Discussion:
Questions about Fred Seaman
(too old to reply)
SilentCoupSal
2004-07-08 02:40:14 UTC
Permalink
I found some interesting posts regarding Fred Seaman from 1999
(see below), and would like to recap a few points, then ask
some questions.

First, Mr. Seaman was personal assistant to John Lennon from
early 1979 until John's death on Dec. 8, 1980.

Second, Mr. Seaman is a bona fide criminal who once posted on this
newsgroup (big shock). Not only did he break a trust between
John and Yoko, but he stole John's personal effects shortly after
his death. Then he fed writer Albert Goldman a pack of lies about
John in an obvious effort to discredit John posthumously.

Third, Mr. Seaman insinuated that Yoko hired Mark David Chapman to
kill John. (something we know is bullshit) Why would he try to blame
her? It appears he wanted to discredit Yoko too.

Fourth, Mr. Seaman spread rumors that John was gay or bisexual.
(also bullshit) This is more posthumous character assassination.

Fifth, Mr. Seaman has demonstrated that he is a bigger whore than
some of the low-life scoundrels on this newsgroup, willing to do
virtually anything for money.

Sixth, where was Mr. Seaman on Dec. 8, 1980 at 10:50 PM ?

In Chapter 1 of my book, Rethinking John Lennon's Assassination,
I demonstrated that Mark David Chapman in all likelihood did not
shoot John, but the real assassin fired the fatal shots while
standing in the doorway leading to the service elevator.
Several accounts referred to an unidentified person who was also
at the crime scene. This was someone besides Cuban exile doorman
Jose Perdomo and lobby clerk Jay Hastings. Some accounts refer to
this individual as a handyman; others call him a maintenance man;
and others call him an elevator operator. Was this person Fred Seaman?

Patrolman Peter Cullen, one of the officers who arrested Chapman,
believed the shooter was a handyman at the Dakota, not Chapman.
Cullen thought Chapman "looked like a guy who worked in a bank."
But Cuban exile doorman (security guard) Jose Perdomo convinced
Cullen that Chapman was the assailant.

To read the crime scene analysis in my book, click the following URL:

http://www.jfkmontreal.com/john_lennon/Chapter01A.htm

Seventh, has Mr. Seaman had any firearms training?

Eighth, did Fred Seaman shoot and kill John Lennon?

Salvador Astucia

=========================
From: Shobus (***@aol.com)
Subject: Letter/Question to those that believe Fred Seaman
Newsgroups: rec.music.beatles
Date: 1999/12/23

I copied the following from one of my posts. I place it in a new thread
becasue I would really like someone to answer a question. Why don't those that
believe what Fred Seaman writes in RMB go to the police with his allegations or
encourage him to go to the police? He has insinuated that Yoko hired MDC to
kill John. He has stated (not implied) that Yoko drugged Julian and seduced
him. A lot of times I say a lot of things that I mean, but I am not terribly
concerned about the people on the other side and their motives, etc. I am in
this case. I really think it strange that someone would accept Fred's words -
that Yoko drugged and seduced Julian. Why would not someone try to stop this?
It disturbs me that people think that this is true and do nothing to try to
stop it. I do not think it is true, so I do not feel the need to protect other
young men from being drugged and seduced by Yoko.

o.k., here is my post...
I do not think of myself as pro-Ono/Mintz. I started writing in defense of
Yoko and in opposition to Fred ONLY after he wrote the rubbish about Yoko
getting her wish that John was dead (and did she hire MDC) and the bit about
drugging and seducing Sean. Perhaps you consider this as "honestly reporting
his experiences" with John and Yoko, but I do not.

Fred's standard response to anyone that does not believe his vile or anyone
that even enjoy's Yoko's music is to imply that they are sheep, blindly
accepting whatever the Ono propaganda machine releases. This may be true for
some, but there are too many on rmb that blindly accept whatever Fred writes.

I find it hard to believe that individuals capable of even a modicum of
critical thinking would believe everything that Fred writes. Yoko drugged and
seduced Julian? Y AND (and is the important word) SH hired MDC? It has been
written many times, with no response from Fred (I believe,) that if these awful
"truths", as he puts it, exist, then WHY DID HE NEVER GO TO THE POLICE? I
would think that an honest man such as Fred, who's pursuit and stewardship of
the truth is legendary would be the first one in line to stop such occurances.

If we assume that the drugging and seducing incident is true, and we assume
that it occured during the time of Fred's employment, then (I could be wrong)
would that not make Julian a child when this happened? Honestly, I am not sure
of the dates involved, when Julian was born, but it seems that Julian would
have still been under 18 years of age. If Yoko did this once to Julian, then
it stands to reason that she did this many times throughout her life.

This type of demented behaviour, usually, manifests itself several times. This
sort of sickness can not be unleashed once and never again, can it? You would
think that Fred would have contacted the authorities so that this could never
happen again. Who knows who else she has drugged and seduced, if one accepts
Fred's accounts?

So, if it makes you feel better to write that I am a coward and pathetic, that
is fine. I would think that a man that claims to have information concerning
the assasination of his former boss and the drugging and seduction/molestation
of his former boss' son and does nothing with the information should be
considered pathetic and cowardly.

If the pro-Fred contingent feels so strongly that Fred is writing the truth,
then perhaps they should encourage Fred to go to the police. Perhaps the
pro-Fred contingent should call the NYC police - tell them that Yoko has
drugged and seduced a young man. Tell them that they should follow up on Fred
Seaman's acusations - for they are truths. They are not "truths" that Yoko
spews forth to her pro-Ono/Mintz contingent, but absolute truths, ones that can
not be refuted or denied. If the pro-Fred contingent does not do this, knowing
that the accusations are true, then what is stopping them? Either they are
pathetic and cowardly or they doubt Fred's word. Take your pick.

========================
From: Jim Richard (***@leland.Stanford.EDU)
Subject: Fred Seaman vs. David Sheff
View: Complete Thread (4 articles)
Original Format
Newsgroups: rec.music.beatles
Date: 1999/01/12
In fact, I did look into suing PLAYBOY. I was advised that Sheff's article
did meet the legal test for libel: It was false, in reckless disregard of the
truth (Sheff knowingly wrote things in the article that he new to be false),
and malicious (as evidenced by Sheff's fabricated quotes; Sheff's aticle was
clearly pro-Yoko & anti-Fred -- I'm sure that even my detractors will concede
this...)
-FS
Since Fred Seaman has started posting to r.m.b., I thought people would
be interested in comparing David Sheff's description of the missing Lennon
diaries with Seaman's. Here are summaries of the two accounts. Following
the summaries are a few questions that I hope Fred will answer.

-----
Here is the summary of "The Betrayal of John Lennon", published in the March
1984 Playboy:

Right after Lennon's death, Seaman drew up a contract with Bob Rosen.
For the next year, Fred stole documents from the Dakota apartments and
delivered them to Rosen each Friday. Seaman stole money from Lenono
petty-cash to pay Rosen. In May 1981, Seaman gave Julian Lennon a
copy of the cassette of John's final songs recorded in Bermuda. Seaman's
journal suggests that he intended to try to convince Julian that he, rather
than Yoko, was the rightful guardian of his father's diaries. Sheff words
this as "his aim is to draw Julian into the plan."

In August 1981, Rick Dufay, a guitarist with Aerosmith, joined Seaman and
Rosen. In October, Rosen wrote in his journal that Fred's fantasy was
that "Everybody who was ever associated with the Beatles in any way, shape
or form drops dead. Fred is the only one who remains alive. He corners
the gossip market... We [Seaman, Dufay, Rosen] are all that close. We know
how contemptible the other one is..."

In November 1981, Yoko learned that Julian was planning to record the
songs that she intended to release on the follow-up to "Double Fantasy".
She called Julian and learned that he got the cassette from Fred. Julian
apologized. The same month, Seaman and Dufay stole a large amount of audio
equipment from the Dakota, including an expensive amplifier that John
used to keep by his bed. The next day, someone noticed that equipment was
missing. Elliot Mintz took inventory and found that a lot of things were
missing. No suspicion was cast on Fred, and he wrote in his diary:
"Yesterday's theft doesn't seem to have any consequences, thank God."

The next month Fred showed up at the Christmas Party wearing one of John's
old scarves. Yoko asked him about it. He denied it at first, and then
admitted it may have been one of John's. After getting into a $12,000 car
accident while using a Lenono car for personal business, and then being
caught using Yoko's private bath during work hours, Fred was fired and
given $10,000 severance. From Fred's diary: "My immediate regret is that
I won't have an opportunity to go through the files and avail myself of
'research' material."

The next month, Rosen wrote in his diary that "Possession of the journals
are my best leverage." He also wrote that he was afraid the journals
would be stolen. Seaman's psychotherapist introduced Fred to Norman
Schonfeld, a retired diamond merchant who agreed to finance 'Project
Walrus'. In his diary, Fred wrote that the plan was to discredit Yoko
as much as possible and to set himself up as the real inheritor of
Lennon's artistic and social legacy. Schonfeld and the pschotherapist
soon convinced Fred that Rosen should be cut out of the project. Rosen
was sent to the Carribean and while he was away, Fred wrote: "Norman
[Schonfeld] and I decided to take all the stuff out. . . absconded with
his copy of the journals, the Bermuda tape and anything else we could
carry out." After Rosen returned to his empty apartment, Fred called
and told him what they had done.

In August 1982, Rosen tried to sell his story to magazines, telling them
he had a photographic memory. When no one made an offer, he called Mintz
and offered to return some material for a price. When Mintz threatened to
call the police, Rosen spilled the whole story, claiming to be a dupe of
Seaman's.

A shabbily dressed man showed up at the Dakota with a box full of papers,
including John's diary. He claimed to have gotten them from a junkie in
Harlem. Sam Havadtoy [Yoko's companion] paid him $5,000 to get the rest
of the diaries but he disappeared. They then discovered that the papers
contained only a photocopy of John's 1980 diary and that the rest of the
papers were Fred's journals. When they learned from Rosen that Schonfeld had
put up $33,000 for 'Project Walrus', they figured that he must have the
journals. They approached him and he offered to return the diaries in
return for $60,000 in "expenses". They agreed, and they receive all of the
original diaries back, with the exception of the original 1980 diary which
was never recovered.

In April 1983, Seaman got a $90,000 advance from Simon & Schuster.
Havadtoy called the police and Fred was arrested for grand larceny. The
police found some of the stolen electronic equipment in Fred's home and
storage room. Fred turned over his photocopies of Lennon's diaries. Later,
after he was released, a visitor to his apartment reported that it contained
gold records from 'Double Fantasy' and a piece of Yoko's artwork called
'A Box of Smile' (you open the box and find a mirror on the inside of the
lid).

On May 27, Seaman plead guilty to second-degree grand larceny. He was
sentenced to five years probation. His plea was contingent on his
agreement not to reveal what is in the Lennon diaries. [Simon & Schuster
then cancelled his book deal and withdrew his $90,000 advance.] When Sheff
contacted Dufay for the Playboy story, he wasn't available. Schonfeld said
he didn't know anything about Lennon, Seaman or the diaries. Rosen said,
"I probably knew deep down that the journals were stolen, but I never
admitted it to myself - I didn't want to know."
-----

Here is the summary of Fred Seaman's account, published in the afterword
of his book, "The Last Days of John Lennon":


On December 23, 1980, during the aftermath of John's death, Elliot Mintz
found John's 1980 diary in his bedroom. He told Fred to take it to Yoko.
Fred was surprised by her lack of interest in the diary. She asked him
to file it with his other papers. Fred told Yoko that five months earlier,
in Bermuda, John had mentioned to him that he wanted Julian to get his
journals if anything happened to him. In January 1981 Fred found John's
journals for 1974-1979, also in John's bedroom. Fred decided to deliver
the journals to Julian. Fred met a close friend from college [Bob Rosen,
though the afterword does not mention his name], who offered to copy the
journals overnight while Fred packed for his trip to London to see Julian.
Rosen then called back and said they should collaborate together on a
book based on the diaries. Fred then consulted with his psychotherapist
who recommended that he play along with Rosen. He also put him in touch
with Norman Shoenfeld, a wealthy patient of his, who baited Rosen in order
to retrieve the diaries.

Around Christman 1981, Schoenfeld told Rosen that he would finance a book
and send him on an expenses-paid vacation to the Carribean provided that
Rosen first turn over John's journals. Rosen agreed. Schoenfeld then
insisted on keeping the diaries himself, and promised Fred he would find
a way to return them to Yoko through an intermediary.

Rosen then approached magazines offering to sell them copies of the journals
that he had stashed. Jan Wenner of 'Rolling Stone' tipped off Yoko who
had Mintz track down Rosen. When confronted, Rosen implicated Seaman as
the mastermind behind the diary conspiracy, and he also accused Shoenfeld
and the psychotherapist.

On August 13, the apartment that Fred was staying in was burglarized and
two of his own journals from 1980 were stolen (he had photocopies).

After Rosen confessed, Fred called Yoko in late August to tell her his side
of the story. Yoko's chief of security, Dan Mahoney, a NYC police sergeant,
met Fred and told him that Schoenfeld had returned John's original diaries
to Yoko for a $60,000 finders fee. Mahoney said that the 1980 journal was
missing and that it was thought that Fred had it. When Fred said he didn't,
Mahoney told him, "I like you, Freddie, and I wouldn't like to see you get
hurt."

On September 27, Fred was stopped outside his apartment by two policemen
who worked as bodyguards for Yoko, one of whom was Mahoney's partner. They
told him they had a warrant for his arrest, and drove him to a deserted
alley in the meat-packing district. They demanded Lennon's 1980 diary,
and when Fred said he didn't have it, one of the cops wrapped his first
in a rain coat and started punching Fred, shouting "we'll either have the
journal or you'll be dead." After several minutes of this, they drove
with Fred along the Hudson and quietly discussed shooting Fred and dumping
his body. They stopped, Fred was pulled out of the car, and a gun was
held to the back of his head. "If you don't cooperate, I'll blow your
brains out," the cop threatened, but when Fred insisted he didn't have it,
they drove him to the 20th Precinct and warned him not to tell anybody
what had happened. They also took the keys to his apartment. Fred was
soon taken to his apartment while the police searched it. They collected
anything they thought he might have stolen from the Dakota such as papers
and tapes. Back at the station, Fred was asked to sign a confession that
said he had taken things from the Dakota without Yoko's approval. Fred
said that he had only taken John's diaries. The detectives said they
believed Fred, that the wording of the confession would be changed later,
and that he could go after he signed. Fred signed and was then locked up
overnight.

