Thursday, 28 July 2016

Stephen Dickinson

and 3 other legal testimonies,

with (embedded) 1 more, attested

-- and 4 more not-yet-legal testimonies included as legal leads

The video interview with Mr. Dickinson was originally in high definition, with over a million views in two years. The entire channel was removed because of current events discussion censorship, whether those discussions were right or wrong. At this point, the video is available only on the "mirrored" channel content above, in lower definition and view count, and some unsavoury comments below it, with insufficient description. However, there it is. The slides are available about halfway through the video and elsewhere, and the high quality slides are available about halfway through this article blog page.


The legal testimony of Stephen Dickinson and the supporting Paul death case presented by Clare Kuehn are not constructed to personally attack the replacement, out of many people. However, too many excuses made for any one person in a moral and legal crime are also not acceptable, in the end. Clare prefers amnesty for all the participants -- direct and indirect -- but amnesty (except for egregious legal wrongs) is not the same thing as shirking honest blame, as such. Clare is also collecting testimonies (redacted, blacked out partly, to protect the testifiers' identity). This she is doing for the future -- not necessarily for court, for a number of reasons, but rather -- to show the upper insiders that there is more which can come out and to let the fact that Paul died, even by accident not murder, to come out formally. It is possible, and thus, should be done. Clare's accounts on line are shared with 5 other persons, so that if she cannot continue the work, others will.

This effort is not merely for Mr. Dickinson. Proving his paternity is not even necessary, at least as far as to assist him and others to affirm what his mother told him -- that Paul died, a fact which I already understand from other evidence as well. Stephen (Mr. Dickinson) has some likeness to Mike McCartney (Mike "McGear", stage name), who is the deceased Paul McCartney's brother, particularly in the flat front brow, the nose bridge, the upper jaw (which juts out somewhat and thus, his sideways / stretched upper lip when he speaks and smiles). Mr. Dickinson also has some likeness to Paul: his round head with a triangular aspect to his cheek bones. Stephen also has daughters whose brow ridge is beautifully graceful (a slide showing one of these daughters follows below, though her triangular and graceful face is not shown in full, to protect her identity). The first slide here, shows only Stephen and Mike and Paul, his likely uncle and father, respectively. Mr. Dickinson is also a small man (5' 8"), and dark like Paul. He and all of his four children are left handed. The two by a right-handed mother are also left-handed. Plausibility that his mother not only did not lie in thinking she had Paul's son, but that she likely was right, that he is Paul's son.

But ... did she know or tell the truth when she said Paul died? And did the Beatles visit? These are separate questions from his paternity.

Irene Mottram Dickinson, Stephen Dickinson's mother, did say that Paul had died.

His mother affirmed what others must now. Mr. Dickinson emphasized *on air* only how clever he was as a child, working with the dials on a record machine, to listen to a supposed (a likely) clue in a song by John Lennon. But his mother shortly after said to him that Paul had died, and lied to John Lennon on the street, later, by saying, "I never told him, John," unless she was referring to something else.

The fact that Stephen's mother told him is in the *testimony*. Stephen likes to emphasize -- and did, only, state on air --  how he had *first* figured it out, to his own shock, and never got to how his mother did affirm that it was true that Paul had died.

But yes, Irene did say Paul died. Now others ought to help show that, for public awareness. I already get it, of course.


NOTES for those who have run into general works on the subject, but not the key facts of Paul's death case:

a) "Last Testament of George Harrison: Paul Really Is Dead" film, 2009, is disinformation. More comments on that follow, in section 7.

b) "The Memoirs of Billy Shears" book, 2009, is also disinformation, in key ways, though the idea that it is fake in its claim to be by the replacement for Paul is likely true. The disinformation comes in as confusion of the issues. The author was most likely the replacement for Paul McCartney, with a ghost writer who fleshed in the material and language.

The author behind the listed author is determinable as the replacement for Paul (that is, as Sir Paul McCartney himself), by using many lines of reasoning, which we do not have space for here. These reasons can be summarized as: how it divulges nothing important which is new, while including so many things little known in 2009; how it was constructed and published with reference to McCartney (the replacement) in the corporation it uses, the timing of its release, the claim in its narrative itself (that it is sourced from the replacement); how it has clever word games, which suit some aspects of the mind of the replacement of Paul, although mostly constructed by the named author; how it covers over exactly the areas where the real author is least likely telling the truth (the cause and circumstances of the death itself, the motivation and extent of support by intelligence services and others in maintaining the replacement).

The book pins the blame for the replacement on the Beatles' dedicated (though embezzling) manager, Brian Epstein, which is beyond unlikely, though he would have to have helped promote the idea, perhaps under pressure and shock. It also glorifies the replacement as the saviour of the band after a presumably innocent cause of death for Paul (no murder). It also is filled with occult positive and negative ruminations, which fits what is known of some of the replacement's spiritual and intellectual interests. It even dares to suggest that not only did Paul guess at and dream of his own death, but *wanted this man to replace him*. The brazen self aggrandizement of and likely by the replacement is partly hidden in how many mistakes are made and filler concepts are included.


Objections regarding Stephen Dickinson are met below, with full slides and legal testimonies (one uploaded currently)  --- then General Objections, then Table of Content for slides, testimonies, etc. --- after Witness Warning.



If you heard credibly that this was true, know directly anything about this case (Paul's death), of course you may feel that coming out *together* is safer. It is ... only if you all do not know of each other's efforts. That way, no-one can know who might come out.

Also, since courts do not function always in cases like these, not as we would like, where questions are cut short, judges replaced, and worse happens, we suggest all efforts be entirely secret until revealed. This is also true of DNA tests for parentage between siblings, but especially true of comparison formally with the replacement for Paul. It is true definitely of aspects of the events around Paul's death and replacement, as well.

All witness materials must be kept entirely secret until they have been compiled, for individuals and together with other people's; also do not tell parents, children, friends, colleagues you may do this. This must be utterly secret; the togetherness is when it is compiled with others. I personally would not tell, for example; you should not.

The way it should be brought out, would be all together, with *most things redacted,* but enough to show *other insiders* that we are serious, and only a reference to each testifier's profession or some other generality, to show a variety of testimonies have been received.

- socialite
- surgeon
- reporter / press
- lighting technician
- police officer
- secretary
- writer
- political official
- bartender
- housekeeper / homemaker (housewife) ... etc.

This is not a court-only effort. In fact, courts look for very limited sorts of proof for criminality and blame. Not only that, but courts can be corrupted in a myriad of ways, inside and outside the process, with whatever does make it to the hearings also sometimes struck from the record or classified, which undoes the actual public purpose we have in mind in this instance.

And I will not tell of what I receive until such time as others corroborate, or flesh out the issues as well, in any testimony. That is, this is what I would do if anyone comes out to me *personally*. I cannot speak for others, including some I work with, but if they would act like that, I applaud them.

I warned Mr. Dickinson not to name names on air, though he did, so please consider that I would tell no one. Aside: Stephen has no more knowledge than he stated. No-one (of course, including Stephen) wants people harmed, but talking in public right now is unwise, and to friends and family, as well. I am on Twitter and Facebook with my name, Clare Kuehn.

My accounts have been passed also to others. Several others are prepared to take over my accounts in the event I become unable to continue the effort.

DNA tests should be done in secret, as should evidence compilation.

We recommend not speaking about this video (support for it or that you have viewed it, etc., except in general terms, if someone mentions it). We also recommend preparing your testimonies and any physical supports fully without anyone except your signing witness knowing -- who does not have to read the document you prepare, but does have to witness your signing and initial every page. You can use the documents below (in text and slides) as templates. They also contain instructions as part of the affidavits themselves.

We also recommend your not keeping your materials (testimony copies and/or supportive materials, which should all be numbered and described in your testimony), or sending them only to friends. They should be collected and saved, with an absolute plan from the person collecting that they will be released when more than one is ready. They can be redacted, per arrangements. No part of recollections, relevant materials, descriptions (no matter how detailed or seemingly irrelevant), names and even hearsay with as much back up as possible (as leads) should be left out. This allows for future leads to be followed, and cross-correspondence in people's recollections.

This effort is for public education as well as kind but sure pressure on others -- so that they may do even better than you. It might possibly (though unlikely) help court action, but actually, court action is *least* desirable, since court cases limit what can be presented, sometimes not well. In principle, of course, they are supposed to be paragons of virtue and reason.

The idea for doing your own disclosure effort, safely, would be to help the actual issue gain traction with the public and with other embarrassed or afraid witnesses, of whatever level they are.

That is the form of "coming out together" which is safest. This goes for any open secret (conspiracy plot and cover-up for whatever reason, small or large). In large-scale situations, police, etc., are obviously initially incredulous (disbelieving), taken off the case, or told to keep quiet, documents lost, etc.

