Relevance of John Lennon's assassination -and RFK/MLK -to JFKA

[K K Lane]

What relevance do other assassinations have on the JFKA?

An article from today's Daily Mail argues that John Lennon's convicted murderer, Mark Chapman, may be quasi-innocent: a patsy who was hypnotized MK-Ultra-style into some tangential role while some second shooter delivered the fatal gunshots that are more consistent with the medical record.

As a side note, no mention is made in the Lennon article of a separate apparently-true trope recently cluttering my social media feeds about how the doorman was an ex-CIA hitman.

On its face, this story seems undermined by John Lennon's waning social influence in 1980: why kill him?  But, the article prompted me to think about JFK's assassination in the context of the Lennon, RFK and MLK assassinations.

First, the JFK, MLK and RFK assassinations were all "public" yet in each case some family members of the victim doubted the "convicted" killer was the actual killer.   And now, an author is raising doubts on the heretofore open-and-shut Lennon assassination.   Is it usual for "public" assassinations to not be so open and shut?  RFK and Lennon seemed to have particularly clear perps.

Second, a key controversy in the JFK assassination was the medical evidence and autopsy.   Here, with Lennon the same situation applies.   The anecdotal medical evidence contradicts the official account.   I'm not up to speed on RFK's autopsy but I recall Cyril Wecht asserting key inconsistencies between the medical evidence and the official narrative.   FWIW, the Lennon coroner was corrupt and his report and other evidence has still not been released.

Finally, I note that the kennedysandking.com website by its very name suggests a connection between the three major 1960's assassinations.   Ample research documents the security state antagonism towards JFK, RFK and MLK.  Does the absence of successful assassinations in the last 50 years imply Ron Paul's CIA-coup theory applies to all three killings?   Or maybe the failed Ford/Reagan assassinations and the facially non-political Lennon killing undermines that thesis.   JFK and RFK were ongoing threats to the security state at the time of their murders.   MLK was perhaps slightly past his peak influence but still in his prime but no apparent threat to the security state.

[Anthony Thorne]

As a couple of articles have noted, who could have got hundreds of thousands of people into the street singing anti-war anthems, if not Lennon? This would have been inconvenient for the incoming administration that planned, and got, a lot of new military interventions. 

Yet I've read two conspiracy-related books on Lennon's murder, each of which generally touched on the points above. Fenton Bresler's 'Who Killed John Lennon?', and another by UNCUT journalist Phil Strongman 'John Lennon: Life, Times, Assassination', that read as if Strongman was familiar with this very website, as it heavily referenced past political assassinations, Northwoods, MK Ultra, the CIA and so on. Neither book was completely satisfying as there wasn't a lot of additional evidence that could be brought into the discussion - Strongman's book did have a careful run down of Chapman's travels, and made a decent stab at suggesting some of them were likely so he could be briefed / programmed / trained in an MK Ultra fashion. But you were left with the sense that both authors wish they had more to go on.

Bresler was a reasonably high profile barrister in the UK, and when he passed away, establishment obituaries went and changed the name of his book from 'Who Killed John Lennon?' to "The Murder of John Lennon", so every reader browsing the obit would read the second non-existent title, and not the first, which is the name of the book Bresler actually wrote.

[Jeff Carter]

There has been speculation the Lennon shooting was a dress rehearsal for the planned and potentially far more consequential attempt on Reagan several months later.

[Guest]

Thanks for sharing. Its another crime that stinks. 

[Pete Mellor]

13 hours ago, Anthony Thorne said:

Bresler was a reasonably high profile barrister in the UK, and when he passed away, establishment obituaries went and changed the name of his book from 'Who Killed John Lennon?' to "The Murder of John Lennon", so every reader browsing the obit would read the second non-existent title, and not the first, which is the name of the book Bresler actually wrote.

Anthony, I seem to recall that Bresler's book was originally published as 'Who Killed John Lennon' & soon after re-titled 'The Murder of John Lennon'.  Both titles are still available on Amazon U.K.

[Michael Griffith]

So now the Secret Team killed John Lennon too? In 1980? Really?

Are we just trying every which way to discredit this forum as a place for serious, educated discussion on the JFK case? Are we just trying our hardest to give people the impression that this forum is a haven for discussing every nutty, crackpot, bizarre conspiracy theory ever conceived?

[Pete Mellor]

13 hours ago, K K Lane said:

First, the JFK, MLK and RFK assassinations were all "public" yet in each case some family members of the victim doubted the "convicted" killer was the actual killer.

I think we can include Mr Little (Malcolm X) in the above list.

13 hours ago, K K Lane said:

As a side note, no mention is made in the Lennon article of a separate apparently-true trope recently cluttering my social media feeds about how the doorman was an ex-CIA hitman.

Compelling evidence points to Dakota doorman, Jose Joaquin Sanjenis Perdomo, as Lennon’s killer. Records reveal a “Jose Joaquin Sanjenis Perdomo” (aliases: “Joaquin Sanjenis” and “Sam Jenis”) was an anti-Castro Cuban exile and member of Brigade 2506 during the Bay of Pigs Invasion in 1961, a failed CIA operation to overthrow Fidel Castro. Perdomo was a professional hit man who worked closely with convicted Watergate burglar Frank Sturgis (deceased) for about ten years on the CIA’s payroll.

• Jose Perdomo was the doorman at the Dakota on Dec. 8, 1980, the night Lennon was killed.

• Jose Perdomo was at the crime scene when the murder occurred.

14 hours ago, K K Lane said:

I'm not up to speed on RFK's autopsy but I recall Cyril Wecht asserting key inconsistencies between the medical evidence and the official narrative.

'Buried in Plain Sight' by John Hunt really goes to town in attacking Thomas Noguchi's autopsy.

 

14 hours ago, K K Lane said:

FWIW, the Lennon coroner was corrupt and his report and other evidence has still not been released.

First I've heard this.  I was under the impression there was no autopsy and the body was quickly cremated.  Are autopsies required by law in NY murder cases?

[Denny Zartman]

It's difficult for me to believe this.

I've not studied Lennon's death at length, but I have vivid memories of a kid seriously telling me all the facts about Paul McCartney's death back in the day, so please forgive me if I am forever reluctant to take anyone's Beatle-related purported facts as being truth.

What seems to me to be unquestionable is that in 1980 Lennon was a househusband with a flagging career, struggling with drugs and alcohol and who was making intentionally avant garde albums with his wife, a woman with little discernable musical talent that was also held responsible for breaking up one of the most influential and popular bands of the 20th century.

At the absolute height of his popularity and political influence, the most John Lennon did was sit in bed in a bag in front of reporters. If he were a true influential political leader interested in spearheading a political movement, he would have been out there leading marches or organizing rallies. But the most extreme thing he did in his political activism was sit in bed in a bag in front of a room full of bored reporters.

When Lennon had his most potent opportunity to call for action on the Beatles' most nakedly political song "Revolution", Lennon equivocated.

In his last concert, he's chewing gum throughout because, reportedly, he was so nervous he had cottonmouth. And we're supposed to believe he would have been a political leader when he was terrified to even perform music on stage in front of adoring crowds - something that was literally his life's work?

We might as well seriously consider if the CIA set Lennon up with Yoko in the first place if we're going to get "real."

Edited April 23, 2023 by Denny Zartman

[Denny Zartman]

15 hours ago, Jeff Carter said:

There has been speculation the Lennon shooting was a dress rehearsal for the planned and potentially far more consequential attempt on Reagan several months later.

So, the Deep State is accused of:

- Killing Democrats JFK & RFK.

- Engineering ruin of Republican Richard Nixon.

- Sabotaging Democrat Jimmy Carter's reelection, only to...

- Immediately plan the assassination of Carter's rival, Republican President-Elect Ronald Reagan.

Gotta give the Deep State credit for being so bipartisan.

 

 

[Jeff Carter]

2 hours ago, Denny Zartman said:

So, the Deep State is accused of:

- Killing Democrats JFK & RFK.

- Engineering ruin of Republican Richard Nixon.

- Sabotaging Democrat Jimmy Carter's reelection, only to...

- Immediately plan the assassination of Carter's rival, Republican President-Elect Ronald Reagan.

Gotta give the Deep State credit for being so bipartisan.

 

 

It’s a speculation - a trial balloon, a thought experiment. 

Reagan’s quick demise elevates George HW Bush to the presidency. In Russ Baker’s book, he notes there was a very concerted effort to install Bush as VP in the wake of Agnew’s flame-out, which would have brought him to the presidency in 1975. Bush runs in 1980, but is overwhelmed by Reagan’s populist campaign. However , he gets the VP slot and Bush people run the campaign and October Surprise. If Reagan does not survive the assassination attempt, Bush is President in the Spring of 1981.

Why was it so important for Bush to be President circa 1974-81? Again, a speculative thought experiment would include the investigations directed at CIA in mid-70s, and the concurrent steady rise of a “deep state / secret team”  apparatus. The ultimate goal is realized in 1991, as the US becomes the sole global hegemonic power, a position given crucial assist by continuous covert activities which veer into vast criminal conspiracies (I.e. Iran-Contra). An oligarchical Wall Street faction realize vast fortunes.

