Quote
filstan
While on his deathbed, Frank Thorogood was said to have told Tom Keylock that he killed Brian in the pool by holding his head under water after flying into a rage about monies that he thought were owed to him by Brian. Keylock passed away recently and with him potential testimony. It all makes plenty of sense. I think it would be a good thing to get an official statement concerning Brians death. He still has family alive and grown children. Unsolved murders are never a good thing, no matter who it is. The truth should be told.

EXACT recapitulation of facts.
Everyone should read FILSTAN's post.

Quote
sweetcharmedlife

Quote
neptune

Quote
sweetcharmedlife
Who cares,it was 40 years ago.

That's an incredibly stupid comment.

Why is it a stupid comment. It's true. How many more terrible horrific crimes have been comitted in the past 40 years that haven't been solved? Why is it that this case deserves any more attention than any others. Because their is a fanatical group of people who just won't let this go?

If there is new evidence then the case should be reopened.

Has everyone heard this?

It looks like is an evidential review rather than a case re-opening though, right?

OLDKR

One of our employees walks in my office yesterday with a cell phone in her ear, looking shocked, repeating what the person on the other end is telling her..

She- in a concerned manner to me, speaking slowly- "a Founding Member of the Rolling Stones....Found Dead..pause"

ME- "in their swimming pool, fifty years ago"

She-to the caller- "Cmon, call me with something important, I'm at work..Sorry".

She hangs up on her husband

Quote
sweetcharmedlife
Yeah and we have been hearing the same conspiracy theories for 40 years. Nothing new.

Absurd. Brian's death and its murky circumstances are among the most ignored events in the history of rock. It was an issue for some low quality books with limited circulation, but everywhere else it had been cut off frequently. If the little solid information about it is already too much for you: just stop reading threads about it.

And, uhhh, yeah, of cause, everything about Brian's death is a conspiracy theory!

Conspiracy theories are supposed to give alternative explanations in contrast to those generally accepted. The word is totally wrong in the Brian Jones case, because there is no generally accepted explanation for what had happened, unless you think "death by misadventure" fully explains why someone drowns in a pool.

Quote
filstan
While on his deathbed, Frank Thorogood was said to have told Tom Keylock that he killed Brian in the pool by holding his head under water after flying into a rage about monies that he thought were owed to him by Brian.

His family insists that Frank Thorogood never made a deathbed confession and that Tom Keylock lied about it. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/article554238.ece?token=null&offset=0&page=1 (Thorogood's family speaks out on page 2 of the article.) Anyone who knows a bit about the 60s Stones folklore knows about Keylock's reputation of being a cheap talker.

Quote
Addicted
The police always do their own investigation, never rely on amateur detectives.

The problem is: the Sussex police did an extremly poor job back in 1969. No one will dare to deny that. And the police is not exactly known for their desire to uncover their own faults, even 40 years later and anywhere in the world, I think. So if Sussex police is going to do something in this case, this would be quite a big step.
Fortunately, the Brian Jones death case is getting increasingly the attention it should have received in 1969. After all it didn't work out to let all inconsistencies of this case disappear into the haziness of wrong assumptions like "He had an overdose" or "He had an asthma attack". He didn't die because of that, as had already been proved by the autopsy in 1969. Regardless, some still come around with that.


Sadly (and I hate to say it here), the Stones themselves didn't play the most lucky role in the whole affair.

Keith in 1971, in his famous Rolling Stone magazine interview:

Quote

"We were completely shocked about his [Brian's] death. I got straight into it and wanted to know who was there and couldn't find out. The only cat I could ask was the one I think got rid of everybody and did the whole disappearing trick so when the cops arrived, it was just an accident. [...] But goddamnit, to find out is impossible. And especially with him [Brian] not being officially one of the Stones then, none of our people were in direct contact so it was impossible trying to find out who was around Brian at the moment, who he had there."

Tom Keylock (the "cat" Keith talked about), in his official "Statement Of Witness" to Sussex police on 3 July 1969:

Quote

"I am the Tour Manager for the Rolling Stones and until four weeks ago Brian JONES was a member of that group, but, I continued to look after his interests under the order of Rolling Stones Ltd."

Anyone who saw "The Stones In The Park" knows that the cheap talker in this case isn't Keylock. He worked for the Stones and Keith knew it. But they sacked him after Hyde Park and Brian's funeral. Why? Is it too far out to believe the Stones didn't like the role Keylock played on 2/3 July 1969? I don't think so.

Another Stones official, PR man Les Perrin, acted strangely, too. Together with Keylock he rushed to Cotchford as soon as he heard about Brian's death, arriving there at 3.30 am (3 July) at the latest. Then, he not only walked freely around the ground that the police had declared a crime scene, he even tried openly to interfere with the police investigation by claiming he had found an asthma inhaler, which he handed over to the police, obviously trying to make them believe an asthma attack was the cause of Brian's drowning. But Perrin's most important action in the early hours of 3 July 1969 was to "inform" the London press about Brian's death. He was fast enough for the Daily Mirror's morning issue, and he was faster than the police. Clearly he didn't want to waste any time until the results of an investigation would come in. So he let the press know it was an accident almost immediatly after he arrived at Cotchford (the first press release was marked '3.30 am'); it seems likely he followed an idea he had discussed with Keylock during the 90 minutes drive from London. However, here is proof enough Perrin wanted it to be an accident.
Not the last crafty move by the Stones organisation, who controlled every step of Brian's last girlfriend and official eye witness of the fatal night, Anna Wohlin, from 3 July to 9 July, when she finally was flown out to Sweden, after receiving money from Keylock or Perrin for not returning to the UK and for not talking to the press. When she resurfaced after 30 (yes, thirty) years - needless to say that more than one researcher had unsuccesfully tried to track her down - she explained her long silence as follows: She had been "paralysed by grief and gagged by the Stones' legal team". (source: Mojo, July 1999, p. 11) Why anyone (well, the Stones' organisation, actually) has a reason to silence a witness of an accident is beyond me.

You name it, it wasn't an accident. The three witnesses questioned by the police didn't agree on a lot of things: how they spent the evening leading to Brian's death, who was the first to arrive at the pool to see the body in the water and who was the first one trying to get him out. But they all agreed on one thing: that none of them was there, at the pool, when Brian died. They were all in the house, having conveniently left the scene, when Brian, alone for the first three or so minutes of the whole day, sank for unknown reasons to the bottom of the pool. You must be braindead to believe that.
Mick Jagger says, though:

Quote

"I only know what I was told at the time, which seemed perfectly reasonable."

[Mojo, July 1999, p. 82]

I'd like to know what he was told and by whom, but he will never say anything more. And Bill Wyman, who presents, in his two books, detailed financial information about single shows, bank accounts on a certain day, the exact sums the individual Stones received as guarantee payments in different years etc., doesn't mention with one word what the supposed financial settlement with Brian for leaving the group was, three weeks before his death. There had to be a compensation for Brian for giving up his equal share in Rolling Stones Ltd. and his co-director status. Not a word about it. Instead Bill even brings up the old Les Perrin crap theory about the asthma attack. Pretty pathetic.

Let's hope some action is coming into the whole thing now. It had been long enough. It's time to recognize that the unique musician Brian Jones wasn't a pathetic drug victim, but was viciously murdered. Many Stones fans do not want to hear it, but it's never too late for the truth.



Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 2009-09-03 19:20 by Mock Jogger.

dont worry guys, frank is roasting in hell as we speak

Interesting that there was a press release from Les Perin at 3:30 am regarding Brian's death being an accident. The investigation hadn't even begun. Is Les Perrin still alive?

>>Mock Jagger said:
Let's hope some action is coming into the whole thing now. It had been long enough. It's time to recognize that the unique musician Brian Jones wasn't a pathetic drug victim, but was VICIOUSLY MURDERED! Many Stones fans do not want to hear it, but it's never too late for the truth.>> (emphasis is mine)

Mock, I SOOOO AGREE with everything you said in this post! Thank you for putting it out there! Here's hoping that FINALLY something will be done, that they'll at least do a more thorough look than they did years ago.

"Doctor please, some more men please,
To Cotchford Farm, out by the pool...

What a drag it is they couldn't revive him"

Brian Jones 2/28/42 - 7/2/69

Quote
melillo
dont worry guys, frank is roasting in hell as we speak

Exaxctly...So what is supposed to be gained from all of this....A couple of fanatics get their jollys...and a few more are left twisting in the wind because they can't bring this silly crap up any more?

Great to see Mock Jogger contributing here.

He has good points, even though I would say that both the 'suspectable' actions of Keylock and Perrin can see not as trying to hide a murder, but more of like "let's try to sort this with as low profile and mess as possible" (no matter what happened there). That especially is what PR people are paid for.

But if we really want to stress the interpretation into further THAT direction Mock indicates, well, we have 'some' history of this issue here. Have a look (and one can also take this a sign of warning):

[www.iorr.org]



- Doxa



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2009-09-02 10:56 by Doxa.

Mock Jogger - it's hard to deny that Brian was a pathetic drug victim... But I too believe he was murdered, by Frank Thorogood.

And what about BJ's driver who was attacked and blinded quite soon after his death. Why was she attached and by whom? Has anyone ever been convicted? Was the attack related to his death? I think taken as a whole there are definitely a lot of avenues that could be reinvestigated.

>> The dramatic move by Sussex Police follows new evidence unearthed by The Mail on Sunday
about the mysterious death of the rock legend which suggests he was murdered by his minder. <<

... so is there some new evidence that Thorogood was Brian's "minder" and not a builder?

love and light to Brian, and accuracy to the people reporting on these things

Quote
neptune
Interesting that there was a press release from Les Perin at 3:30 am regarding Brian's death being an accident. The investigation hadn't even begun. Is Les Perrin still alive?

No. Died in 1978.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2009-09-02 23:07 by Gazza.

Quote
Doxa
He has good points, even though I would say that both the 'suspectable' actions of Keylock and Perrin can see not as trying to hide a murder, but more of like "let's try to sort this with as low profile and mess as possible" (no matter what happened there). That especially is what PR people are paid for.

The question I have is how was Les Perrin allowed to influence the investigation to such an extent that he can issue a press release laying down the final judgement on Brian's death in a matter of minutes? The following morning, papers across the world were reporting Brian's death as an accident. Why didn't the media just relay the facts (that Brian was found dead in a pool) rather spread Les Perrin's fabricated account of the events on 7/3/69? It seems that Les Perrins was one hell of a savvy press agent.

Les Perrin was a well-respected man. Did you know him Neptune?

Not that the police are re-opening the investigation...


OLDKR

Quote
Mock Jogger
It's time to recognize that the unique musician Brian Jones wasn't a pathetic drug victim, but was viciously murdered.

So totally true. There was more to Brian than a drug addict.

I'm pretty sick about this whole "junkie-Brian" crap that everybody (who only read two lines about Brian) goes on about. Just look at the comments on youtube. I mean yes he had drug problems but he wasn't high 24/7. There were other issues in his life (psychological & emotional) that made him what he was. Brian was fragile persona with a low self-esteem. the drugs just made it all worse.

I'd say that Mick, Keith, Klein and to some extent Oldham has a lot to do with what Brian became. In 1968 they'd bullied him into a shadow within the band.
I think that Brian's absence at sessions was because he didn't felt welcome. When he decided to actually go he had to drug himself to get the strength to be there. But it all went so totally wrong. The Rolling Stones - Rock n Roll Circus says it all.
The great but sad thing is that everybody who knew him says that he got cleaner and happier during the last months of his life. He had his own place, a girl he loved and plans for a new band. It's so sad that we never got to see the past-RS Brian Jones.

Yes, I know that Brian wasn't an angel. He was a real ass sometimes and I agree that he probably was a hard person to be friends with in some ways. But he needed help, support and rehab - not two nannies in the form of Keylock and Thorogood.

RIP Brian. Your murderer should have been behind bars a long time ago.

Quote
Doxa
I would say that both the 'suspectable' actions of Keylock and Perrin can see not as trying to hide a murder, but more of like "let's try to sort this with as low profile and mess as possible" (no matter what happened there). That especially is what PR people are paid for.

Even if that would be true: we are not talking about misleading some paparazzi into the wrong route of a honeymoon. It was the death of a 27 year old. Even without a crime being the cause it's extremely tasteless to play those PR tricks, just to avoid bad press for the Stones. This could have been avoided with more ease - and much more decency - by just pointing out Brian wasn't in the band anymore. But this argument was only used by Keith in 1971 to give the impression that the fatal events on 2 July 1969 were way out of the Stones' reach. But in fact the Stones were as close as they could be. Their employees Tom Keylock and Les Perrin cared a lot about it all - certainly not because of a private interest. Keylock stated in front of the police, as I quoted before, that he was at Brian's place "under the order of Rolling Stones Ltd." (Chairman of the company at the time: Mick Jagger).

Quote
Addicted
Mock Jogger - it's hard to deny that Brian was a pathetic drug victim...

In life: at times, yes, but not a bigger drug victim than many, many other rockstars. In dying, and that's the point here, he was not a drug victim at all.

Quote
neptune
The question I have is how was Les Perrin allowed to influence the investigation to such an extent that he can issue a press release laying down the final judgement on Brian's death in a matter of minutes? The following morning, papers across the world were reporting Brian's death as an accident. Why didn't the media just relay the facts (that Brian was found dead in a pool) rather spread Les Perrin's fabricated account of the events on 7/3/69? It seems that Les Perrins was one hell of a savvy press agent.

Why Keylock and Perrin were allowed to walk around the scene "inspecting the pool", as Perrin put it himself, one can only guess. Maybe the case was just too big for the provincial Sussex police and they didn't know how to handle the two Stones officials who weren't exactly shy guys.
Manipulating the first press release on Brian's death worked so well for Perrin because he had very good relations to the London press. Both Bill Wyman and Philip Norman mention the fact that the Daily Mirror editor Don Short was "his best friend in newspapers", whom Perrin "alerted" (Bill's words in Stone Alone, p. 630, paperback edition) in the early hours of 3 July in order to get through what he wanted. (Philip Norman worked for the Sunday Times in the 60s, so he knew the scene.)



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2009-09-04 01:17 by Mock Jogger.

Quote
Mock Jogger

Quote
Doxa
I would say that both the 'suspectable' actions of Keylock and Perrin can see not as trying to hide a murder, but more of like "let's try to sort this with as low profile and mess as possible" (no matter what happened there). That especially is what PR people are paid for.

Even if that would be true: we are not talking about misleading some paparazzi into the wrong route of a honeymoon. It was the death of a 27 year old. Even without a crime being the cause it's extremely tasteless to play those PR tricks, just to avoid bad press for the Stones. This could have been avoided with more ease - and much more decency - by just pointing out Brian wasn't in the band anymore. But this argument was only used by Keith in 1971 to give the impression that the fatal events on 2 July 1969 were way out of the Stones' reach. But in fact the Stones were as close as they could be. Their employees Tom Keylock and Les Perrin cared a lot about it all - certainly not because of a private interest. Keylock stated in front of the police, as I quoted before, that he was at Brian's place "under the order of Rolling Stones Ltd." (Chairman of the company at the time: Mick Jagger).

Quote
Addicted
Mock Jogger - it's hard to deny that Brian was a pathetic drug victim...

In life: at times, yes, but not a bigger drug victim than many, many other rockstars. In dying, and that's the point here, he was not a drug victim at all.

Quote
neptune
The question I have is how was Les Perrin allowed to influence the investigation to such an extent that he can issue a press release laying down the final judgement on Brian's death in a matter of minutes? The following morning, papers across the world were reporting Brian's death as an accident. Why didn't the media just relay the facts (that Brian was found dead in a pool) rather spread Les Perrin's fabricated account of the events on 7/3/69? It seems that Les Perrins was one hell of a savvy press agent.

Why Keylock and Perrin were allowed to walk around the scene "inspecting the pool", as Perrin put it himself, one can only guess. Maybe the case was just too big for the provincial Sussex police and they didn't know how to handle the two Stones officials who weren't exactly shy guys.
Manipulating the first press release on Brian's death worked so well for Perrin because he had very good relations to the London press. Both Bill Wyman and Philip Norman mention the fact that the Daily Mirror editor Don Short was "his best friend in newspapers", whom Perrin "alerted" (Bill's words in Stone Alone, p. 630, paperback edition) in the early hours of 3 July in order to get through what he wanted. (Philip Norman worked for the Sunday Times in the 60s, so he knew the scene.)

Again....I don't see any good in dragging this 40 year old story up. What do you want? Do you want Mick Jagger and Keith Richards prosecuted? If so,come out and say it. Otherwise I'm pretty sure all of the principals including Brian's family know what the truth is and aren't going to be consoled or gain any extra peace by dragging this stuff up. Although more than a couple of fanatics might.

Quote
Mock Jogger

Quote
Doxa
I would say that both the 'suspectable' actions of Keylock and Perrin can see not as trying to hide a murder, but more of like "let's try to sort this with as low profile and mess as possible" (no matter what happened there). That especially is what PR people are paid for.

Even if that would be true: we are not talking about misleading some paparazzi into the wrong route of a honeymoon. It was the death of a 27 year old. Even without a crime being the cause it's extremely tasteless to play those PR tricks, just to avoid bad press for the Stones. This could have been avoided with more ease - and much more decency - by just pointing out Brian wasn't in the band anymore. But this argument was only used by Keith in 1971 to give the impression that the fatal events on 2 July 1969 were way out of the Stones' reach. But in fact the Stones were as close as they could be. Their employees Tom Keylock and Les Perrin cared a lot about it all - certainly not because of a private interest. Keylock stated in front of the police, as I quoted before, that he was at Brian's place "under the order of Rolling Stones Ltd." (Chairman of the company at the time: Mick Jagger).

I hear you but I point out that even though it was "extremely tasteless", all we can do is to show them our finger and moralize their actions, but that's all: THIS morally questionable PR work to manipulate the press is NOT a reason to re-open up a police investigation considering a possible murder.

Secondly, you seem to stress very much what Keith Richards says in his famous ROLLING STONE '71 interview. I think it is not clear what he says; he says that "none of our people were in direct contact" - he does not claim that they were not in contact him at all but not in "direct" which leaves open what he means with that. Perhaps he means that they were not contact with him as before when he was a member technically. This leaves the room open for Keylock to "look after his interests" as the man claimed. I don't see Keith denying - nor either stressing - there that "the cat" (Keylock) had connections with The Stones. But what Keith says surely indicates that what Keylock did there was not something to be proud of (as you seem to infer). Perhaps he was not acting according to the mandate given him by The Rolling Stones Ltd. but working by his own, for his own interests? And as we know, he was kicked out after Hyde Park (or did he leave willingly - is there any actual info of their separation?). Was it because if the cat is supposed to look after guy's interests, he is not doing very good job if the guy is dead in two weeks. Does not look good in CV, does it? I think it is psychologically quite understable to get rid of him (and, once again, this has nothing to do with a actual death, not to mention murder.) In the shocked eyes of the Stones Keylock might had Brian's blood in his hands, even though he did not had anything to do directly with Brian's death.

- Doxa



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 2009-09-04 07:06 by Doxa.

Les Perrin and his wife were good and concerned friends to Brian before and after he left the Stones.

First, the big question:

Quote
sweetcharmedlife
What do you want? Do you want Mick Jagger and Keith Richards prosecuted? If so,come out and say it.

It's easy. I want them (including Bill and Charlie) to speak out: What was the financial deal with Brian made on 8 June 1969? What was Brian's compensation for giving up his 1/5 share of Rolling Stones Ltd. and his status as co-director of said company?
Straight answers, no meaningless say nothing political Mick Jagger talk, no "I've already forgotten what I said last minute"- Keith Richards rubbish, no "I'm just the little Charlie and don't know what's the matter", no Bill Wyman presentation of the exact dates and fees of all of their 1963 shows without ONE decent word on the death of the founder of their band. There was enough of that and I think it is time for giving straight answers, like honest men would do. Too much asked for from our heros?

Any answer, like "Brian was supposed to get 100,000 pounds and in August 1969 his father received it from Allen Klein" would be enough for me to end all speculation Brian's death had anything to do with the money situation of the Stones/the Stones management in the summer of 1969.
No answer, like until today, is one of the big factors fuelling the suspicion of a cover-up the Stones know about.
If I had another question for them (just as a bonus), I'd ask when and why they did fire Tom Keylock.

Do I want to see the Stones in court? No, I don't. I want them to seize the opportunity to get out of the whole thing with as much dignity as still possible. But I'm afraid the only place you ever get them talking any sense about Brian's death is actually the witness-stand in a court room and certainly not the next interview with Jann Wenner.


Now, this one again:

Quote
Doxa
THIS morally questionable PR work to manipulate the press is NOT a reason to re-open up a police investigation considering a possible murder.

With all respect: we are talking about a criminal offence. The PR trade's professional associations certainly would not accept someone saying it's their job to interfere in police investigations, especially in death cases. (And if, for some, I don't know, karmic reason, Yoko Ono would decide her husband wasn't murdered, but died in a bicycle accident, we'd enjoy an OT on IORR with at least 169 replies complaining about "that weird b**ch again".)
But you not only make Les Perrin's PR coup more harmless than it actually is, as well you completely isolate this incident from the context; and in the Brian Jones death case you might explain one weird incident in a way it seems - well, not normal, but at least not totally compromising for the involved personnel, if you try very hard. But as soon as you add the next weird incident (and here we are only talking about very few of these incidents, there are certainly much more) you soon realize there is a pattern.
The context is: Tom Keylock and Les Perrin wanted the witnesses to disappear as soon as possible, and they suceeded. (And, no, it is not "taking care" of a young, frightened woman like Anna Wohlin to be controlled not by a lawyer and a doctor after the traumatic events she had to experience, but by a PR man and a bully road manager until she is forced to leave the country by exactly those two men.)
The pattern is: the Stones and especially the people they had in charge wanted it to be an accident, from the first minute on and until today. They never wanted a solid investigation, and they don't want it today. Anyone here who disagrees?


And the last and least:

Quote
stonesrule
Les Perrin and his wife were good and concerned friends to Brian before and after he left the Stones.

Thank you for clearing up the events of 2/3 July 1969!

I disagree.

The Stones and their parents had been through a hell of a lot with the tabloid press throughout the drug trials. Some of you may want to see it all as a cover-up but there were those involved who wanted peace for Brian, his family, the band, etc. There is no doubt that they didn't want to see Anna Wohlin taken prisoner by News of the World etc.

You cannot judge people's motives in 1969 the way one is used to thinking the worst about most everyone at all possible moments today.

Still,if it makes you feel superior or better in some way to believe any nutty thing you want to, rock on!

why would mick want to kill brian?

"The Master mind of Brian's death Mick Jagger"!!!!!!!
Are you totally stupid or just ignorant of the facts of the case?
What a pathetic rant to read on a Sunday morning.The word libel springs to mind.
@#$%&.

Brian was not in a fit state to play with the Stones thats why they switched off his recordings in the studio.Look at the film footage from Beggars Banquet recordings.He was in no state to tour either.
And the beatings he inflicted on Anita Pallenberg....
The drugs destroyed an immense talent,end of.

And the first part of the YOU TUBE clip above is a sick hoax.Some kind of Derek and Clive take of somebodys murder.Very sick indeed.Shame on you who ever did this.

I delated my response to "wildcat" because his/her message - that turned out to be his first and last in this forum - is removed.

- Doxa



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2009-11-22 17:34 by Doxa.