Rethinking John Lennon’s Assassination The FBI’s War on Rock Stars By Salvador Astucia Chapter 1: The Crime Scene

DISCLAIMER: 
THE POSTING OF STORIES, COMMENTARIES, REPORTS, DOCUMENTS AND LINKS (EMBEDDED OR OTHERWISE) ON THIS SPIKE1138 DOES NOT IN ANY WAY, SHAPE OR FORM, IMPLIED OR OTHERWISE, NECESSARILY EXPRESS OR SUGGEST ENDORSEMENT OR SUPPORT OF ANY OF SUCH POSTED MATERIAL OR PARTS THEREIN.

Contents Lennon Home Page Main Home Page

Rethinking John Lennon’s Assassination The FBI’s War on Rock Stars By Salvador Astucia

	PART I: LENNON’S MURDER Chapter 1: The Crime Scene

		The Dakota John Lennon was shot and killed on December 8, 1980, at about 10:50 pm, as he and his wife Yoko Ono attempted to enter their apartment at the Dakota building on West 72nd Street in Manhattan across from Central Park West. Lennon and Ono were returning from a record plant when the shooting occurred. Ironically, Lennon had autographed a copy of his most recent album (Double Fantasy) for the accused assailant as Lennon and Ono left for the record plant at around 5:00 pm that evening. In my research of the Lennon case, I quickly realized that details about the crime scene are sketchy at best. Clear unobstructed photographs of the Dakota's entrance are simply unavailable to the public. To remedy the situation, I traveled to Manhattan recently and personally photographed about 35 pictures of the Dakota with emphasis on the entrance, the area where Lennon was shot. I also obtained older photos of the Dakota from Roman Polanski's renowned 1968 movie, Rosemary's Baby, which was filmed at the Dakota. The information and crime scene photographs I obtained reveals quite a bit of new information about the murder. The Dakota is an upscale older apartment/condominium complex with an entrance on West 72nd Street. The entrance, shown in Figure 1, is two stories high with a fancy archway overhead. Architecturally, the Dakota is a set of buildings covering an entire block, as shown in aerial photograph labeled Figure 2.
Figure 1: Entrance of the Dakota from W. 72ndStreet
Figure 2: Aerial view of the Dakota

