Tell Me :
Talk
Don't refer too much to Daily Mail. They are known to be very sensational. Frank's daughter would say anything to clear her father (understandable, but still ...). How far away was she? She probably read about Keith smashing a knife in a table in front of Michael Cohl (in connection with Donald Trump) and wow, here we have a story. No, something to ignore.
The fight was referenced in the Scaduto book.
Knife scene and Brian jumping into the Redlands moat.
"The Stoned ramblings of Marianne Faithfull".... according to some reviewers.
Scaduto had written a very good bio on Dylan, but with his Jagger book he seemed to be looking for sleaze first and the music a poor second.
Not how I took it at all. I'm not a Keith apologist. I'm not a fan of much of LIFE apart from the childhood chapters. However, the bit in the book is about Frank's alleged deathbed confession only. Keith says:
"I'm always wary of deathbed confessions because the only person there is the person he's supposed to have said it to, some uncle, daughter, or whatever. 'On his deathbed, he said he killed Brian.' Whether he did or not I don't know....But when somebody says, 'I did Brian,' at the very most I'd put it down to manslaughter. All right, you may have pushed him under, but you weren't there to murder him."
A bit similar to the manuscript Mick wrote in the 1980s. It had references to organized crime controlling the record industry and concert tours. The report at the time was the manuscript had too much space devoted to his normal middle class upbringing, not enough space devoted to the Stones or their scandals, and too much focus on the business side of the industry (like the mob bit) that couldn't be printed. From that perspective, VINYL seems a further outgrowth of how Mick looks back at these things.
Keith has a point there. Also, it was Keylock who "was at Frank's deathbed" and it appears that Keylock is appointed a mean suspect where it comes to investigations said to be initiated by Alan Klein. Anyway, whe're dealing here with a clear case of "where there is smoke, there must be fire". No fire, no need to hide anything, no need to be afraid.
You said many pages back that three identified builders were to blame for Brian's murder. Are you now saying they were in the employ of this London gangster, via Tom Keylock?
What was Brian's connection with this gangster? Did he owe him money?
How did Tom Keylock launder money for this gangster? Did he invest criminal proceeds in legitimate businesses or property on behalf of this gangster?
There was a fire apparantly, a short time after Brian died. A bonfire of some of Brian's possessions. In the garden.
What exactly needed burning? What was there to hide?
Talk about your favorite band.
For information about how to use this forum please check out forum help and policies.
Re: New Documentary on the Death of Brian Jones
Posted by:
paulspendel
()
Date: December 21, 2019 21:14
Keith wanted to open up in Life about the triangle Chelsea Drugs Squad / London gangsters / Rolling Stones. His lawyers strongly advised against it and he obeyed.
Re: New Documentary on the Death of Brian Jones
Posted by:
paulspendel
()
Date: December 21, 2019 21:24
When the Stones played Hyde Park in 2013 the Daily Mail ran a story about Keith and Brian and the rumoured knife fight in 1969. The Daily Mail had a lot more stuff and the Stones lawyers and Daily Mail lawyers met backstage. That meeting turned really ugly.
Re: New Documentary on the Death of Brian Jones
Posted by:
georgie48
()
Date: December 21, 2019 23:32
Quote
paulspendel
When the Stones played Hyde Park in 2013 the Daily Mail ran a story about Keith and Brian and the rumoured knife fight in 1969. The Daily Mail had a lot more stuff and the Stones lawyers and Daily Mail lawyers met backstage. That meeting turned really ugly.
Don't refer too much to Daily Mail. They are known to be very sensational. Frank's daughter would say anything to clear her father (understandable, but still ...). How far away was she? She probably read about Keith smashing a knife in a table in front of Michael Cohl (in connection with Donald Trump) and wow, here we have a story. No, something to ignore.
Re: New Documentary on the Death of Brian Jones
Posted by:
Rockman
()
Date: December 21, 2019 23:42
Heck wait till she reads the one about
Keith havin complete blood change five times or was it six
ROCKMAN
Keith havin complete blood change five times or was it six
ROCKMAN
Re: New Documentary on the Death of Brian Jones
Posted by:
Taylor1
()
Date: December 22, 2019 00:34
I’m sure he didn’t waive a knife at anybody.And I doubt he would know how to use it
Re: New Documentary on the Death of Brian Jones
Posted by:
jlowe
()
Date: December 22, 2019 01:27
Quote
paulspendel
When the Stones played Hyde Park in 2013 the Daily Mail ran a story about Keith and Brian and the rumoured knife fight in 1969. The Daily Mail had a lot more stuff and the Stones lawyers and Daily Mail lawyers met backstage. That meeting turned really ugly.
