The Spendel/Rawlings Facebook page has posted a couple of teasers from their forthcoming book. As of 4 hours ago Amazon is still busy with file conversion to a kindle format. No word yet on when the hard copy version will be available.

Excerpt from a police report stating that Suki Potier left Cotchford Farm a half hour before the drowning took place.


Photo taken July 1 at Cotchford Farm showing London workman Eddie Loake and Tom Keylock, with Frank Thorogood in the background (in the doorway).


Details at: [www.facebook.com]

It's up, at least on the U.S. Amazon site.

Quote
owlbynite

Brian sure was a man of style. Mesmerizing to watch him in the old videos.

I don't get it. He wasn't attractive to me at all. Not only was he abusive to women, he anally raped Nico, which is in her autobiography. The guy had issues. I can't get past that side of him. I also think the Mick Taylor-era Stones are the BEST.

Yes, it is. Just the kindle version for now. And according to the two-paragraph introduction to the 2013 edition, it's essentially the same book with all the "erroneous statements, false leads and outright lies"; the authors want you to read the original chapters leading up to The Final Truth so that "you will see how close we came".



[www.amazon.com]

In answer to one poster on the authors' Facebook page about the availability of hard copy versions of The Final Truth, the authors posted the following 5 hours ago:

"WE are trying to negotiate a deal with a printer for hard copies - hope to have something available in October"

Quote
gypsy18

Quote
owlbynite

Brian sure was a man of style. Mesmerizing to watch him in the old videos.

I don't get it. He wasn't attractive to me at all. Not only was he abusive to women, he anally raped Nico, which is in her autobiography. The guy had issues. I can't get past that side of him. I also think the Mick Taylor-era Stones are the BEST.

During his lifetime, fans didn't know anything about the darker side of his private life, except for his drug problems. He and Mick were always the heartthrobs of the band.

(So I have to say, when I was a teenager he was mega-attractive to me.)

>he anally raped Nico, which is in her autobiography.

Nico never wrote an autobiography. The incident you're referring to was recounted in the book NICO: THE LIFE AND LIES OF AN ICON by Richard Witts.

(Note the "lies" in the title. I'm not saying it didn't happen, but it certainly did not appear in a non-existent Nico autobiography.)



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-08-19 11:38 by Glam Descendant.

i've ordered it but kindle keeps crashing at the moment. i'll let you know what i think when kindle works and i've given it a good look.

Hi everybody,

The book is out, finally. I posted some info already on the Facebook page, like the statement and the picture of tom and the builder at Cotchford to show we've got stuf. When i started working with Terry we chose a certain approach. This perspective shows the development of the research. This means we point out the differences between his previous book and this one. It does Terry credit he agreed to this approach, because the new book also points out some errors in the first edition,and obvisiously, the right facts this time. This adds, we hope, to the seriousness of the new information.

paul

Quote
paulspendel
Hi everybody,

The book is out, finally. I posted some info already on the Facebook page, like the statement and the picture of tom and the builder at Cotchford to show we've got stuf. When i started working with Terry we chose a certain approach. This perspective shows the development of the research. This means we point out the differences between his previous book and this one. It does Terry credit he agreed to this approach, because the new book also points out some errors in the first edition,and obvisiously, the right facts this time. This adds, we hope, to the seriousness of the new information.

paul

Thanks!

You are welcome! You guys are very decent on this forum, i must say. I tip my hat to that. No yelling and cursing.

It's all for the golden boy we all miss so dearly...

I've read the "new" stuff in the book and am now re-reading the whole thing from the beginning.
Paul, when the book has "run it's course" i would very much like to read your work on this perhaps on a website with more documents etc. you have obtained.
I'm loathe to reveal too much at this stage as it's only fair that more people read the book and reach their own opinions for later discussion here.
I find it hard to take Terry's presentation too seriously, interesting though it is. Having read a 100 to 200 or so JFK,RFK,MLK,post war political-related books (both lone-nut/dual-nut/conspiracy/incompetence etc.) i am used to being able to make judgements, gauge quality of research, check footnotes etc.,follow government/agency documentation.
The problem here is that this (nearly) all comes down to he said,she said, and she said he said if you know what i mean. The reliability of almost every one of these persons appears to be questionable. Keylock for starters ! The police don't appear to be particularly straight shooting either but that's not news to anyone who has followed revelations about the bad side of the police force over the years (just like to add there are some good/very good police too, i'm not a police hater ! )
There are 3 or 4 things i would like to know about in greater detail which raised an eyebrow and i'll try and mention these later.
Paul, I hope you'll stick around for some questions in a week or two when others have had the chance to digest the new info contained in the book. Certainly you are due some congratulations for your detective work. Thanks.