Thank you for understanding.



0. Part 1: A few simple (ignorant) objections met, before people are familiar with the claims of Stephen Dickinson
0. Part 2: A few general (ignorant and partially knowledgeable) objections met about the Paul death case overall

1. The broadcast of Stephen Dickinson, Clare Kuehn and Dr. Jim Fetzer.

2. John Lennon's song, "Now and Then" has been linked, below, in a clear copy.

3. Uploads of the text of the three legal testimonies, though currently, only Stephen's redacted text is published here. (Bob's and Clare's redacted texts will be published here, too -- soon.) They are given in text format for easy automatic translator services to help foreign language speakers and for copying and pasting. Also, right now, Stephen's testimony text is not properly formatted.

4. The slides which were interspersed through the video. They are summaries, visually and verbally, of the situation Stephen's case brings forward personally and about Paul's death in 1966.

5. The 61 photos of the testimonies and the implications of some of them. These were shown together, about 3/4 of the way through the broadcast.

6. Short video clips of Magical Mystery Tour film, 1967, of possibly Irene (Stephen's mother) and Stephen (as baby -- he is less likely than Irene).

7. A note about "Last Testament of George Harrison: Paul Really Is Dead" film, 2009, as disinformation.



Though objections can be held throughout a study of an issue, either willfully or just because there is some room for doubt until one decides on all things together, the following objections are somewhat common but from ignorance, and can be mostly cleared up with a few simple points.

*** Please read the testimony (testimonies) in full, before making simple dismissive points. ***

1. The comparison of Stephen with Mike McGear's nose, and Paul's overall bone structure, and his eldest daughter's eyes compared with Paul's (which are very like Paul's, as are his other daughters, not shown), and the son claimant from Seattle, 1966 (as I was told) are in a slide which is left out of the video, by mistake, right now. It will be added soon. Stephen's teenage photo compared to Paul and his brother, Mike McCartney, and Stephen's daughter compared with Paul shows *plausibility*, while his testimony states that all his children have brown eyes and are left handed (not a necessity, for paternity by Paul, but interesting). Plausibility of looks (appearance) is all we need at this point. Stephen has a sort of rounded head, pointy face, brown contrasty hair and eyes, and nose somewhat like Mike, Paul's brother. Mike, Paul's brother, by the way, looks very *not* like Paul in some ways, though as kids they did. (If Mike is Paul's half brother or was adopted, is another question, though he could be fully Paul's brother and not seem much like him, remember.) So looks for children are a bit less stringent an argument than for a double (a replacement) being a replacement. Here is the comparison of Stephen, younger, his eldest daughter, another Paul son claimant (the man from Seattle, younger, I believe) and Mike, Paul's brother:

2. a) Stephen claims that Kevin (his friend) came up to him during the visit and walked away before it was over. His home was 3-4 houses from the end of the street and his attention taken up first with his marbles game and then the visit from the Beatles (if it occurred, for those who are still deciding on the issue). So the statement that the road was empty or mostly empty and is a tiny road is basically accurate and relevant and plausible.

2. b) Regarding: Gut6string1 August 2016 at 09:18  [...] I note in Stephens written testimony he doesn't 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, I'd expect consistency. [Grammar points corrected.]

Answer: He remembered specifically who pulled her off, a few weeks before the broadcast. He had been so shocked for years and remembering the shock of it, that who pulled her off was not foremost in his mind. The testimony copies and DNA bags were already signed and in the mail.

Stephen has posted this in a group I run, today (August 2nd, 2016, in the a.m., North America time:

I wasn't sure whether to tell anyone about his mum trying to strangle me because i thought shes not her to defend herself and its quite a heavy thing to strangle a seven year old child in broad daylight. Its the only part of what happened to me that i was unsure about reveling. After i did tell about it i didn't want to make George and John out as bad people because Ringo was the one who helped. I didn't want people to think John and George would have just let her kill me, so i said one of them pulled her off me. I always knew it was Ringo and decided to just tell everything that happened and not worry about his mum being dead. She shouldn't go around strangling kids if she doesn't want to be talked about. I would do the same even if she was still alive.

3. The Beatles' visit *to Stephen* may have been to Irene, really. She may have said she was not going to them and they buckled. Arranging money for Irene as a possibility is covered in the testament, as is the idea it was to shut him up that they stopped by, or some other reason. They may well have have even been to shut Stephen up, or may have been on a side trip to Irene and Stephen.  In fact, the Beatles must have had legal or other business in England and/ or in Liverpool.  Either way on that, the Beatles would *not* have all convened on Liverpool just to meet with a kid for 10 minutes. Since Irene did come out at that point, when they came, and adults don't just drop by on kids in these circumstances, she was likely expecting them and went inside to finish what she was doing.

4. Irene (Stephen's mother) *did* tell Stephen that Paul died, after he figured it out from a clue (thought it was true, from a clue). She half lied to John Lennon, when he arrived, saying, "I didn't tell him, John." She did not *originally* tell him, but yes, she did tell him; it is a defensive word choice for her to use.

5. Stephen's self perception and Dr Fetzer's perception are likely true only up to a point, about why the Beatles were there: they would have been there for Irene and/or Stephen, on a specific day and time, but to be in England (and Liverpool), the four together must have had other business in the country and/or the city, if/when they visited (until you decide they visited).

6. Stephen's birth month was July (10th), 1967, and the typical death dates proposed for Paul are 1966 in November (inaccurate, by several lines of evidence, but often repeated) or September (much more likely, despite a cover-up of events at the Melody Maker awards, which may not have had a party at all, or not on the date later claimed). For those not familiar with these issues, the issue around the birth is this: if you doubt that Paul could have survived September 13 (Tuesday), then Stephen was the result of a long pregnancy. But for those who realize that even nine (9) month pregnancies actually are longer: 40 weeks on average (more than 9 months), 280 days from last menstruation (when that is known, since women sometimes did not and do not know they are pregnant, when there is spotting). You can actually ovulate after the sex which later makes you pregnant.

Also, some doctors discount what women say, hence they can throw the statistics off. And pregnancy is rarely able to be counted from the sex, or even the implantation of the embryo. Plus, women were induced (forced) into labour almost never in those days, and women's menstrual period can be spotty after pregnancies, so they can be confused, and older women's implantation dates can vary quite a bit more often than younger women, and reach up to one week. Thus, not only does Stephen's birth remain a possibility as an "outside possibility" with a death for Paul in September, but actually, a careful understanding of the statistics on birth times and mistakes in the data or the way it is represented, also can have contributed to the idea that "nine months" is so much a "norm", makes it even more of a possibility. Of course it is a higher number of pregnancies at 9 months, but 10-to-10 1/2 months may have been technically speaking (from actual sex) a bit more common than we thought, and always anyway does remain a possibility, no matter what.

7. Stephen's neighbour told him there was a day when the Liverpool newspapers didn't come. He had asked about John Lennon's line in "A Day in the Life" song (Sergeant Pepper album, mid-1967), saying "newspapers didn't come". He moved from his original home, shortly after, in Spring-Summer 1975. This is in the testament.

8. Irene died of a very fast acting cancer, mestastized from bowel or (as he was told) from lungs, but settling in bowel. This is in the testimony.

9. Given that the Liverpool Oratorio has no normal sense to it except a tiny love story, yet was supposed to be "autobiographical" for the replacement as Paul McCartney (a slide about this is in the broadcast and below), it is worth noting that the book seemingly by the replacement, the book named "Memoirs of Billy Shears" (2009) references a Dickinson woman linked to Paul McCartney and telling his story. The book has "encoding" (word games for hidden messages) and ghostwriting by "Thomas E. Uharriet", has a special "new" song from (supposedly) the replacement. It is mentioned as a "song writing contest", for people to have extra "fun" writing tunes for the songs. The song lyrics are at a separate place, on line. One of those is about Emily (meaning Irene Mottram Dickinson?) *Dickinson* linked to dead Paul. "This makes little sense, given that the Dickinson woman is named as the American 19th-century poet of love and death (that being the only other interpretation). The author (who is in the group where the post is), has lauded the find and said, "I had no idea why there is a song about Dickinson in a book about Paul & William. It seemed kind of odd to me; but the insights above seem to explain it. I did not know any of that interesting background. It's funny how often the book provides the missing puzzle pieces that I know nothing about. I am more of an encoder of information handed to me than a researcher," and, a little while later, "Likewise, in all of my other books, it is not my own brilliant material, but is my re-shaping of it--such as presenting ancient ideas on haiku." A post on this on Facebook is from this morning, August 2nd, 2016, at

10. Stephen's language about the murder idea, which he recounted in the broadcast as adult language and said so, was in the formal testimony in the original kid (childhood) language: "Was it God [natural death] or the Meanies [killers, as in, the bad characters in Yellow Submarine Beatles film, 1968]".