After being released, Fred hired an attorney to initiate a civil suit
against Yoko, Havadtoy and NYC in connection with his assault. On December
8, the charges against Fred were dropped. However, on February 18, 1983,
Fred learned that Yoko was bringing his case before a grand jury. Since
Fred had given signed and videotaped confessions saying he had taken John's
diaries, his attorneys told him he should plead guilty in return for a
suspended sentence. Fred agreed to plead guilty to criminal possession,
a misdemeanor. On May 27, when Fred went before the judge, he found that
"criminal possession" had been crossed out and replaced with "grand larceny",
a felony. His attorney told him he would have to either sign the
plea-bargain agreement or pay him $10,000 to retain his services. Fred
signed the plea-bargain agreement and was sentenced to five years probation.
Since Fred had spent nearly $30,000 on legal fees at this point, he was
unable to pursue his civil suit against Yoko, Havadtoy and NYC.
-----

Some questions for Fred Seaman:

1. Did Mintz's audio equipment inventory that showed there was missing
equipment become known before or after you were found to have taken
John's diaries?

2. Do Schoenfeld and your psychotherapist back your story?

3. Were either charged with stealing the diaries?

4. Were the entries in Rosen's journal that implicate you fabricated?
(e.g. "He corners the gossip market.").

5. Did you ever have a handwriting expert examine the entries in your
journal that you say were fabricated?

6. Why did you wait nearly a year before taking action to retrieve the
diaries from Rosen?

7. Did your signed confession list the audio equipment you were accused
of stealing or was this thrown in later?


JimR

===
Ordering information for Salvador Astucia's books can be found at
http://www.jfkmontreal.com/raveningwolf/

Also see Astucia's homepage: http://www.jfkmontreal.com
dlarsson
2004-07-15 04:19:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by SilentCoupSal
Sixth, where was Mr. Seaman on Dec. 8, 1980 at 10:50 PM ?
Seventh, has Mr. Seaman had any firearms training?
Eighth, did Fred Seaman shoot and kill John Lennon?
In Chapter 1 of my book, Rethinking John Lennon's Assassination,
I demonstrated that Mark David Chapman in all likelihood did not
shoot John, but the real assassin fired the fatal shots while
standing in the doorway leading to the service elevator.
Several accounts referred to an unidentified person who was also
at the crime scene. This was someone besides Cuban exile doorman
Jose Perdomo and lobby clerk Jay Hastings. Some accounts refer to
this individual as a handyman; others call him a maintenance man;
and others call him an elevator operator. Was this person Fred Seaman?
I think this is certainly a possibility. That is not
to say that I've seen any additional information that
directly implicates Seaman - but it is clear that Seaman is
a truly contemptible figure who immediately seized upon
the tragedy of Lennon's murder to further victimize the
family, the memory of Lennon, and then profiteer from
his malicious and criminal actions. That takes a very cold
individual -- while the whole rest of the world was in a state
of shock (stunned by the loss of the man who best exemplified
the music & spirit & ideals of the 1960s).

Seaman is a proven liar, leech, and thief -- who, like Albert Goldman,
had a decidedly hardcore anti-Lennon agenda. Why?

What happened to Lennon seems very similar to
what happened to Kennedy in a certain sense.

First: the leader is physically assassinated.

Second: efforts are made to reduce & marginalize him,
poke holes in his legacy, character assassination.
The biography becomes reduced down to smears about
his personal life and not about his accomplishments
talent, or his ideals & message, what he stood for, or the
hope and inspiration that he gave to people.

_______________________

[ Notice how Kennedy's vision was the exact 180-degree
polar OPPOSITE of the Cheney-Bush-Rumsfeld-Ashcroft
Nazi-Orwell-WarProfiteer death wish ]


"Our problems are manmade--therefore, they can be solved by man.
And man can be as big as he wants.

No problem of human destiny is beyond human beings.
What kind of peace do I mean? What kind of peace do we seek?
Not a Pax Americana enforced on the world by American weapons of war.

The United States, as the world knows, will never start a war.
We do not want a war. We do not now expect a war. This generation
of Americans has already had enough--more than enough--of war and
hate and oppression. We shall be prepared if others wish it.
We shall be alert to try to stop it. But we shall also do our part
to build a world of peace where the weak are safe and the strong
are just. We are not helpless before that task or hopeless of its success.
Confident and unafraid, we labor on--not toward a strategy of annihilation
but toward a strategy of peace."
-John Kennedy, June 10, 1963


"All planning will be directed towards preparing RVN (Republic of Vietnam)
forces for the withdrawal of all U.S. special assistance units and
personnel by the end of calendar year 1965."
-John Kennedy, Oct 4, 1963




- Derek


================================
Post by SilentCoupSal
Patrolman Peter Cullen, one of the officers who arrested Chapman,
believed the shooter was a handyman at the Dakota, not Chapman.
Cullen thought Chapman "looked like a guy who worked in a bank."
But Cuban exile doorman (security guard) Jose Perdomo convinced
Cullen that Chapman was the assailant.
http://www.jfkmontreal.com/john_lennon/Chapter01A.htm
Salvador Astucia
Sakuradamon
2004-07-15 05:34:36 UTC
Permalink
Fred was dedicated to JL not Yoko
Fred is cool everyone makes mistakes
He did it his wayyyyyyyyyyyyyyy
Diana
2004-07-15 09:31:34 UTC
Permalink
By 1980, Fred had worked for John and Yoko for 2 1/2 years. He was constantly
running errands, using the elevator. He was in and out of the building
sometimes several times in a single day. Plus, John and Yoko used at least 2
floors of the Dakota, so even when he was working with both or either of them
directly, he still had to move around within the building.

I think all the Dakota employees, and probably most of the residents, would've
recognized him.

And you forget that Fred continued to work for Yoko for several months.

When the gunshots were fired, no doubt many ran to the lobby to see what had
happened. That shadowy figure could've been anyone.

Logically, your theory doesn't cut it.

And that's just logically.

By the way, at just about the time it happened, Fred and a friend were leaving
a movie theater downtown, maybe 4 miles away from the Dakota.

Ooo, I know I'm gonna regret this....

~~~~~~~~~
"When you are sorrowful look again in your heart,
and you shall see that in truth you are weeping
for that which has been your delight." --Kahlil Gibran
SilentCoupSal
2004-07-15 11:18:10 UTC
Permalink
[Salvador]
Post by Diana
Post by SilentCoupSal
Sixth, where was Mr. Seaman on Dec. 8, 1980 at 10:50 PM ?
In Chapter 1 of my book, Rethinking John Lennon's Assassination,
I demonstrated that Mark David Chapman in all likelihood did not
shoot John, but the real assassin fired the fatal shots while
standing in the doorway leading to the service elevator.
Several accounts referred to an unidentified person who was also
at the crime scene. This was someone besides Cuban exile doorman
Jose Perdomo and lobby clerk Jay Hastings. Some accounts refer to
this individual as a handyman; others call him a maintenance man;
and others call him an elevator operator. Was this person Fred Seaman?
Patrolman Peter Cullen, one of the officers who arrested Chapman,
believed the shooter was a handyman at the Dakota, not Chapman.
Cullen thought Chapman "looked like a guy who worked in a bank."
But Cuban exile doorman (security guard) Jose Perdomo convinced
Cullen that Chapman was the assailant.
To read the crime scene analysis in my book, click the
http://www.jfkmontreal.com/john_lennon/Chapter01A.htm
Seventh, has Mr. Seaman had any firearms training?
Eighth, did Fred Seaman shoot and kill John Lennon?
[Diana]
Post by Diana
By the way, at just about the time it happened, Fred and
a friend were leaving a movie theater downtown, maybe 4
miles away from the Dakota.
Ooo, I know I'm gonna regret this....
No need to feel regretful, this is just a discussion,
not a hearing. Nevertheless, I assume you have some evidence
to support your claim. Otherwise, it's understandable why
you would feel nervous about defending Seaman.

Anyway, if Seaman didn't do it, what about his partner,
Bob Rosen, a free-lance writer who once wrote for the
secretary of the Air Force.

Salvador

===
Ordering information for Salvador Astucia's books can be found at
http://www.jfkmontreal.com/raveningwolf/

Also see Astucia's homepage: http://www.jfkmontreal.com
Diana
2004-07-16 00:59:54 UTC
Permalink
Wow. That was a civil, reasonable discussion. Maybe there's hope for RMB yet.

Salvador, the only "evidence" I have is what Fred wrote in his book. I don't
know, of course, but I'd guess the homocide cops questioned her and Fred. I
mean, they questioned Yoko (as they would any spouse of a murder victim), so
surely all their employees were questioned and their alibis checked out.

Then there's gunshot residue and the psychological aspect. Chapman was
mentally ill with a history of bizarre behavior.

Most importantly, Fred really liked John and thought of him as a friend. To
me, the logic doesn't matter; it's just a way to talk about it objectively.
For what it's worth, to my mind, there's just no way.

Diana

~~~~~~~~~
"When you are sorrowful look again in your heart,
and you shall see that in truth you are weeping
for that which has been your delight." --Kahlil Gibran
Mister Charlie
2004-07-16 03:28:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by Diana
Then there's gunshot residue and the psychological aspect. Chapman was
mentally ill with a history of bizarre behavior.
Most importantly, Fred really liked John and thought of him as a
friend.
Sure he did. To Fred John was a meal ticket, a victim to take to the
cleaners. He got caught. He wasn't planning on that (they never do).

STILL: Fred had nothing to do with Lennon's murder.
Howard
2004-07-16 17:19:37 UTC
Permalink
Fred don't give two hoots about our John. Saw him as a meal.

It's simple rilly.
BlackMonk
2004-07-15 13:36:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by Diana
By 1980, Fred had worked for John and Yoko for 2 1/2 years. He was constantly
running errands, using the elevator. He was in and out of the building
sometimes several times in a single day. Plus, John and Yoko used at least 2
floors of the Dakota, so even when he was working with both or either of them
directly, he still had to move around within the building.
I think all the Dakota employees, and probably most of the residents, would've
recognized him.
And you forget that Fred continued to work for Yoko for several months.
When the gunshots were fired, no doubt many ran to the lobby to see what had
happened. That shadowy figure could've been anyone.
Logically, your theory doesn't cut it.
But he finally gets to accuse a Jew of killing John Lennon. I'm sure that
made him very happy.
Post by Diana
And that's just logically.
By the way, at just about the time it happened, Fred and a friend were leaving
a movie theater downtown, maybe 4 miles away from the Dakota.
Ooo, I know I'm gonna regret this....
Why? Do you think I'm going to say something like: "Yeah, sure. Fred had a
friend. Pull the other one. It has bells on it."
LongTallSally11
2004-07-16 05:56:34 UTC
Permalink
[Salvador]
Post by Diana
Post by SilentCoupSal
In Chapter 1 of my book, Rethinking John Lennon's
Assassination, I demonstrated that Mark David Chapman
in all likelihood did not shoot John, but the real
assassin fired the fatal shots while standing in the
doorway leading to the service elevator. Several
accounts referred to an unidentified person who was
also at the crime scene. This was someone besides
Cuban exile doorman Jose Perdomo and lobby clerk Jay
Hastings. Some accounts refer to this individual as
a handyman; others call him a maintenance man;
and others call him an elevator operator. Was this
person Fred Seaman? ....
[Diana]
Post by Diana
By 1980, Fred had worked for John and Yoko for 2 1/2 years.
He was constantly running errands, using the elevator.
He was in and out of the building sometimes several times
in a single day.
In other words, many people likely viewed Seaman as a
handyman, a maintenance man, or an elevator operator.
That's very enlightening.

[Diana]
Post by Diana
Plus, John and Yoko used at least 2 floors of the Dakota,
so even when he was working with both or either of them
directly, he still had to move around within the building.
I think all the Dakota employees, and probably most of the
residents, would've recognized him.
So what if they recognized him? No one saw John get shot
except Perdomo, and he told the cops Chapman was the killer.
And since Chapman was apparently a mind control subject,
he himself believed he shot John, although he never understood
why.

Seaman could have easily shot John because Chapman immediately
took the fall. It's a no-brainer.

[Diana]
Post by Diana
And you forget that Fred continued to work for Yoko for several months.
What does that prove? Yoko didn't see John get shot. But like
everyone else, she was convinced Chapman did it, and she never
questioned it. Therefore, she had no reason to fire Seaman
immediately after John's murder.

[Diana]
Post by Diana
When the gunshots were fired, no doubt many ran to the lobby
to see what had happened. That shadowy figure could've been
anyone.
I'm suspect the NYPD and the New York Times know the identity of
this person, but they're keeping it a secret.

[Diana]
Post by Diana
Logically, your theory doesn't cut it.
On the contrary, the information you have presented reinforces
my suspicion that Seaman was the true assassin.

[Black Monk]
But [Salvador] finally gets to accuse a Jew of killing John
Lennon. I'm sure that made him very happy.
Don't forget Seaman's Jewish partner, Bob Rosen, the guy who was a
free-lance writer for the secretary of the Air Force. Odd that a
fellow with such military connections would want to write a book about
John Lennon. Of course it makes sense if Rosen and Seaman were involved
in a governmental conspiracy to assassinate John. It makes even
more sense if Seaman was the assassin and Rosen was his accomplice and
both reported to the secretary of the Air Force, who was probably
mixed up with the FBI.

And speaking of Jews, the first known person to complain to various
government agencies about the Beatles--in March of 1964--was apparently
another Red Sea pedestrian: Herman Kenin, President of the American
Federation of Musicians. Kenin complained to the State, Justice, and
Labor Departments about the Beatles, arguing that they should not be
allowed to perform in America unless an exchange arrangement could be
worked out where Americans would perform in England. Such bullshit.

To view the FBI document on Kenin's efforts, clear here:
http://www.jfkmontreal.com/john_lennon/fbi/AMF.htm

Salvador

===
Ordering information for Salvador Astucia's books can be found at
http://www.jfkmontreal.com/raveningwolf/

Also see Astucia's homepage: http://www.jfkmontreal.com
Mister Charlie
2004-07-16 14:25:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by LongTallSally11
So what if they recognized him? No one saw John get shot
except Perdomo, and he told the cops Chapman was the killer.
And since Chapman was apparently a mind control subject,
he himself believed he shot John, although he never understood
why.
Seaman could have easily shot John because Chapman immediately
took the fall. It's a no-brainer.
So could you have. So what? "Could have's" are as meaningless as the
rest of your speculative nonsense.
LongTallSally11
2004-07-17 00:06:29 UTC
Permalink
[Salvador]
Post by Mister Charlie
....So what if they recognized him? No one saw John get shot
except Perdomo, and he told the cops Chapman was the killer.
And since Chapman was apparently a mind control subject,
he himself believed he shot John, although he never understood
why.
Seaman could have easily shot John because Chapman immediately
took the fall. It's a no-brainer.
[Mister Charlie]
Post by Mister Charlie
So could you have. So what? "Could have's" are as meaningless as the
rest of your speculative nonsense.
In a court of law, they don't deal in absolutes, as you seem to think.
True, this is not a courtroom, but a court of law has a higher
standard of proof than a discussion group like this. A criminal court's
standard, under the US Constitution, is only guilt beyond a
reasonable doubt. So there's nothing wrong with using words
like "could have," as long as the opposition cannot show
reasonable doubt. So far, all you have shown is your usual
bullshit. "He didn't do because I said so, but I don't like him
anyway." Not a very strong argument, Chucky.

