|
Post by TotalInformation on Sept 16, 2003 5:48:58 GMT
The Seaman "confession" is typical of what you read when someone crumples under the legal blitz of the superrich. Note that nothing is specified that was incorrect.
|
|
|
Post by gharryson on Sept 16, 2003 6:02:32 GMT
Matt Bean: courtTV: LiCalsi tried to get Seaman to admit that he was secretly collecting valuable memorabilia from the time he signed on with the Lennons in 1979. The lawyer read one passage from Seaman's diary from Sunday, June 1, 1980, in which Seaman wrote that he had succeeded in concealing his aspirations as a writer from Lennon. In the passage, Seaman wrote that Lennon had lectured him on the vagaries of the nightclub business, Seaman's falsely professed career aspiration.
"Assure him I know what he is saying," wrote Seaman. "I'm glad I managed to throw him off track and convince him I'm not interested in writing."
Sean Lennon arrived at the federal courthouse in Manhattan Tuesday.
Ono, who was dwarfed at the plaintiff's table by binders of documents, shook her head during revelations that Seaman, then a highly trusted member of the entourage, considered the family a gold mine. Her 26-year-old son, Sean Lennon, who accompanied her to court and sat in the front row, also shook his head and sometimes laughed.
|
|
|
Post by gharryson on Sept 16, 2003 6:23:33 GMT
And still more..........At issue Tuesday (Sept. 16,2002) was Seaman's relationship with the Lennon family. Was he merely an employee whose job was to run errands and photograph the family during the former Beatle's most secluded time of life? Or was he a friend who shared time with Ono, Lennon and their son Sean?
Squaring off against Seaman's attorney, Glenn Wolther, Ono left little room for speculation.
"You're mixing up friendly and friend," she said. "Both John and I were very friendly with our employees. That's how we were."
As Wolther noted, Ono granted a shared copyright to a previous personal assistant who also took photographs of the family. But Ono explained that she was doing a favor for the assistant, who was a professional photographer and "a sweet man."
"If he had been a person that had stolen so many things from me and wearing my husband's clothes when he died and flaunted them in front of me, I would not have allowed him to put out anything," she said in a flash of anger.
According to Ono's lawyers, Seaman reaped great rewards from the materials he pilfered from Lennon. A philologist, or buyer and seller of letters, testified Tuesday that he paid Seaman more than $65,000 for nine letters, including a letter from Lennon to Paul and Linda McCartney discussing the breakup of the Beatles and a letter to Eric Clapton inviting him to form a supergroup music tour.
|
|
|
Post by IanSingleton777 on Sept 16, 2003 12:53:25 GMT
Gharryson, The aggressive tone of your rebuttal posts indicate you wish to entertain a to-and-fro debate on the topics of Fred seaman, May Pang, and Yoko Oh No. That serves no purpose within this forum, and would in fact devalue the fine, intelligent exchange and supposition of information we enjoy here. I will say that I do not rush to judgement by dismissing Seaman's first-hand witness to events merely because he 'did something wrong.' And, conversely, because he did some wrong actions doesn't mean everything that comes out of his mouth is a lie. In real life, we gather and decipher all the information possible on any given topic and decide what to believe. You may rag on May Pang all you wish. I found her book well done and very reliable. May Pang has conducted herself with a hell of alot more class and consideration than the merry widow herself. I found Elliot Mintz's quoted protestations and damage-control spin ineffective. He himself was one of the 'hired help,' yet you placed great weight and credence to his PR hogwash. Not real crafty swallowing word for word any and all statements from a professional mouthpiece whose job is to spin,spin,spin events after the fact to appease whomever was left standing after the dust (or bullets) settled; in this case Yoko. I agree with TotalInformation's assessment that Seaman would offer whatever remorse and apologies necessary officially, to lessen the wrath of the Law. That is accepted and understood as human nature, once you get caught and are on trial. In my opinion, again, that does not mean to me everything else he may have been privy to in the private lives of John & Yoko is a lie. Also, Total, if Concrete Cowboy Bush isn't in charge of diddly- squat, then he's holding the gate wide open for the blue meanies because when the Supreme Court decided to stop the counting of ballots cast in the Presidential election, EVERYTHING took a turn for the worst and has never rebounded yet. That;s just the way I see it!
|
|
|
Post by IanSingleton777 on Sept 16, 2003 12:58:32 GMT
As to the post at the beginning, the poster was quoting Sean Lennon at the begining, but the end of the quote was from Sun King's 60IF site.
