Like a Rolling Stone….?

Recently, during one of my rabbit hole adventures into Beatle Mystery Land (you know, that wonderland known as Google), I happened upon this very curious article about a “lost chapter” from a tell-all book about the Rolling Stones and their misadventures.  The book: “Up and Down with the Rolling Stones: My Rollercoaster Ride with Keith Richards” The Author: Tony Sanchez.  The book was originally published in 1979 by an insider, Tony Sanchez (self proclaimed drug dealer and quasi-bodyguard for Richards in the mid-60s) that purportedly received death threats from Keith Richards in response to this explosive, bestselling book. (Curiously however, Richards told Rolling Stone magazine that everything Sanchez said in the book was true…)

sanchezThe “lost chapter” due to its implications was never published in the original book, and after reading the chapter I can see why a publisher might be a bit concerned with releasing such information.  Somewhere in the vicinity of 2011-ish this chapter was leaked into the public domain so that we all can ooh and ahh over its contents and implications. There is no way to really verify at this time the validity of the information, nor that this is even truly the “lost chapter” from Tony Sanchez’s book.  Being as that it is a full chapter, I am not going to transcribe the entire document in this blog but you can read the chapter in its entirety here.  I highly recommend doing so, and decide for yourself if it rings true for you or not.

Instead, I will bullet point the important parts of the piece, as they pertain to the various things discussed in thenumbernineblog. Just to be clear, I have never read this book, but it is now on the top of my “to read” list (which gets larger practically everyday) I literally stumbled across it looking for something completely different. I seem to find the darnedest things that way! This chapter floored me, I could not believe what I was reading, and the hits just kept on coming throughout.  I was also very surprised that I had never come across this before, nor had I seen it discussed anywhere to bring it to my attention. After further digging, I did find brief discussion of it in NIR (Nothing is real- Paul Was Replaced) forums, which you can view here.

Enough background Mumbo Jumbo- lets get to the good stuff!

Sir Paul McCartney and Keith Richards

The chapter hits on some key points as follows:

  • Robert Frasier (art dealer and friend/business associate of Paul McCartney) had a gambling/drug problem, and managed to rack up a significant amount of debt at some of London’s Casinos and, as a result, some “very heavy villains were after his blood.
  • The “heavy villains” turned out to be the notorious London gangsters, the Kray twins.
  • The twins would write off Frasier’s debt if he could “deliver to them the Beatles on a platter.” Frasier seemed willing to cooperate.

    The Kray Twins
  • A campaign evolved to bring John Lennon into the orbit of these fellows; Frasier and Sanchez, mainly by getting him hooked on narcotics, and Sanchez being his main supplier. They also employed the talents of Yoko Ono in order to be a ‘minder’ for Lennon for the duration of this plot. Paul was already a friend of Frasier’s and would need less convincing.
  • Frasier introduced Paul (and others) to Kenneth Anger, who initiated them into his secret occult organization the OTO.
    Kenneth Anger

    Paul was so taken by his newfound enlightenment (shared with English occultist Alestiar Crowley) with Frasier’s and Peter Blake’s help designed the Sgt. Pepper album cover with hidden masonic and OTO symbolism. Frasier intended it to be a “treasure map of clues for those who already had the knowledge to decipher. It was a statement to those in the know that said ‘we know what you know’.”

  • The author claims these inserted “clues” were misinterpreted to be clues about Paul’s untimely demise. In doing so the “Paul is Dead mystery seekers”  inadvertently nearly stumbled upon two, similar, but unrelated incidents that had been carefully and skilfully removed from Beatle folklore.
  • The first incident pertained to the death of Tara Browne. The circumstances of his death have been widely reported (with inconsistencies of course), but what was not known is that Paul was actually at the scene of the crash that evening, and quietly left the scene unnoticed.
  • The second incident occurred after a second warning from the Kray twins to move
    Mohammed Hadjij & Keith Richards

    matters along more quickly- and involved suspicious brake failure in Robert Frasier’s mini cooper and subsequent crash into a lamppost. Fortunately, Frasier’s lover, Mohammed Chtaibi was the sole passenger in the mini cooper, and escaped with only minor cuts and bruises.  The other five boys had piled into Mick Jagger’s green mini cooper and arrived unscathed at Keith’s Redlands mansion. (Five grown men piled into one mini cooper?? hmm)

