JOHN LENNON: WHAT HAPPENED TO 'GIMME SOME TRUTH'?

1975-1980 and the witnesses who can no longer speak

By Carlos E. Larriega

INTRODUCTION

In 1980, there was very little information available about what happened to John Lennon during his voluntary retirement beginning in 1975, except for the official narrative supported by the interviews he gave with Yoko when he decided to return to the record industry with 'Double Fantasy'. Some information, although not very extensive, came from May Pang's book 'Loving John'. However, a personal assistant to John and Yoko, Fred Seaman, removed Lennon's personal diaries from 1975 to 1980, according to his testimony with John's endorsement, who during his lifetime had authorized him to use whatever material he needed to tell his true story. Seaman turned to Robert Rosen to produce a book based on the diaries. Eventually Seaman fled with the diaries. Rosen had to start from scratch and in the end both books saw the light of day, although not without difficulties.

In 2020, Fred Seaman was reduced to a legal nullity. He can no longer testify, give interviews, be cited as a source, or recount what he witnessed. As a witness, he is a nullity. That is what they achieved: to remove him from the game permanently. (1) Two other people who could have shed light on what Lennon experienced during those years of seclusion in the Dakota also cannot do so. Michael Medeiros, who tended to the plants at the Dakota and was John's personal assistant, was informed by his publisher that publication of his book on John had been temporarily postponed and over time it became permanent. There was an announcement that in April 2024 a book by author Peter Doggett, based on John Lennon's diaries - which he was able to access in Germany, where they had been recovered by police after being stolen again from Yoko Ono - would be released. Finally, the same publisher as Medeiros, apparently pressured by Ono's legal team, prevented the book from being published.

Fortunately, Robert Rosen's book remains in print and the author remains available for interviews. It is also fortunate that he has the breadth to address a wide range of topics, even those not necessarily covered in Nowhere Man. Robert kindly agreed to share with our blog's readers some topical issues related to John, as well as some more complex events that are not usually dealt with in the journalistic sphere.

Interview with Robert Rosen

Carlos  Larriega: Robert, first I want to acknowledge the work that went into Nowhere Man. You lost the diaries and your original notes, and you had to reconstruct the book from scratch, re-research everything, rebuild it all from memory and interviews, and you still managed to publish it. That is a huge editorial effort. My question is along those lines: after the problem with Seaman in 1983, when you handed Yoko your notes and she recovered the diaries, was there any later attempt to go after your book? Did anyone try to stop the publication in its first edition, or to prevent the second edition from coming out in 2022?

Robert Rosen: I wrote about this in the 2022 edition of Nowhere Man, the one with the red cover—actually it’s the fifth English-language edition—in a chapter called “An Open Letter to G. Barry Golson.” (It’s in the most recent Spanish-language edition, too.) Golson was the editor of Playboy magazine who was responsible for David Sheff’s article, “The Betrayal of John Lennon,” that ran in their March 1984 issue. Ono’s PR mouthpiece, Elliot Mintz, essentially dictated the story to Sheff. Its purpose was to show me and Fred Seaman, John and Yoko’s assistant, in the worst possible light, destroy our credibility, and stop us from ever telling our stories.

When I met with Ono in 1982, she asked to read my journals and I gave them to her—500,000 words written in the heat of the moment on teletype paper. It was a Jack Kerouac–inspired literary experiment. She gave my journals to both Playboy and the New York City District Attorney. Golson and Sheff cherry-picked about 200 words from the half-million I’d written and put them in the Playboy article. The one line that people still talk about is “Dead Lennons=Big $$$$$,” a reference to Ono’s skill at exploiting the Lennon legacy. The Playboy article made it sound like I was talking about myself and Fred. It was part of Ono’s media campaign to shut us down. Similar stories ran in the New York Post, People magazine and many other places. The day the story came out, the district attorney told me if I didn’t sign a document forfeiting my First Amendment rights to tell the Lennon story, I’d be arrested on criminal conspiracy charges based on what I’d written in my journals. I was able to hire, pro bono, a very good criminal lawyer, David Lewis. He called the district attorney and said, “You’re in gross violation of my client’s constitutional rights.” That was the last I ever heard from the DA.

