As I'd love to read more about thickening plots, my question is: What's the current development in this case? More than half a year passed since the announcement of upcoming *b i g * n e w s* concerning Brian's death. So what's on? Has the plot thickened or did it once again fade into obscurity? Anyone knows? Miss U.?



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 2006-06-17 16:37 by retired_dog.

I can't believe this, I actually read the entire thread!

And after that I asked a swimming pool designer, if he'd ever heard of a contracter/carpenter who killed the owner of the house, where he (the designer) designed a pool for.
He never heard of a carpenter/contracter who killed the owner of the house, where he (the designer) designed a pool for.

So I think this proves that the carpenter/contracter is innocent. Which proves that the Stones were involved in the murder.

Second evidence: The former wife/mother of Brian was in the Netherlands a few weeks ago, and our Dutch TV-tabloid RTL Boulevard made an issue on her crusade against the Stones. Well, because RTL boulevard has at least once had an issue about someone who told he truth about something, I suppose the Stones actualy were involved.

And now my mind is f*cked up, and I'm developiong serious Alzheimer here.

Jelle

www.brianjonesfanclub.com

editorbjfc@aol.com

This was posted on the Lars board July 3rd by TREVOR HOBLEY, the head of the Brian Jones fan club:

Yesterday afternoon, Sunday 2nd July, was a great time with some great people and, agreeing with Jase in a separate thread below, it all went by far too quickly. Dick and I arrived at the cemetery at about midday and to everybody’s surprise (including my own) Pat arrived at about 12.15. As I’ve mentioned to some people recently, I’ve been completely out of touch with Pat for many weeks now and was becoming extremely worried about her, but as she explained her reasons to everybody for taking some time out, it became apparent that, for her own reasons, she needed time to ‘recharge’ her batteries. Thankfully, she really is now back to her old self and fighting fit.

After the cemetery we all went on to the pub and of course everybody wanted to know what’s going on with ‘the investigation’. As you all might appreciate, we’re keeping things pretty close to our chest at the moment, in John Mac’s words “keeping our powder dry”. We have, again as Jason commented, discovered some ‘explosive’ information and facts that have never been seen or heard about before. We now have a team together that not only includes experienced professional crime and forensic detectives but legal expertise and extremely high profile media support, all of whom have copies of our research information and together we’re in the process of overcoming the final hurdles in getting to the truth behind Brian’s death.

It’s been a long haul and I want to thank all of our genuine supporters for your patience. There have been the doubters and the critics but I’m overwhelmed by the support from most contributors on this board, the wider BJ community and of course our own Brian Jones Fan Club members. It has recently been said that there is no investigation going on and that I’m some sort of con man, and it’s been frustrating not to respond to those accusations. I didn’t want to subsequently get into some sort of ‘bun fight’ with certain people and without being able to substantiate or prove our actions, at this specific time, didn’t want to give the doubters any justification or validity. All I can say though is that when you all finally see our research you’ll understand just why we couldn’t say too much.

This is no back down, but at this time I can’t, and won’t go into specific new evidence that we have discovered but what I can say, which is what I told everybody yesterday, is that 6 weeks ago I was introduced to a lawyer who specialises in the area of the law that we’re entering. This gentleman, and his law firm partners I can assure each and every one of you are extremely experienced and competent. After many meetings, and them studying our information, research and new evidence, and in conjunction with our cold case and forensic people, they’ve formulated our way forward and yes it’s true, legal representation is planned in the next few weeks and the subsequent legal procedural routine will no doubt ensue. I also have no doubt that objections and hurdles will be placed in our way but I’m extremely confident in our legal team and their plans to overcome and counter any negative response. We really are entering the last mile of an extremely long and winding road (to quote that other group) and once the legal proceedings get under way in the next few weeks, the media interest will be intense but I’ll make sure that this board is kept well informed as information comes to the surface.

Another important question asked of me yesterday was whether I believed the other Stones were complicit in Brian’s death. I will tell you all, as I stated yesterday, I have no information or evidence of any premeditated involvement in Brian’s death by Messer’s Richards, Watts or Wyman and that’s as far as I want to go on this subject at this time.

