← Something About the Beatles
Something About the Beatles
297: All I Want Is The Truth with David Whelan and Robert Rosen
02:27:35
with David Whelan and Robert Rosen
Loading summary
Transcript327 lines
- [00:03]
Robert Rodriguez
When you think about businesses that are selling through the roof, like Skims or Allbirds, sure you think about a great product, a cool brand and great marketing. But an often overlooked secret is actually the businesses behind the business making, selling and for shoppers buying. Simple for millions of businesses. That business is Shopify, it's home of shop Pay, the number one checkout in the world. You can use it to boost conversions up to 50%, meaning way less carts going abandoned and way more sales going through. To checkout, upgrade your business and get the same checkout Allbirds uses. Sign up for your $1 per month trial period at shopify.com income all lowercase go to shopify.com income to upgrade your selling today. Shopify.com income.
- [01:01]
David Whelan
Race the rudders.
- [01:02]
Robert Rosen
Raise the sails. Race the sails.
- [01:05]
Robert Rodriguez
Captain, an unidentified ship is approaching.
- [01:07]
David Whelan
Over.
- [01:08]
Robert Rosen
Roger, wait. Is that an enterprise sales solution?
- [01:13]
Robert Rodriguez
Reach sales professionals, not professional sailors. With LinkedIn ads, you can target the right people by industry, job title and more. We'll even give you a $100 credit on your next campaign. Get started today at LinkedIn.com results. Terms and conditions apply.
- [01:30]
Robert Rosen
Who was this strange assassin? Witnesses say he had been hanging around outside the Dakota for days, waiting for Lennon.
- [01:37]
David Whelan
So nice and really cut and clean cut he was. You know, from the little bit he.
- [01:42]
Carol Cron
Spoke to us, he just seemed like.
- [01:44]
David Whelan
A really nice, genuine, honest person.
- [01:48]
Robert Rosen
Six hours before he fired four shots into Lennon, Mark David Chapman asked Lennon for his autograph. He was a fan, like thousands of others, but he let fantasy go out of control. He bought a gun, flew from Hawaii to New York with $2,000. The state prosecutor charges premeditated execution. Whatever. Chapman is taken to Bellevue Hospital for 30 days of psychiatric observation. His attorney tells John Slattery, Chapman seemed irrational.
- [02:16]
David Whelan
Does he tell you why he shot the man? He gave me a reason. He gave me several reasons. Did they seem to you to be.
- [02:24]
Robert Rosen
Sane reasons for killing John?
- [02:26]
David Whelan
Well, the result was I went out at the court and I made an application to have them examined by a couple of psychiatrists. Obviously, I didn't consider them to be the same reasons.
- [02:45]
Robert Rodriguez
Welcome all to episode 297 of Something about the Beatles podcast. As discussed previously here and there, through the socials and wherever else, this is a return to the show with author David Whelan of Mind Games, as well as author Robert Rosen of Nowhere Man. And the two of them have been on the show several times. And in this year, since Mr. Whalen's first appearance back in March, I believe there's been referencing to the other in the subsequent shows. Well, here they are together for a live Face to Face through Zoom conversation. David over in England and Robert over in New York City. Joining the conversation is a longtime listener in the show and an attorney, Carol Cron, who had expressed an interest in the subject, given her own work that has involved MKUltra, the CIA mind control program that certainly was brought to light in the 1970s, was believed to have wound down or ended. And in fact, that is not the case. As Carol has told me, they just call it something else now, but it's certainly something that is still a tool in the toolbox for our intelligence agencies in terms of hypnosis and drugs to enact mind control on subjects that are being employed by the agency. In any event, this is a conversation that I thought was useful to have, where you've got basically a critique in real time, face to face of David's work and research, and likewise David of Roberts work to a degree. And that was a conversation worth having. I know it's not everyone's cup of tea, but you've got an alternative listening experience for Satby, which is episode 298, a conversation with May Pang, much more joyous and fun. So there is that, but otherwise I just want to get out of the way and get the conversation going. It is somewhat lengthy and just little programming note. I've been doing this show a long time, and during this conversation, which I tried to facilitate with input from Carol and let David and Robert have a discussion, at a certain point, I could not hear them. The sound just went away. It just ended through Zoom Call. And I'm watching the screen thinking, well, they must not be experiencing this because normally I could tell if there's a technical problem with people's faces and hand gestures and all that stuff. This did not happen. So it was clear that the conversation was still going on. I just couldn't hear it. It was absolutely dead to me. That has never happened before. I've recorded hundreds of shows, hundreds of shows through Zoom. It's never happened simultaneously. I always record myself separately and use my Zoom audio track as a backup. And I noticed at some point, I don't know if it's about halfway or 2/3 of the way through the show. It was flatlining. And I've had numerous glitches from time to time where I see that I just need to jiggle a wire or something and it resumes. Nothing was working. And I'm thinking to myself, oh, my God, I am losing this show completely. I've never had that happen. Before and it has not happened since. Nonetheless, that is why the audio is of the quality that it is. Normally it's better than what you've got here, but I was happy to salvage anything at all. It just went away. It's never happened before. Make of that what you will. Anyway, I am grateful for my guests. I'm grateful for the conversation that exists. And here we go with 297. All I want is the truth. Robert, I recognize that you, for the purposes of this discussion, probably represent a lot of people that when I first had David on the show back in March, were ready to dismiss everything he had to say out of hand. And I'm not judging you or characterizing you this way. You said what you had to say in the last show. And I think that that represents a particular perspective of a lot of listeners, a lot of people that it's too incredible to wrap your head around. Why would the government want to take out John Lennon? It would have had to have been too complicated. A lot of things that are said about a lot of other high profile historic events. We can go down the list of assassinations or just other sort of chicanery enacted by government agencies through the years. I think that it is an awfully complex, complicated think for most people to wrap their heads around. Therefore the simplest explanations will do them just fine. So I think that you're a guy with a background that you've obviously been in the Lenin beetle world for a long time. You worked at the Pentagon. You know what you know from being this streetwise New Yorker guy. David has his background in producing documentaries and being a writer, and particularly in this case doing this deep dive research into the assassination of John Lennon. So you've got these two sort of spectrums meeting hopefully in the middle here. I'm looking to generate more light than heat. And really what this is is it's an exploration, it's an inquiry that we bring whatever backgrounds and disciplines we have to the table and we like. If we can keep the conversation to things we know to be true, that would be great. It's easy to speculate and go off on tangents of things that could be true or might be extrapolated from pieces of data. But if we start off on a solid ground of taking off from a point of things we know to be true, we should maintain this solid ground conversation with that. There was issues in our last conversation, Robert, you had when you talked about MK Ultra and the guy named Gottlieb who you had quoted as saying that it was an unsuccessful program. And I remember thinking to myself when you said that to me, that, well, what else would he say? He's not gonna say, oh, yes, we did it.
- [09:03]
Robert Rosen
It was great.
- [09:03]
Robert Rodriguez
We pulled it off.
- [09:05]
Robert Rosen
So maybe say a little bit more.
- [09:06]
Robert Rodriguez
About that and then we could take it from there from that perspective. For people who might not have caught the earlier shows. MK ULTRA was a government program sponsored by the CIA. If I'm being correct in saying this, that try to use hypnosis and drugs to influence people to do things that might have been contrary to their nature, illegal things. Is that an accurate assessment?
- [09:32]
Robert Rosen
MK ULTRA was a CIA mind control experiment where they took prisoners CIA agents and they fed them lsd, shot them full of heroin and attempted to program them to be killers. Sidney Gottlieb, who was in charge of the program at the end of his career, he died some time ago. He said that it is impossible to use mind control to program assassins or people who are patsies and they act like assassins. You had played a clip in the last show that I was on. You said something to the effect that it's possible to control people to commit mayhem. You didn't play the clip while I was speaking, but when I listened to the show you played it. I would have said that I have no doubt that it's true to program people to commit mayhem. What I doubt is possible is that you can't feed people lsd, shoot them full of heroin, and then program them to do certain things in a specific way at a specific time, in a specific place over weeks and months. So I would have refuted that. But that's what I know about MKUltra. It was a failed CIA experiment to create programmed assassins.
- [11:26]
Robert Rodriguez
Do we know from some data specifically that LSD and heroin were the drugs being used for this?
- [11:33]
Robert Rosen
I've done a lot of reading on it and those apparently were the two main drugs.
- [11:38]
David Whelan
No, that's not true. I have to come in here. Heroin was used very early on, as lots of different drugs were used early on, but as a sort of mind control drug that had legs and was often cited in documentation. Something like Thorazine would have been far more popular going by the documentation than we have, because of course, Richard Helms at the CIA shredded a lot of documentation and we only know about the program through some accounting documents that thankfully managed to escape the cull. But to say heroin was part of the program is incorrect. Obviously anyone on heroin is not going to do much apart from going to a deep heroin sleep. So I think that's just Misinformation. But, you know, the problem with MK Ultra, and it's very. It's very frustrating because you can see the scale of it from just the amount of universities and hospitals that were cited and were, you know, doing experimentations over many years. And so much documentation, as we know, has been lost. So we have to sort of piece together through various people that have sort of looked into this and gone deep. People like Tom O'Neill and, you know, looked into the career, people like Jolene West. And I believe the clip that Robert is talking about, that you played Robert on the show was Milton Klein. I don't think it was Sidney Gottlieb.
- [12:57]
Robert Rosen
It wasn't Sidney Gottlieb.
- [12:59]
David Whelan
No, Milton Klein. And Milton Klein actually was on a documentary in 1979, Mind Control, which has lots of different MKUltra doctors and psychiatrists and hypnotists who are on the show. It's a great documentary. It's worth watching. And Milton Klein says he's billed as a CIA consultant on the Manchurian Candidate aspect of MK Ultra. And he boasts quite clearly that they were successful and that he could program someone to be a Manchurian Candidate killer in three months. So he might have been lying. Possibly, we don't know. But we've also got someone in Navy Intelligence. You know, let's just get away from CIA for a moment. A guy called Commander Neurat who was speaking at a NATO conference in 1975. So this is after the CIA stuff got exposed. And he spoke off the record to a Sunday Times journalist and said that, yeah, we have sleeper agent Manchurian candidates in Navy Intelligence all over the world. And he talked about various embassies across Europe and he said, they're good to go. A few days later, obviously Navy Intelligence was horrified. And they said he spoke hypothetically and he's taken an absence of leave for his mental health. But that's a pretty standard reply for intelligence agencies when someone goes off book. So I think the heroin thing is incorrect. I think LSD Shaw was used quite a lot. If you have any doubts about how this is possible, there's a really, well, easily accessed clip as a UK hypnotist, very famous hypnotist guy called Darren Brown who did a show about Stephen Fry and how he could hypnotize an audience member to use a pistol to shoot Stephen Fry, obviously using blanks. And the guy was given suggestions. He was hypnotized over a period of weeks. And on the night of the show, Stephen Fry came on the stage and someone gave the Candidate, a few suggestions in his ear and he walks down to the stage with. Just walks up to Stephen Fry and fires a couple of blanks straight into Stephen Fry. And he had no idea what he was doing after the fact. Now, I know TV show, I worked in tv. I know some TV shows, stage things. But that to me seemed very authentic. And it wasn't sort of David Copperfield stuff going on here. This is a hypnotist, highly skilled one, I. E. Darren Brown, who uses it to heal people for smoking and all sorts of addictions. So I think Darren did that to prove that someone like Siran Siran, and he didn't mention Mark Shant at the time because everyone at that time thought the March Happens story was a slam dunk. But Darren, Darren wanted to show people that the Siren Sirin theory, that he may have been a Manchurian Candidate who was hypnotized is possible through hypnosis. And I believe Darren Brown proved it.
- [15:37]
Robert Rosen
Okay, well, again, I'm not doubting that it's possible to use drugs and hypnosis, whatever drugs you're going to use to get somebody to do something like this, possibly right in that moment. But we're here talking about Mark David Chapman and Chapman, whatever he was doing, this occurred over a period, several months. I forget the exact time frame now, but he was going back and forth between Hawaii and New York. And I'm saying that it just seems so unlikely that they would be able to use these MK Ultra techniques to control somebody over that period of time and just get them to do something so specifically at a specific time, in a specific place, at a specific way. But again, no doubt that it's possible to use this, to get somebody to do it on the spot.
- [16:45]
David Whelan
I understand you thinking that, Robert. It's perfectly logical what you're saying, if somebody was under hypnosis and under some kind of Manchurian Candidate orders for that period of time. But I don't think that's how it works. I think Chapman was a very suggestible, easily manipulated person who was desperate to please, according to everybody who knew him. He's the kind of guy who was. I don't think there was a very high intelligence there either, to be honest with Chapman. He's a guy who's very easily led. I think if you were going to have someone that was to be ready to use some kind of suggestible hypnosis to get them into a certain state where they think they're doing something that they're not actually doing, I don't think that needs to happen over a long period of time, I think it needs to happen at the critical point where they need him to actually think that an event is occurring that's not actually occurring. So with regards to Chapman, that would have just needed to happen a few seconds before John Lennon walked past him and was heading towards the vestibule. It doesn't need to happen when he's on his way from Hawaii or he's in his hotel room. What we do know, what I now know from his hotel room inventory, was there was a lot of unidentified pills, over 120 unidentified pills of different colors in his hotel room, which the DA's office and the NYPD covered up. So if you're looking for the drug component to be near Chapman, literally on the morning of the murder or the day of the murder, that was there, and that was definitely covered up, because that was not something that the NYPD or the media or the DA's office, salaciously, they talked about his display. They were desperate to talk about how weird the display was and how that display allegedly wanted. You know, Chapman used to become famous, but they just forgot to mention the drugs. So I agree with you, Robert. I still struggle with hypnosis even now, even though I've sort of seen the amount of hypnotists that were around March happening throughout his whole life, before the murder and after the murder. I still struggle with it because it's just such a weird concept. But I think when you start to analyze the forensics of the actual shooting and you start to analyze what really happened in that driveway and what the medical people saw and what was feasible for Chapman to achieve, and then you actually started to think, well, actually, what Chapman thought, he did, and he's been very consistent about this 44 years. There's a lot of things Mike Chapman's not being consistent about. That is his motive. But one thing he has been very consistent about is always saying that I shot John with five bullets, and four hit him in his back. He didn't see it coming. Definitely hit him in the back, but he can't tell you, and he can never say on camera or in any interview what happened after he shot John in the back. He was asked this question once by a rather shady Southern Baptist minister in a prison video, and he just looked away. He was confused. He was kind of like, not sure. I think I turned away. I was told that he went into the lobby and walked up some steps. You would think if you're shooting somebody with four bullets in the back in a driveway, 1520ft away. Take your pick. You would know what that guy was doing while you were shooting him, and you would know what the guy did after you shot him. But Chandler has no idea about this.
- [19:53]
Carol Cron
Let me ask a question to both of you from the standpoint of someone who has been a licensed attorney for over 30 years. Let me talk from a criminal defense attorney standpoint. If I have a client, if I'm representing a client, and I'm the criminal defense attorney and my client doesn't remember what happened, I find it really hard to conceive of any circumstances under which I would hire an expert witness, hire a forensic psychologist or a neuroscientist or anyone to hypnotize my client to come up with a story. I mean, we will refresh someone's memory when we are examining them as a witness, but I can't think of any legitimate defense attorney who wants to use any kind of a trick to get their client to tell them more than the client knows. We don't want people to come in and say, I did it. They want defense. We want to make sure that the search warrants, that the search, you know, the tableau he left. Was there a warrant for that? Yes. Was due process followed? That's what my question comes into is why did the defense attorneys use hypnosis on Mark David Chapman to help him remember what happened before, during and after John Lennon was shot?
- [21:27]
David Whelan
What happened was day one, he was given a public lawyer, Herbert Adlerberg, and Herbert bailed. After day two, or almost day three, there was a lot of pressure, death threats. He kind of at the time said he didn't get death threats. But later on in the 90s, he admitted that he did get death threats. So he left. Jonathan Marks comes in. He's a public lawyer. And at this point, Jonathan Marks is trying to get together different psychiatrists to go in and assess Mark Chapman. And what happened was. You can see this. Sorry, Carrie. You can see this footage on the Apple TV series that came out recently where a journalist is doing his job properly and says to Jonathan Marx, pretty much on day one when Marx got the job and said, Marx is talking about Milton Klein going in to see their psychiatrist, Milton Klein getting too much happening. And the journalist goes, isn't Milton Klein a hypnotist? And Jonathan Marks looks quite embarrassed on this clip and says, yeah, that's part of his skill set. The very next morning, the New York Post then did a great big headline saying, killer to be hypnotized. Because I think the cat was out of the Bag. I don't think Jonathan Marks wanted people to know that Milton Klein was a hypnotist. But unfortunately that journalist did his job properly and drew it out of him. And then suddenly people got to know and they thought we'll get ahead of this and actually be bold about it and tell people what we're doing. But it is incredible. I agree with you Carol, that Milton Klein was allowed to go into March Happening so at will he could just walk in whenever he liked, shut the door and do whatever he want with him. And you can actually hear some of this hypnosis going on in the Apple TV series. Some tapes got leaked and it's incredible.
- [22:59]
Carol Cron
To hear why that lawyer, why Robert Marks.
- [23:03]
David Whelan
Jonathan Marks.
- [23:04]
Carol Cron
Jonathan Marks, did he have a vast body of experience handling high profile jury trials?
- [23:11]
David Whelan
No.
- [23:12]
Carol Cron
Had he ever first shared a jury trial in his career?
- [23:15]
David Whelan
Yeah, he had. He got a kenner off the year before. I think it was a subway murder where someone was pushed under a train. And I think he got that person off and I think he got him off using Milton Klein.
- [23:28]
Carol Cron
Who hired this lawyer?
- [23:29]
David Whelan
That is a very good question. I've heard that the judge hired him. I've heard that he was next in the queue. But Jonathan Marks was very under qualified to get this gig. So it's very strange how he got the gig because when he got the gig he was not someone who you'd sort of think would have a sort of track record that you got to choose that guy because he's the best guy that's going to take this. He was just a guy that randomly came out of left field. But what's interesting about Jonathan Marx is what he did next. Because the next day after he got the job, he went into his building, he was working out at 30 Rockefeller Plaza. He went down the hallway to another law firm that was working in 30 Rockefeller Plaza and he hired a man called David Suggs to help him out on this case. And David Suggs worked for a north firm called Donovan Newton Irving and Leisure. And Donovan Newton Irving and Leisure was set up by Wallman, who's the founder of the CIA. And that company was awash. And David Suggs will admit this was awash with CIA spooks. And even William Colby, an ex director of the CIA used to work there. And I think that is where people like Milton Klein and Bernard diamond and other slightly shady hypnotist psychiatrists were fed into March Atman cell through that Donovan Newton Irving Leisure link. Now I'm not saying that Jonathan Marx and David Suggs did this deliberately. But of course David Suggs is going to be offered experts that have CIA links from a CIA law firm. So it's very easy to see how these people were funneled into March Chapman cell. But I'm fairly certain if Jonathan Marks wasn't representing Mark Chapman, these people wouldn't have got into his cell.
- [25:08]
Carol Cron
But as a defense attorney, when I hire an expert witness to do a forensic psychological examination on a client, the reason why I do the hiring, whether that's in a civil case or a criminal case, is because I want to take advantage of the attorney client work product doctrine. That is that if my expert comes up with inculpating information, whether it's in a civil case or a criminal case, I want to keep that report out. And the attorney client work product allows me to keep that out. Mark David Chapman wouldn't have had the wherewithal to hire his own people. So my question is why would a defense lawyer hire someone to get inculpatory evidence about his client and then release that crazy. And as far as where these lawyers are coming from, if none of us here know the answer to this question, this is something that we should be able to find out. We would be able to find out who paid those lawyers. If those lawyers were public defenders, if they were next in the queue, which that could be. It could be that as the second chair, the lawyer who came from the CIA linked firm, it could be that he was next in the queue. So we have the first lawyer who quit, the second lawyer and the third lawyer. It could be that they were all from public defense.
- [26:43]
David Whelan
Yeah, I think David Suggs, the Donovan Newton guy who came to work for Jonathan, I think his expert skill set as far as I can tell, was with jury selection. Okay, so he was brought on, I think according to Jonathan Marks, he was brought on as a guide to help out with jury selection. So it looked like on the surface he wasn't actually doing anything of great import in the early stages of the defense. But what's interesting about your other Marx is, is that he didn't actually the tapes that we've got to hear about what those people were doing inside Mark cell, which is mainly Milton Klein, those tapes were given to a journalist by Jonathan Marks, a journalist called Jim Gaines, who worked for People magazine at the time. And what I believe was going to happen was I think Jim and Jonathan Marks were going to do a book together. And I think that promise of a book to Jonathan Marks released some of the tapes that these hypnotists were recording. In Mark's cell. And then those tapes were used by Jim Gaines for some of his magazine articles. And then they were passed on to another journalist called Jack Jones, who then used some of these tapes to get himself into Mark's cell to record more tapes of Mark. So this kind of taping Mark in his prison cell is quite a lucrative gig for Jim Gaines and Jack Jones.
- [28:03]
Robert Rosen
I would like to get back to what you guys were talking about for with Jonathan Marks and Mark Chapman. As you know, if you read the book Nowhere man, that I was in the courtroom when Chapman changed his plea from not guilty by reason of insanity to he pled guilty. He said God told him to plead guilty and he pled guilty. What I saw in the courtroom and I observed the judge and the expert witnesses and Jonathan Marks and Mark David Chapman close up, very close up. Jonathan Marks, unlike a lot of the people there, unlike a lot of the expert witnesses, the psychiatrists and so forth, who struck me like they were auditioning for a TV show. Marx handled himself with great dignity. Mark Chapman struck me as anything but a programmed CIA robot. He read from the Catcher in the Rye. This was supposed to be the last thing he ever said, which turned out not to be true. But he was a very coherent individual. He read well, he read like he could have been reading in a bookstore. And he just struck me as anything but a programmed CIA robot. And what really struck me about him was that when he was let out of the courtroom by the police or the court guards, whatever they were, he was like bursting with pride. He was so proud of what he. Let me finish talking. Please let me finish talking.
- [30:02]
David Whelan
I do not interrupt you.
- [30:04]
Robert Rosen
Please do not.
- [30:04]
David Whelan
I'm going to let me finish. Don't worry, Robert. You go ahead. You keep going.
- [30:09]
Robert Rosen
He walked out of the courtroom bursting with pride. He just seemed so proud of what he did. Like his chest was puffed out. That could have been part of bulletproof vest. And just, you know, bottom line, this was a coherent, well spoken individual who struck me as anything but a programmed robot.
- [30:35]
David Whelan
Okay, can I speak now?
- [30:37]
Robert Rosen
I'm finished.
- [30:38]
David Whelan
You finished?
- [30:38]
Robert Rosen
Good.
- [30:39]
David Whelan
Okay, let's get to this so called visit that you went to the court in August 1981 and saw Chapman reading from the Catcher in the rye.
- [30:47]
Robert Rosen
It was 1980.
- [30:48]
David Whelan
Yeah, I'm aware of it. August 1981. Let's talk about it. First thing I'd like to say is you mention in your book. I've done you the courtesy of reading your book. I don't believe you've read mine, but that's fine.
- [30:59]
Robert Rosen
Well, I will speak to that later, but go.
- [31:02]
David Whelan
Yeah, that's. That's fine. I'm not bothered. So, going through your book, which I have done, and going through your career and going through your blogs and going through the way you've drip fed this information out, am I right in believing that you added this Chapman chapters at the behest of your editor when you were trying to get nowhere?
- [31:22]
Robert Rosen
Man, that's correct.
- [31:24]
David Whelan
So when was this written? Around about sort of 99, 2000. When did you actually do this?
- [31:28]
Robert Rosen
When did I write the Chapman chapter?
- [31:31]
David Whelan
Yeah.
- [31:31]
Robert Rosen
Must have been like mid. Sometime after I got the book deal. Mid 1999, I think.
- [31:38]
David Whelan
Okay, cool. So you'd have had all the stuff that was out already about Chapman with regards to Jack Jones and Jim Gaines and let me take you down and.
- [31:47]
Robert Rosen
I wrote it based on my own notes.
- [31:50]
David Whelan
Yeah, but you had a lot of people who talked about that August court appearance and lots of other things that Chapman did. I'm sure you'd have done diligent research to get all that Hawaii stuff put down. So that's just something I'd expect. But it's interesting. You say certain things. You're the only person, Robert, in the whole world. And I've done a lot of research on that court appearance and people have written about it. You're the only person who's ever said that Chapman had a look of pride on his face. That's strange. You're the only one. Literally. No one else has ever mentioned the word pride. Some people say you look frightened, scared. He looked a bit meek, a little bit mild. One thing he's certainly not going to look. Robert is programmed because that was done six months earlier. If you're going to go along with the program. Manchurian Patsy sort of theory. So while he looked programmed in August after he spent six months with hypnotist, they don't need him to be programmed because he rang up Jonathan Marks and said, I want to plead guilty because God told me to do so. It's a dumb and dusted thing. There's nothing for him to accomplish whether he's programmed or not in court. That appearance in August was just for sentencing and he did read that. You're right to say he read some paragraphs from Catcher in the Rye, that's for sure. But you also said something, Robert, in your book, this is something you said. Chapman said, I feel like a bloody prize fighter in the 27th round. No one again has ever said he said that, Robert. And I've gone through all their transcripts from that court hearing. So where did you get that line from?
- [33:21]
Robert Rosen
To the best of my knowledge, I heard him say that.
- [33:25]
David Whelan
But why would no one else mention. That's quite a powerful line, isn't it? It's all about the missing chapter 27. And I know you talk a lot about catching the rye. Is this maybe some sort of imagination stuff creeping in, or is this journalism? Because I know you say at the.
- [33:40]
Robert Rosen
Start of your book, this is journalism. This is journalism.
- [33:44]
David Whelan
Right?
- [33:44]
Robert Rosen
I heard him say that in the courtroom.
- [33:47]
David Whelan
Okay. You also say that he then said those exact words to a psychiatrist in Hawaii after his suicide attempt. How do you know that?
- [33:55]
Robert Rosen
That must have been from research that you know. I'm sure I read that somewhere.
- [34:01]
David Whelan
It's nowhere. Robert, no psychiatrist has ever mentioned about what Chapman said to him after his suicide attempt. Okay, maybe there's a Japanese fisherman involved who allegedly saved him. But the bottom line is, Robert, what concerns me about you in this court hearing is you don't actually mention in your book that you were there. You only start mentioning you were there in a blog in 2006. Now, why didn't you mention in your book that you were there?
- [34:27]
Robert Rosen
Wait, are you talking about in the courtroom? I don't mention I was there?
- [34:31]
David Whelan
No. No, you don't.
- [34:33]
Robert Rosen
Okay, well, if I didn't mention I was there, I was there, you know, it was just. That was how I chose to tell the story. You know, I was there. I was working from my notes, I was working from research. And, yeah, I was there.
- [34:52]
David Whelan
Okay, I take your word for it, Robert. Okay, word for it.
- [34:55]
Robert Rosen
All right.
- [34:55]
David Whelan
But it's a bit weird that when you say you were there, you come out with lines like, I feel like a bloody prize fighter in the 27th round. If he exclaimed that in court, Robert, do you think one of those journalists might have mentioned it in one of their reports?
- [35:08]
Robert Rosen
I have no idea what other journalists might not have mentioned.
- [35:14]
David Whelan
He didn't say it, did he? I know you say your books about imagination and journalism is a mixture of two, so maybe that was a bit of imagination, and I'll give you a bit of leeway for that. But there's a lot of imagination in your book that I see in Chapman. I'd like to go through some points, if that's okay.
- [35:30]
Robert Rodriguez
Do you?
- [35:30]
David Whelan
Just so we can then open up different parts of this is, are you okay to do that? You're right to defend certain things.
- [35:36]
Robert Rosen
You said you can ask me anything you want.
- [35:39]
David Whelan
Oh, great. Okay, cool. So let's talk about you mentioned that in the courtroom. You say, everybody knows why Mark David Chapman did it. They've known it for eight months. He did it for fame. And then you say, how wonderful Jonathan Marks was carrying himself in an air of dignity. Again, something that no one else has ever said.
- [35:58]
Robert Rosen
I didn't say how wonderful he was. I said, unlike a lot of people there, he carried himself with an air of dignity. That was my impression of what was going on there.
- [36:12]
David Whelan
Okay, you're allowed to. Your opinion on that, for sure.
- [36:15]
Robert Rosen
Oh, thank you.
- [36:16]
David Whelan
I would say that no one else has ever summed up Jonathan Mark saying that Chapman and his famous autograph. You know, the famous autograph that he got a few hours before the alleged murder that he committed. You say that Chapman said to Lennon, after the signing, Mr. Lennon, are there any jobs available in your office? And John apparently replies, sending your resume.
- [36:41]
Robert Rosen
Yeah, I got that from Fred Siemens.
- [36:44]
David Whelan
Okay, well, Fred wasn't there. I tell you he was there.
- [36:48]
Robert Rosen
Fred tells me he was there.
- [36:50]
David Whelan
No, Fred wasn't there. But I tell you he was there. Paul Garrest was there, Mark Chapman was there, Laurie Kay was there, and Dave Sholin was there. And the problem is none of them have ever said Chapman ever said that, including Chapman himself. So I've read Fred's book. That's not in Fred's book. So where's this suddenly come from?
- [37:10]
Robert Rosen
I just told you this is what Fred Seaman told me. And I'll check with Fred.