Yep, that clears it up, Total. It threw me, as both statements were in the same set of quotes. thanks! -ian
|
|
|
Post by gharryson on Sept 17, 2003 16:23:28 GMT
Ian, My apologies for the tone of my rebuttals, but, i think that rebuttals do have a purpose otherwise how would we have the chance to see someone elses point of view....the point of my posts is that we can all find excerpts, interviews or whatever to 'match' our belief or opinions....and if my tone is agressive is because not one person has given any evidence or hint of evidence to this....yoko spy thing....and i do think that as we all know you can just about put anything in a 'tell all' book that you wish....as for Seaman...he was 'doing wrong' to the lennons before John died....he is a liar and proven to be a liar...if you lie to me once...i don't have much faith in anything else you have to say...therefore i don't trust his first hand witness accounts....I'd rather trust Helens.... May Pang...gave her perceptions of the situation...just as the National Enquirer does...enough said on that...
Elliot became Yokos spokesperson....but was Johns friend from the early seventies he was there before during and after John died....
Total was right...you can find the settlement on the internet....it was something he had to read to settle the claim....but then again...if i was right i'd be damn if i settled...even to Yoko...Paul...or anyone else....to me it would be the principle of the matter...whether i won or lost....and if i believed that was right i would carry it out to the end....as far as i'm concerned Seaman should have been out stealing morals....not a five year old's watch...
|
|
|
Post by IanSingleton777 on Sept 17, 2003 20:29:34 GMT
OK, now I'm laughing!
I fear this topic of Yoko as covert operative was declared by you from the beginning as unlikely, as with all your other cut-and-dried one sentence dismissals of statements, people, and events.
Therefore, you simply wouldn't entertain the notion no matter WHAT.
Conversely, you don't present one shred of evidence to reinforce your declarations..but this isn't such the problem as I could make it out to be.
Rather, it just shows that you have your opinion and I have mine. I have been studying all things Lennon and Beatles for over 30 years now; I am confident in my intuitions and gut feelings concerning topics such as this.
In conclusion, given how relatively rapidly and aggressively the Beatles disintegrated since Yoko pulled her first session at John's side in Abbey Road, my money is on Yoko as sent to play the ultimate Psy Op (psychological operation) and break up the Beatles.
She showed up in mid-to-late 1968; by 1970 the band was done.
