Tell Me :
Talk
Brian's employee, carpet fitter Dave Gibson, was there until 10 p.m.
The official explanation was that he drowned after an excess of drink and drugs but many, including MrGibson, suspect he was murdered.
Mr Gibson said: "The night Brian died, I didn't leave Cotchford Farm until about 10pm and I remember he called out after me from the landing window, 'see you in the morning, Dave'.
"He wasn't drunk and I never saw him take drugs the whole time I was there, even though we did see lots of parties and orgies.
"He was looking forward to the builders finishing the next day. Me and my partner had to finish off and a fireplace still had to be put in, but after that he would have the place to himself.
Full details at: [www.theargus.co.uk]
I'm not sure. I only recall having first been made aware of the existence of this document while posting on the original LARS forum in 2007. One of the posters even provided the exact title and number of the document.
Apparently, it is not chlorine, but a chlorine derivative that is used in most private swimming pools. From the wiki page on chlorine:
Chlorine is usually used (in the form of hypochlorous acid) to kill bacteria and other microbes in drinking water supplies and public swimming pools. In most private swimming pools, chlorine itself is not used, but rather sodium hypochlorite, formed from chlorine and sodium hydroxide, or solid tablets of chlorinated isocyanurates. The drawback of using chlorine in swimming pools is that the chlorine reacts with a human's hair and skin because hair and skin are made from protein. Once the chlorine reacts with the hair and skin, it becomes chemically bonded.
Full page on chlorine at: [en.wikipedia.org]
The autopsy never seemed to be very thorough in that it just seemed to tell of general details. But I agree with 2000 LYFH's post that it mentions fresh water likely in comparison to salt water. I doubt the coroner was thorough--or even interested--enough to more closely analyze the "fresh" water found in the lungs.
As for not drowning in the swimming pool, I'm sure you must be familiar with the "bucket" theory, that, according to at least one witness who was on hand (the member of The Walker Brothers who later told Richard Hattrell?), said that Brian at one point was being held upside down and repeatedly dunked head first into a bucket of water, then afterward was flung into the pool so that they could say that he drowned there. The bucket dunking would surely come under the category of "rough play" of which Brian might have been duped into participating in.
Because if Thorogood gets into the pool with Brian with the intention of drowning Brian, what if Brian resists and a fight breaks out in the pool? In that event, Thorogood would have risked drowning himself.
[www.angelfire.com]
Yes, I've seen that link and in fact was browsing through that page just a few hours ago.
Keith stated in 1971:
“Some very weird things happened that night, there were people there that suddenly disappeared. We had these chauffeurs working for us....... some of them had a hold over Brian. There were a lot of chicks there. They were having a party. The only cat I could ask was the one who I think got rid of everybody, so when the cops arrived it was just an accident. Trying to find out is impossible....... it’s the same feeling with who killed Kennedy, you can’t get to the bottom of it”.
This was an interesting read: [www.brianjonesfanclub.com]
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-07-08 18:52 by 2000 LYFH.
Yes brilliant Redhotcarpet.
__________________________
I agree!
I do not think that the name Rolling Stones was a trademark owned by Brian Jones and after his death it would trickle down to his heirs. They formed a group and all were equal members and the band was named in 62 (before Bill & Charlie joined though). Has there ever been anything official on the ownership of the name other than anyone's opinion?
The other thing is this party that night. I believe that the carpet guys left at about 10PM (no party and no other people reported there except Brian and his girlfriend) and then he was dead within 2 hours (was it before midnight?). So all these people came out of the wood work in that 120 miute span and then there was a party and then he was murdered. I guess it's possible but the timeline seems to be off!
The only reason I mention party is because of what Keith was quoted as saying. Of course he could get no info out of Keylock so it proves nothing. I've read all kinds of theories. Some plausible some way out there. Again no real investigation to sift through fact vs fiction 44 years later I might add. Jones the reporter had 600 pages of documents and the police refused to re-open the case.
The ownership rights to the name Rolling Stones is very interesting though. Hopefully someone can clear that up. I can see that being over looked all these years. I'll be curious to see if anything amounts from this recent article.
At merchandising stalls on the current tour, there is a T-shirt being sold that bears head-shot images of the mid-60s Stones, which of course included Brian and Bill. So it would be reasonable to assume that Brian's estate and Bill get some cut on that element of merchandising. Bill still gets performance royalties for albums he played on, so it would seem likely that Brian's estate would as well.
You might want to talk to the daily mail about stopping this "crap" as they are the ones that reported it. Something about freedom of the press and peoples rights to comment bother you?
No, no, tranquilo mi amigo. Just expressing an opinion.
And I was expressing mine.
Talk about your favorite band.
For information about how to use this forum please check out forum help and policies.
Re: Brian Jones death - Janet Lawson's story
Posted by:
stonehearted
()
Date: July 8, 2013 00:58
Quote
24FPSQuote
stoneheartedQuote
24FPSQuote
BeautifulBuzz
Rolling Stones Brian Jones' lover Anna Wohlin claims he was killed in scuffle with minder
[www.mirror.co.uk]
She says nothing definitive. It's almost Spinal Tappish when she said she was pregnant with Brian's child. She was there and she can't be sure Brian was murdered. This story fizzled out a long, long time ago.
