :-)

Salvador […]

==== message # 31 =====

From: Stephen X. Carter (steve@[127.0.0.1])

Subject: Re: Why 'A Day in the Life' was banned by BBC radio

Newsgroups: rec.music.beatles

Date: 2003-06-02 01:40:31 PST

[....]

[Salvador:]

> You're really off the mark on that one Stephen. After

> communicating extensively with David Irving it became

> obvious that he is an agent of Zion, not a neo-Nazi as

> you claim.

Although I do believe (qv) that David Irvine is a neo-Nazi, where in my NINE word posting do I claim that? :-) Frankly, if I had to chose between your judgment of Mr Irvine's political leanings, and the judgment of the court system in UK, I guess I'd go for the UK courts! LOL!

==== message # 32 =====

From: Salvadorwriter (salvadorwriter@cs.com)

Subject: Re: Why 'A Day in the Life' was banned by BBC radio

Newsgroups: rec.music.beatles

Date: 2003-06-02 05:48:08 PST

[Carter:]

> Although I do believe (qv) that David Irvine is a neo-Nazi,

> where in my NINE word posting do I claim that? :-)

> Frankly, if I had to chose between your judgment of Mr

> Irvine's political leanings, and the judgment of the

> court system in UK, I guess I'd go for the UK courts! LOL!

BTW, Genius, his name is IRVING, not IRVINE. You're obviously not much of an expert on his trial if you don't even know his name. And stop clipping the URL! Here it is again.

David Irving, Another False Prophet (?)

http://www.jfkmontreal.com/d_irving_emails.htm [...]

==== message # 33 =====

From: BlackMonk (BlackMonk@email.msn.com)

Subject: Re: Why 'A Day in the Life' was banned by BBC radio

Newsgroups: rec.music.beatles

Date: 2003-06-02 15:03:15 PST

[Salvador"]

> BTW, Genius, his name is IRVING, not IRVINE. You're

> obviously not much of an expert on his trial if you don't

> even know his name. And you're obviously not much of

> an expert on The Beatles if you think Paul played a

> guitar break in the middle of "Ticket To Ride."  And stop

> clipping the URL!

Sorry, no one wants to let you promote your bullshit here.

==== message # 34 =====

From: BlackMonk (BlackMonk@email.msn.com)

Subject: Re: Why 'A Day in the Life' was banned by BBC radio

Newsgroups: rec.music.beatles

Date: 2003-06-02 14:54:57 PST

[... BlackMonk:]

Piss off. No one here buys your idiotic, bigoted bullshit.

==== message # 35 =====

From: Stephen X. Carter (steve@[127.0.0.1])

Subject: Re: Why 'A Day in the Life' was banned by BBC radio

Newsgroups: rec.music.beatles

Date: 2003-06-02 01:40:40 PST

On 02 Jun 2003 05:05:00 GMT, salvadorwriter@cs.com

(Salvadorwriter) wrote:

> Nothing like sharing ideas in an open discussion. :-)

Exactly. What you write is nothing at all like sharing ideas in an open discussion! [...]

==== message # 36 =====

From: Salvadorwriter (salvadorwriter@cs.com)

Subject: Re: Why 'A Day in the Life' was banned by BBC radio

Newsgroups: rec.music.beatles

Date: 2003-06-02 20:46:18 PST

[Salvador:]

>> Nothing like sharing ideas in an open discussion. :-)

[Carter:]

> Exactly. What you write is nothing at all like sharing

> ideas in an open discussion!

What are you guys afraid of? [...]

==== message # 37 =====

From: .Tna Yzarc!.. (hebbell@helle.co.ukkllk)

Subject: Re: Why 'A Day in the Life' was banned by BBC radio

Newsgroups: rec.music.beatles

Date: 2003-06-02 22:13:04 PST

[Salvador:]

> What are you guys afraid of?

moron, please. RMB aint afraid of nothin!

==== message # 38 =====

From: Stephen X. Carter (steve@[127.0.0.1])

Subject: Re: Why 'A Day in the Life' was banned by BBC radio

Newsgroups: rec.music.beatles

Date: 2003-06-02 01:35:47 PST

[...]

[Salvador:]

> Look, Genius, I am not "associating" Stevenson's

> views with mine. I am merely pointing out that Stevenson's

> book, A Man Called Intrepid, was written in 1976 and did

> NOT use the word HOLOCAUST when discussing the time

> period from 1938 through 1945 in Nazi Germany. The book

> discusses what would today be called the Holocaust, but

> Stevenson did not call it the Holocaust in 1976, when the

> book was published, because the term Holocaust--for

> discussions about Nazi persecution of Jews--was not

> introduced until 1978. That was only two years before

> Lennon was killed.

Thank you for the flattering adjective (Genius), but flattery of me will not permit me to allow you to further obfuscate this issue. I took issue with your claim that Stevenson's book "discussed the deaths of six million Jews during World War II a great deal" (direct quote from your original posting). I have that book (2 editions actually), so please help me (ObBeatles) by citing the page references (plural, since you say "a great deal") where he discusses this matter. I pose that he does NOT discuss it "a great deal", so it's hardly surprising that he does not use the word "Holocaust". :-) [...]

==== message # 39 =====

From: Salvadorwriter (salvadorwriter@cs.com)

Subject: Re: Why 'A Day in the Life' was banned by BBC radio

Newsgroups: rec.music.beatles

Date: 2003-06-02 05:43:08 PST

Comments below are reactions to the following article:

Why ‘A Day in the Life’ was banned by BBC Radio

http://www.jfkmontreal.com/john_lennon/lennon_report.htm#dayinthelife

To read the entire report on John Lennon's death, go to:

http://www.jfkmontreal.com

Comments begin here:

[...]

[Carter:]

> […] I took issue with your claim that Stevenson's book

> "discussed the deaths of six million Jews during World

> War II a great deal" (direct quote from your original

> posting). I have that book (2 editions actually), so

> please help me (ObBeatles) by citing the page

> references (plural, since you say "a great deal") where

> he discusses this matter. I pose that he does NOT

> discuss it "a great deal", so it's hardly surprising that

> he does not use  the word "Holocaust". :-)

I don't understand your point. You've already admitted two major things which make my point that the book discusses what is known as the Holocaust, but it didn't use that particular word. First, you stated that the book "does mention Hitler's policy on the Jews." Are you now claiming that this is not equivalent to mentioning the Holocaust? Second, you reminded readers that the "book's sub-title is 'The Secret War 1939-1945.' " Are you claiming that this is not a reference to Holocaust? Since you've already mentioned that the book deals with the Holocaust, it is unclear exactly what you want me to cite or why. Just look at the book in general. There's no need to go to any specific page. Just flip through it. It is obvious you are trying to confuse the issue, but I'm not going to let you get away with it. Bottom line: The book, A Man Called Intrepid, discusses the period known as the Holocaust. Whether it is discussed a great deal or to a lesser degree is a moot point. The point is the topic of Jewish persecution by Hitler was mentioned enough that the word Holocaust should have been used, but it was NOT. Why? Because the term had not been introduced into the English language for that purpose yet. Yes, the word existed, but did not apply to Hitler's Germany and his treatment of Jews. And when was the term introduced? In 1978 when the Movie "The Holocaust" was released, just two years before Lennon was killed. Who knows, maybe the term would have been introduced years earlier, but Lennon thwarted it by releasing his movie, How I Won the War, in 1967. The next year (1968) Roman Polanski portray Jews in an extremely bad light with his movie, Rosemary's Baby.

Salvador […]

==== message # 40 =====

From: BlackMonk (BlackMonk@email.msn.com)

Subject: Re: Why 'A Day in the Life' was banned by BBC radio

Newsgroups: rec.music.beatles

Date: 2003-06-02 14:58:33 PST

"Salvadorwriter" <salvadorwriter@cs.com> wrote in message

news:20030602084223.07518.00000820@mb-m22.news.cs.com...

> Comments below are reactions to the following article:

>

> Who knows, maybe the term would have been introduced

> years earlier, but Lennon thwarted it by releasing his

> movie, How I Won the War, in 1967.

Lennon didn't release it, and it wasn't Lennon's movie. Lennon acted in Richard Lester's movie. I have no idea who released it, but it wasn't either of them. I'll forego expressing my contempt for you this time because you've already made yourself look foolish enough.

