To understand the reasons behind John Lennon’s death, we have to determine the motivation of Mark Chapman. Here, we have examined four types of explanations: official, quasi-official, those involving non-psychotic mental disorders, and others focusing on external manipulation of Chapman’s thoughts and actions by a party hostile to Lennon--the “Manchurian Candidate” hypothesis. Speculation along any of these four lines has proven difficult, for each presents a unique set of problems, questions and weaknesses.

The official explanation for Chapman’s motivation does not exist. At first, the defense argued that psychosis drove Mark to fly to New York and put four holes in the former Beatle. DA Allen Sullivan, Judge Dennis Edwards, three prosecution psychiatrists and two court-appointed ones argued otherwise. Judge Edwards found that though highly imaginative, Chapman could readily tell the difference between fantasy and reality. Moreover, in order to make a case for insanity, defense psychiatrists had to fudge (or fabricate?) critical parts of Chapman’s personal history. Friends, family and the psychological professionals who had previously treated Chapman for depression flatly contradicted the defense’s depiction of him as a perpetually angry, abused, psychotic loner. Thus, while the court had to consider the possibility of psychosis, the ultimate official decision dismissed it when Judge Edwards accepted Chapman’s guilty plea. Sufficient eyewitness evidence (including Chapman’s statements to police) pointed to Mark as the culprit, thus mooting the need to determine motive. Consequently, the official finding didn’t address motive, in effect saying that Chapman shot Lennon for no discernable reason.

I think that most people intuitively understand that for every human action there is at least one reason--more likely a set of them. Perhaps that’s why in public discourse on the death of John Lennon a number of explanations have surfaced. Some of them, because of repetition, have taken on the air of authenticity, what I refer to here as ‘quasi-official’ reasons. Chief among these is insanity. Despite the court’s ruling, many people can see a certain pathology in someone traveling thousands of miles (twice) in order to kill a man he’s never met, and towards whom has no personal animosity. At the same time, the evidence of insanity was too weak for a court to accept, while other evidence argues strongly against it as a causal factor.

Some have suggested (including Mark himself) that Chapman murdered Lennon to become famous. Augmenting this perception is the reality that Chapman has attained true celebrity status, complete with numerous press articles, television specials, two theatrically released movies and an X-Spot series devoted to his life. Moreover, both defense and prosecution expert witnesses characterized Chapman as narcissistic. Yet, many (including Mark himself--which should underscore his unreliability as a source for his own motivation) have contended that Chapman didn’t shoot Lennon to become famous. Lt. Arthur O’Connor, the NYPD detective official assigned to the case, noted that if Chapman sought fame, he went about it in an odd way. Unlike Charles Manson and others who bask in the limelight of their notoriety, and milk it for all it's worth, Chapman gave very few interviews during his incarceration. And unlike Manson, Chapman had no history of seeking fame through other means. Moreover, by pleading guilty, Chapman forfeited the attention a trial would have brought. By taking the stand in his own defense, Chapman could have wallowed in extraordinary public attention. Still, he declined this, preferring instead to accept his fate more quietly. And while narcissism might explain why Chapman shot a famous person, it doesn’t explain why he fixated on one particular individual who lived many miles away, when he could have picked someone just as (if not more) famous, someone closer, or someone he would have had easier access to.

Chapman’s obsession with J.D. Salinger’s Catcher in the Rye, and his putative self-identification as Lennon have led some to speculate (as did defense witness Dr. Daniel Schwartz) that Mark shot Lennon to either rid the world of someone he had long-considered a phony, or to commit ritualistic suicide without actually having to die. As characterized by those who knew him, Chapman’s obsession with Lennon really began in the fall of 1980 after reading the Fawcett biography. In other words, his interest wasn’t a lifelong thing, as some have maintained. Furthermore, no one has produced credible evidence (other than the defense experts) that Chapman couldn’t distinguish between himself and Lennon, and there’s much to indicate that Chapman saw Lennon as someone different from himself.