  • Months later, Frasier ” had come to the realisation that he was going to be unable to extract the Beatles from the stewardship of Brian Epstein and deliver them to the Krays after all. Despite all his efforts, schemes and manipulations the Beatles had, much to his chagrin and consternation, an attachment and loyalty to Epstein that Fraser could just not fathom out or undermine.”
  • The Beatles seemingly were above the law- at least privy to busts- since George Harrison and Pattie conveniently left the scene minutes prior to the infamous “Redlands Bust” that left Robert Frasier in jail for a matter of several months. Sanchez concludes it was due to the Beatles MBE status among the establishment that in essence made them”one of their own”.

As I have said the validity this article really can not be determined. To be honest, it seems just a wee bit “too perfect”.  In one, single missing chapter- “Spanish Tony” has confirmed nearly everything so many researchers have been suspecting for so long. The chapter can only be found on the internet as far as I can tell, published in 2011.  Spanish Tony supposedly died in 2003, but many have claimed that Tony Sanchez actually faked his death because of the threat he was under from the tell-all nature of this book.  In 2000, the last Kray Twin, Reggie succumbed to cancer, hence Tony Sanchez was no longer under protection and- according to the theory- took the money and ran.

However- if true, I may as well stop publishing articles on the numbernineblog because…found is the holy grail of Beatles Mystery answers that I have been seeking for so long!

With that in mind, I rather like publishing blogs and rambling on strange tangents and peculiar Beatles subjects, so I will temporarily place another big “?” on this puzzle piece for the time being and continue on my journey down to  Beatle Mystery Wonderland.

… To Be Continued…



  1. Just an exploratory view: The ethos of the Beatles is dead; you can see they’re buried. But the ethos has been transferred to a higher entity- Sgt. Pepper’s Lonely Hearts Club Band. So Sgt. Pepper’s is born again, a reincarnation.

    It may be possible that Paul’s death is only metaphorical too. He too feels that the skin of the old Paul was cast away and he too was born again, but as Paul McCartney. You can’t see the difference but he thinks it is there.

    In the telling the death was taken literally and not figuratively causing the confusion. Just a thought.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. I tend to agree with you there. A smaller, less obvious attempt in my opinion happened during their Rubber Soul album as well… Just the name is symbolic enough.
      Then the “yesterday and today” album… Again, same symbolism. They desperately wished to shed their “lads from Liverpool” image and emerge as something new and profound. Just my two cents


  2. The strain of going from some Liverpool thugs idolized by the gang to worldwide gurus overnight, as they say, destroyed Lennon while McCartney really tried to be cool and struggle with it.

    I am beginning to think that Epstein was the real villain in the story. Not so passive as we are led to believe. But then, he bit it more than he could chew too. The Beatles really is an epic story.


  3. Diz: You make an interesting observation on the covers of the Beatles records. It led me to reassess the two covers of Yesterday and Today. The title also is indicative of their attempt to shuck the Mop Top image of their careers.

    Suddenly the puzzle of the First State cover became clear. the First State as you know (other readers might not, these comments are always addressed o readers in addition to yourself) was of the meat hanging and broken up body parts of dolls. We were all either confused or enraged by it. But now I think the Beatles were trying to express their confusion and dismay at their success.

    Their bodies and minds, represented by the doll parts had been blown apart while the hanging meat represented that they were treated as a commercial commodity.

    The reaction against the cover was so strong Capitol recalled the records to paste the Second State cover over the First. The Second State showed them pushed back into the Mop Top box. They are sitting around on boxes, luggage representing touring, while McCartney, I believe, was sitting in front of an open trunk.

    An interesting possible solution. As McCartney seems to be central to these situations perhaps more attention should be paid specifically to him. I’m now purely rambling: Perhaps he was actually so troublesome that it was thought necessary to replace him or contain him (the trunk) hence the Paul is dead controversy.


