| luthorn 27.02.2015 20:36 |
link it seems the photo was taken Oct-Nov either 1990 or 1991. Does anyone have details about whereabouts and the guy next to Freddie? is it his lawyer? |
| Day dop 27.02.2015 21:28 |
His doctor. |
| luthorn 27.02.2015 21:59 |
any clue when the picture was taken? that will help to solve this stupid post once and for all: Freddie was finally filmed in 91 by DoRo at Montreux/ Duckhouse |
| BETA215 27.02.2015 22:04 |
That's taken from a The Sun newspaper. I think it was taken outside the house or the doctor's office. |
| musicland munich 28.02.2015 00:02 |
So in that case it's Dr. Gordon Atkinson, no ??? |
| master marathon runner 28.02.2015 03:36 |
/. I felt ashamed to have hit this attachment. |
| musicland munich 28.02.2015 04:08 |
master marathon runner wrote: /. I felt ashamed to have hit this attachment.Whhooops I'am sorry...but I thought that this was shared in public before... if not "ouch" |
| tomchristie22 28.02.2015 05:46 |
It's Freddie's death certificate, for anyone who's curious enough to click but may not want to after knowing that. How awful that that's publicly available. |
| Costa86 28.02.2015 08:55 |
Yes, the guy in the photo with Freddie is Dr Gordon Atkinson. Dr Atkinson was a very caring doctor. He died in 2013 - his partner for more than five decades, Roger Bailey, is mentioned in his obituary. |
| miraclesteinway 28.02.2015 09:57 |
All birth and death certificates are freely available to buy in the UK as an extract from any registrar's office. Might take a couple of weeks to access the appropriate file but any member of the public can do it for anyone regardless of status. I think a copy of this might have appeared in a book, perhaps Peter Freestone's book (again... could be wrong!). It's a little ghoulish yes. The picture with Freddie in the street with Dr Atkinson I seem to remember was taken in '91, don't remember exactly when. It was a cheap shot really, sad. At the same time, it shows that Freddie wasn't afraid to just get on with his life, amidst all the secrecy, he'd go out and do what he had to do, knowing full well he could be snapped. Good on him because he could have just had people come to the house. There are other pictures of him during that year outside restaurants, walking in the street, it's easy to find them all these days. It's sad that the paparazzi had to hound him and didn't give him a minute's peace. You know, thinking about it, if people want to look at these pictures here, it's not so bad. The damage is done, it was done a long time ago and they're now a historical document of a fact that everyone knows about. However I do believe that these pictures stand for an invasion of privacy, and I also believe it's not how Freddie or Freddie's family would prefer he was remembered. The presence of this photo or knowing the date it was taken doesn't prove or disprove the duck house video of '91. It's just hugely unlikely that said filming ever took place. |
| luthorn 28.02.2015 12:34 |
What drew my attention to the photograph is that Dr. Atkinson is wearing a poppy. That is a seasonal thing: October to mid-November; to commemorate the end to WWI on Nov 11th. If the picture was taken in 1991, it could be one of the very last of Freddie. Correct me if I am wrong, or if anyone can get publication date of that photo, since it must have been in the papers. IMO, Freddie does not look any worse than before, and keeps a light beard (not bushy one) to avoid opportunistic infections from cutting while shaving. This pictures makes me question the validity of the horror of the duck house video of '91. What I found after googling Dr. Atkinson is the following article from the Mirror dated 25/11/1991 link What is interesting about it is the following passage: "Early today it was revealed that he secretly recorded videos about AIDS to be released after his death. Freddie sings on some and talks about the plight of fellow sufferers on others." That's news to me. So perhaps duck house video may have some validity after all. |
| miraclesteinway 28.02.2015 13:11 |
That whole thing about the AIDS video was just made up as a sensationalist reportage at the time, to make it all more juicy. There were a few reports like that at the time - there was one reporter that sad 'I met with Freddie two weeks ago and urged him to come clean about his AIDS status' for instance, and the paper published some kind of interview that never happened. Yes, it may well be one of the last pictures of Freddie. The poppy starts to show at the beginning of october, and of course remembrance day is 11.11, but either way, there's really no way of knowing without the photographer confirming. Now, regarding that picture, there was actually a feature and interview with the photographer who took that photo, in I think the Sunday Times, in about 1995. He claimed that Freddie had asked him to publish the photo and that the photographer was reluctant to, so that people could see his plight. Likely story..... Anyway I can't for the life of me remember when he said the photo was taken, but it could well be late 1991. The likely story is that there was a high price for pictures of Freddie at the time and the photographer got lucky, and took his cheque, and in subsequent years felt a bit of a dickhead for hounding a dying man. There was no dignity for Freddie at that time, and the press thought it was fair game because he was gay. It was the last gasp of homophobia being acceptable in society. Thankfully we've largely moved on from that but there's still work to be done. |
