Miss U. Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> 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.

This leads to the question what exactly is feeding Trevor's optimism to find out anything at all when Keylock and his network are still keeping a close eye?
To reveil the truth, a witness or at least someone very close to a witness must finally talk. Why should anybody talk now when he or she were afraid to talk for so many years?

> 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.

Because Brian's brain was already irreparably damaged? Just a thought.

Trevor has reason to be optimistic. Obviously at this point, as he said, he cannot discuss the details or evidence.

>>>"Because Brian's brain was already irreparably damaged? Just a thought."

There was still time to revive him without damage. And even if it would have been damaged, far better to be alive than dead. Unless one of those present thought they had the power of God to decide that in their own hands, or to take matters in their own hands....

Miss U. Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> There was still time to revive him without damage.

Who knows? It all depends on how long Brian was already under water when he was discovered/ taken out of the pool.

Miss U,
Good points about Anna having post-traumatic stress disorder & repressing memories of the trauma. She suggests she repressed them herself in her book but once she was able to face the tragedy & grieve properly (only after her husband left her after 20 years & the same feeling of uselessness & desperation as in 1969 unlocked the floodgates) she claims to remember the incident now with clarity.

I think you have to be careful making assumptions about reviving drowned people. The forensic pathologist was probably suggesting that it may have been possible to revive Brian if only a short time had elapsed, not that it WOULD have been possible. Some people are successfully revived after a short spell and some aren't; it doesn't conform to strict predictable patterns but depends on a combination of countless factors. Apart from the fairly short time before Brian was discovered under the water there is also the amount of time it took to get his body out of the pool to start resuscitation methods & apparently they had real difficulties with this which would have shortened the window. Anna did say that at one point (this may have been from the Guiliano book rather than hers) that she felt Brian's hand grip hers, after I think it was 15 minutes of attempted resuscitation, but nothing more. There does seem to have been a delay in calling for an ambulance but according to Guiliano this was down to the phone downstairs being engaged, as Anna had been on the phone upstairs when she heard Lawson scream out about something happening to Brian, and she didn't hang up the receiver. This sounds believable & not necessarily sinister.

Is it a matter of public record that the Stones lawyers reviewed the book for approval or speculation? Lawyers don't "edit" books by the way, only writers and publishers do this, possibly acting on advice from lawyers. Wouldn't this actually be standard practice anyway by the Stones to check every new book out about them for libellous claims etc? I wouldn't assume that this suggests they are worried by 'the truth' coming out and wanting to bury it.

Also re Keylock's keeping a close eye on all matters relating to Brian; again you make this sound sinister (& maybe he was there that night, I don't exclude the possibility) but in itself it seems entirely natural that Brian's old employee would be interested in every new book, film or documentary coming out on him & try and keep them in line with the truth as he saw it. Since he was the friend of George Thorogood & the one responsible for introducing him to the Stones he may also be feeling some guilt about this and over Brian's death if he believes Thorogood did kill him.

Tseverin,

good points overall...in fact I'd wish you to be a member of this investigation team because you are able to see everything from different perspectives. The problem I have with this current team is that - from what I have read so far - they seem to investigate the case under the premise that something must be wrong with Brian's death, that there is indeed a "hidden truth" that only has to be discovered. It is my impression that each and every circumstance is interpreted in only one direction, whereas professional investigators would always take all possible explanations into account.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2006-07-08 13:37 by retired_dog.

Thanks for the kind words retired dog. I hope you are right about the professional investigators.

Tseverin Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Thanks for the kind words retired dog. I hope you
> are right about the professional investigators.

Mmmmh, good point again. Replace "would" with "should" and it reads like this:

"...whereas professional investigators should always take all possible explanations into account."