    1. I love your interpretation! That is perfect. I agree to an extent, but it seems nearly all the Beatles work have multiple layers of meaning (like an onion- haha). Of course, I could be assigning things to their vision that were not really intended at all- but it is curious. The original idea for the concept of that cover may have (possibly) been much deeper than we realize. The Egyptian mythologies of Isis and Osiris come to mind- also the Norse legend of Yuletide/Odin. I discuss this in my article “The Beatles Apotheosis” if interested further. The fact that this album was released in June 1966 (6/66) and coincided with John’s “More popular than Jesus” remark is probably quite significant.


      1. also- the photographer of the “Butcher” session- Robert Whittaker is a very interesting fellow…. he used a lot of occult imagery in his photographs. That’s pretty much why I lean towards the idea of a deeper meaning behind those images.


  4. I’m all for deep meanings but here is my dilemma. John was 26 in 1966, Paul was 25. They were bungled up rock n’ roll straight out of high school or the English equivalent. You have to spend a lot of time practicing if you’re a musician. The musicians I have known are more adept at music than tying their shoes. Disclaimer: I have my own problems with tying shoes.

    From high school they went directly to gangsterland Hamburg where they performed ungodly hours and probably mostly slept the rest, with a fornication break or two. Back to Liverpool and off to London to tour and make records. Lord knows no one ever mistook them for scholars. I can’t imagine John was. Magical Mystery Tour doesn’t betray any occult knowledge whatsoever and only a modicum of talent.

    So where did Paul acquire what appears to be a profound knowledge of the Occult? I mean, John’s out of it. He didn’t even know what an Aeolian chord was, not that I do, but then I don’t play.

    Harrison and Starr are out of it so that leaves Paul. His feeling a double is easily explained, I, personally am five in one.

    So, to get to my point, when, where and how did John or Paul acquire this profound Occult knowledge?

    By the way Diz, I tried to sound your knowledge but you cleverly concealed it. So you have a pretty fair background. We’ve dabbled in the same fields but our reading has been somewhat different.


    1. REprindle- you got me there. That is quite the conundrum. I have no idea how the boys had enough time for everything they did officially (i.e. Tours, writing/performing music, films, interviews etc.) let alone the time and effort needed to climb to the upper echelons of these orders.
      Perhaps I am making a mountain out of a molehill here. But I enjoy the solitude of my mountain escape.
      Please bear in mind that I am relatively new to all of this- (I’ll be turning 38 this year) and learning as I go. As I aquire more knowledge, I have to reassess everything I thought I knew. A wiser person than I once said- “the more I learn, the less I know” and that is certainly very true for me.
      What books would you recommend for me to further develop my understanding?


  5. There may be an answer to the conundrum that can be searched out, maybe it will show up. Dylan at 22 passed himself off as a learned child by using names and little else in his songs. It took me quite while to realize he had very little idea of what he was talking about. I haven’t quite forgiven him.

    Perhaps Paul had a very retentive memory and made use of his time and effort. He certainly seems to be involved. I’ll be looking at him differently now.

    Thirty-eight is a handsome age. it was a good one for me; I knew damn near everything there was to know at thirty-eight and I have as they say, no regrets because I have since learned I didn’t. But, you already know that.

    As far as reading every one follows their own path. I can’t recommend books all I can do is discuss them, tell of the ones I’ve found most valuable. Once I got serious at maybe forty-two I decided that as a foundation, I’m a history major and that is the rock on which I stand, I had to have a sound understanding of the role of the Jews in history, psychology, a sound approach to sexuality, Aryan history and literature based on Homer, I was an Ancient History major, Homer melded into the Arthurian saga, itself based on the Greek mythology, and then literature as a branch of the rest. After another thirty five years I’m lost in the forest but I’ve got a good axe.

    So, um, I have the Garland edition of the Lancelot Grail that is a massive but rewarding undertaking. I do admit I can’t exactly explain way it is rewarding but I feel that way.

    No one can claim to be educated who hasn’t read Gibbon’s Decline and Fall Of the Roman Empire and I’m seconded by most scholars on that. Gibbon is an unquestionably rewarding effort.

    I found Freud’s Psychopathology of Everyday Life significant.