==== message # 41 =====

From: Salvadorwriter (salvadorwriter@cs.com)

Subject: Re: Why 'A Day in the Life' was banned by BBC radio

Newsgroups: rec.music.beatles

Date: 2003-06-02 19:11:09 PST

Comments below are reactions to the following article:

Why ‘A Day in the Life’ was banned by BBC Radio

http://www.jfkmontreal.com/john_lennon/lennon_report.htm#dayinthelife

To read the entire report on John Lennon's death, go to:

http://www.jfkmontreal.com

Comments begin here:

======

[Salvador:]

>> Who knows, maybe the term would have been

>> introduced years earlier, but Lennon thwarted it

>> by releasing his movie, How I Won the War, in

>> 1967. The next year (1968) Roman Polanski

>> portray Jews in an extremely bad light with his

>> movie, Rosemary's Baby.

[BlackMonk@email.msn.com:]

> Lennon didn't release it, and it wasn't Lennon's

> movie. Lennon acted in Richard Lester's movie.

> I have no idea who released it, but it wasn't either

> of them. I'll forego expressing my contempt for

> you this time because you've already made

> yourself look foolish enough.

Thanks for being such a gentleman. :-) And thanks for not snipping the part about Roman Polanski and Rosemary's Baby. On that topic, do you suppose Polanski's wife, Sharon Tate, was murdered in retaliation for Polanski's depiction of Jews as bloodthirsty witches in his renowned movie?

I deal with Talmudic references to witchcraft in Chapter 13 of my book, Opium Lords. Take a look:

Chapter 13: Politics and Religion

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

Happy reading. :-)

Salvador [...]

==== message # 42 =====

From: BlackMonk (BlackMonk@email.msn.com)

Subject: Re: Why 'A Day in the Life' was banned by BBC radio

Newsgroups: rec.music.beatles

Date: 2003-06-02 19:16:44 PST

[…]

[Salvador"]

> Thanks for being such a gentleman. :-) And thanks for not

> snipping the part about Roman Polanski and Rosemary's

> Baby. On that topic, do you suppose Polanski's wife,

> Sharon Tate, was murdered in retaliation for Polanski's

> depiction of Jews as bloodthirsty witches in his renowned

> movie?

I haven't seen the movie, so I can't say how accurate your interpretation is, but it's doubtful that she was murdered for that reason.

> I deal with Talmudic references to witchcraft in Chapter 13

> of my book, Opium Lords. Take a look:

>

> Chapter 13: Politics and Religion

> http://www.jfkmontreal.com/religion_and_politics.htm

I find your interpretation of the Talmud very suspect. Tell me, did you read it in the original language or a translation? If a translation, which one? Did you read every volume of the Talmud? Where did you learn your methodology for interpreting the Talmud? Obviously, you realize that with a work of that magnitude, serious study is required and a few quote from a website mean nothing.

[Note: Several days later, Salvador advised Black Monk that he used the Soncino Talmud, Copyright 1973 by Judaica Press, Inc; Copyright 1965, 67, 77, 83, 84, 87, 88 & 90 by Soncino Press, Ltd.]

==== message # 43 =====

From: Ryno, Comte de Bugtussle et Montemerde (scarcely.found@Eotworld.com)

Subject: Re: Why 'A Day in the Life' was banned by BBC radio

Newsgroups: rec.music.beatles

Date: 2003-06-02 05:32:12 PST

[…]

On 02 Jun 2003 05:53:16 GMT, in article

<20030602015316.20861.00000515@mb-m02.news.cs.com>, salvadorwriter@cs.com stated:

>> […] the term Holocaust--for discussions about

>> Nazi persecution of Jews--was not introduced

>> until 1978. That was only two years before

>> Lennon was killed.

[interstate5:]

> Needless to say, that is an outright lie. The term

> was commonly used to describe what happened to

> the Jews in Nazi Germany as early as the 1950s,

> and there are known references to the Nazi

> persecution of Jews as a "holocaust" dating back

> to the 1940s, including during the War.

[Note: Interstate5 does not provide any cites to support the claim that the term "Holocaust" was used prior to 1978 to denote Nazi persecution of Jews.]

Check my earlier post. "Holocaust" was first used in 1189 by Richard of Devizes when describing the massacre of Jews in England following the coronation of Richard the Lionheart. A bit earlier than Irving, John, or Salvador, was the old Dick.

Ryno [...]

[Note: Ryno’s example of Holocaust has nothing to do with persecution of Jews by Nazis. Hence, Salvador’s assertion that 1978 was the year when the term Holocaust was introduced to mean persecution of Jews by Nazis still stands.]

==== message # 44 =====

From: .Tna Yzarc!.. (hebbell@helle.co.ukkllk)

Subject: Re: Why 'A Day in the Life' was banned by BBC radio

Newsgroups: rec.music.beatles

Date: 2003-06-02 06:05:06 PST

[…Ryno:]

> Check my earlier post. "Holocaust" was first used

> in 1189 [snipped by Tna Yzarc]

hey len, don't bother with this low life asshole, mate. i for one am sick of her describing people like me and ian as ""old Jew-baiting KKKers and neo-Nazis,."

==== message # 45 =====

From: Ryno, Comte de Bugtussle et Montemerde (scarcely.found@Eotworld.com)

Subject: Re: Why 'A Day in the Life' was banned by BBC radio

Newsgroups: rec.music.beatles

Date: 2003-06-02 06:28:13 PST

[…] message <bbfi21$2nu$1@pita.alt.net>.

[…Ryno:]

>> Check my earlier post. "Holocaust" was first used

>> in 1189 [snipped by Tna Yzarc]

[Tna Yzarc:]

> hey len, don't bother with this low life asshole, mate.

> i for one am sick of her describing people like me and

> ian as ""old Jew-baiting KKKers and neo-Nazis,."

I'm more concerned with making sure Saliva-drool doesn't spread any more of his "look what the goose stepped in" neo-nazi shite. The rest gets more petty than Tom and the Heartbreakers.

Ryno [...]

==== message # 46 =====

From: BlackMonk (BlackMonk@email.msn.com)

Subject: Re: Why 'A Day in the Life' was banned by BBC radio

Newsgroups: rec.music.beatles

Date: 2003-06-02 15:01:00 PST

[…] message news:h5kmdvg6ns4rte4gmn4m58pud5fbjpo43i@4ax.com...

[…] message <bbfi21$2nu$1@pita.alt.net>.

[Ryno:]

> I'm more concerned with making sure Saliva-drool

> doesn't spread any more of his "look what the goose

> stepped in" neo-nazi shite. The rest gets more petty

> than Tom and the Heartbreakers.

Thank you. I'm glad someone realizes what's important. Most flame wars aren't, including the other ones that I'm currently involved in. This is.

[Note: Despite all the banter, no one has provided a cite to demonstrate that the term Holocaust was used, prior to 1978, to denote persecution of Jews by Nazis. Hence, Salvador’s assertion that 1978 was the year when the term Holocaust was introduced in that context still stands.]

---quote on---

At the end of the film there’s an irreverent but poignant moment when [British] Lieutenant Goodbody says goodbye to the Nazi Commander on the bridge. As a show of respect, Goodbody gives him a Nazi solute and the Nazi reciprocates with a British salute. Suddenly the Nazi Commander is run down by a British tank and killed; it’s very bloody and gruesome. Goodbody is sick with grief.

---quote off---

To read more about How I Won the War, go to the following URL:

http://www.jfkmontreal.com/john_lennon/lennon_report.htm#howiwonthewar

To read the full article about Lennon's murder, click here:

http://www.jfkmontreal.com [...]

==== message # 48 =====

From: BlackMonk (BlackMonk@email.msn.com)

Subject: Re: Was "How I Won the War" pro-Nazi?

Newsgroups: rec.music.beatles

Date: 2003-06-05 17:47:12 PST

"Salvadorwriter" <salvadorwriter@cs.com> wrote in message

Sal, Sal, Sal, you're still not checking your facts.

You say

> John Lennon starred in the movie. He played the

> supporting role of British musketeer Batman Gripweed,

Either he stars in the movie, or he plays a supporting role.

He can't do both. It's good to see that you're referring to it

as "Lester's movie," though. That's an improvement over

your previous remarks about Lennon releasing it.