I have to TRY to be impartial where Brian is concerned, I struggle with this for several reasons; first, after watched Goddard's film, ONE PLUS ONE- SYMPATHY FOR THE DEVIL, I just can't help but empathize with Mick, Keith, Charlie and Bill who were TRYING To make a recording and there's ole Brian, slumped over in a corner of the studio, nodding off! Sure, this was at the END of his life when basicly he was conscious maybe 1/5 of the day, at best, but WHY do we need to offer excuses for Brian? Why do some folks NEED to keep him up on some kind of pedistal, even though they claim to clearly see Brian's flaws? I give the Devil his due, I acknowledge his creativity and his contributions to the band but to give him more than that, IMO, is not justified. I have a right to NOT like Brian, and I make no apology for my rather strong dislike for this person who, in my estimation had a very LARGE Napoleon complex, who bullied those smaller and weaker than himself( imagine his luck at finding someone smaller). I have a right to formulate my own opinion of Brian because I am over 50, have lived through it all with this band, have read tons of bios about Brian, including Golden Stone. My gut tells me Brian was a prick, had an ego the size of an elephant, could not stand anyone telling him anything, especially about his music and desperately wanted LOVE and approval, which because he was so NASTY, he could never have! I harbor no illusions about Mick and Keith being saints however when you compare basic humanity, I feel Brian had a huge hole in his developement. Mick and Keith joined forces ( some say " against Brian") for survival reasons! Brian was bent of destruction, Mick and Keith saw clearly that the dissention would kill the band and they were not willing to allow that to happen. Because Brian was weaker than they were, he succombed to the pressures and allowed drugs to dominate his life. Sure Keith was into heroin, but much LATER when the band was more established. This is MY take on it, some will agree, others will not. So be it.

Well, no matter what I write there will be people who desperately search for loopholes or ways to discount what I bring forth, because they don't want the case reopened. Like Trevor said in his post, he is not in a position to reveal all details at this delicate point in the investigation. Tseverin, like I said before I have read Anna's book and am aware what she says in it and doesn't say...and I believe some & discount other things she says.
Tseverin, I am not making any "assumptions" about reviving drowned people. Perhaps you should be careful not to make assumptions about how I have formed my opinions. You may not agree with or like my opinions, but I've formed them based on alot more information than you or Retired Dog have at your disposal.
Remember that.
I have Dr Wecht on tape saying that it could have been possible to revive Brian if things occurred as per the official statements given at the inquest in 69 on Brian's death, and that in his own opinion, this should justify re-examining the cause of Brian's death.
Retired Dog, the theories and statements brought forth on Brian's death don't add up, and the theories over the years have evolved from murder by the builder to just horseplay gone wrong, to there being a party to no party, so yes given the circumstances there are many people who for many years have had questions and want the truth uncovered, whatever that may be, and for justice to be done.
And for the record, Brian was still drinking at Cotchford but was off drugs for the most part except for his diet pills, and the drugs Keith "kindly" gave him as a gift when they supposedly sacked him from the band, after which it's been said Brian got very ill all night. Other people who knew him while he was at Cotchford, have said he was getting his act back together, his mental state was good, he was happy. And Debra, why bring up your perceived judgements of his faults when that had nothing to do with his death! Unless you're trying to say he deserved to die, so why bother uncovering the truth? In which case that's a REAL nasty unkind thing to say. No one is putting him on a pedestal or making excuses. But you have put Mick on a pedestal on many occasions, as do others here of Keith, and glorify his drug use. Mick and Keith have MANY faults, so I wouldn't go that route of comparing.
Just want the truth...



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2006-07-09 05:41 by Miss U..

Tseverin Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> Also re Keylock's keeping a close eye on all
> matters relating to Brian; again you make this
> sound sinister (& maybe he was there that night, I
> don't exclude the possibility) but in itself it
> seems entirely natural that Brian's old employee
> would be interested in every new book, film or
> documentary coming out on him & try and keep them
> in line with the truth as he saw it. Since he was
> the friend of George Thorogood & the one
> responsible for introducing him to the Stones he
> may also be feeling some guilt about this and over
> Brian's death if he believes Thorogood did kill
> him.