Why are you defending a prime murder suspect like Fred Seaman,
anyway?

And why are you so certain of his innocence, and what makes you
think he's incapable of committing murder?

As much as I've insulted you, Charlie, I don't have reason to
believe you're a cold-blooded killer. Now Fred Seaman, he's
in a different league of assholes althogether.

Salvador

======== [previous message] ========

Subject: Re: Questions about Fred Seaman
From: ***@aol.com (LongTallSally11)
Date: 7/16/2004 1:56 AM Eastern Daylight Time
Message-id: <***@mb-m13.aol.com>

[Salvador]
Post by Mister Charlie
Post by SilentCoupSal
In Chapter 1 of my book, Rethinking John Lennon's
Assassination, I demonstrated that Mark David Chapman
in all likelihood did not shoot John, but the real
assassin fired the fatal shots while standing in the
doorway leading to the service elevator. Several
accounts referred to an unidentified person who was
also at the crime scene. This was someone besides
Cuban exile doorman Jose Perdomo and lobby clerk Jay
Hastings. Some accounts refer to this individual as
a handyman; others call him a maintenance man;
and others call him an elevator operator. Was this
person Fred Seaman? ....
[Diana]
Post by Mister Charlie
By 1980, Fred had worked for John and Yoko for 2 1/2 years.
He was constantly running errands, using the elevator.
He was in and out of the building sometimes several times
in a single day.
In other words, many people likely viewed Seaman as a
handyman, a maintenance man, or an elevator operator.
That's very enlightening.

[Diana]
Post by Mister Charlie
Plus, John and Yoko used at least 2 floors of the Dakota,
so even when he was working with both or either of them
directly, he still had to move around within the building.
I think all the Dakota employees, and probably most of the
residents, would've recognized him.
So what if they recognized him? No one saw John get shot
except Perdomo, and he told the cops Chapman was the killer.
And since Chapman was apparently a mind control subject,
he himself believed he shot John, although he never understood
why.

Seaman could have easily shot John because Chapman immediately
took the fall. It's a no-brainer.

[Diana]
Post by Mister Charlie
And you forget that Fred continued to work for Yoko for several
months.
What does that prove? Yoko didn't see John get shot. But like
everyone else, she was convinced Chapman did it, and she never
questioned it. Therefore, she had no reason to fire Seaman
immediately after John's murder.

[Diana]
Post by Mister Charlie
When the gunshots were fired, no doubt many ran to the lobby
to see what had happened. That shadowy figure could've been
anyone.
I'm suspect the NYPD and the New York Times know the identity of
this person, but they're keeping it a secret.

[Diana]
Post by Mister Charlie
Logically, your theory doesn't cut it.
On the contrary, the information you have presented reinforces
my suspicion that Seaman was the true assassin.

[Black Monk]
Post by Mister Charlie
But [Salvador] finally gets to accuse a Jew of killing John
Lennon. I'm sure that made him very happy.
Don't forget Seaman's Jewish partner, Bob Rosen, the guy who was a
free-lance writer for the secretary of the Air Force. Odd that a
fellow with such military connections would want to write a book about
John Lennon. Of course it makes sense if Rosen and Seaman were involved
in a governmental conspiracy to assassinate John. It makes even
more sense if Seaman was the assassin and Rosen was his accomplice and
both reported to the secretary of the Air Force, who was probably
mixed up with the FBI.

And speaking of Jews, the first known person to complain to various
government agencies about the Beatles--in March of 1964--was apparently
another Red Sea pedestrian: Herman Kenin, President of the American
Federation of Musicians. Kenin complained to the State, Justice, and
Labor Departments about the Beatles, arguing that they should not be
allowed to perform in America unless an exchange arrangement could be
worked out where Americans would perform in England. Such bullshit.

To view the FBI document on Kenin's efforts, clear here:
http://www.jfkmontreal.com/john_lennon/fbi/AMF.htm

Salvador


===
Ordering information for Salvador Astucia's books can be found at
http://www.jfkmontreal.com/raveningwolf/

Also see Astucia's homepage: http://www.jfkmontreal.com
Mister Charlie
2004-07-17 03:12:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by SilentCoupSal
[Salvador]
Post by Mister Charlie
....So what if they recognized him? No one saw John get shot
except Perdomo, and he told the cops Chapman was the killer.
And since Chapman was apparently a mind control subject,
he himself believed he shot John, although he never understood
why.
Seaman could have easily shot John because Chapman immediately
took the fall. It's a no-brainer.
[Mister Charlie]
Post by Mister Charlie
So could you have. So what? "Could have's" are as meaningless as the
rest of your speculative nonsense.
In a court of law, they don't deal in absolutes, as you seem to think.
True, this is not a courtroom, but a court of law has a higher
standard of proof than a discussion group like this. A criminal court's
standard, under the US Constitution, is only guilt beyond a
reasonable doubt. So there's nothing wrong with using words
like "could have," as long as the opposition cannot show
reasonable doubt. So far, all you have shown is your usual
bullshit. "He didn't do because I said so, but I don't like him
anyway." Not a very strong argument, Chucky.
Tsk tsk, another leap from the killfiles.
Post by SilentCoupSal
Why are you defending a prime murder suspect like Fred Seaman,
anyway?
Because he is not a prime murder suspect. However, someone like you
certainly "could" be. Sick, paranoid rantings and many, many enemies.
Yes, I think you killed lennon to sell books. I truly do.
Post by SilentCoupSal
And why are you so certain of his innocence, and what makes you
think he's incapable of committing murder?
Truthfully, no one is incapable. Mother Teresa might have chewed the
throat out of a protestant she didn't like. Nevertheless. What exactly
would Fred gain? And more to the point, as hateful a clod as he is, and
he is, you have produced NO tangible evidence whatsoever worthy of even
accusing him. Your accusations are just as hateful as his prior
actions. But then that's your whole life, innit?
Post by SilentCoupSal
As much as I've insulted you, Charlie, I don't have reason to
believe you're a cold-blooded killer.
I could be. So could you.

Now Fred Seaman, he's
Post by SilentCoupSal
in a different league of assholes althogether.
He's up there alright. Oddly enough your a peer of his. And you have
no clue.
LongTallSally11
2004-07-17 04:27:09 UTC
Permalink
[Salvador]
Post by Mister Charlie
Post by LongTallSally11
Post by Mister Charlie
....So what if they recognized him? No one saw John get shot
except Perdomo, and he told the cops Chapman was the killer.
And since Chapman was apparently a mind control subject,
he himself believed he shot John, although he never understood
why.
Seaman could have easily shot John because Chapman immediately
took the fall. It's a no-brainer.
[Mister Charlie]
Post by Mister Charlie
Post by LongTallSally11
Post by Mister Charlie
So could you have. So what? "Could have's" are as meaningless
as the rest of your speculative nonsense.
[Salvador]
Post by Mister Charlie
Post by LongTallSally11
In a court of law, they don't deal in absolutes, as you seem to
think. True, this is not a courtroom, but a court of law has a
higher standard of proof than a discussion group like this. A
criminal court's standard, under the US Constitution, is only
guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. So there's nothing wrong with
using words like "could have," as long as the opposition cannot
show reasonable doubt. So far, all you have shown is your usual
bullshit. "He didn't do it because I said so, but I don't like him
anyway." Not a very strong argument, Chucky.
[Charlie]
Post by Mister Charlie
Tsk tsk, another leap from the killfiles.
[Salvador]
Post by Mister Charlie
Post by LongTallSally11
Why are you defending a prime murder suspect like Fred Seaman,
anyway?
[Charlie]
Post by Mister Charlie
Because he is not a prime murder suspect.
Is that your only argument? Again, this is merely a discussion,
not a hearing. My point is he *should* be a prime suspect. Whether
he is or is not a prime suspect, in a legal sense, is beside the
point. An investigation was not done because mind control subject
Mark David Chapman immediately confessed to a crime he did not
commit. Then the police stopped investigating, although many of
them certainly must have known Chapman couldn't have shot Lennon
because of the bullet holes in the glass lobby door, which is
completely out of view from any point under the archway entrance,
where Chapman was reportedly standing. And there's the nature of the
wounds too. The cops certainly must know the wounds should have been
on the right side of John's body, not the left.

[Charlie]
Post by Mister Charlie
However, someone like you certainly "could" be. Sick, paranoid
rantings and many, many enemies....
Hey Genius, having enemies doesn't give someone motivation to kill;
it provides motive to the enemies to commit murder.

Your comments about paranoia are merely opinion, and barely that,
because we both know I'm right. Otherwise, you wouldn't be spending
so much time creating a smokescreen for your new pal, Fred Seaman.
That's why you're afraid of me. The truth shall make you free.
I know you don't fear me in a physical sense, and I don't have
a similar fear of you. Like I said before, I'm sure you're not
in the same league of assholes as Seaman.

[Salvador]
Post by Mister Charlie
Post by LongTallSally11
And why are you so certain of his innocence, and what makes you
think he's incapable of committing murder?
Truthfully,
I know it's a lot to expect a truthful response, but do the best
you can. Give your usual Kol Nidre crap a rest and stop thinking
in terms of deception, if that's possible.
Post by Mister Charlie
no one is incapable. Mother Teresa might have chewed the
throat out of a protestant she didn't like.
So now you're suggesting Mother Teresa should be a prime suspect.
First me, then her. It's amazing the lengths you will go to protect
your new hero, Fred Seaman.
Post by Mister Charlie
Nevertheless. What exactly would Fred gain?
If he had firearms training, he would get what any hit man gets:
MONEY! But he would also get more, the opportunity to steal John's
personal effects, knowing John would soon be dead and the
value of such property would increase dramatically afterwards.
And he got protection from the highest levels of government
that he could walk away from the crime without fear of being
prosecuted, because this was a government-sponsored hit. I feel
sorry for the policemen who were at the crime scene and knew
Chapman couldn't have killed John, and probably wanted to step
forward and speak in his defense. But I suppose they figured once
he confessed, their consciences were clear. I guess in such
situations, a cop must ask himself what would be gained by
putting his career on the line to fight a battle that cannot
not be won because the powers that be are running the show, and
anyone who does not fall in place as expected will be destroyed.
Post by Mister Charlie
And more to the point, as hateful a clod as he is,
There you go again, flip-flopping like John Kerry, the guy who
doesn't support George Bush's Iraq War policy, even though he
voted for the damned thing.
Post by Mister Charlie
and he is, you have produced NO tangible evidence whatsoever
worthy of even accusing him.
We need to find out the identity of the mysterious elevator
operator. Until we get that information, or until he produces
an iron-clad alibi, he should be considered a prime suspect.
He definitely had motive.
Post by Mister Charlie
Your accusations are just as hateful as his prior actions.
How is it hateful to consider a convicted criminal a prime
murder suspect? Especially when he's been convicted of stealing
from the person he's suspected of killing. How is that hateful?

....

[Salvador]
Post by Mister Charlie
Post by LongTallSally11
As much as I've insulted you, Charlie, I don't have reason to
believe you're a cold-blooded killer.
I could be. So could you.
If this is supposed to be some sort of macho-man thing, it
isn't very convincing. Regarding my ability to commit acts
of violence, I wouldn't commit cold-blooded murder because
I believe it is wrong morally and spiritually, not because I
am a person unfamiliar with violence. And I don't believe you
are a violent person either, but for different reasons. Unlike
Mr. Seaman, you just don't have any balls.

Salvador



===
Ordering information for Salvador Astucia's books can be found at
http://www.jfkmontreal.com/raveningwolf/

Also see Astucia's homepage: http://www.jfkmontreal.com
Mister Charlie
2004-07-17 05:13:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by SilentCoupSal
[Salvador]
Post by Mister Charlie
Post by LongTallSally11
Why are you defending a prime murder suspect like Fred Seaman,
anyway?
[Charlie]
Post by Mister Charlie
Because he is not a prime murder suspect.
Is that your only argument?
It's the only argument I need. Is Mickey Mouse a murderer? Allegedly
perhaps, could be.

Again, this is merely a discussion,
Post by SilentCoupSal
not a hearing. My point is he *should* be a prime suspect.
And my point is that your point is baseless and meaningless.

Whether
Post by SilentCoupSal
he is or is not a prime suspect, in a legal sense, is beside the
point.
No, it is not. You are making SERIOUS charges about someone. With, as
usual, no proof whatsoever. That's certainly libelous.

An investigation was not done because mind control subject
Post by SilentCoupSal
Mark David Chapman immediately confessed to a crime he did not
commit.
That's your interpretation. Meaningless.

Then the police stopped investigating, although many of
Post by SilentCoupSal
them certainly must have known Chapman couldn't have shot Lennon
because of the bullet holes in the glass lobby door, which is
completely out of view from any point under the archway entrance,
where Chapman was reportedly standing.
Again, your obssession does not suit you. There is no 'there' there.

And there's the nature of the
Post by SilentCoupSal
wounds too. The cops certainly must know the wounds should have been
on the right side of John's body, not the left.
According to you. Personally I do not believe in your wound theories.
Post by SilentCoupSal
[Charlie]
Post by Mister Charlie
However, someone like you certainly "could" be. Sick, paranoid
rantings and many, many enemies....
Hey Genius, having enemies doesn't give someone motivation to kill;
it provides motive to the enemies to commit murder.
Let's just say the hate you put out comes back to you.
Post by SilentCoupSal
Your comments about paranoia are merely opinion, and barely that,
because we both know I'm right.
LOL! It's more than opinion, you publish your nightmares here daily!
ANYone can read the state of your mind.

Otherwise, you wouldn't be spending
Post by SilentCoupSal
so much time creating a smokescreen for your new pal, Fred Seaman.
If you had half a brain you would know how absurd that is to say. Fred
and I were bitter enemies, and had MANY turbulent discussions here long
before you slithered in. I am no friend of that man. But of course,
defending someone against unwarranted lies from the likes of you would
give you the opening to insinuate your usual mealy mouthed creations.
Shame on you.
Post by SilentCoupSal
That's why you're afraid of me.
LO fucking L!!! I fear no one and you least of all. You're a slug, a
worm.
Post by SilentCoupSal
The truth shall make you free.
LOL I'm free, baby! I suggest you get some of that truth stuff and use
it for a change.
Post by SilentCoupSal
I know you don't fear me in a physical sense, and I don't have
a similar fear of you. Like I said before, I'm sure you're not
in the same league of assholes as Seaman.
I fear nothing about you. And the fact you do not fear me goes without
saying.
Post by SilentCoupSal
[Salvador]
Post by Mister Charlie
Post by LongTallSally11
And why are you so certain of his innocence, and what makes you
think he's incapable of committing murder?
Truthfully,
I know it's a lot to expect a truthful response, but do the best
you can. Give your usual Kol Nidre crap a rest and stop thinking
in terms of deception, if that's possible.
I don't know what Kol Nidre even is (sounds Hebrew). Nevertheless, I
have *always* told the truth here. I am not the liar, David. And you
know it.
Post by SilentCoupSal
Post by Mister Charlie
no one is incapable. Mother Teresa might have chewed the
throat out of a protestant she didn't like.
So now you're suggesting Mother Teresa should be a prime suspect.
She as much as Fred. The link? No proof that either one did it. Jeez,
I cannot believe I even have to spell this all out for you, it is so
elementary.
Post by SilentCoupSal
First me, then her. It's amazing the lengths you will go to protect
your new hero, Fred Seaman.
Could have been you. Or her. Or me. Or Fred. Or Francie. We can
play 'coulda beens' all night long. It is all still meaningless.
Post by SilentCoupSal
Post by Mister Charlie
Nevertheless. What exactly would Fred gain?
MONEY! But he would also get more, the opportunity to steal John's
personal effects, knowing John would soon be dead and the
value of such property would increase dramatically afterwards.
He already had tons of John's effects and the value was already high.
You are suggesting killing John as an investment? Do you hear how crazy
you sound?
Post by SilentCoupSal
And he got protection from the highest levels of government
that he could walk away from the crime without fear of being
prosecuted, because this was a government-sponsored hit.
Yeah yeah, EVERYthing is the nasty government. You're just a sad little
conspiracy nut who will waste his life (and intelligence....your
research skills and writing show you do possess some) on these wrong
ideas that have no meaning nor applicability to anyone or anything.

I feel
Post by SilentCoupSal
sorry for the policemen who were at the crime scene and knew
Chapman couldn't have killed John, and probably wanted to step
forward and speak in his defense.
I feel sorrier for the spinner of these tales.

But I suppose they figured once
Post by SilentCoupSal
he confessed, their consciences were clear. I guess in such
situations, a cop must ask himself what would be gained by
putting his career on the line to fight a battle that cannot
not be won because the powers that be are running the show, and
anyone who does not fall in place as expected will be destroyed.
You guess a lot, don't you.
Post by SilentCoupSal
Post by Mister Charlie
And more to the point, as hateful a clod as he is,
There you go again, flip-flopping like John Kerry, the guy who
doesn't support George Bush's Iraq War policy, even though he
voted for the damned thing.
Eh? Now you want to talk politics? You're all over the place, Davey.
Focus.
Post by SilentCoupSal
Post by Mister Charlie
and he is, you have produced NO tangible evidence whatsoever
worthy of even accusing him.
We need to find out the identity of the mysterious elevator
operator. Until we get that information, or until he produces
an iron-clad alibi, he should be considered a prime suspect.
He definitely had motive.
There is no proof of any mysterious operator. Only your baseless
accusations (I know this will produce a torrent of verbage supposedly
supporting your mania but don't bother, I won't wade thru it).
Post by SilentCoupSal
Post by Mister Charlie
Your accusations are just as hateful as his prior actions.
How is it hateful to consider a convicted criminal a prime
murder suspect?
Any convicted criminal? ANY two-bit thief can be and in fact (according
to you) is now a murderer? If I were Fred I'd sue your stupid ass off.

Especially when he's been convicted of stealing
Post by SilentCoupSal
from the person he's suspected of killing. How is that hateful?
No one suspects him except you. Hate speech. Nazi tactics, as usual
Sharpie.
Post by SilentCoupSal
....
[Salvador]
Post by Mister Charlie
Post by LongTallSally11
As much as I've insulted you, Charlie, I don't have reason to
believe you're a cold-blooded killer.
I could be. So could you.
If this is supposed to be some sort of macho-man thing, it
isn't very convincing.
It was making a point. I am not threatening you or anyone else, in
spite of the lies marek and francie attempt to fob off (if I ever did
threaten either one why was I never arrested? Why was I NEVER contacted
by police from ANY jurisdiction? Why wasn't I removed from the net?
Because it NEVER happened. See, they make baseless accusations same as
you. That's why you all make such a great little club.)

Regarding my ability to commit acts
Post by SilentCoupSal
of violence, I wouldn't commit cold-blooded murder because
I believe it is wrong morally and spiritually, not because I
am a person unfamiliar with violence.
Oh, I am sure you are not unfamiliar with it. I would guess you've been
beat up daily since kindergarten. LOL


And I don't believe you
Post by SilentCoupSal
are a violent person either, but for different reasons. Unlike
Mr. Seaman, you just don't have any balls.
LOL. Ouchies, Davie. Slip the knife in and hope for a reaction.

The gonadless one here is clearly you, accusing people left and right of
any imagined crime you might come up with on any given day, just for
your own amusement. Or sick purposes yet to be discovered.

I don't need violence because I don't live in that type of world. And
that's a young man's game anyway, macho fight club posturing. I can
handle what I need to should the occasion arise but I don't see any of
that the rest of my life. At your advanced age I would expect you to be
avoiding it as well. :)
Eric B.
2004-07-17 10:13:38 UTC
Permalink
"Mister Charlie" <***@myway.com> wrote in message news:***@uni-berlin.de...

Didn't you learn anything from my attempts to try to talk logic to Sally?

All CIA infiltraitors in this NG need to contact me for further instruction
i.e. SA. He is getting too close to the truth and must be eliminated.

Agent 86
(AKA Eric B.)
Diana
2004-07-18 03:33:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by Eric B.
All CIA infiltraitors in this NG need to contact me for further instruction
i.e. SA. He is getting too close to the truth and must be eliminated.
Roger Wilko.

Um, was I supposed to contact you *privately*?

