Tell Me :
Talk
But we know there was a payment agreement. A severance payment of 100,000 pounds, followed by payments totaling 20,000 pounds per year for as long as the band would exist. No one has officially disputed these claims, and one would imagine there would have been paperwork drawn up on the matter. My suggestion would be to call, write or email ABKCO. They will likely not produce the documents themselves or even copies, but perhaps they can at least confirm their existence. Tell them you are working on a Stones-related book project. It seemed to work for terry Rawlings.
Do you think Trevor Hobley looked into this at all? You would think his investigation would have examined every detail in the months leading up to Brian's death. You may want to go back to page 2 in this thread and see Mock's comments on this money and why Klein may not of wanted to pay it quickly or maybe not at all!
I've no idea whether Trevor Hobley looked into this particular detail, I think he was more concerned with seeing that the investigation got reopened. I'll go back and look at page 2 and post my impressions eventually--I know from the LARS days what Mock's position on Klein is regarding money and Brian....
Exactly!! ITA!!
And yet, no one has come forward ...
----------------------
"Doctor please, some more men please,
To Cotchford Farm, out by the pool...
What a drag it is they couldn't revive him"
Brian Jones 2/28/42 - 7/2/69
It's been a few years since I read Rawlings' book. I'll have to dig it out again and look up the info about the payment agreement, but I do recall that in the book July 3 was mentioned as the date it was to begin. And actually, that would make more sense than a Monday, because Friday was payday in Britain. I recall from Phelge's Nankering book that he could not accompany The Stones on their long journeys up north for their Friday gigs, because to leave early enough for that he would have had to have missed collecting his paycheck at work that day....
Actually, hold on, check that last post, I have to correct myself again. I believe the payment agreement was scheduled to begin on Friday, July 4. Though Brian technically died when it was still July 2, his date of death has been officially July 3, nonetheless making the payment agreement null and void. Whatever the case, he died the day before this payment agreement was set to commence. Yes, I recall from the Rawlings book now, I remember thinking, wait, July 4, that's a holiday, but no, still a business day in the UK. Perhaps someone who has read Rawlings' book can correct me if I'm wrong, but this payment agreement was set to begin July 4, and Brian conveniently died some 24 hours before. It still makes Allen Klein rather suspect....
The thing I do not understand is why would Tom Keylock be responsible for looking out for Brian? I'm not even sure what that means, a bodyguard, his finances? Brian was not in the Stones anymore, and wasn't Keylock still working for the Stones as a driver?
And as far as Frank leaving, you mean go back to the flat over the garage where he was living or exit the property completely? I guess he would have to take Janet Lawson with him, since she was visiting Frank and not Brian. So that would leave only Brian's girlfriend Anna by herself alone with Brian (who has not been declared dead yet), to deal with the paramedics and police. But if there were others there, which have been long rumored (where did these rumors come from?), then maybe your right about them getting out of there! They could still be alive for any additional information, but 43 years have passed which is a long time to try and track them down...
I knew you'd say that!
Well I was honest. My moral terpitude is in the toilet on this one. Shameful.
With everything I have read about this I do know one fact, If everyone from that night is telling the truth, then the police ruling it a misadventure is the correct thing to have done.
I would not have even posted that if others didn't think something was just plain wrong in what happened that night.
No problem.
Your idea, not my idea. I didn't characterize you at all and certainly not by the word "bitter", I just disagree with two points you are making. That should be okay on a discussion board, I think.
Point 1 is: you are judging the books about Brian's death by your own guess they were just written for the money. And if so: in the modern world many people are doing things for money. Would you call a movie bad because it was "just made for the money"? This is an extremely shallow argument and follows only one purpose: avoiding to speak about the subject the books are about.
The books we are talking about are of poor quality - but this has nothing to do with how much money they made.
Mick Jagger and Bill Wyman used your argument as well - it's a standardized cheap point being made quite often when people want to discredit something being published they dislike without wanting to go into detail why they dislike it. Of course Mick and Bill's criticism about the books on Brian's death being only written for money appeared in professional edited books or magazines that were produced for money. So much about the integrity of making such a point.
However, quite interesting that both Mick and Bill took note there. After all these books were not bestsellers by any means and you'd think they could have easily avoided them.
If you want to make money by writing about rockstars take a look how real professional writers like Philip Norman are doing it: they write about the biggest stars generating the biggest interest. That's why they are writing about Lennon and Jagger and not about Ringo and Brian's death. Maybe Rawlings wrote his book about Brian just for the money. But then it was a silly choice.
Point 2 I disagree with: your quick judgement Brian just passed out because he was drunk. (If that would happen that easily we'd had death rates that would diminish the world's population every weekend to an indeed quite serious degree.) Stonesnow already pointed out how much speculation and how little fact is in this point of view. And like point 1 it just comes down to "don't bother me with the whole thing". That's why I said: I have no problem with that at all, but I'm wondering why you're joining a discussion about it, then.
In history or in law judgements are usually made by historians or judges who were not present on the scene. To make a judgement you need to collect facts and draw conclusions. I never claimed I know how Brian died. But I collected some information to come closer to the truth. The information included some of the financial implications of leaving a commercially extremely successful band that's always not just a group of musicians but a company with business law rules (a fact often ignored by fans). Furthermore I was pointing out Allen Klein was a complete control freak with mafia-like attitudes and I was indicating that Klein's character as well as Brian's surrounding - the setting of Cotchford and the swimming pool as well as the people that "looked after him under the order of Rolling Stones Ltd.", as Keylock told the police - made him highly vulnerable to an assault.
If you (or anyone else) have issues with some of the things I said here you are invited to discuss them. That's why I am here and not in order to tell everyone quickly "how everything happened". I repeat: I don't claim to know what exactly happened. But I absolutely claim I have a pretty good idea about the sensitive issues of the Brian death case.
However, Bassid6, thanks for the insight Brian's children have no chance to get a share of the money Brian's work has generated up to this day. What you said sounds as plausible and unfair as the law happens to be at times. My best regards to you, no matter if you care about it or not.
