VoyForums
[ Show ]
Support VoyForums
[ Shrink ]
VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

[ Login ] [ Contact Forum Admin ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, [5], 6, 7, 8, 9 ]

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: 14:24:23 07/24/11 Sun
Author: Mock Jogger
Author Host/IP: p54947847.dip.t-dialin.net / 84.148.120.71
Subject: Re: Wonder what the Jones's knew?
In reply to: David 's message, "Re: Wonder what the Jones's knew?" on 15:26:18 07/09/11 Sat

- Brian's mother

It wouldn't surprise me at all if Brian's mother called the death of her son privately "sinister". It's the exact wording a Stones insider (well, THE Stones insider, actually) used to describe the same incident, as you'll see later on.

It's highly likely Brian's parents were exposed to pressure after his death. Close relatives and friends of victims of accidents or criminal actions usually want to know EXACTLY what happened and WHO is responsible (or whom they can make responsible) and in case they don't get the support of the authorities they want they go public and display an impressive energy in the process. (I could write down a lot of prominent examples, but I guess nobody would deny this anyway.)

That's why it is VERY strange Brian's parents kept completely silent. And that's why the way the Stones reacted to Brian's death is strange as well, spreading utter nonsense about it ("suicide", Keith 1988, "overdose", Charlie 1999), or talking like a politician who is afraid one word too much would expose what he really thinks ("I only know what I was told at the time, which seemed perfectly reasonable." Mick 1999 - now Mick is an intelligent guy, but obviously he is not smart enough to realize that this kind of talking actually reveals how he feels about the issue of Brian's death: pretty uneasy.)

There are only two reasons for this behaviour:

1. fear
2. guilt

Guilt not in the sense of "we were not understanding enough", but only in direct connection with the cause of the death. So this can't be applied to Brian's parents and only partly to the Stones, who on the other hand had all reasons to fear the end of their careers in case the truth about Brian's death and the involvement of the band's management and organization had been brought to light.

The way Keylock took control over Brian's possessions and over the funeral was certainly a way to frighten his parents - people who lived a reserved home life and were not used to criminal characters. Whether they received further threads we don't know, but we can be sure they were reminded to be careful, whenever Keylock and/or Klein thought it was necessary.


- Sam Cutler

It's refreshing someone so close to the Stones in 1969 is so straight forward and expresses the truth the complete inner circle of the Stones knows, but chose to keep silent or lie about. I guess our lovely Glimmer Twins will never talk to Sam again.
There is one severe mistake in what Sam says, though, and some obvious naivity. The severe mistake is Keylock would not have worked anymore for the Stones by the time of Brian's death. He WORKED for the Stones and it's there for everyone to see:

1. in the Hyde Park concert film (well, Sam could have noticed, no?)
2. on photographs like that from 29 May 1969, when Mick and Marianne had to appear at court the morning after their second drug bust and Keylock accompanied them, look here: http://grhomeboy.files.wordpress.com/2008/03/02-03-08_marianne_faithfull.jpg
3. in Keylock's "Statement of Witness", dated 3 July 1969:
"I am the Tour Manager for the Rolling Stones and until four weeks ago Brian JONES was a member of that group, but, I continued to look after his interests under the order of Rolling Stones Ltd."

So Keylock wasn't fired by the Stones before but after Brian's death and most likely for his role in the event. Funny though Sam claims Klein was the only one of the Stones organization in direct contact with Brian Jones at the time. (I would LOVE to see Mick's face when asked by a journalist today if Allen Klein had direct contact with Brian Jones up to 2 July 1969!)
Of course the whole Stones organization was in direct contact. (Bill Wyman, Rolling With, p. 327: "On that Wednesdey [2 July 1969], Brian had been in London. He went back to Cotchford during the afternoon in a chauffeur-driven car hired by our office.")

Sam's naive idea Brian had some financial arrangements with Keylock is wrong, as well. Brian's finances were handled by Rolling Stones Ltd./resp. Klein completely. (Except for 2,500 pounds annually that obviously came directly from Decca.) Brian had no money to make financial deals. He had no income apart from the Stones' money at all. For any larger amount of money (for houses, cars, lawyers etc.) a band member had to ask Klein for something extra - Bill's "Stone Alone" is full of examples for this. Keylock knew were the money came from. After all he wasn't with the Stones for musical reasons.

Sam must have heard about Klein's investigation, when he was around the Stones' office people. I believe instantly Klein made such an investigation. It is nothing less than the perfect example of Klein's way to handle things.


- Klein's way to handle things

The most important thing for Klein was always to be "well prepared", to gather all useful information about EVERYONE who ever had to do with him as client, business partner, opponent, henchman, whatever. Information he usually got from people working for him, sometimes even without them knowing. (An almost funny example of this is in Goldman's Lennon biography, involving a Canadian concert promoter.) His knowledge Klein used for compliments, offers, threads and attacks (often verbally, but his repertoire was broader). Look for everything ever written about Klein, including his involvement with the Beatles - and you'll find what I'm talking about. His smartness, preparation, determination and absolute unscroupulousness resulted in his perfect timing, and he always addressed the right persons as well: after the success of "Satisfaction" (right time) he approached Andrew, Mick and Keith (and not Brian and Easton, as someone who informed himself only from the newspapers would have done in July 1965), when Lennon wasn't willing to let McCartney pull the strings anymore, Klein came as the exact support Lennon considered necessary for his aims, and when Sam Cooke and Brian Jones died, there was a good sense of timing involved as well - and a sense for the circumstances and the place the drama had to take place.

However, Keylock's statement he looked "after [Brian's] interest under the order of Rolling Stones Ltd." meant nothing else but "I was ordered to keep Klein informed about everything Brian Jones was doing." Of course Keylock earned a few extra pounds from New York even before he had his job completed.
So Klein's "investigation" was a perfect tool to show presence to all involved as henchmen and witnesses; he could pay money and make threads and in the unlikely case police was wondering why on earth Klein's "detectives" were visiting every person having some association with Brian's death, he'd answer what Sam believes to this day: that he wanted to know what happened to his beloved client. And if Keylock or some of the builders would become too demanding, he had already gathered enough material he could hand over to the police. (A possibility Klein's "investigation" provided a good chance to inform Keylock/the builders about.) I wouldn't be surprised if Brian's parents were visited by Klein's "detectives" as well.

Anyway, I'm sure Keylock burning papers was part of the order. Who would know better where these papers were in that big house. It's an easy guess Keylock helped Brian to get all his stuff from London to Cotchford. And Keylock and the builders ransacking the house was probably part of the reward - Klein only had to look in his books to have a good idea of the value of all things belonging to the house, because most of it was ordered and paid by Rolling Stones Ltd.


- More voices from the inner circle

Sam's not the only person close to the Stones who gives us at least a glimpse of an idea what the inner circle really knows and feels about Brian's death. The list includes Keith (his famous 1971 Rolling Stone magazine interview), Astrid Lundström (Bill's girlfriend from 1967-1983), Dave Thomson (and by him indirectly Andrew Oldham and Shirley Arnold), Ian Stewart and even George Harrison.

Astrid made an irritating comment, as irritating as the fact none other than Bill quoted it in his "Stone Alone": "Mick and Keith got away with murder", she tells Bill's readers in a direct Brian connection. (Her next words include "destructive characters" and "worst criminals".) And according to Julian Copeland Astrid once told him the issue of Brian's death was an absolute taboo within the Stones - a claim that's fully supported by the public treatment of the issue by the Stones.

Dave Thomson, who had not seen the Stones since late 1965, remembered a chance encounter with Andrew in New York in 1970. Andrew reacted very nervous to Brian's old friend. Dave's explanation: "Maybe he thought I blamed him in some way for what happened to Brian." About himself and Shirley Arnold, with whom he had been in contact, he said: "I do think we both felt his [Brian's] death wasn't accidental or suicide." Then, about meeting Ian Stewart in March 1971: "He still seemed upset about Brian's death." So what did upset Stu?

Stu explained himself, when talking about Altamont: "Altamont was the death knell of the sixties. You've got to remember that Brian Jones, who was the one who started the Rolling Stones, was drawned in his swimming pool in July 1969." WAS drawned? When I first read I thought of a misprint. But Stu continues: "I can honestly tell you that I had a foreboding of disaster for the Stones the day Brian died. [...] I always felt there was something sinister about the way he died."

A feeling shared by Brian's mother, as we learned, and by George Harrison, too, when he sang an early version of "Beware Of Darkness" in 1970 and added the name behind the sinister feeling, the corporation of his (and Brian's) own manager, "Allen & Betty Klein and Company":

"Pushing you in puddles/In the dead of night/Beware of ABKCO"
(officially released in 2000)

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Replies:

[ Login ] Create Account Not required to post.
Post a public reply to this message | Go post a new public message
 Note: This forum is moderated -- new posts are not visible until approved.
* HTML allowed in marked fields.
* Message subject (required):

Name (required):

  Expression (Optional mood/title along with your name) Examples: (happy, sad, The Joyful, etc.) help)

  E-mail address (optional):

* Type your message here:


Note: This forum is moderated -- new posts are not visible until approved.

Notice: Copies of your message may remain on this and other systems on internet. Please be respectful.

[ Contact Forum Admin ]

Forum timezone: GMT-8
VF Version: 3.00b, ConfDB:
Before posting please read our privacy policy.
VoyForums(tm) is a Free Service from Voyager Info-Systems.
Copyright © 1998-2019 Voyager Info-Systems. All Rights Reserved.