Quote
Bassid6
Daughtery, perhaps!

Thanks for your fascinating input. What's an FFS?

I have to admit to a weakness for this kind of crap. I'm not concerned about who murdered Brian, if anyone. He was just such a strange, ethereal person that he fascinates, period. A true Pisces, swimming in cross directions. He's very much like Buddy Holly to me, in that I knew nothing about them when they were alive, and only discovered them by going backward and digging out info about them. Brian seems to lack anyone close to him willing to come forward and speak about him. One minute you think he's an idiot and then you hear him speak and you realize he was pretty sharp. You think he was a complete jerk and then you see him tell the TV host to shut up and let Howlin' Wolf play and you get some respect for him.

Thank you B!

Quote
24FPS

Quote
Bassid6
Daughtery, perhaps!

Thanks for your fascinating input. What's an FFS?

I have to admit to a weakness for this kind of crap. I'm not concerned about who murdered Brian, if anyone. He was just such a strange, ethereal person that he fascinates, period. A true Pisces, swimming in cross directions. He's very much like Buddy Holly to me, in that I knew nothing about them when they were alive, and only discovered them by going backward and digging out info about them. Brian seems to lack anyone close to him willing to come forward and speak about him. One minute you think he's an idiot and then you hear him speak and you realize he was pretty sharp. You think he was a complete jerk and then you see him tell the TV host to shut up and let Howlin' Wolf play and you get some respect for him.

For F's sake?...

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
24FPS

Quote
Bassid6
Daughtery, perhaps!

Thanks for your fascinating input. What's an FFS?

I have to admit to a weakness for this kind of crap. I'm not concerned about who murdered Brian, if anyone. He was just such a strange, ethereal person that he fascinates, period. A true Pisces, swimming in cross directions. He's very much like Buddy Holly to me, in that I knew nothing about them when they were alive, and only discovered them by going backward and digging out info about them. Brian seems to lack anyone close to him willing to come forward and speak about him. One minute you think he's an idiot and then you hear him speak and you realize he was pretty sharp. You think he was a complete jerk and then you see him tell the TV host to shut up and let Howlin' Wolf play and you get some respect for him.

For F's sake?...

What's that?

- Doxa

Quote
Doxa

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
24FPS

Quote
Bassid6
Daughtery, perhaps!

Thanks for your fascinating input. What's an FFS?

I have to admit to a weakness for this kind of crap. I'm not concerned about who murdered Brian, if anyone. He was just such a strange, ethereal person that he fascinates, period. A true Pisces, swimming in cross directions. He's very much like Buddy Holly to me, in that I knew nothing about them when they were alive, and only discovered them by going backward and digging out info about them. Brian seems to lack anyone close to him willing to come forward and speak about him. One minute you think he's an idiot and then you hear him speak and you realize he was pretty sharp. You think he was a complete jerk and then you see him tell the TV host to shut up and let Howlin' Wolf play and you get some respect for him.

For F's sake?...

What's that?

- Doxa

LOL! Still hungover after you birthday. Congrats, btw!

Quote
DandelionPowderman
LOL! Still hungover after you birthday. Congrats, btw!

Thanks! Hmm.. a bit of 'slow' day today, since I spent most of yesterday 'afterpartying', and got myself back home to Tampere from Helsinki not until the evening... Trying to work now is a bit hard...

- Doxa

*



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-10-25 13:18 by Bassid6.

*



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-10-25 13:18 by Bassid6.

Quote
Bassid6
Brian was absolutely brilliant. However, Brilliance without direction is quite deadly.

True as it can be.

But thank you very much for providing the info about Brian's post-life matters. Sounds very convincing, and, actually, common-sensical (there is alwys so much wild quesses and speculations going on). I don't dare to even suggest how you get to know all that...

- Doxa

*



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-10-25 13:17 by Bassid6.

Quote
Bassid6
Bastardette may be a fitting name for me

There are those of us in this particular thread who absolutely do need to take "time off" from this board in order to tend to their cults and to write complete fantasy and fiction. And, do , please, order your minions to not write silly letters to Brian's Bastards about their parentage, who their siblings are and who they are not, what is and what is not when you absolutely have no flipping clue about diddley sqaut. Sorry, I just had to mention that.

OK, I am finished now!

It's possible everyone in this thread wonders if you are talking about them.

Finished! I was hoping you were just getting warmed up...

Quote
Doxa

Quote
Bassid6
Brian was absolutely brilliant. However, Brilliance without direction is quite deadly.

True as it can be.

But thank you very much for providing the info about Brian's post-life matters. Sounds very convincing, and, actually, common-sensical (there is alwys so much wild quesses and speculations going on). I don't dare to even suggest how you get to know all that...

- Doxa

OK, I'll bite!

Quote
Bassid6
I'm giving my money to greedy bastards who want to make money off of a dead one.

I love that sentence (although I have bought such books...)!

Nice to see you here B.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-10-01 17:17 by tonterapi.

*



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-10-31 01:33 by Bassid6.

Quote
Bassid6
I really am so sorry. Most everyone here is absolutely delightful, I just felt as if I should speak up about things.

When people talk out of their arses and spin intricate yarns (and cause touble in people's personal lives for no valid reason other than an agenda), you generally can see that. When one speaks truthfully and honestly, intelligent individuals can see that as well. Apply this as you will to the individuals speaking on this particular thread.

I don't mind being called bastard. You could call me the dreaded C word and I wouldn't even flinch! I probably am, at times.

Bassid 6
Barbara

Brian's bastards really don't give a flying fvck at a rolling doughnut about the royalties anyway. The Jones' can take them and shove them right up their Jonesly arses. They all do well, Brian's kids, and they don't particularly need anything.

I totally understand it, the kiddies got royally screwed, but the bitterness is evident and has been displayed by you elsewhere. You DO give a flying fvck and I hope that eases with time. The living Jones are not Brian, just DNA associates like we all have to contend with by the accidents of our birth.

And so -

Back to the topic that started this thread off: the telegram! How off-topic this got straight away, such a shame as, IF TRUE, this telegram is in great support of how Bill and Keith have usually portrayed Brian's relationship with the Stones after the split. Great artifact, what?

Quote
Mock Jogger

Quote
2000 LYFH
BTW, what was the final results of Trevor Hobley's investigation a few years ago? Or is it still ongoing?

In January 2009 Trevor/his lawyer/his detectives presented a 83 page dossier (obviously an abstract of more material) to the Sussex police. A few weeks before he stated on a Q&A thread on a (shortlived) Brian Jones fanboard: "Not only am I completely satisfied with our results but the team I have around me are too." Trevor's answers may give an impression of the issues Trevor and his team were concerned with and how they dealt with them. Here's the link: [www.createforum.com] (Trevor's user name is "editorbjfc"; he shows up after a first round of questions.)














----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hey Mock, remember me from LARS? I was James Phelche. I just clicked on the link you posted here and through this link have just learned of Gerry's passing. Very sorry to hear. I remember how she used to sharply reprimand me when discussions became heated and I became combative toward other posters, but I remember also how Gerry valued my input. Remember how in 2008 one of Brian's former girlfriends began posting there? Dawn Molloy. Then, soon after, the site crashed...or was crashed. At first I thought it might have been someone from Stones Inc. who didn't like all the conspiracy theories we were throwing around there regarding Brian's probable murder, but more likely it was that angry Lotus Couch guy who ran his own Stones fan site from Long Island who objected to what was being posted on LARS about his fan site, and maybe he found a way to hack in and crash the site. I dunno. What do you think? Was the cause of the site crashing ever determined? Well, glad you are still carrying on with a new incarnation of LARS. Gerry was a very dedicated moderator and it is a fitting tribute to her that you should continue on. She even met Brian once, didn't she? I re-registered there in 2009 as JP, but never got around to posting. Perhaps I'll visit once again and chat with you there. You were always such a knowledgeable poster on LARS, and seeing your posts here in this IORR thread led me to recall several thought-provoking discussions from years past. Cheers!

Bassid 6,Barbara ?

Quote
stonesnow
Hey Mock, remember me from LARS? I was James Phelche.

Of course I do. Great to know you are around here!

Quote
stonesnow
I just clicked on the link you posted here and through this link have just learned of Gerry's passing. Very sorry to hear. I remember how she used to sharply reprimand me when discussions became heated and I became combative toward other posters [...]