| musicland munich 28.02.2015 13:16 |
The (first) photo is from September / October 1991. That was the pic Roger is referring to in the TATDOOL documentary. It was released by the The Sun a few weeks before his death. I personally think the Sun do it for tactical reasons at that point, but that would move things way too far from the original post. |
| pestgrid 28.02.2015 14:45 |
That is not Dr Gordon on the photo, he was younger than that gentleman and looked nothing like him, a picture of him can be found in the Mercury and Me book by Jim. |
| musicland munich 28.02.2015 14:56 |
pestgrid wrote: That is not Dr Gordon on the photo, he was younger than that gentleman and looked nothing like him, a picture of him can be found in the Mercury and Me book by Jim.I guess he had more than one doctor he was consulting... Maybe there is a mistake in the book..or the whole story about the picture is completly wrong...who knows ? |
| Costa86 28.02.2015 16:01 |
http://announcements.thetimes.co.uk/obituaries/timesonline-uk/obituary-preview.aspx?n=f-gordon-atkinson&pid=163477478&referrer=2282 Dr Atkinson was a close friend of Freddie's, not merely his doctor. If the guy in the photo isn't Atkinson, then I have no idea who it is - it could be anyone. But I think he was in his 60s in 1991, so it may well be him. |
| Oscar J 28.02.2015 18:07 |
Dr. Rowan Atkinson? No wonder Freddie didn't make it. |
| Oscar J 28.02.2015 18:07 |
|
| Oscar J 28.02.2015 18:07 |
|
| Oscar J 28.02.2015 18:07 |
|
| Biggus Dickus 28.02.2015 23:18 |
musicland munich wrote: The (first) photo is from September / October 1991. That was the pic Roger is referring to in the TATDOOL documentary. It was released by the The Sun a few weeks before his death. I personally think the Sun do it for tactical reasons at that point, but that would move things way too far from the original post.What's your source on the date of the picture? The documentary made no comments about when exactly it was taken. |
| matt z 28.02.2015 23:19 |
Hah. Way to lighten it up, Oscar |
| andres_clip 01.03.2015 15:55 |
It does not matter how many "in The end "pics I see of Freddie. He will always be rememberd as The Greatest. |
| musicland munich 01.03.2015 16:40 |
Biggus Dickus wrote:I don't want to reveal my source in public (right now).musicland munich wrote: The (first) photo is from September / October 1991. That was the pic Roger is referring to in the TATDOOL documentary. It was released by the The Sun a few weeks before his death. I personally think the Sun do it for tactical reasons at that point, but that would move things way too far from the original post.What's your source on the date of the picture? The documentary made no comments about when exactly it was taken. But with the actually two released pics, "The Sun" wants to "finish him off" back then. "The Sun" was on that subject since1985. In 1986 they( "The Sun") were quite sure that he has it. |
| Costa86 02.03.2015 04:41 |
musicland munich wrote:It wouldn't have take a genius, or an investigator of Sherlock Holmes astuteness, to know that Freddie probably had the dreaded illness. He didn't need to display any outward signs - they deduced it based on (a) the fact that people close to him were dying of it, and (b) the fact that they probably had been given some tip-offs by some arsehole/s that he had been testing positive in early 1985/1986 HIV tests.Biggus Dickus wrote:I don't want to reveal my source in public (right now). But with the actually two released pics, "The Sun" wants to "finish him off" back then. "The Sun" was on that subject since1985. In 1986 they( "The Sun") were quite sure that he has it.musicland munich wrote: The (first) photo is from September / October 1991. That was the pic Roger is referring to in the TATDOOL documentary. It was released by the The Sun a few weeks before his death. I personally think the Sun do it for tactical reasons at that point, but that would move things way too far from the original post.What's your source on the date of the picture? The documentary made no comments about when exactly it was taken. But tabloids are tabloids. We all know that they're absolute rubbish, and we wouldn't expect them to treat such an issue with any kind of