But it still took 18 years to publish Nowhere Man. Once I got the deal from Soft Skull Press, Ono didn’t interfere. At that time she was suing Seaman over the copyright to the photos he’d taken while he was working as their assistant. Ono’s lawyers subpoenaed me to testify at his trial and they wanted a friendly witness. There have been no problems for any of the editions since, though Mintz is still pushing the story he told Playboy. In his book, We All Shine On, he repeats, slightly misquoted, the “Dead Lennons=Big $$$$$” line. But this time he says Seaman wrote it and it was handwritten—“scrawled”—rather than typed. I’d say to Mintz, if he’s going to continue pushing 43-year-old bullshit he should get his story straight. I wouldn’t want him to damage his credibility any more than he already has. 

CL: Regarding Yoko’s attitude toward you, did she ever give you any kind of feedback on how you portrayed her role in Lennon’s last five years? Was there ever a moment when you felt there was a line you shouldn’t cross?

RR: The only feedback I ever heard about was from Mintz, whose official line was, “He made the whole thing up.” The only line I wouldn’t cross was to not quote directly from Lennon’s journals, and to not include any information that I knew about from the journals but couldn’t confirm from a source outside the journals. That was mostly the case with Lennon’s dreams, which I fictionalized by creating a parallel universe that captured the tone and feeling of the dreams without revealing the actual details.

CL: In Nowhere Man, did you decide from the first publication to present the book as a ‘non-fiction novel’; to protect yourself from a lawsuit or from having it pulled from the market? Was that a decision yours or from your publisher?

RR: It was my decision to explain in the “Prelude” that I fictionalized some parts. It was the only way to get the book published. I submitted the Lennon portion of Nowhere Man to the publisher in its current form. It was the publisher’s idea to write the Mark David Chapman section, which I did reluctantly, though in retrospect I’m glad I did it.

CL: Robert, in the second edition of Nowhere Man you add two elements you couldn’t include in the 2000 edition: Lennon’s programmed dream with Barbara Walters, a product of his technique of concentrating to control his dreams, and his sexual relationship with his masseuse. Beyond the anecdotal, do you consider that this type of sexual activity by Lennon during his period of seclusion at the Dakota gives more credibility to what May Pang claimed, that she maintained sexual contact with Lennon after he went back to Yoko?

RR: The sexual relationship with his masseuse is in the first edition but I refer to it obliquely and don’t mention Kimi, the masseuse, by name. I don’t know if this gives May Pang more credibility. But it’s true that John continued to see her after he went back to Yoko. He spells it out in his journal. It just didn’t happen very often. 

                  May Pang in 'The Lost Weekend' talking about her relationship with John after 1975.

 

CL: Regarding Lennon practicing a technique of concentrating before sleeping to program his dreams, as in the case of the dream with Barbara Walters, you have also documented John’s interest in astrology and numerology. Do you consider that this dream programming was for Lennon a form of astral projection, a conscious technique to leave his body and explore? And in your research, was Lennon seeking these techniques as part of a broader spiritual search?

RR: I think “Dream Power,” as John called programming dreams, was an effort to get to know himself better—a form of self-analysis that Yoko encouraged him to do. It was also a creative exercise; he recorded his dreams in detail. Dream Power was something he did to entertain himself when he was most isolated. He enjoyed his sex dreams. Astral projection certainly sounds like something John would want to explore. But I don’t recall him using that phrase. Dream Power did not strike me as part of his spiritual search.

CL: May Pang has had considerable success and media attention in the U.S. with her photographic exhibitions of John Lennon and the continued relevance of her film Lost Weekend: A Love Story. Could it be said that the publications of Elliot Mintz’s book about his experiences with John and Yoko and David Sheff’s book about Yoko Ono followed a strategy to counteract the impact of what May revealed, which is more credible in these times than it was when she published her book Loving John?

