I am a stones fan, have been for over 20 years, so I have as much right to be here as any Keith fan. I have passed Trevor's message on here for your information. I don't have all the answers and again, I am not the one doing the investigation...even if I had all the answers I wouldn't disclose it on a message board, just as the police don't broadcast to the public all their evidence before bringing in the killer. Nor do I have to prove anything to you.
Don't expect all the answers now. But in due time.




with sssoul Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> i'm also puzzled by a few other things - why
> anyone would think a group of professionals at the
> Stones' level at that point would leave something
> like the question of the rights to the band's name
> up in the air >(i would imagine that question was
> spelled out legally years before Brian left);



It wasn't up in the air. Remember Brian wanted to quit, remember he was the founder of the band. Things may not have been hunky-dory between him & the stones in those final weeks...perhaps this led to some disagreement over the name. We do know Brian was happy in those last few weeks. Not depressed. He was also terrified for the 2 days before his death.




> and
> why three people would hold anyone's head under
> water if that person had been drugged or killed
> inside the house.
>

Maybe because they wanted it to appear he had drowned at a party, and rendering him unconscious first would make that far easier to carry out and seem like a natural or accidental death. They certainly didn't want to have any evidence of a violent murder or trauma to the body, that would be sloppy.
Brian did not use heroin either, unlike certain other stones.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2005-11-18 01:23 by Miss U..

No heroin, but truckloads of pills & lyserg-stuff, right?
As I got it, Keith got in to H after Brian´s death.

Here we go again. See my earlier quote from Anna. How people stick to these ideas...when it has nothing to do with his murder.

Here is another post from Trevor today on LARS:


I appreciate everybody's concern about being careful and for the need to make copies of my dossier. It's a fact that in the past, one person known to me has been severely beaten for questioning what happened back in '69 and that another of our witnesses, and his family, have been seriously threatened during brief telephone calls from persons unknown on at least two occasions. This on top of the numerous suspicious deaths of people associated with Brian and the apparently un-associated suicides that we've discovered (one, as annotated as to the cause of death in 1974, from an accidental overdose of sleeping pills!and apparently, I was advised, one would have to take up to 100 pills to cause death) have made me acutely aware of what myself and others might experience.

Prior to last November I began to realise the amount of information I've collated and the sensitivity of some of the statements and the possible implications if some of the information were to reach the public domain via newspapers, magazines and the internet etc. On the 1st November 2004 we carried out the initial forensic examination at Cotchford Farm (incidentally with the incredible co-operation of Mr and Mrs Johns to whom I'm extremely grateful for all their help and positive assistance in all of my research) and it was during that long day that the detective accompanying the forensic scientist expressed an interest in my research. Through his subsequent finite evaluation of my research, over the following weeks, the company agreed to take the case on.
At a later meeting the possible personal implications of what we discovered were discussed and I was advised that copies be made and kept with certain people/organisations, and to make any media company interested in the on-going situation, aware of the fact that the dossier was shared.

As you might recall, the first time I went public was earlier this year with Uncut magazine. Although, with the sensitivity of their work the forensic company did not want their name, location or operatives identified publicly, they did however advise me to refer to their involvement as Ex-senior Thames Valley and Metropolitan police officers and ex-Home Office scientists with a UK cold case and forensic organisation. This has been an on-going trend as you might have seen in the subsequent newspaper and magazine articles that I've contributed to over this past year. The point being that if, God forbid, anything were to happen to me then it would only highlight and draw intense media interest to the case as the investigation would be on-going, ensured by this extremely professional organisation. Also, a London based lawyer has a DVD copy of the dossier.

It's not that I have the bravado or gall to ignore any implications, in fact in reality I'm a bit of a wimp, but I took this research on and it has to be my responsibility to step up to the plate.

I´ve read Wohlin-Lindsiöö´s book from start to finish.
I agree it seems no doubt Brian was on his way up.
...Still; thats exactly where people passively or actively (mainly the
latter) commit suicide - when they seem to get along.
I come from Suicide City; a terrible number of youngsters born about
1963-1972 in my birth town killed themselves, in particular
in the 1980´s (when they were about 25 years of age).
It doesnt make me an expert, but I´m familiar with the
phenomenon to a scary extent. Not that I think Brian did it.
At least not as an aware act.