Interesting perspective, Tseverin. And does it also seem quite natural to you that "in Keylock's efforts to keep books, films and docs in line with the truth", and that because of Keylock's friendship with Thorogood, that Keylock has then LIED TO THE POLICE that Thorogood confessed to him on his deathbed that he killed Brian?
Keylock has admitted to police he lied about this statement. Yet people continue to believe this was the cause of Brian's death, and Thorogood's family threatened to sue Wooley for portraying Frank as the killer in the film Stoned.
There is a need for the truth to be uncovered.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2006-07-09 05:57 by Miss U..

Miss U, these were your original words:

"they WOULD have had enough of a time window from pulling Brian from the pull to revive him". There is a difference between this and "I have Dr Wecht on tape saying that it COULD have been possible to revive Brian". I don't have a problem with your second version but the early version did suggest you were "making an assumtion about reviving drowned people".

Unlike many on this board I do repect your desire to have the case reopened and back you in this. I also agree that you have based your opinions on more information than retired dog or me have at our disposal. What we were concerned about at I think (though I can't really speak for retired dog) is whether you are pursuing this information with an objective and open mind rather than using it to suit a prepared theory.

I totally agree with you about Brian seeming to have cleaned up his act since he moved to Cotchford & get exasperated by people making lazy observations that he obviously died due to swimming whilst high on drugs etc.

Until you mentioned it here, I had no idea that Keylock had admitted he'd lied to the police. Not that I am doubting your word, but where is this documented? It clearly does throw all of his testimony into question if true, but just to sound another note of caution, does not necessarily mean that Thorogood wasn't the killer. Obviously Thorogood's family would not want his name blackened either way so this doesn't really signify anything.

Tseverin Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> What we were concerned about at I
> think (though I can't really speak for retired
> dog) is whether you are pursuing this information
> with an objective and open mind rather than using
> it to suit a prepared theory.

Tseverin, yes, you can speak for me as these are exactly my thoughts!

So, my question is this: when is Hobley's " proof" going to made public, to the point where EVERYONE can easily access it? If you've already given this info, then I aplogize, it is tough to actually READ all of this!! So much is rehashed that it tends to get boring. Tell us if this in included in a book somewhere or is Hobley just saying he KNOWS certain things, other than what you( MISS U ) has provided here.

Tseverin Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Miss U, these were your original words:
>
> Unlike many on this board I do repect your desire
> to have the case reopened and back you in this. I
> also agree that you have based your opinions on
> more information than retired dog or me have at
> our disposal. What we were concerned about at I
> think (though I can't really speak for retired
> dog) is whether you are pursuing this information
> with an objective and open mind rather than using
> it to suit a prepared theory.


Fair question. Yes, in fact some of what Trevor's investigation has turned up, is not what I've believed in the past or even want to believe at the moment. So I have to have an open mind because I never would have believed it.


> I totally agree with you about Brian seeming to
> have cleaned up his act since he moved to
> Cotchford & get exasperated by people making lazy
> observations that he obviously died due to
> swimming whilst high on drugs etc.

Great to hear it.

> It clearly does throw all of his
> testimony into question if true, but just to sound
> another note of caution, does not necessarily mean
> that Thorogood wasn't the killer.

Yes I see what you're saying, that theoretically there's still a chance that Thorogood may have alone killed Brian. However, I would warn others to be very skeptical of coming to that conclusion. Keylock and any other persons who did the killing are not the be-all and end-all. My point is given what the investigative team knows, and not to mention the evidence Trevor has uncovered, we shouldn't put our trust in a version of events (which doesn't add up) that Keylock claims happened, especially given that he lied to police about the confession. Why would Keylock lie about that, and what would he have to gain by doing that? Why would Keylock want us to think his dead friend Thorogood had alone killed Brian?
Also, the autopsy showed drowing by immersion in FRESH water, not chlorinated water.

Debra, to answer your question, Trevor has said in his last msg that I posted here:

"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 (LARS msg board) is kept well informed as information comes to the surface."

And I will be passing on his messages here as well.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2006-07-09 23:27 by Miss U..

so miss u what,s your point?jagger behind jones socalled murder?this must be the worst nonsens i ever read.do you really believe that jones was a treat to jagger and richards in 69?they had already formed the band,s musical direction then.and this musical direction not go sideways to b.jones music.so why a treat to the stones?do you really mean that jagger hired someone to kill brian jones? since when was jagger under suspicion,never heard about that before.but you have i suppose.from one of xxx friends,maybee?