Our friend, Dr. Alistair, first mentioned a possible explanation for what happened that night, which our friend Charles Gramlich later expanded upon: specifically, undiagnosed Asperger’s Syndrome. Chapman, in fact, exhibits some of the traits associated with this disorder, mainly his tendency to withdraw into intense obsessions that lasted for brief periods of time, and then faded quickly. Unlike the schizophrenia diagnoses, which had to distort Chapman’s background to make their case, Mark’s friends, relatives and associates all witnessed and confirmed his obsession over such subjects as The Catcher in the Rye, art, guns or college.

Reading further into this hypothesis, I later discovered two things pertaining to Asperger’s and criminality. First, Asperger’s sufferers who commit crime typically have an underlying mental illness. Chapman’s bouts with depression are well documented. Perhaps we could then see the killing of John Lennon as a ritualistic suicide, although not in the manner suggested by Dr. Schwartz. In this case, Mark would have known that his life, as he knew it, would effectively end after the deed.

Second, while Asperger’s does not explain criminal activity, it can provide insight into the nature of the transgression. When someone diagnosed with Asperger’s breaks the law, it is often in an obsessive, violent way (e.g., stalking, assault, rape, murder, etc.) against a specific individual upon whom the perpetrator fixates for some reason. The Salinger and Fawcett books, in tandem, could have focused Chapman’s attention on Lennon. Chapman stalked Lennon for over a month.

Of course, neither Alistair nor Charles have stated that Chapman suffered from Asperger’s, let alone diagnosed him with it. As competent, responsible professionals they wouldn’t, unless they personally examined him. Instead, they simply suggested that such could be a possibility, based on some aspects of Chapman’s behavior. At the same time, they’ve each pointed to specific traits that challenge the Asperger’s hypothesis, among them Chapman’s gregariousness. While those associated with Chapman before the shooting could talk about Mark’s obsessions, they also made note of his outgoingness. The fact that Fenton Bresler could find numerous old friends to interview strongly suggests that Chapman could make and maintain friendships for many years. His befriending of Jerri Moll, Jude Stein and Paul Goresh in the hours leading up to the murder demonstrate more of an outgoing nature than a overriding desire for solitude. Another commenter in this series, Exiles800, has also noted that the good shot grouping indicates excellent physical (especially eye-hand) coordination, which is something rather uncommon among Asperger’s patients (of course, that‘s assuming Chapman actually shot Lennon).

One has to keep in mind that a psychiatric diagnosis isn’t’ a one-size-fits-all kind of explanation. After all, people can have a condition in which they manifest some symptoms, but not others. A number of Asperger’s sufferers can initiate and maintain friendships and romantic relationships. Not all of them have poor coordination. Some, like ‘80s new-wave rocker Gary Numan, are even musicians. And in 1981, mental health providers knew considerably less about Asperger’s than they do now. That could explain why defense psychiatrists didn’t pursue this more ardently, perhaps as a secondary explanation. Maybe, at some future date, another psychiatric evaluation could shed some light on this.

Like a prosecutor presenting a case, those who suspect a conspiracy in the death of John Lennon would have to show motive, means, opportunity and connection. Obviously, many within US and UK Federal law enforcement disliked Lennon and Yoko Ono. This is evident through the extensive surveillance and harassment, and the attempt to evict the couple from the US. Also well documented are the efforts by those on the ideological right-wing to silence Lennon’s outspokenness on political issues, and to assist and cooperate with agencies of government hostile to them.

What also comes out of looking at the volume of declassified material on John Lennon is that US Intel seemed to have exaggerated Lennon’s importance, or his potential effect as a pied piper. When one looks at Intelligence complicity in the deaths of those who were lesser known, nationally or internationally, (e.g., Fred Hampton--disturbing image warning), then one has to say that a number of shadowy groups had sufficient motivation to kill Lennon.

By the time the Senate Hearings on MK-ULTRA concluded in 1977, the public would learn that controlling someone to the point where he or she could carry out assassinations was something that the CIA actively researched. According to a number of physicians, some of whom (Dr. George Estabrooks, Dr. Martin Orne) actually assisted Intel, that degree of control was certainly attainable. Dr. Estabrooks coyly claimed to have actually created a Manchurian Candidate. Dr. Orne filmed his own hypnosis experiments in which a normal young woman with no pronounced hostilities attempted to cause a complete stranger severe harm, possibly even death, by throwing what she believed to be pure sulfuric acid onto him. Dr. Herbert Spiegel showed NBC News that programming someone to hate a stranger (even a fictional one) enough to kill them was certainly possible. Note too that much of the above experiments and demonstrations took place before 1970. One could certainly imagine improved techniques by 1980. Thus, it seems reasonable that CIA would have the means to carry out a Manchurian Candidate scenario in 1980, especially if the person programmed were not the shooter, but a patsy.

Chapman had numerous opportunities to come into contact with the type of mental health professionals who could have indoctrinated (if not brainwashed) him. From his rather odd trip to Beirut, to his time at Ft. Chaffee, to his residence in Hawaii near a large naval installation which could have provided a number of intelligence-trained shrinks.

The point where the Manchurian Candidate scenario falls down and goes “boom” is in the area of connectivity, or agency. It’s one thing to say someone might have programmed Chapman. It’s a different thing to provide evidence for that statement. After all, what names can we associate with Chapman? Who would have given the final go-ahead? CIA? FBI? ONI? DIA? The Wackenhut Corporation, or some other private security and clandestine ops firm, on behalf of Republicans paving the way for the so-called “Reagan Revolution”?

We could conjecture that he met with someone who supervised his programming, but we cannot give a name. Journalist Janice Wolf’s investigation found that Mark had seen a shrink in the months before the murder, and that this shrink instructed him to act out his fantasies. Did the doctor have a connection to Intel? Hell if we know. She didn’t give a name; neither did Bresler. We can speculate that Chapman’s boyhood pal Dana Reeves might have acted as a handler, but in order to prove that we would have to demonstrate a strong connection that he acted under the orders of someone in intelligence. As a deputy sheriff, Reeves might have had some connection to the Association of Law Enforcement Intelligence Units (LEIU), an intelligence network that allows local police departments to swap information back and forth along secure channels. The LEIU, as do local police departments, have a history and reputation of cooperating with the CIA.

Then again, Reeves might not have had reason to bother with police intelligence. We cannot know for certain. And since we really don’t know what actually happened to Chapman in Beirut, Arkansas or Hawaii, we can not really connect his putative programming to these places.

Given the past intelligence interest in John Lennon, the surveillance, the harassment, the death threats and so on, the known (and unknown) methods that could coerce an individual's behavior (what the late Dr. Margaret Singer referred to as “thought reform”), and Lt. O'Connor's observation of Chapman, I wouldn’t blame anyone for regarding Lennon’s murder as suspicious. In fact, I agree. I think it’s suspicious. But suspicion and proof are not interchangeable concepts.

A putative second gunman near the service elevator door would clarify the issue considerably, if one could prove his existence. The notion isn’t farfetched when looking at descriptions of the wounds themselves, the actions of the principals, the types of bullets used, and the weapon. And it seems more likely that someone would more readily rely on an amateur (nice guy at that) to act as a patsy, not an actual (or primary) shooter. The hypothesis is consistent with the description of the physical evidence, while the notion that Chapman shot Lennon is hard to reconcile with the angle of the shots, and the behavior of his hollow-point ammo, which according to the most accepted version of this story entered Lennon from the side opposite the shooter, and ricocheted and exited, contrary to its design. It would seem more consistent with the shattered glass door of the lobby (observed by Joseph Many and Officer Stephen Spiro) than the most accepted version.