The elegant building complex has two security levels: a guard booth at the entrance (left), and a main lobby about 25-to-30 feet inside the front entrance (right). A doorman is stationed at the guard booth and keeps watch over the entrance. A desk clerk is stationed at the main lobby. Someone is on duty at both positions 24 hours a day, seven days a week. A maintenance man (concierge) is frequently on duty as well, but it is unclear if that position is filled 24-by-7 like the others. The maintenance man is apparently stationed at a concierge stand in the main lobby, next to the front desk. I observed such a person assist the doorman unload luggage from an SUV temporarily parked in the entryway. The maintenance man then carried the luggage through a door which apparently leads to a service elevator. A maintenance man (aka, elevator operator; aka, handyman) was reportedly on duty the night Lennon was killed. In fact, Lennon reportedly collapsed by the concierge stand after being shot. There are seven critical locations in the entrance area: (1) the arched entrance; this is where Chapman reportedly stood when the shots were fired. (2) the courtyard gates; (3) the "entryway" which provides passage from the entrance to the courtyard gates, a distance of about 47 feet from the front entrance to the courtyard; (4) the doorman's booth (aka, the guard booth) on the outside of the entrance to the left; (5) a lobby on the right (not shown in picture) where Lennon collapsed after being shot; six stairs lead to the lobby; (6) a service elevator on the left, (not shown in picture); (7) a door on the left (not shown) which leads to the service elevator. NYPD Police Report Appendix D contains the official NYPD Police Report of John Lennon's murder, dated December 9, 1980. Surprisingly, I had no trouble obtaining it. I simply mailed a certified letter to the NYPD requesting the report and within a month a copy was in my possession. Unfortunately, the report's astonishing lack of detail was disappointing to say the least. There is no precise description of the crime itself, no narrative of where Lennon was standing when he was shot, no explanation of where Chapman was standing when he fired, no sketches, no names of witnesses, nothing of any consequence. Had Chapman not pled guilty months later, the prosecutors would have had little evidence to build a case against him. At a minimum, one would think the police report would contain names of witnesses. The report barely indicates that a crime occurred at all. Here is a summary of the rudimentary information found in the report: John Lennon was the victim. Mark David Chapman was the perpetrator. Chapman was carrying $2,201.76 when he was arrested. The crime location was 1 West 72 St. (the Dakota) at the archway entrance. The weapon used was a ".38 caliber snub nose." The crime occurred on December 8, 1980 at 10:50 PM. The arresting officer was Stephen Spiro assisted by patrolman Peter Cullen, both of the 20th Precinct. The following are excerpts from the report which describe the crime in extremely general terms. ...the victim was shot with the described weapon by the named suspect causing the victim's demise. ... P.O. Stephen Spiro...of the 20th Precinct responded to the scene of occurrence and arrested the perpetrator who was identified as Mark D. Chapman. ... The Perp was arraigned ... on 12/9, he was remanded, no bail. This case is closed pending final court disposition. That is essentially all the information of substance provided in the NYPD police report. (see Appendix D) The rest is bureaucratic paperwork, a whitewash. That's putting it mildly. NYC Medical Examiner refuses to release autopsy report On July 1, 2003, I sent a letter to the New York City Medical Examiner's Office requesting a copy of John Lennon's autopsy report. I was referred to the Medical Examiner's Office by the NYPD after making a similar request from them. Subsequently, I received a letter, dated July 18, 2003, from Ellen Borakove, Director of Public Affairs at the Office of Chief Medical Examiner, Charles S. Hirsch, MD. The following is the contents of Ms. Borakove's letter: Dear Mr. [Astucia:] We are in receipt of your recent letter requesting a copy of the autopsy report for Mr. John Lennon. Please be advised that our records are not open for public inspection. However, our records could be released with the written authorization of the next of kin. Thank you. Sincerely, Ellen Borakove, Director, Public Affairs In other words, Ms. Borakove is advising me to contact Yoko Ono and get permission to see John's autopsy report, something Borakove obviously knows will lead nowhere. Being the widow of John Lennon, Yoko is a constantly inundated with letters and requests from all sorts of people and will likely not respond to a stranger, particularly someone asking questions about a painful, traumatic experience she would prefer to forget. Why is John Lennon's autopsy report being suppressed? Since when did autopsy reports become closed for public inspection? I do not doubt the truthfulness of Ms. Borakove's statement, but when did this sort of information become off limits to the public? It seems odd that the autopsy report of a celebrity living in America--or anyone living in America, for that matter--would be denied to any American citizen who requests it. Who is being protected? Certainly not the deceased. Besides being denied access to the autopsy report, I sent three additional requests to Lieutenant Michael Pascucci, at the NYPD Legal Bureau, for other items related to the crime. All three requests were refused. The requested items were as follows: (a) the personal notes of Officer Peter Cullen, (b) the personal notes of Officer Stephen Spiro, and (c) crime scene photographs. As previously stated, Cullen and Spiro were the arresting officers of murder suspect Mark David Chapman. The reason given by Lieutenant Pascucci for refusing to release copies of Cullen's and Spiro's personal notes was "unwarranted invasion of privacy." It's interesting that excerpts from Officer Spiro's personal notes were published in British author Fenton Bresler's book, Who Killed John Lennon? I'm not criticizing the British, but why does a British author have free access to American police records which are denied to an American author? Copies of all referenced letters between Ellen Borakove, Lieutenant Michael Pascucci, and myself are shown in Exhibits M through T (in Appendix E). Chapman’s Gun Fenton Bresler described in great detail—in his book, Who Killed John Lennon? (1989)—how Chapman purchased—on October 27, 1980—a .38 Special revolver from J&S Enterprises Ltd, a gun shop in midtown Honolulu. Bresler even provided the weapon’s serial number, 577570, and implied that the stated weapon was used by Chapman to murder John Lennon about six weeks later on December 8, 1980.15 The NYPD’s police report indicates that a ".38 cal snub nose" was the weapon found at the crime scene; however, the serial number is not shown in the report. Consequently, it is unclear if the serial number of the .38 revolver purchased by Chapman on October 27, 1980 matches the weapon found by the NYPD at the crime scene on December 8, 1980. Tracing the murder weapon is convoluted because Chapman made two trips to New York City: one from October 29, 1980 through November 10, 1980; another on December 6, 1980. On the first trip, there is little doubt that Chapman carried the .38 revolver, serial # 577570, as Bresler described. In fact, Bresler gave a detailed account of how Chapman brought the gun with him to NYC on October 29th but forgot to bring bullets, and subsequently flew to Atlanta to get hollow-point bullets from his cop friend, Dana Reeves (aka, Gene Scott). The reason for the Atlanta trip was because NYC forbade the purchase of ammunition by persons not living in the state of New York. Although Bresler presents several interesting facts, his discussion about the murder weapon itself is confusing. For example, Bresler gives Dana Reeves a pseudonym, Gene Scott. This is an unnecessary layer of confusion since Reeves’s identity was revealed by Jim Gaines in an article, "Descent Into Madness," published in People Magazineon June 22, 1981. I have analyzed Chapters 13 and 14 of Bresler’s book quite a bit and he covers so much ground that is impossible to determine if the gun Chapman purchased on October 27, 1980 is the same one found by the NYPD at the crime scene on December 8, 1980. Bresler even introduces the possibility that Chapman threw the gun and the bullets into the ocean after returning to Honolulu from his first trip to New York. I will address that later. For now, let’s focus on matching the serial number of the purchased gun to the weapon found at the crime scene. On August 26, 2003, I phoned the NYPD switchboard (646-610-5000, listed on website) and asked to speak with Lieutenant Michael Pascucci of the Legal Bureau. I do not know Mr. Pascucci personally, but I have exchanged several letters with him regarding requests for various documents related to the Lennon case, including the police report. Mr. Pascucci was out to lunch when I phoned, but I spoke with a colleague and asked if I could obtain the serial number of the weapon found at the crime scene. I specifically asked if it would be possible to get the serial