She was there (meaning at Cotchford Farm), but she never said she was at the scene, as in there at the pool while it was taking place.
It's really more a matter of, now Tom Keylock's dead at last, she's a little less fearful about speaking--wouldn't you be if one of your silencers were finally out of the picture?
The problem is that there's nothing to silence. She witnessed nothing. It was mildly interesting to hear what Brian's mental state was around the time of 'the incident', but she really had nothing else to offer. Her perceptions of how the Rolling Stones office treated her are subjective and lost in the mists of time. I think everyone involved was shocked.
Brian drowned. There's never been any proof that he was forcibly drowned. I don't remember there being any proof of physical violence to his body. Maybe something happened that falls very far from murder. Three and a half pints of beer in his system? Possibly sleeping pills. A heated pool. Maybe there was horseplay and Brian succumbed very easily. The continuing interest in this is what I don't get. And now there's no one alive who was on the scene when it happened to provide any new testimony. It's a closed case.
Brian's employee, carpet fitter Dave Gibson, was there until 10 p.m.
The official explanation was that he drowned after an excess of drink and drugs but many, including MrGibson, suspect he was murdered.
Mr Gibson said: "The night Brian died, I didn't leave Cotchford Farm until about 10pm and I remember he called out after me from the landing window, 'see you in the morning, Dave'.
"He wasn't drunk and I never saw him take drugs the whole time I was there, even though we did see lots of parties and orgies.
"He was looking forward to the builders finishing the next day. Me and my partner had to finish off and a fireplace still had to be put in, but after that he would have the place to himself.
Full details at: [www.theargus.co.uk]
Re: Brian Jones death - Janet Lawson's story
Posted by:
stonehearted
()
Date: July 8, 2013 02:05
Quote
2000 LYFHQuote
stonehearted
Another element to indicate there is more to this case than what has been officially reported is the existence of classified government documents that can only be released after 70 years or so because certain information "could cause irreparable harm to the reputation of one or more living persons".
Was that one of the finding's of Trevor Hobley a few years ago?
Any idea where the "Three and a half pints of beer in his system" came from? In Mandy Aftel's book, "Death Of A Rolling Stone", she states that Frank and Brian drank almost an entire bottle of Brandy, 2/3 of a bottle of Vodka, 1/2 bottle of Whiskey and some wine (He was already drinking with Janet before going to to get Frank from the apartment above the garage). Also stated that Brian may have taken sleeping pills. Sure seems like a lot was consumed in a short amount of time...
I'm not sure. I only recall having first been made aware of the existence of this document while posting on the original LARS forum in 2007. One of the posters even provided the exact title and number of the document.
Re: Brian Jones death - Janet Lawson's story
Posted by:
stonehearted
()
Date: July 8, 2013 02:42
Quote
sizey
I read the story in the Mail as regards Keith pulling a knife. Well, I thought it was an extraordinary revelation to come out with now. Frank Thorogood's family have been quizzed many times before and never once has this been revealed - has someone got a book coming out?
Am I one of the few who believe Brian never drowned in the swimming pool? As I know, Brian's pool was continually hot and full of chlorine. Note: No presence of chlorine in the death certificate - just "fresh water".
Apparently, it is not chlorine, but a chlorine derivative that is used in most private swimming pools. From the wiki page on chlorine:
Chlorine is usually used (in the form of hypochlorous acid) to kill bacteria and other microbes in drinking water supplies and public swimming pools. In most private swimming pools, chlorine itself is not used, but rather sodium hypochlorite, formed from chlorine and sodium hydroxide, or solid tablets of chlorinated isocyanurates. The drawback of using chlorine in swimming pools is that the chlorine reacts with a human's hair and skin because hair and skin are made from protein. Once the chlorine reacts with the hair and skin, it becomes chemically bonded.
Full page on chlorine at: [en.wikipedia.org]
The autopsy never seemed to be very thorough in that it just seemed to tell of general details. But I agree with 2000 LYFH's post that it mentions fresh water likely in comparison to salt water. I doubt the coroner was thorough--or even interested--enough to more closely analyze the "fresh" water found in the lungs.
As for not drowning in the swimming pool, I'm sure you must be familiar with the "bucket" theory, that, according to at least one witness who was on hand (the member of The Walker Brothers who later told Richard Hattrell?), said that Brian at one point was being held upside down and repeatedly dunked head first into a bucket of water, then afterward was flung into the pool so that they could say that he drowned there. The bucket dunking would surely come under the category of "rough play" of which Brian might have been duped into participating in.
Because if Thorogood gets into the pool with Brian with the intention of drowning Brian, what if Brian resists and a fight breaks out in the pool? In that event, Thorogood would have risked drowning himself.