==== message # 49 =====

From: Salvadorwriter (salvadorwriter@cs.com)

Subject: Re: Was "How I Won the War" pro-Nazi?

Newsgroups: rec.music.beatles

Date: 2003-06-05 18:27:57 PST

[Black Monk wrote:]

> Sal, Sal, Sal, you're still not checking your facts.

>

> You say "John Lennon starred in the movie. He played

> the supporting role of British musketeer Batman

> Gripweed," Either he stars in the movie, or he plays

> a supporting role. He can't do both.

I threw you a bone to quibble over since you love sweating the small stuff. But seriously, I've got the video and that's how it written. It says "starring" Michael Crawford and John Lennon. I suppose they did it that way originally to get more people interested even though Lennon played a supporting role.

[more from Monk]

> It's good to see that you're referring to it as "Lester's

> movie," though. That's an improvement over your

> previous remarks about Lennon releasing it.

Sorry... but I never made such a claim. Anyway... you've made two comments in a row and you still haven't addressed the topic. Do you think "How I Won the War" is pro-Nazi or not? As they say on CSPAN, we'd love to hear your thoughts

[...]

==== message # 50 =====

From: BlackMonk (BlackMonk@email.msn.com)

Subject: Re: Was "How I Won the War" pro-Nazi?

Newsgroups: rec.music.beatles

Date: 2003-06-05 19:02:34 PST

[…] news:20030605212657.12139.00000119@mb-m04.news.cs.com...

[…Monk:]

>> It's good to see that you're referring to it as "Lester's

>> movie," though. That's an improvement over your

>> previous remarks about Lennon releasing it.

[Salvador:]

> Sorry …, but I never made such a claim.

In the thread "Why 'A Day in the Life' was banned by BBC radio," you said:

"Who knows, maybe the term would have been introduced years earlier, but Lennon thwarted it by releasing his movie, How I Won the War, in 1967. The next year (1968) Roman Polanski portray Jews in an extremely bad light with his movie, Rosemary's Baby."

> Anyway…you've made two comments in a row and

> you still haven't addressed the topic. Do you think "How I

> Won the War" is pro-Nazi or not?

No.

==== message # 51 =====

From: GIMMES0METRUTH (gimmes0metruth@aol.com)

Subject: Re: Was "How I Won the War" pro-Nazi?

Newsgroups: rec.music.beatles

Date: 2003-06-05 19:30:05 PST

I read the beginnings of your John Lennon murder article. When John was shot, he was first shot in the shoulder which spun him around somewhat. He hit the pavement face first and had broken his nose. When they autopsied him they shaved the back of his head behind the ear and around to check if he was struck in the head as well. Chapman killed John, there was no hidden shooter or any other hogwash.

==== message # 52 =====

From: Salvadorwriter (salvadorwriter@cs.com)

Subject: Re: Was "How I Won the War" pro-Nazi?

Newsgroups: rec.music.beatles

Date: 2003-06-05 20:21:59 PST

[GIMMES0METRUTH:]

> I read the beginnings of your John Lennon murder

> article. When John was shot, he was first shot in

> the shoulder which spun him around somewhat.

> He hit the pavement face first and had broken his

> nose. When they autopsied him they shaved the

> back of his head behind the ear and around to

> check if he was struck in the head as well.

> Chapman killed John, there was no hidden shooter

> or any other hogwash.

Sorry, but you're off-topic. This thread is about "How I Won the War." Was it pro-Nazi or not? We'd love to hear your comments on that topic.

If you want to discuss another "official explanation" of what happened to Lennon, I suggest you post it on the thread entitled "Why a 'Day in the Life' was banned by BBC Radio." I'll try to respond when I get a chance, but your comment only drives home the fact that a uniform official story does not exist.

Salvador [...]

==== message # 53 =====

From: Daave (dcwashNOSPAM@myrealboxXYZ.invalid)

Subject: Re: Was "How I Won the War" pro-Nazi?

Newsgroups: rec.music.beatles

Date: 2003-06-05 21:14:44 PST

news:20030605202516.12195.00000119@mb-m04.news.cs.com...

[Salvador:]

> […] Was "How I Won the War" pro-Nazi?

No, it wasn't. Now I have a question for you: Was Hogan's Heroes pro-Nazi?

-Dave

==== message # 54 =====

From: Salvadorwriter (salvadorwriter@cs.com)

Subject: Re: Was "How I Won the War" pro-Nazi?

Newsgroups: rec.music.beatles

Date: 2003-06-05 22:00:09 PST

[Salvador:]

>> Was "How I Won the War" pro-Nazi?

[Dave:]

> No, it wasn't.

Fair enough. Here's a follow-up question: Do you think some Jewish people might be offended by the scene at the end where the Nazi officer is killed in a manner which elicits sympathy from the audience? (He is run over by a tank; Goodybody nearly bursts into tears because they were friends.)

> Now I have a question for you: Was Hogan's Heroes

> pro-Nazi?

It's not pro-Nazi per se, but it was awfully convenient for Bob Crane to end up brutally murdered in 1978, the year that the Holocaust propaganda campaign began, the year the word Holocaust was introduced to the world to mean Nazi persecution of Jews. (That's the year that the TV Movie entitled the Holocaust premiered.) The propagandists couldn't have a show like Hogan's Heroes on the air, even in reruns, while they're selling the Holocaust story to the American public. What would be the best way to stop such a popular show from being broadcast? Simply, kill the star in a bloody ritualistic murder which turns the public's stomach so much that they are sickened at the sight of the show. Of course I'm not saying it was planned that way, but you have to admit, it was awfully convenient for the Talmudic string pullers.

[...]

Thank-you for that excellent question.

Salvador [...]

==== message # 55 =====

From: Willie Nelson (the_liquid_moamo@yahoo.com)

Subject: Re: Was "How I Won the War" pro-Nazi?

Newsgroups: rec.music.beatles

Date: 2003-06-08 21:28:18 PST

salvadorwriter@cs.com (Salvadorwriter) wrote in message news:<20030608140240.27433.00000238@mb-m01.news.cs.com>...

[brilton notlirb@notlirb.nyet:]

>> Good question. I would say no, but I think it was

>> more "pro-Marxist". There was a lot of slapstick

>> humour in the movie, very reminiscent of the Marx

>> Brothers, particularly Harpo, and to a lesser extent,

>> Chico.

<snipped>

[Salvador:]

> Why do you refuse to respond in a serious manner?

> Why are you afraid of this topic?

Why are you here? Surely there is a more proper newsgroup for your twisted conspiracy bullshit. alt.anti-semite or something. Get lost.

====================

Subject: Re: LENNON'S MURDER.

From: salvadorwriter@cs.com (Salvadorwriter)

Date: 6/15/03 4:28 PM Eastern Daylight Time

Message-id: <20030615162830.20154.00000608@mb-m02.news.cs.com>

[Derek Larsson:]

>> There also seems to be a profound lack of security

>> provided by doorman Jose Perdomo whose job it was

>> to protect all tenants ( several of them celebrities )

>> from strangers and hangers-on and who was the only

>> "eye-witness" to the shooting. His background needs

>> to be investigated.

[Cromwell:]

> He was a doorman NOT A BODYGUARD.

"Doorman" is a misleading title. The doorman at the Dakota is a glorified security guard. I know because I've been there. I talked to one of doormen. He was definitely security. In fact, the New York Times referred to the doorman's booth as a "guard booth" in the following diagram published Dec. 10, 1980:

http://www.jfkmontreal.com/john_lennon/exhibit_j_nyt_crimescenediagram.htm

The word "doorman" suggests that he is a bellhop. I'm not even sure if doorman is a genuine title or something the media created. The doorman does not stand by a door, he stands at the entrance to the Dakota. The entrance is about 15 feet wide with iron gates on both sides, but the gates are normally open. Derek is correct in stating that Jose Perdomo's job was to protect the tenants. Again, he is not really a doorman, he is a security guard. That is the function of a security guard, to protect people.

[Cromwell:]

> Jose Perdomo should only be investigated, if there

> are good reasons to so.

 I'm fairly certain that Perdomo is dead.

Salvador […]

==== message # 57 =====

From: .Tna Yzarc!.. (hebbell@helle.co.ukkllk)

Subject: Salvatorwriter, asshole, bumboy, neo-nazi or security guard? , Re: Jose Perdomo, doorman or security guard?