;-)

~~~~~~~~~
"When you are sorrowful look again in your heart,
and you shall see that in truth you are weeping
for that which has been your delight." --Kahlil Gibran
BlackMonk
2004-07-18 04:05:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Diana
Post by Eric B.
All CIA infiltraitors in this NG need to contact me for further instruction
i.e. SA. He is getting too close to the truth and must be eliminated.
Roger Wilko.
Still trying to get reassigned to the Byrds newsgroup?
MacBeatle
2004-07-17 12:44:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mister Charlie
Could have been you. Or her. Or me. Or Fred. Or Francie. We can
play 'coulda beens' all night long. It is all still meaningless.
You're so totally full of shit, it's unfuckingbelievable, Cherkles,
it is just plain unbelievable.

You are the worst hypocrite on this board right now.

You make even *thinking* about the Beatles unpleasant, you
have no sense of humor I can discern, and you continue after
more than three years to bring me in to any thread you
can't handle (without the support of your Ozzie buttbuds)
and to wish death upon anyone who writes over your head
about any or all four of the Fabs.

You're an embarrassment to the few actual fans who
have so much time on their hands they can "afford" to drop
by and watch you preside over the last of the Beatles discussion
groups to contain any content above and beyond the primer
level of info on the group -- which is now available via a
number of search engines with one tiny little click of the mousie.

You are a fine representative of the disenfranchised middle
aged white guy who CAN'T WALK AWAY from his clunky old puter.

You've built a medicore mouse trap and all those with NOTHING
BETTER TO DO are flocking to it - by the pair!

Seriously, Charlie, you need a lot of professional help... too bad
you're so fucked up you can't even hear when someone is
offering you a leg up.

OTOH you've done me a favor without even knowing about it.

Fuck you and your bogus beatles, now and 4EVR.
Mister Charlie
2004-07-17 15:42:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by MacBeatle
Post by Mister Charlie
Could have been you. Or her. Or me. Or Fred. Or Francie. We can
play 'coulda beens' all night long. It is all still meaningless.
You're so totally full of shit, it's unfuckingbelievable, Cherkles,
it is just plain unbelievable.
Really? Why? Or is it enough to make grand pronouncements without
anything behind them (like Rose)?
Post by MacBeatle
You are the worst hypocrite on this board right now.
Yada yada yada. Noise with no meaning. That's Schwartzie.
Post by MacBeatle
You make even *thinking* about the Beatles unpleasant, you
have no sense of humor I can discern, and you continue after
more than three years to bring me in to any thread you
can't handle (without the support of your Ozzie buttbuds)
and to wish death upon anyone who writes over your head
about any or all four of the Fabs.
Babbling madness, anchorless and rudderless. That's our Schwartzie.
Post by MacBeatle
You're an embarrassment to the few actual fans who
have so much time on their hands they can "afford" to drop
by and watch you preside over the last of the Beatles discussion
groups to contain any content above and beyond the primer
level of info on the group -- which is now available via a
number of search engines with one tiny little click of the mousie.
Uh-huh. MORE useless, mindless invective. Are you actually trying to
make a point with these paragraph long writing exercises?
Post by MacBeatle
You are a fine representative of the disenfranchised middle
aged white guy who CAN'T WALK AWAY from his clunky old puter.
Blah blah blah blah. That's our Schwartzie!
Post by MacBeatle
You've built a medicore mouse trap and all those with NOTHING
BETTER TO DO are flocking to it - by the pair!
Well, there's only ONE of you, thank Christ.
Post by MacBeatle
Seriously, Charlie, you need a lot of professional help... too bad
you're so fucked up you can't even hear when someone is
offering you a leg up.
LOL! Uh, ok, so are you going to claim Fred killed John? Are you ever
going to get to the point or are you so devoid of thought that all you
can do is...whatever all the above is?
Post by MacBeatle
OTOH you've done me a favor without even knowing about it.
Fuck you and your bogus beatles, now and 4EVR.
Nope. No comment on what the hell Sal or I said. No discernible point
whatsoever. Nothing about Seaman. No proof to offer re: alleged death
threats.

No, apparently she is incensed that I lumped her in with Marek and
David. And these are supposed to be her BUDDIES! So what is her
problem?

Not enough time in the world to go thru that. A lying, bitter,
humorless old harpy. That's our Schwartzie!

;-)
SilentCoupSal
2004-07-17 19:42:56 UTC
Permalink
[Salvador]
Post by Mister Charlie
Post by LongTallSally11
Post by Mister Charlie
Post by LongTallSally11
Why are you defending a prime murder suspect like Fred
Seaman, anyway?
[Charlie]
Post by Mister Charlie
Post by LongTallSally11
Post by Mister Charlie
Because he is not a prime murder suspect.
[Salvador]
Post by Mister Charlie
Post by LongTallSally11
Is that your only argument?
[Charlie]
Post by Mister Charlie
It's the only argument I need. Is Mickey Mouse a murderer?
Allegedly perhaps, could be.
[Salvador]
Post by Mister Charlie
Post by LongTallSally11
Again, this is merely a discussion, not a hearing. My point is
he *should* be a prime suspect.
[Charlie]
Post by Mister Charlie
And my point is that your point is baseless and meaningless.
Here's some additional information which connects Rosen
and Seaman to former Air Force secretary, Hans Mark,
a leading advocate of the Strategic Defense Initiative
(SDI, commonly known as "Star Wars") during the
Reagan administration.

http://www.jfkmontreal.com/john_lennon/Usenet/fseaman.htm

Salvador

===
Ordering information for Salvador Astucia's books can be found at
http://www.jfkmontreal.com/raveningwolf/

Also see Astucia's homepage: http://www.jfkmontreal.com
Danny Caccavo
2004-07-18 04:06:44 UTC
Permalink
There's gotta be a way to work the grassy knoll into this...<g>

dc
Post by SilentCoupSal
[Salvador]
Post by Mister Charlie
Post by LongTallSally11
Post by Mister Charlie
....So what if they recognized him? No one saw John get shot
except Perdomo, and he told the cops Chapman was the killer.
And since Chapman was apparently a mind control subject,
he himself believed he shot John, although he never understood
why.
Seaman could have easily shot John because Chapman immediately
took the fall. It's a no-brainer.
[Mister Charlie]
Post by Mister Charlie
Post by LongTallSally11
Post by Mister Charlie
So could you have. So what? "Could have's" are as meaningless
as the rest of your speculative nonsense.
[Salvador]
Post by Mister Charlie
Post by LongTallSally11
In a court of law, they don't deal in absolutes, as you seem to
think. True, this is not a courtroom, but a court of law has a
higher standard of proof than a discussion group like this. A
criminal court's standard, under the US Constitution, is only
guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. So there's nothing wrong with
using words like "could have," as long as the opposition cannot
show reasonable doubt. So far, all you have shown is your usual
bullshit. "He didn't do it because I said so, but I don't like him
anyway." Not a very strong argument, Chucky.
[Charlie]
Post by Mister Charlie
Tsk tsk, another leap from the killfiles.
[Salvador]
Post by Mister Charlie
Post by LongTallSally11
Why are you defending a prime murder suspect like Fred Seaman,
anyway?
[Charlie]
Post by Mister Charlie
Because he is not a prime murder suspect.
Is that your only argument? Again, this is merely a discussion,
not a hearing. My point is he *should* be a prime suspect. Whether
he is or is not a prime suspect, in a legal sense, is beside the
point. An investigation was not done because mind control subject
Mark David Chapman immediately confessed to a crime he did not
commit. Then the police stopped investigating, although many of
them certainly must have known Chapman couldn't have shot Lennon
because of the bullet holes in the glass lobby door, which is
completely out of view from any point under the archway entrance,
where Chapman was reportedly standing. And there's the nature of the
wounds too. The cops certainly must know the wounds should have been
on the right side of John's body, not the left.
[Charlie]
Post by Mister Charlie
However, someone like you certainly "could" be. Sick, paranoid
rantings and many, many enemies....
Hey Genius, having enemies doesn't give someone motivation to kill;
it provides motive to the enemies to commit murder.
Your comments about paranoia are merely opinion, and barely that,
because we both know I'm right. Otherwise, you wouldn't be spending
so much time creating a smokescreen for your new pal, Fred Seaman.
That's why you're afraid of me. The truth shall make you free.
I know you don't fear me in a physical sense, and I don't have
a similar fear of you. Like I said before, I'm sure you're not
in the same league of assholes as Seaman.
[Salvador]
Post by Mister Charlie
Post by LongTallSally11
And why are you so certain of his innocence, and what makes you
think he's incapable of committing murder?
Truthfully,
I know it's a lot to expect a truthful response, but do the best
you can. Give your usual Kol Nidre crap a rest and stop thinking
in terms of deception, if that's possible.
Post by Mister Charlie
no one is incapable. Mother Teresa might have chewed the
throat out of a protestant she didn't like.
So now you're suggesting Mother Teresa should be a prime suspect.
First me, then her. It's amazing the lengths you will go to protect
your new hero, Fred Seaman.
Post by Mister Charlie
Nevertheless. What exactly would Fred gain?
MONEY! But he would also get more, the opportunity to steal John's
personal effects, knowing John would soon be dead and the
value of such property would increase dramatically afterwards.
And he got protection from the highest levels of government
that he could walk away from the crime without fear of being
prosecuted, because this was a government-sponsored hit. I feel
sorry for the policemen who were at the crime scene and knew
Chapman couldn't have killed John, and probably wanted to step
forward and speak in his defense. But I suppose they figured once
he confessed, their consciences were clear. I guess in such
situations, a cop must ask himself what would be gained by
putting his career on the line to fight a battle that cannot
not be won because the powers that be are running the show, and
anyone who does not fall in place as expected will be destroyed.
Post by Mister Charlie
And more to the point, as hateful a clod as he is,
There you go again, flip-flopping like John Kerry, the guy who
doesn't support George Bush's Iraq War policy, even though he
voted for the damned thing.
Post by Mister Charlie
and he is, you have produced NO tangible evidence whatsoever
worthy of even accusing him.
We need to find out the identity of the mysterious elevator
operator. Until we get that information, or until he produces
an iron-clad alibi, he should be considered a prime suspect.
He definitely had motive.
Post by Mister Charlie
Your accusations are just as hateful as his prior actions.
How is it hateful to consider a convicted criminal a prime
murder suspect? Especially when he's been convicted of stealing
from the person he's suspected of killing. How is that hateful?
....
[Salvador]
Post by Mister Charlie
Post by LongTallSally11
As much as I've insulted you, Charlie, I don't have reason to
believe you're a cold-blooded killer.
I could be. So could you.
If this is supposed to be some sort of macho-man thing, it
isn't very convincing. Regarding my ability to commit acts
of violence, I wouldn't commit cold-blooded murder because
I believe it is wrong morally and spiritually, not because I
am a person unfamiliar with violence. And I don't believe you
are a violent person either, but for different reasons. Unlike
Mr. Seaman, you just don't have any balls.
Salvador
===
Ordering information for Salvador Astucia's books can be found at
http://www.jfkmontreal.com/raveningwolf/
Also see Astucia's homepage: http://www.jfkmontreal.com
LongTallSally11
2004-07-18 05:54:29 UTC
Permalink
[Danny Caccavo]
Post by Danny Caccavo
There's gotta be a way to work the grassy knoll into this...<g>
Actually, the two crimes are similar. In JFK's case, professional
assassins were brought in, and the crime was blamed on him,
but the Feds made the mistake of not subjecting Oswald to
mind control. That's the primary difference between the two
crimes. Oswald needed to be killed because he protested
his innocence. But by using a touch of mind control on Chapman,
he thought he was actually guilty, although the crime scene
evidence showed otherwise, and the police apparently knew
it. That's why a proper police report was never written.

Salvador
Post by Danny Caccavo
Post by SilentCoupSal
[Salvador]
Post by Mister Charlie
Post by LongTallSally11
Post by Mister Charlie
....So what if they recognized him? No one saw John get shot
except Perdomo, and he told the cops Chapman was the killer.
And since Chapman was apparently a mind control subject,
he himself believed he shot John, although he never understood
why.
Seaman could have easily shot John because Chapman immediately
took the fall. It's a no-brainer.
[Mister Charlie]
Post by Mister Charlie
Post by LongTallSally11
Post by Mister Charlie
So could you have. So what? "Could have's" are as meaningless
as the rest of your speculative nonsense.
[Salvador]
Post by Mister Charlie
Post by LongTallSally11
In a court of law, they don't deal in absolutes, as you seem to
think. True, this is not a courtroom, but a court of law has a
higher standard of proof than a discussion group like this. A
criminal court's standard, under the US Constitution, is only
guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. So there's nothing wrong with
using words like "could have," as long as the opposition cannot
show reasonable doubt. So far, all you have shown is your usual
bullshit. "He didn't do it because I said so, but I don't like him
anyway." Not a very strong argument, Chucky.
[Charlie]
Post by Mister Charlie
Tsk tsk, another leap from the killfiles.
[Salvador]
Post by Mister Charlie
Post by LongTallSally11
Why are you defending a prime murder suspect like Fred Seaman,
anyway?
[Charlie]
Post by Mister Charlie
Because he is not a prime murder suspect.
Is that your only argument? Again, this is merely a discussion,
not a hearing. My point is he *should* be a prime suspect. Whether
he is or is not a prime suspect, in a legal sense, is beside the
point. An investigation was not done because mind control subject
Mark David Chapman immediately confessed to a crime he did not
commit. Then the police stopped investigating, although many of
them certainly must have known Chapman couldn't have shot Lennon
because of the bullet holes in the glass lobby door, which is
completely out of view from any point under the archway entrance,
where Chapman was reportedly standing. And there's the nature of the
wounds too. The cops certainly must know the wounds should have been
on the right side of John's body, not the left.
[Charlie]
Post by Mister Charlie
However, someone like you certainly "could" be. Sick, paranoid
rantings and many, many enemies....
Hey Genius, having enemies doesn't give someone motivation to kill;
it provides motive to the enemies to commit murder.
Your comments about paranoia are merely opinion, and barely that,
because we both know I'm right. Otherwise, you wouldn't be spending
so much time creating a smokescreen for your new pal, Fred Seaman.
That's why you're afraid of me. The truth shall make you free.
I know you don't fear me in a physical sense, and I don't have
a similar fear of you. Like I said before, I'm sure you're not
in the same league of assholes as Seaman.
[Salvador]
Post by Mister Charlie
Post by LongTallSally11
And why are you so certain of his innocence, and what makes you
think he's incapable of committing murder?
Truthfully,
I know it's a lot to expect a truthful response, but do the best
you can. Give your usual Kol Nidre crap a rest and stop thinking
in terms of deception, if that's possible.
Post by Mister Charlie
no one is incapable. Mother Teresa might have chewed the
throat out of a protestant she didn't like.
So now you're suggesting Mother Teresa should be a prime suspect.
First me, then her. It's amazing the lengths you will go to protect
your new hero, Fred Seaman.
Post by Mister Charlie
Nevertheless. What exactly would Fred gain?
MONEY! But he would also get more, the opportunity to steal John's
personal effects, knowing John would soon be dead and the
value of such property would increase dramatically afterwards.
And he got protection from the highest levels of government
that he could walk away from the crime without fear of being
prosecuted, because this was a government-sponsored hit. I feel
sorry for the policemen who were at the crime scene and knew
Chapman couldn't have killed John, and probably wanted to step
forward and speak in his defense. But I suppose they figured once
he confessed, their consciences were clear. I guess in such
situations, a cop must ask himself what would be gained by
putting his career on the line to fight a battle that cannot
not be won because the powers that be are running the show, and
anyone who does not fall in place as expected will be destroyed.
Post by Mister Charlie
And more to the point, as hateful a clod as he is,
There you go again, flip-flopping like John Kerry, the guy who
doesn't support George Bush's Iraq War policy, even though he
voted for the damned thing.
Post by Mister Charlie
and he is, you have produced NO tangible evidence whatsoever
worthy of even accusing him.
We need to find out the identity of the mysterious elevator
operator. Until we get that information, or until he produces
an iron-clad alibi, he should be considered a prime suspect.
He definitely had motive.
Post by Mister Charlie
Your accusations are just as hateful as his prior actions.
How is it hateful to consider a convicted criminal a prime
murder suspect? Especially when he's been convicted of stealing
from the person he's suspected of killing. How is that hateful?
....
[Salvador]
Post by Mister Charlie
Post by LongTallSally11
As much as I've insulted you, Charlie, I don't have reason to
believe you're a cold-blooded killer.
I could be. So could you.
If this is supposed to be some sort of macho-man thing, it
isn't very convincing. Regarding my ability to commit acts
of violence, I wouldn't commit cold-blooded murder because