RR: That’s possible. I’d say it’s even likely. Mintz takes pains in his book to say that he rarely saw John and May together when they were in LA and that John never mentioned May to him after he returned to Yoko. He tried to write May out of the story. I didn’t read Sheff’s book, so I don’t know what he said about John and May. Mintz and Sheff are propagandists. They follow orders. They do what they’re told.

CL:  In the contents of both books, are there direct or indirect references to your research or to what was published in Nowhere Man? If so, what is your opinion on that? (2)

RR: The only mention of me in Mintz’s book is in my answer to your first question: Mintz is still peddling the same story about me and Seaman he told Playboy in 1983. Only now he’s attributing my diary entries to Seaman.

 
In his Yoko biography, Sheff was very careful what he said about me. Unlike the Playboy article, he didn’t distort anything I've written about Ono and even included a link to my website in the endnotes. I think he understood that to lie about me as he did in Playboy would have invited my further scrutiny of the book, in search of additional Mintz-style falsehoods. And I’m glad because I have no interest in reading a 384-page Yoko Ono biography.

CL: Elliot Mintz in his book said that when he arrived at the Dakota after Lennon’s death, the next day, he found everything covered in blood. Michael Medeiros in a Facebook group specializing in John Lennon stated that this was not true, because he was with Yoko at the Dakota. Mike was not treated very well in that group, where Mintz and Sean apparently collaborate. Has it happened to you that when you publish a version different from the official one, people attack you instead of debating you?  (3)

RR: In the Facebook group you’re talking about, one time I did respond to a posting about May Pang’s relationship with John—because it mentioned my name. And, yes, I was attacked and insulted. But what’s interesting is that the guy who runs the group said he has recordings of my conversations with Ono. If that’s true, then it means Ono had the Dakota bugged. Michael Medeiros thinks it’s true. John and Yoko recorded everything. But the attack in the Facebook group is the exception. I rarely get attacked if I post something that goes against the official story—unless I go looking for trouble. I should have known better than to post in that group.

CL: Regarding the last physical Lennon-McCartney meeting, what we understand, from what Paul has said, is that the last physical meeting he had with John was in 1976. After that, they only maintained telephone conversations. Elliot Mintz claims there was a later meeting in a restaurant where John, Yoko, Linda, Paul, and he were present. The press places this meeting (if it had happened) between 1978 and 1979. But if that had been the case, why didn’t Paul tell it directly in the film Man On The Run? . It would be more revealing and convenient for McCartney if it were so. What do you think of Mintz’s version? Do you believe there was that meeting in the restaurant?

RR: John, Yoko, Paul, and Linda did meet in Le Cirque, a French restaurant in New York City. I write about it in Nowhere Man. I give the year as 1977, but it could have been ’78. Maybe Paul didn’t mention it because he realized John had a miserable time. Lennon wrote in his journal that he regretted going. He couldn’t stand the way Paul and Linda kept talking about how perfect their lives were, how they had everything they wanted, and they were as happy as they’d ever been. 

CL: Robert, in your second edition of Nowhere Man you addressed the conspiracies. We are also aware that there was a time when that controversy you had on the podcast with David Whelan coincided with a whole wave of tabloids in the United States that were again talking about JFK, that Kennedy had found irregularities and that was why they eliminated him, and that also linked Lennon’s case within that same framework of political conspiracy. My question is: when you totally dismiss that thesis on the podcast, do you do it because in reviewing Whelan’s research in his book Mind Games you found concrete flaws in sources, chronology, documents, or because on principle you consider there is absolutely nothing in that version, not even enough to leave an open suspicion?  (4)

RR: I broke one of my own rules when I agreed to do that podcast: Never debate a Holocaust denier or a conspiracy theorist. It just gives their theories more credibility. I expected to have a genial conversation with a writer who has an opposing point of view, but Whelan does not do genial. He’s a hostile, pugnacious guy—I believe the Spanish word is cabrón—who gets offended if you call him a conspiracy theorist. He attacks anybody who challenges his theories. His debating style is Trump-like. He lies, interrupts, talks over you, and doesn’t stop talking once he gets going. He attacked me for what I wrote in Nowhere Man about Chapman’s sentencing hearing. He says I wasn’t there. His proof: Nobody else reported that Chapman said at the end of the hearing, “I feel like a bloodied prizefighter in the 27th round.” There were dozens of reporters in the courtroom. They were all busy taking notes and as soon as the judge passed sentence they all scrambled to leave so they could interview the prosecutor. I never took my eyes off Chapman from the moment he walked in till the moment he walked out.