Quote
gypsy18

Quote
owlbynite

Brian sure was a man of style. Mesmerizing to watch him in the old videos.

I don't get it. He wasn't attractive to me at all. Not only was he abusive to women, he anally raped Nico, which is in her autobiography. The guy had issues. I can't get past that side of him. I also think the Mick Taylor-era Stones are the BEST.

You wouldn't have had that era had Brian been in any way different to how he actually was. It's not the true Rolling Stones though.

Your stance is understandable, but if people allow such things get in the way of music a lot of albums need to be thrown out of people's music collections because the world of music is full of total bastards and bitches.

You ought to also consider Jagger assaulting a woman, which he didn't deny. Getting aggressive with Marianne. Keith firing gun in a room full of people. Keith pointing a gun at someone's face. Bill banging a 13/14 year old.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-08-20 12:53 by His Majesty.

Fair enough. I will stick around. Paul

I bought it.

I'm disappointed that it's essentially just the 2005 version with some new chapters added. The new chapters, ie the Final Truth sections are good and a whole new book just focusing on these would have been much better IMO.

Books detailing early stones history etc just aren't that needed anymore, the earlier version wasn't that great for that anyway, so a bit frustrating to see the majority of the book go to a re-print of the 2005 version.

Btw, Rawlings writes kinda like the way he speaks, I can understand how a Bermondsey geezer telling a story might not come across so well to someone more in to heavy, serious toned books, but I had no problem keeping track of who said what and where those quotes came from.

Evem allowing for human error, memory fails etc, the clout of the pulled together quotes, statements, comments and observations by those who were there and/or directly or indirectly involved before, during and after certainly makes for a compelling picture of events.

I spotted a couple of little errors creep in to the new sections, like May 1968 bust being at Courtfield Road when it was actually at Royal Avenue House.

Anyway, the new sections are good, but more of the new and less of the old version would have made or a better book. Chapter by Paul himself would have been good perhaps?

Quote
His Majesty
I bought it.

I'm disappointed that it's essentially just the 2005 version with some new chapters added. The new chapters, ie the Final Truth sections are good and a whole new book just focusing on these would have been much better IMO.

Books detailing early stones history etc just aren't that needed anymore, the earlier version wasn't that great for that anyway, so a bit frustrating to see the majority of the book go to a re-print of the 2005 version.

Btw, Rawlings writes kinda like the way he speaks, I can understand how a Bermondsey geezer telling a story might not come across so well to someone more in to heavy, serious toned books, but I had no problem keeping track of who said what and where those quotes came from.

Evem allowing for human error, memory fails etc, the clout of the pulled together quotes, statements, comments and observations by those who were there and/or directly or indirectly involved before, during and after certainly makes for a compelling picture of events.

I spotted a couple of little errors creep in to the new sections, like May 1968 bust being at Courtfield Road when it was actually at Royal Avenue House.

Anyway, the new sections are good, but more of the new and less of the old version would have made or a better book. Chapter by Paul himself would have been good perhaps?