John Lennon, as a target for sinister forces, was a Beatle, the beloved entity which suggested to the world  humanity was a hopeful experiment, a glass half full. His senseless killing revealed otherwise - humanity was compromised and hopeless, the glass was half empty. This cynicism became, alchemically, a prevailing mood through the decades ahead.

This is an entirely speculative thought experiment although based on available information, and I would prefer not to be labelled a “crackpot, “kook” or other perforative term currently popular with the self-appointed speculation-police on this forum.

[Guest]

3 hours ago, Denny Zartman said:

So, the Deep State is accused of:

- Killing Democrats JFK & RFK.

- Engineering ruin of Republican Richard Nixon.

- Sabotaging Democrat Jimmy Carter's reelection, only to...

- Immediately plan the assassination of Carter's rival, Republican President-Elect Ronald Reagan.

Gotta give the Deep State credit for being so bipartisan.

 

 

They don’t care about red or blue. They only care that the majority buy into the bipartisan circus. 

[Matthew Koch]

Just now, Chris Barnard said:

They don’t care about red or blue. They only care that the majority buy into the bipartisan circus. 

The Mafia acts the same way they are sociopathic and only do what benefits themselves 

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, Matthew Koch said:

The Mafia acts the same way they are sociopathic and only do what benefits themselves 

There are some clear parallels between the Cosa Nostra and the CIA. 

[Denny Zartman]

1 hour ago, Jeff Carter said:

It’s a speculation - a trial balloon, a thought experiment. 

Reagan’s quick demise elevates George HW Bush to the presidency. In Russ Baker’s book, he notes there was a very concerted effort to install Bush as VP in the wake of Agnew’s flame-out, which would have brought him to the presidency in 1975. Bush runs in 1980, but is overwhelmed by Reagan’s populist campaign. However , he gets the VP slot and Bush people run the campaign and October Surprise. If Reagan does not survive the assassination attempt, Bush is President in the Spring of 1981.

Why was it so important for Bush to be President circa 1974-81? Again, a speculative thought experiment would include the investigations directed at CIA in mid-70s, and the concurrent steady rise of a “deep state / secret team”  apparatus. The ultimate goal is realized in 1991, as the US becomes the sole global hegemonic power, a position given crucial assist by continuous covert activities which veer into vast criminal conspiracies (I.e. Iran-Contra). An oligarchical Wall Street faction realize vast fortunes.

John Lennon, as a target for sinister forces, was a Beatle, the beloved entity which suggested to the world  humanity was a hopeful experiment, a glass half full. His senseless killing revealed otherwise - humanity was compromised and hopeless, the glass was half empty. This cynicism became, alchemically, a prevailing mood through the decades ahead.

This is an entirely speculative thought experiment although based on available information, and I would prefer not to be labelled a “crackpot, “kook” or other perforative term currently popular with the self-appointed speculation-police on this forum.

The two most "Deep State" Presidents we've had, Ford & H.W. Bush, couldn't get more than one term. Ford could have potentially had 9 years with any VP of their choice. By your estimation, the Deep State under the leadership of George H.W. Bush achieved its goal on the eve of what would have been Bush's second term. Yet, at the peak of their power, they couldn't keep it and one year later turned it all over to a couple of southern Democrats. Is it not logical to ask why? It appears to me that, from the record of history, either the Deep State is not all-powerful or it is moving without any true purpose or regard for politics. If we disagree on that, at the very least I hope we can agree the Deep State was bipartisan, knocking off Democrats and Republicans left and right.

We're discussing an elaborate plan to assassinate someone who regularly took walks in Central Park. I'm dubious. There was no danger of Lennon transforming into an effective political leader. They'll knock off a semi-retired musician just to dispirit us, but they wouldn't attempt to kill Reagan during the primaries? Or actually kill Reagan or Nixon when they were laid up in the hospital? It doesn't make sense and I find it hard to believe. Maybe I'm wrong.

I agree with the others here that trading in Lennon conspiracy theories somewhat makes the forum look like a clearance house for every conspiracy theory out there. Admittedly, there may be something to those theories and they may be worthy of serious discussion on dedicated forums. I'm not debating that at all. I'm just trying to describe how I believe this forum might appear when those topics are given equal weight and attention.

Just my two cents.

[Pamela Brown]

We need to understand what happened to John Lennon and why...

https://inbroaddaylight.wordpress.com/2022/01/01/was-the-untimely-death-of-john-lennon-another-murder-most-foul/