number quickly without going through a lot of red tape. Unfortunately, my fast-track request was denied, but I was advised to submit an official request with the FOIL Unit [Freedom of Information Legal Unit]. I am continuing my research in this area and will publish the serial number of the weapon found at the crime scene when it is in my possession; however, it could time for the NYPD to respond, should they choose to release the serial number at all. In the meantime, I shall proceed without it. There is a strong possibility that the .38 revolver Chapman purchased on October 27, 1980 is NOT the same .38 revolver found at the crime scene on December 8, 1980. There is also a possibility that if the serial numbers match, that the gun was brought to the crime scene by someone other than Chapman. In both scenarios, I suspect the gun was planted, that Chapman was unarmed on the night of the murder, and the notion that he was carrying a gun was a hypnotic suggestion planted in his mind. Think about it. If a second gunman killed Lennon, the planners wouldn’t want Chapman to carry a loaded weapon to the crime scene. He might start firing wildly, possibly shooting the second gunman or doorman Jose Perdomo. Chapman’s role was to be the patsy, not the shooter. A smarter approach would be to send Chapman to NYC on a prior visit carrying the murder weapon, and plant a hypnotic obsession in his mind to kill Lennon. The planners had no intention of killing Lennon during Chapman’s first visit to New York. The objective was to create a real image in Chapman’s mind that he carried a gun to NYC while he struggled to resist an obsession to murder Lennon. Chapman admitting fighting the obsession and ultimately won during the first visit and did not harm Lennon. On the second trip to NYC, Chapman would be unarmed, but through the use of hypnosis/mind control, Chapman would confuse the second trip to NYC with the first. Hence, he would confuse his real memory of being armed during his first trip to NYC with his second trip where he was unarmed. Let’s review the stated scenario again because it’s complicated. During Chapman’s first trip to NYC from Honolulu—from October 29, 1980 through November 10, 1980—he brought with him a gun similar to the murder weapon found at the crime scene on December 8, 1980, but he forgot to bring bullets. Because of NYC’s strict gun control laws, Chapman flew to Atlanta—from November 7 through November 9, 1980—where he obtained bullets from his cop friend, Dana Reeves. Keep in mind, this all occurred during Chapman’s first trip to NYC which ended on November 10, 1980 when Chapman returned to Honolulu. But Lennon wasn’t killed until a month later, two days after Chapman arrived in NYC a second time on December 6, 1980. The question is this: Did Chapman bring with him to NYC on December 6, 1980 the same gun he brought with him on October 29, 1980, the same gun he purchased from J&S Enterprises in Honolulu on October 27, 1980? (serial # 577570) In addition, did Chapman bring with him to NYC on December 6, 1980 the same hollow-point bullets he obtained from Dana Reeves (aka, Gene Scott) in Atlanta during his trip there from November 7 through November 9, 1980? Bresler does not make this clear at all. Instead he confuses things by introducing several side issues which are interesting but divert attention from the murder weapon found at the crime scene. Bresler jumps back and forth between Chapman’s first and second trips, getting into all sorts of minutia, and completely loses track of the alleged murder weapon. Again, did Chapman carry the same gun on both trips? Did he carry the same bullets on the second trip that he acquired from Dana Reeves on the first trip? Adding to the confusion, Bresler introduces a major anomaly by citing the following excerpt from Albert Goldman’s book, The Lives of John Lennon: By late November Mark was telling Gloria [his wife] that it was time he grew up. He was a married man now and ought to be able to support a family. What he needed to do first, however, was to go off by himself for a while, to think things over. He had decided to return to New York. She needn’t fear that he would do anything wrong. He had thrown the gun and the bullets into the ocean.16 Run that by me again? Chapman threw the gun and the bullets in the ocean? That is probably the most profound bit of information in Bresler’s entire book, yet Bresler leaves it unchallenged. Remember, Bresler is quoting Goldman. It was Goldman who asserted that Chapman threw the .38 revolver—serial number 577570—in the ocean, along with the hollow-point bullets acquired from Dana Reeves (aka, Gene Scott). Did this event happen or not? Bresler makes no attempt to directly refute Goldman’s bombshell assertion. Instead, Bresler criticizes Goldman for making several mistakes of lesser magnitude. True, many of Goldman’s conclusions about Lennon’s personal life—and other facts—are dubious. But since Bresler was criticizing Goldman anyway, he should have challenged Goldman’s revelation that Chapman threw the original gun and bullets into the ocean. How could Bresler let an assertion of that magnitude go unchallenged? Yet that is precisely what he did. Bresler then fixated on the logistics of Chapman’s second trip to NYC. Most accounts claim Chapman flew from Honolulu to NYC on December 6, 1980, stopping in Chicago only to change planes. Bresler claims, however, that Chapman left Honolulu around December 2nd, visited his grandmother in Chicago for three days, then took a flight from Chicago to NYC on December 6, 1980. I have no reason to challenge Bresler’s version of events, but it seems to be somewhat trivial. Bresler acts as though this a major discovery. There’s nothing wrong with clarifying Chapman’s itinerary, but Bresler devoted several pages to it while ignoring Goldman’s more important assertion that Chapman threw his gun and bullets in the ocean while in Honolulu. It would seem that Bresler could easily resolve the anomaly by interviewing Chapman directly. Bresler gets around this by claiming he requested an interview with Chapman but Chapman refused. Obviously that’s an excellent excuse; however, Bresler may have maneuvered events to discourage Chapman from granting him an interview. Anyone who has read Bresler’s book knows that Chapman is depicted with great empathy, but Bresler also interjects a recurring theme that Chapman has repressed homosexual tendencies. The gay theme is completely gratuitous as far as I can determine. Chapman’s sexual preference has no bearing on his guilt of innocence; it’s just something Bresler interjected for no apparent reason. Think about it. If you were Chapman, would you grant an interview to someone who called you queer? Chapman has never acknowledged being gay or bisexual. He led a heterosexual life. I don’t mean to seem anti-gay, but in reality, most straight men are extremely offended when someone suggests—in a serious manner—that they are gay. By implying Chapman was gay, Bresler virtually guaranteed Chapman would deny his request for an interview, thereby leaving critical issues unresolved, like whether Chapman threw his gun and bullets in the ocean as Goldman claims. To summarize events related to the alleged murder weapon, here is a timeline of Chapman’s purchase of the .38 revolver in Honolulu and his subsequent trips to NYC: October 27, 1980—Chapman purchases a .38 Special revolver for $169 from J&S Enterprises Ltd, a gun shop in midtown Honolulu. There is no waiting period. The transaction is completed within an hour. The serial number of the weapon is # 577570.17 October 29, 1980—Chapman flies to Newark, NJ from Honolulu. He has a one-way ticket.18 November 7, 1980—Chapman flies from NYC to Atlanta to get bullets for his gun because he forgot to purchase bullets before leaving Honolulu and was unable to buy them in NYC; local gun laws prevented out-of-state residents from purchasing ammunition there. The reason Chapman goes to Atlanta is to see his cop friend, Dana Reeves (aka, Gene Scott), who gives him hollow-point bullets.19 November 9, 1980—Chapman flies back to NYC and checks into the Hotel Olcott at 27 West 72nd St., less than 200 yards from the Dakota.20 November 10, 1980—Chapman flies back to Honolulu because Dakota doorman Jose Perdomo told him John and Yoko were "out of town."21 At some point after November 10th, while in Honolulu, Chapman reportedly throws his gun and bullets into the ocean. This assertion was made by Albert Goldman in his book, The Lives of John Lennon. The assertion was mentioned casually by Fenton Bresler in his book, Who Killed John Lennon? but was unchallenged by Bresler.22 December 6, 1980—Chapman flies to NYC. Two days later, Lennon is shot dead at the Dakota. Chapman is arrested for the murder and subsequently receives a 20-year sentence. The NYPD finds a .38 revolver at the crime scene, but the police report does not specify the weapon’s serial number. Consequently, it is unknown if the .38 revolver found by police at the crime scene matches the serial number (577570) of .38 revolver Chapman purchased on October 27, 1980 from J&S Enterprises Ltd, a gun shop in midtown Honolulu. This is the gun that Chapman reportedly threw in the ocean, along with the hollow-point bullets he got from Dana Reeves (aka, Gene Scott).