You must admit that was quite a tough guess from your side. And I was attacked for "bashing Keith" when I didn't agree "Happy" was a songwriting masterpiece!
I have a hard time coming to terms with - let's call it - the complete moral incompetence of Mick and Keith as well, which is easily way beyond the typical superstar ignorance and selfishness displayed by others. But like you I love the music too much to leave it, though in my case it's just about the 60s. I have only a weak interest in the Taylor years and hardly any interest in what they have been doing since.
I'm pretty sure the theft was the reward for the low key builders and their direct boss Thorogood. Since almost everything bought by individual Stones was paid by Rolling Stones Ltd. or, when higher sums were required, directly by Klein, he must have known almost exactly what Brian's possessions were and what their value was. Keylock having complete access to the premises helped as well as the fact that it was nearly impossible for Brian's heirs to get a clear picture of the possessions. So they were left with wondering how little belongings he seemed to have gathered.
This is carpet-fitter Dave Gibson [in the unedited first version of this post I wrote mistakenly "Dave Thomson"; my correctÃon comes due to stonesnow's hint below, M.J.]:
[www.theargus.co.uk]
You see your recollection is spot on (apart from his leaving being 10 minutes earlier). Since this has been published in a paper and is an account given by someone with his full name and including a clear description of his connection to Brian and Cotchford it is by all means a serious source. Dave sounds quite reasonable, this can hardly be in doubt.
If you study the history of Klein you'll notice the biggest trouble he ever got into came from lost court cases. He even went to jail in 1980. (Like Capone for tax offences.)
Brian was lost because he wanted the money too fast and was way too carefree. Eric Easton got his money more than three years after he was ousted by Mick, Keith, Andrew and Klein in spite of still valid managing contracts. (The Stones got at least some of their money two years after their 1970 split with Klein.)
Easton had the patience to fight this through in court, most certainly he had his papers straight and his lifestyle and image made it not so easy just to murder him "while partying at a swimming pool". Most murder victims are easy and/or likely targets because of their habits, the people they surround themselves with, the general situation they are in. All of this is 100% valid for Brian in June/July 1969. Eric Easton, who did cost Klein a lot more money, was less vulnerable and won his case.
No, actually I'm just posting here at the moment. I admit I had busier times on internetboards.
Many thanks for the kind words! I'm looking forward to further discussions with you and others as well. However, I realize this post is getting pretty long again, although there's still a lot of other stuff discussed by you and other posters I'd like to have my say about. Anyway, I try to show up sooner next time than I did now.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Pushing you in puddles/In the dead of night/Beware of ABKCO"
George Harrison, early Beware Of Darkness version (1970)
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-01-19 00:51 by Mock Jogger.
Do you jump to conclusions much? You should get one of those 'Office Space' "Jump To Conclusions" floor mat.
You're right, of course. I mixed the two Daves who publicly gave their point of view to contradict the official (official, but yet unexplained) accident version of Brian's death.
Dave Thomson (in some books Thompson) is not the carpet-fitter, as I stated, but the guy who spent a lot of time with the Stones in 1964/1965, co-wrote the lyrics for Off The Hook, took some famous Stones pictures and even lived at Brian's Elm Park Lane flat for a while. In 2002 he said in an interview, remembering a fairly recent meeting with Shirley Arnold (talking about the Stones' office): "But I do think we both felt his death wasn't accidental or suicide." (The Spirit magazine, Issue 20, Summer 2002, p. 32/33), link: [members7.boardhost.com]
This just as a marginal note on occasion of my mistake (which I corrected by editing my post above).
I can't find an exact date in my edition (I have the one from 1994). Rawlings is describing a relieved Brian saying, only very shortly before his death, "my money is coming" twice, so I guess that's why you remember a payout date close after 2 July 1969.
Rawlings, first quote:
"It was a jubilant Brian that opened the door to Mrs Hallett a couple of days later. 'We're alright now,' he told her. 'My money is coming through from America.'" Rawlings continues, quoting Mary Hallett directly: "'I remember it clearly,' she says. 'It was the same day there was a story in the paper about Mick Jagger.'" (Rawlings 1994, p. 143) This is referring to Marianne's and Mick's second court appearance on 23 June 1969, following their recent drug bust a few weeks earlier. So the day Brian greeted Mary with the happy news "from America" (that is from Allen Klein) had to be the following day: Tuesday, 24 June.
The second quote, set in a different context almost 30 pages after the first one, and (in typical Rawlings fashion) not clear if it is about the same event (all signs indicate it is), reads:
"Then Brian told Mary [Hallett] that confirmation of his settlement had come through from Klein's New York office. [The following is obviously a quote by Mary Hallett:] 'He was so excited, he kept saying, <At last we'll be alright. My money is coming.>' [Again Rawlings:] This put Brian's mind at rest as before he had made no secret of the fact that he had been very sceptical as to the validity of the Stones' generous offer ever since accepting it." (Rawlings 1994, p. 172)
So I agree with the posters who doubt Rawlings ever saw the contract - he doesn't claim it himself and he even proves he doesn't know why this money was payable, calling it "the Stones' generous offer".
As I explained above this money could not be anything else but the compensation for Brian's 20% shares in Rolling Stones Ltd. You wouldn't call it "a generous offer" as well if you'd sell your General Motors stocks and you'd actually (oh my God, how generous!) receive money for it. And that's why I disagree with the same posters who don't want to believe there was a payout agreement. There had to be one, either still in the making or already in place. Everything else is talk of people who don't know what they are talking about, as easy as that. There are business law rules and the Rolling Stones have to stick to them just as the Beatles or General Motors. As I said many fans are unable to see that bands (as soon as they make any money, even small money) are not just four or five musicians put together, but business enterprises.
Since we have three independent witnesses (Ian Stewart, Tony Sanchez, Mary Hallett) who speak about the agreement that obviously was made on 8 June 1969, when Mick, Keith and Charlie went to Cotchford, we can be quite sure an agreement was already in place - but the one who had to provide the money, Allen Klein, didn't like it.