I didn’t read Whelan’s book because I’ve read some of the stuff he posts online. It's conspiracy-theory muck. I’m not interested in reading some hack writer’s theories about entrance wounds and exit wounds. They prove nothing and clarify nothing. They just cast suspicion. The purpose of the book—of any conspiracy book—is to muddy the waters and create doubt and suspicion. Lennon conspiracy theorists have had 46 years to prove any part of their theory that the CIA or some adjacent organization murdered Lennon, and that Chapman was either a Manchurian candidate or a Manchurian patsy. They’ve proven nothing. I asked Whelan why he’s doing what he’s doing if he knows he’ll never be able to prove anything and they’ll never reopen a 46-year-old case. He said a lot of words but he didn’t answer the question. He had no answer. And I somehow missed the renewed JFK controversies at the time. 

CL: Considering that Lennon had already been marked since the Nixon era, and although in 1980 he was in his househusband stage, one could think that if he returned he could become a threat to the system again. In that scenario, do you think Yoko Ono, if she had thought it was a political assassination, would have had motives not to say it?

RR: If Ono had a motive to not say that she thought Lennon’s murder was a political assassination, I’d think it would be self-preservation. In the unlikely event there was a CIA plot, I don’t think the government would take kindly to Ono using her vast resources to expose it. 

CL:  Robert, over time the portrait you paint of Yoko in Nowhere Man has changed a lot in public perception. In 2000 it was read as an uncomfortable book for her, today many readers see her as the strong and rational figure in the story. When you wrote the book, did you already see that contrast between a vulnerable Lennon and a Yoko who sustained him, or was it something readers found later?

RR: In Nowhere Man I had no agenda when it came to portraying Ono. I based the portrait on my own perceptions; on what I read in the diaries; on what people who knew her told me; and what other authors had written. I’ve been criticized for being too mean to her and for being too kind to her. Readers are going to think whatever they’re going to think. I’m just glad people continue to read the book and their opinions evolve over time.

CL: In Nowhere Man you state what John felt about what Paul McCartney was achieving musically. In the film Man On The Run, McCartney and the film’s director include Sean’s testimonies to prove that Paul’s music was among the records John listened to. Within what you have researched, is there evidence that John listened frequently to McCartney’s output, or is it a validation device to put an end to that guilt over the unfortunate statements McCartney made when he was asked about his feelings about John’s death?  (5)

RR: I know that John listened to Paul’s music. In Nowhere Man I wrote about how “Coming Up,” on McCartney II, inspired John to get back into gear and start working on the Double Fantasy demo tape. Every word of “Coming Up” was addressed directly to John. Paul was calling for a Beatles reunion—“I know that we can get together.” John wrote “I Don’t Want to Face It” in response to “Coming Up.” I don’t think it’s a validation device to put an end to Paul’s guilt. I think Paul was devastated by John’s murder and he doesn’t need to prove anything. 

                                Paul McCartney y Sean Lennon on John in 'Man On The Run'

CL: Recently Sean stated regarding the distribution of John Lennon’s fortune, pointing out that both he and Julian had received their trusts and that they were almost equal. However, what is public knowledge is that Julian did not sue Yoko over a trust but rather requested the annulment of the will for undue influence. Under New York law, what would ‘undue influence’ imply? Within your research, have you found any indication that John was not aware of the final content? (6)

RR: You’re asking about estate law, a complex legal specialty that I know nothing about other than it’s a complex legal specialty. But in plain English, I take “undue influence” to mean putting pressure on somebody to do something they don’t want to do, like write somebody into a will or out of a will. And, no, I’ve found nothing in my research to indicate that John was unaware of the final content of the will.