consideration, or to show some appreciation for a musical genius who gave the world so much wonderful music. So I think, even then, people were not surprised that The Sun would publish that awful photo. As we all know, all the The Sun, or The Daily Mail, or which ever newspaper care about is making money. They make money through advertising, and advertising works if many people buy the newspaper (or read it online nowadays). Many people profess to hating celebrity gossip, but secretly enjoy some of it. This is true especially if it involves megastars who lead a controversial life (e.g. Freddie, MJ, Elvis, Houston, etc.) and if it involves death or serious injury. In this world of morally deficient capitalist greed, it has come to be seen as 'expected' that The Sun would publish the photos of a seriously ill man. |
| miraclesteinway 02.03.2015 05:11 |
It was actually a secret that was harder to keep than to spread. It is an enormous pressure on the friends and family of someone ill to not be able to talk about it except to a select few people, and Freddie didn't want to talk about it so he could focus on working and making the best of his years - fair enough. It could have been anyone that blabbed to the Sun about it. It could also have been that a stalking reporter hanging outside the house followed someone from the door of the house to a clinic to pick up the doctor, or to a pharmacy, and evidently they stalked Freddie many times on the way to his doctor. I heard somewhere (can't remember the exact source, so please take this with a pinch of salt) that Joe Fanelli let something slip in a bar or something, when he upset (maybe someone on here can dig out the exact story, or confirm that I am indeed talking bullshit!!). In hindsight, it perhaps would have been better if Freddie had made a statement earlier on, because it may well have alleviated the pressure from the press. That said, the press had no business stalking him the way they did, knowing full well that he was a very ill man, and he had the right to his privacy that was denied him in those years - I remember it seemed like years that it went on for. It's true that all celebrities use the press to their advantage, and the press use celebrities to sell papers, but there comes a point where a line should be drawn and enough is enough, and the press went far beyond that point with Freddie in those months. I think the reason Freddie didn't make a statement before wasn't because he felt ashamed, wasn't because of the fans, but I think he just didn't want his parents and sister to read it in the paper before they had to. He was aware that the whole situation would be very difficult for them and I think he just wanted to protect them from it a bit longer. It's easy to forget that Freddie was a human being, with a normal side to him. It's easy to forget that he would go round to his mother's for tea, meals, have a family life, and really not act like a superstar. But you can see it in the documentaries where his mother speaks - she's absolutely full of love and pride for him, and you can also see how sad she is that he's no longer here, and the difficulty of speaking about what actually happened. Jim Hutton came out and said in 2006 that he didn't think Freddie wanted to make the statement at all, and that it wasn't even written by him because in the 48 hours before the 24th, he was virtually unable to communicate, but Jim Beach has confirmed that the statement was prepared weeks before, and Brian May said that Freddie did want it to be known for the sake of awareness. A former friend of my family claims that she was in the lab that tested Freddie's blood positive in 1985. I don't know how much truth there is to her statement, because people have a habit of talking rubbish, but this was back in 2000 that she told us and it was the first time I knew anything about the 1985 tests. Any person in that lab could have blabbed back then, and of course there is that interview with John Deacon published in 1985, and the AIDS rumour is mentioned in that, so things were certainly happening in the press even then, and then of course there was the paparazzi shot from late '86, and there were a couple of flurries of information in '87 and '88 but the shit really hit the fan around the Miracle album didn't it. It was terrible actually. It's enough that you fall ill with a disease you know is going to kill you, without the entire country's media trying to drag your reputation through the dirt - that's all it was, sensationalism. They didn't give a crap about him, they just wanted a story, and sleazed it all up. How many of these journalists, though, if you delve into their private lives, would be caught with their pants down? It makes me a bit angry even today, not so much because of Freddie, but because these things are still happening. |
| BETA215 02.03.2015 07:59 |
The shitty side of life. :'( |
| