If you want to know the cause of Jim's death -- not just the physiology of it -- ask what triggered his heart to stop...And whose finger was on the trigger.
-- Wolfe, pp. 106
But Arthur O'Connor, the Detective who spent more time with the assassin immediately following the murder than anyone else, saw it another way.
Detective O'Connor was speaking to Bresler, and publicly for the first time. Bresler's book, Who Killed John Lennon? -- Offers the most cogent argument that the assassination of John Lennon was not the work of yet another "lone nut."
At nearly three hundred pages, John Lennon's Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) file reveals that he was under "constant surveillance." His apartment was watched, he was followed, and his phone was tapped. The FBI did not keep a particularly low profile around the ex-Beatle, apparently attempting to harass him into silence or at least drive him nuts
In late 1972, when the "surveillance" was at its peak, John Lennon told humorist Paul Krassner, "Listen, if anything happens to Yoko and me, it was not an accident."
However, most autopsies are performed as soon as possible following death. The quality of the body's tissues (and thus the quality of the autopsy results) deteriorates over time because bacterial contamination and other decay processes affect the body. In reality, this generally means that autopsies in a hospital usually are performed on the day of death, if possible, or early on the following day.
And this is an undeniable fact. But what was the motive? Fame? Money? Being part of History? No.
So what was it???
Chapman said some of the widely conveyed details from the shooting are not accurate. He never said, “Mr. Lennon,” when the ex-Beatle emerged from the limousine to return to his apartment at around 11 p.m. after a recording session.
“When Mr. Lennon passed me I turned, pulled out my weapon and shot him in the back,” he said. “I have read in the record all through, since that time, that I said, ‘Mr. Lennon,’ but I did not say that. I just shot him. It was just me and him in the archway of the Dakota (apartment building) and I knew who he was. I met him earlier that day, and I just shot him then.”
The waters are muddier than what they actually appear...
I ask my opponent and others to reject this way of thinking as It only leads to theories, and instead choose, as it is a choice, to bring forth only facts and base conclusions from that.
“I may misunderstand but answering the question at face value, yes, in death the music industry does gain a financial advantage and also, yes, the 'artist' does gain more notoriety as I have explained before.”
I won't kill you, but I don't have to save you.
Michael Jackson was killed by Dr. Murray. Negligence? Incompetence? Or a contract?
The only fact is that they died, way before their time. Circumstances nebulous to say the least. And what does the industry do...they put them back on top of the charts. Young, beautiful, idols...
Morrison is now claimed to be a great poet, a great voice in the dark. Lennon is now a Peace promoter, a loving soul. Jackson, a musical genius, young and beautiful...funny that they never capitalize on how they looked in the end...but how they looked in their primetime. Presley is another good example, they never capitalized on the fat transpiring prescription drug addict but instead, the young and proud military Elvis...Lately, who can prove this statement wrong if we look at how Whitney Houston is now portrayed??
SonoftheSun opened strong, but brief, with a theory that famous people are marked by the establishment. I was hoping he'd have a solid position. Rising Against countered by the fact that people pass on regardless of their social status, and further reinforced his point throughout the debate, sticking solidly to his position. RA also seemed to be able to disrupt Son's train of thought by contributing more instances outside of Son's original three conspiracies.
Son made a recovery by his Socratic Question, which placed him in a position to expose corruption in the music industry, but RA countered it nicely by pointing out most of the theories were speculation, and reinforced it reminding us to stick to facts.
Instead of following his points with tenacity, SonoftheSun allowed himself to ask more questions than to provide solid information. You cannot ask questions in a debate without closure to them inherent in your argument, and he left the debate with more questions asked than answered. The overall point of a debate is to ask questions, and provide answers, not just ask them, and leave them open. Closure is something SonoftheSun needs practice with. It was actually his only weakness in this debate.
Both debaters provided an interesting read, and an insightful debate, but the debate goes to Rising Against for a solid defense and consistent responses.
In this debate, over the mystery of certain celebrity deaths, I think that SonoftheSun makes a good point that, in some cases, it works out best for the music industry when an artist dies, but he fails to demonstrate that this has motivated murder or complicity in it. His point regarding the controversial nature of some outspoken artists who have died is negated by far more controversial artists who have not (Rage Against the Machine, for one, comes to mind.) On the other side, Rising Against does a good job defending against these points, noting that the true nature of most celebrity deaths is the human factor, whether self-indulgence (in Morrison's case,) mental instability (Mark David Chapman) and a self-centered and indulgent group of "hangers on" who could have said "stop this behaviour" but chose not to (Michael Jackson and Elvis.) Though both scored points for good argumentation, I think that Rising Against wins, on the basis of the speculative nature of SonoftheSun's examples, without sufficient evidence to sway the audience in his favour.