Re: Brian Jones death - Janet Lawson's story
Posted by:
24FPS
()
Date: July 8, 2013 03:58
Okay, Thorogood did it. He drowned Brian, whether intentionally or not. Now what? What changes, other than the 'official' report? The trajectory of Brian and Frank doesn't change, both cold and dead. So, again, now what?
Re: Brian Jones death - Janet Lawson's story
Posted by:
2000 LYFH
()
Date: July 8, 2013 04:56
Quote
stoneheartedQuote
sizey
I read the story in the Mail as regards Keith pulling a knife. Well, I thought it was an extraordinary revelation to come out with now. Frank Thorogood's family have been quizzed many times before and never once has this been revealed - has someone got a book coming out?
Am I one of the few who believe Brian never drowned in the swimming pool? As I know, Brian's pool was continually hot and full of chlorine. Note: No presence of chlorine in the death certificate - just "fresh water".
Apparently, it is not chlorine, but a chlorine derivative that is used in most private swimming pools. From the wiki page on chlorine:
Chlorine is usually used (in the form of hypochlorous acid) to kill bacteria and other microbes in drinking water supplies and public swimming pools. In most private swimming pools, chlorine itself is not used, but rather sodium hypochlorite, formed from chlorine and sodium hydroxide, or solid tablets of chlorinated isocyanurates. The drawback of using chlorine in swimming pools is that the chlorine reacts with a human's hair and skin because hair and skin are made from protein. Once the chlorine reacts with the hair and skin, it becomes chemically bonded.
Full page on chlorine at: [en.wikipedia.org]
The autopsy never seemed to be very thorough in that it just seemed to tell of general details. But I agree with 2000 LYFH's post that it mentions fresh water likely in comparison to salt water. I doubt the coroner was thorough--or even interested--enough to more closely analyze the "fresh" water found in the lungs.
As for not drowning in the swimming pool, I'm sure you must be familiar with the "bucket" theory, that, according to at least one witness who was on hand (the member of The Walker Brothers who later told Richard Hattrell?), said that Brian at one point was being held upside down and repeatedly dunked head first into a bucket of water, then afterward was flung into the pool so that they could say that he drowned there. The bucket dunking would surely come under the category of "rough play" of which Brian might have been duped into participating in.
Because if Thorogood gets into the pool with Brian with the intention of drowning Brian, what if Brian resists and a fight breaks out in the pool? In that event, Thorogood would have risked drowning himself.
[www.angelfire.com]
Re: Brian Jones death - Janet Lawson's story
Posted by:
stonehearted
()
Date: July 8, 2013 05:17
Yes, I've seen that link and in fact was browsing through that page just a few hours ago.
Re: Brian Jones death - Janet Lawson's story
Posted by:
sanQ
()
Date: July 8, 2013 06:27
Jimi doing smack? That's just not accurate. He wasn't into heroin.
Plain and simply, I think Brian was drowned by Thorogood because he was fired and owed money. Plus Thorogood was a nut. I really can't believe that all these years, not one of those so called "friends" of Brian's would push for justice.
It doesn't do any good now. Everyone is dead anyway. But that guy who served time for beating up that girl, should have his record cleared.
Plain and simply, I think Brian was drowned by Thorogood because he was fired and owed money. Plus Thorogood was a nut. I really can't believe that all these years, not one of those so called "friends" of Brian's would push for justice.
It doesn't do any good now. Everyone is dead anyway. But that guy who served time for beating up that girl, should have his record cleared.
Re: Brian Jones death - Janet Lawson's story
Posted by:
stonehearted
()
Date: July 8, 2013 07:37
<<I really can't believe that all these years, not one of those so called "friends" of Brian's would push for justice>>
Fear tactics can go a long way. Didn't one of the witnesses get acid thrown in her face, not too long after, getting blinded for life?
And it doesn't matter if "everyone is dead anyway", because there is no statute of limitations for the crime of murder. Recently in the news, a few months back, there was a U.S. murder case dating back to the mid-1950s where the case was finally reopened and the murderer brought to justice.
Perhaps Thorogood's band of helpers are still alive, or at least some of them. As we know from the bonfire and the looting of Brian's home right after the murder, and also the multiple accounts of harassment leading up to the event, as well as the neighbor Mrs. Hallett's account of being threatened into silence by one of Thorogood's employees, Thorogood was not acting alone.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-07-08 07:42 by stonehearted.
Fear tactics can go a long way. Didn't one of the witnesses get acid thrown in her face, not too long after, getting blinded for life?
And it doesn't matter if "everyone is dead anyway", because there is no statute of limitations for the crime of murder. Recently in the news, a few months back, there was a U.S. murder case dating back to the mid-1950s where the case was finally reopened and the murderer brought to justice.
Perhaps Thorogood's band of helpers are still alive, or at least some of them. As we know from the bonfire and the looting of Brian's home right after the murder, and also the multiple accounts of harassment leading up to the event, as well as the neighbor Mrs. Hallett's account of being threatened into silence by one of Thorogood's employees, Thorogood was not acting alone.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-07-08 07:42 by stonehearted.
