We knew that when this [the Lennon] case went to trial, no matter what happened, we were gonna be criticized for generations to come. We did our best. There was nothing too insignificant to go into. Nothing!
--Detective Ron Hoffman to Albert Goldman

In case you haven‘t noticed, I’ve just put up a ton of posts describing an historical event that lasted for five or six seconds in real-time. That’s because the complexity of the event overshadows its brevity. It’s the reason why, as Det. Hoffman said, police should look at many different angles of a crime, or at least as many angles as they can imagine. After all, a defense attorney might throw a monkey wrench into the prosecution’s case by calling to the juror’s attention bits of evidence that the police have overlooked, or by interpreting evidence in a new way with the help of experts. Simply put, no matter how open-and-shut it might seem, every case has to be adjudicated. And many things can happen between the arrest and the verdict.

Detective Hoffman understood the nature of an investigation. Yet his boss, Lt. Arthur O’Connor, flatly contradicted his characterization of their efforts on the night of John Lennon‘s death. Lt. O’Connor went into some detail with Fenton Bresler about why his investigation into the Lennon murder was shockingly limited, but he sums it up with a very terse explanation.

The case, in his words, was a “grounder.”

In any crime, especially felonies, the policeman’s job consists of finding a viable suspect to present to the District Attorney’s office for prosecution. At the time of Lennon’s death, the resources of the Twentieth Precinct were seriously committed to helping prosecutors try Craig Crimmins for the death of violinist Helen Mintiks. The Phantom of the Metropolitan Opera case was a real-life whodunnit requiring considerable police help to shore up the prosecution’s case. And that was such a difficult case, intellectually, logistically, and emotionally. What’s worse, on December 8, 1980, the department was on the verge of getting back to some sense of normality, especially welcome because of the ongoing holiday season.

And then, the Lennon murder case rears its ugly head. But unlike the Mintiks case, NYPD detectives didn’t have to look long at all to find a viable and cooperative suspect. As O’Connor told Bresler:

This case was a grounder. In any kind of criminal investigation, primarily a homicide investigation, a case in police vernacular in New York City is considered grounded when a case is solved This case was solved with the arrest of Mark Chapman....

As it was, there was no extensive investigation [into the Lennon homicide]: there did not have to be. We had our man! As for [Allen] Sullivan, the assistant district attorney, he did not have too much homework to do either, though I grant you he was a very thorough man: it didn’t matter, he was primarily concerned with Mark’s mental condition. He knew that would be the essential issue at the trial. Mark was going to plead insanity--and that is what occupied Sullivan’s mind.

Investigate a possible conspiracy? Whatever for? Nobody cared to pursue that line. When a case is grounded, it’s grounded--and this one was from the start. Mark acknowledged his guilt that first night at the precinct. What more was there to do? You don’t go looking for a conspiracy. I had no information about one--and I did not look for it.

The New York prosecution primarily focused on Chapman’s state of mind, directing not only the NYPD, but also the Honolulu Police and the Georgia Bureau of Investigation (GBI) to assist them in preparing against an insanity defense. As GBI Special Agent Wesley Nunn told Bresler:

Apart from wanting me to go check on where Mark got his bullets from, the primary thrust of my enquiries was into his [Chapman’s] background. What sort of a guy he was, that kind of thing. I got the impression the DA in New York was more concerned with fighting a defence of insanity at the trial than anything else.

Captain Louis Souza, the Honolulu detective who assisted with the Lennon investigation, noted that New York prosecutors seemed particularly myopic. Souza wanted to question Gloria Abe Chapman, but she, perhaps out of grief, wouldn’t talk to him. So he never interviewed her, explaining, “I checked with the New York authorities and they did not want to press the issue so I didn’t pursue it.” Souza also found sort of a lax attitude when Chapman’s credit union refused to give him information that might explain the financing of the trip. “Maybe we could have gone to court to get that information,” he said, “but at the time I guess they didn’t feel in New York that it was important where he got the money from to make the trips. The fact is he made the trips.”

The irony here is that Lt. O’Connor admits to taking short cuts with the Lennon homicide, in contrast to Det. Hoffman who seemed more than somewhat defensive about the investigation.

Without O‘Connor, Bresler would have had no book--or at least a book worth reading. Bresler quoted the retired detective extensively, and what becomes apparent right away is that the ex-cop had given the case considerable thought over the years, for a lot of it didn’t add up, in his opinion. For starters, it boggled his mind that the suspect, metaphorically speaking, came gift wrapped. As he explained:

He [Chapman] remained on the scene voluntarily. He was not physically restrained. Seventy-five feet away was an entrance to the subway. If he wanted to, he could have gotten clean away. He had a 75 per cent chance, in my book, of never being apprehended. But he wanted to get caught. Now, if he had got away, then there would have been one hell of an investigation.

It’s not that the Lieutenant believed in a Manchurian Candidate scenario. It’s more the case that he never ruled it out, personally. Furthermore, he had a long-shot suspicion that there might be some validity in it:

...it’s possible Mark could have been used by somebody. I saw him the night of the murder. I studied him intensely. He looked as if he could have been programmed--and I know what use you [Bresler] are going to make of that word!

Because of the nature of the initial investigation, some answers are lost to us. A good deal of evidence is now gone. We can’t even exhume Lennon, for he was cremated soon after his release from the morgue. The only evidence we can go over now consists of the memories of all of those involved. Unfortunately, memory is oft times a mercurial thing. Because the dominant narrative of this event has received major reinforcement from television programs, two recent feature length movies, and such books as Jack Jones’ Let Me Take You Down, witness memory might have been influenced to fit a coherent and consistent storyline.

As for Chapman, his understanding of these events was always shaky. When Jones approached him with a book idea, he acknowledged Chapman’s confusion about the murder and suggested that they explore the topic together. Consequently, one might feel that Chapman’s later pronouncements seem more compelling. Yet we still don’t really know how much of this represents Chapman’s true recollection as opposed to the imagination and prompting of an author crafting a credible tale.

As for forensic evidence, the public never got to see much, and what little there was doesn’t appear to be extant. What we have of it is piecemeal and unverifiable, for we have to examine it through past descriptions of it. But as much as we can see it in the state it currently exists (i.e., in its unverifiable existence), the forensic evidence is at best confounding, and at worst in direct conflict to the story that most of us know.

Some of you might know, and some of you might not, but our friend Enemy of the Republic is going through some very rough times right now. She could use some moral support. If you can, drop by Cruel Virgin and give her a holler. And the mother of our friend Charles passed away recently. I would greatly appreciate it if you stopped by his site, Razored Zen, and offer support to him as well.