Allen Klein's basic business concept for the Stones was to keep as much money they earned as long as possible in his hands. (In case of the massive surpluses coming from record sales he had guaranteed himself he could keep them until 1986, see Bill's appendix in Stone Alone). So Klein didn't like the 8 June 1969 agreement between Mick, Keith and Charlie and Brian and tried to reverse it, in the way he knew best. But before this was going to happen it seemed a good idea to make Brian Jones feel comfortable and at the same time give him a reason to stay where he was. Klein knew of Brian's unpredictable behaviour all too well and didn't want him to disappear for a sudden holiday in Africa or elsewhere or voicing his frustration about his money situation in an interview (as Brian had done before). So Klein calmed him by saying his money was soon to arrive. It makes perfect sense.
The contracts that manifested the 8 June 1969 agreement between Mick, Keith and Charlie and Brian should be among the most likely items that were burned by Keylock the day after Brian died.
(stonesnow, I think the search for the exact date for the payment that you mentioned is leading in the wrong direction. You spoke about a particular weekday being the day when in Britain at that time wage payments were paid. But the payout sum is capital gain and has got nothing to do with wages. Such an enormous sum is usually taking some time until it is paid - so Brian was quite impatient, indeed, when he wanted the sum within weeks. His impatience on money matters is obvious in his last interview with Bravo. But receiving big sums is often enough a matter of patience. As I pointed out before, Eric Easton got his payoff more than three years after he left the Stones' management, after a prolonged legal fight. But even with mutual agreements two or three months should have been accepted to organize a sum like 100,000 pounds, which in the context of the Rolling Stones in 1969 was really big money - no single member of the Stones ever had got more before all at once.)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Pushing you in puddles/In the dead of night/Beware of ABKCO"
George Harrison, early Beware Of Darkness version (1970)
Come on Nick, tell us who did it............please!
Talk about your favorite band.
For information about how to use this forum please check out forum help and policies.
Re: Brian Jones and the Stones' office
Posted by:
stonesnow
()
Date: November 9, 2012 03:21
Quote
KeylockSanchezandCo
As far as I know, I have never seen any signed papers between Jones and the Stones concerning the former's leaving the band and the implied payments. Do they exist? I don't know. Terry Rawlings' book does not contain copies of such documents, if they exist.
But we know there was a payment agreement. A severance payment of 100,000 pounds, followed by payments totaling 20,000 pounds per year for as long as the band would exist. No one has officially disputed these claims, and one would imagine there would have been paperwork drawn up on the matter. My suggestion would be to call, write or email ABKCO. They will likely not produce the documents themselves or even copies, but perhaps they can at least confirm their existence. Tell them you are working on a Stones-related book project. It seemed to work for terry Rawlings.
Re: Brian Jones and the Stones' office
Posted by:
2000 LYFH
()
Date: November 9, 2012 04:57
Quote
stonesnowQuote
KeylockSanchezandCo
As far as I know, I have never seen any signed papers between Jones and the Stones concerning the former's leaving the band and the implied payments. Do they exist? I don't know. Terry Rawlings' book does not contain copies of such documents, if they exist.
But we know there was a payment agreement. A severance payment of 100,000 pounds, followed by payments totaling 20,000 pounds per year for as long as the band would exist. No one has officially disputed these claims, and one would imagine there would have been paperwork drawn up on the matter. My suggestion would be to call, write or email ABKCO. They will likely not produce the documents themselves or even copies, but perhaps they can at least confirm their existence. Tell them you are working on a Stones-related book project. It seemed to work for terry Rawlings.
Do you think Trevor Hobley looked into this at all? You would think his investigation would have examined every detail in the months leading up to Brian's death. You may want to go back to page 2 in this thread and see Mock's comments on this money and why Klein may not of wanted to pay it quickly or maybe not at all!
Re: Brian Jones and the Stones' office
Posted by:
stonesnow
()
Date: November 9, 2012 05:04
Quote
2000 LYFHQuote
stonesnowQuote
KeylockSanchezandCo
As far as I know, I have never seen any signed papers between Jones and the Stones concerning the former's leaving the band and the implied payments. Do they exist? I don't know. Terry Rawlings' book does not contain copies of such documents, if they exist.
But we know there was a payment agreement. A severance payment of 100,000 pounds, followed by payments totaling 20,000 pounds per year for as long as the band would exist. No one has officially disputed these claims, and one would imagine there would have been paperwork drawn up on the matter. My suggestion would be to call, write or email ABKCO. They will likely not produce the documents themselves or even copies, but perhaps they can at least confirm their existence. Tell them you are working on a Stones-related book project. It seemed to work for terry Rawlings.
Do you think Trevor Hobley looked into this at all? You would think his investigation would have examined every detail in the months leading up to Brian's death. You may want to go back to page 2 in this thread and see Mock's comments on this money and why Klein may not of wanted to pay it quickly or maybe not at all!
I've no idea whether Trevor Hobley looked into this particular detail, I think he was more concerned with seeing that the investigation got reopened. I'll go back and look at page 2 and post my impressions eventually--I know from the LARS days what Mock's position on Klein is regarding money and Brian....
Re: Brian Jones and the Stones' office
Posted by:
MissNBrian
()
Date: November 9, 2012 06:35
Quote
stonesnowQuote
Bassid6
Can someone show me the docs on that whole thing? Where does it say he was due a payment on 3 July? I have never gotten a straight answer on that, no matter how many times I had enquired. That does not exist. If you have something different, then show me it!
As far as I know, he just died in the pool because he was just being "Brian". Yeah?
July 3 was the first Monday
Honest, Stonesnow (or anyone for that matter), I'm not trying to start a fight here, but July 3rd, 1969 was a Thursday, not a Monday.
-----------------------
"Doctor please, some more men please,
To Cotchford Farm, out by the pool...
What a drag it is they couldn't revive him"
Brian Jones 2/28/42 - 7/2/69
Re: Brian Jones and the Stones' office
Posted by:
stonesnow
()
Date: November 9, 2012 06:44
Quote
MissNBrianQuote
stonesnowQuote
Bassid6
Can someone show me the docs on that whole thing? Where does it say he was due a payment on 3 July? I have never gotten a straight answer on that, no matter how many times I had enquired. That does not exist. If you have something different, then show me it!