- [37:16]
David Whelan
I'll check with Fred again. It's just a bit odd because, again, you're the only guy who's kind of saying that, so it's kind of weird. But anyway, that's absolutely fine. Thank you for clearing that up. You also mentioned that Chapman got all his money, his alleged money, for all his travels across various continents and the like. And he travels to New York twice, as you mentioned earlier, through being an art dealer and an art aficionado. Do you think that's true? Do you still stand by that statement?
- [37:49]
Robert Rosen
That is something that I came across through my research. I couldn't tell you offhand what book I was reading 24, 25 years ago that I got that particular fact from. That is what I read, and it fit into my story, and that's what I wrote. You know, you're getting into this whole thing. Oh, you never said you were there. The Chapman chapter in particular. I consider Nowhere Man a literary work. And, you know. Yeah, that's the whole thing about journalism and imagination and so forth. And the imagination part. The main reason I said that and did that is because as I was writing the book, the whole John Lennon, Yoko Ono part, that I was worried about lawsuits, saying the use of imagination was an escape hatch from lawsuits. And naturally, people like Elliot Mintz picked up on, oh, he says it's a work of imagination and I should be discredited. And let's take him at his word. There is imagination in there, in the John Lennon, Yoko Ono part, in the Chapman part. That's journalism with a literary twist. But what I really liked about writing, the Chapman part, which, again, it was not my intention to write that. The publisher wanted it. I was there in the courtroom. I said, okay, fine. I love being able to write something in this book where nobody was going to sue me for anything I said. And I could say what I remembered and what I learned through research. And maybe because of the position that I was in, I heard things that nobody else heard from.
- [39:58]
David Whelan
From who?
- [39:59]
Robert Rosen
You know, the thing. Let me finish talking. That. You know, the thing about the bloodied prize fighter in the 27th round? I heard that in the courtroom. I stand by it. And, you know, let's talk about your book. That. That is absolutely true. I did not read Mind Games. Perhaps you're wondering why I didn't read Mind Games.
- [40:23]
David Whelan
Not. And not really.
- [40:25]
Robert Rosen
Okay, well, I think maybe some other people are. You know, why am I coming on this podcast if I haven't read the guy's book? But between 1979, when Fred started working for John and Yoko, and 2000, when Nowhere man was finally published, I read pretty much everything that was out there about the Beatles. When the book, specifically about the murder, started coming out. I read those, too. I read Fenton Bresler's who Killed John Lennon? Which came out 35 years ago. And he says the CIA program Chapman with drugs and hypnosis, which is pretty much the same thing that you are saying. He said it 35 years.
- [41:17]
David Whelan
No, no, no, no, no, no. I'm not saying that at all.
- [41:20]
Robert Rosen
Okay, well, that's what Fenton Bresler said.
- [41:23]
David Whelan
Read the book, Robert. Then you might know what I'm saying.
- [41:26]
Robert Rosen
Let me finish talking. That's pretty much what. Okay. It's not what you said, but you put a twist on it. He's not a Manchurian Candidate. He's a Manchurian patsy, possibly. I read Alex Constantine's the COVID War Against Rock. He says that I was a CIA archivist who was part of the plot to kill Lenin.
- [41:54]
David Whelan
Are you saying I'm saying that, Robert? Are you implying I'm saying that?
- [41:58]
Robert Rosen
No, no, no.
- [41:59]
David Whelan
Okay. Where's this going then?
- [42:00]
Robert Rosen
I'm telling you, the books I've read about conspiracy theories, I wouldn't read Alex Constantine.
- [42:11]
David Whelan
You won't get much out of him. But anyway, carry on.
- [42:14]
Robert Rosen
Like I said, I read what was out there. I was, you know, in the book, I was curious. And, you know, he said I was a CIA archivist.
- [42:23]
David Whelan
That's ridiculous.
- [42:25]
Robert Rosen
Who plotted to kill Lenin. And that every rock star.
- [42:29]
David Whelan
That's awful.
- [42:30]
Robert Rosen
And every rock star who ever died prematurely was murdered by the CIA. The problem with these two books is that they're written in such a murky way that they're incomprehensible.
- [42:47]
David Whelan
Well, hang on, I've got to stop you there. I think Bresna's book is not murky. I agree. Alex Constantine is a kind of crazy, everything is conspiracy theory kind of guy, and I think it's awful. I just want to point out this is not some attack on you personally, Rob. I think what happened with you and Alex Constantine and Salvador Astuccia was shocking. And now these people are dreadful. And Astute's attack on you was, you know, I don't know how awful that must have been for you. That guy is a dreadful human being, basically just a Nazi who doesn't even try and hide it. So I can see how that would, for someone like you, has to go through all that. And, you know, that guy was pretty vociferous. Obviously, I wasn't into the case at the time. I think it was early 2000s, wasn't it, when a station was going for you online with these websites and stuff and forums. And I can see how that, for someone like you going through that, that would put you in a position where anybody further down the line, such as myself, coming out with new angles and new theories that you'd sort of go, well, is this. Is this another astute Steve Lightfoot? Stephen King did it. Nut job. And, you know, you're probably one of the few guys in the world that I would give a pass on that because what you went through with the stu. She was awful. And of course, that's not his real name. I'd know his real name. If you ever want to know it, I'll tell you who he is. You can sue the guy. Sue the pants off the guy. But the bottom line is, you know, I'm sure you don't want to do that. I'm sure you've moved on. But the bottom line is I understand where you're coming from with regards to deriding people like Astute. And Constantine is just. Not every rock star was a CIA here. It's ridiculous. I wasn't a big fan of the Strongman book. He took the Jose Padermo is a CIA Kool Aid, which for a so called journalist is ridiculous to fall for that. And Steve Lightfoot, God bless him, the guy's psychologically got some serious problems if you think Stephen King's involved. So I can see how going through what you experienced for someone like me to come along with a new book on this, I can see how you think that's just another astute. It's another Steve Lightfoot. But the difference is, Robert, is I have actually gone out and spoken to everybody and interviewed them many times. I've got firsthand documentation from the lead detective and I've actually gone in there with no preconceptions and I've put down, you know, everything that everyone has said. I put down all the new evidence. I put down, crucially the medical evidence, which I know you didn't do in your March Chapman. Unfortunately, in your March Chapman chapters, you stopped it when Chapman shot Lennon. You didn't go into what Lennon did after he was shot, which is very important and perhaps we can discuss that now. And you don't go into the medical at the Roosevelt, which is a shame because if you did, you might have spoken to the doctors and nurses and heard what I heard. So, yeah, you know, I just want to pull you up a little bit on calling me a conspiracy theorist. That is actually an insult. I understand what you're saying from the previous experience you've had, but I think to call anyone who comes out of a new investigation of a crime a conspiracy theorist straight off the bat without really knowing deeply what they've kind of done and what they've uncovered is a little bit insulting. And I think it's beneath you to be honest with you, Robert.
- [46:00]
Robert Rosen
Well, I'm not trying to insult you. What I had heard of your book and it just. All right, that's true. Oh, another conspiracy theory book. Spare me. But what got me interested in you was your conversation with Mike Tree, Mike Medeiros, that for those of you who don't know who he is, he was Lennon's assistant, his gardener, and he became Lennon's friend. You called Michael and you told him you were a fact checker for 72 films. And that's the production company that made Murder Without a Trial. You're not a Fact checker for 72 films. You misrepresented yourself. But what that made me realize, I just.
- [46:54]
David Whelan
I'VE got to say here. That's not what I told Michael Medeiros when I called him up. That's not true.
- [46:59]
Robert Rosen
Okay, well, that's what Michael.
- [47:01]
David Whelan
That's not true.
- [47:03]
Robert Rosen
Well, that's what. That's what Michael. Mike, Maria told me you did, okay? And I'm taking him at his. His word. That's fine.
- [47:14]
David Whelan
That's fine.
- [47:15]
Robert Rosen
I've, you know, know him to be a very honest individual. I know that you're not thrilled with like, who he is or what he said.
- [47:24]
David Whelan
No, I'm not. I've got no opinions on who he is. I couldn't care less who he is. I don't know the guy. I've never met him face to face, so. Yeah, well, lots of conversations with him on the telephone. I think I've spoken to him three times. Three interviews on the phone with him.
- [47:39]
Robert Rosen
Well, I do know who he is. And like I say, he strikes me as very honest. But it was what Michael told me about you and you telling him that you were a Fact checker for 72 films that got me interested in you. That this guy is more sophisticated than the average conspiracy theory guy.
- [48:04]
David Whelan
You're banding me in with conspiracy theory guys, Robert. That's not who I am. Don't insult me. It's like me calling you a grubby, sleazy guy because you worked in porn. It's just reductive. You're better than that.
- [48:20]
Robert Rosen
I'm only a grubby, sleazy guy who.
- [48:22]
David Whelan
Worked in the playground. Robert, leave it behind.
- [48:26]
Robert Rosen
All right?
- [48:27]
David Whelan
Respect.
- [48:28]
Robert Rosen
How about some respect? How about this? You're not a conspiracy theory guy, but you wrote a book saying that Chapman didn't do it, that he was a patsy and that there was.
- [48:41]
David Whelan
Hang on a second. I wrote a book that said that is a high probability with the evidence that I've uncovered. And it's medical evidence from firsthand witness statements. This is not some guy going like Steve Lightfoot. Oh, he looks like Stephen King, so it must be Stephen King. There is a big difference, Robert. A big difference in the approaches.
- [49:01]
Robert Rosen
I know I did not read your book, but I have read your blog. I have listened to your interviews and what I found is. In the interviews, you're a fast talking guy. You bury people with a lot of information, a lot of forensic information that you know about. Bullet holes and bullet trajectories.
- [49:27]
David Whelan
Is this not important? Forensics and bullet wounds and poles.
- [49:31]
Robert Rosen
Of course it's important.
- [49:33]
David Whelan
Okay. Okay. Why am I burying people with it? I don't understand that phrase.
- [49:37]
Robert Rosen
That you come at people in your writing, in the interviews with just, you know, all this information about bullet wounds and exit wounds, entrance runes, bullet holes, the layout of the vestibule where Lenin died, you know, on and on like that.
- [49:59]
David Whelan
That's called uncovering the case. That's called laying out the evidence.
- [50:02]
Robert Rosen
I understand that, but what I have noticed is that I have a very hard time following it unless you want to parse every single sentence. And it's like, you know, person A, he says one thing, person B contradicts him, person C contradicts person B, then, you know, person A goes back and contradicts himself. It's all very hard to follow. And it's not the kind of thing I want to read because I'm just, at this point, I'm not that interested.
- [50:42]
David Whelan
But you say that, Robert, but you follow me on Twitter, you subscribe on my substack, and you asked Robert a few months ago to come on a show to talk about my work. So that's a contradiction to what you just said, isn't it?
- [50:54]
Robert Rosen
I do follow you on Twitter.
- [50:56]
David Whelan
I'm curious to unfollow me, then unsubscribe. You can't be curious and then not be interested. What is it, brother?
- [51:03]
Robert Rosen
You know, Elon Musk, Whatever you're putting on Twitter, I'm not seeing much of it. And, you know, if something interesting comes up, I'll read it. But no, this mountain of forensic information, as a writer, as a journalist, doesn't interest me that much. But what it did make me think about is, okay, this guy did all this research, he found out all this stuff. What is he hoping to do? What is the point of what he's writing about? I would think that your ultimate goal would be to get the NYPD to reopen the case.
- [51:48]
David Whelan
For sure. For sure. 100% release or release files like Jose Padermo's Witness Statement to start us.
- [51:58]
Robert Rodriguez
This episode is brought to you by Progressive Insurance. Do you ever find yourself playing the budgeting game? Well, with the name your price tool from Progressive, you can find options that fit your budget and potentially lower your bills. Try it@progressive.com Progressive Casualty Insurance Company and affiliates. Price and coverage match limited by state law. Not available in all states. Hey, everyone, it's Chris Pandolfi inviting you to check out the new season of my podcast, Inside the Musician's Brain with new episodes.
- [52:31]
David Whelan
Episodes airing now.
- [52:33]
Robert Rodriguez
Hearing it in that room, these guys.
- [52:34]
Robert Rosen
Playing this thing and trying to figure.
- [52:36]
Robert Rodriguez
Out how to play this song was mind blowing.
- [52:39]
Robert Rosen
It's so inspiring to know there's so.
- [52:41]
Robert Rodriguez
Much more to it than you ever thought.
- [52:43]
Robert Rosen
And it just opened another door.
- [52:45]
David Whelan
But when people find faith, because they need to, in terms of just filling a void to feel better without actually being better, that's when it becomes a crutch. Much like, you know, drugs and alcohol.
- [52:57]
Robert Rosen
Man, I don't have all the time.
- [52:59]
David Whelan
In the world here if I want.
- [53:00]
Robert Rosen
To be a professional bluegrass musician.
- [53:02]
Robert Rodriguez
I felt like I had to take a very, like, strategic approach, just trying to get rid of the barriers and.
- [53:07]
David Whelan
Figure out what those barriers were. The feelings still come, and I have to reckon with that, but I think I have better ways of moving forward.
- [53:14]
Robert Rosen
And not being stuck, which I think.
- [53:16]
David Whelan
Was the killer for me.
- [53:17]
Robert Rodriguez
Catch all that and so much more on the new season of Inside the Musician's Brain.
- [53:24]
Robert Rosen
The problem with that, I would say, as a person who's worked in publishing in New York for a long time, is that assuming everything you say is 100% correct, I would say that there's no way in hell you're going to get the NYPD to reopen the case unless you get the backing of a powerful media organ who buys your story. And by buy it, accept it, is willing to run with it. And that if you got the New York Times to run what you're saying, that maybe there is a snowball's chance in hell that the NYPD might reopen the case. But even if you got the New York Times and somebody else behind you, I just. I can't see them reopening a 44 year old case.
- [54:23]
David Whelan
No, I think you're right, Robert. Yeah, I hear your point. You're right. It's difficult. Mainstream media doesn't want to go near this stuff. And there's a good reason for that, because a lot of the time it leads back to intelligence agencies and people that are connected to government, especially when it comes to people who knew Mark Chapman.
- [54:40]
Robert Rosen
Let me finish.
- [54:41]
David Whelan
You want to keep going?
- [54:42]
Robert Rosen
Okay, yeah, I do want to keep going. If I were an editor in New York of the New York Times and you came to me with this conspiracy idea theory, whatever it is that you know, you came to me. I don't think Chapman killed Lennon. I think there was a second shooter who got away.
- [55:03]
David Whelan
Potentially.
- [55:04]
Robert Rosen
Yeah. I would want to hear and, like, explain it to me in 25 words or less what happened and tell me your strongest piece. One single strongest piece of evidence that.
- [55:20]
David Whelan
Okay.
- [55:21]
Robert Rosen
Would make me believe this and want to run with the story.
- [55:25]
David Whelan
Do you want to know?
- [55:26]
Robert Rosen
Yeah.
