I believe John felt guilty about Stu's death and felt that he was the cause (whether he was or not, who knows) . I think it haunted him up to the day he died. I also believe he and Stu probably had a roll in the hay before too. John was a f**. How else can anybody explain him marrying Yucko?

paul had an affair with george????????????????tell us about that........lol

what?????????????????????????!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

So John f***** Stu and then he killed him?

Wow!  No wonder he was so messed up.  

Was Mark David Chapman "Instant Karma"?  

Is there a streak of confession/guilt in John's songs?  

It's weird to think of the violence surrounding the guy.  His mother run over.  His best friend dying of a brain aneurysm--with autopsy showing cranial trauma.  The streetfighting in Hamburg.  The physical abuse of Cynthia.  The drunken barfights during the lost weekend.  

You don't hear about anything remotely similar in the lives of Paul, George or Ringo. Lennon was in some respects the creative catalyst but also the sickness of the Beatles that sought to heal itself creatively.  As D.H. Lawrence said something to the effect that we shed our sicknesses in books.  

As John himself said: "Hold him in his armchair you can feel his disease"?

Enough already!

There is no evidence at all that John and Stu had a sexual relationship.

Sensible people need evidence on which to base their beliefs. Building theory upon theory, saying "it makes sense to me", "how else could such-and-such have happened", "you can't prove it wrong", defy logic and common sense.  

I agree 100% there Ydoll.

Quoted from adamzero

John's admitted bisexuality.

Admitted? When did he admit this?

Here is the story of the rumour which has ALWAYS been denied:

During 1974 Lennon's personal life fell into disrepair — a temporary move to Los Angeles, some drunken public escapades, and a fourteen-month split from Ono during which he had an extramarital affair with Ono's former secretary May Pang. It was also during his time in New York that Lennon purportedly engaged in sexual relationships with men, according to biographers Albert Goldman (''The Lives of John Lennon'') and Geoffrey Giuliano (''Lennon in New York''). Lennon's estate, however, has denied charges that he was bisexual. It should be noted that both Goldman and Giuliano have been heavily criticized for their work.

they found pecker tracks in the benz.......

careful with that ax eugene!!!!!

either way there will always be some doubt in my mind as to lennons conquests be they male or female....it doesn't change the way i feel about his music.....

Quoted from Ydoll_Gwyn

Enough already!

There is no evidence at all that John and Stu had a sexual relationship.

Sensible people need evidence on which to base their beliefs. Building theory upon theory, saying "it makes sense to me", "how else could such-and-such have happened", "you can't prove it wrong", defy logic and common sense.  

Easy Dolly. Was it not you that quoted '... but (as a matter of fact) it's false.' pertaining to John possibly being the cause of Stu's death? Just as with the sexual relationship content, there is also no evidence that John was in fact NOT the cause of Stu's death. Dont preach and then not act out your own sermon.

Just to set the record straight, my comments about John and Stu having a roll in the hay was intended to be humerous. I dont truly beileve it happened. I do believe he probably let Brian give him a hand job or something when they were alone in Barcelona, but could care less.

If you have concrete evidence that John had nothing to do with Stu's death and you present it, i'll gladly apologize.

who gets the hand job if its proved me or dolly????

Quoted from Ydoll_Gwyn

Enough already!

There is no evidence at all that John and Stu had a sexual relationship.

Sensible people need evidence on which to base their beliefs. Building theory upon theory, saying "it makes sense to me", "how else could such-and-such have happened", "you can't prove it wrong", defy logic and common sense.  

Amen. John and Stu had an incredible bond. They would share their art, write 18 page letters back and forth, and I'm sure their was alot of love. Why the hell does a close relationship always have to carry some sexual connotation? I am fortunate to have a handful of close buds who I would kill for and that I love like brothers, but a sexual component is so absurd, I can't think of an adjective.

Absurd. Wouln't that be your adjective??

Quoted from tkitna

Easy Dolly. Was it not you that quoted '... but (as a matter of fact) it's false.' pertaining to John possibly being the cause of Stu's death? Just as with the sexual relationship content, there is also no evidence that John was in fact NOT the cause of Stu's death. Dont preach and then not act out your own sermon.

Just to set the record straight, my comments about John and Stu having a roll in the hay was intended to be humerous. I dont truly beileve it happened. I do believe he probably let Brian give him a hand job or something when they were alone in Barcelona, but could care less.

If you have concrete evidence that John had nothing to do with Stu's death and you present it, i'll gladly apologize.

Man, I don't think you understand EVIDENCE. The burden of proof or evidence is on the asserter. If someone thinks John and Stu had a sexual relationship, then he should give the evidence for that belief. If I say in response to the assertion that I don't believe it because of LACK of evidence, you can't then say to me, well prove they didn't have a sexual relationship. That's goofy.