As far as I know, he just died in the pool because he was just being "Brian". Yeah?
July 3 was the first Monday
Honest, Stonesnow (or anyone for that matter), I'm not trying to start a fight here, but July 3rd, 1969 was a Thursday, not a Monday.
-----------------------
Was it? OK, thanks for the correction. I was weeks away from my third birthday at the time, so details like that are hazy.I'm still thinking of emailing ABKCO--or better yet, Terry Rawlings himself! I wonder if he could confirm where he got the info. Still, the fact remains that Brian died very shortly before his payment agreement was due to take effect.
Re: Brian Jones and the Stones' office
Posted by:
stonesnow
()
Date: November 9, 2012 07:00
Here is a Crimewatch clip on the Frank Thorogood "snapped" theory, where they also make mention of the payment agreement. Perhaps they were just referencing Rawlings' book, but if Crimewatch were putting false information out there about the existence of a payment agreement for Brian you'd think that someone from The Stones' camp or ABKCO would correct them on that. Likewise with Terry Rawlings. So far, he has yet to have been sued by Allen Klein or ABKCO, and Klein had 15 years to do so up until his death.
Re: Brian Jones and the Stones' office
Posted by:
MissNBrian
()
Date: November 9, 2012 07:27
Quote
stonesnow
Here is a Crimewatch clip on the Frank Thorogood "snapped" theory, where they also make mention of the payment agreement. Perhaps they were just referencing Rawlings' book, but if Crimewatch were putting false information out there about the existence of a payment agreement for Brian you'd think that someone from The Stones' camp or ABKCO would correct them on that. Likewise with Terry Rawlings. So far, he has yet to have been sued by Allen Klein or ABKCO, and Klein had 15 years to do so up until his death.
Exactly!! ITA!!
And yet, no one has come forward ...
----------------------
"Doctor please, some more men please,
To Cotchford Farm, out by the pool...
What a drag it is they couldn't revive him"
Brian Jones 2/28/42 - 7/2/69
Re: Brian Jones and the Stones' office
Posted by:
stonesnow
()
Date: November 9, 2012 07:38
Quote
MissNBrianQuote
stonesnow
Here is a Crimewatch clip on the Frank Thorogood "snapped" theory, where they also make mention of the payment agreement. Perhaps they were just referencing Rawlings' book, but if Crimewatch were putting false information out there about the existence of a payment agreement for Brian you'd think that someone from The Stones' camp or ABKCO would correct them on that. Likewise with Terry Rawlings. So far, he has yet to have been sued by Allen Klein or ABKCO, and Klein had 15 years to do so up until his death.
Exactly!! ITA!!
And yet, no one has come forward ...
----------------------
It's been a few years since I read Rawlings' book. I'll have to dig it out again and look up the info about the payment agreement, but I do recall that in the book July 3 was mentioned as the date it was to begin. And actually, that would make more sense than a Monday, because Friday was payday in Britain. I recall from Phelge's Nankering book that he could not accompany The Stones on their long journeys up north for their Friday gigs, because to leave early enough for that he would have had to have missed collecting his paycheck at work that day....
Re: Brian Jones and the Stones' office
Posted by:
stonesnow
()
Date: November 9, 2012 07:47
Quote
stonesnowQuote
MissNBrianQuote
stonesnow
Here is a Crimewatch clip on the Frank Thorogood "snapped" theory, where they also make mention of the payment agreement. Perhaps they were just referencing Rawlings' book, but if Crimewatch were putting false information out there about the existence of a payment agreement for Brian you'd think that someone from The Stones' camp or ABKCO would correct them on that. Likewise with Terry Rawlings. So far, he has yet to have been sued by Allen Klein or ABKCO, and Klein had 15 years to do so up until his death.
Exactly!! ITA!!
And yet, no one has come forward ...
----------------------
It's been a few years since I read Rawlings' book. I'll have to dig it out again and look up the info about the payment agreement, but I do recall that in the book July 3 was mentioned as the date it was to begin. And actually, that would make more sense than a Monday, because Friday was payday in Britain. I recall from Phelge's Nankering book that he could not accompany The Stones on their long journeys up north for their Friday gigs, because to leave early enough for that he would have had to have missed collecting his paycheck at work that day....
Actually, hold on, check that last post, I have to correct myself again. I believe the payment agreement was scheduled to begin on Friday, July 4. Though Brian technically died when it was still July 2, his date of death has been officially July 3, nonetheless making the payment agreement null and void. Whatever the case, he died the day before this payment agreement was set to commence. Yes, I recall from the Rawlings book now, I remember thinking, wait, July 4, that's a holiday, but no, still a business day in the UK. Perhaps someone who has read Rawlings' book can correct me if I'm wrong, but this payment agreement was set to begin July 4, and Brian conveniently died some 24 hours before. It still makes Allen Klein rather suspect....
Re: Brian Jones and the Stones' office
Posted by:
nick
()
Date: November 9, 2012 08:59
I have to be honest. If I was at that pool and something happened to Brian, I'd clear the hell out of there before any cops got there. Considering that it can take a little as tablespoon of water on the lungs to drown, this could be the Misadventure the police officially ruled it as. Think about it, Tom Keylock was supposed to be looking after him. If i'm him im not letting the police try to twist my words and put a manslaughter charge on me. If im Frank, I'm the first one out of there and fast because I dont like Brian and I'm the likely suspect. If I'm any of those workers and I got any criminal charges even a pot possesion, the police look at you like scum and you're a suspect. I really don't want to be near police if I walked off with stuff from Brian's house simply so I don't get in trouble for that alone. There could never ever be a break in this crime. With this big conversation here and the Brian Jones messageboards that have debated at length about this, nothing concrete is ever achieved to prove or disprove anything. I believe that the closest they could have to come to getting a break in the case would had been to investigate further the Hotel threat to that other Brian Jones and the beating of his driver. You ain't gonna get anything more EVER out of the group of people at Brian's house. Too many unsavory characters there.