The fight was referenced in the Scaduto book.
Knife scene and Brian jumping into the Redlands moat.
"The Stoned ramblings of Marianne Faithfull".... according to some reviewers.
Scaduto had written a very good bio on Dylan, but with his Jagger book he seemed to be looking for sleaze first and the music a poor second.
Re: New Documentary on the Death of Brian Jones
Posted by:
georgie48
()
Date: December 22, 2019 17:26
Quote
Rockman
Heck wait till she reads the one about
Keith havin complete blood change five times or was it six
Re: New Documentary on the Death of Brian Jones
Posted by:
paulspendel
()
Date: December 22, 2019 18:31
When Crimewatch was aired in 1994, researching Brian's death, Frank's nephew Darryl was watching. He decided to write Frank's daughter Jan a letter.Frank was dead by then. I have a copy of this letter. It decribes a row, as told by Frank to Darryl between Brian, Mick and Keith at Cotchford farm on July 2 1969. Jan already knew about this row from her father. She contacted a DCI at Sussex Police. Her statement is in my possession. This DCI decided to set up a meeting with the Stones lawyers in New york to ask about this incident. However, the Sussex superindendent intervened and cancelled the meeting. Last year I asked the superintendent why and she said she couldn't even remember handling this high profile case. When Keith in Life talks about Brian's death and all the floating theories he says something like "...any daughter of anyone could come up with a statement'.In my view a clear reference to Frank's daughter.He must have known about her making the claim. The only way Keith could have known in 2005 this statement was there, was through his lawyers, because this information wasn't in the public domain at that moment. My conclusion? An incident happened and both the lawyers and the police have a reason to not open up that can of worms.
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2019-12-22 18:32 by paulspendel.
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2019-12-22 18:32 by paulspendel.
Re: New Documentary on the Death of Brian Jones
Posted by:
DGA35
()
Date: December 22, 2019 22:43
Hi Paul, were the Stones not in the studio the night Brian passed? I've read and seen interviews where, after they heard the news and wondered if they should stop for the night, Mick said,"No it goes on". But shortly after they packed up because no one felt like continuing.
Re: New Documentary on the Death of Brian Jones
Posted by:
Rocky Dijon
()
Date: December 22, 2019 23:26
Quote
paulspendel
When Keith in Life talks about Brian's death and all the floating theories he says something like "...any daughter of anyone could come up with a statement'.In my view a clear reference to Frank's daughter.He must have known about her making the claim. The only way Keith could have known in 2005 this statement was there, was through his lawyers, because this information wasn't in the public domain at that moment. My conclusion? An incident happened and both the lawyers and the police have a reason to not open up that can of worms.
Not how I took it at all. I'm not a Keith apologist. I'm not a fan of much of LIFE apart from the childhood chapters. However, the bit in the book is about Frank's alleged deathbed confession only. Keith says:
"I'm always wary of deathbed confessions because the only person there is the person he's supposed to have said it to, some uncle, daughter, or whatever. 'On his deathbed, he said he killed Brian.' Whether he did or not I don't know....But when somebody says, 'I did Brian,' at the very most I'd put it down to manslaughter. All right, you may have pushed him under, but you weren't there to murder him."
Re: New Documentary on the Death of Brian Jones
Posted by:
Rocky Dijon
()
Date: December 22, 2019 23:33
Quote
paulspendel
Keith wanted to open up in Life about the triangle Chelsea Drugs Squad / London gangsters / Rolling Stones. His lawyers strongly advised against it and he obeyed.
A bit similar to the manuscript Mick wrote in the 1980s. It had references to organized crime controlling the record industry and concert tours. The report at the time was the manuscript had too much space devoted to his normal middle class upbringing, not enough space devoted to the Stones or their scandals, and too much focus on the business side of the industry (like the mob bit) that couldn't be printed. From that perspective, VINYL seems a further outgrowth of how Mick looks back at these things.
Re: New Documentary on the Death of Brian Jones
Posted by:
georgie48
()
Date: December 23, 2019 00:23
Quote
Rocky DijonQuote
paulspendel
When Keith in Life talks about Brian's death and all the floating theories he says something like "...any daughter of anyone could come up with a statement'.In my view a clear reference to Frank's daughter.He must have known about her making the claim. The only way Keith could have known in 2005 this statement was there, was through his lawyers, because this information wasn't in the public domain at that moment. My conclusion? An incident happened and both the lawyers and the police have a reason to not open up that can of worms.