Then there are other things. Not to accuse Jose Perdomo, but his actions certainly raise an eyebrow or two. Usually, if a shooter disarms himself and takes out a book to wait for police, you don’t tell him to go away. Usually. It’s a bit of a problem that other people handled the gun between Chapman’s laydown, and the retrieval by police. Chapman’s own hazy memory confounds things even further, but the characterization of his feeling after the shooting as relief (as if someone lifted a heavy weight off his shoulders), and his state, as witnessed by Lt. O’Connor, is consistent with the premise that someone manipulated Chapman into shooting at Lennon.

All these things are grounds for suspicion. None of it is proof to even a preponderance standard. After all, we don’t have Lennon’s body to examine. We thus can't determine exactly where the bullets came from, how many pieces they broke into, or if they could have hit bones that caused the wicked bounces that shattered the door. We don’t know if the shooting was really point-blank. The only way we know of these things as possibilities is because of the recollection of an attending doctor, Frank Veteran, the information filled out by pathologist Dr. Elliot Gross on the death certificate, and the witness statements. Dr. Gross’ observations are valid, but vague. Dr. Veteran could have exaggerated or misremembered Lennon’s injuries. Witnesses often confuse what they see when situations happen quickly, and from out of the blue.

Typically, my attitude in each of these series is that we can always find out more about controversies. This, then, is one of those rare occasions where we most likely won’t know much more than we already do. Because of the fact that the police grounded their investigation early, and because the DA’s office asked them to only look for evidence along certain lines, we will perhaps always have questions about that night in December 1980.

Yet, I can think of something that might one day expand our knowledge of the case, and answer some of the questions raised by myself and other writers: a detailed review of the autopsy, notes and all. That would narrow down the potential paths the bullets took, clarify which wounds were those of exit or entry, help establish gunshot residue (GSR) patterns. It might also answer questions no one has conceived of yet.

In New York state, detailed autopsy reports aren’t available to the public, but rather to the next-of-kin. This ensures that we can enjoy at least some modicum of privacy, even in death. This became quite a local scandal in New York a few years ago when someone leaked bits of Dr. Robert Atkins autopsy report and posted it on the Internet. The documentary evidence showed that the doctor, famed for inventing the low-starch diet, was substantially overweight (if memory serves, about 270 lbs.) and had recently suffered a heart attack--which, when you consider Atkins’ life and work, might seem embarrassing.

I have no personal relationship to John Lennon’s next-of-kin, namely Yoko Ono. But her son, Sean, does. It wouldn’t be beyond the pale if Ono showed him portions of the autopsy report, or at least discussed it with him once he had reached an appropriate age. Sean's vehemence demonstrates his confidence in the assertion that some aspect of US Intel assassinated his father. Talking to New Yorker writer David Sapsted, the younger Lennon said:

He was a counterculture revolutionary, and the government takes that kind of shit really seriously historically....

[My father] was dangerous to the government. If he had said, ‘Bomb the White House tomorrow,’ there would have been 10,000 people who would have done it. These pacifist revolutionaries are historically killed by the government....

Anybody who thinks that Mark Chapman was just some crazy guy who killed my dad for his personal interests, is insane. Or very naive. Or hasn't thought about it clearly. It was in the best interests of the United States to have my dad killed. Definitely.

Not so curiously, Sapsted took a subtly snide view of Sean’s “conspiracy theory,” pointing out that Lennon had dropped out of Columbia University, and stating “New York Police Department’s exhaustive investigation into John Lennon’s killing found no evidence that the disturbed Chapman did not act alone.” Of course Sapsted, like Lennon biographer Albert Goldman, characterized the initial investigation in a way flatly contradicted by the case’s lead detective.

Granted, Lennon Jr., like the FBI, might have seriously overestimated the power actually wielded by his father. But if he’s had access to information that few others have seen, the man just might know something we don’t.