Re: Brian Jones and the Stones' office
Posted by:
2000 LYFH
()
Date: November 10, 2012 02:00
Quote
nick
I have to be honest. If I was at that pool and something happened to Brian, I'd clear the hell out of there before any cops got there. Considering that it can take a little as tablespoon of water on the lungs to drown, this could be the Misadventure the police officially ruled it as. Think about it, Tom Keylock was supposed to be looking after him. If i'm him im not letting the police try to twist my words and put a manslaughter charge on me. If im Frank, I'm the first one out of there and fast because I dont like Brian and I'm the likely suspect. If I'm any of those workers and I got any criminal charges even a pot possesion, the police look at you like scum and you're a suspect. I really don't want to be near police if I walked off with stuff from Brian's house simply so I don't get in trouble for that alone. There could never ever be a break in this crime. With this big conversation here and the Brian Jones messageboards that have debated at length about this, nothing concrete is ever achieved to prove or disprove anything. I believe that the closest they could have to come to getting a break in the case would had been to investigate further the Hotel threat to that other Brian Jones and the beating of his driver. You ain't gonna get anything more EVER out of the group of people at Brian's house. Too many unsavory characters there.
The thing I do not understand is why would Tom Keylock be responsible for looking out for Brian? I'm not even sure what that means, a bodyguard, his finances? Brian was not in the Stones anymore, and wasn't Keylock still working for the Stones as a driver?
And as far as Frank leaving, you mean go back to the flat over the garage where he was living or exit the property completely? I guess he would have to take Janet Lawson with him, since she was visiting Frank and not Brian. So that would leave only Brian's girlfriend Anna by herself alone with Brian (who has not been declared dead yet), to deal with the paramedics and police. But if there were others there, which have been long rumored (where did these rumors come from?), then maybe your right about them getting out of there! They could still be alive for any additional information, but 43 years have passed which is a long time to try and track them down...
Re: Brian Jones and the Stones' office
Posted by:
nick
()
Date: November 10, 2012 02:50
I'm simply giving a point of view from a scumbag thinking mind like myself.
Re: Brian Jones and the Stones' office
Posted by:
2000 LYFH
()
Date: November 11, 2012 22:49
Quote
nick
I'm simply giving a point of view from a scumbag thinking mind like myself.
I knew you'd say that!
Re: Brian Jones and the Stones' office
Posted by:
nick
()
Date: November 12, 2012 00:04
Quote
2000 LYFHQuote
nick
I'm simply giving a point of view from a scumbag thinking mind like myself.
I knew you'd say that!
Well I was honest. My moral terpitude is in the toilet on this one. Shameful.
With everything I have read about this I do know one fact, If everyone from that night is telling the truth, then the police ruling it a misadventure is the correct thing to have done.
I would not have even posted that if others didn't think something was just plain wrong in what happened that night.
Re: Brian Jones and the Stones' office
Posted by:
Mock Jogger
()
Date: December 16, 2012 04:52
Quote
Erik_Snow
Oops, sorry, no I was wrong there. It wasn't you.
No problem.
Quote
Bassid6
Me? Bitter? Oh goodness, where did you ever get that idea??
Your idea, not my idea. I didn't characterize you at all and certainly not by the word "bitter", I just disagree with two points you are making. That should be okay on a discussion board, I think.
Point 1 is: you are judging the books about Brian's death by your own guess they were just written for the money. And if so: in the modern world many people are doing things for money. Would you call a movie bad because it was "just made for the money"? This is an extremely shallow argument and follows only one purpose: avoiding to speak about the subject the books are about.
The books we are talking about are of poor quality - but this has nothing to do with how much money they made.
Mick Jagger and Bill Wyman used your argument as well - it's a standardized cheap point being made quite often when people want to discredit something being published they dislike without wanting to go into detail why they dislike it. Of course Mick and Bill's criticism about the books on Brian's death being only written for money appeared in professional edited books or magazines that were produced for money. So much about the integrity of making such a point.
However, quite interesting that both Mick and Bill took note there. After all these books were not bestsellers by any means and you'd think they could have easily avoided them.
If you want to make money by writing about rockstars take a look how real professional writers like Philip Norman are doing it: they write about the biggest stars generating the biggest interest. That's why they are writing about Lennon and Jagger and not about Ringo and Brian's death. Maybe Rawlings wrote his book about Brian just for the money. But then it was a silly choice.
Point 2 I disagree with: your quick judgement Brian just passed out because he was drunk. (If that would happen that easily we'd had death rates that would diminish the world's population every weekend to an indeed quite serious degree.) Stonesnow already pointed out how much speculation and how little fact is in this point of view. And like point 1 it just comes down to "don't bother me with the whole thing". That's why I said: I have no problem with that at all, but I'm wondering why you're joining a discussion about it, then.
Quote
Bassid6
Was I there when Brian died?
No. I was a 4 month old baby and living in the United States.
Were you there when Brian died?
I highly doubt that, Sir or Madam. How would you know how he died, then?
In history or in law judgements are usually made by historians or judges who were not present on the scene. To make a judgement you need to collect facts and draw conclusions. I never claimed I know how Brian died. But I collected some information to come closer to the truth. The information included some of the financial implications of leaving a commercially extremely successful band that's always not just a group of musicians but a company with business law rules (a fact often ignored by fans). Furthermore I was pointing out Allen Klein was a complete control freak with mafia-like attitudes and I was indicating that Klein's character as well as Brian's surrounding - the setting of Cotchford and the swimming pool as well as the people that "looked after him under the order of Rolling Stones Ltd.", as Keylock told the police - made him highly vulnerable to an assault.
If you (or anyone else) have issues with some of the things I said here you are invited to discuss them. That's why I am here and not in order to tell everyone quickly "how everything happened". I repeat: I don't claim to know what exactly happened. But I absolutely claim I have a pretty good idea about the sensitive issues of the Brian death case.
However, Bassid6, thanks for the insight Brian's children have no chance to get a share of the money Brian's work has generated up to this day. What you said sounds as plausible and unfair as the law happens to be at times. My best regards to you, no matter if you care about it or not.