Newsgroups: rec.music.beatles

Date: 2003-06-15 17:51:26 PST

"Salvadorwriter" <salvadorwriter@cs.com> wrote in message

news:20030615201717.21356.00000789@mb-m05.news.cs.com...

> Looks like I struck a raw nerve with this posting.

not at all. i simply answered your question, which was "what do you think?" to which i responded "i think you're a pathetic stupid cunt and you should go back to fucking your mom"

see, its easy once you think about it.....:)

==== message # 58 =====

From: .Tna Yzarc!.. (hebbell@helle.co.ukkllk)

Subject: Salvadorwriter, moron or murderer? Re: Jose Perdomo, doorman or security guard?

Newsgroups: rec.music.beatles

Date: 2003-06-15 19:11:26 PST

"Salvadorwriter" <salvadorwriter@cs.com> wrote in message

news:20030615220534.13547.00000694@mb-m11.news.cs.com...

> Seems like the same bunch of Internet th[SMAK!]

sorry sweetlips, what were you saying?

==== message # 59 =====

From: .Tna Yzarc!.. (hebbell@helle.co.ukkllk)

Subject: Salvadorwriter FUCK OFF AND STOP SPAMMING YOU ASSHOLE........ Re: Jose Perdomo, doorman or security guard?

Newsgroups: rec.music.beatles

Date: 2003-06-15 15:49:52 PST

"Salvadorwriter" <salvadorwriter@cs.com> wrote in message

news:20030615182505.13692.00000774@mb-m25.news.cs.com...

> Recently someone stated that Jose Perdomo (the guy

> guarding the entrance to the Dakota the night John

> Lennon was killed) should be held accountable since

> his job was to guard the tenants of the Dakota. What

> do you think?

i think you're a pathetic stupid cunt and you should go back to fucking your mom.

==== message # 60 =====

From: Jim (drjkraut@bellsouth.net)

Subject: Re: Salvadorwriter FUCK OFF AND STOP SPAMMING YOU ASSHOLE........ Re: Jose Perdomo, doorman or security guard?

Newsgroups: rec.music.beatles

Date: 2003-06-15 20:01:02 PST

".Tna Yzarc!.." <hebbell@helle.co.ukkllk> wrote in message news:<bcit6f$c9$0@pita.alt.net>...

> "Salvadorwriter" <salvadorwriter@cs.com> wrote in message

> news:20030615182505.13692.00000774@mb-m25.news.cs.com...

>> Recently someone stated that Jose Perdomo (the guy

>> guarding the entrance to the Dakota the night John

>> Lennon was killed) should be held accountable since

>> his job was to guard the tenants of the Dakota. What

>> do you think?

>

> i think you're a pathetic stupid cunt and you should go

> back to fucking your mom.

Wow - what a CLEVER response!!

==== message # 61 =====

From: BlackMonk (BlackMonk@email.msn.com)

Subject: Re: Salvadorwriter FUCK OFF AND STOP SPAMMING YOU ASSHOLE........ Re: Jose Perdomo, doorman or security guard?

Newsgroups: rec.music.beatles

Date: 2003-06-15 20:11:53 PST

"Jim" <drjkraut@bellsouth.net> wrote in message

news:3c822936.0306151901.365ba2ec@posting.google.com...

> ".Tna Yzarc!.." <hebbell@helle.co.ukkllk> wrote in message news:<bcit6f$c9$0@pita.alt.net>...

>> "Salvadorwriter" <salvadorwriter@cs.com> wrote in message

>> news:20030615182505.13692.00000774@mb-m25.news.cs.com...

>>> Recently someone stated that Jose Perdomo (the guy

>>> guarding the entrance to the Dakota the night John

>>> Lennon was killed) should be held accountable since

>>> his job was to guard the tenants of the Dakota. What

>>> do you think?

>>

>> i think you're a pathetic stupid cunt and you should go

>> back to fucking your mom.

>

> Wow - what a CLEVER response!!

You think Sally deserves better?

==== message # 62 =====

From: Mister Charlie (smokerdude66@myway.com)

Subject: Re: Salvadorwriter FUCK OFF AND STOP SPAMMING YOU ASSHOLE........ Re: Jose Perdomo, doorman or security guard?

Newsgroups: rec.music.beatles

Date: 2003-06-15 20:21:01 PST

"Jim" <drjkraut@bellsouth.net> wrote in message

news:3c822936.0306151901.365ba2ec@posting.google.com...

> ".Tna Yzarc!.." <hebbell@helle.co.ukkllk> wrote in message news:<bcit6f$c9$0@pita.alt.net>...

>> "Salvadorwriter" <salvadorwriter@cs.com> wrote in message

>> news:20030615182505.13692.00000774@mb-m25.news.cs.com...

>>> Recently someone stated that Jose Perdomo (the guy

>>> guarding the entrance to the Dakota the night John

>>> Lennon was killed) should be held accountable since

>>> his job was to guard the tenants of the Dakota. What

>>> do you think?

>>

>> i think you're a pathetic stupid cunt and you should go

>> back to fucking your mom.

>

> Wow - what a CLEVER response!!

Hey, it works for me.

==== message # 63 =====

From: Susan (susan.hwk5@verizon.net)

Subject: Re: Salvadorwriter FUCK OFF AND STOP SPAMMING YOU ASSHOLE........ Re: Jose Perdomo, doorman or security guard?

Newsgroups: rec.music.beatles

Date: 2003-06-16 03:51:21 PST

in article bcjd2q$jhtrl$1@ID-63206.news.dfncis.de, Mister Charlie at

smokerdude66@myway.com wrote on 6/15/03 11:19 PM:

>>>> Recently someone stated that Jose Perdomo (the

>>>> guy guarding the entrance to the Dakota the night John

>>>> Lennon was killed) should be held accountable since

>>>> his job was to guard the tenants of the Dakota. What

>>>> do you think?

>>>

>>> i think you're a pathetic stupid cunt and you should

>>> go back to fucking your mom.

>>

>> Wow - what a CLEVER response!!

>

> Hey, it works for me.

>

A bit crude, but it works.

==== message # 64 =====

From: .Tna Yzarc!.. (hebbell@helle.co.ukkllk)

Subject: Re: Salvadorwriter FUCK OFF AND STOP SPAMMING YOU ASSHOLE........ Re: Jose Perdomo, doorman or security guard?

Newsgroups: rec.music.beatles

Date: 2003-06-15 20:54:27 PST

"Jim" <drjkraut@bellsouth.net> wrote in message

news:3c822936.0306151901.365ba2ec@posting.google.com...

> ".Tna Yzarc!.." <hebbell@helle.co.ukkllk> wrote in message news:<bcit6f$c9$0@pita.alt.net>...

>> "Salvadorwriter" <salvadorwriter@cs.com> wrote in message

>> news:20030615182505.13692.00000774@mb-m25.news.cs.com...

>>>> Recently someone stated that Jose Perdomo (the guy

>>>> guarding the entrance to the Dakota the night John

>>>> Lennon was killed) should be held accountable since

>>>> his job was to guard the tenants of the Dakota. What

>>>> do you think?

>>

>> i think you're a pathetic stupid cunt and you should go

>> back to fucking your mom.

>

> Wow - what a CLEVER response!!

thank you.........:)

======= Message # 65 ======

From: Rynosseros, The Anti-Ralph Of The Apocalypse (not.wanting.email@eotworld.com)

Subject: Re: Jose Perdomo, the Cuban exile

Newsgroups: rec.music.beatles

Date: 2003-06-17 21:21:23 PST

On 18 Jun 2003 03:28:06 GMT, salvadorwriter@cs.com (Salvadorwriter)

wrote:

> Interesting that this thread created such a meltdown

> at rec.music.beatles. Let's see if we can begin

> again. :-)

[snippalottacrapola]

Hey Chucko! Was I right, or was I *right*? Krafft-Ebbing nails another point.

======= Message # 66 ======

From: Mister Charlie (smokerdude66@myway.com)

Subject: Re: Jose Perdomo, the Cuban exile

Newsgroups: rec.music.beatles

Date: 2003-06-17 21:22:48 PST

"Rynosseros, The Anti-Ralph Of The Apocalypse"

<not.wanting.email@eotworld.com> wrote in message

news:97qvev0uf48rvgtc2o2h85ukm8gdbevk96@4ax.com...