    For lighter reading I’ve read most of H. Rider Haggard and find that valuable.

    But, tell me, what path have you followed and a few of the landmarks you have followed.


  6. Diz: Follow this argument. In 1963 McCartney met Jane Asher. They became close and McCartney moved into the Asher mansion.
    Jane Asher began her film career as child actress and by 1963 had an actual career.

    Jane and her family were artistic. I imagine the old manse had a lot of esoteric books. This would all have been new to Paul but he was taken by it. How well and how fast he absorbed enough to employ the symbolism on the covers is conjectural but the time frame is right as the couple split in 1968,

    Dylan coming from the boondocks to NYC was also artistically illiterate when he hit NYC. He quickly linked up with Suze Rotolo who performed the same function for him taking him into the avant garde, museums etc. So that in songs he was able to sound like he had an incredible education that was virtually a put on.

    Perhaps McCartney’s situation is similar. Your theory is more or less intact. Great show.


  7. I’m familiar with the Christine Keeler thing. I think I’ve read the facts once or twice. I wouldn’t call myself knowledgeable though. You had the Kray things going on at the same time. I don’t know if all these things are linked but there does seem to be a sexual mind set allowing these things to happen. Randy times.

    Jane Asher and Diana Dors. The Rolling Stones doll on the right of the cover. Oldham has a great Dors story. I think it was a small tight world. You had to watch your step.


    1. Rumor has it that Ringo Starr had dealings with Christine Keeler, and the film HELP was filmed in part at Cliveden.
      What the heck was the HELP! Film all about anyway? There is a whole analysis coming on that film soon, as well as the very interesting arm positions the Beatles portray on the cover for the soundtrack. So many articles to write that need to be written. I hope you will stay tuned in.


  8. John Lennon wasn’t really quite as poor as history will lead you to believe. He lived in an upper-middle class neighborhood, and He also attended the Liverpool school of art, so he had somewhat of an education at least in the arts, most especially regarding symbolism. His best friend and colleague stu stutcliff (who is on the Sgt pepper cover incidentally) was praised by his professors for his immense talents.
    John also had an uncle Charlie that was a member of the royal antediluvian order of Buffaloes. These concepts could have been present around John from a very young age and continued on throughout his life.


  9. Antiphoney led me to iamaphoney.. I suppose that iamaphoney was supposed to be McCartney II. If McCartney I was dead when Sgt. Pepper’s cover was designed then McCartney II must have been contributing his favorites. How could they have aligned with Lennon’s and the band.

    If the flowers are supposed to design a bass then that indicates that Beatles I that included Paul I is dead hence the group of Beatles I in black and white is dead reincarnated as Beatles II in color with iamphoney as Paul II.

    But, then, how does iamaphoney relate to antiphoney that must be a reply to iamaphoney? Do you get a connection?


    1. Well, there is definitely some sort of odd connection here. However “Iamaphoney” is very much- “Paul Is Dead” programming, where the Antiphony chapter explicitly said “there is absolutely no truth to the rumor”. Hence- “Antiphony”.
      This is part of the conundrum I was facing when I initially read this mysterious chapter. I need to be able to verify its authenticity before I can look deeper into what was actually discussed in it.


  10. If Paul II was involved with the Pepper cover then it follows that Fraser and his crew knew of the substitution. They were in on it . Can all those people be trusted to keep the secret?

    Now, if Paul I died before the album was released perhaps the Fool cover was scrapped because with Paul I dead another cover was needed as a memorial. But, a memorial with an actual RIP Paul would have perhaps destroyed the concept of the Beatles so still feeling the need to communicate a coded cover was devised more or less as a tombstone that told the world what couldn’t be openly said.

    What do you think.


    1. Well, this certainly could be true. And a lot of “die-hard” Paul is Dead followers would agree with you 100%.
      I am not so quick to rush to judgement myself.
      The issues with this lay with the behaviors of McCartney’s relatives after the supposed Paul is Dead event. His brother Mike used him as his best man twice after supposed “replacement” was in tow. Just to name one example.
      At this point in time (and it is always changing) I am of the belief that there are actually 2 men playing the role of McCartney. The “real” McCartney and a very good double that he uses quite frequently.