- [55:27]
David Whelan
Okay. Thanks for the intro. That was good. Basically, Mark Chapman thinks, and consistently has thought that he has shot John Lennon four times in the back. He's consistently said it on the night of the murder. Murder. And if you rang him up in prison tonight, he'd tell you the same thing. The problem is two nurses, a surgeon, an anesthetist and another head of ER all stated unequivocally that Mark Chapman is wrong and that John was shot four times in his upper left chest. Three bullets in a tight professional grouping around his heart. Three bullets went straight through and came out of his back in the direct line of fire. One bullet near his upper left arm, shoulder stayed in. They're all consistent on this fact, and they know this because they were highly experienced medical professionals and they all saw the wounds many times. The nurses saw the wounds when he was on the gurney, when they were trying to save his life. Well, actually, there was no life to save. He was dead when he arrived, but they were trying to get him back to life. And the nurses also saw John's wounds when they took him away to wash him and wrap him. Twice, two things. They had to do it twice because a chief medical officer turned up and demanded to see the wounds urgently. So when these people tell me unequivocally that those are the wounds that John had and that they considered that the person who shot John had to be one or two feet away from him and had to know what they were doing to pull off that type professional group. And they had to be very near and right in front of him when they tell me that. And then when I tell them that Mark chapman was about 15 to 20ft behind John, they say, no, that's impossible. That's absolutely impossible. And the problem is, Robert, at the time, the NYPD did not do a proper investigation. Good old Jonathan Marks, the lawyer that you thought, you know, and I'm sure you did think that, and I'm not going to question your thoughts on the guy, but I think he did a shocking job of defending Mark Chapman because he said from day one that Chapman did it. If he just went down the road to the Roosevelt and spoke to Barbara Dee, Barbara And D. And Dr. Halloran said, what were the actual wounds? He'd have found out, but he didn't bother to do that. And the problem is, Robert, when you actually analyze where Mark Chapman was and you analyze where John was, you sort of think there's only one way this could happen. There's only one way this could be pulled off, and that is If John turned 180 degrees around and face Mark Chapman still 15, 20ft away in the dark. But let's just say he did that. And there's a lot of proof that he didn't do that. But let's just say he did. For argument's sake. Mark Chapman has then got to pull off three professional tight shots around John's heart with a revolver, a 0.38 with apparently hollow point bullets in. Though John had two different types of bullets in him, which I found out from the Morgan Suites, but let's get onto that later. So what he's got to do is he's got to go bang kick, bang kick, bang kick, bang kick five times. Well, four. But march out in the thoughts he shot five. So let's go four. And John's got to stand there dead still, facing this stranger in this driveway and allow him to hit him four times in his upper left chest without John moving. Because of course, if John moved, which anybody would, put your arm up, jump down, move to the left, move to the right. But no, John has to stand there dead still to allow Chapman to pull off this incredible feat of marksmanship. And you actually said, actually, strangely, when he went to see Dana Reeves, Robert, you wrote that Chapman displayed a definite talent for marksmanship, hitting his target with consistency. The bullets grouped closely together. That's you describing Chapman doing some practicing with Dana Rees, the guy who gave him the bullets about a month before the shooting of Lenin. You're the only guy that's ever said that Chapman could pull off bullets that are grouped closely together. So that's very interesting that you actually thought that and no one else actually did. But anyway, let's just gloss over that Mark Chapman was not a trained marksman. He did have revolver training, he had gun training because he was a security guard, but he wasn't a particularly great one and he wasn't a security guard for many years. So when I spoke to Dr. Halloran, the chief surgeon, I told him this scenario. I said, well, maybe John turned around. The evidence is that he didn't because Yoko said they didn't turn around. Chapman said he didn't call out, but let's just say he did. Do you think that this guy could pull that off? And this is a guy, Dr. Hallon, who has seen hundreds at that point of gunshot wounds and treated them. He said, no, not even a Navy seal, in his opinion, and I quote, could pull off that tight professional grouping from that distance in a darkened driveway. He said, it's impossible, especially with the.38 that kicks. And it Kicks even more when you use hollow point bullets. So here's the thing, Robert. Here's how I know they're telling the truth. Because they knew gunshot wounds. They said that the four that were in the front were much smaller than the three exit out the back. Because that's always the way. They go in small, they come out large. Now, if you can explain to me why or how Mark Chapman did that. Let's forget the why. Let's get into the how. How Mark Chapman pulled it off. And then when he did pull it off, he then decides to lie to the whole world that he shot John in the back. Why would he do that? What's in it for Mark Chapman? He's got his fame, allegedly. He's done his job. He's done what he wants to do. Why lie about John turning around and him pulling off these four unfeasible shots into his upper left chest? Why would he do that? Why is he lying to this day, why is he still saying that he thinks he did something that he didn't do? It's uncomfortable.
- [61:08]
Robert Rosen
Well, that's a lot more than 25 words.
- [61:11]
David Whelan
Sorry, but it's not a tweet, Robert. It's a complicated case.
- [61:15]
Robert Rosen
I know it's a complicated case, and that's probably.
- [61:17]
David Whelan
I can't sum it up.
- [61:19]
Robert Rosen
That's probably a big part of the problem with you getting a major media organization.
- [61:26]
David Whelan
I don't need you to worry about my media career. Honestly, Robert, I don't need you to worry about that. What I need you to worry about is I like the fact that you're challenging me and I'm up for a debate. Okay. And I like the fact that, you know, you're a New Yorker, you have some connection to the Lennons. But I read your Chapman stuff. Okay. I just think the Hawaii stuff. Did you speak to anybody in Hawaii? No. Did you speak to. Okay. Did you interview anyone about Chapman Enter his friends or family or anyone? Did you talk to anybody?
- [61:55]
Robert Rosen
No, I did not.
- [61:56]
David Whelan
Okay. Okay. Okay. Well, I did.
- [61:58]
Robert Rosen
No, my Chapman chapter is based on research and my one eyewitness account of what I saw in the courtroom after Chapman had chosen to plead guilty.
- [62:11]
David Whelan
Okay. Well, the pride thing. You are very unique in the whole world in thinking that that's how he looked, because that feeds into the fame thing. And the problem with the fame thing is Mark Chapman has only given two media interviews, and that was something that he did at the behest of a journalist who's also a Navy intelligence officer called Jack Jones, who in 1992, when he was releasing his dreadful book, Let me take you down on his prison interviews with Mark. Chapman convinced Mark to do the Larry King show and to do the Barbara Waters Show. And if anyone you know, you can see these shows online, they look very staged, they look very uncomfortable. And I've spoken to Mark's friends about these shows and I've spoken to Mark's friends about the parole board hearings. And what they tell me is, is that Mark is advised to say certain things like I did it for fame or I had a hit list. Elizabeth Taylor was on it, though she wasn't actually on it. So Mark actually gets confused with the lies that he's told to tell. But he says these things because he's told to say these things by advisors, because Mark Chapman is actually desperate to get out of prison. So anything that he says in those 1992 interviews, you've also got to take into account, Robert, that at that point he had had many, many years of exposure to, to not only psychiatrists who were hypnotists and had been part of the CIA Manchurian Candidate Program, but he's also had exposure to a lot of Southern Baptist preachers who managed to convince him after the capturing the ride thing fell away onto the sidelines and managed to convince Mark that he was possessed by demons. These Southern Baptist preachers come from the kind of part of the south where you get those lovely guys in pointy hatted sort of hoods who would have absolutely despised John Lennon. And I believe Mark was very. And not only do I believe this, the journalist, the New York journalist, Craig Unger, who I'm sure you're aware of, Robert, he also believes that there was a far right Christian element to Mark Chapman's grooming. It doesn't have to be the CIA. It doesn't have to be government. I believe these kind of operations, when they're pulled off, I think it takes lots of different disparate groups to come together and all agree that if this guy goes, it's good for all of us. I certainly don't think it would have been an official CIA or Navy intelligence. Let's put this on the books and let's sort of have some meetings and we'll swap bullet points on paper about how we're going to do this. I don't think that's how these things go down. But Mark Chapman was a very suggestible guy. And I think anything that happens to Mark Chapman after someone like Milton Klein walks into his cell and shuts the door, as far as I'M concerned is meaningless for me, I think the only thing that's true with Mark Chapman is that first statement that he gave on the night of the murder, which he gave at 1 o'clock before any hypnotist managed to get into his cell. And that statement is not a guy who said, I did it for fame. I've achieved my goal. Here's my name, Mark Chapman. Don't get the spelling wrong. Get my best side. When you do a picture of me, it's a guy that says, if you read it and you can read the whole thing, it's quite easily available. I've done a blog on it. I'm sure you've read it. If you've read my blogs, I've read my substack. He basically just says, I've nothing against John Lennon. I've nothing against the Beatles. I don't quite know why I did it. I just felt compelled to do it. I couldn't stop myself. But he doesn't talk about shouting out to Lennon. He doesn't give any details of what happened to John after he shot him. It's basically a confused guy. Now, that's not a guy who shot someone for fame. It's just not. And that doesn't feed into what you're saying about this guy who had a look of pride on his face. Because all those journalists in that courtroom, like you, if you were there, were thinking, we're looking for this guy. Saying that he was. He did it for fame. Okay, so if he did have a look of pride in his face, you'd think that at least one of those journalists would have said, he looked prideful. He looked like he was happy. He actually achieved something. But none of them did, Robert. None of them did.
- [66:14]
Robert Rosen
Well, maybe I was more perceptive than the average newspaper hack in the courtroom. I didn't say he had a look of pride on his face. It was more a question of his body language. The way when they walked him into the courtroom with the handcuffs and the bulletproof vest, he did look like a diminished person. He walked out like somebody had inflated him like a balloon. And. Okay, that was your extremely complicated, not complicated explanation. Let me talk, please.
- [66:49]
David Whelan
It's not complicated. Don't lie about it. It's not complicated. It's simple. You're a clever man. You're a clever man, Robert. You can figure it out, what I've just said.
- [66:58]
Robert Rosen
All right? This was your explanation about how he was shot? Where he was shot, where he was facing the doctors and nurses.
- [67:07]
David Whelan
Explanation.
- [67:08]
Robert Rosen
The doctors and nurses The. The entrant runes. And you feel that the police should have done a more thorough investigation?
- [67:22]
David Whelan
I know. Maybe the reason the police got their investigation. They didn't do one. I've got the paperwork.
- [67:27]
Robert Rosen
Okay.
- [67:28]
David Whelan
One wasn't done.
- [67:29]
Robert Rosen
They did no investigation. Then maybe the reason they did no investigation was because they had a guy with a smoking gun at the scene of the crime who confessed.
- [67:44]
David Whelan
The gun wasn't at the crime scene when they arrived, Robert. It was taken away. There was a break in the chain of custody. The gun wasn't anywhere near Chapman when the police arrived. It was taken away by a third person. Okay.
- [67:55]
Robert Rosen
Okay.
- [67:55]
David Whelan
So if you talk about smoking gun, it's not. Whatever. It's important. There was no gun there, Robert. It was taken away.
- [68:02]
Carol Cron
I'm going to interrupt. Do you both agree that in the United States it is generally accepted law that we don't allow a plea of guilty to be accepted without a factual basis independent of the confession? Is this a new concept?
- [68:22]
David Whelan
Yeah.
- [68:23]
Carol Cron
That is corpus to lefti. Corpus delicti comes from Latin, finding the body. Okay. But it's not literal. It's the body of evidence. So my question is, did a judge accept a plea of guilty without an independent factual basis that was provided by the prosecution or an independent factual basis that was stipulated by the prosecution and defense? And this independent factual basis, factual basis independent from the confession, if it was stipulated by the prosecution and defense, which it likely was, is this a factual basis that could really be fact? The judge has an obligation. Even if both attorneys, defense and prosecutors stipulate to this factual basis, the judge has an obligation to make sure that it is a legitimate factual basis. In the usa, we don't say, okay, there are some people who commit violent crimes that are more heinous than others. Do we say that for those crimes that are the most heinous, we're going to suspend due process. We're going to suspend the state and federal rules of procedure. We're going to suspend constitutional rights. No, we don't. So I'm not choosing a side. I don't have any dog in this fight. I don't claim to have read everything, but these are just points that stand out to me from a defense lawyer standpoint or from a prosecution lawyer standpoint, or if I was in the position of being the judge. You want to have an experienced attorney. You want to have a legitimate factual basis because you want this to stand. You don't want it to be opened up years later, just like we don't want an inexperienced criminal defense Attorney to come into a trial like this and cause error so that we have mistrials. We want to get this over with.
- [70:49]
Robert Rodriguez
They're saying that if I went into a court and said before a judge, I'm the one who took a shot at Trump, they couldn't just accept my guilty plea to that without having some foundation for believing that to be true.
- [71:02]
Carol Cron
That's correct. There needs to be an independent factual basis, and that's what we call the doctrine of corpus delicti.
- [71:11]
David Whelan
Yeah, that didn't happen in the Chapman case. That did not happen.
- [71:14]
Carol Cron
And the independent factual basis is not a factual basis. That comes from the defense team doesn't provide the factual basis to support their client's confession. Where that factual basis must come is. Is from the investigators for the prosecution. That's the prosecution's responsibility to lay out a factual basis that supports the confession. And it's the judge's responsibility to not accept something that is stipulated by defense and prosecution simply because they agree upon it. Judge must independently review it, just like you'll see in a county court case. If you have a county court case, someone has pled guilty to assault. These cases must be supported by a factual basis. A person can't just come in and say, I enter a plea of guilty. The prosecution has to explain to the judge what is the factual basis, and the judge has an obligation to. To ask questions.
- [72:29]
Robert Rosen
All right, so what you're saying then is that the judge, his name was Dennis Edwards, who I noted in my book, had dozed off at a certain point during the hearing that he had reviewed the facts, whatever they were, and he found that there was enough evidence there to agree that Mark David Chapman shot him.
- [72:53]
Carol Cron
I'm assuming that he did, but I don't know whether he did or he didn't. And judges do sometimes. Sometimes they look like they're falling asleep, but sometimes they just close their eyes. I don't like that they shouldn't do that.
- [73:08]
Robert Rosen
Like Donald Trump was doing in court.
- [73:10]
Carol Cron
Yeah.
- [73:11]
David Whelan
Thank you, Carol. That was really interesting. And I think it does show that due legal process didn't actually occur. When March happened, was sentenced, and when he. When he offered up. One little interesting added thing I could put into this. Jonathan Marks has always said on the record that Mark rang him up. Mark Chapman rang him up and said God told him to plead guilty in his cell last night, which is extremely dubious. But what I found out is from his appeal process and from researching his appeal, which he did a few years later, this is something that people like Jim Gaines And Jack Jones don't go into. But Mark did try and appeal to. I think he realized he'd been played, basically. And when he spoke to his appeal lawyers, he basically said it wasn't God that actually told him to plead guilty. It was a little general from his Little People kingdom, which was living inside Mark's head, which is something that I know, Robert Rosen, that you've spoken a lot about in your Chapman chapters, the Little People kingdom thing. And what's interesting about the Little People Kingdom thing is when Fenton Bresler spoke to all of Mark's friends and family immediately when he started the book in mid 85, he also spoke to all the journalists who went to Mark's Decatur, Georgia, town literally days after the murder. And he asked them to sort of go through their notes about what people said about Mark. And none of them ever mentioned in early 80 or in early 81 or in the mid-80s when Brezza did it himself. No one ever mentioned that Mark Chapman ever mentioned Capturing the Rye for a start. That was never, ever mentioned. He was not obsessed with that book. And nobody ever mentioned this Little People kingdom concept.
