Jump to content


Photo

Conspiracy of secrets


  • Please log in to reply
4 replies to this topic

#1 Derwent Motorsport

Derwent Motorsport
  • Member

  • 458 posts
  • Joined: December 07

Posted 31 August 2012 - 16:58

This book has been mentioned in BRM threads and some one said is was a deeply disturbing book. I would agree. I read it a few months back and have dipped into it again. It really raises more questions than it answers. Perhaps the only thing it does prove is that Stanley was a bastard in both senses of the word.
The author spent a huge amount of time collecting huge amounts of circumstantial evidence about Stanley but little of hard fact.
Some questions that are not addressed are:
1) The Owen family and the rest of Jean's kids did not seem to do much to help her or try to rescue her.
2) Bobby mentions her children but never a husband.
3) She took DNA from Stanley's body - did anything happen to this and why was this not done years earlier?
4) How did Louis have influence in high places even after many of his contemporaries would have retired.
5) In his last years he secretly had Jean's body moved. How did he still have the influence to get this done? (see 4) Disintering a body is a criminal offence and getting the permission to move a body would involve the Church Authorities and the coroner. There would hav eto be compelling reasons to get it done and there should have been consultation with the family.
6) Only JYS turned up at Stanley's funeral. Jackie was always one to do the "right thing" but there must have been many BRM and indeed F1 folk who could have attended but did not. Their reasons may well have added to the book..........

Advertisement

#2 Paul Parker

Paul Parker
  • Member

  • 1,737 posts
  • Joined: October 02

Posted 31 August 2012 - 17:46

This book has been mentioned in BRM threads and some one said is was a deeply disturbing book. I would agree. I read it a few months back and have dipped into it again. It really raises more questions than it answers. Perhaps the only thing it does prove is that Stanley was a bastard in both senses of the word.
The author spent a huge amount of time collecting huge amounts of circumstantial evidence about Stanley but little of hard fact.
Some questions that are not addressed are:
1) The Owen family and the rest of Jean's kids did not seem to do much to help her or try to rescue her.
2) Bobby mentions her children but never a husband.
3) She took DNA from Stanley's body - did anything happen to this and why was this not done years earlier?
4) How did Louis have influence in high places even after many of his contemporaries would have retired.
5) In his last years he secretly had Jean's body moved. How did he still have the influence to get this done? (see 4) Disintering a body is a criminal offence and getting the permission to move a body would involve the Church Authorities and the coroner. There would hav eto be compelling reasons to get it done and there should have been consultation with the family.
6) Only JYS turned up at Stanley's funeral. Jackie was always one to do the "right thing" but there must have been many BRM and indeed F1 folk who could have attended but did not. Their reasons may well have added to the book..........


Like many things inconvenient or considered too damaging or revealing to the official status quo in this country, even the reputation of long dead PMs and others of exalted position no matter how unworthy or treacherous, the default stance is keep stum and/or look the other way.

#3 fbarrett

fbarrett
  • Member

  • 1,024 posts
  • Joined: January 08

Posted 02 September 2012 - 18:41

The book is available on US Amazon. (Didn't check elsewhere.)

#4 Tim Murray

Tim Murray
  • Member

  • 14,738 posts
  • Joined: May 02

Posted 02 September 2012 - 20:29

The author spent a huge amount of time collecting huge amounts of circumstantial evidence about Stanley but little of hard fact.

Agreed. My reading of the book showed me no concrete evidence that Louis Stanley was in any way related to HH Asquith, and the fact that he did clearly have influence in high places is just another piece of the very circumstantial evidence that the author uses to back her theory. This theory could very well be true, and would explain a lot, but we need some hard evidence.

#5 RobertE

RobertE
  • Member

  • 172 posts
  • Joined: August 07

Posted 07 September 2012 - 17:15

I came away from it (and I read it in one go) reflecting, deeply, on the terrible nature of the widespread, extensive damage which can be wrought, effortlessly, by the agenda of a single individual. By his conduct, Louis Stanley reminds me of no-one so much as Robert Maxwell, whom I knew well (or had thought I did) and who has, like Stanley, come down to us in history as a thoroughgoing scoundrel of the worst kind, with an equally murky past. But can recall liking him at the time I knew him; he was always very pleasant to me There's a lesson in there, too, but Stanley's origins are still a closed book.

I had always assumed that Louis Stanley was a sh*t, because everybody who knew him had told me so and, sometimes in life, the majority are entirely correct. The details in this book, however, (insofar as they go - and there is such a thing as too much information, bounded by the good taste present here), are sobering and go a long way in accounting for the author's clear need to tell this depressing story.

As for racing fans, then there is little, saving the above.