Re: Brian Jones death - Janet Lawson's story
Posted by:
sizey
()
Date: July 8, 2013 15:22
Which makes you wonder how many of Thorogood's gang are still alive?
Re: Brian Jones death - Janet Lawson's story
Posted by:
2000 LYFH
()
Date: July 8, 2013 17:10
Quote
stonehearted
Yes, I've seen that link and in fact was browsing through that page just a few hours ago.
Keith stated in 1971:
“Some very weird things happened that night, there were people there that suddenly disappeared. We had these chauffeurs working for us....... some of them had a hold over Brian. There were a lot of chicks there. They were having a party. The only cat I could ask was the one who I think got rid of everybody, so when the cops arrived it was just an accident. Trying to find out is impossible....... it’s the same feeling with who killed Kennedy, you can’t get to the bottom of it”.
This was an interesting read: [www.brianjonesfanclub.com]
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-07-08 18:52 by 2000 LYFH.
Re: Brian Jones death - Janet Lawson's story
Posted by:
georgie48
()
Date: July 8, 2013 18:40
I still remember clearly a BBC interview broadcasted (black and white) on the Dutch News program on July 4th, 1969.
A blond girl (Anna W.) and a tall man semi-long hair and sideboards (Frank T.), both introduced as close friends of Brian, were asked about the death of Brian. I had never heard about either of them.
Anna was still clearly upset, but Frank T.'s behavior of quasi not interested and very unnaturally "bored" as well as the way he spoke about it, proved at that very moment that he was lying. Even though I didn't know the guy, his attitude couldn't fool me. Off course I didn't know what he was lying about, but lying he was.
History has come up with many possibilities, but Frank's involvement in Brian's death is very, very obvious: if not murder, for sure he killed (very possibly without intention) Brian.
For years in the sixties the English police had a grudge against the Rolling Stones, so sadly one can not take them serious at all in this sad case.
A blond girl (Anna W.) and a tall man semi-long hair and sideboards (Frank T.), both introduced as close friends of Brian, were asked about the death of Brian. I had never heard about either of them.
Anna was still clearly upset, but Frank T.'s behavior of quasi not interested and very unnaturally "bored" as well as the way he spoke about it, proved at that very moment that he was lying. Even though I didn't know the guy, his attitude couldn't fool me. Off course I didn't know what he was lying about, but lying he was.
History has come up with many possibilities, but Frank's involvement in Brian's death is very, very obvious: if not murder, for sure he killed (very possibly without intention) Brian.
For years in the sixties the English police had a grudge against the Rolling Stones, so sadly one can not take them serious at all in this sad case.
Re: Brian Jones death - Janet Lawson's story
Posted by:
sizey
()
Date: July 8, 2013 19:01
Frank was at Brian's funeral as well, which is spooky- and there's what appears to be one of his "gang" at his side
Re: Brian Jones death - Janet Lawson's story
Posted by:
treaclefingers
()
Date: July 9, 2013 01:13
Quote
DoxaQuote
RedhotcarpetQuote
mickschix
I'm not sure " ALL OF THOSE BUSTS" would have happened if Brian hadn't been so careless. ( well, Keith too for that matter. I'm not sure what you saw as productive in Brian during " One Plus One", the parts I recall clearly show a wastd Brian...so ok, not 100% of the time, but a lot of the time in the studio.
Yeah but the band woould not have happened hadnt Brian Jones of Cheltenham been a ruthless cool cruel boy on the run. Michael Philip Jagger would have said bye to Keith and moved into a student dorm. Keith would have returned to Doris's kitchen with the guitar. And he would have been the best goddamn rhythm rock n roll guitar player in London. So, he would have been picked by Eric. And when Eric left that band he would have continued. And later on he would have joined Eric again for a while after Page left. And Hendrix would have jammed with him. And Keith would have tried Jimi's smack. And then ladies and gentlemen Keith would have opened up that Pandora and recorded that late 60s obscure masterpiece called "Shelter street", a record that meant everything to everyone who was there. A masterpiece that young guitarplayers today still hold high. An important record with much bigger impact that Keith never knew during his short but striking lifetime.
Michael Philip Jagger of London, assistant of the MP remembers: Yes, Keith Richard was a friend of mine. We knew eachother quite well at the time and then we grew apart. I didnt hear form him except the odd phone call or letter. I kept those letters and read them again when I heard of his record "Gimme Exile" (sic). He was a funny fellow, one of a kind. I guess he got mixed up with drugs, if indeed he was, like many of us take to drinks.
Excellent!
- Doxa
Yes brilliant Redhotcarpet.
Re: Brian Jones death - Janet Lawson's story
Posted by:
NICOS
()
Date: July 9, 2013 01:20
Quote
treaclefingersQuote
DoxaQuote
RedhotcarpetQuote
mickschix
I'm not sure " ALL OF THOSE BUSTS" would have happened if Brian hadn't been so careless. ( well, Keith too for that matter. I'm not sure what you saw as productive in Brian during " One Plus One", the parts I recall clearly show a wastd Brian...so ok, not 100% of the time, but a lot of the time in the studio.