CL: The only thing of public knowledge regarding Lennon’s fortune is the will. Do you know if apart from that document there was any trust for Julian? Another clause that draws attention in the document is the designation of Sam Green as Sean’s guardian in case Yoko were absent. Was he a man trusted by John or by Yoko?  (7)

RR: Well, Yoko certainly trusted Sam Green, which I imagine is how he ended up in the will as Sean’s guardian. That the will—it’s floating around online—designates Green as Sean’s guardian in that case, struck me as bizarre. I don’t know how much John trusted Green, if at all. I know that he used to get the “Sams,” Green and Havadtoy, mixed up. That would imply that he didn’t know Green very well. I don’t know anything about a trust for Julian.

CL: The latest anticipated and released documentary about John Lennon that is not motivated or supported by Yoko and Sean is Borrowed Time by Alan G. Parker. Many personalities and book authors were consulted, and among them was you. Could you tell us about your statements for the film?  (8)

RR: Several years ago Parker and his crew were in New York City and he interviewed me for the film. He mentioned that he was asking everybody the same questions. For the most part I told the story I told in Nowhere Man—my relationship with Seaman, how he gave me the diaries, how I wrote the book, and how I eventually got it published. He didn’t use my interview and I’m not sure why, though I suspect it’s for legal reasons. I saw the Borrowed Time premiere in New York last December. Parker was there and he took questions. He said something vague about legal issues. And he told me that my interview would be in the “director’s cut” but I haven’t been able to get a copy of it.

CL:  In Borrowed Time, is there any statement or testimony that caught your attention, whether or not it was linked to the period you cover in Nowhere Man?

RR: Parker seems to have done a good job tracking down people who witnessed the murder, like a guy who was looking out his window from the building across the street when it happened. He spends time on the stage design for Lennon’s tour to promote Double Fantasy, which of course never happened. That was one of the film’s highlights. He interviewed Earl Slick, who played guitar on Double Fantasy. I can’t remember anything in particular Slick said. And he gave a lot of time to Beatles author Kenneth Womack, which seems like a safe, middle-of-the-road choice. In many ways Borrowed Time is a standard, unauthorized Lennon documentary, which means Parker couldn’t get permission to use any of Lennon’s music. And it more or less covers the same time period as Nowhere Man. 

            Kenneth Womack on John, Paul and Stevie Wonder in A Toot And A Snore in 'Borrowed Time'

CL: Given the success and continued relevance of your book, do you have plans to expand its content in future editions? Is there material you would have liked to publish but couldn’t due to length considerations or editorial criteria?

RR: I have no plans for any future editions, but that could change with circumstance. The 2022 edition has a lot of new material. As I said earlier, the only material I’d like to publish but can’t for legal reasons are direct quotes from the diaries. In the meantime, I need to finish the book I’ve been working on for many years. It’s about the 1970s and the evolution of a radical underground college newspaper from a voice of the antiwar student left to an outrage-for-the-sake-of-outrage punk scandal sheet. I hope it’s translated into Spanish someday. 

Robert Rosen's Blog:

https://www.robertrosennyc.com/blog

Additional Information

(1) Fred Seaman was John Lennon's personal assistant from February 1979 until his death in 1980. He came to the Dakota through his relatives Helen and Norman Seaman; Norman had produced Yoko Ono's avant-garde shows at Carnegie Hall in the 1960s, and Helen had been Sean Lennon's nanny since 1978.

Using John Lennon's personal diaries from 1975-1980, he wrote the book 'The Last Days of John Lennon: A Personal Memoir' (1991). There he describes Lennon's confinement in the Dakota, the obsession with food, the colossal shopping, the fascination with the occult, and the premonition of his violent death.