		CLICK HERE TO CONTINUE

Contents Lennon Home Page Main Home Page	ORDER BOOK   http://www.jfkmontreal.com/order_hardcopy.htm

ENDNOTES

15	Fenton Bresler, Who Killed John Lennon? (1989), p 174
16	ibid, p 193
17	ibid, p 174
18	ibid, p 175
19	ibid, pp 177-180
20	ibid, p 184
21	ibid, pp 186-187
22	ibid, p 193

 

New York Time, September 4th 2001: "U.S. Germ Warfare Research Pushes Treaty Limits" by Judith Miller

Over the past several years, the United States has embarked on a program of secret research on biological weapons that, some officials say, tests the limits of the global treaty banning such weapons.

The 1972 treaty forbids nations from developing or acquiring weapons that spread disease, but it allows work on vaccines and other protective measures. Government officials said the secret research, which mimicked the major steps a state or terrorist would take to create a biological arsenal, was aimed at better understanding the threat.

The projects, which have not been previously disclosed, were begun under President Clinton and have been embraced by the Bush administration, which intends to expand them.

Earlier this year, administration officials said, the Pentagon drew up plans to engineer genetically a potentially more potent variant of the bacterium that causes anthrax, a deadly disease ideal for germ warfare.

The experiment has been devised to assess whether the vaccine now being given to millions of American soldiers is effective against such a superbug, which was first created by Russian scientists. A Bush administration official said the National Security Council is expected to give the final go-ahead later this month.

Two other projects completed during the Clinton administration focused on the mechanics of making germ weapons.

In a program code-named Clear Vision, the Central Intelligence Agency built and tested a model of a Soviet-designed germ bomb that agency officials feared was being sold on the international market. The C.I.A. device lacked a fuse and other parts that would make it a working bomb, intelligence officials said.

At about the same time, Pentagon experts assembled a germ factory in the Nevada desert from commercially available materials. Pentagon officials said the project demonstrated the ease with which a terrorist or rogue nation could build a plant that could produce pounds of the deadly germs.

Both the mock bomb and the factory were tested with simulants -- benign substances with characteristics similar to the germs used in weapons, officials said.

A senior Bush administration official said all the projects were ''fully consistent'' with the treaty banning biological weapons and were needed to protect Americans against a growing danger. ''This administration will pursue defenses against the full spectrum of biological threats,'' the official said.

The treaty, another administration official said, allows the United States to conduct research on both microbes and germ munitions for ''protective or defensive purposes.''

Some Clinton administration officials worried, however, that the project violated the pact. And others expressed concern that the experiments, if disclosed, might be misunderstood as a clandestine effort to resume work on a class of weapons that President Nixon had relinquished in 1969.

Simultaneous experiments involving a model of a germ bomb, a factory to make biological agents and the developoment of more potent anthrax, these officials said, would draw vociferous protests from Washington if conducted by a country the United States viewed as suspect.

Administration officials said the need to keep such projects secret was a significant reason behind President Bush's recent rejection of a draft agreement to strengthen the germ-weapons treaty, which has been signed by 143 nations.

The draft would require those countries to disclose where they are conducting defensive research involving gene-splicing or germs likely to be used in weapons. The sites would then be subject to international inspections.

Many national security officials in both the Clinton and Bush administrations opposed the draft, arguing that it would give potential adversaries a road map to what the United States considers its most serious vulnerabilities.

Among the facilities likely to be open to inspection under the draft agreement would be the West Jefferson, Ohio, laboratory of the Battelle Memorial Institute, a military contractor that has been selected to create the genetically altered anthrax.

Several officials who served in senior posts in the Clinton administration acknowledged that the secretive efforts were so poorly coordinated that even the White House was unaware of their full scope.

The Pentagon's project to build a germ factory was not reported to the White House, they said. President Clinton, who developed an intense interest in germ weapons, was never briefed on the programs under way or contemplated, the officials said.