I believe it is wrong morally and spiritually, not because I
am a person unfamiliar with violence. And I don't believe you
are a violent person either, but for different reasons. Unlike
Mr. Seaman, you just don't have any balls.
Salvador
===
Ordering information for Salvador Astucia's books can be found at
http://www.jfkmontreal.com/raveningwolf/

Also see Astucia's homepage: http://www.jfkmontreal.com
Ehtue
2004-07-19 04:46:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by LongTallSally11
[Danny Caccavo]
Post by Danny Caccavo
There's gotta be a way to work the grassy knoll into this...<g>
Actually, the two crimes are similar. In JFK's case, professional
assassins were brought in, and the crime was blamed on him,
but the Feds made the mistake of not subjecting Oswald to
mind control. That's the primary difference between the two
crimes. Oswald needed to be killed because he protested
his innocence. But by using a touch of mind control on Chapman,
he thought he was actually guilty, although the crime scene
evidence showed otherwise, and the police apparently knew
it. That's why a proper police report was never written.
Ask and ye shall receive, Danny.

-Ehtue
SilentCoupSal
2004-07-19 11:19:25 UTC
Permalink
Comments below are responses to the following Lennon page:

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

==================
[Danny Caccavo]
Post by Ehtue
Post by LongTallSally11
Post by Danny Caccavo
There's gotta be a way to work the grassy knoll into this...<g>
[Salvador]
Post by Ehtue
Post by LongTallSally11
Actually, the two crimes are similar. In JFK's case, professional
assassins were brought in, and the crime was blamed on
[a patsy, Oswald*], but the Feds made the mistake of not
subjecting Oswald to mind control. That's the primary
difference between the two crimes. Oswald needed to be
killed because he protested his innocence. But by using a
touch of mind control on Chapman, he thought he was actually
guilty, although the crime scene evidence showed otherwise,
and the police apparently knew it. That's why a proper police
report was never written.
[Ehtue]
Post by Ehtue
Ask and ye shall receive, Danny.
That's what I always say.

Salvador

===
Ordering information for Salvador Astucia's books can be found at
http://www.jfkmontreal.com/raveningwolf/

Also see Astucia's homepage: http://www.jfkmontreal.com
mac
2004-07-19 14:25:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ehtue
Ask and ye shall receive, Danny.
Only if ya asks the rite person...or dare i say God.
unknown
2004-07-18 07:27:06 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 17 Jul 2004 21:06:44 -0700, Danny Caccavo
Post by Danny Caccavo
There's gotta be a way to work the grassy knoll into this...<g>
dc
:-)

18 and a half minutes gap on the tape sounds better? :-))
--
***@stephencarterNOSPAM.net
Nothing is Beatle Proof!!
Mister Charlie
2004-07-18 15:57:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by unknown
On Sat, 17 Jul 2004 21:06:44 -0700, Danny Caccavo
Post by Danny Caccavo
There's gotta be a way to work the grassy knoll into this...<g>
dc
:-)
18 and a half minutes gap on the tape sounds better? :-))
Or a 9/13 flight with Saudi buddies?
SilentCoupSal
2004-07-18 17:51:31 UTC
Permalink
Comments below are responses to the following thread:

http://www.jfkmontreal.com/john_lennon/Usenet/fseaman.htm
Post by Mister Charlie
Post by unknown
On Sat, 17 Jul 2004 21:06:44 -0700, Danny Caccavo
Post by Danny Caccavo
There's gotta be a way to work the grassy knoll into this...<g>
dc
:-)
18 and a half minutes gap on the tape sounds better? :-))
Or a 9/13 flight with Saudi buddies?
Steve Carter loves to chastise other people for posting off-topic
messages on this newsgroup, but he is the worst offender.
What a hypocrite.

Salvador

===
Ordering information for Salvador Astucia's books can be found at
http://www.jfkmontreal.com/raveningwolf/

Also see Astucia's homepage: http://www.jfkmontreal.com
MacBeatle
2004-07-19 00:18:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by SilentCoupSal
http://www.jfkmontreal.com/john_lennon/Usenet/fseaman.htm
Post by Mister Charlie
Post by unknown
On Sat, 17 Jul 2004 21:06:44 -0700, Danny Caccavo
Post by Danny Caccavo
There's gotta be a way to work the grassy knoll into this...<g>
dc
:-)
18 and a half minutes gap on the tape sounds better? :-))
Or a 9/13 flight with Saudi buddies?
Steve Carter loves to chastise other people for posting off-topic
messages on this newsgroup, but he is the worst offender.
What a hypocrite.
Salvador
===
Ordering information for Salvador Astucia's books can be found at
http://www.jfkmontreal.com/raveningwolf/
Also see Astucia's homepage: http://www.jfkmontreal.com
Yeah. He's one of those "subtle" types of Asshole (UK Version)
who's all puffed up with his bad self, but he can only "take it"
when he's hiding behind MoMA Superior's Apron strings...

He's too easy. But I will say this, about two years ago he ripped
my autobiography in rmbm, smeared me as a "promiscuous type" and cued
up Sockey, who joined in the gang rape (followed by a loverly hanging)
with her best bogus lecture on "fair use doctrine". Yeah, it's so fair
of her and her asshole lapdog to diss my book *without benefit of
having read anything other than the infamous Chapter 8* - a gaffe
I will not easily forgive. Especially now that "Steve X Carter" is
about to receive the shock of his young life. He will be mighty
surprised at the way Mark "Paul's EMI Archive Ho" Lewisohn got
aced out on our BBC documentary.

See you at the movies, Sal.

"I saw STARS."
(Courtney Love, "Celebrity Skin" $$$)
SilentCoupSal
2004-07-18 17:43:42 UTC
Permalink
[Danny Caccavo]
Post by Danny Caccavo
There's gotta be a way to work the grassy knoll into this...<g>
Actually, the two crimes are similar. In JFK's case, professional
assassins were brought in, and the crime was blamed on
[a patsy, Oswald*], but the Feds made the mistake of not
subjecting Oswald to mind control. That's the primary
difference between the two crimes. Oswald needed to be
killed because he protested his innocence. But by using a
touch of mind control on Chapman, he thought he was actually
guilty, although the crime scene evidence showed otherwise,
and the police apparently knew it. That's why a proper police
report was never written.

Salvador
Post by Danny Caccavo
Post by SilentCoupSal
[Salvador]
Post by Mister Charlie
Post by LongTallSally11
Post by Mister Charlie
....So what if they recognized him? No one saw John get shot
except Perdomo, and he told the cops Chapman was the killer.
And since Chapman was apparently a mind control subject,
he himself believed he shot John, although he never understood
why.
Seaman could have easily shot John because Chapman immediately
took the fall. It's a no-brainer.
[Mister Charlie]
Post by Mister Charlie
Post by LongTallSally11
Post by Mister Charlie
So could you have. So what? "Could have's" are as meaningless
as the rest of your speculative nonsense.
[Salvador]
Post by Mister Charlie
Post by LongTallSally11
In a court of law, they don't deal in absolutes, as you seem to
think. True, this is not a courtroom, but a court of law has a
higher standard of proof than a discussion group like this. A
criminal court's standard, under the US Constitution, is only
guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. So there's nothing wrong with
using words like "could have," as long as the opposition cannot
show reasonable doubt. So far, all you have shown is your usual
bullshit. "He didn't do it because I said so, but I don't like him
anyway." Not a very strong argument, Chucky.
[Charlie]
Post by Mister Charlie
Tsk tsk, another leap from the killfiles.
[Salvador]
Post by Mister Charlie
Post by LongTallSally11
Why are you defending a prime murder suspect like Fred Seaman,
anyway?
[Charlie]
Post by Mister Charlie
Because he is not a prime murder suspect.
Is that your only argument? Again, this is merely a discussion,
not a hearing. My point is he *should* be a prime suspect. Whether
he is or is not a prime suspect, in a legal sense, is beside the
point. An investigation was not done because mind control subject
Mark David Chapman immediately confessed to a crime he did not
commit. Then the police stopped investigating, although many of
them certainly must have known Chapman couldn't have shot Lennon
because of the bullet holes in the glass lobby door, which is
completely out of view from any point under the archway entrance,
where Chapman was reportedly standing. And there's the nature of the
wounds too. The cops certainly must know the wounds should have been
on the right side of John's body, not the left.
[Charlie]
Post by Mister Charlie
However, someone like you certainly "could" be. Sick, paranoid
rantings and many, many enemies....
Hey Genius, having enemies doesn't give someone motivation to kill;
it provides motive to the enemies to commit murder.
Your comments about paranoia are merely opinion, and barely that,
because we both know I'm right. Otherwise, you wouldn't be spending
so much time creating a smokescreen for your new pal, Fred Seaman.
That's why you're afraid of me. The truth shall make you free.
I know you don't fear me in a physical sense, and I don't have
a similar fear of you. Like I said before, I'm sure you're not
in the same league of assholes as Seaman.
[Salvador]
Post by Mister Charlie
Post by LongTallSally11
And why are you so certain of his innocence, and what makes you
think he's incapable of committing murder?
Truthfully,
I know it's a lot to expect a truthful response, but do the best
you can. Give your usual Kol Nidre crap a rest and stop thinking
in terms of deception, if that's possible.
Post by Mister Charlie
no one is incapable. Mother Teresa might have chewed the
throat out of a protestant she didn't like.
So now you're suggesting Mother Teresa should be a prime suspect.
First me, then her. It's amazing the lengths you will go to protect
your new hero, Fred Seaman.
Post by Mister Charlie
Nevertheless. What exactly would Fred gain?
MONEY! But he would also get more, the opportunity to steal John's
personal effects, knowing John would soon be dead and the
value of such property would increase dramatically afterwards.
And he got protection from the highest levels of government
that he could walk away from the crime without fear of being
prosecuted, because this was a government-sponsored hit. I feel
sorry for the policemen who were at the crime scene and knew
Chapman couldn't have killed John, and probably wanted to step
forward and speak in his defense. But I suppose they figured once
he confessed, their consciences were clear. I guess in such
situations, a cop must ask himself what would be gained by
putting his career on the line to fight a battle that cannot
not be won because the powers that be are running the show, and
anyone who does not fall in place as expected will be destroyed.
Post by Mister Charlie
And more to the point, as hateful a clod as he is,
There you go again, flip-flopping like John Kerry, the guy who
doesn't support George Bush's Iraq War policy, even though he
voted for the damned thing.
Post by Mister Charlie
and he is, you have produced NO tangible evidence whatsoever
worthy of even accusing him.
We need to find out the identity of the mysterious elevator
operator. Until we get that information, or until he produces
an iron-clad alibi, he should be considered a prime suspect.
He definitely had motive.
Post by Mister Charlie
Your accusations are just as hateful as his prior actions.
How is it hateful to consider a convicted criminal a prime
murder suspect? Especially when he's been convicted of stealing
from the person he's suspected of killing. How is that hateful?
....
[Salvador]
Post by Mister Charlie
Post by LongTallSally11
As much as I've insulted you, Charlie, I don't have reason to
believe you're a cold-blooded killer.
I could be. So could you.
If this is supposed to be some sort of macho-man thing, it
isn't very convincing. Regarding my ability to commit acts
of violence, I wouldn't commit cold-blooded murder because
I believe it is wrong morally and spiritually, not because I
am a person unfamiliar with violence. And I don't believe you
are a violent person either, but for different reasons. Unlike
Mr. Seaman, you just don't have any balls.
Salvador
* Corrected typo in previous posting.

===
Ordering information for Salvador Astucia's books can be found at
http://www.jfkmontreal.com/raveningwolf/

Also see Astucia's homepage: http://www.jfkmontreal.com
Danny Caccavo
2004-07-21 03:54:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by LongTallSally11
[Danny Caccavo]
Post by Danny Caccavo
There's gotta be a way to work the grassy knoll into this...<g>
Actually, the two crimes are similar. In JFK's case, professional
assassins were brought in, and the crime was blamed on
[a patsy, Oswald*], but the Feds made the mistake of not
subjecting Oswald to mind control. That's the primary
difference between the two crimes. Oswald needed to be
killed because he protested his innocence. But by using a
touch of mind control on Chapman, he thought he was actually
guilty, although the crime scene evidence showed otherwise,
and the police apparently knew it. That's why a proper police
report was never written.
Salvador
Geez, I was kidding! <g>

dc
MacBeatle
2004-07-17 08:45:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by SilentCoupSal
[Salvador]
Post by Diana
Post by SilentCoupSal
In Chapter 1 of my book, Rethinking John Lennon's
Assassination, I demonstrated that Mark David Chapman
in all likelihood did not shoot John, but the real
assassin fired the fatal shots while standing in the
doorway leading to the service elevator. Several
accounts referred to an unidentified person who was
also at the crime scene. This was someone besides
Cuban exile doorman Jose Perdomo and lobby clerk Jay
Hastings. Some accounts refer to this individual as
a handyman; others call him a maintenance man;
and others call him an elevator operator. Was this
person Fred Seaman? ....
[Diana]
Post by Diana
By 1980, Fred had worked for John and Yoko for 2 1/2 years.
He was constantly running errands, using the elevator.
He was in and out of the building sometimes several times
in a single day.
In other words, many people likely viewed Seaman as a
handyman, a maintenance man, or an elevator operator.
That's very enlightening.
[Diana]
Post by Diana
Plus, John and Yoko used at least 2 floors of the Dakota,
so even when he was working with both or either of them
directly, he still had to move around within the building.
I think all the Dakota employees, and probably most of the
residents, would've recognized him.
So what if they recognized him? No one saw John get shot
except Perdomo, and he told the cops Chapman was the killer.
And since Chapman was apparently a mind control subject,
he himself believed he shot John, although he never understood
why.
Seaman could have easily shot John because Chapman immediately
took the fall. It's a no-brainer.
[Diana]
Post by Diana
And you forget that Fred continued to work for Yoko for several months.
What does that prove? Yoko didn't see John get shot. But like
everyone else, she was convinced Chapman did it, and she never
questioned it. Therefore, she had no reason to fire Seaman
immediately after John's murder.
[Diana]
Post by Diana
When the gunshots were fired, no doubt many ran to the lobby
to see what had happened. That shadowy figure could've been
anyone.
I'm suspect the NYPD and the New York Times know the identity of
this person, but they're keeping it a secret.
[Diana]
Post by Diana
Logically, your theory doesn't cut it.
On the contrary, the information you have presented reinforces
my suspicion that Seaman was the true assassin.
[Black Monk]
But [Salvador] finally gets to accuse a Jew of killing John
Lennon. I'm sure that made him very happy.
Don't forget Seaman's Jewish partner, Bob Rosen, the guy who was a
free-lance writer for the secretary of the Air Force. Odd that a
fellow with such military connections would want to write a book about
John Lennon. Of course it makes sense if Rosen and Seaman were involved
in a governmental conspiracy to assassinate John. It makes even
more sense if Seaman was the assassin and Rosen was his accomplice and
both reported to the secretary of the Air Force, who was probably
mixed up with the FBI.
And speaking of Jews, the first known person to complain to various
government agencies about the Beatles--in March of 1964--was apparently
another Red Sea pedestrian: Herman Kenin, President of the American
Federation of Musicians. Kenin complained to the State, Justice, and
Labor Departments about the Beatles, arguing that they should not be
allowed to perform in America unless an exchange arrangement could be
worked out where Americans would perform in England. Such bullshit.
http://www.jfkmontreal.com/john_lennon/fbi/AMF.htm
Salvador
===
Ordering information for Salvador Astucia's books can be found at
http://www.jfkmontreal.com/raveningwolf/
Also see Astucia's homepage: http://www.jfkmontreal.com
A+! (excellent work, and no typos, either!)

Keep it up.
SilentCoupSal
2004-07-17 19:34:58 UTC
Permalink
[Salvador]
Post by MacBeatle
Post by LongTallSally11
Post by Diana
Post by SilentCoupSal
In Chapter 1 of my book, Rethinking John Lennon's
Assassination, I demonstrated that Mark David Chapman
in all likelihood did not shoot John, but the real
assassin fired the fatal shots while standing in the
doorway leading to the service elevator. Several
accounts referred to an unidentified person who was
also at the crime scene. This was someone besides
Cuban exile doorman Jose Perdomo and lobby clerk Jay
Hastings. Some accounts refer to this individual as
a handyman; others call him a maintenance man;
and others call him an elevator operator. Was this
person Fred Seaman? ....
[Diana]
Post by MacBeatle
Post by LongTallSally11
Post by Diana
By 1980, Fred had worked for John and Yoko for 2 1/2 years.
He was constantly running errands, using the elevator.
He was in and out of the building sometimes several times
in a single day.
In other words, many people likely viewed Seaman as a
handyman, a maintenance man, or an elevator operator.
That's very enlightening.
[Diana]
Post by MacBeatle
Post by LongTallSally11
Post by Diana
Plus, John and Yoko used at least 2 floors of the Dakota,
so even when he was working with both or either of them
directly, he still had to move around within the building.
I think all the Dakota employees, and probably most of the
residents, would've recognized him.
[Salvador]
Post by MacBeatle
Post by LongTallSally11
So what if they recognized him? No one saw John get shot
except Perdomo, and he told the cops Chapman was the killer.