Yes, sadly Gerry died in September 2010. She had suffered from ill health for a while.

Quote
stonesnow
Then [...] the site crashed...or was crashed. At first I thought it might have been someone from Stones Inc. who didn't like all the conspiracy theories we were throwing around there regarding Brian's probable murder, but more likely it was that angry Lotus Couch guy who ran his own Stones fan site from Long Island who objected to what was being posted on LARS about his fan site, and maybe he found a way to hack in and crash the site. I dunno. What do you think? Was the cause of the site crashing ever determined?

The technical support said it looked as someone crashed it intentionally. (It even happened two times.) Stones Inc.? Gerry once told the funny story how a secretary of Keith wrote her an e-mail in the late 1990s because Keith complained about being treated not as kind as he would have liked on LARS. But that was when discussion boards on the net were quite new. Hard to believe Stones Inc. cared a lot about what a few dozens of Brian Jones fans in 2008 said about his death - all in all in a quite unstructured manner. So your second guess is probably closer to the truth. I can't remember the guy you are talking about; but I learned from my short - and I must admit: not very intense - period as a board (co-)moderator there were some really strange people around in "Jonesville", as they called it. I'm not talking about people who write postings I don't agree with or something like that, but for example there was a fellow who impersonated Gerry by using an e-mail-address looking very close to hers. And that guy tried to get my password for the moderator section (with an almost insultingly stupid trick) - as if we were exchanging state secrets or something. Pretty weird. (He tried tricks on others as well - he must have spent many, many hours on that. What for? I don't know.)

Quote
stonesnow
Well, glad you are still carrying on with a new incarnation of LARS. Gerry was a very dedicated moderator and it is a fitting tribute to her that you should continue on. She even met Brian once, didn't she? I re-registered there in 2009 as JP, but never got around to posting. Perhaps I'll visit once again and chat with you there. You were always such a knowledgeable poster on LARS, and seeing your posts here in this IORR thread led me to recall several thought-provoking discussions from years past. Cheers!

That "new" LARS is dead for a long while now. I was surprised myself it's still online. Some of my former moderator colleagues carried on to relive the "old" LARS - but it seemed pretty dead the last times I visited. (I wish them all the best, though.) There is a rival board founded by Jones fans who thought LARS was too die hard pro Jones or something. They decided to not discuss Brian's death because it was "not part of his life" (no joke!) - but this board called "Censored From Our Minds" appeared not very active, too, over the last months. And there is a third board, Trevor Hobley's fanclub board, that - surprise, surprise - doesn't seem to have a lot going on as well. So when in 2007 there was one Brian Jones fanboard that was alive and kicking, now there are three that are dead or half dead.
My old critic Doxa once sort of challenged the idea of Jones boards, for after all Brian had been a band musician all his life - there is some truth in it. However, here, in this thread and in others, until now at least, I can express my views (as seldom as I show up here) in a way that on Brian Jones boards regulary led to the wildest reactions (not that I had a problem with it - I always loved it getting heated, not unlike the old LARS' very own James Phelche) - here people seem to disagree, agree, follow their own associations deriving from the original topic; a very civil discussion board, actually. I must admit that I didn't really expect it that way.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Pushing you in puddles/In the dead of night/Beware of ABKCO"
George Harrison, early Beware Of Darkness version (1970)

Quote
Mock Jogger

Quote
stonesnow
Hey Mock, remember me from LARS? I was James Phelche.

Of course I do. Great to know you are around here!

Quote
stonesnow
I just clicked on the link you posted here and through this link have just learned of Gerry's passing. Very sorry to hear. I remember how she used to sharply reprimand me when discussions became heated and I became combative toward other posters [...]

Yes, sadly Gerry died in September 2010. She had suffered from ill health for a while.

Quote
stonesnow
Then [...] the site crashed...or was crashed. At first I thought it might have been someone from Stones Inc. who didn't like all the conspiracy theories we were throwing around there regarding Brian's probable murder, but more likely it was that angry Lotus Couch guy who ran his own Stones fan site from Long Island who objected to what was being posted on LARS about his fan site, and maybe he found a way to hack in and crash the site. I dunno. What do you think? Was the cause of the site crashing ever determined?