|
|
|
Post by OceanChild on Sept 17, 2003 21:13:51 GMT
I'm going to stick up for Yoko here. I've noticed that it's mainly the women who have said they never thought anything bad about Yoko adding "but what do I know?". First, girls, please cut “but what do I know?” from your vocabulary right now. Thank you. Second, I think women see Yoko in a different way. We see Yoko as a woman who was madly in love with a man who was madly in love with her. Many of us search for years and never find that person, many of us make do with who we’ve ended up with dreaming of a man who encourages us, wants to spend time with us, doesn’t want to be apart from us, thinks we are wonderful and clever and admires and looks up to us - instead we are stuck with someone who only wants to drink beer, watch football and fart*. We look at Yoko and see a woman who was hated by the world because of the ‘she split up the Beatles’ negative PR put out about her and think ‘And John stuck right by her. He didn’t dump her and go running off with his friends. He chose to be with her instead of his friends.’ That, to most women, is true love. Men, I think, see women like Yoko as their worst nightmare – when I say men, I mean most men who either haven’t met the woman of their dreams OR who will never meet the woman of their dreams because underneath it all they are simply misogynistic men and really, really don’t like women, so treat the women they go out with very badly and wonder why women always become gibbering wrecks. I also think that because Yoko is Oriental AND strong she goes completely against our preconceived ideas about how Oriental women should behave. People want their Oriental women quiet and subservient. Would she have been better liked if she stayed in the kitchen and tried to fit in to the rich wife in the suburbs lifestyle that Cynthia fit into so well? John didn’t want that. He wanted an equal. I genuinely think that John Lennon found everything he was looking for in Yoko. I think that there were problems in the Beatles before Yoko came on the scene and that she did not cause them. If anyone has been in a long-term relationship before that has ended in a split you will know that the split doesn’t just suddenly happen one day, it’s a long, slow process. The Beatles was John’s life, his family, his everything. But for whatever reason (and I can honestly think of many) he wanted to leave… but how would he go about that? In a relationship that someone wants out of but are afraid to leave, don’t they often take the ‘easy way out’ by subtly starting to become a complete and utter bastard until their partner chucks them out? Maybe John insisting that Yoko never leaves his side and ‘infiltrates’ the sanctity of Abbey Road (how dare SHE sit in on a Beatles studio session!) was his way of getting the others pissed off enough to chuck him out cos he was too scared to leave. *Not my boyfriend, however.
|
|
|
Post by gharryson on Sept 18, 2003 4:48:05 GMT
Ocean child....I love you!!!! ;D...Yoko and me thats reality...the dream is over...... Ian...i am not as cut and dry as you think, i would entertain any evidence from family....(ie beatles, lennons even the government)....you haven't presented anything at all to back yourself up...if you have researched as much as you say surely there must be something....and i have pretty much presented as much evidence as you...so if i have presented nothing neither have you.... John once said...if you don't like yoko, screw you, I'm here for her and the baby.....i think that pretty much states it all.....you can laugh all you want (at my expense is just fine...i have broad shoulders i can handle it ....but your opinion means about as much as mine.....diddley squat...
|
|
|
Post by googoo on Sept 18, 2003 5:51:02 GMT
WHOA! Oceanchild, please count me out on this "we" stuff. I can think and speak for myself, and NOT according to a gender stereotype. I for one don't see John and Yoko's relationship as ideal. I believe they had (have) a deep soul connection. That can be beautiful but not always easy to live with. I think they used their persona as a couple as a medium, an art form, to express their ideas to society. But were they really happy together in private? I don't know, I wasn't there! Maybe they presented an image of their life together that was more myth than reality. Myth can demonstrate truths that are distorted by "reality". I've always been haunted by this picture, taken only hours before John was killed. It seems as though they are saying goodbye. John is holding on, naked and vulnerable, almost like a child. Yoko decided at the last minute to remain clothed. She seems detached, as if she has already let go of him. John said to the photographer, "You've captured our relationship exactly." If that is true...I look at Yoko and see a woman who never gave herself to John the same way he gave himself to her. But for what it's worth, I also believe John could be a "complete and utter bastard" whenever he wanted to be.
|
|
|
Post by OceanChild on Sept 18, 2003 14:18:45 GMT
Googoo-
I’m not sure how old you are, but by the ‘gender stereotype’ comment my guess is that you are younger than me. Either that or you haven’t been immersed in ‘feminist’ studies for quite as long as I have. This is certainly not a flame, but is an observation coming from someone who has gone through the whole gamut of feminist thought to come out the other side acknowledging that men and women are different. Though not every man or every woman is the same, I believe there are some very strong similarities between members of the same sex concerning social and sexual relationships. It’s an undeniable primal thing. And though, yes, we all think for ourselves, we can’t run away from 150,000 years of evolution. And to think we can is folly.
I’m a nature, rather than nurture kinda girl.