Not how I took it at all. I'm not a Keith apologist. I'm not a fan of much of LIFE apart from the childhood chapters. However, the bit in the book is about Frank's alleged deathbed confession only. Keith says:
"I'm always wary of deathbed confessions because the only person there is the person he's supposed to have said it to, some uncle, daughter, or whatever. 'On his deathbed, he said he killed Brian.' Whether he did or not I don't know....But when somebody says, 'I did Brian,' at the very most I'd put it down to manslaughter. All right, you may have pushed him under, but you weren't there to murder him."
Keith has a point there. Also, it was Keylock who "was at Frank's deathbed" and it appears that Keylock is appointed a mean suspect where it comes to investigations said to be initiated by Alan Klein. Anyway, whe're dealing here with a clear case of "where there is smoke, there must be fire". No fire, no need to hide anything, no need to be afraid.
Re: New Brian Jones film
Posted by:
Bliss
()
Date: December 26, 2019 14:37
Quote
paulspendel
Hi Georgie48,it’s probably because I’m tired but you lost me.
The real and untold reason why Brian died is because he crossed the line with a London gangster. Tom Keylock was his money laundry man and both Tom and the gangster were protected by Wallace Virgo of Scotland Yard.
You said many pages back that three identified builders were to blame for Brian's murder. Are you now saying they were in the employ of this London gangster, via Tom Keylock?
What was Brian's connection with this gangster? Did he owe him money?
How did Tom Keylock launder money for this gangster? Did he invest criminal proceeds in legitimate businesses or property on behalf of this gangster?
Re: New Brian Jones film
Posted by:
Nikkei
()
Date: December 26, 2019 15:03
Keylock did it close the thread
Re: New Brian Jones film
Posted by:
paulspendel
()
Date: December 26, 2019 17:19
In 1999 interviewing by Woolley for Stoned started. I have an hour long tape of an interview with Janet Lawson and Tom Keylock in a Bicester hotel room. Keylock admits he laundred money for Billy Hill, a London gangster who shaped the Krays. Billy was known for his extreme violence and was protected by Wallace Virgo, head of the Scotland Yard murder squad. Brian liked Billy’s wife who was nicknamed Gypsy Hill. Brian gave her an Ossie Clarke dress and Billy thought Brian was making a pass at her. Word got out Brian was easy game and whatever they did to him: Virgo would back them up. Keylock boasted about the protection he go through Billy going straight to the top of the Yard. The builders Frank Thorogood and John Betsworth and Maurice ‘Mo’ Tucker felt secure enough by Tom’s contacts to start harrassing Brian which eventually ended bad. Remember, it was the last fight that killed Brian, there had been many more at Cotchford. A Sussex Police complication was that Mo Tucker was a Chichester Police informant. Under UK Law a Police informant can’t be a witness in court so they had to drop the investigation, also personally forced by Virgo
Re: New Brian Jones film
Posted by:
paulspendel
()
Date: December 26, 2019 17:29
Alongside what happened as described in my previous post Tony Sanchez was grassing up on Brian in 1969. Things were really looking bad. Tom knew about Tony grassing up on Brian’s use of drugs and also this development contributed to Brian becoming a victim with no expectations.
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2019-12-26 17:33 by paulspendel.
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2019-12-26 17:33 by paulspendel.
Re: New Brian Jones film
Posted by:
Nikkei
()
Date: December 26, 2019 17:42
if it's that easy and you have the tape, you could go on the news with that. but you don't
Re: New Documentary on the Death of Brian Jones
Posted by:
Rocky Dijon
()
Date: December 26, 2019 19:15
It's about Brian. Whether it's speculation, rumor, gossip, conspiracy, or outright fiction - it's worth discussing or there wouldn't be people continuing to post on the thread. If you don't like a thread, ignore it.
Re: New Documentary on the Death of Brian Jones
Posted by:
Nikkei
()
Date: December 26, 2019 19:22
yeah i'm sort of interested in that tape though
Re: New Documentary on the Death of Brian Jones
Posted by:
jlowe
()
Date: December 26, 2019 20:59
Quote
georgie48Quote
Rocky DijonQuote
paulspendel
When Keith in Life talks about Brian's death and all the floating theories he says something like "...any daughter of anyone could come up with a statement'.In my view a clear reference to Frank's daughter.He must have known about her making the claim. The only way Keith could have known in 2005 this statement was there, was through his lawyers, because this information wasn't in the public domain at that moment. My conclusion? An incident happened and both the lawyers and the police have a reason to not open up that can of worms.