A former senior official in the Clinton White House conceded that in retrospect, someone should have been responsible for reviewing the projects to ensure that they were not only effective in defending the United States, but consistent with the nation's arms-control pledges.

The C.I.A.'s tests on the bomb model touched off a dispute among government experts after the tests were concluded in 2000, with some officials arguing that they violated the germ treaty's prohibition against developing weapons.

Intelligence officials said lawyers at the agency and the White House concluded that the work was defensive, and therefore allowed. But even officials who supported the effort acknowledged that it brought the United States closer to what was forbidden.

''It was pressing how far you go before you do something illegal or immoral,'' recalled one senior official who was briefed on the program.

Public disclosure of the research is likely to complicate the position of the United States, which has long been in the forefront of efforts to enforce the ban on germ weapons.

The Bush administration's willingness to abandon the 1972 Antiballistic Missile treaty has already drawn criticism around the world. And the administration's stance on the draft agreement for the germ treaty has put Washington at odds with many of its allies, including Japan and Britain.

The Original Treaty

During the cold war, both the United States and the Soviet Union produced vast quantities of germ weapons, enough to kill everyone on earth.

Eager to halt the spread of what many called the poor man's atom bomb, the United States unilaterally gave up germ arms and helped lead the global campaign to abolish them. By 1975, most of the world's nations had signed the convention.

In doing so, they agreed not to develop, produce, acquire or stockpile quantities or types of germs that had no ''prophylactic, protective or other peaceful purposes.'' They also pledged not to develop or obtain weapons or other equipment ''designed to use such agents or toxins for hostile purposes or in armed conflict.''

There were at least two significant loopholes: The pact did not define ''defensive'' research or say what studies might be prohibited, if any. And it provided no means of catching cheaters.

In the following decades, several countries did cheat, some on a huge scale. The Soviet Union built entire cities devoted to developing germ weapons, employing tens of thousands of people and turning anthrax, smallpox and bubonic plague into weapons of war. In the late 1980's, Iraq began a crash program to produce its own germ arsenal.

Both countries insisted that their programs were for defensive purposes.

American intelligence officials had suspected that Baghdad and Moscow were clandestinely producing germ weapons. But the full picture of their efforts did not become clear until the 1990's, after several Iraqi and Soviet officials defected.

Fears about the spread of biological weapons were deepened by the rise of terrorism against Americans, the great strides in genetic engineering and the collapse of the Soviet Union, which left thousands of scientists skilled in biological warfare unemployed, penniless and vulnerable to recruitment.

The threat disclosed a quandary: While the United States spent billions of dollars a year to assess enemy military forces and to defend against bullets, tanks, bombs and jet fighters, it knew relatively little about the working of exotic arms it had relinquished long ago.

Designing a Delivery System

In the mid-1990's, the C.I.A. and other intelligence agencies stepped up their search for information about other nations' biological research programs, focusing on the former Soviet Union, Iran, Iraq and Libya, among others. Much of the initial emphasis was on the germs that enemies might use in an attack, officials said.

But in 1997, the agency embarked on Clear Vision, which focused on weapons systems that would deliver the germs.

Intelligence officials said the project was led by Gene Johnson, a senior C.I.A. scientist who had long worked with some of the world's deadliest viruses. Dr. Johnson was eager to understand the damage that Soviet miniature bombs -- bomblets, in military parlance -- might inflict.

The agency asked its spies to find or buy a Soviet bomblet, which releases germs in a fine mist. That search proved unsuccessful, and the agency approved a proposal to build a replica and study how well it could disperse its lethal cargo.

The agency's lawyers concluded that such a project was permitted by the treaty because the intent was defensive. Intelligence officials said the C.I.A. had reports that at least one nation was trying to buy the Soviet-made bomblets.

A model was constructed and the agency conducted two sets of tests at Battelle, the military contractor. The experiments measured dissemination characteristics and how the model performed under different atmospheric conditions, intelligence officials said. They emphasized that the device was a ''portion'' of a bomb that could not have been used as a weapon.

The experiments caused concern at the White House, which learned about the project after it was under way. Some aides to President Clinton worried that the benefits did not justify the risks. But a White House lawyer led a joint assessment by several departments that concluded that the program did not violate the treaty, and it went ahead.

The questions were debated anew after the project was completed, this time without consensus. A State Department official argued for a strict reading of the treaty: the ban on acquiring or developing ''weapons'' barred states from building even a partial model of a germ bomb, no matter what the rationale.

''A bomb is a bomb is a bomb,'' another official said at the time.

The C.I.A. continued to insist that it had the legal authority to conduct such tests and, intelligence officials said, the agency was prepared to reopen the fight over how to interpret the treaty. But even so, the agency ended the Clear Vision project in the last year of the Clinton administration, intelligence officials said.

Bill Harlow, the C.I.A. spokesman, acknowledged that the agency had conducted ''laboratory or experimental'' work to assess the intelligence it had gathered about biological warfare.

''Everything we have done in this respect was entirely appropriate, necessary, consistent with U.S. treaty obligations and was briefed to the National Security Council staff and appropriate Congressional oversight committees,'' Mr. Harlow said.

Breeding More Potent Anthrax

In the 1990's, government officials also grew increasingly worried about the possibility that scientists could use the widely available techniques of gene-splicing to create even more deadly weapons.

Those concerns deepened in 1995, when Russian scientists disclosed at a scientific conference in Britain that they had implanted genes from Bacillus cereus, an organism that causes food poisoning, into the anthrax microbe.

The scientists said later that the experiments were peaceful; the two microbes can be found side-by-side in nature and, the Russians said, they wanted to see what happened if they cross-bred.

