John and Stuart up a tree, K-I-S-S-I-N-G

A few weeks ago I finished "The Beatles' Shadow: Stuart Sutcliffe's Lonely Hearts Club" by Pauline Sutcliffe and Douglas Thompson.

I thought I would start a thread about it since it puts up a couple of topics which I think are worthy of discussion.

I enjoyed the book. At times I thought it was a bit anti-Beatles; sometimes this was understandable but others times not. There were lots of nice childhood stories about Stuart and I personally found it interesting to read about his early family life and what it was like for him at home. Also some nice photos.
There seemed to be a lot of repetition in the book which I thought was a bit strange - often making the material seem indulgent when it absolutely isn't. Another complaint I would have is that Pauline often embarks on psychologial analysis of the relevant parties and since this is her profession, I can totally understand why she does that but I found it a little annoying.

Anyway the two biggies that the book deals with (I am sure many of you know already) which I would be interested on hearing your views on are:

(1) That Stuart and John had a homosexual relationship.

Pauline writes that she is convinced of this fact. She says over a few times that this doesn't mean that either of them were gay but just that they shared a very, very close friendship that crossed the bounds of your everyday straight male/male relationship.

The story goes that one day in Hamburg after a few drinks, John and Stu were alone in their room when the others had gone off on some road trip. They got talking about things and depression and unhappiness. They ended up on the same bed and as John was sobbing his heart out, Stuart comforted him by going down on him. This apparently happened more than once with John returning the favour. This story has of course been shared before by our dear friend Geoffrey Giuliano who allegedly was told the story by Derek Taylor in the early 80s. John had apparently told Derek the full details during an acid trip in the 60s.

So it isn't as if this story was created by Pauline and published for the first time in her book. But I suppose it is the first time a family member has stepped up and said "I am certain that this happened". She waited for a long period of time to come out with the story because she thought it would upset her mother.

What are you views on this? I know that sexually it was anything goes in Hamburg in those days and there was much drinking and fun being had by one and all. Also nothing would really surprise me when it comes to John but seriously, John participating in oral with Stuart...either receiving or giving?! I am undecided on the Brian/John stories but this one seems even more far fetched to me.

Not that it matters to anyone or anything, of course. I was just wondering what your thoughts were.

Obviously I didn't know either John or Stuart so who am I to even form an opinion on this. But I dunno, I really don't think so. Paul (who knew John very well and Stuart pretty well) comments that he saw John and Stuart (and Brian) pissed out of their skulls and nothing was ever said or suggested or implied about this and that it would have come out if there was anything to it. He also said he didn't really care.

I want to know really why there always is this obsession that there has to be a sexual element to a very close friendship.

(2) John was responsible for the injury that ultimately caused Stuart's death.

You'll remember when the book came out in the early 2000's, there was much made of this.

Pauline says that on a trip Stuart took back to Liverpool not long before he died, he told her about a fight that he and John had had where one moment everything seemed fine and then - before he knew anything - he was on the ground with John kicking his face in. And then as we all know, after his death his x-ray showed that a trauma to the skull had caused the slow bleed and she believes that this trauma was caused by John.

I remember when this story came out, I didn't want to believe it and naturally doubted it. And now having read the book, I doubt it even more.

I cannot understand why she seems to think that it was an injury caused by this alleged fight that did the damage rather than the very significant injury he suffered in another fight when his skull was actually fractured by a stranger; an injury AND a fight which has been well publicised. This is the same fight in which John had his finger broken and Paul got a bit of a slap. This is again an old story that many of us know where Stu was alone for a moment and a gang set upon him. John tried to break it up.

Regarding the fight that she says happened between John and Stu - she has Stuart's word for it and writes that he would not have made this up. Stuart referred to the fact that he was kicked in the face by John. Apparently Paul witnessed the attack but was not able to do anything about it. Pauline interviewed Paul for another book about Stu and she quotes him throughout however it is interesting to note that Paul appears silent on this topic of this alleged fight. I think Pauline says that John confessed to Yoko but there is no quote or back up of this story from her. Furthermore I have seen an interview with Astrid in direct response to the allegations and she says that John would have NEVER laid a hand on Stuart. She says also that Stuart would have told her if this had happened and she said she never heard a thing about it.

