It's just a rumour...

The actual damage came from the much written about fight after a gig where he and John were attacked and John, after shaking off his assailants, went to help Stu.

However, there was a fight they had where John did kick him in the head, and John always felt guilty but it is not what caused it, but despite that John apparently felt responsible still.

I think it is a little bit of everything. But it could also be Stuart's poor health condition. His sister wrote that he often drank and got little sleep.

I am amused how many of the posters here mention that, while John did once kick Stu in the head, it was not (or unlikey) the cause of his brain hemorrhage. I would like to know where they got this information. The truth is, the world will never know what caused Stu's hemorrhage, but years later, John Lennon DID tell people close to him (including Yoko) that he believed that he was responsible for Stu's death from kicking him in the head with his boots. Of course the film depiction (and other films as well) leads the viewer to believe that John had "rescued" Stu from being beaten by thugs. Nobody in the Beatles, or their German friends have ever elaborated on the thug story, but it has been established that from time to time Stu was often the recipient of John's wrath and vicious temper in the early days of the Beatles.

I enjoyed this film, being a longtime Beatles fan, but it is filled with factual errors. One that I got a kick out of was that in this film, Stu is portrayed as a pretty good bass player. Truth was, Stu could barely play a note and would practically turn his back to the audience to try to hide it. Often times the volume on his bass or amp was turned almost off. It was John who kept Stu in the band, as behind his cold exterior, John did really love Stu, but would never show it. The Beatles actually learned of Stu's death from Astrid when they returned to Hamburg after a break back to Liverpool. Astrid would later recount that the Beatles all actually cried, except for John, who hid his feelings from everyone and showed no emotion whatsoever. Typical early Lennon...




Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups.

There definitely were inaccuracies in Albert Goldman's book on John Lennon. I was living in Hawaii at the time it came out and the local newspaper pointed out two of the more glaring inconsistencies in it. The book claimed that John visited Hawaii in the late 1970s. However, he supposedly visited a place called "Uwe Beach". There is no such place. The closest is a place called Ewa Beach and it was hardly a tourist area at the time. Also, how would someone that famous have been able to slip in unnoticed? Anytime a celebrity visits the islands, it's a major local news event.

Albert Goldman made-up MOST of the Stories included in ALL of His So-Called "Biographies" ... if You read HIS Versions of Celebrities' Lives , You will see as-follows: Frank Sinatra = Recluse + Closet-Homosexual. Elvis Presley = Recluse + Closet-Homosexual. John Lennon = Recluse + Closet-Homosexual ... "Real Life" = Each had An "Entourage". Neither Lennon nor Sinatra could ever be-considered to be "reclusive" , and Nobody (Other-than Friends and Immediate Family) really know about the Sexual Activites of Any of the Three (Anyone can start/perpetuate a Rumour).

According to Stuart Sutcliffe's sister, he received a kick in the head from John Lennon during a particularly vicious fight, which created a brain anuerysm which was what actually killed Stuart. She said she refrained from saying so for a long time, especially while John Lennon was alive as she didn't want to incur his wrath. She also said John Lennon was remorseful about his role in Stuart's death, as he cared for him deeply. Another claim she made was that despite Stuart's love for Astrid, John and Stuart were lovers. Apparently, John's bisexuality was well known; he was also romatically involved with Brian Epstein.