Seaman remained as an employee at the Dakota into early 1982. In 1983 Yoko sued him criminally for the theft of John's intimate diaries, letters, private photos, Bermuda tapes and personal objects. The Manhattan District Attorney charged him. The case was dismissed in December 1982, but after the prosecutor took it to the Grand Jury in February 1983, he was finally sentenced on May 27, 1983 after pleading guilty to Grand Larceny in the Second Degree. He was sentenced to 5 years probation, on condition of returning everything and not revealing the contents of the diaries. The sentence ended early in 1986.

In 1999 Yoko sued him again, this time civilly, because she discovered he had sold stolen items on the memorabilia market and claimed copyright to 374 family photos he had taken as an employee. Yoko invoked the confidentiality agreement he signed in 1979 when he was hired.

On September 27, 2002 a final settlement was reached where Seaman had to surrender the copyright of almost 400 photos to Yoko and return within 10 days any Lennon object he still kept. The ruling confirmed that the 1979 confidentiality agreement remained in effect and he was forever prohibited from commercially exploiting any information about John, Yoko and Sean. He was also forced to read a public apology that said: "I did wrong, I violated your trust... I stole items that belonged to John, including diaries and documents. I will forever refrain from writing anything about you"

Complementary legal note: The central debate of the 1999-2002 trial was whether the photos were 'work made for hire' (work commissioned by the employer) or personal work taken in free time. The court ruled they were work-for-hire in favor of Yoko Ono, hence the surrender of the copyright.

On September 10, 2020, Fred Seaman gave an interview to Plastic EP from Australia. Yoko's lawyers sued him on October 1st in the SDNY, case 1:20-cv-08176, for copyright and contract violation, seeking $150,000, since his participation in that podcast showing - according to what was expressed by the lawyers - Lennon memorabilia, talking about Gimme Some Truth, Ringo Starr's visit on Thanksgiving Day in 1980 after his bowel surgery, Lennon's opinion about the Eastmans, his assassination and announcing that he was going to reissue an expanded version of his book 'The Last Days of John Lennon', constituted a violation of the 2000/2003 court order.

Editor's Note: In the original unedited video, Fred Seaman is seen in conversation with Plastic EP Australia. At no point does he display any John Lennon memorabilia. He only shows three different editions of his own 1991 book, The Last Days of John Lennon. The family group photo of John with Yoko's family and Seaman's aunt Helen that appears on screen is clearly the printed back cover of the British edition of his book. Seaman never announces a reissue. He states the book is out of print and, only when pressed by the interviewer, expresses a personal wish that a restored edition might be made available to fans in the future.

In the early morning of October 2, 2020, I sent a message to Plastic EP's official Facebook Messenger account to congratulate him on his interview with Fred Seaman — a strong journalistic achievement, although legally it would create complications for Seaman. I alerted him first-hand about the Daily Mail article reporting Yoko Ono's lawsuit and included the link. I also commended his previous interviews with Kenneth Womack and Laurence Juber. I never received a reply or comment. What followed was the immediate removal of the video from his Facebook page. As a valid interview from a journalistic perspective, its deletion shows that even fellow communicators prefer not to expose themselves.

According to the legal complaint against Seaman, in addition to the Plastic EP interview from Australia, other cases in which he had breached the previous Court judgment were mentioned. These include 'Anna Frawley's Beatle Show' (2017), interviews with Kenneth Womack for the book 'John Lennon 1980: The Last Days' and his statements for the film 'A Fab Four Fan's Ultimate Road Trip' (2012). This shows that he had been monitored for years.

On January 19, 2021, Judge Paul A. Engelmayer issued a final ruling permanently prohibiting Seaman from disclosing in any medium any information about John Lennon and his family and ordering him to pay $5,000. If he speaks, he will be jailed for contempt of court.

(2) David Sheff is an American journalist who conducted the famous interview with John Lennon and Yoko Ono at the Dakota in September 1980. He has been a personal friend of Yoko Ono since 1980 and had full access to the Lennon family's archives, family and friends. Among the books he has published are: 'The Playboy Interviews with John Lennon & Yoko Ono' (1981), 'All We Are Saying: The Last Major Interview with John Lennon and Yoko Ono' (2000 / reissued 2010 and 2021) and 'YOKO: A Biography' (2025).

