Thanks. I will look into them.

Quote
Rockman


A distressed Marianne Faithfull walking with friends
after the announcement of the death of Brian Jones of
the Rolling Stones, on Cheyne Walk, Chelsea, 3rd July 1969.

The guy on the left looks like Alain Delon

Quote
Mariuana

Quote
georgie48

Quote
paulspendel
Page 1 from a letter one of the builders sent to Frank Thorogood's daughter Jan after the Crime Watch episode in 1994. I will not publish the rest because it will upset Mathijs.

That sounds totally different from what Charlie Watts clearly remembered of the three visiting Brian. I don't think I lost my skills of maths ... Mick, Keith and Charlie makes ... 3.

..

I think the story is, according to this letter, they (Mick and Keith) were visiting Brian again the day before he died. Not that time when three of them came and informed him he was fired.

Okay, thanks for that detail.
So Mick and Keith were "visiting" Brian the day before he died and the name of the band was the issue, right? The Hyde Park concert was announced well before July 1 or 2 as a free Rolling Stones concert. It was costing them money. There was no guarantee for a succesful event that could lift the band "out of the dark". If Brian would have sued them afterwards what could have gone wrong? After his death the band made a financial arrangement with Brian's family which involved (certainly looking back I time) a lot of money "for as long as the band was going on". If Brian would still have been alive my guess is that they would have arranged a similar deal. Apart from "deals" in the very beginning of the band when Brian signed a few times, are there any examples of the others not signing? For instance, when Alan Klein got them a new lucrative contract with DECCA?
I "designed" a T-shirt in 2004 for a special Anniversary event in my country and I needed a written permission not only from the official Rolling Stones, but also from Bill Wyman and the parents of Brian Jones. I got them all. The letter I received on behalf of Brian's parents was even kind of emotional and I still treasure it. Any suggestion of Mick and Keith being involved in anything "dark" causing Brian's death is ludricous.

I'm a GHOST living in a ghost town

There's no question, at least no proof, that Oswald didn't shoot Kennedy. The only question is whether he acted alone. I think his actions after he shot Kennedy from above show he might have been trying to get to a safe house in Dallas.

Brian? It doesn't matter.

Quote
24FPS
There's no question, at least no proof, that Oswald didn't shoot Kennedy. The only question is whether he acted alone. I think his actions after he shot Kennedy from above show he might have been trying to get to a safe house in Dallas...

There is no question about it, he acted alone. Conspiracy theorists that tie him in w/ mob, cia, fbi, mexico, or whatever else ignore one major piece of evidence - Oswald was a complete loner, his only contacts were thru his wife. The lady that was renting a room to him said he never had visitors, never had a call, never went anywhere - came home from work and would sit & watch tv ... he would ask to use the phone once a week, on Thursday evenings to call his wife (as he would come home to stay w/ her on weekends).

Quote
24FPS
Brian? It doesn't matter.

Really?

What I fing really strange, at least from my point of view, is how Frank easily invited people Brian barely knew, into his house. That nurse made it clear she met Brian only once more than a year ago, before she was invited by Frank to stay in Brian's farm. I wonder how many strangers for Brian could have stayed there as well and why? Well I read that Brian's life was a bit chaotic and he was used to people come and stay, but those were people he invited himself. What status, besides a builder, did Frank have on the farm? I can not imagine to hire a builder to make some work on my farm and that builder would invite people to stay at my house.

Quote
georgie48

Quote
Mariuana

Quote
georgie48

Quote
paulspendel
Page 1 from a letter one of the builders sent to Frank Thorogood's daughter Jan after the Crime Watch episode in 1994. I will not publish the rest because it will upset Mathijs.

That sounds totally different from what Charlie Watts clearly remembered of the three visiting Brian. I don't think I lost my skills of maths ... Mick, Keith and Charlie makes ... 3.

..

I think the story is, according to this letter, they (Mick and Keith) were visiting Brian again the day before he died. Not that time when three of them came and informed him he was fired.