I admire your diggin yet I´m not into it.
But for sure I want & I will go see Cotchford;
as well as (maybe in a later trip to GB ) Cheltenham.


CHELTENHAM´S COOLEST DUDE
(intented to post this last nite, but due to some techichal
mumbojumbo I didnt succeed then... )

There are NO facts, only rumours, doubts and meanings, that couldn't be proved, and never ever will be. Period.

Just forget about it. It doesn't seem to be healthy to worry about the death of this ******, when I look at Miss U. and the other moron, Trevor.

> It wasn't up in the air. Remember Brian wanted to
> quit, remember he was the founder of the band.
> Things may not have been hunky-dory between him
> & the stones in those final weeks...perhaps
> this led to some disagreement over the name. We
> do know Brian was happy in those last few weeks.
> Not depressed. He was also terrified for the 2
> days before his death.

Keith used H. before Brian died (dabbled in 1968 and got heavy in early 1969) but that has nothing to do with Brian except he probably got deeperinto H out of guilt for stealing his depressed mates girl. It's not a crime but of course you feel guilty. Brian was not happy. Happy is not what you can call Brian Jones. He was probably lighthearted and a bit stunned and like I said on an upward spiral like most people who have given in are. It's common. He tried to take his own life in 1967 after Anita. I'm not putting him down at all.

"There are NO facts, only rumours, doubts and meanings, that couldn't be proved, and never ever will be. Period.

Just forget about it. It doesn't seem to be healthy to worry about the death of this ******, when I look at Miss U. and the other moron, Trevor."

What doesn't seem healthy to me is to have such an unbelievably closed mind. Who made you such an expert in the circumstances of his death? If Brian's mother and father are supporting this "moron" Trevor then isn't that worthy of some respect?

>> It wasn't up in the air. <<

well ... since it wasn't up in the air, then why would anyone be threatening court cases over it? yes, Brian was one of the founders of the band, but that doesn't automatically mean he owned the rights to the name, and neither does his being content with the parting of ways. if (as seems most probable) this question had been established legally years earlier, then it's what was legally established that counts, not what any of us feels about it - or even what any of them felt about it.

i still don't follow the theoretical forensics either, but ... i'll leave that to people who get into it.
love and light to Brian.


"What do you want - what?!"
- Keith



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2005-11-18 14:04 by with sssoul.

Your assumption that the stones owned the rights is interesting, withssoul...I mean interesting that you would presume that.

Any guesses who named the band??! It was always clear, maybe certain people later on didn't like that fact, and it led to his death when push came to shove and it was a threat to the band.

It's also interesting that you brought up money, withssoul--- that his offspring would have difficulty filing a suit unless they have alot of money. Which is very ironic that money was what led to his death and subsequent denial of money for his offspring. I do know for a fact that Keylock has sold some of Brian's valuables to stones fans....

sorry Miss U, but you've misread me pretty thoroughly.

i've made no assumptions about who had legal rights to the name, except the assumption that that question was most probably spelled out legally years before Brian left. i have no idea what was spelled out, and i would *not* assume that it was "automatically" Brian who held the rights to it just because he was one of the founding members and/or came up with the name and/or was content with the parting of ways. the question could have been decided in any of a number of ways, and either we know how the Rolling Stones settled it or we don't. i don't.

and i didn't say Brian's offspring would need a lot of money in order to file a civil suit. my sentence may have been a bit ambiguous, sorry; what i meant was that there's little point in filing civil suits against someone who doesn't have wealth to pay a settlement or whatever it's called in a civil suit. and please note that that is a generalization, not an assumption about this situation in particular.


"What do you want - what?!"
- Keith

Miss U, I think I have to agree with Mathias, if money is an issue for BJ relatives (hate the word off spring) there is always continuency laywers. Case closed.

With ssoul, I agreed with you that is was clearly spelled out at the time.

However my interpretation of your posts is correct, that your primary belief and assumption here is that Brian is not the one with the legal rights to the name, and that you assume it is more likely the stones. If you read Trevor's post and what I wrote asking who came up with the name for the band (that was designed to be a big hint without spelling it out for you), then you pretty much have it there don't you? But you will believe what you want to.
In regards to Brian's estate, there is some money in royalties, but much more that his estate should be entitled to if the hypothesis of this case is proved to be correct.
As for anything Mathijs has to say, I stopped reading his posts a long time ago because he is abusive and has harrassed me on here for months now. This is the only stones board I go to, and I am selective in whose posts I read.
Those of you who want to believe Brian committed suicide, well, that's just not the case. Many people who knew Brian at Cotchford have said he was happy in his last weeks, and the reason was because he was lifted of this burden of being in the band, and was putting a new ultra talented band together of his own.