In March 1984, Playboy published 'The Betrayal of John Lennon,' by David and Victoria Sheff. The same David Sheff who had interviewed John and Yoko in September 1980. The article, rather than a serious journalistic investigation, functions as a three-act play with a clearly defined and easily decipherable script, whose mission is to shock the public and discredit in advance any version differing from the official narrative of John Lennon's life.

Act 1: The Perfect Victim (pp. 84-87) 

Act 2: The Cast of Traitors (pp. 175-184) where employees (MacDougall, Seaman, Helen Seaman, Germano), external collaborators (John Green) and independent biographers (Peter Brown, May Pang, Albert Goldman, Rosen) are grouped under the same category of 'betrayal' 

Act 3: Plot of Extreme Danger (pp. 188-190) with disappearing passports, bugs, Chapman's letter postmarked August 1980 and external threats. 

The final thesis the reader is expected to adopt, laid out on p. 180 and hammered home on p. 190 with Goldman's $900,000 advance, is that anyone who publishes a book is by definition a traitor.

When I read it at the time, I published it in installments in 'Beatlenews', the fanzine of the Clan de los Beatles that we distributed to the listeners of our show on Radio El Sol. Seeing it in 2020 as an appendix to a lawsuit is an egregious abuse.

Elliot Mintz is a radio and TV personality. In 1971 he interviewed Yoko Ono and later John Lennon. He became their publicist and PR representative. He was the host of 'The Lost Lennon Tapes' (1988-1992), a radio series featuring hundreds of unreleased Lennon tapes found among his belongings. In 1985 he was credited as technical advisor for the TV film 'John and Yoko: A Love Story'. He has served as the official spokesperson for the John Lennon Estate and Yoko Ono to the present day. In 2024 he published his memoir 'We All Shine On: John, Yoko, and Me'. (3) In December 2024, Michael Medeiros told me that he had deactivated his Facebook account due to a bad experience with an administrator of a large fan group specializing in John Lennon. Not only had he been barred from sharing a review in response to what was expressed in the October 21 edition of The London Times, which covered Elliot Mintz's new book, but he had also received foolish comments from several members of that group, despite Michael having been John Lennon's personal assistant. The document that showed inaccuracies in Mintz's accounts could not remain unpublished, so it eventually became part of a review of Mintz's book shared in english and spanish on the Mundo Beatle blog. https://mundobeatle2019.blogspot.com/2024/12/elliot-mintz-and-his-book-we-all-shine.html (4) Robert Rodriguez is the author of the books 'How The Beatles Re-Imagined Rock 'n' Roll' (2012), 'Solo in the 70s: John, Paul, George, Ringo: 1970-1980' (2013) and 'Ribbons of Rust: The Beatles' Recording History in Context' Vol. 1 (July 1954 through January 1963) (2025), the latter co-authored with Jerry Hammack. He is the host of the podcast 'Something About The Beatles' (SATB). Rodriguez initially invited Robert Rosen and David Whelan separately to talk about their books and research on John Lennon: Robert Rosen on SATB: Ep. 189 - 'A Conversation with Robert Rosen' - Nowhere Man original. Ep. 245 - 'Catch and Kill - Controlling The Narrative' Ep. 266 - 'Nowhere Man '23' Ep. 286 - 'Nowhere Man '24' In episode 286, Rodriguez asks him to comment on Whelan's investigation. David Whelan on SATB: Ep. 275 - 'Anomalies in the Assassination of John Lennon with David Whelan' Ep. 291 - 'December 8, 1980 with David Whelan' Robert Rosen and David Whelan in debate on SATB: Ep. 297 - 'All I Want Is The Truth with David Whelan and Robert Rosen' David Whelan is the author of the books 'Mind Games: The Assassination of John Lennon' (2023) and 'Mind Games: The Assassination of John Lennon - Volume 2: New Investigations' (2025/2026). He argues that Lennon was shot from the front, not from behind, based on the 2023 testimony of Dr. David Halleran and nurses at Roosevelt Hospital. He points to a second shooter and claims that Chapman was only placed at the scene to take the blame. (5) The question sought to establish whether in Robert Rosen's investigation or in his access to the diaries it could be found that John listened to Paul's material during his final stage at the Dakota. However, as can be