- [74:59]
Carol Cron
Let's say that you commit felony criminal mischief, and it's a felony because of the value of the things that are destroyed. And that you go into a county state court in the United States and it's time to enter the plea. And the defendant says, I enter a plea of guilty because the little people told me to plead guilty or because God told me to plead guilty. Well, the judge has to ask prosecution for an independent factual basis. And a judge definitely is going to be subject to some question if they routinely or even one time accept a guilty plea without a factual basis. When a defendant tells them that they're entering the plea because the little people or God or a fairy, or even if they say, I'm entering this plea because my attorney told me to enter the plea, that's not good enough.
- [76:07]
David Whelan
It gets worse, Carol. It gets worse because the little people kingdom concept, that was apparently in Mark's head, and it was a little people of God and a little people the devil thing that apparently Mark had in his mind according to what he said to his appeal lawyers. Basically, I first discovered about these Little people kingdom being put into Mark's mind through the journalist Jim Gaines, who wrote in one of his People magazine articles in 1987 that Milton Klein, Mr. Manchurian candidate, CIA consultant, was the person who first spoke to Mark about his Little people kingdom. So isn't that interesting that the CIA Manchurian Candidate consultant was the first person to discuss this with Mark Chapman in those early days, literally, probably day four, Milton Klein was put into his cell. So between day four, so we're talking probably December 12, December 13, to when Mark rang up his lawyer in June 1981. Between that period, Mark imagined. This is what Mark imagined. He imagined a scene on his floor. This is what he told his appeal lawyer. He imagined a scene where the little people forces of God battle the little people forces of the devil, and the little people forces of God won the battle. And the general of the little people forces of God got up into March Hatman's hand and whispered into his ear, plead guilty. I want you to plead guilty for me. And that is what Mark Chapman told his appeal lawyer is what made him actually want to plead guilty. But when Jonathan Marks decided to tell the world and the judge what Mark Chapman said to him, he decided to slightly downgrade the crazy little people concept that Milton Klein put in his head. And he decided to call it God, which was quite a clever little move, because when the judge heard it was God, the judge actually said to one of the legal representatives there, this was in June, so I don't think actually this would have been when Robert Rosen was there. But the judge said, that's fine. I sometimes talk to God. I think he actually said, my sister sometimes talks to God. People sometimes do hear their God. So Judge Edwards had no problem with that, because at the time, obviously, it was a far more Christian country, America then than it is now. I think judges these days will probably be a little bit less into listening to directions from God. I don't know. Maybe some people think that's a bad thing. They're not doing that anymore. I don't know. I personally find it very disturbing that Judge Edwards had no problem in March happening saying that God told him that. But isn't it interesting that Jonathan Marks changed it from the little people general? This crazy concept that Milton Klein put in his head to God told me to plead guilty.
- [78:51]
Robert Rodriguez
Where does the Catcher in the Ride fit into it?
- [78:53]
David Whelan
Yeah, the catching the right was interesting because that was the thing that he first grabbed onto. But in the days after the murder, that was all he spoke about. And, you know, people like Daniel Schwartz and Bernard diamond and Richard Bloom, they all say the same thing. He just kept on talking about catching the right. He's obsessed with catching the right. But that very slowly faded away. And I believe the process to fade that away from Mark's mind. And of course, this could easily have been done by any of the hypnotists that were put into his cell was when John Hinckley turned up in March 1981 with a copy of Catcher and Rhino's hotel room. And I believe the powers that be decided that that's actually two assassinations too many for one book. And I think that book now needs to be expunged from Mark's mind. I think they then started to move away from Catcher into. We know there was lots of southern pastor preachers going into his cell. Charles McGowan obviously is the preacher who, let's say, managed Mark from the age of 15 to this very day. Charles McGowan still controls access to Mark Chapman with Mark's wife. And Charles McGowan and various other pastors and preachers were always going into March Chapman's cell in those months after the murder, to the point where Fenton Bresler was just shocked how easy it was for them to access his cell and to ring him up and for Mark to ring out to them and then to have unfettered access to him. And what you find is in those months leading up to the God or little people, God telling me to plead guilty is you find that Mark starts to talk about demons and he starts to talk about demons made me do it. And he was possessed by demons. And I believe they mess with his mind initially. Ironically, the first play before the Catcher stuff even came out was he wanted to be John Lennon. If you look at the very early newspaper reports, it was all about Mark Chapman was obsessed with John Lennon. He wants to be John Lennon because he signed out on his last day of work in October 1980. John Lennon. And he crossed it out. But if you actually look at the video of the guy, actually it's giving the news conference about this alleged thing that Mark Chapman signed. He could not be more unconvincing as a guy that's actually telling the truth. He's literally laughing as he's telling this so called story. And then when the Hawaiian cops eventually turned up at this guy's building and said, can we see this signing out book that you sort of showed in that press conference? He said, oh no, I've thrown it away. I've thrown it away. I didn't think it was very important. So no fingerprints, no proof that Mark Chapman actually wrote that signature for John Lennon. But that was a very important building block in the very early on, Mark Chapman wants to be John Lennon myth. And you know, you talk about it as well, Robert, in your book that Mark was apparently listening to Beatles music and calling out To Satan. And this is stuff that came from Gloria Marx, very interesting wife. But those records weren't even Mark's records. They were Gloria's records. And when Mark went to lunch on the day of the murder with two Beatles super fans, and I've got their statement in the lead detectors notebooks, they both say one thing quite clearly, both of them separately in separate interviews. He knew absolutely nothing about the Beatles. He had no idea about the Beatles. He wasn't even aware of that double fantasy had been just released. So this was no super fan obsessive of Lennon. This was a guy who was set up to be a superfan of Lennon. And interestingly, in those early days after the murder when all the newspapers were in this frenzy of he wanted to be John Lennon, it's a very simple, easy narrative. Doctors, psychiatrists from the Castle Memorial Hospital in Hawaii were actually set on the record. And there was one called Dr. Marvit who was treating Mark at the time. And Castro Morrow said, yes, I believe he was obsessed with that and I believe he wanted to be Leonard. Now why is a psychiatrist saying that? Why is he giving out that information which was surely would have been private confidential information when he was treating Mark? So I believe this whole John Lennon obsession was a very easy thing to start off with the catcher stuff. Was Mark himself somehow lost in this book in the early weeks after the murder. And I'm sure the book was used as a device because he only became obsessed with that book and John Lennon. In the summer of 1980, there was no kind of childhood obsession with Katja. There was no childhood obsession with John Lennon. These are all false myths that were built up after the murder. So the obsession with Katya came in the summer of 1980. The obsession with Lenin came in summer in 1980. And these two things were fused together just at the point where John Lennon got back in the recording studio and just at the point where all the polls said Ronald Reagan is a shoo in to win the November election, which of course he did.
- [83:42]
Robert Rosen
A couple of points getting back to the thing with, you know, was it God or the little people or the demons who told him to change his plea? When he was in court changing his plea, the prosecutor questioned him about who told him. And it was Chapman who said that God told him. So Marx was not the only one who said that. Chapman said it himself. And I want to get back to what we were talking about before. I think that, like, David, you have your story about what happened the night of the murder. I have my story based on what is yours? That Chapman shot him. That's my story.
- [84:29]
David Whelan
How? What happened?
- [84:31]
Robert Rosen
With a gun. What?
- [84:34]
David Whelan
I know in your book you stop at the point where Chapman calls out his name and shoots you, then stop and move forward to psych evaluations. But let's just say you didn't stop. Let's just say you described how John was shot and what he did after shot. What happened. You've researched it?
- [84:50]
Robert Rosen
Yeah, based on my research, what was available in print in 1999. That's how I put together my story and what happened. Going by memory, I believe he threw the gun down and he waited in the archway of the Dakota reading the Catcher in the Right.
- [85:14]
David Whelan
Where was John shot? On his body. And what happened to John after he was shot?
- [85:18]
Robert Rosen
I didn't get into that. I don't really know that. You know why? In the story that I was telling, what was important was that John Lennon was shot dead.
- [85:30]
David Whelan
No, no, no, it's not important. What's important is how he was shot dead. When there's conflicting evidence, it's important is that you surely need to know the details.
- [85:39]
Robert Rosen
All right, well, when I was writing this in 1999, I was not aware of any conflicting evidence. Yeah, that's not true. I had read the conspiracy theory books.
- [85:52]
David Whelan
None of those conspiracy theory books talked about the medical. Just out of interest.
- [85:56]
Robert Rosen
Yeah, well, in any case, I dismissed it. But what I wanted to say is that I'm a believer in Occam's Razor. When there's like, oh, for God's sake. Oh, you must hate ocam's razor.
- [86:09]
David Whelan
Oh, it's so reductive. Do you think an intelligence agency are going to do this simple thing and deliver it on a plate as a simple thing?
- [86:19]
Robert Rosen
Let me just say what okam's Razor is. For anybody who might be listening who does not know what it is, Okam's razor says when there's two or more explanations to explain an event, it's the simpler, more straightforward one that is usually correct.
- [86:41]
David Whelan
So surely the doctors and nurses assessment will be the simpler, more straightforward one because they saw the wounds. Surely they will be the ones we believe more than March Chapman, wouldn't they? Well, isn't that Ockham's Razor? We'll go with the doctors and nurses who actually saw the wounds and were professionals and knew how to read wounds because they'd done it for years. Surely that's where we go with.
- [87:03]
Robert Rosen
Okay, and those people do not believe it's possible that Mark Chapman did.
- [87:08]
David Whelan
No, no, they're confused. For years they thought, all the doctors and nurses thought for years that Chapman walked up to him and from one or two feet away, shot him directly in his upper left chest, probably with an automatic weapon. They thought, because obviously it was done in such a professional, quick way in one spot. They had no idea he was 20ft behind, using a.38 revolver chamber. Now, I did.
- [87:32]
Carol Cron
I have an occam's question to both of you. There is no witness who saw the bullets from Mark David Chapman, his gun, strike the body of John Lennon.
- [87:46]
David Whelan
No, none.
- [87:47]
Carol Cron
Okay, so there's an Occam raisers question that relates to this next question. How did John get from the driveway, the stairway of the Dakota, to a back office? Yeah, back office. I don't understand that.
- [88:06]
David Whelan
You're right to be puzzled by it, Carol, because the doctors and nurses and Elliot Gross, the medical officer who did the autopsy, who's a discredited medical officer, often accused of falsifying autopsies, but let's just park that for one moment. But they all agree on one thing. All of them, all the doctors and nurses that I've spoken to, even Elliot Gross said this death would have happened almost instantly with those wounds. Almost instantly.
- [88:30]
Carol Cron
In my experience, in reviewing forensic evidence, for what it's worth, I agree. This raises a huge question for me.
- [88:40]
Robert Rosen
What's the question?
- [88:41]
David Whelan
The question is, how did he get from the driveway into the back office where he was found face down by all the cops?
- [88:48]
Robert Rodriguez
A considerable distance.
- [88:49]
David Whelan
A considerable distance and lots of hurdles. He had a curb to get on top of. He had a door to pull open. He had six seat steps to walk up. He had a lobby door to pull open. He had a lobby to walk into. He went through a swinging door, through a lobby desk. He then went through a front lobby office, concierge's office. He then said to the concierge, Hastings, allegedly, I'm shot. I'm shot twice. And then he staggers on further into another office where all the cops that found him. And I've spoken to all of them, and they've all told me the same story. They all found him face down with his arms out like he's diving into a pool. Now, why was he like that? And how did he get there? That's a very important point.
- [89:33]
Carol Cron
I was the judge sitting on this case, and defendant says, I'm entering a plea of guilty. And I don't care whether he says God told him to do it or the little people told him to do it. If I knew as judge where the bullets struck the victim and where the body wound up. I would want the prosecution to present to me a factual basis that explains this. That's what's ideal.
- [90:04]
David Whelan
David.
- [90:05]
Robert Rodriguez
Did it come out in court?
- [90:06]
David Whelan
Did they lay out.
- [90:08]
Robert Rodriguez
Did the prosecution even lay out a forensic.
- [90:11]
Robert Rosen
No.
- [90:11]
David Whelan
Okay.
- [90:12]
Robert Rodriguez
So there was no narrative presented, no.
- [90:14]
David Whelan
Trial, never laid out. Okay. And the press didn't go there either. I think that we need to bring in just quickly Dr. Lyn, who is a doctor who for 30 years claimed that he treated John. So to give Dr. Haller and the two nurses a pass, he kind of took the baton when it came to media and publicity. Dr. Lyn and he sort of exaggerated his part in the whole thing. He was in the room, he came later when Lynne and the nurses and anesthetists were trying to save him and another doctor called Richard Marks were trying to save him. And Lyn said to the press that he was the surgeon who tried to save John and he pumped John's heart. So every time Lyn went on a documentary and he went on many documentaries and all the interviews that Lyn gave to many books and magazines, Lyn could not talk about the wounds because Lyn didn't have a proper idea about the wounds. Interestingly, Lyn did see John lying down on the gurney when they're trying to save his life. And would you believe a Beatles Lenon memorabilia guy from the UK sent me a picture that Lyn sent him of the wounds that Lyn saw. And even Lynn, who wasn't actually treating John, showed the upper left chest with three bullets in a tight professional group around the heart. And he gave it to this memorabilia collector, would you believe, guys? Because his memorabilia collector wanted to have a tattoo of John's bullet wounds on his body. And he decided to contact Lynne and write him a letter in the 90s to find out exactly where these bullets were that Lyn thought he saw. But the problem, getting back to why I think this has been covered up and kept hidden for so long, is because Lyn, whenever he was in a documentary, couldn't really, with great authority, talk about John's front and back wounds. Because he didn't see the back wounds. Because when John first came in, the nurses and doctor told me exactly what they did. They cut all his clothes off. They turned him. Once they turned him front, turn him back. This is normal procedure to check where the wounds were to see what they need to heal. And they could all see quite clearly where the four in the front were and the three at the back. And of course, the nurses then took him off later to wash him and wrap him. So when they say they know his wounds, I'm literally 100% certain that's where his wounds were. And then when you start to talk to the witnesses that saw Chapman just before gunfire and immediately after gunfire, they all put him by the sidewalk on the left hand side of the cyborg. And they all say that John had walked well into the driveway by the time. There's one witness called Richard Peterson, who's an interesting guy. He's a cab driver who pulled up with two passengers. In his initial statement, he said, and I've got this, and you can find this online. It's quite simple. It was published at the time. And Richard Peterson said in his initial statement he saw Chapman raise a gun and he saw Chapman fire, but Lenin was completely out of his vision later on. Recently, he's now added in this Apple TV series that he heard Chapman call out Mr. Lennon, but that's not in his original statement. So what I think Richard Peterson's done, and a lot of people do this, this is quite common, I'm sure you'd agree, Carol, is over many years, they add things that they've read in the press and they add things that they've heard in the media to their story. But you've got to be very careful here, guys, because that Apple TV series in the edit, it kind of implies that Richard Peterson saw John getting hit by Chapman's bullets. But I've spoken to Peterson twice. I've done two interviews with him, and both times he told me, no, John was way out of my sight because when he was parked on the sidewalk by the Dakota driveway, he was behind the John's limo. And of course, when John walks into the driver and goes to the Vespel, he would have been well out of Richard Peterson's side. One last thing I'll say about Richard Peterson, he is a very dubious witness because two other witnesses that night said immediately after gunfire, they looked out of their windows and they both saw a yellow taxi driver speed off up the road at top speed. And I suspect that was Richard Peterson. So Richard Peterson is a guy who's very important now for the official narrative. He's probably the last witness that they can kind of cling on to because Yoko's statements aren't very coherent from the night and obviously she doesn't want to talk about the murder for obvious reasons. And Jose Padermo, the doorman, you would think he would see everything and tell us everything. His statements for some reason have never been released by the New York Police Department and never been released by the DA's office. And I've got confirmation from Ron Hoffman and from Kim hoggriff at the DA's office that he was interviewed multiple times. But for some reason, he is the only main witness on the night whose statements has never been released. For some reason, they do not want to release Jose Padermo statements. And I've done FOIA requests, and I ask any Beatles fans that are listening to this, please send in a FOIA request to the NYPD and the DA's office for Jose Padermo's witness statement. We need to get those witness statements because he gave various witness statements at the time. And, you know, the sooner we get that, the sooner we can fill in that kind of piece in the puzzle that's still missing. But ultimately, getting back to what you said, Carol, there is nobody alive at the moment who has said, I saw with my own eyes Mark Chapman's bullets hit John Lennon. That just does not exist.