And since Chapman was apparently a mind control subject,
he himself believed he shot John, although he never understood
why.
Seaman could have easily shot John because Chapman immediately
took the fall. It's a no-brainer.
[Diana]
Post by MacBeatle
Post by LongTallSally11
Post by Diana
And you forget that Fred continued to work for Yoko for several months.
[Salvador]
Post by MacBeatle
Post by LongTallSally11
What does that prove? Yoko didn't see John get shot. But like
everyone else, she was convinced Chapman did it, and she never
questioned it. Therefore, she had no reason to fire Seaman
immediately after John's murder.
[Diana]
Post by MacBeatle
Post by LongTallSally11
Post by Diana
When the gunshots were fired, no doubt many ran to the lobby
to see what had happened. That shadowy figure could've been
anyone.
[Salvador]
Post by MacBeatle
Post by LongTallSally11
I'm suspect the NYPD and the New York Times know the identity of
this person, but they're keeping it a secret.
[Diana]
Post by MacBeatle
Post by LongTallSally11
Post by Diana
Logically, your theory doesn't cut it.
[Salvador]
Post by MacBeatle
Post by LongTallSally11
On the contrary, the information you have presented reinforces
my suspicion that Seaman was the true assassin.
[Black Monk]
Post by MacBeatle
Post by LongTallSally11
But [Salvador] finally gets to accuse a Jew of killing John
Lennon. I'm sure that made him very happy.
[Salvador]
Post by MacBeatle
Post by LongTallSally11
Don't forget Seaman's Jewish partner, Bob Rosen, the guy who was a
free-lance writer for the secretary of the Air Force. Odd that a
fellow with such military connections would want to write a book about
John Lennon. Of course it makes sense if Rosen and Seaman were involved
in a governmental conspiracy to assassinate John. It makes even
more sense if Seaman was the assassin and Rosen was his accomplice and
both reported to the secretary of the Air Force, who was probably
mixed up with the FBI.
And speaking of Jews, the first known person to complain to various
government agencies about the Beatles--in March of 1964--was apparently
another Red Sea pedestrian: Herman Kenin, President of the American
Federation of Musicians. Kenin complained to the State, Justice, and
Labor Departments about the Beatles, arguing that they should not be
allowed to perform in America unless an exchange arrangement could be
worked out where Americans would perform in England. Such bullshit.
http://www.jfkmontreal.com/john_lennon/fbi/AMF.htm
[Francie Schwartz]
Post by MacBeatle
A+! (excellent work, and no typos, either!)
Keep it up.
Thanks. Here's some additional information, plus a recap of
what's already been posted, but without all the static from
the peanut gallery.

http://www.jfkmontreal.com/john_lennon/Usenet/fseaman.htm

Salvador

===
Ordering information for Salvador Astucia's books can be found at
http://www.jfkmontreal.com/raveningwolf/

Also see Astucia's homepage: http://www.jfkmontreal.com
Mister Charlie
2004-07-15 14:01:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Diana
By 1980, Fred had worked for John and Yoko for 2 1/2 years. He was constantly
running errands, using the elevator. He was in and out of the
building
Post by Diana
sometimes several times in a single day. Plus, John and Yoko used at least 2
floors of the Dakota, so even when he was working with both or either of them
directly, he still had to move around within the building.
I think all the Dakota employees, and probably most of the residents, would've
recognized him.
And you forget that Fred continued to work for Yoko for several months.
When the gunshots were fired, no doubt many ran to the lobby to see what had
happened. That shadowy figure could've been anyone.
Logically, your theory doesn't cut it.
And that's just logically.
By the way, at just about the time it happened, Fred and a friend were leaving
a movie theater downtown, maybe 4 miles away from the Dakota.
Ooo, I know I'm gonna regret this....
Not at all. Thanks for slapping these idiots upside the head with some
logic and FACTS.
Mister Charlie
2004-07-15 14:00:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by dlarsson
Post by SilentCoupSal
Sixth, where was Mr. Seaman on Dec. 8, 1980 at 10:50 PM ?
Seventh, has Mr. Seaman had any firearms training?
Eighth, did Fred Seaman shoot and kill John Lennon?
In Chapter 1 of my book, Rethinking John Lennon's Assassination,
I demonstrated that Mark David Chapman in all likelihood did not
shoot John, but the real assassin fired the fatal shots while
standing in the doorway leading to the service elevator.
Several accounts referred to an unidentified person who was also
at the crime scene. This was someone besides Cuban exile doorman
Jose Perdomo and lobby clerk Jay Hastings. Some accounts refer to
this individual as a handyman; others call him a maintenance man;
and others call him an elevator operator. Was this person Fred Seaman?
I think this is certainly a possibility.
Good Lord.

The meeting of two great minds. Not.


Seaman is a lot of things. A murderer? Sorry, as much as I can't stand
him even I am not buying that one.
UsurperTom
2004-07-15 22:48:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mister Charlie
The meeting of two great minds. Not.
Also, the theory that Jose Perdomo is a CIA agent just because he's Cuban
borders on racism. If a Middle Eastern cab driver drove by the Dakota and
witnessed the murder and somebody here speculated that the cab driver was an
Islamic terrorist who gunned down John, Derek and Sal would accuse those who
make such an allegation of being racists.
Usurper
dlarsson
2004-07-15 23:46:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by UsurperTom
Also, the theory that Jose Perdomo is a CIA agent just because he's Cuban
borders on racism.
We are speculating here .. not trying a case in court.

One thing we do know is that Lennon's only
known "enemies" were the U.S. Intelligence
community - so it is only standard operating
procedure to examine those around the scene
of the murder itself - with that in mind.

Had there been a proper and full investigation
Perdomo's background would have been made
clear one way or another.

But it is not unreasonable, by any means, to
ask the hard questions as to why did the
security guard violate standard security/doorman
procedure and let a drifter inside the "protected"
residents-only inner archway to hang about for hours.
The fact that he left the gate itself open
all night long is also a dereliction of his
job function.

Mistakes and incompetence happen, of course,
but then again so does intentional efforts to see
an influential figure get killed.

If the U.S. Intelligence community had nothing
to hide - why would we see pages and pages
of files on Lennon which have either been
classified secret or been redacted (so you
can't read them).

We all know the track record of the CIA/FBI
is so pure and clean - right?



"Listen, if something happens to [ Yoko and ] me
it was not an accident!"
-John Lennon, 1972 to Paul Krassner,
publisher of "The Realist" magazine


"You have to remember, John Lennon was not Britany Spears.
This was no ordinary pop singer. He had a kind of power
and influence unlike any singer today or even back then."
-G. Gordon Liddy
(CIA operative, murderer, right-wing radio
host)




- Derek

================================
EMail: ***@comcast.net
================================
abe slaney
2004-07-16 00:21:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by dlarsson
We all know the track record of the CIA/FBI
is so pure and clean - right?
"Listen, if something happens to [ Yoko and ] me
it was not an accident!"
-John Lennon, 1972 to Paul Krassner,
publisher of "The Realist" magazine
"You have to remember, John Lennon was not Britany Spears.
This was no ordinary pop singer. He had a kind of power
and influence unlike any singer today or even back then."
-G. Gordon Liddy
(CIA operative, murderer, right-wing radio
host)
1980 was light years from 1972 culturally. Lennon in 1980 was no threat
to the establishment. "Grow Old With Me"? "Stepping Out"? "Nobody Told
Me"? "Beautiful Boy"? "Starting Over"? Give me a break.
Sakuradamon
2004-07-16 00:32:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by abe slaney
1980 was light years from 1972 culturally. Lennon in 1980 was no threat
to the establishment. "Grow Old With Me"? "Stepping Out"? "Nobody Told
Me"? "Beautiful Boy"? "Starting Over"? Give me a break.<

all these songs have hidden messages
"NoBody Told Me" talks about Nazis and Commies.
and we all know what "Stepping Out" meant
;)
Mister Charlie
2004-07-16 03:27:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by abe slaney
Post by dlarsson
We all know the track record of the CIA/FBI
is so pure and clean - right?
"Listen, if something happens to [ Yoko and ] me
it was not an accident!"
-John Lennon, 1972 to Paul Krassner,
publisher of "The Realist" magazine
"You have to remember, John Lennon was not Britany Spears.
This was no ordinary pop singer. He had a kind of power
and influence unlike any singer today or even back then."
-G. Gordon Liddy
(CIA operative, murderer, right-wing radio
host)
1980 was light years from 1972 culturally. Lennon in 1980 was no threat
to the establishment. "Grow Old With Me"? "Stepping Out"? "Nobody Told
Me"? "Beautiful Boy"? "Starting Over"? Give me a break.
It's all been said before. They're too constipated mentally to ever
have room to let any light in.
LongTallSally11
2004-07-16 05:10:24 UTC
Permalink
[Abe Slaney]
Post by abe slaney
1980 was light years from 1972 culturally. Lennon in 1980 was
no threat to the establishment. "Grow Old With Me"? "Stepping
Out"? "Nobody Told Me"? "Beautiful Boy"? "Starting Over"? Give
me a break.
Sounds like 1980 was similar to 1964, when the FBI first began
running surveillance on the Beatles, long before John started
making political comments, even before America's build-up of
troops in Southeast Asia. In fact the surveillance started before
the Gulf of Tonkin incident and subsequent resolution, which
gave LBJ a free hand to wage war in Vietnam.

The FBI files on the Beatles in 1964 are immensely important
because they demonstrate that Hoover's FBI kept files on
people merely for being popular. Also, there is no evidence to
demonstrate that this practice has ever stopped.

To view FBI documents on the early Beatles, click here:
http://www.jfkmontreal.com/john_lennon/EarlyBeatlesFBI.htm

Salvador

============ [original message] ==============
Subject: Questions about Fred Seaman
From: ***@cs.com (SilentCoupSal)
Date: 7/7/2004 10:40 PM Eastern Daylight Time
Message-id: <***@mb-m04.news.cs.com>

I found some interesting posts regarding Fred Seaman from 1999
(see below), and would like to recap a few points, then ask
some questions.

First, Mr. Seaman was personal assistant to John Lennon from
early 1979 until John's death on Dec. 8, 1980.

Second, Mr. Seaman is a bona fide criminal who once posted on this
newsgroup (big shock). Not only did he break a trust between
John and Yoko, but he stole John's personal effects shortly after
his death. Then he fed writer Albert Goldman a pack of lies about
John in an obvious effort to discredit John posthumously.

Third, Mr. Seaman insinuated that Yoko hired Mark David Chapman to
kill John. (something we know is bullshit) Why would he try to blame
her? It appears he wanted to discredit Yoko too.

Fourth, Mr. Seaman spread rumors that John was gay or bisexual.
(also bullshit) This is more posthumous character assassination.

Fifth, Mr. Seaman has demonstrated that he is a bigger whore than
some of the low-life scoundrels on this newsgroup, willing to do
virtually anything for money.

Sixth, where was Mr. Seaman on Dec. 8, 1980 at 10:50 PM ?

In Chapter 1 of my book, Rethinking John Lennon's Assassination,
I demonstrated that Mark David Chapman in all likelihood did not
shoot John, but the real assassin fired the fatal shots while
standing in the doorway leading to the service elevator.
Several accounts referred to an unidentified person who was also
at the crime scene. This was someone besides Cuban exile doorman
Jose Perdomo and lobby clerk Jay Hastings. Some accounts refer to
this individual as a handyman; others call him a maintenance man;
and others call him an elevator operator. Was this person Fred Seaman?

Patrolman Peter Cullen, one of the officers who arrested Chapman,
believed the shooter was a handyman at the Dakota, not Chapman.
Cullen thought Chapman "looked like a guy who worked in a bank."
But Cuban exile doorman (security guard) Jose Perdomo convinced
Cullen that Chapman was the assailant.

To read the crime scene analysis in my book, click the following URL:

http://www.jfkmontreal.com/john_lennon/Chapter01A.htm

Seventh, has Mr. Seaman had any firearms training?

Eighth, did Fred Seaman shoot and kill John Lennon?

Salvador Astucia

=========================
From: Shobus (***@aol.com)
Subject: Letter/Question to those that believe Fred Seaman
Newsgroups: rec.music.beatles
Date: 1999/12/23

I copied the following from one of my posts. I place it in a new thread
becasue I would really like someone to answer a question. Why don't those that
believe what Fred Seaman writes in RMB go to the police with his allegations or
encourage him to go to the police? He has insinuated that Yoko hired MDC to
kill John. He has stated (not implied) that Yoko drugged Julian and seduced
him. A lot of times I say a lot of things that I mean, but I am not terribly
concerned about the people on the other side and their motives, etc. I am in
this case. I really think it strange that someone would accept Fred's words -
that Yoko drugged and seduced Julian. Why would not someone try to stop this?
It disturbs me that people think that this is true and do nothing to try to
stop it. I do not think it is true, so I do not feel the need to protect other
young men from being drugged and seduced by Yoko.

o.k., here is my post...
I do not think of myself as pro-Ono/Mintz. I started writing in defense of
Yoko and in opposition to Fred ONLY after he wrote the rubbish about Yoko
getting her wish that John was dead (and did she hire MDC) and the bit about
drugging and seducing Sean. Perhaps you consider this as "honestly reporting
his experiences" with John and Yoko, but I do not.

Fred's standard response to anyone that does not believe his vile or anyone
that even enjoy's Yoko's music is to imply that they are sheep, blindly
accepting whatever the Ono propaganda machine releases. This may be true for
some, but there are too many on rmb that blindly accept whatever Fred writes.

I find it hard to believe that individuals capable of even a modicum of
critical thinking would believe everything that Fred writes. Yoko drugged and
seduced Julian? Y AND (and is the important word) SH hired MDC? It has been
written many times, with no response from Fred (I believe,) that if these awful
"truths", as he puts it, exist, then WHY DID HE NEVER GO TO THE POLICE? I
would think that an honest man such as Fred, who's pursuit and stewardship of
the truth is legendary would be the first one in line to stop such occurances.

If we assume that the drugging and seducing incident is true, and we assume
that it occured during the time of Fred's employment, then (I could be wrong)
would that not make Julian a child when this happened? Honestly, I am not sure
of the dates involved, when Julian was born, but it seems that Julian would
have still been under 18 years of age. If Yoko did this once to Julian, then
it stands to reason that she did this many times throughout her life.

This type of demented behaviour, usually, manifests itself several times. This
sort of sickness can not be unleashed once and never again, can it? You would
think that Fred would have contacted the authorities so that this could never
happen again. Who knows who else she has drugged and seduced, if one accepts
Fred's accounts?

So, if it makes you feel better to write that I am a coward and pathetic, that
is fine. I would think that a man that claims to have information concerning
the assasination of his former boss and the drugging and seduction/molestation
of his former boss' son and does nothing with the information should be
considered pathetic and cowardly.

If the pro-Fred contingent feels so strongly that Fred is writing the truth,
then perhaps they should encourage Fred to go to the police. Perhaps the
pro-Fred contingent should call the NYC police - tell them that Yoko has
drugged and seduced a young man. Tell them that they should follow up on Fred
Seaman's acusations - for they are truths. They are not "truths" that Yoko
spews forth to her pro-Ono/Mintz contingent, but absolute truths, ones that can
not be refuted or denied. If the pro-Fred contingent does not do this, knowing
that the accusations are true, then what is stopping them? Either they are
pathetic and cowardly or they doubt Fred's word. Take your pick.

========================
From: Jim Richard (***@leland.Stanford.EDU)
Subject: Fred Seaman vs. David Sheff
View: Complete Thread (4 articles)
Original Format
Newsgroups: rec.music.beatles
Date: 1999/01/12
Post by abe slaney
In fact, I did look into suing PLAYBOY. I was advised that Sheff's article
did meet the legal test for libel: It was false, in reckless disregard of the
truth (Sheff knowingly wrote things in the article that he new to be false),
and malicious (as evidenced by Sheff's fabricated quotes; Sheff's aticle was
clearly pro-Yoko & anti-Fred -- I'm sure that even my detractors will concede
this...)
-FS
Since Fred Seaman has started posting to r.m.b., I thought people would
be interested in comparing David Sheff's description of the missing Lennon
diaries with Seaman's. Here are summaries of the two accounts. Following
the summaries are a few questions that I hope Fred will answer.

-----
Here is the summary of "The Betrayal of John Lennon", published in the March
1984 Playboy:

Right after Lennon's death, Seaman drew up a contract with Bob Rosen.
For the next year, Fred stole documents from the Dakota apartments and
delivered them to Rosen each Friday. Seaman stole money from Lenono
petty-cash to pay Rosen. In May 1981, Seaman gave Julian Lennon a
copy of the cassette of John's final songs recorded in Bermuda. Seaman's
journal suggests that he intended to try to convince Julian that he, rather
than Yoko, was the rightful guardian of his father's diaries. Sheff words
this as "his aim is to draw Julian into the plan."

In August 1981, Rick Dufay, a guitarist with Aerosmith, joined Seaman and
Rosen. In October, Rosen wrote in his journal that Fred's fantasy was
that "Everybody who was ever associated with the Beatles in any way, shape
or form drops dead. Fred is the only one who remains alive. He corners