A published account of the experiment, which appeared in a scientific journal in late 1997, alarmed the Pentagon, which had just decided to require that American soldiers be vaccinated against anthrax. According to the article, the new strain was resistant to Russia's anthrax vaccine, at least in hamsters.

American officials tried to obtain a sample from Russia through a scientific exchange program to see whether the Russians had really created such a hybrid. The Americans also wanted to test whether the microbe could defeat the American vaccine, which is different from that used by Russia.

Despite repeated promises, the bacteria were never provided.

Eventually the C.I.A. drew up plans to replicate the strain, but intelligence officials said the agency hesitated because there was no specific report that an adversary was attempting to turn the superbug into a weapon.

This year, officials said, the project was taken over by the Pentagon's intelligence arm, the Defense Intelligence Agency. Pentagon lawyers reviewed the proposal and said it complied with the treaty. Officials said the research would be part of Project Jefferson, yet another government effort to track the dangers posed by germ weapons.

A spokesman for Defense Intelligence, Lt. Cmdr. James Brooks, declined comment. Asked about the precautions at Battelle, which is to create the enhanced anthrax, Commander Brooks said security was ''entirely suitable for all work already conducted and planned for Project Jefferson.''

The Question of Secrecy

While several officials in both the Clinton and Bush administrations called this and other research long overdue, they expressed concern about the lack of a central system for vetting such proposals.

And a former American diplomat questioned the wisdom of keeping them secret.

James F. Leonard, head of the delegation that negotiated the germ treaty, said research on microbes or munitions could be justified, depending on the specifics.

But he said such experiments should be done openly, exposed to the scrutiny of scientists and the public. Public disclosure, he said, is important evidence that the United States is proceeding with a ''clean heart.''

''It's very important to be open,'' he said. ''If we're not open, who's going to be open?''

Mr. Leonard said the fine distinctions drawn by government lawyers were frequently ignored when a secret program was exposed. Then, he said, others offer the harshest possible interpretations -- a ''vulgarization of what has been done.''

But he concluded that the secret germ research, as described to him, was ''foolish, but not illegal.''

The authors have reported on biological weapons for The New York Times and based this article on material gathered for their book, ''Germs: Biological Weapons and America's Secret War,'' which is being published this month by Simon & Schuster Inc.

Anthrax War - Project Coast, Dr. David Kelly and the Ethnic Weapons Program from Spike EP on Vimeo.
The Assassination of Dr. David Kelly of MI6 and Porton Down has deep roots


http://aangirfan.blogspot.de/2007/10/dr-david-kelly-and-operation-mason.html
http://aangirfan.blogspot.de/2011/01/dr-david-kelly-missing-fingerprints.html


Dr David Kelly knew too much and died rather mysteriously.

Police have now admitted that the following objects found with his body did not have fingerprints on them:

His mobile phone

A watch

The knife he allegedly used to slash his wrist

The packs of pills he is said to have overdosed on

A water bottle

A secret file of evidence was submitted to the Hutton inquiry by Thames Valley Police.

The contents remain secret.

But 'the cover is publicly available and reveals that the codename for the investigation was Operation Mason.'

This has given rise to 'rumours of a freemasonry angle'.

The start time of Operation Mason is given as 2.30pm on Thursday July 17.

That was at least half an hour BEFORE Dr Kelly set off from his home on his fatal walk. Click here for Part Two of Norman Baker's shocking investigation ... / The Truth Seeker - Was Dr. Kelly Murdered?

And, it is nearly ten hours before Dr Kelly's wife rang the police to sound the alert over her missing husband.

Neville Hodgkinson of the Sunday Times on the AIDS Crisis andNon-Existent HIV Test

In 2000, I attended the second of two hearings called by President Thabo Mbeki of South Africa. 

He set up an AIDS Advisory Panel after learning of problems and uncertainties in AIDS science. 

For his trouble, Mbeki suffered intense criticism from the South African and indeed world media

At the International AIDS Conference in Durban, there were people with placards saying, 

“One dissident, one bullet”. 

It was as though we were traitors in a war. 

But how can you fight a war when you don’t know who or what the enemy is?

There is irrefutable evidence, for example, that TB, a massive global killer, commonly causes those infected, and their contacts, to have raised blood levels of the antibodies that the HIV test detects. 

But this has nothing to do with HIV.

"As part of my job as medical correspondent I was writing a lot about AIDS in the late 1980s, taking the conventional line about this great new danger that was facing us. When I came back to the Sunday Times from the Sunday Express in the early 1990s, I was struck by how predictions that had been made about this epidemic – that it would sweep through all sexually active populations – were not coming about, at least in Europe and America. I learned of a critique of the HIV theory mounted by scientists in the United States and wrote a two-page spread on it. It was the first time the critique had been reported in a national newspaper, and it brought fierce responses: everybody attacked the Sunday Times for being irresponsible, because it was thought that for the scientific community to show any differences of opinion on the causes of AIDS would damage the public health efforts. It was as though we were traitors in a war. But how can you fight a war when you don’t know who or what the enemy is?

I’ve come to believe that the medical and science professions lost their heads over this issue. Whilst it is understandable that people will behave differently in the face of a prospective crisis, making and never challenging assumptions about the cause of a new disease simply does not make for good science. I wrote a series of articles that critiqued the mainstream HIV theory. Nature, the bible of science journalism, along with other scientific bodies became more and more upset about these articles. At one point the magazine contemplated picketing the offices of the Sunday Times to try to stop us. It was really a very bitter episode.

There was a feeling amongst journalists writing about AIDS in the late 1980s of really doing something useful; not just entertaining or informing, but really making a difference to the world. In my view, that feeling, which I shared, can be dangerous for a journalist, as well as for scientists. It can cause you to lose your objectivity. You feel so much that you are doing the right thing it becomes very hard to see contradictory evidence.

Broadly, there are two critiques: the first is from the eminent molecular biologist, Peter Duesberg, who argued, from the late 1980s, that HIV was such a conventional retrovirus, with such minimal amounts active in HIV-positive people and even AIDS patients, that it could not possibly be doing the damage ascribed to it. There is also a group in Perth, Australia, who have an even deeper critique. These scientists say that the HIV test was never validated as demonstrating the presence of a new virus, because of the inability to purify the purported virus or locate it in AIDS patients. They argue that the antibodies that are taken to signify HIV are actually non-specific: rather than showing the presence of a deadly new virus, they indicate that the immune system has been activated in a particular way as a result of any one or more of a variety of circumstances and conditions. Their view is that promiscuous, unprotected anal sex with multiple partners, often accompanied by heavy drug use, is a principal cause of “HIV”-positivity and AIDS in the West, whereas the main cause of what has come to be called AIDS in poor countries is diseases linked to malnutrition. In both circumstances, the immune system becomes challenged in ways that lead to raised levels of the antibodies thought to mean HIV is present; but those antibodies can actually relate to a wide variety of conditions, including some that are harmless, such as pregnancy, and others that are often treatable, such as TB. So these are really very radical challenges to the worldwide popular beliefs about the causes and nature of AIDS.

In poor countries within Africa and the Indian subcontinent there are millions of premature deaths, and it is good that world attention is now focused on this tragedy. But the critics argue that AIDS workers, who have the best of intentions, have nevertheless focused on the wrong target. There is irrefutable evidence, for example, that TB, a massive global killer, commonly causes those infected, and their contacts, to have raised blood levels of the antibodies that the HIV test detects. But this has nothing to do with HIV.

You cannot tell simply on the basis of the antibody test whether or not HIV is present. This is acknowledged by the manufacturers of the tests, who put a suitable disclaimer in their product information leaflet. But people who test positive are not told of this non-specificity. Doctors believe they have other tests with which they can confirm a diagnosis of HIV infection, but in fact, none of these other tests is specific either. It is a real tragedy. I still write occasional articles about this:

http://kimbannon.com/press/the_business_10-20-2003.html

http://kimbannon.com/press/the_business.html

http://www.altheal.org/overview/scivircatastrophe.htm

but many people still think it is irresponsible to question “HIV” science.

So how did you cope with the bitterness that this issue generated?

I wouldn’t have been able to survive the two years of intense criticism whilst I was doing the questioning articles at the Sunday Times if I hadn’t been making progress on trying to take my ego out of the equation, through continual spiritual practice. So it has been a fantastic learning tool! I have had to check my motives constantly. The experience has taught me to be less and less reactive to abuse, in the process of searching for an objective perspective on these issues. If you are trying to prove a particular point of view in a personal way, it hurts when others condemn you. The more you manage to keep your feelings out of it, the more you are able to remain calm, and that enables you to keep going.

The story took me all over the world. I spent a week in a virologist’s laboratory in Germany, learning about molecular biology, so that I could understand how the original mistakes in HIV science came about. I travelled through Africa for several weeks; I went to interview the scientists in Australia. It was actually a great privilege to be with a newspaper like the Sunday Times that could afford to let me investigate and write about the critiques in such depth.

I left full-time journalism in 1994 to write the book, AIDS: The Failure of Contemporary Science (Fourth Estate, 1996), which was, disappointingly, widely ignored except in some fringe publications. I was a bit innocent. I think I expected – because it seemed so clear to me that the evidence was there that this was a huge mistake – that it would only be a matter of months before the truth came out. Surely doctors wouldn’t want to keep condemning people to death on the basis of this unvalidated diagnostic test? Why would people want to continue giving antiviral drugs, of high toxicity, when it wasn’t even clear what the target of the drugs was?

There are stories of hundreds of people, particularly in the United States, who have been diagnosed HIV positive yet who are mostly doing very well after learning of the flaws in the HIV theory and deciding not to take the drug approach. The organisation Alive & Well – AIDS Alternatives has done tremendous work in alerting those with an HIV diagnosis that this needn’t be a death sentence, and that they should make informed choices about the drugs. It is a sad aspect of modern medicine that doctors are often too ready to tell a patient that unless they agree to take drug treatment, they will die. The public have been led to understand cancer as a death sentence, although some of the cancer charities are beginning to try to change that idea. At least cancer is today a disease that can be talked about openly, but imagine the effect on a patient of an “HIV” diagnosis, given the stigma attached to the purported virus. It is said to be sexually-transmitted, and it’s also linked to drugs; and the diagnosis is considered so terrible that you need to be counselled if you test positive. Surely that only adds to the power of the hex, the belief that you are going to die? I wonder how many people have died simply as a result of being told they have HIV…

So has there been any discussion or debate on the mainstream view of HIV/AIDS?

Mainstream AIDS experts have not been willing to enter into discussion with the “dissident” scientists. They won’t appear on the same platform as these scientists, won’t allow them to publish in their journals, and won’t even debate with them. After he mounted his critique, Peter Duesberg was reduced from being a front-runner in his field to chair of his university’s annual picnic committee!

When my book was published an article headlined “Sunday Times Science Editor Awaits Flat Earth” came out in the Observer. It was written by a journalist who was purporting to review the book, but he admitted to me later that he had not read it. It linked my spiritual study with my “crazy” views on HIV/AIDS, but misrepresented both in order to ridicule both me and the rival Sunday Times. Althoughthe newspaper published an apology and correction, it left quite a scar for a while.