I believe there are very basic human truths that exist for all of us – no matter how much you may try to deny it. The main one being that we all seek to be loved. JohnandYoko were the only couple in my lifetime that represented the relationship ideal we all want. Yes, it was a myth – they were real people after all- but the myth they projected was something that many, many people still look to as some kind of template- two people both achieving greatly as individuals, but becoming invincible together, becoming JohnandYoko – one person, two sides. It was an ideal. Ideals are never achievable, but that shouldn’t stop us from trying.
Tell me what it wrong with wanting a deep and equal relationship where both people are able and encouraged to be themselves?
Yoko was an accomplished artist before she met John – if you ever get a chance to go to one of her exhibitions, do. She is an amazing artist. She wasn’t just some bimbo with nothing to give to the world. I do believe, however, that the Yoko character she became to the public was a result of racism. Remember that when Paul dumped Jane Asher, the English hated Linda, because she was a crass Yank. Well, Yoko was a ‘Jap’ and World War 2 was still a reality to Europeans (in fact, it’s still a pretty big deal here). In ‘The Rutles’, the ‘John’ character marries a Nazi woman. That’s what the British felt about the Japanese – even in the late 60s the Japanese were still the evil enemies. And John had dumped his lovely blonde English wife for this evil ‘Nip’. And, of course, Americans' opinions of the Japanese weren't much better - think of the camps that Japanese-Americans were put into during the war, think of how Americans felt after Pearl Harbor.
Yoko is Japanese aristocracy and a modern artist. And IN HER 70s. Think of that one moment. In her 70s.
Today in modern Japan, girls go off travel ‘round the world, colour their hair, dress wildly, all the while knowing that they will go back to Japan, get married and be a subservient wife. The only thing that’s changed from traditional Japanese society is that now the girls get to travel around a bit before getting married. What kind of a woman must Yoko have been to do what she did when she did? Powerful, strong, intelligent, demanding, focussed and unperturbed by what anyone thought.
Name another famous Japanese woman.
She is an amazing woman. Exactly what John Lennon needed.
As you point out, Googoo, there is a downside to the JohnandYoko relationship template. John, of course, lost his mother when he was a teenager and Yoko’s mother was very cold and never there for her. They were both seriously lacking in mother love. They got together and quickly became tangled up in this deep give and take love relationship – co-dependent. Both giving love, only so that they could get it back. The love you take is equal to the love you make and all that. They wanted to be together so strongly that they wanted to meld with one another, become one person.
After a few years of Yoko getting battered by the world and John letting out all the sh*t he wasn’t able to let out during his time with the Beatles, Yoko falling back into the old patterns of unemotional Japanese-ness, John falling back into his Jealous Guy mould, I’m sure they got to a very bad place in their relationship. Sure maybe he was thinking of leaving, sure maybe she was going to file for divorce. That’s what happens all the time. Does that mean that she was happy when he was killed? No. Does that mean that she wanted him killed? No. Does that mean they would have split up if John hadn’t been killed? Who knows. Probably not. They had probably gone through their worst during the mid-late 70s and were coming out the other side.
It was just like starting over…
As for the picture, I’ve always loved that picture. And yes, I’m sure it did capture their relationship. I don’t see her as being detached, I see her as accepting John’s love without feeling she needs to give anything back. Have you ever just been kissed by your lover without feeling you had to kiss back? Try it. Have him/her kiss your face all over without kissing back. Then do it to him/her. As the one who is kissed you feel so open and released and loved and unselfishly able to take love. As the kisser you are able to concentrate on giving all the love you can without needing to get anything back.
Usually in a photograph it would be the woman who is naked and giving. What would you have thought of the picture if it had been Yoko naked and foetal, kissing a clothed John? Would that have been acceptable to you? Not haunting? Why? Because she would be living up to the Asian woman stereotype, subservient to her man? Hey forget Asian woman stereotype, what about simply ‘female’. “Oh, that Yoko’s all right because actually when it comes down to it she’s in her place. Look she’s naked and kissing John, giving him what he needs without a selfish thought in her head.”