Manhattan Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> 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

who cares if Mick and Keith are cold-blooded murderers...the tour is about to start!

Tseverin Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Since he was
> the friend of George Thorogood & the one
> responsible for introducing him to the Stones he
> may also be feeling some guilt about this and over
> Brian's death if he believes Thorogood did kill
> him.


I knew that that George Thorogood guy is 'bad to the bone',and he was considerd as Ronnie's replacement in 1981/82, but to have killed the original post holder to get it

- Doxa



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2006-07-10 13:32 by Doxa.

Okay, humor aside, we are dealing serious business here. A murder case.

I just saw this long thread and noticed that it originates from the discussion I had with this "El" in LARS board a year or something ago. There are people over there who are convinced that Mick and Keith are not just nasty people and bad musicians but that they might have something to do with the murder of Brian Jones. I am constantly mocked for not accepting this attitude, or trying to defend those bastards.

Now, after getting some hints of Hobley's investigation (the source of of gospel there), the "plot really thickens", and Jagger is among the suspected ones, and people are having a field day (even though ugly Keith seems to be innocent) I don't need to mention that Tom Keylock and Allen Klein are the biggest bad guys. But why to murder Brian Jones - a guy who had been kicked out of the band already? As far as I can see the theory is based on the suggestion that for various reasons Brian was a pain in the ass that needed to be eliminated (planned by Jagger/Klein, accomplished by Keylock/Thorogood)). Here are couple of the 'motives' I have seen:

(1) Brian owed the rights to the name of "The Rolling Stones". PERHAPS for this reason he was promised a ridiculous amount of money (that never was thought to be paid); that was the reason Mick, Keith and Charlie visited Brian at his home, not to tell him he is fired but to get this business sorted out. PERHAPS Brian said something like "fvck you guys, I'll keep the name, and build another band around it". Also Brian was seen in New York meeting some attorney in 1969. To prove Brian's rights to the name seems to be Hobley's main point; it constitutes the basic motive for a murder.

(2) Brian was planning to form a supergroup with people like Jimi Hendrix and John Lennon (that supposedly were seen visiting him and jamming with him at Cotchford) that would very easily to out-shadow poor Mick and Keith's untalented band (there are lamer versions of the same idea: talented and musically superior Brian would present a serious threat: so eliminate him.)

Well, I don't buy neither of these premises, but some people seem to do. I think the biggest problem - as also stated above - in this truth-seeking business and "making justice for Brian" movement is the simple fact that is done by huge Brian Jones fans, and thereby the premises for the investigation are highly prior set by some prejudices. A general note: everytime people gospeling to much about finding a'truth' (or 'freedom' or 'justice') or other big words, there seems to be something suspectible going on. Careful with those words! No one has copyright for them!

- Doxa



Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 2006-07-10 14:43 by Doxa.

Miss U. Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> My point is given
> what the investigative team knows, and not to
> mention the evidence Trevor has uncovered, we
> shouldn't put our trust in a version of events
> (which doesn't add up) that Keylock claims
> happened, especially given that he lied to police
> about the confession.

> Debra, to answer your question, Trevor has said in
> his last msg that I posted here:

> "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 (LARS msg board) is kept well informed
> as information comes to the surface."
>
> And I will be passing on his messages here as
> well.

Let's wait and see. Miss U. clearly states that she knows what the investigation team knows, so she is obviously part of the "inner circle" and must or should know what she is talking about!

She also clearly states that "evidence" has already been uncovered at this point, and furthermore refers to Trevor's statement about having entered "the last mile".

So by all accounts, it should not be a matter of years to come, but just months or merely weeks until we hear something substantial and definitive.

Otherwise, if these vague hints continue for years to come, no one involved in this investigation should be too embarassed when the outer world will not take this thing all too serious.

will Michael Cohl be selling FOS luxury hospitality packages, to any perspective murder trial?

and surely, RS.COM will get in on the act and send us mail-shots, for
"Mick Is Innocent" t-shirt and pin limited edition combos?