> On 18 Jun 2003 03:28:06 GMT, salvadorwriter@cs.com (Salvadorwriter)

> wrote:

>

>> Interesting that this thread created such a meltdown at

>> rec.music.beatles. Let's see if we can begin again. :-)

> [snippalottacrapola]

>

> Hey Chucko! Was I right, or was I *right*? Krafft-Ebbing

> nails another point.

Once again I defer to your vast intellect. Of course, like a dog returning to its own vomit Sal comes back yet again.

======= Message # 67 ======

From: Ehtue (ehtue@aa.com)

Subject: Re: Jose Perdomo, the Cuban exile

Newsgroups: rec.music.beatles

Date: 2003-06-17 21:58:39 PST

[Salvador:]

>>> Interesting that this thread created such a meltdown

>>> at rec.music.beatles. Let's see if we can begin

>>> again. :-)

>> [snippalottacrapola]

>>

>> Hey Chucko! Was I right, or was I *right*? Krafft-Ebbing

>> nails another point.

>

> Once again I defer to your vast intellect. Of course, like

> a dog returning to its own vomit Sal comes back

> yet again.

LOL! What a turn of phrase! I'll steal that one for sure some time in the future! Somewhere, somehow.

-Ehtue

======= Message # 68 ======

From: !!tnA yzarC (m@FBIII.com)

Subject: Re: Jose Perdomo, the Cuban exile

Newsgroups: rec.music.beatles

Date: 2003-06-18 00:22:39 PST

"Ehtue" <ehtue@aa.com> wrote in message

news:2kSHa.16328$Fa6.11999@sccrnsc02...

[Salvador:]

>>>> Interesting that this thread created such a meltdown

>>>> at rec.music.beatles. Let's see if we can begin

>>>> again. :-)

>>>

>>> [snippalottacrapola]

>>>

>>> Hey Chucko! Was I right, or was I *right*? Krafft-Ebbing

>>> nails another point.

>>

>> Once again I defer to your vast intellect. Of course, like

>> a dog returning to its own vomit Sal comes back yet

>> again.

>

> LOL! What a turn of phrase! I'll steal that one for sure

> some time in the future! Somewhere, somehow.

too late. we had our prime minster saying it about the opposition party leadership about ten years ago. he has become synonymous with that phrase...;0)

======= Message # 69 ======

From: Ehtue (ehtue@aa.com)

Subject: Re: Jose Perdomo, the Cuban exile

Newsgroups: rec.music.beatles

Date: 2003-06-18 05:22:27 PST

[Mister Charlie:]

>>> Once again I defer to your vast intellect. Of course,

>>> like a dog returning to its own vomit Sal comes back

>>> yet again.

>>

>> LOL! What a turn of phrase! I'll steal that one for sure

>> some time in the future! Somewhere, somehow.

>

> too late. we had our prime minster saying it about the

> opposition party leadership about ten years ago.

> he has become synonymous with that phrase...;0)

> That won't stop me from stealing it.

Immediately after publishing my article, "Rethinking John Lennon’s Assassination," on May 10, 2003, I received limited criticism for not obtaining the police report of the crime. It was a justified criticism, but no longer applicable because I received today a copy of the report from the New York City Police Department. Unfortunately, the report contains limited detail which was disappointing to say the least. It is only three pages long; 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. Nevertheless, it is probably the most definitive official version of the crime around. To my knowledge, I am the first researcher to publish the cited report.

To read a description of the police report, click here:

http://www.jfkmontreal.com/john_lennon/lennon_report.htm#NYPD_Police_Report

To go directly to thumbnail images of the three-page report, click here:

http://www.jfkmontreal.com/john_lennon/app_d_nypdpr.htm

To start from the beginning of my revised Lennon article, click here:

http://www.jfkmontreal.com

Regards,

Salvador […]

======= Message # 71 ======

From: Teddy (hennessyandco@yahoo.com)

Subject: Re: Police report for John Lennon's murder now available online.

Newsgroups: rec.music.beatles

Date: 2003-06-27 09:48:17 PST

Hey Sally,

I had a look at your website. What a load of crap. And you can quote me on that.

Tedster

======= Message # 72 ======

From: Salvadorwriter (salvadorwriter@cs.com)

Subject: Re: Police report for John Lennon's murder now available online.

Newsgroups: rec.music.beatles

Date: 2003-06-27 20:00:59 PST

[hennessyandco@yahoo.com (Teddy)]

> I had a look at your website. [...] And you can quote

> me on that.

Thanks. Consider it done. :-)

Salvador […]

======= Message # 73 ======

From: Teddy (hennessyandco@yahoo.com)

Subject: Re: Police report for John Lennon's murder now available online.

Newsgroups: rec.music.beatles

Date: 2003-06-27 22:37:41 PST

salvadorwriter@cs.com (Salvadorwriter) wrote in message news:<20030627230048.23689.00001769@mb-m27.news.cs.com>...

[hennessyandco@yahoo.com (Teddy)]

> > I had a look at your website. [...] And you can

>> quote me on that.

Sally,

In your usual revisionist way, I see you're leaving out my OPINION of your crappy website. Oh ho ho. Give yourself a pat on the head with Maxwell's Silver Hammer, won't you.

======= Message # 74 ======

From: Shemp (richard_hell@excite.com)

Subject: Re: Police report for John Lennon's murder now available online.

Newsgroups: rec.music.beatles

Date: 2003-06-28 22:14:32 PST

salvadorwriter@cs.com (Salvadorwriter) wrote in

news:20030627230048.23689.00001769@mb-m27.news.cs.com:

> [hennessyandco@yahoo.com (Teddy)]

>> I had a look at your website. [...] And you can quote me on that.

>

> Thanks. Consider it done. :-) […]

Hi Sally Nutsack! Your website is a piece of poop. I expect Mr. Hankey will show up soon. You can quote me on this.

Ellen Borakove, Director of Public Affairs

Office of the Chief Medical Examiner

520 First Avenue, New York, NY 10016-6402

Phone: 212-447-2041

FAX: 212-447-2755

Or complain to Charles S. Hirsch, MD, Chief Medical Examiner.

Dr. Hirsch can be reached at the same mailing address and phone numbers as Ms. Borakove.

You can also send emails of complaint to New York Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg and other city officials at

http://www.nyc.gov

In addition, send letters of complaint to your Senators and Congressmen/Representatives demanding that the New City Office of Chief Medical Examiner release John Lennon's autopsy report for public inspection.

In your letter of complaint, be sure to direct them to the following letter written by Ellen Borakove advising Salvador Astucia that John Lennon's autopsy report is "not open to public inspection."

Here is a scanned image of Ms. Borakove's letter:

http://www.jfkmontreal.com/john_lennon/exhibit_n.htm

Sending emails to Congress is merely a mouse-click away. Simply access the following URLs and find your Senators

and Representatives for your state and district:

U.S. Senators (in alphabetical order)

http://www.senate.gov/contacting/index.cfm

U.S. House of Representatives (listed by state)

http://www.house.gov/writerep/

=========

NYC Medical Examiner refuses to release autopsy report The article below can be viewed at the following URL:

http://www.jfkmontreal.com/john_lennon/lennon_report.htm#NYC_med_examiner

On July 1, 2003, I sent a letter to the New York City Medical Examiner's Office requesting a copy of John Lennon's autopsy report. I was referred to the Medical Examiner's Office by the NYPD after making a similar request from them. Subsequently, I received a letter, dated July 18, 2003, from Ellen Borakove, Director of Public Affairs at the Office of Chief Medical Examiner, Charles S. Hirsch, MD. The following is the contents of Ms. Borakove's letter:

---quote on---

Dear Mr. [Astucia:]

We are in receipt of your recent letter requesting a copy of the autopsy report for Mr. John Lennon. Please be advised that our records are not open for public inspection. However, our records could be released with the written authorization of the next of kin. Thank you. Sincerely, Ellen Borakove, Director, Public Affairs

---quote off---

In other words, Ms. Borakove is advising me to contact Yoko Ono and get permission to see John's autopsy report, something Borakove obviously knows will lead nowhere. Being the widow of John Lennon, Yoko is a constantly inundated with letters and requests from all sorts of people and will likely not respond to a stranger, particularly someone asking questions about a painful, traumatic experience she would prefer to forget.