She also writes that she feels sorry for John and thinks that it must have been a terrible thing for him, knowing he had done this so it isn't even as if I can look at this revealation as some sort of way for her to cast blame and feel better. It is like saying it doesn't really make a difference to her other than the fact she wants it off her chest. Either that or a story to help her book sales. Don't get me wrong - I'm not all anti-Pauline. I think she is an educated, interesting woman and she is doing what she feels is right to honour the memory of her lovely brother.

So what do you think? I know this has been talked about before on here but ooh well.

Obviously we will never know the truth regarding either of these stories since both people involved have passed. Just thought it would be an interesting discussion to have with y'all.

Pauline is very bitter towards the Beatles and how Stu was treated. Nobody agrees with her story, so take it with a pinch of salt.

It all seems very unlikely. I recommend you look out for a book by French writer Eric Krasker which will be coming out in English at the end of the year. It has a chapter on this question which he goes into in detail.

As far as John having a hand in Stu's death, the thing is, especially in the late 60s and early 70s, John was an open book, and I can't imagine him not even alluding to it with regret. And he was always an emotional guy, so how would he get through nearly 20 years of life knowing that in the back of his mind without cracking?

As far as having a homosexual relationship with Stu and/or Brian, it honestly wouldn't shock me; Pete Shotton's book discusses some lesser sexual escapades (think circle jerks) and in the early years, John was always so over-the-top defensive about not being gay (didn't he beat someone up for calling him gay at Paul's 21st birthday?) that it's hard to think he wasn't compensating for something. But none of the specific accusations I've read seem all that accurate to me, and to be honest, Stu and Brian were both more attractive than Yoko (ooh burn) so who really cares?

Originally Posted by ringo_rama

Pete Shotton's book discusses some lesser sexual escapades (think circle jerks) and in the early years

Yeah. Paul also talks about this in Many Years From Now and how John might say "Winston Churchill" to put them off the task. Boys will be boys.

Originally Posted by ringo_rama

(didn't he beat someone up for calling him gay at Paul's 21st birthday?)

Yup. It was Bob Wooler.

Well I've heard about these stories many times before, but personally I dont put much faith in them...

I've not read Pauline's book, but based on what Lucy wrote, here're my thoughts.
1 - Stuart and John were very close friends and both very emotional people. I can easily believe them lying together and John sobbing and Stuart holding him. I just can't see it going any further than that, altho' I guess anything could have happened, but I doubt it was an on going thing, if it was. I think John and Stuart shared a strong emotional bond, but not a sexual one.

2-Don't believe that John caused Stuart's death. I believe it was the attacked by the unknown party. As you say, that one was well publicized, and it did much damage, so it seems almost certain that that one was the cause.

Interesting topics!

Oh sure. John was totally gay! He even had that notorious romp with Brian in Spain! I suppose all those women he was with were actually transexuals. Hey! Has anyone looked up Yoko's skirt lately? That could have been a body double on the cover of "Two Virgins", ya know..

Since Bob died of the same thing that Stu did, I have done a bit of research and spoken with doctors about brain bleeds and brain anyerisms. In truth, about 5% of us are born with anyerisms. If they are caught in time, one can have them "clipped" or "tied off" - I am not sure what technology existed at that time - but I know for instance Joe Biden had two clipped 20 years ago, so it is not a super new procedure. Now the anyerism could have erupted because of physical trauma, but there are other things that cause it, smoking (for instance) that leads to high blood pressure. So I don't think that John had a hand in Stu's death, it was just an unfortunate "accident" of life.

As far as John and Stu getting together? I'm going to believe it, cause that's smokin' hot, my friend.

Originally Posted by PaulisMine

As far as John and Stu getting together? I'm going to believe it, cause that's smokin' hot, my friend.

I don't think it would be so far-fetched for John to have had some kind of sexual contact with Stu or Brian - and it didn't mean he (or Stu) were gay. We know about Brian ;-)

As for causing his death - I had actually heard that there was a possibility that John may have killed one of the Teddy Boys who jumped them out of revenge.

But we'll never know

Originally Posted by PaulisMine

As far as John and Stu getting together? I'm going to believe it, cause that's smokin' hot, my friend.

Totally! hahahaaaa!!

If you believe that John and Stu story, I have a golden bridge in San Francisco to sell you along with some ocean front property in Iowa.

The things people will write to sell a book.

Paul has said in recent interviews that John had no sexual interest in other men; had that been the case, it would have cropped up during an unguarded moment. John even beat up DJ Bob Wooler in 1963 because the latter called his heterosexuality into question.