Okay, thanks for that detail.
So Mick and Keith were "visiting" Brian the day before he died and the name of the band was the issue, right? The Hyde Park concert was announced well before July 1 or 2 as a free Rolling Stones concert. It was costing them money. There was no guarantee for a succesful event that could lift the band "out of the dark". If Brian would have sued them afterwards what could have gone wrong? After his death the band made a financial arrangement with Brian's family which involved (certainly looking back I time) a lot of money "for as long as the band was going on". If Brian would still have been alive my guess is that they would have arranged a similar deal. Apart from "deals" in the very beginning of the band when Brian signed a few times, are there any examples of the others not signing? For instance, when Alan Klein got them a new lucrative contract with DECCA?
I "designed" a T-shirt in 2004 for a special Anniversary event in my country and I needed a written permission not only from the official Rolling Stones, but also from Bill Wyman and the parents of Brian Jones. I got them all. The letter I received on behalf of Brian's parents was even kind of emotional and I still treasure it. Any suggestion of Mick and Keith being involved in anything "dark" causing Brian's death is ludricous.

Some people love to speculate that Mick and Keith somehow were involved in "murdering" Brian. It's based on false, personal hate and someone's sick fantasies but you can see lots of comments like this on YouTube or elsewhere, which I find ridiculous but they still exist.

Quote
georgie48

The Hyde Park concert was announced well before July 1 or 2 as a free Rolling Stones concert. It was costing them money. There was no guarantee for a succesful event that could lift the band "out of the dark".

Sorry to be a bit off-topic. I don't think there was any doubt for the Stones to make a successful return in Hyde Park. They were just too popular for that..

"If you don't c sharp you'll b flat". - Muhammad Ali.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2022-01-10 14:50 by TheflyingDutchman.

Yes Georgie 48, I follow your reasoning but on the issue of any doubts about a successful Hyde Park concert I think, for once, you are off the mark.

The Stones were very big at that point. They had Jumping Jack Flash, Beggars Banquet and pent up demand for a live appearance behind them. There was no way Hyde Park was going to fail. Young people flocked from all parts of the UK to see them on 5th July. At that point it may have the biggest UK concert crowd ever. The Stones may have been nervous but it was never going to fail and unfortunately the death of BJ just about 48 hours before the concert turned it into a memorial event that could not fail.....even with The Stones playing out of tune!

Quote
2000 LYFH

Paul - Who is this person?

ZIYADEH, Muhajer Yusef Musa: attempted murder of Priscilla Margaret Joan FITZSIMONS on 26 July 1969 in Earnley, West Sussex. Convicted of malicious wounding

He was the legal partner of Fitzsimons. He assaulted her with a rock, spent 4 years in jail and was extradited to his home county Jordan.

Mathijs

I just found this link on the internet:

[discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk]



Note: The naming of a defendant within this catalogue does not imply guilt.


Just to add some fodder to the subject.

Quote
paulspendel
Page 1 from a letter one of the builders sent to Frank Thorogood's daughter Jan after the Crime Watch episode in 1994. I will not publish the rest because it will upset Mathijs.

This is the thing with all those conspiracy theories: the above sounds extremely plausible: Keith and Mick has a reason to kill Brian, so they hired bla bla bla.

But as we have later learned, Brian never hold the legal rights to the name, and the entire business affair of him leaving the Stones was arranged in peaceful agreement with him and the Stones office. So the story is a total load of bollocks.

Mathijs

I think that just like Mick Taylor, Brian Jones was not very smart in dealing with the Glimmers and fame, emotionally. Had Jones claimed the name "Rolling Stones" around the time he started the band, he could have asked a serious amount of money when he got sacked. Of course the band did't expect to last very long in the early days so it likely never popped up in Brians brains, or what was left of it, to do serious business.
Brian very likely was happy to accept the financial offer that was made to him. This doesn't exclude the possibility that just like Mick Taylor, they used to argue and fight every now and then. It could easily have happened as posted above. It adds nothing to any conspiracy theories though. Let's dream on. It's not a nightmare.

"If you don't c sharp you'll b flat". - Muhammad Ali.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2022-01-11 15:15 by TheflyingDutchman.

Quote
Rocky Dijon
Personally, I'm less concerned with the burden of proof than being entertained. If Paul tells me a load of stories about Brian and suggests that the band or those around them behaved like The Corleone Family, I'm interested because it's entertaining. It's the last chance for a shadowy mystique of darkness and danger for a band that most here deride as a Vegas act.