Yeah but the band woould not have happened hadnt Brian Jones of Cheltenham been a ruthless cool cruel boy on the run. Michael Philip Jagger would have said bye to Keith and moved into a student dorm. Keith would have returned to Doris's kitchen with the guitar. And he would have been the best goddamn rhythm rock n roll guitar player in London. So, he would have been picked by Eric. And when Eric left that band he would have continued. And later on he would have joined Eric again for a while after Page left. And Hendrix would have jammed with him. And Keith would have tried Jimi's smack. And then ladies and gentlemen Keith would have opened up that Pandora and recorded that late 60s obscure masterpiece called "Shelter street", a record that meant everything to everyone who was there. A masterpiece that young guitarplayers today still hold high. An important record with much bigger impact that Keith never knew during his short but striking lifetime.
Michael Philip Jagger of London, assistant of the MP remembers: Yes, Keith Richard was a friend of mine. We knew eachother quite well at the time and then we grew apart. I didnt hear form him except the odd phone call or letter. I kept those letters and read them again when I heard of his record "Gimme Exile" (sic). He was a funny fellow, one of a kind. I guess he got mixed up with drugs, if indeed he was, like many of us take to drinks.
Excellent!
- Doxa
Yes brilliant Redhotcarpet.
__________________________
Re: Brian Jones death - Janet Lawson's story
Posted by:
ovalvox
()
Date: July 9, 2013 02:53
I find it very interesting that now it is reported that Keith threatened Brian with a knife just hours before his death. Over the rights to the name Rolling Stones by the Daily Mail. This is certainly plausible since Brian had the patent on the name. And Keith is hot headed enough to pull a knife. It seems after all these years that everyone was at Cotchford that day. This "can of worms" just won't go away. Maybe the English authorities will eventually do a real investigation and answer all the questions. Or at least rule out some of the theories. Someone murdered him. To many people were threatened and just to scared to talk for over 40 years. There were so many people that day that someone knows the truth or part of it anyways. The legend that Mick was there that day may now be real and make this worth investigating. And again if Brian was at the bottom of the pool he would have been dead for hours before he sunk to the bottom. And I don't believe a word that Janet or Anna say. There was more than likely a party that night. Just to much evidence yet they both tell a different tale. I used to think Frank did it but now he makes the perfect scapegoat being dead. Well his daughter isn't giving up without a fight. As for the glimmer twins? Yesterdays revelation changes everything. Mick's face probably turned pale when he read the paper. If the English authorities decide to re-open the case instead of quickly sweeping it back under the carpet, Mick and Keith will be the first two people interrogated. And who really owns the name of the Rolling Stones? Is it the estate of Brian Jones? Did Mick and Keith ever secure the rights legally? 44 years later and the mystery surrounding the death of Brian Jones continues.
Re: Brian Jones death - Janet Lawson's story
Posted by:
2000 LYFH
()
Date: July 9, 2013 03:29
Quote
ovalvox
I find it very interesting that now it is reported that Keith threatened Brian with a knife just hours before his death. Over the rights to the name Rolling Stones by the Daily Mail. This is certainly plausible since Brian had the patent on the name. And Keith is hot headed enough to pull a knife. It seems after all these years that everyone was at Cotchford that day. This "can of worms" just won't go away. Maybe the English authorities will eventually do a real investigation and answer all the questions. Or at least rule out some of the theories. Someone murdered him. To many people were threatened and just to scared to talk for over 40 years. There were so many people that day that someone knows the truth or part of it anyways. The legend that Mick was there that day may now be real and make this worth investigating. And again if Brian was at the bottom of the pool he would have been dead for hours before he sunk to the bottom. And I don't believe a word that Janet or Anna say. There was more than likely a party that night. Just to much evidence yet they both tell a different tale. I used to think Frank did it but now he makes the perfect scapegoat being dead. Well his daughter isn't giving up without a fight. As for the glimmer twins? Yesterdays revelation changes everything. Mick's face probably turned pale when he read the paper. If the English authorities decide to re-open the case instead of quickly sweeping it back under the carpet, Mick and Keith will be the first two people interrogated. And who really owns the name of the Rolling Stones? Is it the estate of Brian Jones? Did Mick and Keith ever secure the rights legally? 44 years later and the mystery surrounding the death of Brian Jones continues.
I agree!
I do not think that the name Rolling Stones was a trademark owned by Brian Jones and after his death it would trickle down to his heirs. They formed a group and all were equal members and the band was named in 62 (before Bill & Charlie joined though). Has there ever been anything official on the ownership of the name other than anyone's opinion?
The other thing is this party that night. I believe that the carpet guys left at about 10PM (no party and no other people reported there except Brian and his girlfriend) and then he was dead within 2 hours (was it before midnight?). So all these people came out of the wood work in that 120 miute span and then there was a party and then he was murdered. I guess it's possible but the timeline seems to be off!
Re: Brian Jones death - Janet Lawson's story
Posted by:
ovalvox
()
Date: July 9, 2013 05:05
Quote
2000 LYFHQuote
ovalvox
I find it very interesting that now it is reported that Keith threatened Brian with a knife just hours before his death. Over the rights to the name Rolling Stones by the Daily Mail. This is certainly plausible since Brian had the patent on the name. And Keith is hot headed enough to pull a knife. It seems after all these years that everyone was at Cotchford that day. This "can of worms" just won't go away. Maybe the English authorities will eventually do a real investigation and answer all the questions. Or at least rule out some of the theories. Someone murdered him. To many people were threatened and just to scared to talk for over 40 years. There were so many people that day that someone knows the truth or part of it anyways. The legend that Mick was there that day may now be real and make this worth investigating. And again if Brian was at the bottom of the pool he would have been dead for hours before he sunk to the bottom. And I don't believe a word that Janet or Anna say. There was more than likely a party that night. Just to much evidence yet they both tell a different tale. I used to think Frank did it but now he makes the perfect scapegoat being dead. Well his daughter isn't giving up without a fight. As for the glimmer twins? Yesterdays revelation changes everything. Mick's face probably turned pale when he read the paper. If the English authorities decide to re-open the case instead of quickly sweeping it back under the carpet, Mick and Keith will be the first two people interrogated. And who really owns the name of the Rolling Stones? Is it the estate of Brian Jones? Did Mick and Keith ever secure the rights legally? 44 years later and the mystery surrounding the death of Brian Jones continues.
I agree!
I do not think that the name Rolling Stones was a trademark owned by Brian Jones and after his death it would trickle down to his heirs. They formed a group and all were equal members and the band was named in 62 (before Bill & Charlie joined though). Has there ever been anything official on the ownership of the name other than anyone's opinion?
The other thing is this party that night. I believe that the carpet guys left at about 10PM (no party and no other people reported there except Brian and his girlfriend) and then he was dead within 2 hours (was it before midnight?). So all these people came out of the wood work in that 120 miute span and then there was a party and then he was murdered. I guess it's possible but the timeline seems to be off!
The only reason I mention party is because of what Keith was quoted as saying. Of course he could get no info out of Keylock so it proves nothing. I've read all kinds of theories. Some plausible some way out there. Again no real investigation to sift through fact vs fiction 44 years later I might add. Jones the reporter had 600 pages of documents and the police refused to re-open the case.
The ownership rights to the name Rolling Stones is very interesting though. Hopefully someone can clear that up. I can see that being over looked all these years. I'll be curious to see if anything amounts from this recent article.
Re: Brian Jones death - Janet Lawson's story
Posted by:
24FPS
()
Date: July 9, 2013 06:44
Nothing. Absolutely nothing of value will come from any articles written. There is no real investigation, as OVALVOX states. If there is no official investigation, then there will be no forward propulsion of the case. Therefore, this case is closed until further notice. Anything else is chewing on an old, dried out bone. Wild eyed conjecture and theories are just pissing in the wind, and quite sad.
Re: Brian Jones death - Janet Lawson's story
Posted by:
sizey
()
Date: July 9, 2013 18:38
Please divert me to a previous thread if needs be, but does Brian's next of kin benefit in any way from Stones' royalties? Equally, the often quoted "£20,000 - as long as the band still exists" was that ever honored?
x
x
Re: Brian Jones death - Janet Lawson's story
Posted by:
His Majesty
()
Date: July 9, 2013 19:27
.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-07-09 19:31 by His Majesty.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-07-09 19:31 by His Majesty.
Re: Brian Jones death - Janet Lawson's story
Posted by:
24FPS
()
Date: July 9, 2013 19:37
The name The Rolling Stones was obviously property of the actual group or you can be damn sure that Allen Klein would have kept it, or charged them an excruciating fee to license it. They were named before Oldham came on the scene and then passed his rights on to Klein. And so far this is the most interesting thing to contemplate on this thread.
And no one knows about Brian's estate, or its rights, or if they expired, or what they received, unless it's buried in some ancient thread. I have never heard of any legal action taken by his survivors. Brian supposedly owed money to the 'company' at the time of his death. His only songwriting credits would be 1/5th of the few Nanker Phelge compositions.
Charlie and Bill could not survive on the mechanical royalties by 1969, so there must not have been great piles there to be had. They hadn't toured in two and a half years, with tours not being money makers anyway until much later. They were promotional tools for records. As far as we know there was no special agreement to split the mechanical royalties pie with a fatter piece for founder Jones. He was basically living far beyond his means.
And stop this crap about Keith driving down to Brian's house and threatening him with the mythical blade, until you have solid proof. Your fevered speculations, based on air, are tedious and lead to a blind alley.