I know many of you are itching for answers but I’d really appreciate your continued patience with no more speculation or questioning just now, and ask that you please allow us to get on with what we have to do; we really cannot give any more details especially on such a public forum. I say in the last sentence WE, because even though I’m the focal point in this research I could never have got to where we are in this case without the dedicated help and support of John Mac and one other guy who at this time wishes to remain anonymous. I’ve also had tremendous help and support in other ways from people I’ve got to know well and trust implicitly - and finally, the others of you on this board who I’ve never met or talked to but who’ve offered not only financial and moral support, but sincere kind comments, I thank you most sincerely for your wholehearted support while not knowing exactly what we’re discovering. Your faith and trust in what we’re doing is appreciated more than you could ever know. Thankyou.

[p207.ezboard.com]

My god, what a way to spend your spare time.

I will tell you all, as I stated yesterday, I have no information or evidence of any premeditated involvement in Brian’s death by Messer’s Richards, Watts or Wyman and that’s as far as I want to go on this subject at this time.

Great! Neither has anbody else........ Stop waisting bits & bites please!

-------------------------------------------------------
> I will tell you all, as I stated yesterday, I have
> no information or evidence of any premeditated
> involvement in Brian’s death by Messer’s Richards,
> Watts or Wyman and that’s as far as I want to go
> on this subject at this time.
>


Why doesn't he mention Jagger? Is he implying that Jagger was involved?

This whole thing seems a bit far-fetched to me. It's time to let it lie, surely. If there was something more sinister behind it, all would have been revealed by now. Either that, or it never will be.

> Why doesn't he mention Jagger? Is he implying
> that Jagger was involved?

It may be coincidence that this Trevor Hobley does not mention Jagger, it may be not. Clever tactics! The statement is constructed in a way that leaves both interpretations open. And is is constructed in a way that is hard to come by in legal terms - just in case Jagger and his lawyers take notice.

> If there was something more sinister behind it, all would have
> been revealed by now.

That's not necessarily the case. Any way, all we can do is wait and see if this time the plot thickens one time in the (hopefully) not too distant future or if it fades into obscurity like it did so many times in the past.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2006-07-07 00:21 by retired_dog.

Miss U. Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> FROM EL on the lars board:
>
and it took Ron
> Wood YEARS to even get his name added to
> insignificant album cuts.
>

He got a credit on the first album upon which he played.

the butler did it...

haaaa

KSIE Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Miss U. Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > FROM EL on the lars board:
> >
> and it took Ron
> > Wood YEARS to even get his name added to
> > insignificant album cuts.
> >
>
> He got a credit on the first album upon which he
> played.

That's right, KSIE, and that's not the only inaccurate "fact" EL is spreading. And what exactly does "insignificant album cuts" mean? Who knows if these are the only tracks Woody added something that justifies a co-songwriter's credit? Writing a song is something totally different than playing guitar on a recording of song that other people have written.

I think what Trevor Hobley is attempting to do-- get to the truth once & for all, whatever it may be --- is a very noble persuit worthy of his time, trouble and money, and many people close to Brian including his children are grateful and supportive of that. So should RS fans. Brian was the founder of the band after all.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2006-07-06 21:01 by Miss U..

i read all 5 pages of 'fact' i see no evidence of anything other than citing a few forfgettable books, and an old girlfriend. Yo know i used to bartend at a pub called the Pheasant Inn in Winnersh, Berkshire, England, there are 3 or 4 old guys who drink there who used to hang at a house that had a back yard that backed onto another backyard of a house that a woman Brian was seeing owned -- perhaps you should interview them, the woman, or indeed the resultant child, who still lives in that area.

just one question , a very serious question so Miss U don't get all bent out of shape:

Which Police force is carrying the investigation?

OLDKR



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2006-07-06 21:34 by oldkr.

" Why doesn't he mention Jagger? Is he implying
that Jagger was involved?"

That is certainly the way I read it. You don't accidentally leave out the name of the star of the band, especially in such a carefully worded statement. I thought Keith was the one under suspicion due mainly to his unsympathetic comments about Brian in recent years (& possibly his no-show at the funeral). Mick on the other hand has frequently expressed his personal sadness at Brian's passing & even wrote 'Shine A Light' in tribute to his friend. Mick may be many things but there's no way he's a killer.