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 2005-11-18 20:52 by Miss U..

okay, since you know what my assumptions are so much better than i do,
on with the show, good health to you.

Miss U,

It doesn't seem healthy to be obsessing over the death of a complete stranger which happened over 36 years ago (no matter how much we love his music).
.... ...



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2005-11-19 01:58 by bv.

Elmo Lewis Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Miss U,
>
> It doesn't seem healthy to be obsessing over the
> death of a complete stranger which happened over
> 36 years ago (no matter how much we love his
> music). Get a life!


Elmo....the voice of reason (and chaos!)

Please do not get personal in posts. Please do not mix case and person. Even if you might be a doctor by profession I am sure no one of you would do mental characteristics and advices by reading posts on the internet. So please save me from having to close or delete or edit this thread by paying a little respect to each others as persons, no matter what your thoughts and ideas you might have.

PS. If you think this thread is offending in any way feel free to e-mail me at iorr@arena.no - it is interesting, as far as I can see, as it is interesting to walk around in some areas of Amsterdam or San Francisco, or Oslo for that matter, but it does not seems to be offending as far as I can see.

Bjornulf

Elmo and Mathijs, very mature of you to hurl thoughtless insults at someone you don't know for bringing a message here from someone else. Very impressive.
I support Trevor's investigation; he has given alot of his time and money in search of truth; a worthy cause as far as I can see. Beats wasting time on a msg board doesn't it. Elmo, maybe you should support finding the truth for your namesake, if you really do like Brian that is. But it does take backbone....

With sssoul-- we all know how you always come to the stones's defence on here, and challenge anyone who may be so bold to say anything which might be perceived as a negative. You asked a legitimate question, which I tried to answer. Perhaps it's possible that the truth really IS negative, and you don't like this answer, so you question it, and requestion it in an attempt to find loop-holes. Understandable that people will question this. The case will only be reopened with hard proof which can't be presented here. It might be that some legal documents existed that documented Brian's right to the name Rolling Stones, and this and the use of the name may have become a source of conflict leading to his death. Whether or not these documents still exist is another question.



Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 2005-11-19 01:19 by Miss U..

Just making a comment, not attacking anyone personally. I've had a whole lot worse said to me on this board. I just don't think it's a good idea to obsess on anything - Brain, internet porn, sports, the price of eggs in China, etc.

Please accept my apologies. bv, I really didn't think my comment was over the top. Sorry!

mercy, Miss U - anyone with any interest in the facts is *not* going to be satisfied with innuendoes, no matter how many innuendoes are tossed around.
someone as intent on investigating the facts as you are can surely appreciate that.

one suggestion: if you wish others to remain open-minded, maybe you could try to stop belittling people for wanting to know more,
assuming that you know anyone's thinking when you don't, etc. that approach isn't a way to gain support for the investigation,
nor does it serve Brian's memory very well.

>> we all know how you always come to the Stones's defence on here <<
Brian was a Stone, remember? i do.
and i hereby bow out of this thread. good health to you.


"What do you want - what?!"
- Keith



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2005-11-19 18:37 by with sssoul.

WHATEVER!

I've apologized 3 times already.

Let's dig Brian up and ask him what happened. Have a seance. See if Piglet saw anything. Put Keith and Mick in the electric chair. Maybe Oswald did it on the grassy knoll. Or Bigfoot. Or Bin ladin. Could be a Wood/Taylor conspiracy. Maybe O. J. can help find the "real" killers.

So now I get accused of not being a Brian fan because I think this is a waste of time??? NEWS FLASH - None of this will bring him back!

I will not say "I'm sorry" again, especially when I don't think I've said anything wrong. I've been called every name one can be called on this board, and now I catch hell about this ???!!! Get real.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2005-11-19 18:26 by Elmo Lewis.

This all makes me ill. Dear Brian died in his pool, an asthmatic without his medication and under the influence. He also was swimming all alone.....no one watching over him. I'm going with the coronor's final word:"Death by misadventure". Nuff said. Let the dear man rest in peace.
Imagination.