One thing I've thought of is Brian's image. His surviving sister, or one of his offspring (is that better than bastard?) should by all rights be able to legally control and have the right to exploit his image. I have never seen any legalese at the bottom of any Rolling Stones project concerning Brian Jones that notes 'courtesy of the Brian Jones estate' or any such language. Whether such permission to exploit Brian's image was made years ago with Brian's family is unknown to us. I can see how it might apply to older material, such as album covers, but it would seem that Brian's face, depicted on the movie poster for Crossfire Hurricane, might be another matter, being a 'new' product.
And no one knows about Brian's estate, or its rights, or if they expired, or what they received, unless it's buried in some ancient thread. I have never heard of any legal action taken by his survivors. Brian supposedly owed money to the 'company' at the time of his death. His only songwriting credits would be 1/5th of the few Nanker Phelge compositions.
Charlie and Bill could not survive on the mechanical royalties by 1969, so there must not have been great piles there to be had. They hadn't toured in two and a half years, with tours not being money makers anyway until much later. They were promotional tools for records. As far as we know there was no special agreement to split the mechanical royalties pie with a fatter piece for founder Jones. He was basically living far beyond his means.
And stop this crap about Keith driving down to Brian's house and threatening him with the mythical blade, until you have solid proof. Your fevered speculations, based on air, are tedious and lead to a blind alley.
One thing I've thought of is Brian's image. His surviving sister, or one of his offspring (is that better than bastard?) should by all rights be able to legally control and have the right to exploit his image. I have never seen any legalese at the bottom of any Rolling Stones project concerning Brian Jones that notes 'courtesy of the Brian Jones estate' or any such language. Whether such permission to exploit Brian's image was made years ago with Brian's family is unknown to us. I can see how it might apply to older material, such as album covers, but it would seem that Brian's face, depicted on the movie poster for Crossfire Hurricane, might be another matter, being a 'new' product.
Re: Brian Jones death - Janet Lawson's story
Posted by:
His Majesty
()
Date: July 9, 2013 20:04
Yes, offspring is better than bastard.
I have been told by a reliable source that any money that hasn't been syphoned off elsewhere before hand has been going to Brian's immediate family, by that I mean his parents and sister. Fairly recent events has meant that the money now goes to Brian's sister.
The Jones's have never shared any of that income with Brian's children.
I have been told by a reliable source that any money that hasn't been syphoned off elsewhere before hand has been going to Brian's immediate family, by that I mean his parents and sister. Fairly recent events has meant that the money now goes to Brian's sister.
The Jones's have never shared any of that income with Brian's children.
Re: Brian Jones death - Janet Lawson's story
Posted by:
His Majesty
()
Date: July 9, 2013 20:19
More on the Jones estate...
[members7.boardhost.com]
"It went like this: London sollicitor Clive Berger handled the Brian Jones estate in May 1970. Brian's parents liked the way he handled it and Clive Berger remained in charge of the estate for about 15 years. Due to air play royalties the money went coming in in the seventies, although not in that big numbers. Brian didn't write them, he played on them. That's u huge diference. Lewis Jones thought it to be an appropriate thing to pay all the people Brian owned money to. In the eighties the BJ estate went to another firm when Clive Berger merged several time with other sollicitor's firms. So paying the Hartfield butcher and the grocer after all that time was just a matter of decency displayed by Brian's parents."
[members7.boardhost.com]
"i have been researching this issue at great lengths.
Brian's parents were alive back in 2008 when a priest who knew them both served as a liaison. I honestly don't know about the current situation.
Almost everything Brian bought was charged on a special Stones account handled by Fred Trowbridge. The butcher who had his money refunded had the steaks ordered by Tom Keylock. Dave Gibson can account for this. When Brian died the account was frozen until May 1970. After the estate was settled there was a huge debt that slowly turned into a small fortune at the end of the seventies, still looked after by Clive Berger.
The BJ estate still exists and his family is first in line, according to English law. very curious is this: in 2002/2003 the English organisation that collects and distributes UK air play royalties had lost track of the BJ estate. They got in touch with me becasue they have professional reseachers who look behind every tree in the whole world to find people who are entitled to royalties. but they could't find the BJ estate! They had a small amount of UK airplay royalties in stock but couldn't pay this to the right party. I advised them to get in touch with Brian's sister, which they did. We are not talking fortunes here."
[members7.boardhost.com]
"It went like this: London sollicitor Clive Berger handled the Brian Jones estate in May 1970. Brian's parents liked the way he handled it and Clive Berger remained in charge of the estate for about 15 years. Due to air play royalties the money went coming in in the seventies, although not in that big numbers. Brian didn't write them, he played on them. That's u huge diference. Lewis Jones thought it to be an appropriate thing to pay all the people Brian owned money to. In the eighties the BJ estate went to another firm when Clive Berger merged several time with other sollicitor's firms. So paying the Hartfield butcher and the grocer after all that time was just a matter of decency displayed by Brian's parents."
[members7.boardhost.com]
"i have been researching this issue at great lengths.
Brian's parents were alive back in 2008 when a priest who knew them both served as a liaison. I honestly don't know about the current situation.