So the discussion on these issues has mostly been polemics. However, after the publication of my book, a group of AIDS workers at the Chelsea & Westminster hospital allowed me to come and address them. Although it didn’t change anything, they were courteous, and also I think genuinely surprised that I wasn’t some kind of monster, a dreadful hack just out for a sensational story, given the nature of the prior publicity. It was generous of them to take that risk with me, and they saw that I was at least serious about the critique.

In 2000, I attended the second of two hearings called by President Thabo Mbeki of South Africa. He set up an AIDS Advisory Panel after learning of problems and uncertainties in AIDS science. For his trouble, Mbeki suffered intense criticism from the South African and indeed world media; it seemed to them to be sacrilege that he should be questioning the HIV theory, in a country where millions are thought to be infected. It is extraordinary how angry some people were. At the International AIDS Conference in Durban, there were people with placards saying, “One dissident, one bullet”. 

Yet the high rates of disease and death seen among rural black communities in South Africa are probably a consequence of 60 years of apartheid, in which black families were broken up through policies of forced relocation, and deprived of both education and health care. It is easier for some people to attribute the current high death rates to HIV than to accept that these deaths result from the poverty and violence that were apartheid’s legacies."

Anthrax War - Project Coast, Dr. David Kelly and the Ethnic Weapons Program from Spike EP on Vimeo.

The Assassination of Dr. David Kelly of MI6 and Porton Down has deep roots

http://aangirfan.blogspot.de/2007/10/dr-david-kelly-and-operation-mason.html

http://aangirfan.blogspot.de/2011/01/dr-david-kelly-missing-fingerprints.html

Dr David Kelly knew too much and died rather mysteriously.

Police have now admitted that the following objects found with his body did not have fingerprints on them:

His mobile phone

A watch

The knife he allegedly used to slash his wrist

The packs of pills he is said to have overdosed on

A water bottle

A secret file of evidence was submitted to the Hutton inquiry by Thames Valley Police.

The contents remain secret.

But 'the cover is publicly available and reveals that the codename for the investigation was Operation Mason.'

This has given rise to 'rumours of a freemasonry angle'.

The start time of Operation Mason is given as 2.30pm on Thursday July 17.

That was at least half an hour BEFORE Dr Kelly set off from his home on his fatal walk. 

And, it is nearly ten hours before Dr Kelly's wife rang the police to sound the alert over her missing husband.

Françafrique

"Without Africa, France will have no history in the 21st century" 

François Mitterrand, then-minister of the Interior of France, 1957

Clementine Churchill: "General, you must not hate your friends more than you hate your enemies"

De Gaulle (in English): "France has no friends, only interests." 

Once again, French television screens are full of images of joyous Africans welcoming French troops.

In January, the French military intervened in Mali to help liberate large swaths of the country from radical jihadists. Now, for the second time this year, France has sent troops into an African country to quell violence.

Last week, French soldiers went into the Central African Republic to stop sectarian killings. In news reports from the Central African Republic, crowds yell, "Vive la France!" as they run out to greet convoys of French soldiers.

France also intervened in Ivory Coast in 2011, to back a democratically elected president. The actions have prompted some to wonder if the country is slipping back into its old role of gendarme of Africa.

Harold Hyman, foreign policy analyst with the French channel BFM TV, says it's a different era now.

"A generation ago, France would support dictators," Hyman says. "Today, the situation's different. If France does not go into a country that's in destruction and mayhem, there are demonstrations in the street from the diaspora of those countries — 'Why aren't you helping us?' So we've settled into this acceptance of a sort of big-brother role."

As France suffered its first casualties in the Central African Republic this week, President Francois Hollande visited the capital, Bangui.

After bowing before the soldiers' coffins, Hollande told the troops their mission to reconcile a people who have destroyed each other was difficult and noble. He also said that if France hadn't gone into the Central African Republic, no one would have.

Hollande has asked the European Union to help fund the mission.

Roland Marchal, a sub-Saharan Africa specialist, says France has no commercial interests in such a poor country. But together with Chad, it does have soldiers in a joint African Union peacekeeping mission in Mali, and at six other bases in the region.

Marchal says France had no choice but to intervene in the Central African Republic, known as CAR.

"To leave CAR wouldn't have been possible, because that would have been a major humiliation for Chad, which is one of our best allies in Mali, and as well would have put us at loggerheads with the African Union and the region," Marchal says.

A French news report from CAR shows Christian militia members ripping up Qurans. "We want to cleanse this country of all Muslims," they say. Christian and Muslim militias have killed hundreds of civilians in recent days, drawing warnings the country could slide into genocide.

Marchal says the memory of Rwanda, where 1 million Tutsis were killed while French soldiers stood by, is another reason France chose to intervene in the Central African Republic.

"Our politicians, they don't want to repeat the debate that happened after Rwanda in France," he says. "For the French, it was a very, very significant crisis inside the military apparatus, as well as inside the political class."

French presidents on the right and left have sent troops into Africa recently – and their ratings don't seem to suffer. Marchal says France seeks UN backing for its missions, which gives international legitimacy and a measure of cover if things do turn out badly.

And the French public is generally supportive, Hyman says.

"The French public is accustomed to African operations," he says. "Places like Bangui, Bamako, Dakar; they're totally aware of these places, and a large proportion of people have been to at least one of them. So this is a big difference between France and the United States."

On the streets of Paris, France's intervention in Central African Republic resonates with people like Bruno Humbert.

"If it's about economic interests, I'm against going in," he says. "But if it's to bring peace and limit the risks of terrorism, I'm all for it."