  11. You not only have relatives to fool but McCartney was with Jane Asher until 1968. Paul II may have had the external appearance of Paul I but surely not everything could have been identical. So how did Paul II talk his way out of that one. And then there was Linda who has to be accounted for.

    Still I can’t discount the Krays who may very well had killed him in spite. Or if Paul I was warned perhaps a double was a defensive measure. They just didn’t tell the Krays were looking for him. And then how quickly can you find a good double who plays left handed bass. Your list of doubles makes sense as to his use.

    But, if Paul wasn’t dead why all the clues that he was. What kind of obsession is that? No clear cut answer but if it is a question of whether Paul I did die I tend to lean in that direction. It doesn’t seem likely to me that a double who had plastic surgery to increase the likeness could evade detection this long. People do age differently. As a display from a distance as with Stalin’s double maybe you could but…


    1. Now you are starting to see my ultimate dilemma…
      And my obsession with this enigma. Welcome to pepper land my friend 🙂
      Number nine.. Number nine… Number nine… Around and around we go like a track loop.


  12. Now Diz, once you accept that there is a real problem you just have to work out the details. I’m starting from the symbolism of the Pepper cover. Without ever being dogmatic it seems to me that the graveyard scene clearly describes the replacement of one Paul by another.

    The Krays are very important figures but there’s another villain that seems to be overlooked and that is Epstein. The more I look the sleazier he gets.

    Consider: The Beatles should have had multi-million dollar bank accounts but Papa Epstein doled out money on an as needed basis. We’re talking big money and he kept it all. He used the songwriting abilities of the Duo to finance all the acts he signed most of which must have been money losers. He gambled, doped and may have run up homosexual expenses for boys. At the end he was clearly pinched for cash with all that money rolling in.

    The guy was in trouble. I probably would have committed suicide too. So, why a double for McCartney? McCartney was the big money maker, the key man in the Beatles. Was Epstein so devious that he would back up his key player with a double?

    Like I say, this is the adventure story of all adventure stories. Will anybody be able to tell it?


    1. Why would the graveyard scene depict one replacement Paul over another? I see 4 “old” Beatles there, and 4 “new” Beatles. The Left-Handed guitar (if that is what it is) in flowers is really the only thing on the surface that hints at it being about McCartney. As we had discussed prior, the Beatles were desperately trying to get rid of their old “clean” image, and transform as something new. We see this type of symbolism since Rubber Soul, it just finally caught on during Sgt. Pepper. McCartney had sketched out by hand what he wanted the cover to look like, and Blake took it from there and added his own “creative” interpretations. In fact McCartney stated, that the concept of Sgt. Pepper was the bands’ “Alter-egos” playing as the new and improved “Sgt. Pepper Band”.
      Epstein is an important part of this story. He was a FABulous PR man- kept a lot of things under wraps- He hated the Sgt. Pepper idea, but in fear of losing the boys on the soon-to-be expired contract, he decided to let them go ahead with their creative instincts at the time. Epstein made some pretty bad business decisions- like “SeltaeB” which cost the boys potentially $100M in revenues. But, by 1966 the boys were buying up estates and properties, taking lavish holidays, (John bought his own island in Ireland, almost bought another in Greece) and making other investments. They were all multi-millionaires by this point. Epstein’s death, I believe- did more harm than good for them. The boys really had no idea how to run the business matters of their mass fortune. And why the hell would John and George so desperately want Alan Klein to manage them of all people?? However, if Epstein was in debt at this point to the Kray’s, surely if not already known, The Beatles found out upon his death. The Kray’s disgusting business of trafficking young boys from orphanages is interesting considering John’s infamous “Strawberry Fields” song that was released at this time. (Strawberry Field of course an Orphanage in Liverpool).
      I think it makes complete sense from a business standpoint to have doubles for all 4 Beatles. It was truly dangerous being a Beatle… McCartney may have just really liked the idea and used his much more than the others. Completely groomed and manufactured to “be” McCartney from very early on. Is that really too far of a stretch?


  13. It’s not a question of being a stretch, I think of it more as an exploratory probe. We appear to have differing opinions on the qualities of Epstein or perhaps the problems he was facing both internal and external.