Almost everything Brian bought was charged on a special Stones account handled by Fred Trowbridge. The butcher who had his money refunded had the steaks ordered by Tom Keylock. Dave Gibson can account for this. When Brian died the account was frozen until May 1970. After the estate was settled there was a huge debt that slowly turned into a small fortune at the end of the seventies, still looked after by Clive Berger.
The BJ estate still exists and his family is first in line, according to English law. very curious is this: in 2002/2003 the English organisation that collects and distributes UK air play royalties had lost track of the BJ estate. They got in touch with me becasue they have professional reseachers who look behind every tree in the whole world to find people who are entitled to royalties. but they could't find the BJ estate! They had a small amount of UK airplay royalties in stock but couldn't pay this to the right party. I advised them to get in touch with Brian's sister, which they did. We are not talking fortunes here."
Re: Brian Jones death - Janet Lawson's story
Posted by:
sizey
()
Date: July 9, 2013 21:00
Thank you- a definitive reply x
Re: Brian Jones death - Janet Lawson's story
Posted by:
24FPS
()
Date: July 9, 2013 21:17
Yes, thank you, His Majesty. That seems to make sense. If there was money on the table no one was going to leave it there. It probably became such a trickle at some point that maybe the family didn't bother with it. Maybe the Stones had to have an arrangement with Brian's sister for usage of his image in Crossfire, or even on stage during the current tour. Wonder if they had to pay Bill for his mug? At any rate Brian's image must not be in the public domain or everyone would try and make a buck from it. (Or maybe it is and they assume it isn't).
Isn't it good to deal with factual information?
Isn't it good to deal with factual information?
Re: Brian Jones death - Janet Lawson's story
Posted by:
2000 LYFH
()
Date: July 9, 2013 22:09
Thanks HM... I wonder what their definition of "fortune" is? To some it could be 100,000 pounds/dollars or it could be a million! I believe that the Beatles first drummer Pete Best became a millionaire after the 1995 release of the Beatles Anthology 1. He only played on a few tracks. Brian played on over 75 maybe? and he also had songwriting credit on a few.
Here's a story on what Brian owed a store in Hartfield: [www.thisissussex.co.uk]
And another on Cotchford Farm: [www.angelfire.com]
Here's a story on what Brian owed a store in Hartfield: [www.thisissussex.co.uk]
And another on Cotchford Farm: [www.angelfire.com]
Re: Brian Jones death - Janet Lawson's story
Posted by:
stonehearted
()
Date: July 9, 2013 23:34
Quote
24FPS
Yes, thank you, His Majesty. That seems to make sense. If there was money on the table no one was going to leave it there. It probably became such a trickle at some point that maybe the family didn't bother with it. Maybe the Stones had to have an arrangement with Brian's sister for usage of his image in Crossfire, or even on stage during the current tour. Wonder if they had to pay Bill for his mug? At any rate Brian's image must not be in the public domain or everyone would try and make a buck from it. (Or maybe it is and they assume it isn't).
Isn't it good to deal with factual information?
At merchandising stalls on the current tour, there is a T-shirt being sold that bears head-shot images of the mid-60s Stones, which of course included Brian and Bill. So it would be reasonable to assume that Brian's estate and Bill get some cut on that element of merchandising. Bill still gets performance royalties for albums he played on, so it would seem likely that Brian's estate would as well.
Re: Brian Jones death - Janet Lawson's story
Posted by:
ovalvox
()
Date: July 9, 2013 23:51
Quote
24FPS
And stop this crap about Keith driving down to Brian's house and threatening him with the mythical blade, until you have solid proof. Your fevered speculations, based on air, are tedious and lead to a blind alley.
You might want to talk to the daily mail about stopping this "crap" as they are the ones that reported it. Something about freedom of the press and peoples rights to comment bother you?
Re: Brian Jones death - Janet Lawson's story
Posted by:
24FPS
()
Date: July 10, 2013 03:23
Quote
ovalvoxQuote
24FPS
And stop this crap about Keith driving down to Brian's house and threatening him with the mythical blade, until you have solid proof. Your fevered speculations, based on air, are tedious and lead to a blind alley.
You might want to talk to the daily mail about stopping this "crap" as they are the ones that reported it. Something about freedom of the press and peoples rights to comment bother you?
No, no, tranquilo mi amigo. Just expressing an opinion.
Re: Brian Jones death - Janet Lawson's story
Posted by:
ovalvox
()
Date: July 10, 2013 04:31
Quote
24FPSQuote
ovalvoxQuote
24FPS
And stop this crap about Keith driving down to Brian's house and threatening him with the mythical blade, until you have solid proof. Your fevered speculations, based on air, are tedious and lead to a blind alley.
You might want to talk to the daily mail about stopping this "crap" as they are the ones that reported it. Something about freedom of the press and peoples rights to comment bother you?
No, no, tranquilo mi amigo. Just expressing an opinion.
And I was expressing mine.
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.
Online Users
Guests:
2152
Record Number of Users:
206
on June 1, 2022 23:50
Record Number of Guests:
9627
on January 2, 2024 23:10