If Mathijs or anyone else cares to debunk the stories, I'm equally interested. Using Mathijs or Doxa as examples, I don't have to agree with their opinions so much as I love reading their passion when stating them. I might think a certain keyboard part is Billy Preston, but someone here is convinced it is Nicky playing clavinet. It makes for interesting reading. I don't distinguish much between conspiracies over Brian or who plays what instrument on a particular track. It's all worthwhile reading because it makes me re-evaluate what I previously thought I knew as fact. It's how the viewpoints are expressed that differ from mine that make visiting here worthwhile.

I don't disagree with the entertainment value of all these pro or contra stories re Brian's death. Probably the above mentioned JFK case is pretty similar, but more it reminds me of UFO, God or other supernatural item discussions, since for certain people it is as important to oppose them as it for the others to defend the existence of them. The passion and urge is mutual in both parties. That's not the case with the recent crazy politically driven internet conspiracy theories, since no sane people feel urged to argue against those (as much as they feel like proving that Santa Claus does not exist).

I'm not totally innocent here. Back in the noughties I spend quite a lot of time in Brian Jones discussion sites (especially LARS), just out of curiosity and I wanted to know more about Brian, and of his view into things, since for example Rolling Stones sites like our IORR were a pretty hostile attitude towards anything Brian-related (and I did learn a lot). There I get to know about these, let's say nicely, 'alternative theories' about Brian's death. There was at the time some 'serious' private investigation going on, pretty much relying on the name issue (Brian supposedly owned the rights for the Stones name) and strongly pointing out to direction that the guilty ones to be found on the group of Thorogood, Keylock, Klein, Mick and Keith. I got involved into heated discussions (pretty one-sided though). Since being a sort of Doubting Thomas among The Believers, and despite trying to be as diplomatic as I ever can be, I caused some rage (to put it mildly). Some of it emerged into IORR as well. To fresh my memory, I just checked the 'legendary' "The Plot Thickens" thread from 2005-2007 (no wonder BV stopped it). I had forgotten that the whole 12 page thread started by someone copypasting LARS poster El's long reply to me at LARS (a bit late, but sorry for that)

Anyway, the whole thing started to go out of my comprehension and I gradually distanced myself from it (finally stopped visiting these Brian Jones sites). It could be that I just got tired, but probably there was more to it: namely, personally the whole idea of speculating from a theoretical point of view that, say, Mick and Keith are involved in the murder of the founder of their band started to be something I didn't find healthy any longer. It could be that I am a way too big Mick and Keith fanboy to be so 'neutral' or 'objective', but the entertainment value was kinda lost for me... I mean, The Stones are many things to me, but probably not an Agatha Christie novel in which everyone is a potential murder suspect.

That said, I still wish all the best for any 'serious' investigation - I am not standing here or anywhere in the way of people trying discover the 'truth' (to redescribe the events by alternative accounts based on different factual evidence), and no matter how unlikely - if not impossible - is really to achieve water-proved results. And go ahead Mathijs, keep shooting 'em down! With Rocky Dijon I take a nice and comfortable backseat and enjoy the show.

And hey, there are some great photos and interesting documents I never seen seen before in this thread!

- Doxa



Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 2022-01-11 17:20 by Doxa.

Quote
LeonidP

Quote
24FPS
There's no question, at least no proof, that Oswald didn't shoot Kennedy. The only question is whether he acted alone. I think his actions after he shot Kennedy from above show he might have been trying to get to a safe house in Dallas...

There is no question about it, he acted alone. Conspiracy theorists that tie him in w/ mob, cia, fbi, mexico, or whatever else ignore one major piece of evidence - Oswald was a complete loner, his only contacts were thru his wife. The lady that was renting a room to him said he never had visitors, never had a call, never went anywhere - came home from work and would sit & watch tv ... he would ask to use the phone once a week, on Thursday evenings to call his wife (as he would come home to stay w/ her on weekends).

Quote
24FPS
Brian? It doesn't matter.

Really?

Yes, really. So maybe a construction guy got rough with Brian and Brian died. And? What would change? Not a damn thing. Brian wasn't a Rolling Stone anymore. Oswald, on the other hand, if the truth could be found, could either expose government mishandling, or perhaps involvement of others. Kennedy's assassination changed the course of history. Brian's didn't.

Quote
24FPS

Kennedy's assassination changed the course of history. Brian's didn't.

Yes it did: Mick Taylor joined the band.

"If you don't c sharp you'll b flat". - Muhammad Ali.

Quote
TheflyingDutchman

Quote
24FPS

Kennedy's assassination changed the course of history. Brian's didn't.

Yes it did: Mick Taylor joined the band.

No it didn't. Mick Taylor had already replaced him a month earlier.

True.

Mathijs writes Ziyadeh was the legal partner of Fitzsimons. Wrong. She divorced Harry Fitzsimons in 1968 and was single in 1969. Ziyadeh wasn’t sent to prison as Mathijs writes, but to an asylum. Furthermore he wasn’t sent back to Jordan, he never lived there and originated from Jerusalem. He was sent to another country within the common wealth community. So much for Mathijs’ wrong information. Or, as he likes to put it according to his limited choice of words: bollocks.

Quote
paulspendel
Mathijs writes Ziyadeh was the legal partner of Fitzsimons. Wrong. She divorced Harry Fitzsimons in 1968 and was single in 1969. Ziyadeh wasn’t sent to prison as Mathijs writes, but to an asylum. Furthermore he wasn’t sent back to Jordan, he never lived there and originated from Jerusalem. He was sent to another country within the common wealth community. So much for Mathijs’ wrong information. Or, as he likes to put it according to his limited choice of words: bollocks.

I agree. I never believe anything Mathijs writes on here. He just likes to hear himself talk. A lot of BS on his posts

Quote
paulspendel

MZiyadeh wasn’t sent to prison, but to an asylum.

Out of curiosity: What's the difference in this very case ?

"If you don't c sharp you'll b flat". - Muhammad Ali.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2022-01-13 11:23 by TheflyingDutchman.

Quote
Kingbeebuzz
Yes Georgie 48, I follow your reasoning but on the issue of any doubts about a successful Hyde Park concert I think, for once, you are off the mark.

The Stones were very big at that point. They had Jumping Jack Flash, Beggars Banquet and pent up demand for a live appearance behind them. There was no way Hyde Park was going to fail. Young people flocked from all parts of the UK to see them on 5th July. At that point it may have the biggest UK concert crowd ever. The Stones may have been nervous but it was never going to fail and unfortunately the death of BJ just about 48 hours before the concert turned it into a memorial event that could not fail.....even with The Stones playing out of tune!

The things you mention are all in place (correct), but the Stones were very uncertain. BB is a great album, but at the time it didn't sell "as expected" (look at f.i. GasLightStreet's data). Especially Mick was concerned. Brian was (even though he had messed up his life) still very popular among Stones fans (diehard countries like Germany and Holland among others). Let It Bleed's cover is a clear example. It's Mick T., but could be Brian ...
For you and me off course the Stones "couldn't fail", but the band themselves felt very uncertain.
I dare to say that Hyde Park was "bigger" than big due to Brian's death (even though I decided last minute not to go out of sadness ..)

But let's be happy. The Stones are still there and Brian rolls along with them ...

I'm a GHOST living in a ghost town

Quote
georgie48

Quote
Kingbeebuzz
Yes Georgie 48, I follow your reasoning but on the issue of any doubts about a successful Hyde Park concert I think, for once, you are off the mark.

The Stones were very big at that point. They had Jumping Jack Flash, Beggars Banquet and pent up demand for a live appearance behind them. There was no way Hyde Park was going to fail. Young people flocked from all parts of the UK to see them on 5th July. At that point it may have the biggest UK concert crowd ever. The Stones may have been nervous but it was never going to fail and unfortunately the death of BJ just about 48 hours before the concert turned it into a memorial event that could not fail.....even with The Stones playing out of tune!

The things you mention are all in place (correct), but the Stones were very uncertain. BB is a great album, but at the time it didn't sell "as expected" (look at f.i. GasLightStreet's data). Especially Mick was concerned. Brian was (even though he had messed up his life) still very popular among Stones fans (diehard countries like Germany and Holland among others). Let It Bleed's cover is a clear example. It's Mick T., but could be Brian ...
For you and me off course the Stones "couldn't fail", but the band themselves felt very uncertain.
I dare to say that Hyde Park was "bigger" than big due to Brian's death (even though I decided last minute not to go out of sadness ..)

But let's be happy. The Stones are still there and Brian rolls along with them ...

Sounds like we’re a similar age Georgie48 (is 48 your birth year ? Don’t answer that!). I went to an all night party instead of Hyde Park !

Quote
Kingbeebuzz

Quote
georgie48

Quote
Kingbeebuzz
Yes Georgie 48, I follow your reasoning but on the issue of any doubts about a successful Hyde Park concert I think, for once, you are off the mark.