11. Maybe it is not Irene Mottram Dickinson, Stephen's mother, in the movie Magical Mystery Tour Beatles film, 1967. But if Irene, Stephen's mother, was on set during, it also does not mean the baby she held was Stephen (since the baby looks like a strong 4 months or older). She could have left Stephen at home for a busy film set, or Stephen could be wrong that it was she, or he could have been a *very* strong, long-term pregnancy child, at 2 1/2 months of age and able like a 3 1/2 month old child though I doubt it personally.

12. Moreover, the idea that the Beatles wouldn't have come to see here -- which they could have -- the house they lived was only 3-4 houses from the end of the street, not attracting much attention from neighbours who might mostly have been working (and if they were seen, so would they have had too much trouble, if Irene had refused to come to see *them* instead? No. Only John would have a problem in denying he was in the area, but if he was protected enough to come to England at the time, local knowledge of his visit could have been smoothed over. Nothing eliminates Stephen's statements nor exactly proves them, except internal consistencies and earnestness at this point.

13. Stephen did not "forget" who pulled the mother of the replacement away, but rather that he held back the information, which was unwise. He was advised by me and others to tell *all* that he remembered; a belief that because some would not believe him anyway, it would not matter, but then to tell later in the broadcast only increases some people's doubts, yet here is the answer: he was concerned (and always has expressed to me) that he did not want to harm people's reputations more than need be in his coming forward, and this affected his wanting to say who pulled the woman off. So we may note for all people (and for witnesses especially), this exchange this morning, August 2nd, 2016 Post link is at ) :

Stephen Dickinson: I wasn't sure whether to tell anyone about his mum trying to strangle me because i thought shes not her to defend herself and its quite a heavy thing to strangle a seven year old child in broad daylight. Its the only part of what happened to me that i was unsure about reveling. After i did tell about it i didn't want to make George and John out as bad people because Ringo was the one who helped. I didn't want people to think John and George would have just let her kill me, so i said one of them pulled her off me. I always knew it was Ringo and decided to just tell everything that happened and not worry about his mum being dead. She shouldn't go around strangling kids if she doesn't want to be talked about. I would do the same even if she was still alive.

Clare Kuehn: Stephen Dickinson -- remember I said SAY EVERYTHING you remember. This is why. People now doubt you could have the damned memory because how could you forget who pulled her off. This was unwise and though you were always saying you were embarrassed for her -- that is not a witness' job.

14. The fact the Liverpool newspapers did not come one day, mentioned in the testament, is not only coming from the next door neighbour of Stephen as it is in the testament. Post link is at

Robert Shortz: They're alluding to the lines in "Lady Madonna" [by Paul's replacement, 1969, Let It Be album] that go "Tuesday afternoon is never ending [/] Wednesday morning papers didn't come". It seems to have been a real event.

Clare Kuehn: In Liverpool.There were only 2 [newspapers] at the time (they've now merged). 

Stephen Dickinson: The news went out it was very early Wednesday morning, it was to late to change the front page and write an article to report it but they managed to do it. They changed the front of the Liverpool Morning Post and Echo and quickly put an article together. After all their rushing around they were informed that it was a mistake or their had been a crash but he was unharmed. They were stuck with a copy they couldn't put out with no time to change it, hence that Wednesday morning nobody got their newspaper. :) Peace For Paul [...] I asked quite a few neighbors Clare, they nearly all remembered this. :)



Music as an issue people wonder about (or don't wonder enough), from an exchange on Youtube recently:

The mish mash at 1967, and some maturity over time, were mixed in people's minds as "great" but the electricity of love and feeling are gone. Anyway, Paul died.

SaxFreak01: Drivel. You're obviously not a musician, and certainly not a bass player. The way a musician plays their instrument is as unique as a fingerprint. Melodic/harmonic language, tone etc. Listen to any of McCartney's recorded bass parts from 1962 to the current date - it's clearly the same guy on all the recordings.

Clare Kuehn: No, it clearly -- IF you know what to separate out -- is not, but "clearly" is after you know more: informed common sense not your hopes and the confusions they made you hear. -------- Yes, voice analysis was done by Dr Henry Truby, of Florida State University, USA, in 1970, and he found 3 different voices. He didn't say if he counted doctoring in his factors and he never published his methods, plus he shut up about it quickly. More material is available now but some old songs were sped up, etc., and voice harmonics (prints) are only court admissible from spoken word. -- I have been a musician, though not professionally. On the other hand, there are many bassists and singers who can tell the difference, talk of the alterations, and who do not understand why people like you are so enamoured of the bells and whistles and mish-mash (and lack of emotional electricity, love, whatever you want to call it) in the later albums in many places.

SaxFreak01: And there are a number of reasons why The Beatles'music changed as the '60s wore on. a) Their growing maturity as songwriters and musicians (starting well before McCartney is supposed to have "died" - in fact evident from 1965 onwards). b) the ever-changing, turbulent times that they were living through, ie. the 1960s, which the Beatles both reflected in their music and in some ways even helped to instigate. c) DRUGS. Lots and lots and lots of drugs.

Clare Kuehn: And those reasons are insufficient, Sax. I already mentioned them. They are insufficient: like sand in a DNA test. They're there, they contribute to findings, but they interfere with the point. [Other groups were not in the same position, exactly, when they lost a member: the connection between John and Paul and the intensity of Beatlemania socially and economically was unique.] Do you seriously not understand that if (when) Paul died, there would be disaster emotionally, musically, and you can learn where to tell? You say "drivel", sure, because you don't want to conceive what's being written, and that happens to anyone at times. Your big worry is the music. The music is different and you have to look at where it is, and specific areas of difference, and then move on to other issues; heck, even if they had used all old Paul songs with Paul singing, the man would still be different. So you have to widen your search, if you cannot get one area to work for a side of a case. Go through this in full, before you make up your mind -- like a jury member.

PEOPLE TALKED (JUST NOT IN EASY, OFFICIAL WAYS -- and this is normal in conspiracy cases):

Taken mostly as verbal "jokes", or, when in artforms, taken as "just art", people have spoken, to relieve their consciences; other times, they lied or played on the name "Paul", that "he" didn't die because "he" (the replacement renamed Paul) lived.


Mourning privately, not telling everyone, overwhelmed by others' decisions and the huge cachet (power) of Beatles legacy and career and maybe with the odd threat, explain the closer persons' participation. For others, knowing at a distance, focus on their own lives, not having exact evidence, knowing that this was too big to bother to speak of directly to the public, explains the circles of people in the know. (This is normal in big or little conspiracies, deceptions by two or more persons, and crimes, at all levels -- not just political ones, which this one really is ... a socio-political issue.) With no police listening, the normal avenues for justice break down; this happens in lower (ordinary) crime cases at times, too.

Now, on to the evidence materials themselves:



The broadcast itself ( ):



The song of John Lennon, dedicated to Paul, a late or last song, with the lines (at 2:26 to 2:44) "I want it out eternally / I know they [the public] turn to me" ( ).

Two helpful, reminder slides follow:

In case that Youtube file of the song gets removed for any reason, here is an uploaded file:


Only one testament of 3 is presently published to this blogsite. Two more will be up soon.

STEPHEN'S TESTAMENT, redacted for privacy.

Affidavit of Stephen John Dickinson. DATE: _____________________ . Pg 1 of 12.
Signed on the (spell out) ____________________ day of the month of _________________ ,
in the year ___________ , at the city of ______________________________ , in the region/
province/state/county ________________________________ , in the country of
______________________________________ .
My name is Stephen John Dickinson. I was born on the 10th of July, 1967, in Liverpool, England. The address where I lived until just before my eighth birthday and where the events I will describe took place, was 7 Ettington Road, Liverpool, England.
My mother’s birth name was Irene M. Mottram, born on the 13th of October, 1932, in Sefton Park, at Sefton Park General Hospital, Smithdown Road. My father’s name was James Paul McCartney, the “Beatle,” born on the 18th of June, 1942. I was conceived just before he died in 1966. After my father’s death my mother met a man named George John Dickinson and married him. She didn't tell me who my biological Father was until just after my seventh birthday. For a long time, I thought it was when I was six. I gauged it by her death, the year of which I didn't know until recently. It was the birthday before she died. Anyway, when I turned seven, she told me James Paul McCartney was my father. I remember George Dickinson had originally found my mother wandering around the streets of Liverpool, alone and upset like she was in a state of shock from some terrible experience. I believe this was in late 1966, when she was pregnant with me. He took care of her and became close to her and they soon married, even though he knew he was not the father of her child. They later had another boy, [name withheld from public copy ---] Dickinson, who is my half brother. George was very good to me in many ways and years later, I quit my business and nursed him when he was dying of lung cancer in Liverpool, England.
Even at a young age, when I was only seven years old, coming from Liverpool, I knew who James Paul McCartney was. I was surprised by what my mother had told me and at first thought she was joking with me. After a short exchange of words, which started with me expressing my disbelief and ended with my mother stating in no uncertain terms that J. Paul was my father and it was important that I knew it, I asked her how she knew him and how they had met. My mother told me that she had worked in and managed a typing pool – maybe as an executive secretary – opposite Brian Epstein’s office in the NEMS (North End Music Stores) building. I believe this was in the Whitechapel area of Liverpool town. She went on to say that Paul used to come and see her on her dinner break. They both had a keen interest in music. My mum’s interest was in classical, mostly, going by her record collection. She said Paul also was interested in classical music. According to Mum, they became friends first and, later on, their friendship led to my conception. She also said she waited to have me.
After Mum told me this, I must have looked at her in a way that made her exclaim, “I never threw myself at him, Stephen.” I know my mother was a proper, virtuous woman and didn’t
Copy ___ of ___ .    This page initialed by testifier and witness: ________ , _______ .