The technical support said it looked as someone crashed it intentionally. (It even happened two times.) Stones Inc.? Gerry once told the funny story how a secretary of Keith wrote her an e-mail in the late 1990s because Keith complained about being treated not as kind as he would have liked on LARS. But that was when discussion boards on the net were quite new. Hard to believe Stones Inc. cared a lot about what a few dozens of Brian Jones fans in 2008 said about his death - all in all in a quite unstructured manner. So your second guess is probably closer to the truth. I can't remember the guy you are talking about; but I learned from my short - and I must admit: not very intense - period as a board (co-)moderator there were some really strange people around in "Jonesville", as they called it. I'm not talking about people who write postings I don't agree with or something like that, but for example there was a fellow who impersonated Gerry by using an e-mail-address looking very close to hers. And that guy tried to get my password for the moderator section (with an almost insultingly stupid trick) - as if we were exchanging state secrets or something. Pretty weird. (He tried tricks on others as well - he must have spent many, many hours on that. What for? I don't know.)

Quote
stonesnow
Well, glad you are still carrying on with a new incarnation of LARS. Gerry was a very dedicated moderator and it is a fitting tribute to her that you should continue on. She even met Brian once, didn't she? I re-registered there in 2009 as JP, but never got around to posting. Perhaps I'll visit once again and chat with you there. You were always such a knowledgeable poster on LARS, and seeing your posts here in this IORR thread led me to recall several thought-provoking discussions from years past. Cheers!

That "new" LARS is dead for a long while now. I was surprised myself it's still online. Some of my former moderator colleagues carried on to relive the "old" LARS - but it seemed pretty dead the last times I visited. (I wish them all the best, though.) There is a rival board founded by Jones fans who thought LARS was too die hard pro Jones or something. They decided to not discuss Brian's death because it was "not part of his life" (no joke!) - but this board called "Censored From Our Minds" appeared not very active, too, over the last months. And there is a third board, Trevor Hobley's fanclub board, that - surprise, surprise - doesn't seem to have a lot going on as well. So when in 2007 there was one Brian Jones fanboard that was alive and kicking, now there are three that are dead or half dead.
My old critic Doxa once sort of challenged the idea of Jones boards, for after all Brian had been a band musician all his life - there is some truth in it. However, here, in this thread and in others, until now at least, I can express my views (as seldom as I show up here) in a way that on Brian Jones boards regulary led to the wildest reactions (not that I had a problem with it - I always loved it getting heated, not unlike the old LARS' very own James Phelche) - here people seem to disagree, agree, follow their own associations deriving from the original topic; a very civil discussion board, actually. I must admit that I didn't really expect it that way.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mock - wish you would post over here more often. Lot's of great people, but of course not every one will agree with everything said...



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-10-22 20:19 by 2000 LYFH.

Quote
24FPS
Brevity is the soul of posting.

I feel the devil rising again.

Quote
tonterapi
Mick's concern for him that seems to have been genuine, Keith letting Brian stay at Redlands, both showing up at the trial and the guilt that sometimes shines through in interviews made with them over the years. They must have felt that it got out of hand when it's very clear nowadays that the second bust was what broke Brian down.
As late as in 67 Mick called Brian "the best musician in the band" in an italian TV-interview. They had a very @#$%& up relation towards each other no matter what's true.

You name it. To me it seems most likely that their feeling that something "went out of hand" is the basis for Mick and Keith's obvious unease when it comes to Brian - all their contradictions from past to presence, the feeble, but existing signs of support in 1968 (after the bust), the way they try to ignore him, the way they put him down to this day, and the way they (occasionally) pay (Mick) or paid (Keith) tribute to him: all that fits perfectly to such a feeling of guilt for a person they once (shortly) idolized, then - for a longer period - saw as a necessary, but annoying tool, and finally as an unneeded bystander who still caused problems for them (and bigger ones than ever before). They didn't want him to die, and they didn't want his death to stop their careers.

Quote
Doxa
Interesting, and somehow within the realms of imagination, thoughts about 1967, Mock.