That's what i think i was trying to say but you said it better your Royal Highness! Especially the "Chapter by Paul himself..." bit.
Please don't think i'm being harsh on you Paul or Terry for that matter. Your work is valuable and appreciated.
I think my problem with Terry's approach is that this should be more of a "true crime" book as opposed to a rock star expose so to speak. I'm sure Terry's a great guy to have a drink and a laugh with...certainly more so than Keylock and Thorogood !
For what it's worth i do agree with the overall thrust of the book re Brian's death. I just don't think this kind of presentation would stand up in court at least as it stands for now.
The only way i can see Brian dying "naturally" (ie from drowning) given the information we have is if he was really seriously mashed (bordering on catatonic) on the hash cakes and even then it just doesn't seem likely. Been there, done that and i'm still here typing rubbish on the internet !
I get the impression that if the police (had) really wanted to work this one they could get a conclusive result one way or the other. If you and Terry are correct there is still at least one person alive who genuinely knows if i remember the book correctly.
I'll be back with some more detailed questions later Paul.
Ironically i'm quite drunk right now and going for a swim in a small pool on a warm evening in Sardinia. It's ok though...family holiday with friends in pool and poolside...sorry if that's too sick for you all...made me laugh though.. and think..how the f*** did he drown in such a small pool with people so close...he wasn't a toddler,didn't have a seizure or asthma attack,wasn't dosed on acid...it doesn't make any sense and i just don't believe it.
Apologies again if my comments upset. I really am off for a swim now...

It's very easy to die, especially in a hot pool of water, even slightly wasted. The heat in tandem with booze and drugs could easily make you fall asleep or pass out.

I still have some doubts about certain things and I don't trust Rawlings that much, perhaps some of the harder to prove stories have been exaggerated etc. a all new book would have allowed for more detailed story.

The end result is the same regardless.

Quote
ash

Quote
His Majesty
I bought it.

I'm disappointed that it's essentially just the 2005 version with some new chapters added. The new chapters, ie the Final Truth sections are good and a whole new book just focusing on these would have been much better IMO.

Books detailing early stones history etc just aren't that needed anymore, the earlier version wasn't that great for that anyway, so a bit frustrating to see the majority of the book go to a re-print of the 2005 version.

Btw, Rawlings writes kinda like the way he speaks, I can understand how a Bermondsey geezer telling a story might not come across so well to someone more in to heavy, serious toned books, but I had no problem keeping track of who said what and where those quotes came from.

Evem allowing for human error, memory fails etc, the clout of the pulled together quotes, statements, comments and observations by those who were there and/or directly or indirectly involved before, during and after certainly makes for a compelling picture of events.

I spotted a couple of little errors creep in to the new sections, like May 1968 bust being at Courtfield Road when it was actually at Royal Avenue House.

Anyway, the new sections are good, but more of the new and less of the old version would have made or a better book. Chapter by Paul himself would have been good perhaps?

That's what i think i was trying to say but you said it better your Royal Highness! Especially the "Chapter by Paul himself..." bit.
Please don't think i'm being harsh on you Paul or Terry for that matter. Your work is valuable and appreciated.
I think my problem with Terry's approach is that this should be more of a "true crime" book as opposed to a rock star expose so to speak. I'm sure Terry's a great guy to have a drink and a laugh with...certainly more so than Keylock and Thorogood !
For what it's worth i do agree with the overall thrust of the book re Brian's death. I just don't think this kind of presentation would stand up in court at least as it stands for now.
The only way i can see Brian dying "naturally" (ie from drowning) given the information we have is if he was really seriously mashed (bordering on catatonic) on the hash cakes and even then it just doesn't seem likely. Been there, done that and i'm still here typing rubbish on the internet !
I get the impression that if the police (had) really wanted to work this one they could get a conclusive result one way or the other. If you and Terry are correct there is still at least one person alive who genuinely knows if i remember the book correctly.
I'll be back with some more detailed questions later Paul.
Ironically i'm quite drunk right now and going for a swim in a small pool on a warm evening in Sardinia. It's ok though...family holiday with friends in pool and poolside...sorry if that's too sick for you all...made me laugh though.. and think..how the f*** did he drown in such a small pool with people so close...he wasn't a toddler,didn't have a seizure or asthma attack,wasn't dosed on acid...it doesn't make any sense and i just don't believe it.
Apologies again if my comments upset. I really am off for a swim now...

Ash - You still with us today!

Quote
His Majesty
I bought it.

I'm disappointed that it's essentially just the 2005 version with some new chapters added. The new chapters, ie the Final Truth sections are good and a whole new book just focusing on these would have been much better IMO.