Affidavit of Stephen John Dickinson. DATE: _____________________ . Pg 2 of 12.
take having relations with a man outside of marriage lightly. George Dickinson was not home when our first conversation happened and she broke off the discussion when he arrived.
My mum and Paul were very close and spent much time together. She usually called him “Jamie,” instead of Paul. I know other people have told me that Paul was not called Jamie, but I guess it was an unusual or love term, or it was actually used by his friends sometimes. She told me she was 100% sure Paul was my dad and was always adamant when I asked about it. As I got used to the idea over the following couple of months, it became something I was curious about.
After my mother met Paul, he took her to a grand hotel in Vienna, Austria. I have a memory of Mum saying Paul took her to Vienna. She also showed me a picture of her looking out from a very fancy balcony at the fancy hotel where they stayed and I assume the person taking the picture was Paul, because she said she was there with him. She was on that balcony and it was overlooking water. I now know the Beatles were in Innsbruck, Austria for the filming of “Help!” in 1965, and never did a public concert in Austria, but they did do a small concert during the filming of “Help!” in Innsbruck. I don’t know if that was around the time she met him, or if she was seeing him already. I don't know if she went to Austria around the time of the filming, arriving before, during, or after – if she did go around then. I don’t know when the photo was taken, or when their friendship and romance started. She never mentioned if they were secretly married at some point, but I sometimes thought about it. That trip almost seemed like a secret honeymoon to me, but she never said that. I know that my mum was older than Paul. He used to call her his older woman, according to my mum. He had lost his mother and my mum was a local woman and good looking. She was interested in his interests and would have been a friend first, as she said to me.
I also know that if he died in September, it was a long pregnancy for me and October or November would work more easily. I have since learned that births weren’t forced (induced)  as often, back then. Some people say it was never done, except for C (Caesarian) Sections in emergencies. Second, some women would not have known when they got pregnant. Third, even more would not be believed sometimes. (More prejudice to listening to women happened then, I think). Fourth, there were no early pregnancy tests. So, though I am not sure of when my dad died, statistics of there being extremely few 10-10 ½ month babies could be off. Obviously, 9 months is the norm, but it may not be quite as high a norm as we think. Fifth, it turns out that pregnancy is counted usually from date of implantation of the embryo and the older a woman is, the longer it can be, up to a week. Sixth, a period can be miscounted. So … it’s not impossible I was born about 10 months or just a bit more than that, from September 11 or so. I have believed my father died in November and I still think it, as I will say again later, but I am aware many others do not. I got the November 9 date from the US rumour from 1969. It may be wrong, for many reasons. If I was conceived in September, it is likely that I was conceived right around the time he died, maybe in the same trip to Liverpool, if he was killed there. I know it seems odd, but I will not likely know.
I never owned any photographs of my mum with my father, because I was so young when she died in 1975. I do know that George Dickinson had taken photographs of Mum, me, and other people, starting from when he met her. The only one that I have now is one of him and her,

Copy ___ of ___ .    This page initialed by testifier and witness: ________ , _______ .
Affidavit of Stephen John Dickinson. DATE: _____________________ . Pg 3 of 12.
when she was pregnant with their son, [---]. She doesn't look her best in it, but she was stunning in the pictures I remember of her when she was younger. George later claimed that he had lost the photos of the family, so I have only my memories to rely on. I don't know if we had photos of Paul and Mum.
After learning that my real father had died, I told a few of my friends that Paul was dead. To my surprise, one of my friends, Kevin, already knew. I was on my front step and said to him, “Paul’s dead, you know.” He said, “I know, Dicko.” That was my nickname. Though he may have been brushing me off, his comment made me think Mum must have had friends who knew, and they told their kids. I think that Paul's death may have been well known in some circles in Liverpool. Later, the same boy witnessed my meeting with the Beatles. I don't remember his last name, unfortunately.
I figured that Paul was dead by myself and my mum confirmed it. Something must have given me the general idea at first. I think I remember hearing something about it and the clues about it on the radio as well, but I’m not 100% sure on that. I remember playing the “Blue Album” that George had bought for me. It was the only Beatles album from after 1966 that I had. When I played the song “Strawberry Fields”, something strange, not music, was at the end of the song. It sounded like someone talking slowed down, so I turned the player from 33 rpm to 45 rpm, not backward. When you do this, you hear John Lennon say in real time, “I buried Paul.” I felt sure of the ending to “Strawberry Fields” and on finding it, I remember proclaiming from the front room, "Oh no! He's dead!" Kids sometimes are very emotional and this was my feeling. George rushed in from the kitchen and said, “Who’s dead, son?” I remember saying, “Oh, nobody,” but then telling him that Paul McCartney was dead. I can’t remember George’s exact reaction to this, but he did not deny it. After I realized Paul was dead, from what I was sure I heard, I asked Mum when George was not around. She told me Paul had died. I remember doubting her a bit and saying, “Paul wasn't really my father, was he, Mum?” and her getting upset and saying, “Paul was your father, Stephen.” As I will tell in a moment, I do remember Mum saying to John Lennon, "I never told him, John." I’d found the statement by John Lennon in “Strawberry Fields”, so in a way, my mum told the truth: she had only confirmed what I’d already figured out.  I was quite a clever kid. That’s why Ringo called me a “little Jeremy”. John must have asked my mum not to tell me Paul died. I believe he – and any others originally in the know – swore to the Official Secrets Act. I know I would have asked, “What happens if I don't lie?” With other suspicious deaths, probable bribery, threats and, what's most important, basic loyalty and having no direct evidence; there, you have the coverup. The name “McCartney” would have been a superficial legal change, though the thrust is terribly illegal and deeply immoral, no matter for what reasons the Beatles agreed to it.
All the main parts of my testament’s events happened in a short time. There was Mum telling me who my father was, me finding out he was dead, the Beatles visit and then Mum's dying. The next thing, the Beatles' visit, will sound strange to some people, but I remember it as well as can be. It was a surprise to me, but now I’m thinking it was not a surprise to my mum.
In 1975, or thereabouts, when I was seven going on eight years old, I was by myself, playing marbles in front of my house. I was approached outside my home by John Lennon, George Harrison, Richard Starkey (Ringo) and by the man who replaced my father in the public eye
Copy ___ of ___ .    This page initialed by testifier and witness: ________ , _______ .