Why is John Lennon's autopsy report being suppressed? Since when did autopsy reports become closed for public inspection? I do not doubt the truthfulness of Ms. Borakove's statement, but when did this sort of information become off limits to the public? It seems odd that the autopsy report of a celebrity living in America--or anyone living in America, for that matter--would be denied to any American citizen who requests it. Who is being protected? Certainly not the deceased.

Besides being denied access to the autopsy report, I sent three additional requests to Lieutenant Michael Pascucci, at the NYPD Legal Bureau, for other items related to the crime. All three requests were refused. The requested items were as follows: (a) the personal notes of Officer Peter Cullen, (b) the personal notes of Officer Stephen Spiro, and (c) crime scene photographs. As previously stated, Cullen and Spiro were the arresting officers of murder suspect Mark David Chapman. The reason given by Lieutenant Pascucci for refusing to release copies of Cullen's and Spiro's personal notes was "unwarranted invasion of privacy." It's interesting that excerpts from Officer Spiro's personal notes were published in British author Fenton Bresler's book, Who Killed John Lennon? I'm not criticizing the British, but why does a British author have free access to American police records which are denied to an American author?

Copies of all referenced letters between Ellen Borakove, Lieutenant Michael Pascucci, and myself are shown in Exhibits M through T (in Appendix E).

http://www.jfkmontreal.com/john_lennon/app_e_nypd_morgue.htm […]

======= Message # 76 ======

From: Dyuob Poltice (dyuob@yahoo.com)

Subject: Re: NYC Medical Examiner refuses to release autopsy report

Newsgroups: rec.music.beatles

Date: 2003-08-05 12:16:18 PST

On 05 Aug 2003 18:10:41 GMT, salvadorwriter@cs.com (Salvadorwriter) wrote:

Geez, you whine about my name being made and stupid sounding, what's your real name? […]

======= Message # 77 ======

From: Teddy (hennessyandco@yahoo.com)

Subject: Re: NYC Medical Examiner refuses to release autopsy report

Newsgroups: rec.music.beatles

Date: 2003-08-05 17:36:16 PST

John is dead. He will be dead whether the examiner releases the report, keeps it on file or makes a paper airplane out of it. "Oho, FBI informants, blah blah blah changing the subject homosexuals conspiracy JFK Isreal"--I can just hear ol' Sally wetting himself now. Save it, nut job. It speaks volumes about the need for serious gun control in the US when a guy as disturbed as Chapman has no problem getting himself a handgun. Yes, he had motivation. He thought he was John Lennon and that other guy was an impostor who needed to be erased. See, there's someone we know is crazier than you, but he's been through the system. I bet if John hadn't been shot, he'd be very vocal right now about "W" and Iraq and probably saying some very biting things in some good songs. I bet he'd've written a better song than Paul's "Freedom". And I bet he'd've written his share of things his fans didn't love. But we'd have had the music and our guy, and we wouldn't have you and your dumb-ass theories on our ng. Go read an actual book instead of bragging on your birdcage liners.

======= Message # 78 ======

From: The Man From R.Y.N.O, Sekrit Agent (no.want.no.mail@eotworld.com)

Subject: Re: NYC Medical Examiner refuses to release autopsy report

Newsgroups: rec.music.beatles

Date: 2003-08-05 17:55:08 PST

On 5 Aug 2003 17:36:15 -0700, hennessyandco@yahoo.com (Teddy) wrote:

[…omitted Teddy's message.]

For this post, Agent Ted is awarded the Sekrit Handshake and clasp.

======= Message # 79 ======

From: UsurperTom (usurpertom@aol.com)

Subject: Re: NYC Medical Examiner refuses to release autopsy report

Newsgroups: rec.music.beatles

Date: 2003-08-05 20:03:15 PST

[Teddy:]

> […] I bet he'd've written a better song than Paul's

> "Freedom"

With all due respect, I don't think your message needed to include a potshot at Paul.

Usurper

======= Message # 80 ======

From: Salvadorwriter (salvadorwriter@cs.com)

Subject: Re: NYC Medical Examiner refuses to release autopsy report

Newsgroups: rec.music.beatles

Date: 2003-08-05 20:03:19 PST

[Teddy:]

> John is dead. He will be dead whether the examiner

> releases the report, keeps it on file or makes a paper

> airplane out of it.

That is the most absurd argument anyone can make for suppressing Lennon's autopsy report from the public. The New York City Medical Examiner's Office is acting in a disgraceful manner. But in a sense, you're right--not because Lennon is dead and we can't bring him back, but because we already know the results of the autopsy report. It says Lennon's wounds--all four of them--were on the left side of his body. Why is this so important? The answer goes to the heart of the cover-up, and make no mistake about it: THERE IS A COVER-UP. The reason the autopsy report won't be released is obvious: Because if it is released for public inspection, then Mark David Chapman will have to be released as well, because the autopsy report will exonerate him. And if Chapman is released, then others will likely go to jail.

If Chapman was standing behind Lennon, to his right, when he allegedly fired the fatal shots, then the wounds should have been on the RIGHT side of Lennon's body. The following diagram of the crime scene, published in the New York Times just two days after the murder, indicates that Chapman was standing behind Lennon and to his right when the fatal shots were fired:

http://www.jfkmontreal.com/john_lennon/exhibit_j_nyt_crimescenediagram.htm

Yet the autopsy report claims Lennon's wounds were on the LEFT side of the body. Although I have not actually seen the autopsy report, I know that's what it says. That information was revealed in a New York Times article published two days after Lennon's murder. Here is a critical excerpt:

--- quote on ---

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.

--- quote off ---

(Paul L. Montgomery, NYT, Dec. 10, 1980, Police Trace Tangled Path Leading to Lennon’s Slaying at the Dakota, p A1)

Obtaining the autopsy report will only corroborate what we only know. The fact that the City Medical Examiner's Office is refusing to release it merely drives home the fact that something is terribly wrong. And I hate to say it, but the cover-up is being perpetrated by Jews, virtually one-hundred percent. Ellen Borakove, Director of Public Affairs Office of the Chief Medical Examiner, is apparently a Jew. Borakove is certainly not a Gentile name. I would be willing to bet that Charles S. Hirsch, MD, Chief Medical Examiner, is also Jewish. If he is not, I will post a retraction and an apology for thinking that he is. New York Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg is a bigtime Jew. That's not a point of serious debate. Ed Koch, also Jewish, was mayor of New York City from 1978 through 1989 and was mayor when Lennon was killed. The Manhattan District Attorney, Robert M. Morgenthau, is Jewish and has been the DA since 1975. Does anyone honestly think Morgenthau or Koch would bend over backwards trying to solve the murder of John Lennon, a man who publicly expressed contempt for Jews? In Strawberry Fields, in Central Park West, whose names do you think are at the bottom of the Strawberry Fields memorial plaque to Lennon? I'll tell you who: TWO BLOODY JEWS !! Right at the bottom of the plaque, it says: "Dedicated by Mayor Edward L. Kock and Parks Commissioner Henry J. Stern. October 9, 1985"

Take a look:

http://www.jfkmontreal.com/john_lennon/dakota/strawberry.htm

Jewish conspiracy is not exactly a correct description of John Lennon's murder. It was an overt Jewish attack and a Jewish-led cover-up after the fact. And we also know that the oldest Jewish army in the United States was founded in 1908, an organization called the FBI. Last February I wrote the following article about the FBI's Jewish origins.

"The FBI, America’s Napoleonic Sanhedrin"

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

In Israel, right wing Jews often urge the mass expulsion of Palestinians from Israel's occupied territories. Yet Gentiles saying the same thing about Jews is forbidden. It's time to look at the face of evil and think the unthinkable. The following is a well researched article on that topic, by Carol Valentine:

"Let's Discuss Mass Expulsion of Jews From The US"

http://www.public-action.com/911/expulsion.html

[Teddy:]

> It speaks volumes about the need for serious gun

> control in the US when a guy as disturbed as Chapman

> has no problem getting himself a handgun.

You are basing your opinion solely on the fact that Chapman confessed. People confess all the time to crimes they did not commit. When the police and DA do their jobs properly, they check the confession against the crime scene and the autopsy report. If the crime scene evidence and autopsy report match the confession, then they keep the suspect in custody and prosecute. If not, the suspect is released regardless of how strongly the individual continues to plead guilty to a crime he/she obviously did not commit. It is obvious why the authorities refuse to release crime scene evidence and the autopsy report on John Lennon's murder: If they do, they will be forced to release Mark David Chapman. They don't have a case against him and never did.

Salvador Astucia […]

======= Message # 81 ======

From: Danny Caccavo (dcaccavo@comcast.net)

Subject: Re: NYC Medical Examiner refuses to release autopsy report

Newsgroups: rec.music.beatles

Date: 2003-08-05 20:24:45 PST

In article <20030805230305.23687.00001577@mb-m27.news.cs.com>,

salvadorwriter@cs.com (Salvadorwriter) wrote:

> If Chapman was standing behind Lennon, to his right,

> when he allegedly fired the fatal shots, then the

> wounds should have been on the RIGHT side of

> Lennon's body.

I hate to break it to you. If Chapman was standing behind Lennon, to his right, when he fired the fatal shots, the wounds would have been on THE LEFT SIDE of Lennon's body. It's "audience left", not "stage left" when you describe what side of a body wounds are. […]

======= Message # 82 ======

From: Steven Wandy (Swandy@si.rr.com)

Subject: Re: NYC Medical Examiner refuses to release autopsy report

Newsgroups: rec.music.beatles

Date: 2003-08-05 20:12:02 PST

I happen to be a licensed Funeral Director in NYC and autopsy reports are NOT PUBLIC KNOWLEDGE. They are only released to the police (in the case of a homicide), the members of the deceased family or his/her estate. THAT IS ALL THAT GET TO SEE THEM.

======= Message # 83 ======

From: Mister Charlie (smokerdude66@myway.com)

Subject: Re: NYC Medical Examiner refuses to release autopsy report

Newsgroups: rec.music.beatles

Date: 2003-08-05 20:15:40 PST

news:2h_Xa.66229$On.9253515@twister.nyc.rr.com...

[Steven Wandy:]

> I happen to be a licensed Funeral Director in NYC and

> autopsy reports are NOT PUBLIC KNOWLEDGE. They

> are only released to the police (in the case of a homicide),

> the members of the deceased family or his/her

> estate. THAT IS ALL THAT GET TO SEE THEM.

Thank you, Steven.

======= Message # 84 ======

From: Salvadorwriter (salvadorwriter@cs.com)

Subject: Re: NYC Medical Examiner refuses to release autopsy report

Newsgroups: rec.music.beatles

Date: 2003-08-05 21:25:24 PST

[Steven Wandy:]

> I happen to be a licensed Funeral Director in NYC and

> autopsy reports are NOT PUBLIC KNOWLEDGE. They

> are only released to the police (in the case of a homicide),

> the members of the deceased family or his/her estate.

> THAT IS ALL THAT GET TO SEE THEM.

What is the name of the Funeral Home where you work? I'm only asking because there are a lot of dishonest people on this newsgroup who will concoct any story to win an argument or discredit someone. If you don't want to reveal anything about yourself, that's understandable. But can you cite a state code that supports your point. Perhaps it could provide more insight. Also, I already stated in my original posting that I believe suppressing autopsy reports is standard operating procedure, but I also think it is improper, particularly since Chapman never got a trial. Although your point is interesting, it is also somewhat redundant and it doesn't resolve much, other than restate what we already know. This is what I wrote in the original article:

----excerpt on---

Why is John Lennon's autopsy report being suppressed? Since when did autopsy reports become closed for public inspection? I do not doubt the truthfulness of Ms. Borakove's statement, but when did this sort of information become off limits to the public? It seems odd that the autopsy report of a celebrity living in America--or anyone living in America, for that matter--would be denied to any American citizen who requests it. Who is being protected? Certainly not the deceased.

---excerpt off---

Since you're in the funeral business maybe you can answer the following questions:

(1) When did the practice of autopsy suppression start?

(2) Is autopsy suppression common practice in most states, or just New York?

(3) What was the reason for creating such a law/practice in the first place?

(4) Who is being protected? What harm would be caused by making autopsy reports public?

For example, wills eventually become public in most states. Why are autopsy reports protected in New York?

As a final comment, you mentioned the autopsy report is normally released to the police. For the record, the NYPD did a lousy job in the Lennon case; they completely dropped the ball. Their police report was useless.

Salvador […]

======= Message # 85 ======

From: Teddy (hennessyandco@yahoo.com)

Subject: Re: NYC Medical Examiner refuses to release autopsy report

Newsgroups: rec.music.beatles

Date: 2003-08-06 04:58:17 PST

Oh, c'mon, Sally, don't be shy. Just come on out and say it. You're a bigot and you hate Jews.

======= Message # 86 ======

From: brilton (brilton@tnucehtlastagnihgual.hahaha)

Subject: Re: NYC Medical Examiner refuses to release autopsy report

Newsgroups: rec.music.beatles

Date: 2003-08-06 05:21:37 PST

[Steven Wandy:]

>> I happen to be a licensed Funeral Director in NYC

>> and autopsy reports are NOT PUBLIC KNOWLEDGE.

>> They are only released to the police (in the case of

>> a homicide), the members of the deceased family or

>> his/her estate. THAT IS ALL THAT GET TO SEE THEM.

> What is the name of the Funeral Home where you work?

> I'm only asking because there are a lot of dishonest

> people on this newsgroup who will concoct any story

> to win an argument or discredit someone.

>

> Salvador

HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HAAA!!!!

HAAA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!!!!!!!!

(Gasps for air)

Ooooohhhhhh... HAAAA

hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!!!

(Tears rolling down face)

Heh heh heh heh heh he he he hehehe (glances at the stupid fuckwit's post

again) BWWAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!

OHHHHH noooo!!! Hahahahahahah aaaaahhhhhh HAHAHAHA HAHAAAA HA HA

(Crying from laughter)

Heeee hee hee heeee hee hee hee hee hee hee hee heee ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha

haaa ha ha ha ha ha !!!!!!!!

(Sides aching from laughter)

HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!!!! HA HA HA HA HA HA HHA HA

HA-HA-HA-HA-HA!!!!

HA ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha.... heh heh heh heh! Hee hee hee hee hee hee

hee!!!

Ohhh. Ohhhhhhhhhhh I needed. that. They say laughter is the best medicine, so

thankyou Oliver!

It's only a shame that the written word can't convey the full extent of my mirth.

Sorry, carry on. Here's your seig file....

> My previous posting:

> http://www.jfkpasswater.com/useless/nyuk_nyuk_nyuk

>

> ------

> Salvador Asslickia, author of the following novelty toilet paper dispensers:

>

> - "I Wrote This Book All By Myself With No Help And In Crayon Too"; and

>

> - "My Mommy Says One Day I Might Even Meet Some People Who Like Me".

>

> http://www.jerkoff.restroom

NOTE: The vulgarities shown above are Brilton’s juvenile attempt to mock Salvador Astucia’s signature line (previously omitted to conserve pages) which contains the names of Astucia’s two books plus his URL. Here is Astucia’s original signature line.

------

Salvador Astucia, author of the following books:

- "Rethinking John Lennon's Assassination: The FBI's War on Rock Stars"; and

- "Opium Lords: Israel, the Golden Triangle, and the Kennedy Assassination".

http://www.jfkmontreal.com

======= Message # 87 ======

From: Teddy (hennessyandco@yahoo.com)

Subject: Re: NYC Medical Examiner refuses to release autopsy report

Newsgroups: rec.music.beatles

Date: 2003-08-06 14:34:54 PST

Bril,

Snipped some of your "Ha ha"s so your more truthful revision of Sally's, uhh, literary contributions wouldn't get lost to a 2^nd "page", 'cause it made me laugh out loud. Amazing how he stamps his little feet when NYC just won't go along with his conspiracy theories. Ain't it just like them damn Jews? Think they got any other of them there minorities? I hear they got them some Eye-talians, but mebbe them guys on TV just made that up. […]

======= Message # 88 ======

From: Susan (susan.hwk5@verizon.net)

Subject: Re: NYC Medical Examiner refuses to release autopsy report

Newsgroups: rec.music.beatles

Date: 2003-08-06 03:46:47 PST

in article 2h_Xa.66229$On.9253515@twister.nyc.rr.com […]

[Steven Wandy:]

> I happen to be a licensed Funeral Director in NYC

> and autopsy reports are NOT PUBLIC KNOWLEDGE.