Books detailing early stones history etc just aren't that needed anymore, the earlier version wasn't that great for that anyway, so a bit frustrating to see the majority of the book go to a re-print of the 2005 version.

Btw, Rawlings writes kinda like the way he speaks, I can understand how a Bermondsey geezer telling a story might not come across so well to someone more in to heavy, serious toned books, but I had no problem keeping track of who said what and where those quotes came from.

Evem allowing for human error, memory fails etc, the clout of the pulled together quotes, statements, comments and observations by those who were there and/or directly or indirectly involved before, during and after certainly makes for a compelling picture of events.

I spotted a couple of little errors creep in to the new sections, like May 1968 bust being at Courtfield Road when it was actually at Royal Avenue House.

Anyway, the new sections are good, but more of the new and less of the old version would have made or a better book. Chapter by Paul himself would have been good perhaps?

HM - If there was not a 2005 book, would you enjoy/recommend this new book more? Never read the earlier book, but after some initial reviews here, may decide against picking this new book up!

Relating to this question: this is what one reader wrote on Amazon after reading the new version.

I own the 2005 edition of "Who Killed Christopher Robin?" and have read it twice, so I immediately turned to 'The Final Truth' section and just finished it. I don't want to spoil it for anyone, but this is a MUST READ for fans who really want to know happened to Brian Jones on that fateful July evening! I'm amazed at all of the research you've done and the FT section fits all the pieces of this intricate puzzle together. I now understand why there was a cover-up after Brian's death and how they did it. Good job!!

This is another quote from a reader on Amazon.

This book is a MUST HAVE for any Brian Jones/Rolling Stones fan. A thoroughly researched and informative insight into the death of Brian Jones and the lies and cover-up that has followed for the last 40 years. An excellent job done by Terry Rawlings and Paul Spendel - many thanks to you both for this little gem - i'm off now to read it again.......

Ash - You still with us today![/quote]
Yeah but i don't feel very well !

Quote
His Majesty

Quote
gypsy18

Quote
owlbynite

Brian sure was a man of style. Mesmerizing to watch him in the old videos.

I don't get it. He wasn't attractive to me at all. Not only was he abusive to women, he anally raped Nico, which is in her autobiography. The guy had issues. I can't get past that side of him. I also think the Mick Taylor-era Stones are the BEST.

You wouldn't have had that era had Brian been in any way different to how he actually was. It's not the true Rolling Stones though.

Your stance is understandable, but if people allow such things get in the way of music a lot of albums need to be thrown out of people's music collections because the world of music is full of total bastards and bitches.

You ought to also consider Jagger assaulting a woman, which he didn't deny. Getting aggressive with Marianne. Keith firing gun in a room full of people. Keith pointing a gun at someone's face. Bill banging a 13/14 year old.

well stated on all points, HM. Gypsy 18, getting past the bad sides of those who exhibit sick bi-polar type abusive behaviors is not easy, be glad you don't live with some, but many of them achieve brilliance in their fields. Also feel Brian's loss of his baby sister in childhood contributed to his screwed-up personality. Have never heard anyone who has gone thru that say they emerged unscathed.

I will have to wait for the hard copy to be published before I can read "The Final Truth".

However, I was just reading a blog by former Stones tour manager Sam Cutler from 2009, in which he claims that "[Brian] was almost certainly murdered by the very man whose role it was to protect him, Tom Keylock."

Cutler also discloses that Allen Klein launched an independent investigation to determine the cause of Jones' death--the conclusion he reached was that it was perpetrated by Tom Keylock.

"On the night that Brian died Keylock always maintained that he was NOT at the farm. This was not true. He was at the farm. Not only was he at the farm, he was also in the swimming pool. Two witnesses testified to this to private investigators sent by Alan Klein. Alan Klein investigated the murder of Brian Jones, had private detectives go to a nordic country and to France to interview two female witnesses, and it was the conclusion of the investigators that Keylock was directly responsible for Brian’s death.?