Miss U; having just read Guiliano's 'Paint It Black' & Wohlin's 'The Wild & Wicked World OF Brian Jones' I wanted to ask you why the latter's testimony is considered untrustworthy by the BJ Fanclub? Since she was Brian's partner in the last few months surely she has no hidden agenda. Fascinating though all these conspiracy theories are like Fitzgerald's claim to have seen three men holding him down they fly in the face of Anna Wohlin's version of events. She says nothing about Fitzgerald or Cadbury showing up on that day. She is also insistent that there was no party that night and only Thorogood, Janet Lawson & herself were present. Clearly Thorogood cannot be trusted & likewise Keylock who was Thorogood's friend & Lawson who was his girlfriend. This only leaves Wohlin. I do find it strange that she waited so long to tell her story (it does sound like she was threatened & intimidated as well as bundled out of the country at high speed so you can understand why she was afraid) but I personally found her account convincing in it's simplicity & emotional warmth. Does Trevor have any reason to think she is lying? If not, it seems to me that it boils down to Thorogood alone doing the deed whether it be murder or manslaughter. I suppose this doesn't neccessarily exclude people in the Stones camp who could have paid him, probably via Keylock, to carry it out which Wohlin wouldn't have known about but let's stick for now to Wohlin's reliability.

Hi Tseverin...I personally have always been very supportive of Anna Wohlin, and am very aware that rs fans have been very critical of her and her book. Her book was originally released as "The Murder of Brian Jones" and has been re-issued under the name "The Wild & Wicked World of Brian Jones" which coincidentally was the original working title of Wooley's film "Stoned". Wooley bought the rights to Anna's book. Basically if you consider that Keylock, Anna, and Keylock's ex-lover Janet Lawson were all consultants on Wooley's film, which was more fiction than truth, it starts to make sense.
Wohlin's book was the first book I ever read on Brian, and I believe she presented his personality well, some parts of the book were true, but the account of the events related to his death is for the most part in keeping with Keylock, Lawson, and Thorogood's story of the events of what happened that night. The stories have evolved over the years, from stating there was a party as Fitzgerald claims, to there not being a party as Wohlin states, to stating that it was just horseplay.
As for Anna and her motives, I believe she did have an affair / relationship with Brian, but that she has since been--and continues to be--coerced and under the control of Keylock. She is not free to say and write the truth of that night, not at the inquest, and not now, if she wants to live. The fan club, from what I understand, is not condeming Anna. She has likely repressed what happened that night and blocked it out so that she cannot even remember it now. And who could blame her for that, it would be a terrible and traumatic shock.
As for Thorogood, Keylock has admitted to police that he made up the story about Frank's supposed "deathbed confession"; it's easy to try to blame it all on a dead man and hope that will stop the questioning.
As for Fitzgerald, unfortunately we cannot know to what extent he wrote is true or untrue because he has since vanished.
The movie "Stoned" really made no statement about his death, just alluded to the various theories out there on his death. But Wooley did place Keylock there if you watch closely.
Guiliano's "Paint It Black" contains a confession from a builder who says he was involved. The builders may or may not have been involved in Brian's death, but that is not the be-all and end-all of the story or the network involved. Same with Keylock's involvement; the buck doesn't stop there.
All these books are worth reading, but none of them tells the entire truth. Perhaps some of the things written in these books were designed to be "red herrings" to throw one off the scent of the truth, instead of revealing the truth. But the questions will not go away.

[www.angelfire.com]

[www.amazon.com]



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2006-07-07 01:59 by Miss U..

Miss U. Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> All these books are worth reading, but none of
> them tells the entire truth. Perhaps some of the
> things written in these books were designed to be
> "red herrings" to throw one off the scent of the
> truth, instead of revealing the truth. But the
> questions will not go away.

Well, in Anna's position, not being "free to say and write the truth of that night, not at the inquest, and not now, if she wants to live" I would keep my mouth shut completely, and not even considering writing a book about this dangerous topic, even if it does not tell the "entire truth". The people who threaten my life might think that if not this time, then probably next time I will tell more about those events and this alone - raising my voice at all -could cost my life.