Quote
stonesnow
Mock, thanks so much for your thoughtful response. As you recall, I used to present the argument that the likely murder of Brian was carried out at the behest of the Stones themselves (Keith and Mick). [...] Since Keylock worked for The Stones and Keith in particular, I assumed a chain of command leading back to Keith, mainly because in latter-day interviews Keith made it so easy to assume as such, what with his cold, dismissive tone toward Brian.
You must admit that was quite a tough guess from your side. And I was attacked for "bashing Keith" when I didn't agree "Happy" was a songwriting masterpiece!
Quote
stonesnow
I even stopped listening to The Stones for a couple of years out of righteous indignation (I listened to The Pretty Things to fill the void). But of course as Keith himself remarked to Mick on the topic of the latter's attempt to break away from The Stones with a solo career, "You can't toss away something like The Rolling Stones."
I have a hard time coming to terms with - let's call it - the complete moral incompetence of Mick and Keith as well, which is easily way beyond the typical superstar ignorance and selfishness displayed by others. But like you I love the music too much to leave it, though in my case it's just about the 60s. I have only a weak interest in the Taylor years and hardly any interest in what they have been doing since.
Quote
stonesnow
In recent years, I have changed my view and am now in agreement with the view that you hold, that the murder was carried out at the behest of Allen Klein. It would make sense in that he would save the sum of money he would have had to pay out per the terms of Brian's dismissal, because with Klein money was not only everything, it was the only thing that mattered. It was obviously premeditated, in the way that Keylock orchestrated the press on the following day and in the way Thorogood and his builders made off with Brian's possessions that same day--they did it because they knew they were going to be protected. No way was Thorogood's 'manslaughter' an accident of the moment--the theft of Brian's possessions alone speaks volumes of the deep contempt they held for him, not to mention a certain cold-bloodedness on their part.
I'm pretty sure the theft was the reward for the low key builders and their direct boss Thorogood. Since almost everything bought by individual Stones was paid by Rolling Stones Ltd. or, when higher sums were required, directly by Klein, he must have known almost exactly what Brian's possessions were and what their value was. Keylock having complete access to the premises helped as well as the fact that it was nearly impossible for Brian's heirs to get a clear picture of the possessions. So they were left with wondering how little belongings he seemed to have gathered.
Quote
stonesnow
Also, I recall posting on LARS a newspaper story, which I can't locate online these days, where Brian's handyman mentions that there was no 'party' that night. The handyman was a retired policeman [perhaps you recall the man's name?] who states that he was preparing to leave work at Cotchford that night and called up to the second floor where Brian was, asking him if he would be needing anything else, and that Brian had answered, in perfect sobriety, that no, he would be fine and would see him tomorrow. The handyman gives the time of this exchange as ten minutes past ten--hardly time enough for Brian to get so out of it on drugs and alcohol as to be drowning in his own pool twenty minutes, or an hour and twenty minutes, later....
This is carpet-fitter Dave Gibson [in the unedited first version of this post I wrote mistakenly "Dave Thomson"; my correctÃon comes due to stonesnow's hint below, M.J.]:
[www.theargus.co.uk]
You see your recollection is spot on (apart from his leaving being 10 minutes earlier). Since this has been published in a paper and is an account given by someone with his full name and including a clear description of his connection to Brian and Cotchford it is by all means a serious source. Dave sounds quite reasonable, this can hardly be in doubt.
Quote
TheDailyBuzzherd
Of all the theories that abound, the Klein / Keylock connection seems most plausible.
Still, I'm sure even Klein would grin at the notion Jones could / would have presented a tight-locked legal case for screwing with The Stones machine in any way.
If you study the history of Klein you'll notice the biggest trouble he ever got into came from lost court cases. He even went to jail in 1980. (Like Capone for tax offences.)
Brian was lost because he wanted the money too fast and was way too carefree. Eric Easton got his money more than three years after he was ousted by Mick, Keith, Andrew and Klein in spite of still valid managing contracts. (The Stones got at least some of their money two years after their 1970 split with Klein.)
Easton had the patience to fight this through in court, most certainly he had his papers straight and his lifestyle and image made it not so easy just to murder him "while partying at a swimming pool". Most murder victims are easy and/or likely targets because of their habits, the people they surround themselves with, the general situation they are in. All of this is 100% valid for Brian in June/July 1969. Eric Easton, who did cost Klein a lot more money, was less vulnerable and won his case.
Quote
stonesnow
Hope you'll post here again soon, Mock. Since LARS and its successor site are defunct, are you posting on any other boards as well?
No, actually I'm just posting here at the moment. I admit I had busier times on internetboards.
Quote
stonesnow
Looking forward to further discussions with you.
With best regards,
stonesnow
Many thanks for the kind words! I'm looking forward to further discussions with you and others as well. However, I realize this post is getting pretty long again, although there's still a lot of other stuff discussed by you and other posters I'd like to have my say about. Anyway, I try to show up sooner next time than I did now.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Pushing you in puddles/In the dead of night/Beware of ABKCO"
George Harrison, early Beware Of Darkness version (1970)
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-01-19 00:51 by Mock Jogger.
Re: Brian Jones and the Stones' office
Posted by:
rob51
()
Date: December 16, 2012 05:19
Whatever peopple may care to believe about the passing of Brian Jones and I admit freeley I wasn't there but I can only sermise the only senerio that makes any sence t0 me was that Tom Keylock killed him! He was afterall the only "mombster" type person involved with the band at the time and thereby the only one capable in the bands circle to actually commit such an act of brutality, period. Also he was the only one to hear Frank Thorogood's "deathbed confession", which when you think about it, could only have proved to exonorrate Mr. Keylock himself. TOM KEYLOCK killed Brian Jones! I'd bet my last dollar on it and you can prove me wrong IF YOU CAN????
Re: Brian Jones and the Stones' office
Posted by:
rob51
()
Date: December 16, 2012 05:46
Wouldn't it be interesting to know that the great songwritership team of Jagger/Richards never really existed and that Brian Jones was about to expose this fact, shortley before his death? I mean think about it? They were a great singles band in the 60's when Brian was a part of them Then, they were a great Album band when Mick Taylor was a part of the band! Then when they could still be putting out material (Exile-Some Girls) with Jones/Taylor influences, they dropped in the rating's and never really recovered their earlier top 40's statice somehow? Did Mick and Keith truely write most their best stuff or was it more Brian and Mick T. that made them the international moneymaking team that they became?