As for John and Stu, let's just say that if you want that bridge, I'll sell it to you. I'll even throw in Boston Harbor wholesale while I'm at it.

Just my opinion

First, about John and Stu/Brian, Who cares? John and Stu were artist types (not gay, just a little more emotionally needy?) and very close. Yes, something could have happened. They were a long way from home and in spite of the many "birds" flocking about, it may have been hard to feel close to any of them. It's been said many times that bands are like marriages and sometimes when you are on the road, you get lonely and take comfort in your mates. Not always sexually (but it does happen) and I'm sure most musicians are not going to talk about it anyway.

As for the head trauma, I'm sure if the fight between the two happened, it didn't help anything, but the gang attack looks to be the more logical culprit, even if Stu did or did not have a previous condition.

Again. just my opinion.

Originally Posted by UncaDan

First, about John and Stu/Brian, Who cares?

Absolutely. I don't care at all whether they were or not. Paul makes that point in the interview he gave wto Pauline when he talked about John and Brian. I only care as far as the fact that I like all of them!!

I only started this topic because I thought it might be a good discussion to have about this particular book - not because I care about whether Stu and John got it on.

1) John and Stu... Not sexually involved. What's wrong with really loving another guy deeply? There is still today a gender bias here. Women can be close as close can be without suspect of sexual involvement, yet two men feel this and it's all whisper, whisper...I bet they're gay. It's an insult to men everywhere straight and gay! I think the media needs to grow up in this regard, as well as the repressed portions of society in general.


2) What about Stu's fall down the stairs at Astrid's family home? Yes, there was the fight with the Teds and medical technology may not have been able to do anything. But didn't Stu encourage or invite a hemmorage by not tending to it immediately? Has anyone even suggested he may have brought it on himself by not agreeing to medical attention after the scuffle...

I was always offended how these parts of the book got a talk up in the news in 2003 as Pauline was putting some of Stuart's things up for auction at Bonham's. Not hard to connect the dots of motivation there... it is offensive at times what is done in the name of money.

It seems that Stu hit/was hit in the head enough times that there's really no telling who or what caused the "fatal blow." As ringo-rama said, it's hard to believe that John would have remained silent on the subject if he had felt even remotely responsible.

As far as their being "together," it's certainly within the realm of possiblity. However, there's a big difference between two young people experimenting (particularly after a night of drinking) and being in a full-on relationship. I just don't see the latter happening.

Yes, but John and Stu would have been past the age where such 'experimenting' would most likely occur.

From what I understand and from what I have read, such 'experimenting' or an extension of playing doctor usually occurs early in puberty and not so much in early adulthood as in the case of these two young men.

Frankly, I don't believe it. It just does not add up.

That's not necessarily true. As Macca has been quoted many times, Hamburg was their "Lads off the leash" time and the attitudes there as compared to Liverpool were as different as night and day. Issues such as gay, bi and whatever were never even hinted at and if it was, you were either beaten up or bounced off to the nuthouse. This is Liverpool in the 50s, you guys!! Irish Catholic hardcore and to even broach the subject then was a ticket to complete alienation. Hamburg of course was the polar opposite and I would imagine a real shock to a bunch of sheltered lads from Liddy even if they were supposedly past the "age of experimentation". People seem to forget that the late 50s early 60s was a very different time and the attitudes towards alternative lifestyles that we take for granted now simply didn't exist in back then. Needless to say, someone in their late teens and early twenties exploring a few of these new ideas in an environment that encouraged a freer way of thinking is not beyond belief. As far as John and Stu having an ongoing physical relationship, I honestly don't think that was the case. Two very close friends getting pissed out of their brains and being depressed to boot...so what? Nothing to be ashamed of whatsoever and certainly not worthy of being a "hot topic" for schmucks like Guilliano to pick over.
In regards to the John killed Stu thingy.....bullshit, bullshit and bullshit again. With as big a mouth as John would have when it comes to slaughtering the sacred cows of the Fabs, he would've told people this story often enough for it to be validated if it were indeed true...it would've already been part of the Beatles venacular ages ago.

Somehow I don't think Stu was John's type.

I never thought Stu was all that cute and in some pictures Stu did look a tad effiminate, which is not to say that he was. I really don't know, but I don't think so.

Also, I think John liked people who stood up to him and stood up for their beliefs. I don't think he would suffer a yes-man gladly. I am not saying Stu was a sycophant, but I don't think he had the leadership stamina that John, Paul and George had.