Affidavit of Stephen John Dickinson. DATE: _____________________ . Pg 4 of 12.
and his mother. I was told it was his mother. They all came walking up as if they had got out of a car somewhere down the street.  I remember John had a sheepskin waist coat on. I remember George having a longer coat above the knees, but still long. It’s a bit vague, but I think Ringo was in a two piece suit, with a shirt with a collar and maybe a tie. The man who was supposed to be Paul had a two piece suit with a crew neck t-shirt. I was wearing shorts and a t-shirt, I think. I must have had a coat on, but if I did, I don't remember it. The neighbourhood street was quiet and deserted. My mother had come to the front door as soon as they approached me. She stood on the top step of the house and said, "I never told him, John!" and then walked back in. She must have been getting ready, expecting them to follow her in.
The Paul replacement’s mum was giving me a bad look from the second they walked up to me, a look that made me feel uncomfortable. She was wearing a long dress and a headscarf, with her greying hair tied back. She had a severe, pinched look, a sort of long face and left a real impression on me. She was not wearing makeup and looked like an angry Scotswoman. The dress was of a dark colour. She never said a word. From the second they walked up to me, the replacement's mum looked at me with a hard look. She was intimidating, but I had a lot of bravado as a child and she lost her temper with me. Some people think Nancy Cooke de Herrera, who was with the Beatles in 1968, in India, was the replacement's mother. That would mean the replacement was with his mum and the Beatles in India in 1968. Cooke de Herrera certainly looks like the mum, both having thin faces, but the woman I met came across as the type who wouldn't wear makeup: a very religious, proper woman, stern and hard as nails. Think of a gritty Scot. I’ve always thought John's 1968 song “Bungalow Bill” was about the replacement for my father, who seems to be named Bill something. So the idea might have been not only of de Herrera’s safari with her son Richard Cooke in India, while the Beatles were there, but the replacement’s mother also might have been on John’s mind. There is the line, “In case of accidents, he always took his Ma.” I was looking up the lyrics to that song only a few days ago and I’m sure the song says, "Hey bungalow Bill, who did ya kill? Was it yer gil?" “Your girl” in Scouse (Liverpudlian accent) is “Yer gil.” But when you Google the lyrics on every site, there's no sign of the words “Was it yer gil?” I think it means that John wrote the song to expose the replacement and his murderous ways, or his mother’s too, not just the Cookes' safari. If so, it was about the replacement and his mum killing someone, but probably not my father. The new man had a different nature than Paul, anyway. People aren't really fooled, I think; the certain something the others had in abundance isn't there in him. Something was missing in the new man, not just drug induced or aged in Paul.
I asked John Lennon who the woman was, saying, “Who’s she?” He nodded toward the replacement and said, “His mum.” I didn’t recognize Paul in him and knew Paul had died. The replacement and his mum never said a word to me. I looked at each of them and turned to John Lennon. I was mainly focused on John. He was wearing his glasses. You could hardly make out John’s eyes beneath those glasses. I said, “Where’s Paul?” I had already figured out in a kid’s way and been told by my mum afterward that Paul had died, but I wanted the Beatles to know that I knew what had happened. I said, “Where’s Paul?” to let them know I knew and to get them to tell me what had happened to Paul.
I knew the replacement was standing trying to look like Paul. I looked through him, didn’t give
Copy ___ of ___ .    This page initialed by testifier and witness: ________ , _______ .

Affidavit of Stephen John Dickinson. DATE: _____________________ . Pg 5 of 12.
him acknowledgment and said I wanted to know where Paul was, by turning to John and saying, “Where’s Paul?” This made John and George smile, and Ringo laughed. The replacement rolled his eyes and his mum’s stare became more intense. I knew this man was pretending to be Paul, but I wanted to know what had happened, so the first words out my mouth were, “Where’s Paul.” I suppose I was hoping John would explain. That didn't happen. (Things just deteriorated to the point where the replacement’s mum tried to strangle me – and she wasn't messing around. Something hit her emotions and she went for me, as I will tell in a moment. If the others hadn’t been there, I felt then that I would be dead now.) I remember peering into John’s eyes as he said, “We’re letting it be, Dicko,” my nickname, and rolled his eyes towards the man who had replaced my father. I never thought about how he knew my nickname. I guess John not only knew my mum from before, but knew my nickname. Other things about my experiences may mean my mum was in touch with the Beatles and they were visiting for her, really, and not for me. When John said, “We’re letting it be, Dicko,” my nickname, and rolled his eyes towards the man who had replaced my father, he even seemed to be emphasizing “it”, as if the word referred to the replacement too, not just the situation. I replied, “You can’t just let it be! You'll never get away with it." John looked at me and said, "We already have."
A few more words were exchanged between us. I was a kid, so in spite of the seriousness of the Paul topic which came up, I asked them what meeting the Queen was like and made fun of Ringo a bit. I even told Ringo that he would be the last Beatle. I don’t know why I said that. This resulted in Ringo's turning to the others and saying, “He’s another little Jeremy." I don’t know what that means. Ringo liked messing with language, so maybe it meant a perceptive joker like “Jamie”, as in James Paul McCartney, or I misheard for “Jamie”. In the time we were talking, my friend Kevin walked up and stood by my side. My not accepting her son as Paul upset the replacement's mother and resulted in her grabbing me very intensely around the neck. I actually feared she would kill me. One of the other adults (I don’t remember who) intervened and pulled her off me. After the replacement's mum attacked me, Kevin ran off and I don't remember speaking with him after that. Right after Mum’s death, we moved two miles away, to Newsham Drive.
A few more words were exchanged and I told the lady outside that she was crazy. After that, the adults started to walk away, towards the end of the road. Maybe they were as ruffled by the events as I was, so they left maybe more quickly than planned. As they were walking away, I shouted after them a final try. I said, basically, “Was Paul’s death an accident or murder?” My actual words were quick and a child’s. I asked about Paul this way: “Paul ... was it God or the Meanies?” I wasn’t asking the replacement the question and calling him Paul. I just started my last quick question with the topic I was heading for. “Meanies” was a reference to the bad guys in the animated Beatles film, “Yellow Submarine”, from 1968, where the mean people were called the “Blue Meanies”. George Harrison turned around, lifted his finger, as if to suggest they had heard enough from me and replied, “We have our suspicions.”
I don’t know for sure that Paul was murdered. Yes, I was young and people have every right to ask me anything they feel about how “strange” it would be that a kid would wonder if there is murder. I’m not offended. I knew I would have to face questioning. It’s only natural. You can’t just make a claim like what I have and expect everyone to take it at face value. But I got
Copy ___ of ___ .    This page initialed by testifier and witness: ________ , _______ .

Affidavit of Stephen John Dickinson. DATE: _____________________ . Pg 6 of 12.
the point then and I know now that his death was never investigated or revealed, which makes me wonder. As a child, I did too, so I asked. “Bad guys”, or “Meanies” occurred to me. That’s all. Kids aren’t dumb. I don’t conclude something for sure, without being told something is true, but that’s not what was happening here. I asked and George answered, impulsively. I was a very clever, outgoing child. Some may find what I say to be hard to believe, but I can only say what happened to me. It has stuck with me. I would love to know what happened. Sometimes I feel strongly it was murder. Also, I don't remember my mum saying anything about that visit. I think she was upset by everything that had happened.
This visit from the Beatles was probably intended for my mother and interrupted by the replacement’s mother’s reaction to me, as I said. Not long after (a couple of weeks), I came home from school and my mother wasn’t there. When I asked George Dickinson where she was, he said she was in hospital – supposedly with lung cancer. The fact that George Dickinson suddenly said my mum was in hospital has always seemed very strange to me, because I remember her doing everything a housewife did: making the dinner, washing the clothes and keeping a clean house. She seemed fine, no cough. It was incomprehensible in any normal way, to come home from school one day only a few weeks after the Beatles’ visit, to find that she was in the hospital and then dead only two to three weeks after that, supposedly of lung cancer. She wasn’t a smoker, had no signs of being sick at all and died so quickly after being admitted. Yes, again I was young and did not put it all into words. But the basic timing and experience were what they were. Along with my grief, it did begin to give me some suspicions. Only three weeks after she went into hospital, I came home from school and George John Dickinson had my younger half brother [---] Dickinson on his lap. George was crying. I asked him what was wrong and he replied, “Your mum’s dead, Stephen.” I was told my mother had died of lung cancer and wondered why she hadn’t asked for me. I asked George and he said, “She did ask for you son, but she was too ill for you too see her." I had so many questions for her. I feel like she was snatched away because of that meeting with John, the imposter “Paul” who some people call “Faul” (meaning “False Paul”), and the group, along with “Faul’s” mother. I also know my mum would have asked for me. George even told me she did, but he had made the decision not to take me, because she was too sick. I always resented that. My mother died on the 23rd of April, 1975. I don't remember the funeral. Maybe George sent me to his mum's. She is buried in Anfield cemetery, in the family plot. I didn't visit until recently, partly because life went on, it had been a traumatic event I avoided and I didn't know her death date exactly, to look her up.
The strange visit described above occurred not long before her death, so I estimate it was February or March, 1975, based on her death and the clothing they were wearing. The doctor who treated my mother, her local GP, was Dr Ian Bogle. Later he became head of the BMA at BMA House, on Tavistock Square, London. (Charles Dickens’ former home, called Tavistock House, was demolished in 1901, but the area is honouring his house.) Whether the BMA location is linked to, or the same as, the Tavistock Institute, I am not sure. I have read about Tavistock Institute and the propaganda role they have played in our music and culture. This and the fact that my mother seemed perfectly well leading up to her hospitalisation, plus the timing of the visit and her rapid death, have made me even more suspicious about her death. I have always felt that the trouble I had with my father’s replacement and his mother at the meeting led to my mother’s death. When I said that I had caused her death, George replied,
Copy ___ of ___ .    This page initialed by testifier and witness: ________ , _______ .