These day's it might not make much sense but you have to remember that the Stones were competing against the Beetles and the most financially lucrative song wrighting team ever in existances and the monetary retunes where enormous, if they could convince the public that it was truely Jagger and Richards that were producing these song's?
These day's it might not make much sense but you have to remember that the Stones were competing against the Beetles and the most financially lucrative song wrighting team ever in existances and the monetary retunes where enormous, if they could convince the public that it was truely Jagger and Richards that were producing these song's?
Re: Brian Jones and the Stones' office
Posted by:
stonesnow
()
Date: December 16, 2012 07:41
Mock, thanks for your latest post above. Excellent and informative reading as always. The carpet-fitter's name was Dave Gibson by the way. Thank you again for providing the link to the article, as it certainly disputes the popular notion that Brian was a casualty of his own excess. When you post here again I hope you will address the matter of the payout sum that was due Brian and the exact calendar date when this payment agreement was set to commence. A number of posts went back and forth on this subject above. I haven't read Terry Rawlings' book in several years, not since the days when we were posting back and forth about it on LARS, and for some reason I thought that Brian had died on a Sunday and that payment was set to begin on a Monday, and I was thinking that July 3, 1969 was a Monday. But a poster corrected me in mentioning that July 3 fell on a Thursday that year. That jogged my memory, because Rawlings in his book mentions the payout to Brian starting on July 4, and I remember thinking when reading the book years ago how odd that it should begin on a holiday [as I'm in the U.S.], then reminding myself that July 4 is not a holiday in Britain--it was a Friday, which is generally the day of the week that payday falls on in most business circles. Some posters here dispute that there was such a payout agreement to Brian because they've never seen the contract and they doubt that Terry Rawlings has. Though Brian actually died on July 2, the official date is generally given as July 3--the day before the severance pay to Brian was due to be issued, therefore rendering the whole payment agreement null and void. A very convenient time for Brian to die, on the day before Allen Klein is due to fork over a hefty sum. So, perhaps you can shed further light on the background of this payment agreement between Klein and Brian--the 100,000 pounds severance and the 20,000 annually for every year The Stones remain together as a recording/touring/working entity. Where is the paperwork on this? Does it exist? How did Terry Rawlings find out about it? Did Klein destroy the paperwork, to clear himself of suspicion of motive? Looking forward to your next post on this topic.
Re: Brian Jones and the Stones' office
Posted by:
LeonidP
()
Date: December 16, 2012 11:51
Quote
rob51
...Tom Keylock killed him! He was afterall the only "mombster" type person involved with the band at the time and thereby the only one capable in the bands circle to actually commit such an act of brutality, period...
Do you jump to conclusions much? You should get one of those 'Office Space' "Jump To Conclusions" floor mat.
Re: Brian Jones and the Stones' office
Posted by:
Mock Jogger
()
Date: January 19, 2013 01:36
Quote
stonesnow
The carpet-fitter's name was Dave Gibson by the way. Thank you again for providing the link to the article, as it certainly disputes the popular notion that Brian was a casualty of his own excess.
You're right, of course. I mixed the two Daves who publicly gave their point of view to contradict the official (official, but yet unexplained) accident version of Brian's death.
Dave Thomson (in some books Thompson) is not the carpet-fitter, as I stated, but the guy who spent a lot of time with the Stones in 1964/1965, co-wrote the lyrics for Off The Hook, took some famous Stones pictures and even lived at Brian's Elm Park Lane flat for a while. In 2002 he said in an interview, remembering a fairly recent meeting with Shirley Arnold (talking about the Stones' office): "But I do think we both felt his death wasn't accidental or suicide." (The Spirit magazine, Issue 20, Summer 2002, p. 32/33), link: [members7.boardhost.com]
This just as a marginal note on occasion of my mistake (which I corrected by editing my post above).
Quote
stonesnow
When you post here again I hope you will address the matter of the payout sum that was due Brian and the exact calendar date when this payment agreement was set to commence. [...] Rawlings in his book mentions the payout to Brian starting on July 4. [...] Some posters here dispute that there was such a payout agreement to Brian because they've never seen the contract and they doubt that Terry Rawlings has.
I can't find an exact date in my edition (I have the one from 1994). Rawlings is describing a relieved Brian saying, only very shortly before his death, "my money is coming" twice, so I guess that's why you remember a payout date close after 2 July 1969.
Rawlings, first quote:
"It was a jubilant Brian that opened the door to Mrs Hallett a couple of days later. 'We're alright now,' he told her. 'My money is coming through from America.'" Rawlings continues, quoting Mary Hallett directly: "'I remember it clearly,' she says. 'It was the same day there was a story in the paper about Mick Jagger.'" (Rawlings 1994, p. 143) This is referring to Marianne's and Mick's second court appearance on 23 June 1969, following their recent drug bust a few weeks earlier. So the day Brian greeted Mary with the happy news "from America" (that is from Allen Klein) had to be the following day: Tuesday, 24 June.
The second quote, set in a different context almost 30 pages after the first one, and (in typical Rawlings fashion) not clear if it is about the same event (all signs indicate it is), reads:
"Then Brian told Mary [Hallett] that confirmation of his settlement had come through from Klein's New York office. [The following is obviously a quote by Mary Hallett:] 'He was so excited, he kept saying, <At last we'll be alright. My money is coming.>' [Again Rawlings:] This put Brian's mind at rest as before he had made no secret of the fact that he had been very sceptical as to the validity of the Stones' generous offer ever since accepting it." (Rawlings 1994, p. 172)
So I agree with the posters who doubt Rawlings ever saw the contract - he doesn't claim it himself and he even proves he doesn't know why this money was payable, calling it "the Stones' generous offer".