"Pass it on" (Keith talking about the music)

Withsssoul, I stated several times in this thread and I'll repeat it again (but why are you not listening?)--- to protect the integrity and current need for privacy with Trevor's case, you will have to rely on his word and what I've answered for you, indirectly, since we cannot disclose all the proof and all the details of the case to satisfy your curiosity and continuing disbelief and cynicism. Your questions are a symptom of your disbelief, and yes it is a hard pill to swallow, that I know. I'd like to answer your questions and challenges, but I just cannot do that here and now. And as I've said earlier in this thread, I don't have all the answers myself, and even if I did I wouldn't want to hinder the case by posting it here, especially to some arrogant rude stones fans who ask cynical questions because they are not open to any of these ideas no matter what is stated. So the most I can give you is those big hints which I know you're smart enough to pick up. In due time, when the case is reopened with further investigation, you shall have your proof that your precious skinny cats are big fat greedy liars. I don't belittle anyone withsssoul, however I have been personally insulted in this thread by others just for passing on Trevor's message. That is what stones fans are like, and I'm not impressed, not at all, and this has been going on for years, because I'm a Brian fan. I've also read this board long enough to see the way you've belitted others on here who say anything remotely negative about the stones....you'd think you were their personal pr agent, or under their payroll. Or maybe it's just emotion. You've never been someone I felt was respectful to the former stones, and that won't start now.
Besides, it really doesn't matter what we say, does it? I am talking to a brick wall here, not any open minded people. Because it's become apparent that Trevor's statement will be denied, whatever I write will be dismissed, all out of denial, people continue to want to believe, out of denial, that Brian committed suicide or some such nonsense. So go on, believe whatever makes you feel good about yourselves for liking this band, and for denying Brian, the founder of your beloved band. the truth so he may rest in peace.
It really doesn't matter what you want to believe or not, because the truth will prevail, and soon it will be evident. Then you can go to hell.



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 2005-11-19 22:13 by Miss U..

Miss U,

First you maintain that Trevor's only dealing in facts, and now you're claiming that he "cannot disclose all the proof and all the details of the case" (those would be the facts that you spoke of); further you say that "the most I can give you is those big hints," well, hints aren't facts. In brief, that's the problem with your post: you make claims and support arguments that are based on hints, you claim that you're providing facts when you then say you can't disclose proof or details. And what's worse, you do all this in regard to a capital case involving an alleged murder.

Given all of that, people here have been very polite, and you've had ample opportunity to get your facts straight. You haven't, and that's insulting to all who post here.

As I have said Camper-- yes to get the police to reopen the investigation Trevor needs to present THEM with the facts. Until the case is reopened, Trevor needs to protect the info and evidence that he has, that means not spilling all the beans here to you. However I think he has been open with what he has chosen to share here with you, which has subsequently been dismissed, overlooked, joked about and I've been personally insulted for bringing his post here. That's not exactly polite. I can't divulge anything Trevor has told me in strict confidence, to protect his case. And as I've said, I don't have to prove anything to you all, in the end it will be proven, and again-- in due time you'll have your facts.
So believe it or not, it really doesn't matter in the bigger scheme of things what the opinion is on a message board. I brought his message here for your information. Take it as you will.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2005-11-19 22:28 by Miss U..

Miss U. - one question begs to be asked (in fact, these are a couple of questions):

Why don't you or Trevor keep your mouths shut until it is possible to deliver the facts? Why can't you wait until the police reopens the case? Why are you talking about this at a time when it is not possible to deliver the facts, but just hints?

Miss U -

Do you think Mick and Keith killed Jimmy Hoffa too?
That would make them like serial killers!!!!!

Re: BRIAN JONES TRUTH IS NEAR

Great! Maybe it will do away with all this fiction!

You been starring in my dreams.....



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2005-11-20 03:15 by Elmo Lewis.

Untill and unless a resepected news organization like the Associated Press or even Rolling Stones magazine does an article on this and says it might have some credibility, I am going to assume it is all a load of crap.

Because that is sure what it seems like to me. It is ridiculous to think the Stones killed Brian because he might have sued them. If they were going to kill anybody (and they wouldn't), they would have offed Allen Klein years ago for ripping them off so badly.

Good points (about Klein), ohno.

BTW, you're not Yoko ohnonotyouagaoin, are you? ;D