Affidavit of Stephen John Dickinson. DATE: _____________________ . Pg 7 of 12.
“Don’t be silly, son.”
I never had any material proof of my mother’s relationship to James Paul McCartney, since no photos or keepsakes from him were passed on to me, and I was too young and upset when she died, to think about asking about them or looking for them. I did have her record albums, and they may have been material proof, maybe. They were all classical albums, except for three Beatles albums: “A Hard Day’s Night”, “Help!” and “Rubber Soul”, which makes sense if she knew him around that period, from about 1965-1966 at least. Sadly, in 1995, years after I was a kid, when I had an argument with the mother of my two youngest children, she destroyed my albums in a rage after I had gone out for a bit. Losing my vinyl broke my heart. When I realized what she had done, I sank to my knees and sobbed. I threw the damaged albums out, never thinking to look for a hand written note or card from my father, which may have been slipped into their sleeves. That’s how upset I was.
Not long after my mother died, I overheard George Dickinson and other family members arguing. I heard one of them say, “You don’t have to have him, George,” meaning to keep me. On hearing this, I started to walk away from my home, but by the time I had reached the end of the short road I lived on, George ran after me, asking what I was doing. I told him I didn’t want to be with them either, but George insisted I go home with him. He knew he wasn’t my biological father, but I don’t think he knew that James Paul McCartney was. I asked him about it before he died on the 28th of July, 2014. He said, “I knew you were not my son, but I didn’t know whose son you were.” I don’t know whether to believe that. I've thought about this issue a lot, since I always felt I knew my mother was telling the truth about Paul’s death. I saw that someone else, the other “Paul” person I had met, had taken my father’s place in the mass media. History was changed, not only about music, but about intelligence service activity.
I don’t know if we received some small money from the Beatles for me over time – from my birth, or forward from the visit. I also don’t know if there were phone calls from the Beatles to my home, after the visit I had. I didn’t have much time to find out anything and I didn’t think about asking, because I was young and overwhelmed. There was an illegitimate son of Paul McCartney in Liverpool, named Philip Cochrane, according to his mother Anita. Anita got some small payment, she said. Erika Hubers also got some. She was a German who had a daughter named Bettina. Bettina has become famous, because without knowing or saying that Paul died, she challenged the DNA findings of the German paternity court, twice. Her mother and she not only got money from court despite the DNA findings -- because it was the replacement’s DNA used, I believe -- but also got Epstein payments in the 1960s. This is not usually known, but it is the testimony of Peter Brown, with helping author Steven Gaines, in Brown's book “The Love You Make” (2002). Another mother from Liverpool, named Alice Doyle, also got money from Epstein. Her son was Mark Paul Doyle, according to the same book. Hubers and Doyle are discussed in chapter 5.
Here is a post summarizing the Bettina case, but I have added short comments using “SJD” to show and remind people which “McCartney” we are actually talking about in the summary:
Post by “stavros” [sic], the 25th of March, 2014, at 5:49 p.m.
Copy ___ of ___ .    This page initialed by testifier and witness: ________ , _______ .

Affidavit of Stephen John Dickinson. DATE: _____________________ . Pg 8 of 12.
This was a big story back in the 1980s and I'd all but forgotten about it until stumbling upon it again by accident.
This paternity case against Paul seemingly dragged on into the 21st century and is one of those slightly uncomfortable and stranger parts of Beatle history.
Bettina was born in December [SJD: ,] 1962. Her mother Erika claimed McCartney asked her to abort the baby and sought alimony at the time. McCartney denied the accusations and also that he was the baby's father. But he did pay her a sum of money. [SJD: Let us say also that Paul could deny it or could be sure it wasn't his and still pay something, though that’s unlikely. It is not my main point here, anyway.]
In 1966 the Beatles were about to embark on a European tour. McCartney was informed by the German courts that a matter of maintenance had to be settled [SJD: with Bettina's mother,] before he set foot in Germany. Lawsuits continued until Bettina turned 18. In 1983, she and her mother went to court yet again to ask for maintenance payments.
[SJD: The replacement for] McCartney apparently took a blood test that came back negative. But for some reason, the courts rejected the results and made him pay maintenance anyway. Four years later, working in Berlin as a hairdresser, Bettina lost her court cases on [SJD: the replacement's] appeal and was liable to pay legal costs of £60,000. [SJD: The replacement for] McCartney’s lawyer advised [SJD: him, as] Paul to pay it so as not to bankrupt Hubers [SJD: maybe to quell the story].
The story did not go away but was kept well under the radar here in the UK (unlike the Heather Mills divorce).
[SJD: Whether or not Bettina was the illegitimate daughter of McCartney himself, the following happened:]
In 2007 [SJD: Bettina] Hubers claimed that [SJD: that the] McCartney [SJD: in front of her had] sent a stand in to take the paternity test and wanted a new one conducted. She also claimed the signature was a false one in the original 1980s documents and was written by a right handed person. However [SJD: ,] after further investigations [SJD: or cover-up,] the case was dropped.
[SJD: Source of quotation, general thread: . For post in thread: . (For post only, drop "thread".)]
The DNA the replacement submitted did not match Bettina's DNA, whether she was Paul's daughter or not. I put this post about Bettina into my testament in order to give context about payments and the situation facing other likely Paul children. Again, I do not know if my family received money. Unlike me, the replacement, now knighted, must have received state help of different kinds, no matter how many tend to believe the hoax anyway. Plus, I've learned, Prime Minister Wilson used revenue and economic activity closely and generally related to
Copy ___ of ___ .    This page initialed by testifier and witness: ________ , _______ .

Affidavit of Stephen John Dickinson. DATE: _____________________ . Pg 9 of 12.
the Beatles, to stave off devaluing the pound at all during 1964-1966. Devaluation began after my father's death, but the revenue still helped a lot. The hoax would likely go up to the royals. (Sources:  /08/28/how-beatles-saved-uk-from-its-foreign-exchange-crisis-in-1960s-some-lessons-forind  ia-too, based on article “Live music’s debut as a big export earner”, by Simon Willson, in “Sound Money” section of Finance & Development [the International Monetary Fund (IMF) journal], September 2014, Vol. 51, No. 3,
After I heard “I buried Paul” and my mum said Paul had died, I wondered if there were other things in the songs that related to my father’s death. Around this time or a little after, a song lyric in “A Day In The Life” (1967) struck me. It said that “Wednesday morning papers didn’t come.” This led me to asking neighbours on my road, “Do you remember the morning the local paper didn’t come?” I was taking the lyric literally. Many people think the line is only an artistic way to say news media cover up things in general, or Paul’s death specifically, but what is interesting is that I got results by taking this lyric literally – for Liverpool.
Everyone had the papers delivered back then and some of the people I asked remembered this event, where there was a day when no one got their paper. One was Mrs Kirby. She lived next door to me at 5 Ettington Road. The publication is the Liverpool “Echo and Post”, the only newspaper in Liverpool. I find it interesting that because there was only one newspaper in Liverpool, it may have made it easier to superficially contain the news, if Paul died in or around Liverpool, maybe visiting family and my mum. To have no paper come, London had too many newspapers. That does not mean other major events cannot be contained, but it is easier if there is one newspaper. I believe the date is Wednesday the 9th of November, 1966, but I am not sure. It could be Wednesday the 14th of September, 1966, or even not really a Wednesday. Even after all these years, of course, I still don’t know the exact date of my father’s death, or his burial place. I have never been able to pay my respects to him.
George John Dickinson raised me and my half brother on his own. I had no one else. Most in Liverpool have some Irish heritage. There are a lot of “Mac”/“Mc” names here as well. George's own mum was a McNamara. She was the eldest of 11. I never married, but had two long term relationships. I had 4 children. With [---], we had my eldest child, [---], who has a daughter. My granddaughter is now eight years old. My next is [---], my only boy, who looks more like his mum’s dad than mine. With [---], I had [---] and my youngest daughter, [---]. All my children are brown eyed, like me, my mum and Paul.
My first “wife”’s mother was named [---], and she is in the photo of me as a young man which I have posted on Facebook. I call her my mother-in-law. I have also posted another photo of me around the same age, sitting on a bed, and photos of two daughters and a son. I am left handed and my four children and granddaughter are, too, just like Paul. I don’t know if left handedness is higher in some families genetically or not. I really see Paul’s looks in my eldest daughter, though it’s there in my other daughters too. It's less there in me, I feel. Some say that when I was younger I had a soft quality of face, manner and dark hair, all like Paul.
My mum’s family home, where I think she lived when she met Paul, was my granddad’s place until the year 2000. I never visited, but I asked George, “Where did Mum live?” George said, “A road off Pinehurst Road.” Pinehurst is close to Ettington Road, where everything happened. A little while back, I Googled “Dewsbury Road”, which is what Paul says in a
Copy ___ of ___ .    This page initialed by testifier and witness: ________ , _______ .