the gossip market... We [Seaman, Dufay, Rosen] are all that close. We know
how contemptible the other one is..."

In November 1981, Yoko learned that Julian was planning to record the
songs that she intended to release on the follow-up to "Double Fantasy".
She called Julian and learned that he got the cassette from Fred. Julian
apologized. The same month, Seaman and Dufay stole a large amount of audio
equipment from the Dakota, including an expensive amplifier that John
used to keep by his bed. The next day, someone noticed that equipment was
missing. Elliot Mintz took inventory and found that a lot of things were
missing. No suspicion was cast on Fred, and he wrote in his diary:
"Yesterday's theft doesn't seem to have any consequences, thank God."

The next month Fred showed up at the Christmas Party wearing one of John's
old scarves. Yoko asked him about it. He denied it at first, and then
admitted it may have been one of John's. After getting into a $12,000 car
accident while using a Lenono car for personal business, and then being
caught using Yoko's private bath during work hours, Fred was fired and
given $10,000 severance. From Fred's diary: "My immediate regret is that
I won't have an opportunity to go through the files and avail myself of
'research' material."

The next month, Rosen wrote in his diary that "Possession of the journals
are my best leverage." He also wrote that he was afraid the journals
would be stolen. Seaman's psychotherapist introduced Fred to Norman
Schonfeld, a retired diamond merchant who agreed to finance 'Project
Walrus'. In his diary, Fred wrote that the plan was to discredit Yoko
as much as possible and to set himself up as the real inheritor of
Lennon's artistic and social legacy. Schonfeld and the pschotherapist
soon convinced Fred that Rosen should be cut out of the project. Rosen
was sent to the Carribean and while he was away, Fred wrote: "Norman
[Schonfeld] and I decided to take all the stuff out. . . absconded with
his copy of the journals, the Bermuda tape and anything else we could
carry out." After Rosen returned to his empty apartment, Fred called
and told him what they had done.

In August 1982, Rosen tried to sell his story to magazines, telling them
he had a photographic memory. When no one made an offer, he called Mintz
and offered to return some material for a price. When Mintz threatened to
call the police, Rosen spilled the whole story, claiming to be a dupe of
Seaman's.

A shabbily dressed man showed up at the Dakota with a box full of papers,
including John's diary. He claimed to have gotten them from a junkie in
Harlem. Sam Havadtoy [Yoko's companion] paid him $5,000 to get the rest
of the diaries but he disappeared. They then discovered that the papers
contained only a photocopy of John's 1980 diary and that the rest of the
papers were Fred's journals. When they learned from Rosen that Schonfeld had
put up $33,000 for 'Project Walrus', they figured that he must have the
journals. They approached him and he offered to return the diaries in
return for $60,000 in "expenses". They agreed, and they receive all of the
original diaries back, with the exception of the original 1980 diary which
was never recovered.

In April 1983, Seaman got a $90,000 advance from Simon & Schuster.
Havadtoy called the police and Fred was arrested for grand larceny. The
police found some of the stolen electronic equipment in Fred's home and
storage room. Fred turned over his photocopies of Lennon's diaries. Later,
after he was released, a visitor to his apartment reported that it contained
gold records from 'Double Fantasy' and a piece of Yoko's artwork called
'A Box of Smile' (you open the box and find a mirror on the inside of the
lid).

On May 27, Seaman plead guilty to second-degree grand larceny. He was
sentenced to five years probation. His plea was contingent on his
agreement not to reveal what is in the Lennon diaries. [Simon & Schuster
then cancelled his book deal and withdrew his $90,000 advance.] When Sheff
contacted Dufay for the Playboy story, he wasn't available. Schonfeld said
he didn't know anything about Lennon, Seaman or the diaries. Rosen said,
"I probably knew deep down that the journals were stolen, but I never
admitted it to myself - I didn't want to know."
-----

Here is the summary of Fred Seaman's account, published in the afterword
of his book, "The Last Days of John Lennon":


On December 23, 1980, during the aftermath of John's death, Elliot Mintz
found John's 1980 diary in his bedroom. He told Fred to take it to Yoko.
Fred was surprised by her lack of interest in the diary. She asked him
to file it with his other papers. Fred told Yoko that five months earlier,
in Bermuda, John had mentioned to him that he wanted Julian to get his
journals if anything happened to him. In January 1981 Fred found John's
journals for 1974-1979, also in John's bedroom. Fred decided to deliver
the journals to Julian. Fred met a close friend from college [Bob Rosen,
though the afterword does not mention his name], who offered to copy the
journals overnight while Fred packed for his trip to London to see Julian.
Rosen then called back and said they should collaborate together on a
book based on the diaries. Fred then consulted with his psychotherapist
who recommended that he play along with Rosen. He also put him in touch
with Norman Shoenfeld, a wealthy patient of his, who baited Rosen in order
to retrieve the diaries.

Around Christman 1981, Schoenfeld told Rosen that he would finance a book
and send him on an expenses-paid vacation to the Carribean provided that
Rosen first turn over John's journals. Rosen agreed. Schoenfeld then
insisted on keeping the diaries himself, and promised Fred he would find
a way to return them to Yoko through an intermediary.

Rosen then approached magazines offering to sell them copies of the journals
that he had stashed. Jan Wenner of 'Rolling Stone' tipped off Yoko who
had Mintz track down Rosen. When confronted, Rosen implicated Seaman as
the mastermind behind the diary conspiracy, and he also accused Shoenfeld
and the psychotherapist.

On August 13, the apartment that Fred was staying in was burglarized and
two of his own journals from 1980 were stolen (he had photocopies).

After Rosen confessed, Fred called Yoko in late August to tell her his side
of the story. Yoko's chief of security, Dan Mahoney, a NYC police sergeant,
met Fred and told him that Schoenfeld had returned John's original diaries
to Yoko for a $60,000 finders fee. Mahoney said that the 1980 journal was
missing and that it was thought that Fred had it. When Fred said he didn't,
Mahoney told him, "I like you, Freddie, and I wouldn't like to see you get
hurt."

On September 27, Fred was stopped outside his apartment by two policemen
who worked as bodyguards for Yoko, one of whom was Mahoney's partner. They
told him they had a warrant for his arrest, and drove him to a deserted
alley in the meat-packing district. They demanded Lennon's 1980 diary,
and when Fred said he didn't have it, one of the cops wrapped his first
in a rain coat and started punching Fred, shouting "we'll either have the
journal or you'll be dead." After several minutes of this, they drove
with Fred along the Hudson and quietly discussed shooting Fred and dumping
his body. They stopped, Fred was pulled out of the car, and a gun was
held to the back of his head. "If you don't cooperate, I'll blow your
brains out," the cop threatened, but when Fred insisted he didn't have it,
they drove him to the 20th Precinct and warned him not to tell anybody
what had happened. They also took the keys to his apartment. Fred was
soon taken to his apartment while the police searched it. They collected
anything they thought he might have stolen from the Dakota such as papers
and tapes. Back at the station, Fred was asked to sign a confession that
said he had taken things from the Dakota without Yoko's approval. Fred
said that he had only taken John's diaries. The detectives said they
believed Fred, that the wording of the confession would be changed later,
and that he could go after he signed. Fred signed and was then locked up
overnight.

After being released, Fred hired an attorney to initiate a civil suit
against Yoko, Havadtoy and NYC in connection with his assault. On December
8, the charges against Fred were dropped. However, on February 18, 1983,
Fred learned that Yoko was bringing his case before a grand jury. Since
Fred had given signed and videotaped confessions saying he had taken John's
diaries, his attorneys told him he should plead guilty in return for a
suspended sentence. Fred agreed to plead guilty to criminal possession,
a misdemeanor. On May 27, when Fred went before the judge, he found that
"criminal possession" had been crossed out and replaced with "grand larceny",
a felony. His attorney told him he would have to either sign the
plea-bargain agreement or pay him $10,000 to retain his services. Fred
signed the plea-bargain agreement and was sentenced to five years probation.
Since Fred had spent nearly $30,000 on legal fees at this point, he was
unable to pursue his civil suit against Yoko, Havadtoy and NYC.
-----

Some questions for Fred Seaman:

1. Did Mintz's audio equipment inventory that showed there was missing
equipment become known before or after you were found to have taken
John's diaries?

2. Do Schoenfeld and your psychotherapist back your story?

3. Were either charged with stealing the diaries?

4. Were the entries in Rosen's journal that implicate you fabricated?
(e.g. "He corners the gossip market.").

5. Did you ever have a handwriting expert examine the entries in your
journal that you say were fabricated?

6. Why did you wait nearly a year before taking action to retrieve the
diaries from Rosen?

7. Did your signed confession list the audio equipment you were accused
of stealing or was this thrown in later?


JimR



===
Ordering information for Salvador Astucia's books can be found at
http://www.jfkmontreal.com/raveningwolf/

Also see Astucia's homepage: http://www.jfkmontreal.com
jenni carter
2004-07-16 09:45:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by abe slaney
Post by dlarsson
We all know the track record of the CIA/FBI
is so pure and clean - right?
"Listen, if something happens to [ Yoko and ] me
it was not an accident!"
-John Lennon, 1972 to Paul Krassner,
publisher of "The Realist" magazine
"You have to remember, John Lennon was not Britany Spears.
This was no ordinary pop singer. He had a kind of power
and influence unlike any singer today or even back then."
-G. Gordon Liddy
(CIA operative, murderer, right-wing radio
host)
1980 was light years from 1972 culturally. Lennon in 1980 was no threat
to the establishment. "Grow Old With Me"? "Stepping Out"? "Nobody Told
Me"? "Beautiful Boy"? "Starting Over"? Give me a break.
Not so fast! If "Starting Over" isn't an incitement to overthrow
capitalism and the American-Way-Of-Life and replace it with an agrarian
nutopia with Lennon as SUPREME MASTER and Yoko as MOTHER SUPERIOR then I'm
Peter Tork's uncle.
marcuscp


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.715 / Virus Database: 471 - Release Date: 7/4/2004
dlarsson
2004-07-17 13:16:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by abe slaney
1980 was light years from 1972 culturally. Lennon in 1980 was no threat
to the establishment. "Grow Old With Me"? "Stepping Out"? "Nobody Told
Me"? "Beautiful Boy"? "Starting Over"? Give me a break.
I agree that he was no "threat" but Lennon always
spoke his mind on current events. He had planned
to fly out to San Francisco in Decemeber to take part
in a protest by workers against the Kikkoman (soy sauce)
company for unfair employee treatment.

In his interviews he also reasserted the validity of the
1960s saying that the 60s was not "the answer" but
it showed us the possibility that we are all responsible
for social change and it had produced real progress
( ending Vietnam, civil rights, womens rights, environmental rights )

It was clear that Lennon was never going to be
a "just shutup and sing" type of individual and as
long as he was back in the public spotlight again
the music industry and our culture as a whole
would have a uniquely potent advocate for issues
of social justice and a left-of-center viewpoint.
Lennon was the "Micheal Moore" of the music
industry.

You are right that should never have made
anyone wish to murder him - but the facts
are that much of Lennon's files remain classified
and/or have been redacted as a result of
decisions that occurred both after as well
as 1971-75. The facts are, in addition, that
no investigation of the murder and crime
scene details was ever done.

We should get answers to the questions.

If the U.S. government is not involved
let's see all the files and not have them
be buried along with George Bush's
National Guard attendence records.

Let's have Jose Perdomo, the cab driver,
Yoko, the "assistent, etc. be questioned
on specifically what they saw, what they
heard, where the shots came from, etc.

The truth is all we have. When we are
willing to accept comfortable stories and
myth for illogical or complex events - we
then endorse the denial of our own freedom.



- Derek

================================
EMail: ***@comcast.net
================================
Mister Charlie
2004-07-17 15:43:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by dlarsson
Post by abe slaney
1980 was light years from 1972 culturally. Lennon in 1980 was no threat
to the establishment. "Grow Old With Me"? "Stepping Out"? "Nobody Told
Me"? "Beautiful Boy"? "Starting Over"? Give me a break.
I agree that he was no "threat" but Lennon always
spoke his mind on current events. He had planned
to fly out to San Francisco in Decemeber to take part
in a protest by workers against the Kikkoman (soy sauce)
company for unfair employee treatment.
In his interviews he also reasserted the validity of the
1960s saying that the 60s was not "the answer" but
it showed us the possibility that we are all responsible
for social change and it had produced real progress
( ending Vietnam, civil rights, womens rights, environmental rights )
It was clear that Lennon was never going to be
a "just shutup and sing" type of individual and as
long as he was back in the public spotlight again
the music industry and our culture as a whole
would have a uniquely potent advocate for issues
of social justice and a left-of-center viewpoint.
Lennon was the "Micheal Moore" of the music
industry.
You are right that should never have made
anyone wish to murder him - but the facts
are that much of Lennon's files remain classified
and/or have been redacted as a result of
decisions that occurred both after as well
as 1971-75. The facts are, in addition, that
no investigation of the murder and crime
scene details was ever done.
We should get answers to the questions.
If the U.S. government is not involved
let's see all the files and not have them
be buried along with George Bush's
National Guard attendence records.
Let's have Jose Perdomo, the cab driver,
Yoko, the "assistent, etc. be questioned
on specifically what they saw, what they
heard, where the shots came from, etc.
The truth is all we have. When we are
willing to accept comfortable stories and
myth for illogical or complex events - we
then endorse the denial of our own freedom.
You wouldn't know the truth if it bit you on the ass.
dlarsson
2004-07-17 15:56:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mister Charlie
You wouldn't know the truth if it bit you on the ass.
YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH
Mister Charlie
2004-07-17 15:58:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by dlarsson
Post by Mister Charlie
You wouldn't know the truth if it bit you on the ass.
YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH
Very good. Now go repeat that into a mirror three times while clicking
your heels/
BlackMonk
2004-07-17 16:27:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by dlarsson
Post by dlarsson
It was clear that Lennon was never going to be
a "just shutup and sing" type of individual and as
long as he was back in the public spotlight again
the music industry and our culture as a whole
would have a uniquely potent advocate for issues
of social justice and a left-of-center viewpoint.
Lennon was the "Micheal Moore" of the music
industry.
I thought you liked Lennon?
dlarsson
2004-07-22 01:35:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by BlackMonk
Post by dlarsson
Lennon was the "Micheal Moore" of the music
industry.
I thought you liked Lennon?
I like them both ... both were stand-up guys!
JLW44
2004-07-22 01:50:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by dlarsson
Post by BlackMonk
Post by dlarsson
Lennon was the "Micheal Moore" of the music
industry.
I thought you liked Lennon?
I like them both ... both were stand-up guys!
Again you have no clue as to what Lennon would be like now. But I guess for
someone like you it is to your advantage that Lennon is no longer here. I
wonder who your hero would be had he been allowed to live.

MacBeatle
2004-07-15 23:23:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by SilentCoupSal
Second, Mr. Seaman is a bona fide criminal who once posted on this
newsgroup (big shock). Not only did he break a trust between
John and Yoko, but he stole John's personal effects shortly after
his death.
According to Yoko's law firm (See Weber) and court
documents
including Rosen's "remembered" diaries or notes
*about* what he remembered about John's
diaries and the xerox copies which were briefly in
his (Rosen's) possession early in Project Walrus before
Seaman broke into his apartment: Fred started
stealing stereo equipment _months_ before the assassination.

Otherwise, a fair amount of good juicy stuff. For this quarter...

;-}
Mister Charlie
2004-07-16 03:25:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by MacBeatle
Post by SilentCoupSal
Second, Mr. Seaman is a bona fide criminal who once posted on this
newsgroup (big shock). Not only did he break a trust between
John and Yoko, but he stole John's personal effects shortly after
his death.
According to Yoko's law firm (See Weber) and court
documents
including Rosen's "remembered" diaries or notes
*about* what he remembered about John's
diaries and the xerox copies which were briefly in
his (Rosen's) possession early in Project Walrus before
Seaman broke into his apartment: Fred started
stealing stereo equipment _months_ before the assassination.
Otherwise, a fair amount of good juicy stuff. For this quarter...
According to Rosen he started stealing from the *first* day of his
employment.

Gee, I thought you'd be a bit more up to date than this.

No, wait. No I didn't.
Loading...