Isn’t that a gender stereotype?
|
|
|
Post by Forum Manager on Sept 18, 2003 18:50:01 GMT
yeah krysia and i have a strong relationship like that. we are DanandKrysia! ;D
|
|
|
Post by googoo on Sept 18, 2003 19:15:50 GMT
Oceanchild, You are absolutely right - I have never been immersed in feminist studies. And I don't care to be.
You asked, "Tell me what it wrong with wanting a deep and equal relationship where both people are able and encouraged to be themselves?"
There's nothing at all wrong with that. And if you don't believe there is, why are you defensive about it? I don't see where anyone in this thread has challenged you on that.
But I personally don't believe John and Yoko had that kind of relationship. It's totally my opinion. I'm sorry if you feel like it challenges your own.
The picture is haunting because it was one of the last images of them together.
You said, "I see her as accepting John’s love without feeling she needs to give anything back."
And I say, if that image is what captured their relationship, if that was the way things usually were between them, then there was something WRONG regardless of which gender was doing the giving and which was receiving.
|
|
|
Post by OceanChild on Sept 18, 2003 20:26:42 GMT
I am simply standing up for Yoko here. I think she's been a victim of a lot of unfounded criticism. I pointed out that in this thread (and actually generally in my own experience IRL) women never feel there's very much wrong with her and it’s men that are the ones violently opposed to her and say the most terrible things about her. There tends to be a split between genders, like it or not. Read back through the thread and have a look. Tell me who said they couldn’t imagine her being involved in John’s murder and tell me who said she was or that they hated her. There’s a gender split, right? Even you yourself said: I've had a hard time with this too...I've always thought of John and Yoko as true soulmates. But they did have a very strange relationship. I don't know. I believe they did love each other deeply. But I also think, the greater the love that is present, the greater the potential for hurt and betrayal. My feeling is that she always did her best to protect him...from others, and from his own self too. But I could be wrong... So why then your comment about thinking and speaking for yourself and not according to ‘gender stereotype’? Yoko was a strong, independent, successful woman artist from the early 60s when most American women were put on Valium by their doctors, were prevented from going to college by their fathers, prevented from going to work by their husbands and lived in a drugged out Stepford Wives world from which there was no escape. And then along comes this Japanese woman, BEFORE women’s lib, and makes her mark in a man’s world. Think of the problems that women still have now that things are supposedly ‘equal’. Think of what we as a society think of women who aren’t maternal. Think of what we think of women who are tough businesswomen. Think of what we think of women who continue to fight for equal rights (feminism is a bad word, even you as a woman don’t want to be associated with it)... It's still tough out there for women, but increibly easier than it was for an Oriental woman in the 60s. Again I ask you all to name another famous Japanese woman. Name another female artist from the 60s...in fact, without Googling, name as many females artists as you can, you’ll come up with a handful at most and most of them from the 90s on. Yoko is to be seriously admired.
|
|
|
Post by IanSingleton777 on Sept 18, 2003 21:17:32 GMT
GooGoo, you noted this in regard to the Rolling Stone John & Yoko cover: 'Yoko decided at the last minute to remain clothed. She seems detached, as if she has already let go of him.'
i would add that perhaps why you (and countless others) could perceive this excellent insight into the obvious nonverbal communication going on there is BECAUSE SHE KNEW WHAT WAS GONNA OCCUR THE NEXT DAY, DECEMBER 8, 1980.
Following the thread of "yoko a spy" or at least perhaps a covert agent for someone somewhere, that picture and your intelligent insight INDEED DOES SPEAK A THOUSAND WORDS. The facial expression of Yoko there can easily be construed as "you're a walking dead man, get away from me..."