As I explained above this money could not be anything else but the compensation for Brian's 20% shares in Rolling Stones Ltd. You wouldn't call it "a generous offer" as well if you'd sell your General Motors stocks and you'd actually (oh my God, how generous!) receive money for it. And that's why I disagree with the same posters who don't want to believe there was a payout agreement. There had to be one, either still in the making or already in place. Everything else is talk of people who don't know what they are talking about, as easy as that. There are business law rules and the Rolling Stones have to stick to them just as the Beatles or General Motors. As I said many fans are unable to see that bands (as soon as they make any money, even small money) are not just four or five musicians put together, but business enterprises.
Since we have three independent witnesses (Ian Stewart, Tony Sanchez, Mary Hallett) who speak about the agreement that obviously was made on 8 June 1969, when Mick, Keith and Charlie went to Cotchford, we can be quite sure an agreement was already in place - but the one who had to provide the money, Allen Klein, didn't like it.
Allen Klein's basic business concept for the Stones was to keep as much money they earned as long as possible in his hands. (In case of the massive surpluses coming from record sales he had guaranteed himself he could keep them until 1986, see Bill's appendix in Stone Alone). So Klein didn't like the 8 June 1969 agreement between Mick, Keith and Charlie and Brian and tried to reverse it, in the way he knew best. But before this was going to happen it seemed a good idea to make Brian Jones feel comfortable and at the same time give him a reason to stay where he was. Klein knew of Brian's unpredictable behaviour all too well and didn't want him to disappear for a sudden holiday in Africa or elsewhere or voicing his frustration about his money situation in an interview (as Brian had done before). So Klein calmed him by saying his money was soon to arrive. It makes perfect sense.
The contracts that manifested the 8 June 1969 agreement between Mick, Keith and Charlie and Brian should be among the most likely items that were burned by Keylock the day after Brian died.
(stonesnow, I think the search for the exact date for the payment that you mentioned is leading in the wrong direction. You spoke about a particular weekday being the day when in Britain at that time wage payments were paid. But the payout sum is capital gain and has got nothing to do with wages. Such an enormous sum is usually taking some time until it is paid - so Brian was quite impatient, indeed, when he wanted the sum within weeks. His impatience on money matters is obvious in his last interview with Bravo. But receiving big sums is often enough a matter of patience. As I pointed out before, Eric Easton got his payoff more than three years after he left the Stones' management, after a prolonged legal fight. But even with mutual agreements two or three months should have been accepted to organize a sum like 100,000 pounds, which in the context of the Rolling Stones in 1969 was really big money - no single member of the Stones ever had got more before all at once.)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Pushing you in puddles/In the dead of night/Beware of ABKCO"
George Harrison, early Beware Of Darkness version (1970)
Re: Brian Jones and the Stones' office
Posted by:
TheDailyBuzzherd
()
Date: January 19, 2013 02:26
Chilling.
Re: Brian Jones and the Stones' office
Posted by:
His Majesty
()
Date: January 19, 2013 18:43
Logical and compelling.
Re: Brian Jones and the Stones' office
Posted by:
klrkcr
()
Date: January 20, 2013 00:29
Thanks for your posts Mock Jogger,makes for very interesting reading.
Re: Brian Jones and the Stones' office
Posted by:
24FPS
()
Date: January 20, 2013 01:29
Rather than point to some dark, mysterious, homicidal ending, think of it this way: the poor sod died a day before he would have got his money. No more, no less.
Re: Brian Jones and the Stones' office
Posted by:
Redhotcarpet
()
Date: January 20, 2013 02:10
Thanks Mock
Re: Brian Jones and the Stones' office
Posted by:
stonesrule
()
Date: January 20, 2013 02:27
Perhaps I missed something here.
Have any of you spoken to members of his family, his lawyers, accountants, seen his tax records?
Where is the PROOF?
Have any of you spoken to members of his family, his lawyers, accountants, seen his tax records?
Where is the PROOF?
Re: Brian Jones and the Stones' office
Posted by:
24FPS
()
Date: January 20, 2013 02:40
Quote
stonesrule
Perhaps I missed something here.
Have any of you spoken to members of his family, his lawyers, accountants, seen his tax records?
Where is the PROOF?
Re: Brian Jones and the Stones' office
Posted by:
nick
()
Date: January 20, 2013 18:12
I keep telling you the people who did it and saw it are going to take it to the grave. YOU WILL NEVER KNOW!!! Take it from a scumbag like me, Brian Jones is not and never was worth getting in trouble over. Mock Jogger keeps firing up the thread and everybodys conflicting opinions start all over again. It ridiculous and foolish to keep this up. There will never be any further proof of anything and IT WILL stay that way always and forever. 3 different Brian Jones mesg boards, all the discussion here for what, 15years now and no one has ever even scratched the surface to prove or disprove it. When does the debate end??? It is so silly at this point that anyone could say they killed Brian and that person would not be believed. It's a perfect crime, the killer will never be caught and the killer has takin in 15-20 Stones concerts since.
Re: Brian Jones and the Stones' office
Posted by:
2000 LYFH
()
Date: January 20, 2013 18:18
Quote
nick
I keep telling you the people who did it and saw it are going to take it to the grave. YOU WILL NEVER KNOW!!! Take it from a scumbag like me, Brian Jones is not and never was worth getting in trouble over. Mock Jogger keeps firing up the thread and everybodys conflicting opinions start all over again. It ridiculous and foolish to keep this up. There will never be any further proof of anything and IT WILL stay that way always and forever. 3 different Brian Jones mesg boards, all the discussion here for what, 15years now and no one has ever even scratched the surface to prove or disprove it. When does the debate end??? It is so silly at this point that anyone could say they killed Brian and that person would not be believed. It's a perfect crime, the killer will never be caught and the killer has takin in 15-20 Stones concerts since.
Come on Nick, tell us who did it............please!
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.
Online Users
Bjorn , daniel t , daspyknows , FeelslikeaGhost , frankotero , gotdablouse , irishjohnnie , kkhoranstoned , monkeymantoo , More Hot Rocks , RaahenTiikeri , rogerriffin , RollingFreak , stonemac , The Sicilian
Guests:
1384
Record Number of Users:
206
on June 1, 2022 23:50
Record Number of Guests:
9627
on January 2, 2024 23:10