- [95:27]
Carol Cron
Let me say something to unify the two of you, and I think that what I have to say will reduce the tension and unify the two of you.
- [95:36]
Robert Rosen
Oh, there's no tension here.
- [95:38]
David Whelan
No, no, we can take it. It's nothing personal. I know Robert can take it, and I can take. It's no big deal.
- [95:45]
Carol Cron
Ideal world. If defense attorneys and prosecuting attorneys and most importantly, judges, did their job correctly, thoroughly and ethically, we wouldn't be arguing about this today, and we wouldn't be arguing about this in so many other cases. And this is the reason why we need something independent of a confession, an independent factual basis in addition to a confession, to support a conviction and to support a plea of guilty. So I'm not criticizing the work of either one of you. I'm actually grieving as a lawyer, that we are here now, so many years later with these questions unanswered. I find that to be a travesty. And it's an embarrassment. It's an embarrassment. When I saw the Apple TV documentary, I just saw that a few days ago, I noticed that the second defense attorney, the one who was connected with the CIA law firm, David Suggs.
- [96:59]
David Whelan
Yeah.
- [96:59]
Carol Cron
He said, we don't know what causes people to go crazy, something to that effect. Okay, so we don't know what causes a mental health diagnosis, Is that what he's saying? But we do. And we did in 1980. In 1980, we had the DSM3. Now we use the DSM3, TR5. We know the etiology of schizophrenia. We know the etiology of psychosis. So I'm bothered that a defense lawyer in such an important case, who should know whether or not his client had a diagnosis under DSM 3 criteria in 1980, and whether that diagnosis was changed during the years this man was in prison, and whether forensic and clinical psychologists pinpointed the diagnosis under DSM criteria, pinpointed the etiology of his diagnosis. The cause. Okay, the cause can be something organic in the brain. It can be environmental. It can be related to trauma. He should know these things about his very important client in this very important case and not in the year 2024. Say we don't know what causes.
- [98:31]
David Whelan
Yeah. And also, shockingly, Carrie, you're right. They both got on the record and said, well, we knew it was crazy. We knew he did it. It wasn't a kind of like a case of finding out that he didn't do it. It was just a case of how crazy was he? Shocking. He had no defense. Chapman had no defense.
- [98:47]
Carol Cron
This also disturbs me that why are defense lawyers calling their client crazy? Even in 1980, we had the DSM. So what is crazy? What the defense lawyer should be saying is, my client has been diagnosed with a schizoaffective disorder. My client has been diagnosed with major depressive disorder with psychotic features. My client has been diagnosed with some form of psychosis such that he is not oriented to place and time. He can't tell fact from fiction. I just think that that's remarkable that they use the term crazy instead of using a clinical term. It just raises so many more questions, and I don't want these questions to be here.
- [99:36]
David Whelan
There's a very interesting clip, Kara, with Jonathan marks in a 1990s documentary, which is on my YouTube channel. And he basically says something to the effect of. About the pleading guilty thing. And one of the reasons that potentially he did plead guilty was Mark was concerned that if some of his friends and family came and testified on his behalf in court, they might be under sort of threat for their lives or they might be threatened. And he felt, possibly by pleading guilty, that he would be protecting his friends and family. And I just wonder, did Mark Chapman think that, or did that thought perhaps be put in his mind from people like Milton Klein or Bernard diamond or all the other nefarious psychiatrists and hypnotists who had unfettered access, unmonitored access to Mark Chapman? We'll never know. We'll never know. But he also. Quickly, one last thing. David Suggs did say one other thing. He revealed that Mark Chapman didn't actually believe in mental illness. He thought mental illnesses was demon possession. And he actually told David Suggs, if he went to a mental institution, he wouldn't be surrounded by people who were mentally unstable or mentally ill. He'd be surrounded by demons. So Suggs actually revealed that Mark Chapman actually helped the prosecution in some ways to try and get a guilty verdict to avoid himself being innocent by reasons of insanity, which would have meant he would have gone to a mental asylum or a psychiatric hospital to say the modern term, and be surrounded by what Mark thought would be demons, not mentally ill people. And again, I asked myself, is that something that Mark just thought up himself, or is that mentally ill people are demon possessed? Because we do know that some of these Southern Baptists that I talked about earlier in the years that followed did exorcisms on March happening and actually went into his cell and said, you and his wife joined in on this, Gloria, and said, you're possessed by demons, Mark, and we need to exorcise these demons from you. They call it deliverance. That's the Protestant term for it. And some of these guys actually did it in his cell sometimes. Mark said that prison guards were doing exorcisms on him. And amazingly, one of these guys, I don't even know the guy's name, his name is Ken Babington. He's a Southern Baptist preacher. He used to be a used car salesman. Just shows you how valid this guy is. He did. He likes to do YouTube videos with the Confederate flag behind him, telling everybody how great the Confederate flag is. So I think you get an idea who Ken Babington is. And Ken Babington is the guy who actually did a remote, would you believe, exorcism on Mark Chapman from a motorium. And he said, mark, at this time, at 7:00, I'm going to call you and we're going to do an exorcism. So no doubt he was probably banned from the prison at this point. But what's interesting is Mark actually relays his story and said on the remote, exorcism worked. I could feel the demons coming out of me. Now, of course, this had to have been done with collusion in the prison. It had to been done with collusion with drugs. And again, it's this kind of. This is why I called my book Mind Games. It wasn't just the psychiatric hospitals in Hawaii and the hypnotists in Hawaii and the Southern Baptists who groomed him up to this point. It was also what happened after he was convicted and this process where the Southern Baptist group were in there trying to convince Mark that it wasn't some crazy program that made him kill John Lennon. It wasn't capturing the rye. It was demons. What a lovely, simple narrative. And if we get the demons out of you, Mark, you'll be all cured and you'll be a disciple of Christ. And to this point now, that's all Mark Chapman says. He says, forget Catcher. That wasn't true. Forget all that other stuff. It was demons. They're gone now. I'm now a disciple of the Lord. And apparently he does sermons in prison, and he's very happy in his little confined cell as some kind of great Christian parable. And I just think the guy was played. If you actually analyze what happened to that guy after he was arrested right through to today and see the people that are in there controlling him, it's just disgusting, really, to be honest. What happened to that man, whether his.
- [103:59]
Carol Cron
Bullets hit John Lennon or not, I think that he was played for sure.
- [104:04]
Robert Rosen
A couple of more points I'd like to make getting back to the whole thing. Where was Chapman standing when he was shooting? Where was Lennon standing when he was shot? It just always occurred to me when I started hearing about these discrepancies that in the horror and the confusion of the moment and, you know, Chapman is obviously a confused person, to say the least, that, you know, he just does not remember exactly what happened. It was just probably like a dream or was like playing out in a movie that he was just, you know, he's not really sure what happened. And apparently that there were no witnesses who actually saw the shooting, but it just seems like, who knows where everybody was exactly, in the horror and the confusion of the moment.
- [105:05]
David Whelan
Yeah, it's a fair point with Chapman. I'll take your point, Bob. You know, he was messed up at that point, that's for sure. And he may have been envisaging something that wasn't actually happening. I think both agree on that. But I think with regards to just the witness thing, we do have witnesses, Robert, that actually saw him just before the shooting and crucially, just after. And when there's a guy across the building called Guy Lutheran, who came out of his bed in the building across the road, and he said literally seconds after in gunfire, he looked out the window, and what he saw on the pavement was Mark Chapman in the doorman standing there. So we know Chapman wasn't anywhere near Lennon. We've also got a dog walker called Nina Rosen, who came on the scene immediately after gunfire, and her Statement has been suppressed for many, many years. But I found it in Ron Hoffman's notebooks. And she said that when she came back on the scene after hearing gunfire, she saw Chapman and Padermo by the sidewalk. She saw no gun, which is very strange. She saw no Lennon, so he's not in the driveway. And she saw Yoko in the courtyard screaming. So we do have taken Chapman's crazy mind out of this. We had Richard Peterson, of course, saw Chapman by the sidewalk and he saw Lennon walk in. And we've also got one of Peterson's passengers called Franklin Welsh, who saw Chapman and the doorman and the doorman kicking the gun. So we can pretty much fix where Chapman was, take Chapman out. I agree, Robert. He needs to be taken out of it because he's clearly a guy who's got a very messed up mind. And we can debate all day and all along about how messed up it got and who did it, but we do kind of know really where he was, and we know where John was, and we know how feasible it was for John to get those wounds from Chapman, from where he was standing. And it's frankly unfeasible.
- [106:53]
Robert Rodriguez
David, correct me if I'm wrong again, didn't the medical professionals that saw him after he was brought into Roosevelt, obviously they're used to trauma. They're used to really awful stuff. They say on a regular basis, but so are the cops. And you said that to a man, the ones that saw him in the back office, that found him face down, splayed out as you described. Didn't all of them describe chest wounds? And none of them, if he was back up, none of them described backwards.
- [107:21]
Robert Rosen
Right.
- [107:22]
David Whelan
Cullen was the first officer who went in, and he didn't move John, and he just said he was splayed out, arms out. So that. And he said, there's a guy in here, he's clearly in a bad way. So he went out and told Spiro to handcuff Chapman. The other two cops who turned up, Franberg and Palmer, went in there and they both agree on the same thing. They both said this consistently to me and other people that, you know, arms out, face down. But interestingly, Jay Hast is a concierge, has said on the record that he turned John from this face down onto his side. So you could see that he had all this blood on his chest. And he decided that he was kind of gone at that point, and he was dead and there was nothing he could do. So all this kind of tourniquet jacket over John, taking John's glasses off. All complete bs. If you look at Wikipedia, these so called tapes that Wikipedia said were scattered everywhere. Again, it's just not true. I've got the evidence vouchers. There was a Sonny Walkman and there was one type a blank Sony tape that was found in the driveway. So you can forget these tapes that apparently got to the back office. But getting back to your question, Robert, is they did turn and they all said they turn him. And Tony Palmer said that his partner Herb Framberger said that he felt nauseous because there was so much blood in the pool of blood. Obviously, if John's lying down, face down, he's got four big holes in his chest, you know the blood's going to pour out onto the floor. And it was apparently a lot of blood there. But just unfortunately there is no consistent narrative with regards to Jay Hastings, the concierge and what he says, what Nina Rosen said she saw because she saw Yoko in the courtyard. And Jay Hastings is always saying that Yoko ran in straight after John. So that's a problem. Getting back to dear Michael Medeiros that we were talking about earlier, who I have no problem with, by the way, Robert. But anyway, we'll part that. I think he's a lovely guy, Michael, but Michael has said that he went to a meeting with Doug McDougal, the bodyguard, the next day and apparently Jose Padermo told Doug McDougal that he carried John's body in. But if that's the case, then Yoko's never mentioned it. Jay Hastings said it didn't happen. Nina Rosen said she didn't see that going on. So who's telling the truth there?
- [109:34]
Robert Rodriguez
And wouldn't he necessarily be bloody.
- [109:36]
David Whelan
Well, exactly. And then it gets even worse because then you've got this other character, Joe Manny, this basement crew guy who came up to get the gun, he heard gunfire with his two colleagues. So I've got their testimony. So I know this happened because they've all said it separately three times to Ron Hoffman. They all came up, got the gun, they all went downstairs to put the gun in a draw, they all came back up again. And interestingly, when they came back up again and remember this is a water elevator at the time, so it was very slow. So they've come up, they've gone down, they've come up again. Joe Manny then goes into the back office. And what's interesting there is think about the timing here. I reckon there'd be at least three, maybe four minutes to do all that. Okay. For the event to happen. The gun to be dropped, the gun to be kicked to the back of the driveway. Joe managed to hear gunfire, to come up in the water elevator with his colleagues, to take the gun down in the water elevator, put the gun in the drawer, come back up again altogether. Joe says he came a different route, but that doesn't matter. He still had to come up. And what's interesting is Joe then went into a back office and saw stuff, and I'll tell you about that in a second. But Joe, Manny at that point said there was no cops. The two guys who came up to get the gun said no cops. So where were the cops? Because we're talking four or five minutes here, which is really important point, because when they carry John's body out, there is this discussion. There's this kind of story. The officer Moran said he saw John nod and he heard John say, yes, I'm John Lennon, right? Which we'll get to that in a moment. So it's very unlikely that John will be alive at that point. If all the medical staff said that immediately after he was shot, he'd have been dead instantly. So we know they didn't actually move him until probably five minutes after the event. So it's just ridiculous that anyone could say that he was alive at that point. But Franberger and Palmer said they saw all this blood and Franberger said that he felt a faint pulse on John, okay, in this back office, and he decided that they weren't going to wait for an ambulance. And you kind of have to ask yourself at this point as well, five minutes into the event, where is the ambulance? Why did it take so long to get there? The alarm apparently was raised immediately by Jose Padermo and Jerry Hastings. Is a New York ambulance that bad? I mean, The Roosevelt was 3, 4 minutes away in a car. So why couldn't an ambulance in the Roosevelt get there in three, four minutes? Very strange. But anyways, a Monday night, hardly Saturday night, so they couldn't have been that busy. But I digress. Franberger and Palmer carry John's body out, okay? They then put John's body into Officer Moran's car. Now, Officer Moran said at the time to Jimmy Breslin, the famous New York journalist in the New York Times, I.