The Stones were very big at that point. They had Jumping Jack Flash, Beggars Banquet and pent up demand for a live appearance behind them. There was no way Hyde Park was going to fail. Young people flocked from all parts of the UK to see them on 5th July. At that point it may have the biggest UK concert crowd ever. The Stones may have been nervous but it was never going to fail and unfortunately the death of BJ just about 48 hours before the concert turned it into a memorial event that could not fail.....even with The Stones playing out of tune!

The things you mention are all in place (correct), but the Stones were very uncertain. BB is a great album, but at the time it didn't sell "as expected" (look at f.i. GasLightStreet's data). Especially Mick was concerned. Brian was (even though he had messed up his life) still very popular among Stones fans (diehard countries like Germany and Holland among others). Let It Bleed's cover is a clear example. It's Mick T., but could be Brian ...
For you and me off course the Stones "couldn't fail", but the band themselves felt very uncertain.
I dare to say that Hyde Park was "bigger" than big due to Brian's death (even though I decided last minute not to go out of sadness ..)

But let's be happy. The Stones are still there and Brian rolls along with them ...

Sounds like we’re a similar age Georgie48 (is 48 your birth year ? Don’t answer that!). I went to an all night party instead of Hyde Park !

Yeah, we have similar memories
I had planned to take the train to Hoek van Holland on the 4th, catch the night boat to Harwich, and from there the early morning train to London. It was a painful decision not to go, but that is part of ones emotion. Regrets? Historically maybe yes, but emotionally no. With Mick doing his speech and Brian's great photo at the background, I would have had wet eyes most of the time. But ... I made it up with a great 2013 Hyde Park concert! (Among 80 mostly great other concerts )
Maybe we run into eachother this year ...

I'm a GHOST living in a ghost town

Tom Keylock's four daughters putting on the thumbscrews...

Quote
paulspendel
Tom Keylock's four daughters putting on the thumbscrews...

Wow! The adorable side of murder.

From my personal archive.

Quote
georgie48

Quote
Kingbeebuzz
Yes Georgie 48, I follow your reasoning but on the issue of any doubts about a successful Hyde Park concert I think, for once, you are off the mark.

The Stones were very big at that point. They had Jumping Jack Flash, Beggars Banquet and pent up demand for a live appearance behind them. There was no way Hyde Park was going to fail. Young people flocked from all parts of the UK to see them on 5th July. At that point it may have the biggest UK concert crowd ever. The Stones may have been nervous but it was never going to fail and unfortunately the death of BJ just about 48 hours before the concert turned it into a memorial event that could not fail.....even with The Stones playing out of tune!

The things you mention are all in place (correct), but the Stones were very uncertain. BB is a great album, but at the time it didn't sell "as expected" (look at f.i. GasLightStreet's data). Especially Mick was concerned. Brian was (even though he had messed up his life) still very popular among Stones fans (diehard countries like Germany and Holland among others). Let It Bleed's cover is a clear example. It's Mick T., but could be Brian ...
For you and me off course the Stones "couldn't fail", but the band themselves felt very uncertain.
I dare to say that Hyde Park was "bigger" than big due to Brian's death (even though I decided last minute not to go out of sadness ..)

But let's be happy. The Stones are still there and Brian rolls along with them ...

I can only underline that. Of course the Stones must have felt very uncertain. Back then, it was not the Mick'n'Keith show yet. Brian was tremendously popular amongst Stones fans and I'm not making things up to suggest that they lost a sizable amount of fans after the split with Brian. To what degree even the Stones themselves could not be sure at the time.

In the early 70's, I witnessed more often than not people claiming: "I don't listen to the Stones anymore because of how they treated Brian." My rationale that the Stones sacked Brian to get functional again and to save the band's future didn't always gain friendly replies to say the least!

What you see today with people like Paul Spendel and others from LARS (like Doxa already mentioned) are just the remnants of the iceberg that once existed of people whose love for the Stones turned into hate.

My love for the Stones didn’t turn into hate. A wrong assumption from retired_dog. I just collect documents regarding Brian’s death. Why would that make me hostile towards the Stones?

Quote
paulspendel
From my personal archive.

Fantastic bit of photo-history...did you acquire this, or when you say 'personal', does that mean you took the photo?