Affidavit of Stephen John Dickinson. DATE: _____________________ . Pg 10 of 12.
strange statement put into “Magical Mystery Tour” film. I was confirming if Dewsbury Road was in Greater Manchester. (Dewsbury city is 30 miles away from Manchester.) The map result also showed a road off Priory Road, Liverpool. Priory almost joins to where Ettington is and joins to Dewsbury Road. Dewsbury joins to Pinehurst. So my mum’s family home in Liverpool was near Dewsbury, or on Dewsbury, all fairly close to me. I wasn't allowed to go far as a kid, across busy streets, so I didn't remember Dewsbury.                                                                                                                                                     I was not close with the Mottrams, but I remember meeting Mum's brothers. I saw a lot of one uncle, Uncle Ronnie. When I was orphaned, the Mottrams were mostly not around. George was pretty good to me, but I had a rough time with family life in my teens and moved on later. I helped George for about two years, when he was ill. I knew some of George’s family, but a lot of them moved away, some to Toronto, Canada, where George had lived for a while before I was born. He died back in Liverpool, UK, but we traveled to Toronto, while he was ill.
As time went by and I came across more later Beatles material, I noticed many references to my father’s death. There are well documented “clues” in the music, videos and album art. Other artists have made reference to my father’s death in their work. Over the years I have seen the man who replaced my father in the public eye and have wondered about the details of my father’s death. The fact that my father died in 1966 is more known now. I have searched for information lots of times. I read forums and blogs concerning this issue and saw comments saying, “If this is true, why haven’t his family spoken out?” Reading this made me think more about talking. I feel a responsibility to speak out about who my father was and that he was replaced in the public eye in 1966 by someone whose identity I still don’t know.                                                                                                                                                     At least one among my children said she believes me, but I really don’t know if that is true. Other people have heard me a few times over the years say I’m his son, but now is the time I’m really coming forward. Right now, my personal backup is my word: that I’m Paul’s son, that he died and that the Beatles thought it may have been murder. But I hope that it helps people to know that some family member is talking, daring to talk.
For a long time, I never thought this testimony would make much impact on anyone. I told some people and some believed me, some not. I lived my life as I could. I worked, had kids, helped George Dickinson. Then in 2014, he died in Liverpool, from cancer. As I said, I began to look more into this issue after that. I did think I would have some impact, when I was young. I’ve seen the world change so much that I’m not sure most people will care anymore about Paul's death. But I think maybe Paul’s legacy is being tarnished in some ways by the replacement and biographers, and so on. I know some of the people in the groups of PID (Paul is Dead) discussions care about my father, but does the world care? They care about the fun early 60s sometimes, but maybe not the secret. I’m a private person, quite shy as well. I’m a bit worried about getting too much attention. But, in for a penny, in for a pound: if it is out, maybe it will do some good. I’m rather excited.
It’s hard to decide to put this out. I did post sometimes in the last while on Tina Foster’s “Plastic Macca” Blog and on Facebook. Lately, I’ve been feeling that I should do more. On Facebook, I met people and was contacted by Clare Kuehn, who mentioned that if I’m really believing what I say, I should put it all down once and for all, in some formal way. She said if
Copy ___ of ___ .    This page initialed by testifier and witness: ________ , _______ .

Affidavit of Stephen John Dickinson. DATE: _____________________ . Pg 11 of 12.
I’m not Paul’s son, I should at least tell what I remember of my experiences, which includes the Beatles' visit. I think the Beatles seem to have known my mum and believed I was possibly Paul’s son at least. I agreed I should put down my full recollections in a serious way. So I am putting things down here, fully and completely. She and some others helped me with grammar and spelling errors. They asked, “Who, where, what next?” This testament is mostly in my exact words, with some grammar help. I feel like I'm resolving things that have been on my mind since I was a child.
She mentioned that it might help any kind of other witnesses who may come forward, to have an example of what to do. I agree. So I suggest that people do their own full, properly formatted testament and attach supporting items in secret first. It's good not to say anything at that time to others, whatever and wherever you already had spoken before. Don't feel you are immediately safer because I came out, but please do come out quickly ... with these precautions. Original copies of my document are safe and photographed, with other relevant items. The full set of photos will come out with me. I have no more significant things hidden, to tell or to keep. There's less overall risk this way. I know my own risk and want to help. Justice for my father's estate and legacy is my main concern, not money, plus justice for history, not only music history.
The following paragraph was composed based on things I have said, but actually written by a man who was helping me, who wishes to remain anonymous for now. It expresses my feelings extremely well. It is better than I would have put the sentences and I fully endorse it as my concluding statement:
My only purpose in writing this testament is to make my children and my future descendants aware of my story and of my true parentage, not to gain attention or to profit from it. I am also determined that the many people who have loved my father, James Paul McCartney, finally know the truth of his death and replacement in 1966. Another man assumed his name and used Paul's fame to enhance his own career. Many who knew my father have kept quiet about his death and replacement, even until this very day, either out of fear, shame, profit, laziness, or for kicks – I really don’t know why, but probably from a combination of all of these. Now that the world finally knows my story, I hope and pray that at least some of those who hid this secret from the world will come forward and set things right, in good legal format and with a witness to the signature. This effort and avowal gives more credibility, even if this issue does not get into a court. I encourage the others to do so with full disclosure, in multiple original copies, to trusted researchers and other people, for their own safety and for the sake of the original Paul McCartney’s true musical genius. This died with him in 1966. I come forward for the sake of all, but especially for myself and any other blood children of his, whose family legacy has been denied by a partly state-aided conspiracy of silence and deception.
I, Stephen John Dickinson, by my signature below, swear and attest that the events described in this testimony are true and took place, to the best of my recollection, exactly as described, with no more to add that I know of.
Copy ___ of ___ .    This page initialed by testifier and witness: ________ , _______ .

Affidavit of Stephen John Dickinson. DATE: _____________________ . Pg 12 of 12.
I have initialed each page of the document. I numbered all original copies in the presence of a witness or witnesses listed below, who also initialed each page of original copies.
______________________________________ .     ________________________________ . Signed, Stephen John Dickinson                               Date                                         
_____________________________________ ,    _________________________________ , Currently residing at                                                In the city of                            
_______________________________ . Region/ Country
Signing witness:
I hereby sign and date that I witnessed the signing of this document. I have initialed each page of the document as well, on every original copy.
I may or may not have read the document in full, but I attest that the testifier was of sound mind at the time of the signing: as far I could tell, the testifier was able to know that the document was his own. I was personally present and did see the person known to me to be STEPHEN JOHN DICKINSON, and the same as in the instrument (document), sign the instrument. The instrument was signed at:
City/Town of _________________________________ , in ___________________________.
______________________________________ .     ________________________________ . Name of witness to signing (print)                              Date                                         
_____________________________________ ,    _________________________________ , Currently residing at                                                In the city of                       
_______________________________ .     ______________________________________ . Region/ Country                                           Signature of witness to signing
Copy ___ of ___ .    This page initialed by testifier and witness: ________ , _______ .



The following are the slides which were placed around the broadcast, as appropriate. (Right now, they appear in alphabetical order, mostly, but that will be changed.)

The testimonies in PDF (redacted) and in blogger direct text (copyable easily into translation services) will all come shortly.

Thank you for your patience.




Photographs of the testaments and slides about the implications:



Magical Mystery Tour (1967): woman with baby, who could be Irene (Stephen's mother) and he (Stephen himself) -- though this is unlikely, since the baby in the beach scene at least, is older than 2 months old. Stephen was a long pregnancy, but the baby on the beach probably cannot be he. The other scene on the road seems to be the same woman, but the baby is unclear.

Even if Irene and Stephen were only implied in the film, why include them? The film is largely in honour of dead Paul, in so many ways, and she, as his real main love or last love and friend and baby, might well have been asked to participate. Over 10 hours of footage were filmed, and in these two clips, if it is she, she was deliberately left in the much, much shorter film. -- Below are the two film clips, slowed down (roadside scene is looped, so you see it twice; love and marriage scene on beach plays once, not twice):

These clips which might be Irene (Stephen's mother), or meant to convey her, in honour of Paul, are included because Stephen wondered about them. Since the film's resurrection and many Paul death and life themes are interwoven in the film, and that film was the first done after Paul's death, as a feature length film, it contains a eulogy theme for Paul. It is unlikely that the baby could be Stephen, however (at least in the close-up shot on the beach), since the baby (at least the one on the beach) is older than 2-3 months, even though Stephen was a long-term pregnancy.



