Re: Why was Chapman only charged with second-degree murder?

[sprouts]

Salvador Astucia wrote:
>>"Salvadore" tells Derek:
>>
>>
>>
>>>So I think you're barking up the wrong tree with that point, Derek.
>
>
> donz5 wrote:
>
>>Priceless. This is fun.
>
>
> It's interesting how people who claim NOT to be FBI agents, or
> like-minded spooks, are quick to suppress serious discussions about
> high-profile murders. Such people also get extremely upset when I
> remind people that J. Edgar Hoover was a flaming homosexual, a
> sodomite, a bugger (as the Brits say), and a transvestite. They always
> get mad, but they ain't FBI. What a hoot. :-)
>
> Here is a re-post of the article that the entity known as "Donz5" is
> trying to hide.
>
> (Gee, this is fun.) -- Salvador
>
> http://www.jfkmontreal.com
>
> ---------------- RE-POST -------------------
> Frank from "Deeeetroit" wrote: "Murder in the first degree in New York
> State, applies to the killing of a police/peace officer, correctional
> officer, judge, witness, contract killing, and is detailed on this
> site; http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/nycodes/c82/a28.html "
>
> dlarsson wrote:
>
>>Well to be serious, what is the difference between "contract killing"
>>and "premeditated killing" which Chapman himself clearly admits to
>>and stands publicly accused of-?
>
>
> Keep in mind that New York's Murder 1 and death penalty laws were
> changed in 1995, so that should be considered. But for the sake of
> argument, let's go with the New York code that Frank provided.
>
> Having stated that, Frank only cited a portion of the New York state
> code, S 125.27, "Murder in the first degree." First-degree murder
> covers other scenarios than those he listed; however, he is correct in
> his implied point that New York's Murder 1 code does not match
> precisely what Chapman was accused of doing--basically shooting Lennon
> for the hell of it (to become famous) with the intention of killing
> him. No, New York's Murder 1 code does not cover that precise scenario,
> but neither does New York's Murder 2. (See the description of NY's
> Second-Degree Murder in same URL provided by Frank.) Consequently, it
> is up to the discretion of the district attorney to charge someone with
> first or second degree murder on a case by case basis.
>
> New York's Murder 2 code does come close to defining a scenario similar
> to Chapman's alleged crime, which was stalking and killing his victim.
>
> The closest scenario I could find to the crime Chapman was accused of,
> but never tried for, was the "terrorism" clause under the Murder 1
> code. It states that Murder 1 is applicable if "the victim was killed
> in furtherance of an act of terrorism...", then the text points to
> another code which defines terrorism. Of course that opens a new legal
> debate: What is terrorism?
>
>
>>It is first-degree anyway you slice it,
>
>
> Yes, you are absolutely right on that point, Derek. There is no
> question that it was first-degree murder, not second-degree. I don't
> see how a reasonable person could conclude that what Chapman was
> accused of doing was anything other than first-degree murder. Had he
> gone to trial, he would have been accused of stalking and killing his
> victim in a cold blooded manner, the worst form of murder, which
> deserves the highest criminal charge and highest punishment. Even the
> people who hate Chapman should be outraged at this.
>
>
>>so was their some kind of plea arrangement where if
>>Chapman admitted guilt they would cut him a second-degree
>>charge?
>
>
> There must have been. How else could it be explained? And the so-called
> plea arrangement was made while court appointed defense attorney
> Herbert Adlerberg represented Chapman. Then Adlerberg resigned after
> only two days on the case.
>
>
>>If so, that implies either:
>>
>>1) The police had some difficulties or contradictions in making
>> an open & shut case against Chapman or -just- Chapman alone.
>>
>>2) They were 100% confident, but wanted to avoid a public trial
>> that would lay the issue to rest .. for some other reason (-?-)
>
>
> Scenario No. 1 seems more likely, except the fault was with the
> Manhattan DA rather than the police. It is the DA's responsibility to
> charge the defendant, build a case and take it to trial. As I have
> pointed out several times, THE PROSECUTION HAD NO CASE. I have found a
> considerable amount of evidence showing that doorman Jose Perdomo (aka,
> Sanjenis) was (a) a professional hit man whom the CIA's had on its
> payroll for ten years, and (b) was a Cuban commander in the failed Bay
> of Pigs Invasion in 1961. This information is described in the
> following article, which I wrote and published on my website about a
> year ago (and two FBI agents subsequently came to my house to harass me
> about a month later, in early February 2005):
>
> "Jose Joaquin Sanjenis Perdomo, John Lennon's true assassin(?)"
>
> http://www.jfkmontreal.com/john_lennon/Usenet/Perdomo.htm
>
> The mere fact that Chapman was charged with second-degree murder rather
> than first-degree indicates that a cover-up was underway from day one.