On the night that Brian died there were several men in the pool with him. One was Frank Thorogood, the friend of Tom Keylock, whom Keylock had hired to do building work at Brian’s house. Along with Thorogood there were two building workers who were employed by Thorogood. All three men were staying at the farm at Brian’s expense. Then there was Keylock. A witness who arrived at Brian’s farm whilst the events were in progress,describes a man holding down Brian’s head under the water in the investigator’s report. The witness (not one of the two women at the farm) was approached by a man (not Keylock) who threatened him and he and his girlfriend who were personal friends of Brian’s left the scene as quickly as possible. They immediately fled overseas and were never sought out by the British police.

Neither of the female witnesses to the events which lead to Brian’s death were prepared to come to the United Kingdom and testify. Both witnesses (female) stated that they had been threatened and felt that their lives were in danger. Both witnesses testified that Keylock had been present in the swimming pool on the night and it was only many years after the event that Keylock finally admitted to journalists that he had indeed been present at the scene, tho he denied being in the pool or anywhere near the pool. Two men who had worked on the farm, and who were also present at the pool that evening, were never located or interviewed by the police.

Conveniently (for Keylock) and several years after Brian’s death, Frank Thorogood became so ill that he had to be hospitalised, he was a very sick man. Thorogood had been a witness to Brian’s murder and had been in a business relationship with Keylock. Keylock had arranged for Thorogood and two other men to do the building work at Brian’s farm. With Thorogood dying in hospital Keylock visited him, and miraculously a ‘death bed confession’ was forthcoming, where (according to keylock - the only witness) Thorogood admitted to “murdering Brian”. This ‘confession’ had the convenient effect of diverting attention away from Keylock (who may well have felt under pressure from Klein’s earlier enquiries) and placing it squarely upon Thorogood.

And there the matter rests. It is believed that the police in the United Kingdom now have copies of the Klein report. Klein was the manager of both the Rolling Stones and the Beatles and determined to establish the cause of Brian’s death - unlike the police who basically didn’t give a damn. One can only assume that the Beatles and the Stones were privy to the conclusions of the Klein report, though no-one has ever mentioned the existence of such a report. It is unknown whether the Klein report ever was given to the British police, but it is known that the police made no attempt to contact any of the witnesses named in the report."

Sam Cutler's blog: [samcutler.tumblr.com]

I am curious to know whether the authors of The Final Truth are aware of the existence of the alleged "Klein report".



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-08-25 09:33 by stonehearted.

Parts of that are in the final truth book, including mention of Klein thing, but they don't place Keylock in the pool, he's in the house when shit goes down.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-08-25 14:26 by His Majesty.

Quote
His Majesty
Parts of that are in the final truth book, including mention of Klein thing, but they don't place Keylock in the pool, he's in the house when shit goes down.

Which begs the question...which version of the events is true? (The 'Klein Report' that is quoted by Sam Cutler or the 'The Final Truth')

All part of the mystery, I guess.

Quote
nightskyman

Quote
His Majesty
Parts of that are in the final truth book, including mention of Klein thing, but they don't place Keylock in the pool, he's in the house when shit goes down.

Which begs the question...which version of the events is true? (The 'Klein Report' that is quoted by Sam Cutler or the 'The Final Truth')

All part of the mystery, I guess.

You'll have to wait for the next book - "The Final Final Truth", due out in 2025...

What about Anna Wohlin, Brians last girlfriend? Her story is a bit different again. She said Keylock only arrived after the death.

Quote
nightskyman

Quote
His Majesty
Parts of that are in the final truth book, including mention of Klein thing, but they don't place Keylock in the pool, he's in the house when shit goes down.

Which begs the question...which version of the events is true? (The 'Klein Report' that is quoted by Sam Cutler or the 'The Final Truth')

All part of the mystery, I guess.

This is the problem, they pick certain parts from other peoples stories that fit their version of events. So, does this mean the other parts which kind of clash are bollocks? If so, perhaps the parts they used are bollocks too!

I get that when something like this happens, people want it to have more meaning than just a dumb accident. But none of the murder theories that I've read make sense, if only because none of the motives are enough to risk murder--if your opponent owns the Stones name, you just get a better lawyer than your opponent, for instance.

(I think Sam Cutler got hold of some of the bad acid, to be honest. Shirley Arnold certainly didn't seem to think that Keylock had anything to do with it. But I wasn't there, any more than the rest of us, so . . )