- [112:18]
Robert Rosen
Believe he wrote for Daily News.
- [112:20]
David Whelan
Is it New York News? Thank you, Robert. He said that he saw John nod, okay? That was the first story. And then a day later, it then embellished, possibly through Moran, possibly through a journalist who wants to make it a bit more tasty, that John then said, yes, I'm John Lennon. When he said he's John Lennon. Three days later, after that gamble, Officer Gamble, his partner decides to have a complete conversation with John. And apparently John's talking about, how do I look? And I'm in a bad way and I hope I make it. It's just ridiculous. So gamblers, he's seen his partner. Moran gets inches in the media. He thought, I want a bit of action. I want a bit of fame. So he starts to talk about how he saw John talk to him. But what's interesting is there was a guy who wrote a book a few years ago, an anthology, a music journalist. I forget the guy's name now. It's called John Lennon did not die a slow death. And what this guy wanted to do was he wanted to find out, did John die instantly or did John suffer in the back of Moran's car. And he spoke to Moran, he spoke to Gamble, and he spoke to Franberger, Palmer, Spiro, all the cops. And what came out was, from his discussion with everybody is Moran's nodding head. Moran kind of admitted that, yeah, maybe the nodding head might have been John's head flopping as he was put into the back of his car. Okay, so you can see how that has now gone to nodding on the way to the hospital, to the next day to, yes, I'm John Lennon, to his partner then saying he had a long conversation with him. So you can see how this was expanded out. And interestingly, his colleagues Spiro and Cullen said no. The guy they were carrying out was pretty much dead. They actually admitted that they teased Moran back at the station that he was having conversations with a dead man. So you can see how these stories. And if you look online with John Lennon now, everyone talks. And I think you mentioned it in the last podcast, Robert, about how Officer Moran sort of said, are you John Lennon? And John nodded. If you actually analyze it and talk to the people on the ground, it's clearly untrue. So I think this is what you're up against when you're trying to solve a case like this and try and figure out when John died and how he died. And I would definitely counter, Robert, and say that this is important. You may call it minutiae and who really cares? And I overdo it and all the rest of it. But for me, someone that famous, I think it's just bizarre that we don't know exactly how he died and in what way and what happened to him as he was dying. And to this point now, we still don't know if you go on Wikipedia, it will say that John fell in the lobby. Well, that's just not true. He was in a back office. Wikipedia doesn't go there. It doesn't want to go there. Why. Why is this information always wrong, but to get back, to finish off this scene and why it's so confusing? Joe Manny said when he came back up a second time, he went into the office, into the lobby, and he said he saw a pool of blood in the front office, which shouldn't be there. And he was absolutely adamant there was a pool of blood in the front office. John and Jay Hastings were in the back office, okay? That's what he said he saw. When I said to Jay Hastings, what's his blood that Joe Manning said he saw in the front office? Jay Hastings says, there was no blood in the front office. Jay Hastings was covered, the concierge, in blood, okay? His shirt was full of blood and covered in blood. And I said to Joe Manny, why did you think Jay's shirt. Jay doesn't try to deny this. I said to Joe Manny, I said, why do you think Jay Hasting's shirt was covered in blood? And Joe Manny says, well, he kind of inferred that John fell into his arms. And what I thought then happened was I just assumed that John and Yoko dragged John into the front office, put him down. He bled out for a few minutes, and then they kind of panicked, and they must have dragged him into the back office, which is where I saw John when I arrived on the scene. So I say to Jay Hastings, this is what Joe Manny assumes happened. And Jay's like, no, no, no, no. That's not how I got blood on my shirt. My shirt was covered in blood because I helped the two cops carry John's body out into Officer Moran's car. Now, there's a big problem with that. Jay Hastings definitely did not do that, because all the cops that were there have told me, no, the concierge did not help. It was just Herb Franberger and Tony Palmer. And even Mark Chapman, would you believe, has confirmed that two cops carry John's body out past the car that he was now handcuffed in. And he said one of the cops swore at him and made him scared. And I spoke to Tony Palmer. He said, yep, that was me. And I think Chapman even says, the guy that was carrying the head and the arms swore at me, and that was Tony Palmer. But Jay Hastings, for some reason, wants to lie about carrying John's body out as an excuse for having his shirt covered in blood. So these anomalies need to be cleared up. There's clearly something really amiss happened that night when John was shot. There's a cover up at some degree. It can be a minor cover up because people are embarrassed, or it can be a major cover up, I don't know. But we do not have a cohesive narrative. And you were probably quite wise, Robert, in your book, to stop and Mark Chapman got his gun out and started firing. Because from that point onwards, things get very hazy. And that's possibly when you're doing your research, you probably realize that and decide to move on to something else. But those are the facts. And you could say to me, Robert, why do you get into these weeds? Why do you go so detailed? Why are you so obsessed with it? But the bottom line is, I wasn't looking for any of this when I started talking to people. I was just trying to disprove a conspiracy. I was trying to disprove that Jose Perderma wasn't a bear pigs guy. And he's not. He's not a CIA assassin. That's a different Jose Paderma. So I'm glad I disproved that. But once I started to disprove that and started to talk to the medics and the cops and all the rest of it, I started to see a picture that didn't make sense. And I had two options. I thought, well, I can just ignore this and move on in my life and do something else, or I can keep going and then put all this down in a document and see where it goes. And I decided that I couldn't sit on it because I looked elsewhere. I looked for Bresler, I looked for all the other books to see if they were talking about the medical and all the rest of it and all the anomalies. And they weren't. They just didn't go there. And then when you start to find people like Milton Klein and Manchurian Candidate, CIA consultants and Bernard diamond and all the rest of it, it starts to get troubling. That's all I'm saying. And I'm not definitively saying there was a second shooter who shot John Lennon. What I'm saying in my book is there is a high probability that that could have happened. That's all I'm saying. I put all the facts out and I say to the reader, you make up your mind what you think happened.
- [119:17]
Robert Rosen
I stopped the story after John was shot because for me, that's where the story ended. It was originally a book about John Lennon and the Book ended when John died. As you know that the reason I wrote the Chapman chapter was because the publisher asked me to and because I was in the courtroom that day. The one thing we have not talked about is motivation. That if Chapman did it, we know what his motivation was. That in some way he was crazy. But assuming what all programmed? Yeah, well, I'm assuming that that wasn't true, that he was crazy or he was programmed. But if there was a second shooter, what entity was he involved in? Was it the CIA or was it somebody who knew John personally, who had reason to want him dead? And if they did, how would they have the resources to arrange for Chapman to be programmed and to get this hired assassin?
- [120:35]
David Whelan
Yeah, it's a good question. And if you look into Commander neurat in the mid-70s from Navy Intelligence and what he said on the record to a Sunday Times journalist, he said that we have these Manchurian candidates programmed and ready to go and they've just got this programming inserted in them. And when we need to use them, we need to use them.
- [120:55]
Robert Rosen
Okay, but the question is why? What? I mean, assuming.
- [120:59]
David Whelan
Okay, now it's a good question. That's a very good question.
- [121:01]
Robert Rosen
Assuming it was the government, why in December 1980 would the CIA want him dead?
- [121:08]
David Whelan
I wouldn't say as a CIA, I wouldn't say I was a government, Robert. I don't think it needs to be one thing. I think it can be a group of like minded individuals. So let's talk about who was around Chapman. We know that we had a lot of Southern Baptist, far right Christians throughout his whole life that were guiding him from the age of 15. And they were sending him to hypnotists, they were sending him to exorcists. They were doing all this demon casting stuff when he was 15, right up until when he was in his cell after the murder. So these people are surrounding. But you can imagine what these people would have thought about John Lennon. And I know from certain journalists who interviewed these people at the time that were around March Chapman, they were deeply unpleasant, racist, far right people. These people would have detested John Lennon for what he believed in. You know, these people often talk about, imagine being some sort of socialist heathen Pym. I'm sure you've heard this stuff, Robert. These are not nice people. And Mark came from Decatur, which is three miles away from, I believe it's called Stone Mountain, which is like the foundation area for the Ku Klux Klan. So this is this kind of Decatur in 1970, 80. You just go online and put in ku Klux Klan, 1980 Decatur, these guys are out there on the streets proudly professing their disgusting doctrine. So this is the sort of milieu that Mark Chapman came from. You then got to start looking at people in that milieu that had intelligence links. And a lot of people that knew Mark Chapman were either linked to Navy intelligence or were linked to the US military. So okay, you've got that. You've also got people that were linked to Mark Chapman that were linked to people that were very high up in the Ronald Reagan administration, like Joanne Rogers. Joanne Rogers was good friends with Charles McGowan. And Charles McGowan was March Atman's main manager, sponsor, handler, call him whatever you want. So you've got people that are literally one step away from the Reagan administration like Joanne Rogers. You've also got people like Cortis Cooper who are like a Pentagon ran corporation pastor, that were also connected to Charles McGowan. So you've got a network of Republican right wing sympathizers, powerful sympathizers that are just one step away from Mark Chapman. They can literally pick up the phone and get someone to do something with march out. Now I'm not saying Charles McGowan is this kind of kingpin that organized the whole thing together, but there would have been people around Charles McGowan, he was a Navy intelligence guy. You know, he was counter intelligent Charles McGowan, he was also US military. He was a very serious guy. He wasn't just a pastor, he was a heavyweight guy who knew Joanne Rogers. He also knew people like Stephen Alford who knew Billy Graham and who knew Richard Nixon. So there are these networks. And what I would say to you, Robert, when you said why would Reagan go, why would people who were into the Reagan administration go for Lenin? Because Jimmy Carter was in power. I think you know that Jimmy Carter was a lame duck in December. In fact, Reagan was president elect by December 80. Okay, so I think we can part that one. We know the October surprise. We know what the Reagan administration did with the Ron Contra. We know what the Reagan administration did in Central America. He just put in Reagan administration corruption. The Wikipedia page will probably take you a week to read. Okay? It was a really horrible, corrupt, hawkish administration. And I believe that administration or people that were sympathetic to that incoming administration, and I don't believe it was Reagan or anybody like that, but I believe people that were sympathetic to what the agenda was going to be would look at someone like John then and think, okay, he's back in the studio, he's apparently planning a world tour. This would have been known in late summer 1980. It was well known at the time that's what he was going to do. Okay, World tour, planning a new album. And he's doing interviews where he's saying he's an instinctive socialist. Okay? So he's getting back on that train again. Why don't we just take out a problem before it becomes a problem? Have we got anybody that's kind of ready to go? We've got anybody that might fit the bill. And I think that's what happened. I think they just took out a problem before it became a problem. Because imagine what John Lennon would have said about Grenada or about Panama or about all the other horrific things.
- [125:32]
Robert Rosen
It seems to me, you know, John Lennon had been quiet for five years. And when he came out of seclusion, that he had made it really clear that he was into this whole family thing and he wasn't talking about politics at all. You know, the journals bore that out. There was virtually nothing over that five year period that talked about politics. The only thing that might have been vaguely political was that after Reagan won, he made some kind of quip about they're going to shoot Reagan and we're going to get George Bush, the CIA president. And I think that might have been the only political statement in the entire thing. And it just strikes me as really strange that these people would have the motivation to go to all the trouble to kill a singer.
- [126:38]
David Whelan
Oh, no, come on. He was more than a singer. He was a guy who could corral thousands of people and inspire them. And he taught about speaking truth to power. He taught people to challenge power. He had form, Robert. And it's not about what he was actually on the slate going to do. I think it's more about what people thought he might do. Now he was back in action because you're right, of course, you know better than anyone he had four or five years dead. Years. But before that, he was baiting Nixon for a long, long time. And Nixon was baiting him. And Nixon had him. You know, we know. We've seen the documents. Now, thanks to John Wiener, the FBI and the CIA were training him, okay? And this is facts, and they were talking about him in very derogatory terms. Okay, Carter turned up. Life got easy. But he was back in the studio in the summer of 1980. And the summer in 1980 happens to be the time when March up becomes obsessed about him and he becomes obsessed about catching the ride. I just think that you don't need to Know it. It's not about double fantasy being a threat, as some stupid people say online. It's about someone who had previous form with the previous Republican government, making it an absolute bloody nightmare and is now potentially going to be a nightmare for the incoming Republican government. And I don't think the Republican government did it as a kind of. I don't think the Reagan administration said, right, let's just have a meeting, Ronnie's at the head, like, let's take action on it. It doesn't work like that. I think people that were sympathetic to it got other groups of people that were sympathetic, maybe from a more religious of view, maybe. As you know, I'm seeing it now with Trump posting images of religious doctrine. It's almost like Reagan, you know, we know the way Reagan did a lot dog whistling for the Christian right when he got in. It's the same playbook repeating itself again. And back then that bunch, that Christian far right bunch, that, that kind of evangelical movement that Reagan tapped into, it's happening again now. And it was happening again then. And I don't think they needed to know it. I just think they needed to be scared of it and to anticipate it. And I think people that do these kind of operations, Robert, as you know, taking out foreign governments and planning coups, which is on the record that intelligence agencies and black ops outside of intelligence agencies are done. Do you think they would care shooting John Lennon, do you think that would be a problem for them from a kind of conscientious point of view? I don't really care a job.
- [129:04]
Robert Rosen
It always struck me that the government wanting John Lennon dead in 1980 was very far fetched. And if it wasn't Chapman who did it for whatever his insane reasons might have been, that there were a lot of people surrounding Lennon who had a lot more motivation to want him dead. And I'm talking about financial stuff that. I remember what Fred Seaman was telling me after the murder, that he seemed to really believe that Yoko was behind it. And I never bought that either. But I don't know, you want to go by a gut feeling and what's a gut feeling worth? Not much. But it doesn't feel right to me that the government tried to pull off this.
- [130:01]
David Whelan
I've never said it was the government. It's not the government. You've got to stop saying that, Robert. I never said it as a government. I said it's people who are sympathetic to the Republican incoming administration. That's not the government. That's people who are connected to the government that want to see the government succeed, there's no way Ronald Reagan would have known about this and would have cared about it.
- [130:18]
Robert Rosen
Okay? You know, right wing government adjacent. And why didn't they just send a contract killer to do it instead of going through this whole thing with the pat?