Note that I am not saying these insights are the definitive, be-all-and-end-all to the thread...I would never be that pompous or pretentiously righteous (gharryson?). Just saying I agree with GooGoo's eye for nonverbal detail. I admit I find Yoko much more sinister than Faul...
|
|
|
Post by pennylane on Sept 18, 2003 21:43:45 GMT
I'm going to stick up for Yoko here. I've noticed that it's mainly the women who have said they never thought anything bad about Yoko adding "but what do I know?". First, girls, please cut “but what do I know?” from your vocabulary right now. Thank you. Second, I think women see Yoko in a different way. We see Yoko as a woman who was madly in love with a man who was madly in love with her. Many of us search for years and never find that person, many of us make do with who we’ve ended up with dreaming of a man who encourages us, wants to spend time with us, doesn’t want to be apart from us, thinks we are wonderful and clever and admires and looks up to us - instead we are stuck with someone who only wants to drink beer, watch football and fart*. We look at Yoko and see a woman who was hated by the world because of the ‘she split up the Beatles’ negative PR put out about her and think ‘And John stuck right by her. He didn’t dump her and go running off with his friends. He chose to be with her instead of his friends.’ That, to most women, is true love. Men, I think, see women like Yoko as their worst nightmare – when I say men, I mean most men who either haven’t met the woman of their dreams OR who will never meet the woman of their dreams because underneath it all they are simply misogynistic men and really, really don’t like women, so treat the women they go out with very badly and wonder why women always become gibbering wrecks. I also think that because Yoko is Oriental AND strong she goes completely against our preconceived ideas about how Oriental women should behave. People want their Oriental women quiet and subservient. Would she have been better liked if she stayed in the kitchen and tried to fit in to the rich wife in the suburbs lifestyle that Cynthia fit into so well? John didn’t want that. He wanted an equal. I genuinely think that John Lennon found everything he was looking for in Yoko. I think that there were problems in the Beatles before Yoko came on the scene and that she did not cause them. If anyone has been in a long-term relationship before that has ended in a split you will know that the split doesn’t just suddenly happen one day, it’s a long, slow process. The Beatles was John’s life, his family, his everything. But for whatever reason (and I can honestly think of many) he wanted to leave… but how would he go about that? In a relationship that someone wants out of but are afraid to leave, don’t they often take the ‘easy way out’ by subtly starting to become a complete and utter bastard until their partner chucks them out? Maybe John insisting that Yoko never leaves his side and ‘infiltrates’ the sanctity of Abbey Road (how dare SHE sit in on a Beatles studio session!) was his way of getting the others pissed off enough to chuck him out cos he was too scared to leave. *Not my boyfriend, however. Bravo oceanchild... i admire yoko and the relationship she had with john. i can't imagine having a great love like that and then turning on them. thats just my unpopular view...
|
|
|
Post by Forum Manager on Sept 18, 2003 22:13:33 GMT
OceanChild said: i can think of woman who do terribke things to their husbands also. (laurana bobett as an example) are you sure that your defending yoko only because of the fact that she's a woman? becuase that what it appear you are doing. this thread started as a discussion of the possibility (not acusation) that yoko may have been a spy, becuase that is what it said in 60IF. this forum is meant to discuss 60IF and that is what we were doing. nobody here discriminated againt yoko becuase she is a woman in any way. and yet you are making it seem like someone did. and know that by locking this thread you will probably accuse me of being a "woman-hater" or something like that. that is not true. i respect women. ask any of the female forum members here. i am locking this becuase it has turned from a discussion concerning 60IF into woman's lib speech. burn your bras if you must (theyre annoying anyways ) but please dont do it on the forum. now lets end this battle of the sexes, and get back to paul.
|
|
|
Post by PaulBearer on Sept 19, 2003 16:41:46 GMT
The Yoko fantasy icon illusion must be shattered just as the "Faul is Paul" fantasy icon illusion is being. Just as they created an illusion about Faul being Paul, so too did they create the fantasy about Yoko to cover up her spy activities. George was not lying to us or was deceived. 60IF is all true.
|
|