> This strongly suggests Jose Joaquin Sanjenis Perdomo, the professional
> hit man, is the same Jose Perdomo who was the doorman on the night
> Lennon was killed. If this had been revealed early on, do you think a
> jury would have convicted Chapman? No way. (Talk about reasonable
> doubt.)
>
> The DA did NOT want an investigation, so they apparently threatened to
> charge Chapman with the Murder 1 and go for the death penalty (even
> though the death penalty was against the law in New York in 1980),
> thereby coercing a false confession from Chapman.
>
>
>> My own view, is that Chapman was involved in the shooting
>> but that the behavior of security guard Jose Perdomo was either
>> so derelict in duty or outright suspicious so as to open up a whole
>> can of worms that the N.Y. Police was then under political pressure
>> to squash ( FBI -? CIA -? ). Perdomo was, at minimum, an accomplice
>> to this unique event and quite possibly directly involved.
>
>
> Anyone that questions Perdomo's background in the Bay of Pigs, and his
> connection with the CIA, should also wonder if he was a the actual
> shooter. Researchers Warren Hinckle and William Turner documented in
> their book, "The Fish is Red: The Story of the Secret War Against
> Castro," someone named Jose Joaquin Sanjenis Perdomo (aka, Sanjenis)
> who was a commander in the Bay of Pigs Invasion, a professional hit
> man, and was on the CIA's payroll for ten years reporting to convicted
> Watergate burglar Frank Sturgis. The only question is this: Was Jose
> Joaquin Sanjenis Perdomo the same person as the Dakota doorman named
> Jose Perdomo? If so, there is little doubt that Perdomo/Sanjenis was
> the true killer, not Chapman. To refresh your memory, this is what
> Hinckle and Turner wrote Perdomo/Sanjenis in their book, "The Fish is
> Red":
>
> "Sanjenis was an opportunistic little man who managed to punch a CIA
> meal ticket the rest of his life. When he met [Frank] Sturgis he was
> filling a bucket of rotten eggs which would become Operation 40--the
> secret police of the Cuban invasion force. The ultrasecret Operation 40
> included some nonpolitical conservative exile businessmen, but its hard
> core was made up of dice players at the foot of the cross--informers,
> assassins-for-hire, and mob henchmen whose sworn goal was to make the
> counterrevolution safe for the comfortable ways of the old Cuba. They
> were the elite troops of the old guard within the exile movement, who
> made effective alliance with CIA right-wingers against CIA liberals in
> order to exclude from power any Cubans who wanted, albeit without
> Castro, Castro-type reforms from land redistribution to free milk for
> rural children. Their hero was Manuel Artime, who became the CIA's
> Golden Boy; their bogeyman was Manuel Ray, a progressive Cuban
> anticommunist who many observers agreed had the most effective
> underground in Cuba, but who was tossed aside like an old taco by the
> invasion planners.
>
> "Sanjenis got Sturgis a CIA mail drop and gave him the right phone
> numbers, and Sturgis agreed to coordinate his own operations with
> Sanjenis and work on a contract basis on special agency assignments.
> This working relationship extended for better than the next decade,
> until Sturgis and several other longtime Sanjenis operatives were
> caught in Watergate...
>
> "Frank Sturgis became one of many commuters to the Secret War. When his
> unlisted number rang, it was Joaquin Sanjenis, the Operation 40
> commander, on the other end with an "If you choose not to accept this
> mission" type assignment. Sturgis was being used in an intelligence
> phase of Operation Mongoose [CIA covert operation to overthrow Castro]
> referred to as study flights. After Sanjenis's call he would drive to
> the airport, take off in his small plane, and fly a prescribed course
> that would deliberately penetrate Cuban airspace. Sturgis was a guinea
> pig to activate the coastal defense system that had just been installed
> by the Russians. Alerted by the drone of his engines and the blip on
> their radar screens, the Cubans would talk excitedly over the radio,
> start up tracking devices, and warm up night-fighting MiGs. The feared
> quatro boches--four-barreled antiaircraft guns aimed by radar--would
> point at the inky sky, and rocket crews would fix the intruder's
> position on target display boards..."
>
> (Warren Hinckle & William Turner, The Fish is Red: The Story of the
> Secret War Against Castro, 1981, Martin & Row Publishers, ISBN
> 0-06-038003-9, pp. 52-53, 118)
>
> Again, was Jose Joaquin Sanjenis Perdomo, the spy and assassin, the
> same Jose Perdomo who was the doorman at the Dakota on December 8,
> 1980?
>
>
>> The Dakota was not just an ordinary apartment building here.
>> It was an ugly building, but regarded as one of the most
>> secure & private residences in the entire city and for THAT reason,
>> the chosen home to many, many, many famous celebrities.
>>
>> There was a clear breakdown in normal security behavior
>> and protocol on Dec. 8th and with Chapman's interactions
>> with security guard Jose Perdomo -- without which any
>> assassination attempt would have been nearly impossible
>> to have occurred.