More like within the realms of things that had actually happened.
I'd be - seriously, Doxa - interested in your interpretation of the Flowers cover and the We Love You promo film. You said: "Little kicks towards Brian's direction." Little kicks? Come on! Now, "intentional slight on him" (His Majesty) still puts it pretty mildly. Redhotcarpet saying it was "among the most digusting attempts at putting someone down in public" seems more adequate to me. However strong the words to describe the put-down, the key word here is indeed "intentional". This was not an outburst. Album covers and promo films do not just happen because someone forgot his better self from one second to the next. This was planned. From this - and a comparison to a drug confession interview by McCartney and the other Beatles' reactions to that - I came to the conclusion that after two escalating steps of putting Brian down even further escalation coming from Mick and Keith was plausibel. This I backed up again by two other factors: the generally accepted presumption the drugs that were found in Brian's apartment were planted and News Of The World journalist Trevor Kempson's statement he thinks it was coming from "someone in the Stones' organization" - most likely not Shirley Arnold and not the cleaning woman. That's not a proof. But a "rather wild guess", as Doxa described it, is something else. It's not proved the Redlands bust was initiated by the News Of The World, as well - but it seems the most likely explanation, just like in the case of Brian's second bust nothing seems more likely than it was the result of a power fight within the Stones.

Quote
Doxa
There is some counter evidence that I think does not quite fit to your story. Immediately after Brian's death, it was reported that Brian already wanted to quit the band in 1967, but Jagger spoke him over it, since he was too important imagewise.

A valid point; because of it I hesitated before I draw my final conclusion. First off: I think we can be pretty sure it's true Jagger stopped him leaving the band in 1967. Bill says in Stone Alone, strangely distanced: "It had been mooted as a possibility two years earlier, but Mick was said to have been against Brian's departure". (p. 621) And Brian said so himself, in that last Bravo interview: "Two years ago I wanted to leave, but Mick talked me out of it."
[www.iorr.org] (Indeed a very interesting source posted by His Majesty.)

Quote
Doxa
Without any evidence I have related Brian's wish to leave after the Anita disaster in Morocco, and before the European tour that took place quite soon.

That seems the most likely scenario. And this would explain why Mick was strongly against it. There was no plan B for the Stones (and for Mick as well) - Brian leaving before the 1967 tour probably would have been the end of the Stones. Of course Mick didn't want that. Doxa explained how after the tour Mick's and especially Keith's profile was strengthened by the drug trial. But it usurped a lot of time as well. When the drug trial was over, they needed to get their act together to release a new single and finally a new album. Still, it was good to have Brian around - and probably Mick already sensed that in case the psychedelic experiment would not open new horizons but would be a failure, it was better if it had been done with Brian. Satanic really wouldn't have been the best kick-off for the new Stones that were to become completely synonymous with the two names "Jagger-Richards". Beggars was certainly much more suitable for this and since Mick was a pretty smart guy, he was at least instinctively aware of that. I don't think Jagger-Richards needed as long as you think to create their own Stones-model. It was close to realization shortly before they started with Beggars.

Mick and Keith felt in early 1968 they didn't need Brian anymore. Their problem was Brian didn't share that feeling, still chatting happily about the Stones' ideas and visions and their place in the music scene in interviews up until his second bust. If Brian had just been quiet in the corner, strumming some guitar, sometimes playing harmonica or organ (like he did after the bust, but then without reliability), there would not have been a problem and no need for Mick and Keith to get rid off him. But Brian still had ideas for the band - according to Michael Lindsay-Hogg it was him suggesting the face paintings on the JJF promo film, he wanted Child Of The Moon as A-side and not JJF (and let everybody know), he is definitely a visual challenge for both Mick and Keith (and for any other rockstar on earth) in the JJF shooting, in the studio he obviously got in conflicts about exotic instrumentation and other forms of musical experimentation when Mick and Keith didn't want that anymore, at the same time he was, at times, unpredictable in showing up or not - star attitudes Mick and Keith considered increasingly as being reserved for themselves.
All this fuelled their desire to get Brian out of the Stones. But they noticed Brian didn't see the signs they had shown him again and again - so what was needed next was something that left no room for speculation on Brian's side and caused severe problems for him. It was obvious that the one and only thing Brian really didn't take well was the 1967 bust; everything else - the drugs, the financial problems, being a social outcast, his shrinking power within the band, his bad relations to Mick and Keith, even Anita's move - he actually took with much more ease than is generally considered, because in retrospect his death overshadows the time before in the thinking of many people.