Thanks for the detailed answer Miss U. I personally believe Anna Wohlin's version of events that night. Why would she bother to write the book if she was still not free to give us the truth. It doesn't sound like she needed the money but needed to get it all off her chest once and for all. I don't buy that she repressed the memories of that night. Her memories of the whole day are quite detailed and specific down to the tennis they watched on tv & what they did for lunch etc. I think you have to choose to believe she is telling the truth & therefore there was no party, no extra people involved or she is lying. She loved Brian; why would she wait for 25 years to write a book telling the truth and then lie in it about the crucial details? The fact that her version is broadly similar to Thorogood & Lawson's does not make her complicit with them, it could and probably does just mean this is basically the truth except that she believes Thorogood killed Brian & he claims it was an accident. She may have been waiting for Thorogood to die before publishing her book as it came out in '93 or '94 around the time he died (haven't checked this).

Maybe Fitzgerald has "vanished" but that's what people said about Wohlin 30 years ago; she had just returned to her own country & married a doctor (or something like that). Fitzgerald probably just moved abroad or died of natural causes.

I think the unnamed builder who supposedly confessed his involvement to Guiliano and the Walker Brother who supposedly knows something etc. are the red herrings: Either people wanting to feel important or involved or just journalists stirring up conspiracies to sell their books.

Somebody go down to Baker Street and hire Sherlock Holmes, PLEASE!

What is amazing is that how many Stones fans will defend Keith and rip BJ amd MT and even RW or BW as if Keith is this great guy. Keith is very insecure, treated most of the Stones like dirt with his gutless, personal and immature attacks and comments. This is the same guy that was wasted for years and has had MJ carrying the Stones for a long time. And is no one tired of the same bulls*** stories that cannot be verified? How can Keith claim to remember so much from so long ago considering the state he was in?

How quickly we forget Ronnie, who they "love" was not paid a fair share for over 20 years thanks to MJ and KR, who have become a parody of themselves.

Believe me, I love the Stones and their music and have been a fan for over 35 years but enough of the idol worship and please look at things with an open mind.

Same as the endless ripping of MT and RW and BW.

Just a thought

Good post, Ray. I agree 100%. The Stones are great musicians, not always great people.

Elmo Lewis Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Good post, Ray. I agree 100%. The Stones are great
> musicians, not always great people.


I would have to grudgingly agree with that. I hate to say it though. As I get older I find that some of the things they did that I thought were kind of funny, are actually pretty mean.

What can you do though, I still love them, we all have our bad moments of being total @#$%& - but we are lucky that no one is keeping track of them and rehashing them over and over.

Finally watched the Move Stoned last night....HIGHLY recommend it--but pretty sad...Brian was such a genius, even though an evil genius.... Nice film...too bad they couldnt use real Stones music in it, but the cover band did a pretty good job.

JR

if Mick get's nicked for Murder, does that mean the tour is off (again)??

We all know that Keith and Mick killed Brian in real cold blood.
But now is the time to go on and look at the great adventures that life's
got to offer rather than to dwell on this subject. The Glimmers have sinned
but I'll be the first one to forgive 'em dudes.
If this will turn into a court issue,
I suggest they set the date of the trial before the US tour in order to avoid any cancelled gigs in North America.
If required, the entire European tour could be cancelled due to court proceedings and the US crowd would not have to deal with any postponements.MEZ

and Ay ay baby it hurts

I'm with you, MEZ. Any word of any shows up your way?

stone-relics Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Finally watched the Move Stoned last
> night....HIGHLY recommend it--but pretty
> sad...Brian was such a genius, even though an evil
> genius....


I have heard the movie was awful and put Brian in a very bad light. Also, let's not go overboard with the comments regarding Brian's character. Evil Genius? Please. He was just a young rock star who had trouble getting along two other members of his band. Mick and Keith weren't so pleasant either . . .

Tseverin & Retired Dog...yes I see what you're saying. I believe Anna wrote the book because Keylock & certain others wanted her to depict this account of events leading up to his death. Don't forget Anna was made to sign an agreement in 1969 that anything she says/writes must first meet approval of Stones Inc. Before her book was published, it was reviewed for approval by lawyers for Stones management. There is nothing in there that the stones wouldn't want to be. And who knows to what extent she wrote is fictionalized details, which parts are the truth. Anna is more like a puppet in Keylock's hands. And that does not necessarily mean she did not have feelings for Brian, nor does it exclude her relations with him. One does what one is told if your life is threatened....and so have many peers who knew Brian and remain silent to this day....