    I don’t know how you might feel sitting across from the Krays who are demanding your meal ticket for their own. I personally would find it very uncomfortable. Epstein would have sold the Beatles contract for a mere 500K had they not strongly objected. So why would he do that?

    What is the source for McCartney plotting out the cover for Blake, or perhaps more correctly Fraser. The story I have is that The Fool cover had been approved for use when Fraser told McCartney it would quickly date which it would have and that they should do what he suggested.

    Now, this is pure speculation, as the Krays were on his back demanding that he get the Beatles for them, it wouldn’t be beyond the realm of possibility that he was threatening McCartney with the grave scene to scare him to turn the Beatles over.

    That McCartney is said to have died in a car accident is, in the circumstances, a sure indication of assassination. More especially so in light of the assassinations of MacDonald and Browne.

    If McCartney or all four had doubles I don’t see how it could be concealed or if they would want to conceal it.

    I can’t edit this since the scrolling function won’t work, so if there are errors…


    1. I don’t disagree about the threats Epstein and the Beatles were facing at this point in time. The threats are real, and the threats are there. The source for the McCartney plotting out the cover is from the “official” Beatles history- which can not always be trusted as I have come to find out. There are always holes in every story, conflicting dates, times and persons present. With that said- here is my source for that information. It must be taken with a pillar of salt.
      As for the doubles- it would have to be concealed, or it would never work. That would be the point- to use the “doubles” as decoys while the real Beatles made their escape from paparazzi/fanatics. The general public none the wiser. With all the secrets going on within this band, I hardly think a few doubles would be that difficult to conceal.


  14. Interesting to note- Lady Linda McCartney’s maiden name is of course Eastman. However- her father Lee actually changed their legal last name to Eastman following the war. Prior to that- their last name was… Epstein.
    Coincidence? Perhaps. But considering Paul wanted the “Eastman’s” to manage the Beatles following Brian’s “untimely death” maybe not so much of a coincidence??
    Just muddying up the waters here…


  15. I read the ‘Bible’ version of the cover. It seems correct as far as it goes. It’s a very narrow account. But in steps: The Fool’s cover was a done deal. Fraser objects recommending Blake and his wife or live-in, whichever. They take over, discuss ideas with McCartney, who seems to be the only interested Beatle. Of course the title: Sgt. Pepper’s Lonely Hearts Club Band is in place. the title is suggestive of what becomes the cover.

    The grave front is probably suggested by what is apparently the McCartney idea of Yesterday and Today. The ending of one existence as Mop Tops to be born again as Sgt. Pepper’s. It would be interesting to know how that evolved as, really, that is all that is needed for a cover. The grave is surmounted by the Sgt. Pepper’s drum signifying the Beatles replacement by Sgt. Pepper’s. Neat mythological touch worthy of the Egyptians.

    As an extra interest a gallery of broken hearted people are assembled around the mourners. The Beatles were asked for recommendations by the artists. Some were kept, some were discarded. Decided by who? and why? Many more were added obviously representing the interests of Fraser and his Satanic group.

    There is the basic story as I see it. I have to stick with the input of Fraser.

    McCartney must have been alive to make his suggestions. Surely Fraser knew him well enough to detect differences. If he was alive at that point which was post-accident then how to explain all these hints he wasn’t that went on for years. This is surely carrying a joke too far. A very macabre joke. Who invented the auto crash?

    If he was dead how did the Phoney conduct himself so well that no one had a suspicion that he was doing things and saying things that weren’t characteristic of Paul.

    Of course, if as you suggest that the two Pauls existed together then that is no longer a problem. If so, check this, suppose the real Paul died say twenty years ago. Did the Phoney step into his shoes continuing on to this day? Gives you the willies doesn’t it?

    Two Pauls is however the only thing that gets us past the dead Paul bottleneck. My story so far.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Agreed. Until you get to the second order symbolism, that is not quite so “biblical”.
      The first order symbolism is like pie and roses compared to the second order.
      But the rest of your theory aligns well as far as I am concerned. Thanks for your thoughts. They are always greatly appreciated.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s