Quote
Doxa
[...] and still then they [the remaining Stones] left the door open if he would come back some day, when his departure was announced.

This was obviously meant for the public. Compare the Bravo report with the official "Brian is leaving the Stones" statements; this part as well as that with their ongoing "friendship": the official statement is the usual PR talk to create an image, while the Bravo report, obviously quite spontaneous, paints a different picture. Doxa, you seem, as strange as it is for such an analytical mind, naive when it comes to "official" statements. They are always intended to paint a certain picure. That's what they are there for. That's not saying they have to be wrong. But it's not their idea to say nothing but the truth. They have a function and they serve their masters. Always they do, for good or worse.
What do you need for a realistic picture of the atmosphere between Brian and the Stones from May to July 1969, Doxa?
We have the Bravo report.
We have Helen Spittal remembering how Brian said, when talking about the Hyde Park free concert, he'd be the only one they would charge in case he would attend.
We have Mary Hallett remembering his reaction to Mick's bust in May 1969: "Brian was laughing like a drain when he heard the news on the radio. 'Someone must have put poor ole Mick up,' he said to me. 'Mick wouldn't keep any drugs in his house.'" (Rawlings, Who Killed Christopher Robin, p. 143-144)

Brian wasn't only on the receiving side; at least he thought. It's very likely he wanted to play his aces. Leaving the second most successful band in the world when holding 20% of its shares together with a post as director and possibly even parts or even the complete band name: that's the best basis for the deal of your life you can dream of. (He spoke in the Bravo interview about his desire of becoming rich.) But Brian had the least favourable position to realize it.

He had no support from his old band mates or anyone else in the business, be it musicians, lawyers or journalists. Look how careful Mick planned his/the Stones' departure from Klein, starting on 3 July 1969 and taking, the first phase at least, more than a year (until 30 July 1970). And Brian?
He tried to get it all done within weeks. And he had no Rupert Lowenstein, no Alan Dunn, no Leslie Perrin, no functioning band behind him - but disloyal people with a criminal background who were, as one of them said himself, "looking after" him (Keylock, Thorogood, the other builders - always around at his house). Being located in a far off country house, surrounded by criminals instead of caring friends or family, having a preference to take late night swims in a pool surrounded by nothing but trees and bushes - and having the reputation of being Britain's most notorious drug taker: this was Brian's position when he challenged a business manager who as a matter of routine gathered information about everyone he had to deal with and did not only know what he needed to know about Brian's character, habits, public and private image (he had known him for four years), Brian's personnel (he paid them) and his house (he had provided the money for it), but was well acquainted with the complete repertoire of Mafia methods. This constellation could not end not deadly for Brian.



**************************************************************************

Quote
Erik_Snow
It's pathetic with these people like [...] the thread-starter, hiding behind an alias, yet excpecting people from the inner circle to reveal details from their private lives [...]

"The thread-starter" - that's got to be me, right? I do not expect people from the inner circle to reveal details from their private lives, never did, never will. It's great your name's for real, it would be greater if you'd use the chance to discuss what I really said. That's what a discussion board is about, right? For reading genuine names a phone book will do as well.

Quote
Bassid6
That's just par for the course when it comes to Brian. All of the "Brian was murdered" books are the same thing - hand in the biscuit jar. When you drink morning, noon and night for years, you have a tendency to black out and pass out. You pass out in bars, in toilets, face down in steaming piles of shit and, yes, you pass out in your own pool. But see, "drunken bastard who passes out in his own pool and dies" doesn't make any money. "Musical genius murdered in his pool" certainly does. That's why I have never read any of those silly books. I'm giving my money to greedy bastards who want to make money off of a dead one.

Those books certainly didn't make a lot of money. And, honestly, I don't get what's wrong with trying to earn money with a book. Nothing is wrong with it (as nothing is wrong with trying to earn money by giving a concert or releasing an album) - what's wrong with those books is that they are bad. Badly written, badly researched. Some contain interesting material - some interesting interviews, some documents you've got to know if you want to discuss Brian's death. (If you don't want to discuss it, fine. But strange however how some with no knowledge at all believe their prejudices make them look smarter than those who know at least some basic facts of this pretty complicated case.)

Quote
courtfieldroad
Back to the topic that started this thread off: the telegram! How off-topic this got straight away, such a shame as, IF TRUE, this telegram is in great support of how Bill and Keith have usually portrayed Brian's relationship with the Stones after the split.

How do you come to that conclusion? It's actually in complete contrast to Keith saying Brian had nothing to do with the Stones anymore after the split - just take a look at my opening post.


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Pushing you in puddles/In the dead of night/Beware of ABKCO"
George Harrison, early Beware Of Darkness version (1970)

Quote
2000 LYFH
Mock - wish you would post over here more often. Lot's of great people, but of course not very one will agree with everything said...

Thanks for the nice words. Only, if I'd post more often I had to reduce the size of my posts severely, I guess.
Not agreeing with everything: that's why we are here, right? Everything else would be the most boring thing.


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Pushing you in puddles/In the dead of night/Beware of ABKCO"
George Harrison, early Beware Of Darkness version (1970)

Quote
Mock Jogger

Quote
Erik_Snow
It's pathetic with these people like [...] the thread-starter, hiding behind an alias, yet excpecting people from the inner circle to reveal details from their private lives [...]

"The thread-starter" - that's got to be me, right? I do not expect people from the inner circle to reveal details from their private lives, never did, never will. It's great your name's for real, it would be greater if you'd use the chance to discuss what I really said. That's what a discussion board is about, right? For reading genuine names a phone book will do as well.

Oops, sorry, no I was wrong there. It wasn't you, it was 2 of the other posters here....don't wanna mention their names to flame things up again, but it's easy to see who I meant. So....take no offense



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 2012-12-18 02:13 by Erik_Snow.

*



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-10-25 13:16 by Bassid6.

Mock, thanks so much for your thoughtful response. As you recall, I used to present the argument that the likely murder of Brian was carried out at the behest of the Stones themselves (Keith and Mick). My first introduction to the controversy surrounding Brian's death was a 2005 Uncut feature on the movie Stoned, where Tom Keylock had been hired as a 'technical consultant'. Since Keylock worked for The Stones and Keith in particular, I assumed a chain of command leading back to Keith, mainly because in latter-day interviews Keith made it so easy to assume as such, what with his cold, dismissive tone toward Brian. I even stopped listening to The Stones for a couple of years out of righteous indignation (I listened to The Pretty Things to fill the void). But of course as Keith himself remarked to Mick on the topic of the latter's attempt to break away from The Stones with a solo career, "You can't toss away something like The Rolling Stones."

In recent years, I have changed my view and am now in agreement with the view that you hold, that the murder was carried out at the behest of Allen Klein. It would make sense in that he would save the sum of money he would have had to pay out per the terms of Brian's dismissal, because with Klein money was not only everything, it was the only thing that mattered. It was obviously premeditated, in the way that Keylock orchestrated the press on the following day and in the way Thorogood and his builders made off with Brian's possessions that same day--they did it because they knew they were going to be protected. No way was Thorogood's 'manslaughter' an accident of the moment--the theft of Brian's possessions alone speaks volumes of the deep contempt they held for him, not to mention a certain cold-bloodedness on their part.

Also, I recall posting on LARS a newspaper story, which I can't locate online these days, where Brian's handyman mentions that there was no 'party' that night. The handyman was a retired policeman [perhaps you recall the man's name?] who states that he was preparing to leave work at Cotchford that night and called up to the second floor where Brian was, asking him if he would be needing anything else, and that Brian had answered, in perfect sobriety, that no, he would be fine and would see him tomorrow. The handyman gives the time of this exchange as ten minutes past ten--hardly time enough for Brian to get so out of it on drugs and alcohol as to be drowning in his own pool twenty minutes, or an hour and twenty minutes, later....

Hope you'll post here again soon, Mock. Since LARS and its successor site are defunct, are you posting on any other boards as well? Looking forward to further discussions with you.

With best regards,

stonesnow
(James Phelche)

Of all the theories that abound, the Klein / Keylock connection seems most plausible.
Still, I'm sure even Klein would grin at the notion Jones could / would have presented
a tight-locked legal case for screwing with The Stones machine in any way.

It's either that or accidental death.

Some asshat at a blog supposedly authored by Sam Cutler this year commented that he / she
met with Jones' mother Louisa in The '70s in Ontario ( of all places ) and she confirmed to that
person that her son was murdered but that the truth was stranger than fiction. Add to that a
comment that Jones was not incapacitated in any way at 10pm that night and no party was in
play, so there's no way that the events as described in official transcripts jibe with reality.
Whatever, it's more hearsay.

At this point in time, I find it extremely disingenuous for anyone to crawl out of the woodwork
and boast of knowing damning evidence regarding this case, particularly now that many of the
main alleged conspirators are dead, save The Stones themselves, whom of course are included
in the ever-growing list of suspected parties. I've never thought for one second those guys
were capable of covering up such an act for so many years. For many reasons, to blame
The Glimmers outright is ridiculous.

Quote
TheDailyBuzzherd
Of all the theories that abound, the Klein / Keylock connection seems most plausible.
Still, I'm sure even Klein would grin at the notion Jones could / would have presented
a tight-locked legal case for screwing with The Stones machine in any way.

It's either that or accidental death.

Some asshat at a blog supposedly authored by Sam Cutler this year commented that he / she
met with Jones' mother Louisa in The '70s in Ontario ( of all places ) and she confirmed to that
person that her son was murdered but that the truth was stranger than fiction. Add to that a
comment that Jones was not incapacitated in any way at 10pm that night and no party was in
play, so there's no way that the events as described in official transcripts jibe with reality.
Whatever, it's more hearsay.

At this point in time, I find it extremely disingenuous for anyone to crawl out of the woodwork
and boast of knowing damning evidence regarding this case, particularly now that many of the
main alleged conspirators are dead, save The Stones themselves, whom of course are included
in the ever-growing list of suspected parties. I've never thought for one second those guys
were capable of covering up such an act for so many years. For many reasons, to blame
The Glimmers outright is ridiculous.

It has been stated (well, in the book Who Killed Christopher Robin? by Terry Rawlings) that Keylock had an older brother who was well placed in the London CID network, so the murder might not have occurred if they could not have been assured of the protection of a cover-up from such high places. People named in the case are protected from public disclosure by a specific classified UK government document that will not see the light of day until around 2040, so certainly someone in the higher echelons of the British law enforcement hierarchy had intervened to cover the truth from being revealed.

The point is, WHY kill him. WHY risk unforeseen outcomes. WHY bait people
and not spill? All hearsay. Pop stars were not dangerous enough to Brit
society to force a killing for any reason. Separate, disenfranchise, destroy.
Nope. Not buyin'.

Yes, there are documents, just as in the JFK case. Even then, half the docs
will be redlined anyway, just as Bush did with the global warming docs, LoL.

Jeez. Brian had already been paid off in settlement, right? So why kill him? What's the motive? Kill him before he gets the bread.

Quote
TheDailyBuzzherd
The point is, WHY kill him. WHY risk unforeseen outcomes. WHY bait people
and not spill? All hearsay. Pop stars were not dangerous enough to Brit
society to force a killing for any reason. Separate, disenfranchise, destroy.
Nope. Not buyin'.

Yes, there are documents, just as in the JFK case. Even then, half the docs
will be redlined anyway, just as Bush did with the global warming docs, LoL.

Apparently The Stones were considered enough of a menace for the MI5 to enlist the aid of the FBI in setting up the Redlands bust, as revealed in Philip Norman's recent bio....

Quote
24FPS
Jeez. Brian had already been paid off in settlement, right? So why kill him? What's the motive? Kill him before he gets the bread.

Exactly. That way Allen Klein saves a bundle of money--nearly the equivalent of a million dollars by today's equivalent, per year.

Brian hadn't actually been paid off--yet. The payment agreement was due to commence on Monday July 3--but he conveniently died just before midnight, on July 2, rendering the payment agreement null and void.