Podcast: Play in new window | Download
2024 winds down with the merging of two guests that have appeared on the show this year, in a spirited discussion of David Whelan’s investigation into John Lennon’s murder as presented in Mind Games. Robert Rosen (Nowhere Man) serves as skeptic in a conversation weaving together the bigger picture that converged on December 8, 1980, as well as the sketchy players surrounding the convicted killer both before and after. Joining the conversation is attorney Carole Krohn, presenting her own legal insights into the case.
If all of this is a bit heavy for you in general or at this time of year, by all means check out episode 298…..
Thank you for this very robust and mostly engaging discussion. Both authors descended into pettiness on occasion. But I suppose this is inevitable given how sharply their takes on some details of the case diverge. The addition of attorney Carole Krohn is greatly appreciated. She added some important legal considerations that had not been fully addressed by either author previously.
To Robert Rosen: Citing the lack of ethics of a group of southern Baptist preachers does not give you license to associate Baptists and Christians as a group with the Klan. Most of us have learned not to hold all the adherents of one faith liable for the acts of its extremist members. Your religious bigotry substantially harms your credibility.
To David Whelan: If you like your TDS, you can keep your TDS. But why? It’s pointless and quite tedious. It may have achieved some very negative things in the past for those who like to throw political bombs, but now it’s nothing more than hate for hate’s sake. Move on!
I have to say, I usually enjoy Robert Rosen whenever he has been on the show. I loved Nowhere Man, even if I allowed myself to suspend reality to get caught in “Lennon’s world” for a few hundred pages.
But my god, Rosen comes off like an old, uniformed boob in this episode, which he essentially admits himself to be. Sorry Whelan, I didn’t read your book and I can’t make sense of what you are saying because you lay out too much evidence? That’s essentially what Rosen is saying here, someone correct me if I’m wrong. I only just made it to the part where Rosen tries to insult Whelan by saying that the New York Times would never run a story like this, so what have you been wasting all this time on? I guess being on an Apple TV series means that no one cares about what you have to say?
Sorry Robert (Rodriguez), having these two on in an epic battle of the wits probably sounding like a nice idea in theory, but perhaps you weren’t expecting one of those guys to completely forget his wits by not actually preparing whatsoever for this “debate”, ie by not reading the other guy’s book or parsing through the other guy’s evidence because he really just is not interested in it.
Despite the disturbing subject matter, this is an intriguing topic that leaves more questions than answers. Unfortunately, both Rosen and Whelan did not come over well in this discussion.
I normally enjoy Rosen on the podcast. He has an interesting story and a good rapport with the host. But here, he sounded ignorant, dismissive and ill prepared to respond to the queries Whelan presented regarding Rosen’s memory of events. Not a good look.
Whelan, on the other hand, was often antagonist, irritable and borderline rude. Not only was this poor attitude unhelpful and unnecessary, it implies that Whelan is unable to engage respectfully in this type of setting, or worse, that he is simply a slightly unpleasant character. I will assume the former, and would listen again if he appeared on the show.
As for Whelan’s evidence, in short, he raises a series of compelling doubts about the official narrative which suggests the possibility of foul play. Ultimately, these questions need to be fleshed out more with further investigation, as at times, Whelan simply states numerous inconsistencies without properly linking them to some coherent alternative viewpoint.
He scarcely hides a disparaging attitude towards Christianity, which I believe clouds his thought process when trying to connect dots with alleged ‘right wingers’ and ‘KKK’ affiliates. Although, I do concede that Chapman strangely had ‘friends’ in high places. Again, more investigation is required.
Overall, an interesting episode. Maybe the two guests will get on better next time.