Raystones-- yes I agree.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2006-07-07 21:41 by Miss U..

RayStones Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> How quickly we forget Ronnie, who they "love" was
> not paid a fair share for over 20 years thanks to
> MJ and KR, who have become a parody of
> themselves.

RayStones, at this point I don't agree with you. Ronnie joined the Stones at a point in time when their greatest hits were already written & recorded (besides Miss You and Start Me Up, of course). At the time Ronnie joined, the Stones' career already lasted more than a decade.

Now, if you start a band with a couple of guys, become world famous, and after such a long time (which is an eternity in the usually short-lived music business) you need a replacement for one of your musicians, would you make a new member a "full member" from the very start? Or would you choose to pay him a fixed wage like an employee instead? After all, this is, despite what you want to believe or what others want you to believe, a business, it is not about friendship per se (there are actually bands out there where band members can't stand each other personally, but do get along great in musical terms). We fans often believe (and are made to believe by clever managers and marketing people) that bands are a bunch of people who are best friends, like gangs, but in the end, professional bands are like companies. The other Beatles may have seen Pete Best as a friend, but he was fired and replaced by Ringo Starr when their management demanded this career decision. And Stu, the "sixth Stone" disappeared from the official line-up when the Stones management demanded such a tough career decision because he "did not fit the image". See what I mean?

Miss U; it says in the prologue to the new version of Anna Wohlin's book:
"I was intimidated into silence, but I am not scared anymore. For Brian's sake, and for that of his sons, I want to unveil the truth - while there is still time."

This doesn't sound like the words of someone who "continues to be--coerced and under the control of Keylock. She is not free to say and write the truth of that night, not at the inquest, and not now, if she wants to live."

I really can't picture a 70 something Tom Keylock hunting her down in Sweden and taking her out over an incident that happened 37 years ago the official verdict of which was misadventure.

As for the piece of paper she signed back in '69 while in grief, stressed and possibly under duress, any lawyer worth his salt could get that thrown out in a flash.

I'm still not sure I understand your view on her motive for writing the book. Are you saying that she was approached by Keylock (& others?) and pressured to write the book?

Tseverin, yes I have read the book, and there are some things in there I believe and other things I don't. Keylock may be old and frail, but he does have a network, and he continues to this day to keep a close eye on ALL matters related to Brian Jones, the Brian Jones fan club, the movie Stoned where he was on set watching and acted as a consultant, the recent unveiling of the Brian Jones bust etc.
If the stones were concerned enough in 69 to make her sign a document, why would they not be concerned about what she says now? And to what extent would certain people go to to keep the truth buried? Clearly the stones are concerned about what Anna says if they had their lawyers approve and edit her book prior to its being published.
As for Anna's motives, I've never spoken to Anna personally, so I can't speak for her and wouldn't assume to know. I have my personal opinions on the matter. The authors of that book would have been smart enough to know that there would be alot of questions from readers as to the motive for writing a book on Brian only after the accused murderer in said book is dead, and after over 20 years of silence since the death of a man she loved.
That is a distinct possibility that Keylock & others wanted her to write the book in this way. From people I've spoken to, and the one or two interviews with her that I've seen and read, I get the impression that she is a woman who has blocked out alot of that night. She seems to talk about it almost like a zombie, which is a symptom of Post Traumatic Stress Disorder. Avoidance is also another symptom; After a trauma, people may avoid certain activities, places, and thoughts and feelings related to the trauma which could account for her silence for so long. These are just my opinions about Anna; I think she's a good woman who went thru a major trauma and is coping with the aftermath. Anna has said in the recent BBC doc that she wishes she had been more assertive, that she was made to feel very small after Brian's death.
If her version of accounts is really what happened that night, as per a leading forensic pathologist Dr Cyril Wecht, they would have had enough of a time window from pulling Brian from the pull to revive him, as the story goes they tried to do when they pulled him from the pool, with a nurse Janet Lawson calling to Anna when she saw Brian floating in the pool.
Ask yourself why when a nurse was present they were not able to revive him given there was enough time to do so, according to events outlined in the brief inquest. And why in Anna's book was there no mention that Janet Lawson was pregnant at the time by a then-married Tom Keylock? Perhaps a certain person wanted that part left out.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2006-07-08 02:38 by Miss U..