>
>
> There was a breakdown to an extent, but it was not abnormal for Chapman
> to be standing outside the archway on the evening of December 8, 1980.
> Other fans were standing around earlier that evening, but as far as I
> know, they all had gone home by the time Lennon returned at
> approximately 10:50 pm. Dakota's security could not legally prevent
> people from standing on a public sidewalk, which is where Chapman and
> the other fans had been standing. As far as I can tell, the public
> sidewalk goes all the way up to the gated entrance with an archway top.
> So I think you're barking up the wrong tree with that point, Derek.
> Chapman had a legal right to stand there and the security guard had no
> authority to stop him. Since 2003, I have made several visits to the
> Dakota and have observed people standing outside the archway entrance
> for long periods of time, usually chatting with the doorman on duty. So
> there was nothing unusual about such behavior in 1980 or today.
>
>
>> If Lennon had been the only very famous celebrity in that
>> building you could speculate that the guard simply wanted
>> to be nice to an earnest fan and therefore "loosely" followed
>> his job function.
>
>
>>From what I have read, Chapman was a friendly person, not a freak, not
> someone you would expect to commit murder. Even one of the arresting
> officers, Peter Cullen, stated that Chapman did not look like a killer.
> So in my opinion, it would seem reasonable for any security guard to
> have allowed Chapman to stand outside the entrance of the Dakota, on a
> public sidewalk.
>
>
>> However, with many celebrities dwelling there, keeping fans
>> at bay .. out on the street sidewalk was something that was
>> just done. You got a lot of powerful, famous people living
>> there at that building for privacy & security AND NO OTHER REASON.
>
>
> Yes, Dakota security was provided by the doorman but not exclusively.
> The basic design of the Dakota gives its residents a great deal of
> security. It's huge fortress, bigger than some towns, four large
> buildings side-by-side forming a rectangular layout with a courtyard in
> the center and only one public entrance. And yes, that entrance is
> guarded by a doorman. The only way to get inside the guarded entrance
> would be by force, and the NYPD are quickly alerted if that happens and
> quick to respond as they did when Lennon was killed.
>
>
>> My questions for Salvador are -- does anyone know:
>>
>> 1. How long Jose Perdomo was working there as "the security guard"?
>> 2. What previous experience & credentials did he have to be "hired" for
>> that role?
>> 3. When did Perdomo suddenly STOP working there (and where did he go) -?
>> 4. Who hired him? The Dakota Management Company? At whose request?
>> 5. What are their own "records" on this man and their reasons for putting
>> him there?
>> 6. Could some executive at THE DAKOTA MANAGEMENT COMPANY itself
>> have been involved here ( i.e., pressured or influenced to hire
>> Perdomo ) -?
>
>
> These are all good questions and I plan to address them in the next
> edition of my Lennon book, but frankly, I expect to run in to a brick
> wall. People with answers to your questions will obviously not discuss
> things that might get them killed, and revealing first-hand knowledge
> about a professional hit man will certainly get people killed. We're
> dealing with criminals of the highest order who are protected by people
> at the highest level of government.
>
> In the book, The Fish is Red, authors Hinckle and Turner described
> Perdomo/Sanjenis as follows: "Jose Joaquin Sanjenis Perdomo was a plain
> man of undifferentiated features, which was in his profession, an
> asset: He was a professional spy. His personality suited his work in
> that neither encouraged close personal relationships." (p 307)
>
> Certainly a person like that could easily get a job as a security
> guard, particularly if he was backed by the CIA and FBI. The people who
> manage the Dakota hire security guards all the time. If Perdomo got a
> good reference from someone at the NYPD (which would have been no
> problem, given his CIA connections), then I'm sure he would have been
> easily hired.
>
>
>> If Lennon's assassination was a planned hit by remnants of
>> the same U.S. Intelligence forces ( Murder Inc. ) that had been
>> after Lennon throughout the 70s -- then this may go all the way up
>> to the Dakota Management Company and associated business allies
>> that the U.S. Intelligence community -moved- (influenced) to
>> create the desired security breakdown.
>
>
> I'm not sure why you use the phrase "all the way up" to the Dakota
> Management Company. That's isn't very far up, in my opinion. All the
> way up to the Manhattan's District Attorney's office is more like it
> (and obviously much higher). The DA must have been involved in the
> murder conspiracy. Otherwise, why would they only charge Chapman with
> second-degree murder instead of first-degree murder?
>
>
>> A "hit" is always accomplished by first removing (or weakening)
>> the security originally designed to make such a hit impossible
>> in the first place.
>>
>> That is what clearly happened.
>
>
> Yes. But it also appears that the person in charge of Dakota security,
> doorman Jose Perdomo, was himself a spy and a professional hit man. And
> after the target of the hit has been killed, a patsy must be held up to
> throw the public off. Enter Mark David Chapman.
>
> Salvador
>
> http://www.jfkmontreal.com

Who IS this spook-hunting creep?
>