seen in his answer, there is no more evidence than what John Lennon himself stated to Playboy magazine: PLAYBOY: Was that the last time you saw Paul? . We're asking because there's always a lot of speculation about whether the Fab Four are dreaded enemies or the best of friends. LENNON: I haven't seen any of the Beatles for I don't know how much time. Somebody asked me what I thought of Paul's last album and I made some remark like, I thought he was depressed and sad. But then I realized I hadn't listened to the whole damn thing. I heard one track... the hit 'Coming Up,' which I thought was a good piece of work. Then I heard something else that sounded like he was depressed. But I don't follow their work. I don't follow Wings, you know. I don't give a shit what Wings is doing, or what George's new album is doing, or what Ringo is doing. (Playboy Magazine - January 1981) In the book version 'All We Are Saying' by David Sheff (2000), which is the complete uncut 20-hour interview, John's comment has a slight change in wording compared to the magazine: "I thought it was a good job". He also adds that John liked the album version more than the one played on the radio, that is "Coming Up (Live In Glasgow)" (6) Regardless of the brotherly affection that we are pleased to see between Sean and Julian, a question has always remained is why John Lennon's will completely excluded Julian. Julian and his father had already improved their relationship thanks to May Pang's efforts. Lennon, having experienced his father's, Fred's, separation, came to forgive and support him until his final days. It seems strange that, having been at fault with Julian, he would have made no provision for him in case he passed away. The will of November 12, 1979 was signed 13 months before John's death. He left everything to Yoko Ono. She is the executrix who carries out the last will and administers the trust where all the money was, and she retains total control over the song rights and image. Julian Lennon sued Yoko Ono arguing 'undue influence'. The legal battle lasted 16 years (1980-1996). It was settled out of court under confidential terms, authorized by Yoko. The British press estimated the agreed figure to be between 20 and 25 million sterling pounds. . When Sean speaks about trusts for both, for those who know how the story unfolded, it comes across as somewhat strange. The trust intended for Julian due to his parents' divorce does not apply and none is named in the will either. Furthermore, Julian challenged the will on grounds of 'undue influence'. That gives one pause. If the will or trust was a topic at the Dakota in 1979, it is logical that John would have mentioned it in his diary, or at least someone who worked for the Lennons would have known something (Mike Tree, Fred Seaman) (7) The reason for asking Robert Rosen about Sam Green was to determine whether John Lennon would entrust his son — the son for whom he publicly walked away from his music career — to someone in case both he and Yoko were no longer around. After having abandoned Julian in his childhood, it would be unthinkable to entrust his adored son Sean to a stranger, no matter how much he was trusted by Yoko Ono, and even less to leave destitute his less-favored son with whom he had only just been able to reconnect during a getaway from the Dakota. That is why the fact that Lennon could not distinguish between Sam Green and Sam Havadtoy does not inspire much confidence when it comes to protecting a son's future, and points more toward considering why Julian filed the lawsuit as 'undue influence'. (8) 'Borrowed Time: Lennon's Last Decade' (2025) is a British documentary directed by Alan G. Parker. It premiered on May 2, 2025, in cinemas in the United Kingdom and in an extended version (Director's Cut) on the Icon Film Channel. The film covers the last decade of John Lennon (1970-1980), from his first solo album Plastic Ono Band to his death. It uses previously unseen archival material and testimonies from his inner circle. The title comes from the song "Borrowed Time" that Lennon composed after surviving a storm at sea. The New York premiere took place on December 8, 2025, on the 45th anniversary of Lennon's death. After the premiere, it became available throughout the U.S. on DVD, Blu-ray and digital via Fandango, Prime Video and more. It was on wide streaming from January 13, 2026.