The new clues that suggest missing Richey staged his own dissapearance

[Velocitygirl]

Originally Posted by handbag

I want to know how going to see this Kruger woman do her psychic show and SHR saying it was a load of bollocks is "debunking". Interesting post here by "Kezia".

It's not as if SHR shut that charlatan down, either. She's still on the go and has just launched a website containing details of events coming up for this year. And dear god, the email address she uses: Richforeversevern. Really?! :O It's AOL too, for shame.

[rosetree]

I agree with what River Boy and raven have said. The new details that have come about may jog someones mind, such as the toll ticket that must not have been properly investigated at the time and it having more slant and speculation. I don't know who the authors are but it seems Rachel wants to help in the book for it to be written by fans in the manic ethos? Possibly in hope for those who experience in various levels problems that her brother suffered. I don't see any harm in that. His sister has obviously included sensitve information in the book that she's trusted with fans and readers. Perhaps new information could bring further hope in more speculation or disagreement. I haven't thought there was animosity towards the band though. I'm sure I read that Rachel attended a concert some years ago. I will buy the book and I hope it is a success.

[Abstract Unknown Girl]

A small extract from the book is on the Penguin website: https://www.penguin.co.uk/articles/2...edium=referral

I’m surprised James and Richey listening to new demos just before Richey disappeared has been deemed “new information”. James has talked about that numerous times in the past, a long time before the quoted Q Magazine interview.

[Routine Builder]

So basically she's accusing the band of lying to the police and Richey's family.. Classy.

We haven't got to the part where she claims Richey was autistic yet... Totally a worthwhile endeavour.

[hummingbird]

Originally Posted by Abstract Unknown Girl

A small extract from the book is on the Penguin website: https://www.penguin.co.uk/articles/2...edium=referral

I’m surprised James and Richey listening to new demos just before Richey disappeared has been deemed “new information”. James has talked about that numerous times in the past, a long time before the quoted Q Magazine interview.

I'm not sure they're saying that extract is new info. I think it's just a draw to read the book.

[Velocitygirl]

The only new information seems to be the mysterious "Vivian" and according to Rachel's quote in that extract it was the band who confirmed she's real and was present. Weird. No idea what to make of that.

[Abstract Unknown Girl]

Originally Posted by hummingbird

I'm not sure they're saying that extract is new info. I think it's just a draw to read the book.

‘We still don’t know exactly what happened that night,’ says Rachel. ‘I’ve spoken to other people with family members who have gone missing, and normally they have received a much fuller picture of the last known 24 hours of their loved ones. For us, though, even after all these years, there’s new information being revealed about the night Richard vanished. It was only after reading a magazine interview with James that we discovered the two of them spent time listening to new songs in the Embassy basement.’

That part seems to suggest otherwise to me tbh (and why mention the Q interview quote from James from 2016 if that wasn't the magazine in question?). It's not as if James hasn't spoken of it on multiple occasions, which is why it confused me.

[hummingbird]

Originally Posted by Abstract Unknown Girl

‘We still don’t know exactly what happened that night,’ says Rachel. ‘I’ve spoken to other people with family members who have gone missing, and normally they have received a much fuller picture of the last known 24 hours of their loved ones. For us, though, even after all these years, there’s new information being revealed about the night Richard vanished. It was only after reading a magazine interview with James that we discovered the two of them spent time listening to new songs in the Embassy basement.’

That part seems to suggest otherwise to me tbh (and why mention the Q interview quote from James from 2016 if that wasn't the magazine in question?). It's not as if James hasn't spoken of it on multiple occasions, which is why it confused me.

I thought you were referring to the blurb above the extract -I should read stuff properly !

[River Boy]

Originally Posted by beautifuldistortion

Everything is likely just daft theories, speculation and in some cases downright lies!

So, for 20+ years we've believed that Richey left the hotel at the wrong time, bringing into doubt any ability to piece things together Poirot style.

We've had a media who report it to be a suicide based on a presumption - or speculation - same thing really.

An investigating officer who announced he believes the same, without actually explaining why or offering evidence as his job requires.

We've never had any of the story of his falling in love and being rejected. This would seem very important for judging his mental state. More so, for example, than an album failing to find an audience. On this, the band have always said Richey never talked about it so we won't try to, but this essentially confirms a whole other non-Manic narrative to his life that has never been unearthed. (Or if investigators did visit the woman in question and discover any information they've never revealed anything for others to decide)

Neither do we know much about his family relations, other than that he began to feel distant from his father as a teenager.

Undoubtedly there is a hidden story somewhere that interviewing all the friends we know he was close to but know little about might illuminate. Whether this has been done well I can't say without reading the book - I get the impression it hasn't - but there's nothing daft about realising there are things to discover and our understanding of what happened is limited by the same criticisms being thrown at this new attempt.

[jenvidg]

Originally Posted by Velocitygirl

The only new information seems to be the mysterious "Vivian" and according to Rachel's quote in that extract it was the band who confirmed she's real and was present. Weird. No idea what to make of that.

"Did you leave the ruins
Or did you build a life
Vivian did you ever realise
All the mystery that you left behind"




(No, I do not think this Vivian and that Vivian are at all linked, but it's just quite amusing)

[Routine Builder]

Originally Posted by River Boy

So, for 20+ years we've believed that Richey left the hotel at the wrong time, bringing into doubt any ability to piece things together Poirot style.

There was eyewitness accounts of him leaving the hotel at 7:00 apparently. But regardless, whether he left London at 12:00 or 07:00 is irrelevant there is no additional evidence of what he did at that time. What we know is still fundamentally the same. Richey left the embassy hotel, used the severn bridge to drive home, left his passport and some receipts, left his apparent.....two weeks later his car turns up at a gas station near the severn bridge. The new time (if of course someone isn't telling fibbers because I can play this game too) doesn't shed any new light.

We've had a media who report it to be a suicide based on a presumption - or speculation - same thing really.

That's not true. It has been reported as a missing case, because he wasn't declared dead until 2008. The fact that this book exists proves that the 'media' is not 100% on the suicide theory. I would hazard a guess that the missing/suicide belief is somewhere around the 50/50 mark. Without a body or Richey coming back, we don't know.

An investigating officer who announced he believes the same, without actually explaining why or offering evidence as his job requires.

What's the source on this?

We've never had any of the story of his falling in love and being rejected. This would seem very important for judging his mental state. More so, for example, than an album failing to find an audience. On this, the band have always said Richey never talked about it so we won't try to, but this essentially confirms a whole other non-Manic narrative to his life that has never been unearthed. (Or if investigators did visit the woman in question and discover any information they've never revealed anything for others to decide)

The band have consistently said they thought Richey in good mental state in January 1995. They were recording a new album, and apparently he was bright and bubbly and writing loads. Obviously something was up but I don't like the insulation that the band are trying to deliberately obfuscate the truth.

And the talk about this Vivian woman is odd. Apparently the band told Rachel about her but also refused to talk about her.

And also, the band were not directly privy to the police investigation.

And not to sound confrontational, Rachel always had a platform to set the story straight especially in the last ten years. This is why I'm suspicious of this book. SHR (see her email to Richeysite) presented this book as joint endeavor between her and Rachel (no mention of 'Leon Noakes'). Obviously Rachel's name isn't on the cover but there's something not right about this arrangement, I find it disingenuous considering how much SHR brings up Rachel to the point it seems like a drinking game.

Neither do we know much about his family relations, other than that he began to feel distant from his father as a teenager.

That was his private life (as well as his late mum and dad's) which Richey was and still is entitled to. Not sure what exposing it 24 years later has to do with the price of eggs. If Richey did commit to suicide, then it would be an insult to his memory to expose his private life to public scrutiny.

Undoubtedly there is a hidden story somewhere that interviewing all the friends we know he was close to but know little about might illuminate. Whether this has been done well I can't say without reading the book - I get the impression it hasn't - but there's nothing daft about realising there are things to discover and our understanding of what happened is limited by the same criticisms being thrown at this new attempt.

People aren't criticising this book for trying to discover new things. What people are criticising his that the author who for some reason has an axe to grind with the band, is not coming at this from an angle of searching for objective truth. There's quotes from a random hairdresser saying Richey is in Israel based on no evidence. Is that any better than the psychic who talks to Richey's ghost. Like I said look up SHR's post history, and after reading that tell me why based on her previous posts here, that anyone should give this book the benefit of the doubt. This a person that quite a few people on this forum believe impersonated Rachel herself ('kezia') here.

And what is this book even supposed to be? According to Rachel, it's about reclaiming Richey from the Richey Manic persona. Yet all we've seen in interviews and extracts is retelling of the ol' February 1st story and accusations that the band have deliberately lied to the police, Richey's family and the media (for which SHR will be liable for slander I would guess). I'd love it if the book was about Richey but from what I've read, one would most likely be reading about what the author and Rachel did etc. In essence all you'll learn is what SHR and Rachel think more than learn anything new about Richey.

[River Boy]

Originally Posted by Routine Builder

What's the source on this?

I don't have the exact quote but I recall the leading investigating officer - perhaps quoted in the Simon Price book - as confirming he personally believes Richard Edwards is no longer with us.

Must be hard to be optimistic about the work of an investigator who believes there's nothing to find.

Originally Posted by Routine Builder

That was his private life (as well as his late mum and dad's) which Richey was and still is entitled to. Not sure what exposing it 24 years later has to do with the price of eggs. If Richey did commit to suicide, then it would be an insult to his memory to expose his private life to public scrutiny.

Completely agree, I'm happy to let it lie personally and not dig up family stuff but I'm not involved in the book. Rachel is.

The only reason for mentioning family and being interested in the content of this book is Rachel's involvement. If she really wants to still figure the mystery out then leaving important stuff off the table is not the way to go about it. Perhaps with both their parents having passed away it's made her less sensitive to family matters being discussed in public, otherwise why now?

This is debate content that's been handed to us.

Originally Posted by Routine Builder

There was eyewitness accounts of him leaving the hotel at 7:00 apparently. But regardless, whether he left London at 12:00 or 07:00 is irrelevant there is no additional evidence of what he did at that time.

Presumably we now know those eyewitness accounts were wrong, unless there's another riddle to his whereabouts.

Agreed, there is no additional evidence but there may have been had the investigation asked the right questions/people at the time. Probably too late now, but we should acknowledge that our understanding of events / timescales was wrong all along. Also it makes his actions appear more calculated and his behaviour less urgent. He had more time back at his house, for example.

Originally Posted by Routine Builder

That's not true. It has been reported as a missing case, because he wasn't declared dead until 2008. The fact that this book exists proves that the 'media' is not 100% on the suicide theory. I would hazard a guess that the missing/suicide belief is somewhere around the 50/50 mark. Without a body or Richey coming back, we don't know.

Fair enough, I guess this is just the impression I get. I've always felt the media elude to it as very probably suicide, treating the disappearance theories as a bit wacky.

We do after all have theories out there on the likes of Elvis and Tupac being alive, and Paul McCartney being a lookalike. Regardless of whether you believe the suicide might have happened, this is not one of those wacky theories.

Also I recall James complaining about it being reported on as a suicide.

[Routine Builder]

River Boy....


I don't mean to come off as hostile towards you. The release of this book has me worked up. This is a book marketed towards manics fans however it is written by someone who seeming loathes both the band and their fans. Seeing someone like SHR profit through besmirching the band's good name gets under my skin. While there are far greater injustices in the world, I still find this book indefensible.

[Velocitygirl]

Originally Posted by Routine Builder

River Boy....
This is a book marketed towards manics fans however it is written by someone who seeming loathes both the band and their fans.

I am so with you on this. The way SHR started hurling abuse at people in the JDB Appreciatioin thread was really nothing more than unconscionable rudeness purely for the sake of it. And didn't one of the mods make the connection she was either using other accounts for more of the same or brought people over to do the same? Whatever the case, there was a link between her and other "flame" accounts.

Now she has the bare-faced cheek to turn around to the same people she insulted and say: "buy my book!"

[River Boy]

Originally Posted by Routine Builder

River Boy....


I don't mean to come off as hostile towards you. The release of this book has me worked up. This is a book marketed towards manics fans however it is written by someone who seeming loathes both the band and their fans. Seeing someone like SHR profit through besmirching the band's good name gets under my skin. While there are far greater injustices in the world, I still find this book indefensible.

I certainly didn't think you were hostile so no worries.

Perhaps I've underestimated the extent of the writer's bad behaviour as I haven't seen it. The impression I get of this book is that it isn't very good, I'd just like to be hopeful that some good might come out of it.

If she is as bad as many are suggesting then it does make Rachel's support of the book feel very strange.