...there's money to be made here, folks

Miss U,
"My point is given what the investigative team knows, and not to mention the evidence Trevor has uncovered, we shouldn't put our trust in a version of events (which doesn't add up) that Keylock claims happened, especially given that he lied to police about the confession."

This may well be true but as we haven't had access to this "evidence" yet we cannot really be expected to blindly trust Trevor either. Also you didn't answer my question over where it is documented that Keylock did admit lying to the police. Do you have hard evidence of this and can you share it with us?

"Also, the autopsy showed drowing by immersion in FRESH water, not chlorinated water." I read recently that the autopsy didn't specify that it was not chlorinated but just called it fresh water so perhaps this is a spurious point? Maybe it just meant fresh as opposed to sea or dirty pondwater...

Doxa, re your last point; Trevor Hobley who runs (ran?) the BJ fanclub & the investigation apparently was not a Brian Jones fan to start with but I believe was drawn into it all by the lack of perceived justice for him: Correct me if I'm wrong here Miss U.

I just read the following e-mail by someone called Linda on the LARS site:

In a new article about the Stoned DVD in the Vancouver Sun, Stephen Woolley now says there was a witness to the deathbed confession. How reliable is this?

"People couldn't be sure if they could believe Frank's deathbed confession. There was nothing available to corroborate his story. But I tracked down a nurse in Stockholm who was there... she had never spoken to anyone about what had happened before. I told her I wanted to make a film about Brian and if she was willing to tell me what happened."

This argument about Brians death goes on and on
over many boards causing division and pointless
fights. Let's not do that here!

How many theories there exactly are about the death of Brian Jones? What I have seen they seem to fall on three main categories:

(1) The official one: "death by misadvanture", that is, Brian drowned without help of anyone.

(2) Brian was killed by Frank Thorogood, This was a result of horse play or something; something happened in Frank's mind, similar perhaps to what happened in Zidane's mind last night. This is mostly based on the "death bed confession" by Thorogood, and claimed and denied by Keylock, and it is a base for "Stoned" movie also.

(3) Brian was murdered by professionals; a hit was planned, and there was a conspiracy behind it all. Most likely Tom Keylock and Allen Klein, perhaps even the Stones (Mick), were involved,

The truth is out there. My guess goes between (1) and (2), Trevor Hubley's investigation takes (3) as its departure position. Of course, the last one is the most exciting one (there is nothing really to disclose in (1) and (2)); even ex-PM of UK, Harald Wilson, was mentioned along the course of the investigation...

- Doxa



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2006-07-10 17:18 by Doxa.

davido Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> This argument about Brians death goes on and on
> over many boards causing division and pointless
> fights. Let's not do that here!

But c'mon Davido - isn't that an expection to the old Wood-Taylor debates or setlist whinings?

- Doxa

At least this debate is interesting Davido & has a point to it. Brian's death is still a mystery and one that just possibly could be solved. Since Brian's family & children welcome an investigation why would you want to close the debate down?

Doxa, how the hell did Harold Wilson come up??!!

Doxa,
I would add a couple of categories to your list (or sub-categories)

a) That Keylock himself murdered Brian

b) That several builder friends, possibly including Thorogood, did it. In 'Paint It Black' one of these supposedly met the author and confessed to being one of these.

this speculation is all well and good but which police force has taken the case, and what standard of proof are you using?

OLDKR

Tseverin Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> Doxa, how the hell did Harold Wilson come up??!!


Well, I really don't know - but ex-PM was mentioned by "Jase" at LARS board, referring to TD's investigations, even though any link to Brian's death was denied later. Also this "Jase" says that one should not read too much from the absence of Jagger's name in TD's message (so this "Jase" is very close to the investigations I think) - it sounds like they are holding a little back now.

- Doxa

Miss U,

Is it true that Tom Keylock is or was an honorary member of the BJ Fanclub? Is there a special rate for murderers?