> They are only released to the police (in the case of a

> homicide), the members of the deceased family or his/her

> estate. THAT IS ALL THAT GET TO SEE THEM.

And that's all that should be allowed to see them.

======= Message # 89 ======

From: Salvadorwriter (salvadorwriter@cs.com)

Subject: Re: NYC Medical Examiner refuses to release autopsy report

Newsgroups: rec.music.beatles

Date: 2003-08-06 07:43:25 PST

[Steven Wandy:]

> I happen to be a licensed Funeral Director in NYC and

> autopsy reports are NOT PUBLIC KNOWLEDGE. They

> are only released to the police (in the case of a homicide),

> the members of the deceased family or his/her estate.

> THAT IS ALL THAT GET TO SEE THEM.

[Susan:]

> And that's all that should be allowed to see them.

Why? What's the potential harm? Frankly, most people aren't going to look at an autopsy report if given the opportunity. So why take away that right from the very small group of people who might want to review an autopsy report from time to time? What is the benefit in concealing them and what is the potential harm in releasing them? As I stated before, wills are publicly disclosed in most states (maybe all states). And lots of people want to look at other people's wills. The potential for harm being inflicted on surviving family members is greatly increased by making wills public because wills translate into money, and money translates into jealousy, and jealousy translates into legal battles and sometimes worse. Yet wills are publicly disclosed. Why are autopsy reports--something most people have no interesting in seeing—treated differently than wills?

Salvador […]

Wandy claimed to be a "licensed Funeral Director in NYC." He proceeded to state--in a rather condescending tone--that the public does not have the right to view autopsy reports, and if we don't like it, that's just our tough luck. He did not use those exact words, but that is the message he conveyed. I responded by asking for authentication that he is what he claims to be. Furthermore, I gave him an out in case he was lying or genuinely did not wish to reveal his true identity. The out was this: In lieu of providing credentials, I asked him to cite a state code that supports his point. I also asked him four questions about the law/practice which suppresses autopsy reports from the public.

So far, Mr. Wandy has not responded. If he does not respond to my question shortly, I will have to conclude that he is a fraud.

Salvador […]

======= Message # 91 ======

From: SalvadorDolly (salvadordolly@butterfly.net)

Subject: Re: Steven Wandy, the fraud (?)

Newsgroups: rec.music.beatles

Date: 2003-08-06 09:22:32 PST

[NOTE: SalvadorDolly is NOT Salvador Astucia. Someone cloned Astucia’s name in order to confuse readers.]

Who are you to demand credentials from others when you don't even use your own real name, Jew hating astute savior? you claim to be a writer, but what idiot would post for free the very book he/she is trying to sell? Who's really the fraud here? Something tells me that you may be one of the many self-hating Jews out there, based on your innate knowledge of Jewish history. […]

======= Message # 92 ======

From: BlackMonk (BlackMonk@email.msn.com)

Subject: Re: Steven Wandy, the fraud (?)

Newsgroups: rec.music.beatles

Date: 2003-08-06 11:34:23 PST

"SalvadorDolly" <salvadordolly@butterfly.net> wrote in message news:SSedncC1IIzatqyiU-KYvw@comcast.com...

[NOTE: SalvadorDolly is NOT Salvador Astucia. Someone cloned Astucia’s name in order to confuse readers.]

> Who are you to demand credentials from others when you don't

> even use your own real name, Jew hating astute savior? you claim

> to be a writer, but what idiot would post for free the very book

> he/she is trying to  sell? Who's really the fraud here? Something

> tells me that you may be one of the many self-hating Jews

> out there, based on your innate knowledge of Jewish history. […]

There's no such thing as innate knowledge. All knowledge has to be learned from somewhere. Not that it matters. Sally doesn't have ANY kind of knowledge about Jewish history. Except maybe the incorrect kind. Maybe you meant to say "inane knowledge?"

======== message # 93 =========

From: Frank from Deeeetroit (dadurweird@voyager.net)

Subject: Re: Steven Wandy, the fraud (?)

Newsgroups: rec.music.beatles

Date: 2003-08-06 13:44:30 PST

The easiest solution would be to ask the Medical Examiner why the records are not being released. Then file a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request for the autopsy results. (check with a newspaper, or look up the FOIA law to see how to prepare the proper request). I believe the Medical Examiner who performed Lennon's autopsy was Michael Baden. The response to the FOIA request should include a reason for information being withheld. There are rules in place that can prevent a government agency, ME's office, from releasing certain in formation, but at least you will get a response. If sought after information is being withheld, and the reason is not clear enough to you, a lawsuit can be filed and the ME's office will have to explain to a Judge why the information is being withheld.

Frank from Deeeetroit

======= Message # 94 ======

From: Steven Wandy (Swandy@si.rr.com)

Subject: Re: Steven Wandy, the fraud (?)

Newsgroups: rec.music.beatles

Date: 2003-08-06 19:59:14 PST

Hi Sally or whatever your F**King name is. My real name is STEVEN WANDY. I see no reason to hide behind an anonymous name. Would you like me to post a JPEG file of a scan of my NYS FUNERAL DIRECTOR'S LICENSE??? Would that satisfy you for my credentials??? You can also write to the NYC DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH in Albany to confirm whether or not I have a valid license (not that it's any of your business). As far as "not responding", I have better things to do with my life than spending every waking hour in front of my computer and reading news group posts. I did not see THIS PARTICULAR response until this evening.

BTW - As another poster has indicated AUTOPSY reports are considered medical history and ARE NOT public information, even when they relate to a public figure. Whether or not the Freedom of Information Act would get you to see a copy I really don't know - or care for that matter.

IN CLOSING - GET A LIFE!!!!!

======= Message # 95 ======

From: Salvadorwriter (salvadorwriter@cs.com)

Subject: Re: Steven Wandy, the fraud (?)

Newsgroups: rec.music.beatles

Date: 2003-08-10 18:17:39 PST

[Steven Wandy:]

> Hi Sally or whatever your F**King name is.

You sure seem like someone who works with the public. :-)

[Wandy:]

> My real name is STEVEN WANDY. I see no reason to

> hide behind an anonymous name.

Not to admit it, anyway. :-)

[Wandy:]

> Would you like me to post a JPEG file of a scan of my

> NYS FUNERAL DIRECTOR'S LICENSE???

Yes.

[Wandy:]

> Would that satisfy you for my credentials???

I'll need to study it before responding. Remember, I've heard of the Kol Nidre too. :-)

[Wandy:]

> You can also write to the NYC DEPARTMENT OF

> HEALTH in Albany to confirm whether or not I have

> a valid license (not that it's any of your business).

Maybe I will.

[Wandy:]

> As far as "not responding", I have better things to do

> with my life than spending every waking hour in

> front of my computer and reading news group posts.

If you have better things to do, why do you keep posting?

[Wandy:]

> I did not see THIS PARTICULAR response until this

> evening. BTW - As another poster has indicated

> AUTOPSY reports are considered medical history

> and ARE NOT public information, even when they

> relate to a public figure. Whether or not the Freedom

> of Information Act would get you to see a copy

> I really don't know - or care for that matter.

>

> IN CLOSING - GET A LIFE!!!!!

Just relax Steve. People are often peevish upon returning from vacation. You'll feel better after you've embalmed a few people. :-)

Salvador […]

- Shemp richard_hell@excite.com

- (Tom) BlackMonk@email.msn.com

- steve@[127.0.0.1] (Stephen X. Carter)

- AllYourBaseAreBelongToUs_member@newsguy.com

- ".Tna Yzarc!.." hebbell@helle.co.ukkllk

- scarcely.found@Eotworld.com

- the_liquid_moamo@yahoo.com (Willie Nelson) […]

1. Teddy Hennessy

2. Mister Charlie

3. Ian (the Musicologist)

4. Susan the mouthy broad

5. Rynosseros

6. Mike Constantine

7. Richard "Shemp" Hell

8. Johnny Dupe

9. Poisoned Rose

10. Ehtue […]

1. Mister Charlie

Real name: Charlie Gauger

Domicile: [… Morgan Hill, CA …]

Age: Roughly 50-to-55