"Last Testament of George Harrison: Paul Really Is Dead" film, 2009, is disinformation. This means it is something deliberately misleading, to make a joke or knowingly deflect from a truth. It is a fairly well known film. Presented as a serious film yet as a complete joke -- it seems to have been intended to catch both sides of the public (create confusion and allow total denial).

The film's significant flaws include things which few would realize, so the joke side is lost and the confusion reigns. These flaws include that Heather Mills, the second wife of the replacement for Paul, was somehow present as a young woman at the scene of Paul's death, when she would not have been born yet.  An excellent article on the film's deceptions is at .

(The blog overall has major flaws also, but not in the same way as the film. It has picked up on confusion and disinformation about the death date, and how many died / were replaced in the band. However, it is also a great compilation of some of the basic ideas about Paul's death and some good photographic comparisons.) The article is included below, for education purposes. I include the article for those who cannot click on a live link but copy this text, for example, to an e-mail, but incorrectly, where the link is lost, or in print. I do not own the copyright and make no such claim.

Though copied in entirety, it is here, below, for the benefit of those who are new to this issue and people who are not reaching this material for the first time through the computer. As such (education, new audience and special audience), and as a factual summary of the problems in the film (not intensely personal creative work), I contend that it counts as fair use to include it here, and hope that the author herself agrees. These considerations are meant to be taken together, unless there is a major breach of only several, and are described at . We are both working for the purpose of righting an injustice done to the dead in this case, and to right the unjust state the living are in, that is, those who participate in the lie in this case -- for they, too, are bound by the lie until they unravel it publicly.

I include it for education purposes and thank the author, Tina Foster, for having compiled the errors in the film:

Friday, July 19, 2013

Exposé of Disinfo Hit Piece “Paul Really is Dead: the Last Testament of George Harrison”


Despite its promising title, “Paul Really is Dead: the Last Testament of George Harrison” (PRID)  is a disinfo hit piece of the poorest quality. Change in belief comes about when good information is presented in a believable manner. To convince people they have been duped by a double of Paul McCartney requires compelling evidence, such as forensic analysis. This movie contains the poorest so-called “evidence” available out there on the Internet. The people behind Paul’s assassination have seeded the Internet with much disinformation regarding the Beatles and especially PID (Paul is Dead conspiracy theory). A modest amount of investigation reveals PRID to be a vehicle for presenting PID in the worst possible light. 

It appears that the filmmakers were handed the script and told to find a George Harrison voice double to narrate. Even if they did receive the tapes as they claim, they admit upfront that the recording could not be authenticated as being from George Harrison. Despite this, they continuously refer to the narrator as being George. This smacks of purposeful dishonesty. The fact that it is not George Harrison’s voice should be readily apparent with a simple comparison between the narrator of the film and a recording of the real George Harrison.

Paul was killed in 1966, yet many so-called “clues” from 1965 and early 1966 (pre-replacement) are referenced in the film. Even if one does not consciously catch the mistakes, one’s consciousness does register them. Even though the truth is Paul was replaced, the resonance effect is somewhat over-ridden by the false information. The viewer feels an initial realization that s/he is being presented with Truth. This feeling is blotted out as the false information accumulates, tipping the scales in the viewer’s mind. Once this occurs, the mind that was once open to PID slams shut. 

Careful analysis of this movie reveals it to be a deliberate attempt to squash any openness to PID as even a possibility. The narration by the voice double is a constant bug in the ear whispering to the viewer that s/he is being presented with false information. In other words, the initial lie that George Harrison recorded the tapes already puts doubts in the viewer’s mind, which is constantly reinforced. Apart from that, the viewer is told that Paul is Faul, which the subconscious recognizes as untrue. Other false information offsets the core truth that Paul was replaced. 

Dealing with the opposition to the truth coming out about James Paul McCartney (JPM) is no easy task. This author has attempted to point out some of the problems with this film. I encourage you to add your own observations in the comments. Below are some discrepancies in the film that I have observed (in no particular order). 


1. “George” says he met Paul when he was 14 and Paul was 16. Paul was only 8 months older, so how could he reckon that? Paul was born on June 18, 1942 and George was born on February 25, 1943. The date they met appears to be in February 6,1958 []. At that point, George was 14, but Paul was still 15.

2. “George” says Paul was killed on the night of November 9, 1966. The next morning, MI5 informed the other Beatles, and they spent two days in an MI5 safe house. The next day, the Beatles announced they would stop touring. 
In reality, Brian Epstein announced the Beatles would quit touring on September 11, 1966.
3. “George” said there was a Paul lookalike contest in 1966, and claimed there was no winner announced, but that “William Campbell” was the secret winner. I believe the film makers did not realize that there was a Paul lookalike contest in 1965 in which Keith Allison won. 
4. “George” said John Lennon called Faul “False Paul.” A biography of John Lennon (I believe by Ray Coleman) said that John actually called him “Faux Paul.” This is more in keeping with John’s witty turns of phrase, as this sounds like “faux pas,” which could be a double entendre. 
5. “George” references “visual clues on album covers” which were pre-death and replacement. The filmmakers say Paul died in November 1966, so why are they trying to use “clues” on the following that preceded Paul’s death? 
Butcher Album / Release Date:1966-01-01 [,id152101,len.html]
Rubber Soul / release date Dec. 3, 1965, 
Revolver / Release Date August 5, 1966 []) 
6. “George” says the record company the Beatles started was A Paul Corporation, but really it was Apple Corps (a play on apple core or even a Paul Corpse).
7. “George” said he wrote a song “Taxidermist” as a clue, because Paul was taken to one, but that the song was changed to “Taxman.” This makes no sense as taxidermy is “the art of preparing, stuffing, and mounting the skins of animals and especially vertebrates” [] Paul may have had a wax effigy made of him for Sgt. Pepper, but I highly doubt he was mounted on someone’s wall as a trophy.
8. “George” said Paul’s "parents" attended Paul’s funeral, but Paul’s mom had died when he was 14. How could she have attended?
9. “George” said the album “Yesterday & Today” came out after "Revolver" but that is incorrect. 
 “Yesterday & Today” / Release Date:1966-01-01 [,id152101,len.html])
Revolver / Release Date August 5, 1966 [])
10. “George” said “I’m Only Sleeping” was what Paul looked like dead. If Paul had been decapitated, burned, and lost an eye in the supposed car crash, why would he look like he was sleeping? 
11. “George” claims John Lennon wrote “Yesterday” for Paul. “Yesterday” was released on “Help!” on 6 August 1965 (UK) [], more than a year before the narrator says Paul died. 
12. “George” claims a doll on the Sgt. Pepper album cover has a split head to show Paul’s supposed head injury in the accident, yet at the beginning of the film, he claimed Paul had been decapitated. Interestingly, the filmmakers do not reference Jayne Mansfield, who appears on the album cover and who was actually killed in a car crash. 
13. “George” claims he said “oh, bury my body, o untimely death” at the end of “I am the Walrus.” In fact, “The voices at the end of the song came from a BBC broadcast of the Shakespeare play King Lear...” [From Songfacts at]
14. “George” says Faul’s picture on the White Album sleeve was Faul's passport photo. However, one may not typically wear glasses in passport photos. 
15. “George” says John puts open palm sign over Paul’s head on cover of “Yellow Submarine,” when it was clearly the sign for Il Cornuto. 
16. “George” claims “Yellow Submarine” was a reference to Paul’s death in that it symbolized coffins buried under a sea of green grass. This song, too, was released prior to Paul’s replacement. It appeared on “Revolver,” which was released on 5 August 1966 (UK) []
17. “George” claims Russ Gibb announced on Oct. 12, 1969 that Paul was dead, but in reality, Tom Zarski called in that night to “rap” about Paul being dead. It was news to Russ Gibb at that point. 
18. “George” says John came up with the idea of the “Let It Be” album after “Abbey Road.” The Beatles began recording “Let It Be” a year before they started recording “Abbey Road.”
“Let It Be” Recording Date February 1968 - April 1970 []

“Abbey Road” Recording Date February 22, 1969 - August 20, 1969

19. “George” claimed Faul had gone into hiding in “Central England,” when in fact, Faul had moved to Scotland. Paul had bought the farmhouse in Campbelltown on June 17, 1966 [source:

20. “George” claims John “latched onto” Yoko Ono in 1970, but in fact, he met her on November 9, 1966 (the other 9.11.66 []). Her continuous presence in the recording studios has been blamed by some for the Beatles breakup. 

21. “George” claims “Rita” - the passenger in the car the night of Nov. 9. 1966 - was Heather Mills. This is impossible, as Mills was not born until 12 January [] 1968 []

Tina Foster

No comments: