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