Brian Jones' death - The Rolling Stones

BUT AREN'T THINGS NICE IN THE WORLD?
Sure. Just not all things.

WHAT ABOUT OTHER BANDS - SHOULD WE SUSPECT THEY ALL WOULD SECRETLY REPLACE A DEAD MATE?
Brian Jones of the Rolling Stones was not replaced; this is often raised as a reason why Paul McCartney would not be. But Jones was already being booted, and the Stones, important as they became, were not the unique singing and friendship duo of Lennon-McCartney or the unique group phenomenon the Beatles were.
By the way, as to "nice" vs. "not nice", I and others have been accused of being paranoiac for raising other death scenarios than the putative McCartney death. Let us get this out of the way for those people: according to new information, Brian Jones was sadly also very likely murdered, as was long suspected. Read all about it: here and here and here and here.

WHAT? BRIAN JONES, TOO? WHAT IS SUPPOSED TO BE THE CASE WITH THAT ONE?
But since there is no court case about it (and likely will not be), we have to realize that only by at least wondering if the reportage is good, will there be more information forthcoming, if it is true. There was a deathbed confession, supposedly, in a movie which came out to a few people and then was not released (are you surprised? or is this a lie?). How widely or quickly the murder event was planned through a ring, if at all, is uncertain though likely. One witness (not at the scene, but in testimony) claimed that Jagger and Richards went to the house to get the "Rolling Stones" name transferred from Jones four hours before the death. The testimony says that tempers flared and Richards pulled a knife to calm the situation at the time, as peacemaker. Someone (not Richards) might have arranged the actual death with Thorogood, for a few hours later. It could have been in the heat of a moment, but there is more likelihood there was a group wanting him dead. Richards suspected Jones was murdered. Corrupt cops closed the inquiry then and did not reopen it in 2010.
An early publicity photo of the Rolling Stones, from 1964. Ironically, Brian Jones (far left) is separate from the main group, and at opposite ends also, compared with Mick Jagger's position in the line (far right). This symbolic photographic happenstance actually occurred later, in band relations, right before Jones' death, when Jones was ousted from the band and Jagger and Jones were on particularly bad terms, especially on the day of his death, if the testimony is correct. Image from here.
I am more suspicious of the mainstream media than many persons, but I try to be careful in assuming they are misreporting. There were longtime suspicions about the death and, if there is no court case (and it is not corrupt if there is one), we must use what is turned up by journalists, and judge that. To assume these articles cover no facts is as irresponsible as assuming there are no lies anywhere and how to detect likely lies.
However, some who distrust the mainstream media journalism to the point of prejudice (often specifically of one side or another, left or right, the latter being what the Daily Mail usually represents), have gone so far as to suggest that because the confession and cop's story cannot be verified by me, I ought not to suggest that the journalism is likely fine.
Granted, on its favourite subjects, the Daily Mail is ideologically propagandistic. And yes, major rock stars are often presented as if they are "Left" wingers, or they often are. But does the sleuthing of the Mail have to be sloppy here? It does not read as if it is uncareful; the Stones are a pride item for Britain, the Daily Mail's location; and even if they are raising suspicions to make the Stones look bad, it turns out the first article does not make them look bad, but Thorogood himself. The second article casts more suspicion and motive options, and the title overemphasizes a distraught Richards, but the article is rather balanced.
So maybe instead, the long-time suspicions and silence and fear by witnesses was justified, in the Brian Jones death case. (But still, there is always one person who cannot believe Lennon was a threat to George Bush, Sr. in 1980, or that Paul even could possibly have been replaced, and who bleeds these issues together, resentfully stating that because we cannot be certain the anonymous policeman told the truth, and this author was not present for the confession, Brian Jones has to have died by drugs in the pool and the whole effort here in this article and in those news articles just cited is mere paranoia.) You decide.

Brian Jones (left) and Jimi Hendrix (right). Image undated. Both singers ended up dead at age 27, but also from murder, if all indications are correct.

(For Hendrix, see the other page on this blog.)

The causes of the seeming murders are likely very different. -- It is ironic there is such a nice photo of just the two of them together, for me to include here in this article. Image found here.

7 comments:

  1. The photo of Brian and Jimi is from June 1967 @ The Monterey Pop Festival.

    ReplyDelete
  2. For the record, there never was a deathbed confession by Thorogood, that was completely fabricated and the later retracted by Tom Keylock at the insistence of Thorogood's family.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Sloppy thinking. The report is of a film and pressure would come from family and higher up with threats, if there had been a confession. Don't be superficial. On the other hand, the evidence points to him anyway, or to his knowing. The issue is one of trying to get the title to the band. One can say Thorogood's daughter was trying to get the focus off her father, but it puts him more into focus. She gave a detailed account about Mick and Keith, which makes a phone call for murder (from backers of the band) more likely and her father was the closest suspect if so.

      Delete
  3. Hi. Im not seeing this ability to comment under the PID material the question is here. Move to the Faul material if possible. And if not why not? I note in Stephens written testimony he doesnt know who rescued him from Faul's mother's attack. In the verbal testimony he's clear it was Richard. A glaring discrepancy which seems unlikely to me. Even if memory is off Id expect consistency.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I will reply on the PID thread. It is not the Stephen material; it is the PID page itself. http://youcanknowsometimes.blogspot.ca/p/blog-page_24.html

      Delete