Not how I took it at all. I'm not a Keith apologist. I'm not a fan of much of LIFE apart from the childhood chapters. However, the bit in the book is about Frank's alleged deathbed confession only. Keith says:
"I'm always wary of deathbed confessions because the only person there is the person he's supposed to have said it to, some uncle, daughter, or whatever. 'On his deathbed, he said he killed Brian.' Whether he did or not I don't know....But when somebody says, 'I did Brian,' at the very most I'd put it down to manslaughter. All right, you may have pushed him under, but you weren't there to murder him."
Keith has a point there. Also, it was Keylock who "was at Frank's deathbed" and it appears that Keylock is appointed a mean suspect where it comes to investigations said to be initiated by Alan Klein. Anyway, whe're dealing here with a clear case of "where there is smoke, there must be fire". No fire, no need to hide anything, no need to be afraid.
There was a fire apparantly, a short time after Brian died. A bonfire of some of Brian's possessions. In the garden.
What exactly needed burning? What was there to hide?
Re: New Documentary on the Death of Brian Jones
Posted by:
wonderboy
()
Date: December 26, 2019 21:09
I remember when my uncle in Ireland died the family burned a lot of his belongings, not wanting to go through his personal writings and really giving him some final privacy.
Not saying it would be exactly like that with Brian, but burning his stuff was probably just saying, he's gone, he drowned, here's the rest of it. Goodbye.
Not a fan of conspiracy theories in general, and believe that at worst his death was probably misadventure. His life was a mess, he was very sick, he was hanging around dopey people; at worst they were clowning around and he went under. And then of course they all fled.
As far as him being around underworld types, the Stones were operating in the world of nightclubs, record companies and drugs, which would be three businesses in which there was a lot of cash laundering and illegal activity.
Not saying it would be exactly like that with Brian, but burning his stuff was probably just saying, he's gone, he drowned, here's the rest of it. Goodbye.
Not a fan of conspiracy theories in general, and believe that at worst his death was probably misadventure. His life was a mess, he was very sick, he was hanging around dopey people; at worst they were clowning around and he went under. And then of course they all fled.
As far as him being around underworld types, the Stones were operating in the world of nightclubs, record companies and drugs, which would be three businesses in which there was a lot of cash laundering and illegal activity.
Re: New Documentary on the Death of Brian Jones
Posted by:
Nikkei
()
Date: December 26, 2019 22:08
this is all fun and games but has anyone ever so much as entertained the idea that the Stones themselves had Brian "taken care of"? i'll see myself out
Re: New Documentary on the Death of Brian Jones
Posted by:
Bliss
()
Date: December 26, 2019 22:51
When we all first saw Performance, many thought the segments showing the gangsters were boring and out of place compared to 1960s culture and rock'n'roll. They seemed so old-fashioned, so uncool, so unevolved, it was hard to understand why they were so prominent in the film. But as wonderboy points out, the Stones were intimately entwined with that world, professionally as he described, and personally in having close r'ships with both Tom Keylock and Spanish Tony. Drugs was a big factor.
But like owning a mean breed of dog, there's a high probability that one day your criminal associates will turn on you.
But like owning a mean breed of dog, there's a high probability that one day your criminal associates will turn on you.
Re: New Documentary on the Death of Brian Jones
Posted by:
Rocky Dijon
()
Date: December 26, 2019 22:58
Of course it's been suggested, Nikkei. It's madness, but that's conspiracies much of the time. If Brian was going to hold the band up over ownership to the name, he likely wouldn't have participated in the b.s. press release about not agreeing with their musical direction when he was let go. A kid naming a band after a Muddy Waters song, but failing to trademark the name on his own is hardly defensible claim for ownership. I don't even think one member of a band can trademark the band's name and own it over the others.
Additionally, Brian was let go so they could tour again and make some much-needed money. Brian couldn't tour physically. He couldn't tour legally. Mick Taylor was already in the band. Why would they possibly have wanted to kill Brian? A deliberate attempt to sabotage Hyde Park and the TV special? These theories never make sense to anyone but Brian's most ardent fans who have never forgiven the band for existing without him.
Now, conspiracies of accidental death by resentful working class goons, or Brian owing money he couldn't repay, or Brian crossing a mob figure, or Brian having his rights stolen by a manager or some such because he was on the outs with his family - now there you've got conspiracy speculation that will spin a bit longer. Certainly more interesting than he had an asthma attack, or an epileptic fit, or just passed out because he was under the influence.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2019-12-26 22:58 by Rocky Dijon.