- [130:30]
David Whelan
That's simple. Because if they did that, you'd have the biggest manhunt in history. So if you've got a patsy who's programmed to think he's just done something he didn't do, it's game, set and match. Game, set and match. And there is a lot of evidence to prove that. I think they wanted Chapman to run. Remember, Padermo said to him, twice, Chapman said, padermo came up to me and said, get the hell out of here. Okay? And Chapman remembered that, allegedly, and said, where would I go? But Nina Rosen, remember, came on the scene seconds after gunfire. Nina Rosen, her Padermo say to Chapman, get out of here. The cops are going to be here in a minute. Now that to me is an accomplice saying to someone, you're going to get caught if you don't run. And I don't think Chapman was meant to stand there getting his book out, looking at the pages, and as he said, all the words were jumbling on it. I think that was a big problem. And the people that rushed to get into Chapman's cell, I think gave themselves away. The people that were desperate to try and fix this problem of Mark chapman in the 20th Precinct that night going, well, I've got nothing against John Lennon. I've got nothing against the Beatles. I just had this weird compulsion to be here. I don't know why I did it. I just had to do it. Some reason I had to do it. I don't think they wanted that. I think what they would have liked is Chapman to run into Central park and you got a Jack Ruby type guy who could easily be there on the scene. Some vigilante cop or a vigilante member of the public who would have took Chapman down and shot him. What a fantastic bow to put on the whole thing. Tie the bow up. He's got this display in his hotel room. He wanted everyone to think he was famous. He wanted to be famous. He's dead now. People saw him do it. Let's just all move on. But that didn't happen.
- [132:07]
Robert Rosen
Okay, well, we both agree that the ultimate thing that could come from your book and your investigation would be for the NYPD to reopen the case. And we both agree that the odds of that happening are probably pretty close to nil.
- [132:26]
David Whelan
Yeah, agreed.
- [132:27]
Robert Rosen
I mean, what do you hope to accomplish?
- [132:30]
David Whelan
I had no end game in that one, Robert. I had all this information. I had all these interviews. I've got the documentation for the lead detective. I realized there was no investigation going through that documentation. I spoke to the lead detective, Ron Hoffman, three or four times. He basically told me that we didn't bother looking for prints. We didn't bother looking for bullets. You know, we didn't do men in white suits. You know, it was just kind of like the next morning that Dakota Driver was open again. People were coming and going. The doors were thrown in the basement. They had their guy. It was a grounder move on. Christmas is coming. So I think once I realized that, Robert, as I told you earlier, I had one decision to make. Do I just sit on this and just forget it, or do I tell the world this is what I found? And for some reason, I felt a need to tell the world what I found, because I think John Lennon was a guy all about truth, and he was a guy about speaking truth to Pat. He's obviously a guy about questioning things. I don't think Lennon would have a problem with anybody questioning any official narrative in any regard. So I just thought, what would John think about it? Yeah, I don't think you have a problem with it. I think he'd probably want this information to be out there. And it was difficult. I knew I was kind of saying that one of the world's most hated men might possibly be not as guilty as we think he is. I knew the backlash was going to be severe, and it was. I knew I was going to be called that phrase. You update a few by calling me a conspiracy hustler. Thanks for that, Robert. That's got a slightly more sexier appeal than conspiracy theorists, so I'll take that one. I'll own that one. But it's not pleasant. And I knew it wasn't going to be pleasant, and I knew I was going to be attacked because the narrative has been so well sold. It was confusing in the beginning. They weren't sure if he wanted to be Lenin. They weren't sure if it was catching their eye. Then it became demons, and it kind of moved around a lot. And there's a lot of early press releases where they say he's given lots of different reasons for doing it. You know, the police are on the record saying that. So he. He had no idea why he did it. Chapman. He certainly didn't do it for fame. That's for sure. So I just felt. Robert and I. I know you're dead right. The chances of the NYPD or the DA's office going for this again, it's nil. And I think the files have probably been destroyed because Fenton Bresler went in the mid-80s to the DA's office and said, can you give me Chapman's travel movements? I want to know where he was and what he did leading up to the murder. And the DA's office said, We've lost them, they're gone, we can't find them. And I think those files will be lost. If there are any files, I think the DA's office left files I know the NYPD don't, so I've kind of got most of those. But what is interesting on the DA's office, in the evidence vouchers, which are pretty complete, I pretty much got all of them. But the one thing that's not in the evidence vouchers is spent bullets. Isn't that interesting? That's the one thing that seems to be missing. And the one person that did actually manage to take a picture of those spent bullets with the gun. Two of the spent bullets. Only two. One was a hollow point and one was not a hollow point, which is quite telling. And then in the. In the actual morgue receipts that I managed to get from the lead detective, it says in there that there's a hollow point bullet and a non hollow point bullet that was found at the autopsy. Now, that just doesn't make sense because Chapman and the NYPD and the DA's office have always been consistent and said he was a nasty, horrible man who used hollow point bullets to kill John Lennon. Unfortunately, one of the bullets that was found in John Lennon wasn't hollow point. So what do you do with information like that? You either sit on it or you tell people. And I just decided, for better or worse, I'm going to tell people. And I've not enjoyed it. That's another thing I keep saying to people. I've not found this a pleasant experience.
- [136:15]
Robert Rosen
The book's been out there for some time now. I mean, have you approached a major media organization with your theories?
- [136:22]
David Whelan
Yeah, this is my world. And I'm talking to many major media operations and I'm talking to many minor media operations, and I'm being very careful about who I get in bed with to do this. Because again, this is the world I come from. And I've watched when I first started in TV in the 80s. You remember this, Robert? You're old enough to remember, as is the other Robert and probably Carol as well. Back in the day, documentaries used to be quite hard hitting and they used to look into dark corners. I would say now documentaries look fabulous. They've got great soundtracks, they've got great archive. But do you learn anything new? Is a kind of Watergate ever going to happen again in a documentary form? No, because people just don't want to be called a conspiracy theorist. And I've spoken to some people about this. I'll tell you one guy, I won't say his name, he's a very, very senior documentary producer. And he just said, I can't get involved in something that might sort of even hint, he said the word hint that the American government might kill one of the most famous men who ever lived. He said, it's too big for me, it's too dangerous, it's too scary. And this was a big, powerful documentary producer, a world straddling award winning producer. And I think he's indicative of where we are in television, document and film documentaries at the moment. They will tell you about a bad guy. Look at this bad guy that you know is a bad guy. We're going to do a documentary telling you he's a bad guy. Look at this bad organization. You know, they're a bad organization. And we're going to do a documentary again telling you what a bad organization they are. What they won't do is surprise you and go, you know, this bad guy, he's actually a good guy. Or this organization actually does some good things. They don't uncover new stuff, they don't, they're not interested in new stuff. All documentaries are about now is vanilla, make it look cool. Sexy music, sexy archive. I don't want to rock any boats. And the only reason I think they don't want to rock boats, and it may sound very simplistic, is they don't want to be called a conspiracy theorist because they believe if they are, they won't be taken seriously by their peers. And I genuinely believe that is the reason. And so I'm going on a very uphill journey at the moment talking to production companies and media companies and saying, look, if we're going to do this, we're not going to cut corners, we're not going to do tricky edits where things are not what they're supposed to be. So I would rather not do it at all if I don't get to do it in the right way and put all the information out that I've uncovered and say to the viewer, make your own mind up. I'm not going to tell you whether there's a second shooter. I'm not going to tell you whether Jay Hastings is dodgy or Charles McGowan is a handler or Gloria is involved. Read all the evidence, read all the interviews. See all the documentation. Make your own mind up. I'm 100% convinced that what you read on Wikipedia is not true.
- [139:16]
Robert Rosen
Well, why don't you go into Wikipedia and add your own information?
- [139:21]
David Whelan
Yeah. Yeah, maybe I should. I'm not sure it would stay up very long, but. Yeah, thanks for the advice. Appreciate it. But it's tough out there. It's tough.
- [139:32]
Carol Cron
If I could make a wish, I wish that John Lennon was still in this world with us. I wish that as things are now and as things have been between now, looking back to 1980, that I wish I could see John Lennon's take, whether it's an absurdist take, whether he's telling us something misleading or something that he really believes. I just wish that the world had that voice.
- [140:10]
Robert Rosen
Well, I'm sure a lot of people feel the same way.
- [140:13]
Carol Cron
And what an interesting person. I look at his face in a clip in the war movie. I'm sorry, I can't remember the name.
- [140:23]
Robert Rosen
What? How I won the war.
- [140:24]
David Whelan
How I won the war.
- [140:25]
Carol Cron
How I won the war. Right. How can you not feel that you want more of that? More of that presence?
- [140:35]
David Whelan
Yeah. One thing I would say, Carol, is I don't think he'd be frightened of being called a conspiracy theorist. I don't think that would stop him saying what he thought. There's a lot of people out there, Carol, who. Who I would call conspiracy deniers. They just don't want to ever believe that a conspiracy theory can be true and they use this kind of plural. I don't believe in conspiracy theories. Well, clearly, conspiracy theories have been proved to have happened. So that's just a very childish, reductive thing to say. So it's kind of like. But equally, I think, the conspiracy absolutists who think everything's a conspiracy, I find those people equally ridiculous. And I just think it's not binary. Every case needs to be taken on its own merits.
- [141:16]
Carol Cron
Too many. When a generally accepted narrative gradually becomes no longer a generally accepted narrative, that happens too much.
- [141:30]
Robert Rosen
This has been going on 44 years and nothing has come of it. And, David, maybe you have broken some ground, I don't know. But it just strikes me that you're on this Don Quixote quest, that you're going to be carrying this thing to the bitter end, and who knows if anything is ever gonna come of it.
- [141:54]
David Whelan
It's a fair point. I hear you, Robert. I hear you. And it's a fair point. And I think I'm very wary of going kind of Jim Garrison esque and just taking this thing right to my deathbed. I don't want to do that. As I said, I haven't found this enjoyable. I think you. You said, and I'll just pull you up for this one, Robert. Sorry to pull you up again. I didn't do this for glory. I just kind of did it because I felt I had to do it. I felt obliged to get the info out. There's no glory in being called on a mail online commentary, you know, 5,000 times that you're a crazy conspiracy theorist lunatic. My family don't like seeing that. I don't like seeing that. You know, I've got kids and it's not pleasant. This is not a pleasant trip for me, but I just felt compelled to do it and I don't regret doing it. But to go back to what you're saying, I don't want to do this forever. What I'm hoping is that other people will pick up the ban. I'm in the uk. I'm quite limited what I can do here. So I'm hoping people in America, not crazy people, not the absolutists, just people who are measured and just will take the evidence as they find it and lay it out there. I don't want this to be, look at poor old Stephen King who got harassed by that lunatic and still gets harassed, I believe to this very day, that thinks he's involved in John's murder. You know, these people scare me. And I've had a few of these people like you've had with Salvador, Robert, circling me, coming up with crazy stuff. To me, my way of doing it is I just block them. I just block out any crazies and hopefully they'll stay away. But, yeah, it's not pleasant. It's not been a pleasant journey. When this stuff started to unravel, you got to keep going. You got to keep going. And then once 50 pages became 300 pages, I thought, well, the only way I'm going to get this out coherently is in the book. And that's it. There's nothing more to it.
- [143:49]
Robert Rosen
I hope you can see it through this television camera.
- [143:53]
David Whelan
We can sense it here. This is a Jetta crowd, what they're doing. They're handing out flowers and buttons and.
- [143:59]
Robert Rosen
There are signs everywhere.
- [144:01]
David Whelan
That we look around, it says peace.
- [144:02]
Robert Rosen
And love and we will miss you, John.
- [144:05]
David Whelan
We remember you. That is the kind of mood, that is the kind of feeling that permeates this crowd here today. John Lennon represents music and radio stations.
- [144:16]
Robert Rosen
Around the country are having a very special broadcast today.
- [144:19]
David Whelan
They'll be remembering the life and time of John Lennon. And we will be remembering here with interviews and more to report from Grandson Central, or I should say from Central Park. Once again, back to you, Roger.
- [144:32]
Robert Rodriguez
Something about the Beatles, created and hosted by Robert Rodriguez, executive producer Rick Way, title song performed by the Corgis. Something about the Beatles is an evergreen podcast.
- [144:57]
David Whelan
Good evening. All around the world, John Lennon's fans.
- [144:59]
Robert Rosen
Bowed their heads in silence today. Yes, they mourned his death in silence and in song. Thousands in New York, Central park, many thousands more across the nation and the world, marking a 10 minute silent vigil at 2:00 local time, wherever the Lennon.
- [145:13]
David Whelan
Fans happen to be.
- [145:14]
Robert Rosen
The silence falling also in Chicago, Philadelphia, Miami, Memphis, Detroit and other cities. A report now on the Central park observance from John Hamlin.
- [145:23]
David Whelan
The silence was almost total here in Central park this afternoon, except for the sound of the helicopters circling above. Every human being, maybe as many as 200,000 who had gathered here to pay silent tribute to John Lennon did exactly that. There was not even the sound of a dog barking or a baby crying, which frankly, was in evidence just before the tribute began.
- [145:52]
Robert Rosen
Then at 2:00, the recorded music which had filled Central park was shut off.
- [145:57]
David Whelan
And the silent vigil began. The silent vigil, the prayers for John Lennon's soul, as requested by his widow.
- [146:18]
Robert Rosen
Yoko ono, ended after 10 minutes, as did simultaneous tributes around the world. I talked with some of those gathered.
- [146:25]
David Whelan
About their thoughts during the silent period. I prayed for his soul. He believed in peace, you know, and what can I say? Just look around you, it tells it all. And I'd like to see, hopefully, maybe.
- [146:41]
Robert Rodriguez
Gun control could be the result of.
- [146:42]
David Whelan
This so that death won't be totally.
- [146:44]
Robert Rosen
In vain at the silent period. I thought if he were here, he'd.
- [146:48]
David Whelan
Be happy, you know.
- [146:58]
Robert Rosen
In Central Park. John Hayes, News 4 Manhattan.
- [147:03]
David Whelan
Hey, what's up, you guys? This is Reed Mathis.
- [147:05]
Robert Rosen
I made a podcast called the Gifts of Improvising.
- [147:08]
David Whelan
The Gifts of Improvising, that's coming out on Osiris.
- [147:11]
Robert Rosen
We talked to all your favorite improvisers. Natalie Cressman, Marco Benevento, Tom Hamilton, Aaron.
- [147:17]
David Whelan
Magner, Holly Bowling, Bill Kreutzman and Jay Lane. So what, you're doing a podcast?
- [147:21]
Carol Cron
Yeah, doing a podcast, so don't fear if you hear a foreign sound to your ear.
- [147:32]
Robert Rosen
We need the gifts of improvising the.
- [147:40]
David Whelan
Helping Friendly Podcast explores the music and.
- [147:43]
Robert Rosen
Fan experience of Fish through interviews and.
- [147:45]
David Whelan
Deep dives on shows and tours. For more than 10 years, we've created insightful and fun discussions about our favorite band, and with the help of our guests and thematic series, we're still discovering new angles of appreciation for Fish. And when the band is on tour, we provide a review of every show the following day. As one of our listeners said, any Fish fans that enjoy meandering conversations and incredible insight on new and old Fish shows, this is for you. Highly recommend. It's not just about the band and the shows, it's about the journey.
- [148:14]
Robert Rosen
Getting there throughout 2024, we're going to.
- [148:17]
David Whelan
Be running down the top 25 fish tours of all time, and that'll be.
- [148:21]
Robert Rosen
Interspersed with show reviews and regular episodes.
- [148:25]
David Whelan
Join us and check out the Helping Friendly podcast. Wherever you get your podcasts.