Additionally, Brian was let go so they could tour again and make some much-needed money. Brian couldn't tour physically. He couldn't tour legally. Mick Taylor was already in the band. Why would they possibly have wanted to kill Brian? A deliberate attempt to sabotage Hyde Park and the TV special? These theories never make sense to anyone but Brian's most ardent fans who have never forgiven the band for existing without him.
Now, conspiracies of accidental death by resentful working class goons, or Brian owing money he couldn't repay, or Brian crossing a mob figure, or Brian having his rights stolen by a manager or some such because he was on the outs with his family - now there you've got conspiracy speculation that will spin a bit longer. Certainly more interesting than he had an asthma attack, or an epileptic fit, or just passed out because he was under the influence.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2019-12-26 22:58 by Rocky Dijon.
Re: New Documentary on the Death of Brian Jones
Posted by:
jlowe
()
Date: December 27, 2019 01:21
I have always had the view that Brian was worth more dead than alive, maybe I am naive?
I mean he was due a substantial severance payout and a reasonable secure annual income as part of the settlement.
He would also have had the continual trappings of any wealthy pop star (technically broke, but not really), girls, drugs, booze a nice country home etc. Why spoil the party?
I mean he was due a substantial severance payout and a reasonable secure annual income as part of the settlement.
He would also have had the continual trappings of any wealthy pop star (technically broke, but not really), girls, drugs, booze a nice country home etc. Why spoil the party?
Re: New Documentary on the Death of Brian Jones
Posted by:
Rocky Dijon
()
Date: December 27, 2019 02:38
If he was due to receive a substantial payout (as opposed to simply sharing in ongoing financial participation), it wouldn't end with his death - it would go to his heirs. Murdering him would not prevent anything. Now if one could prove something such as a manager or agent being his beneficiary, then you'd have a murder mystery worth pursuing. Since such info has never surfaced, I suspect his family received his royalty payments going forward.
I suppose the only wriggle room would have been if Brian was playing hardball suggesting he deserved more and making noise about suing all and sundry. If that was the case, why would he play nice with the press release over their split just a few weeks before? Not really likely from that perspective. Also, folks like Alexis Korner or Pete Townshend would likely have indicated that he said something of the sort to them. Most people going through an ugly split tell their friends about it. Someone would have said something.
I suppose the only wriggle room would have been if Brian was playing hardball suggesting he deserved more and making noise about suing all and sundry. If that was the case, why would he play nice with the press release over their split just a few weeks before? Not really likely from that perspective. Also, folks like Alexis Korner or Pete Townshend would likely have indicated that he said something of the sort to them. Most people going through an ugly split tell their friends about it. Someone would have said something.
Re: New Documentary on the Death of Brian Jones
Posted by:
Nikkei
()
Date: December 27, 2019 02:50
my take was more in the direction of trying to build up a legend on purpose, but it's a trifle too satanic
Re: New Documentary on the Death of Brian Jones
Posted by:
Taylor1
()
Date: December 27, 2019 03:06
CouldBrian could have claimed he owned the rights to the band name Rolling Stones?Any legal experts who can answer that?Why couldn’t he have formed his own band and called it the Stones?
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2019-12-27 03:08 by Taylor1.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2019-12-27 03:08 by Taylor1.
Re: New Documentary on the Death of Brian Jones
Posted by:
Rocky Dijon
()
Date: December 27, 2019 04:20
He could have if Brian was a founding member and none of the other members in 1969 were founding members, but Mick and Keith (and Stu) were in the band when Brian selected the name. Nothing was formalized (not even under Giorgio Gomelsky) until they signed with Eric Easton and Andrew Oldham. Then the band existed contractually and Stu was edged out as a member. At that point, Brian was simply one of five. His "naming" them meant nothing legally since it had not been formalized in any fashion that it was his intellectual property.
Re: New Documentary on the Death of Brian Jones
Posted by:
georgie48
()
Date: December 27, 2019 10:14
I haven’t seen a document with the signatures of the five members, only one with Brian’s signature (recording deal that was?). How about the timing of adding the g to rollin’? Was that a spontanious decision or “a clever move” by Oldham/Easton?
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.
Online Users
CaptainAcid , danicarton , eibert , gimme_shelter , guyrachel , likearollingstone , martinw , Spud , Stoney1962
Guests:
1816
Record Number of Users:
206
on June 1, 2022 23:50
Record Number of Guests:
9627
on January 2, 2024 23:10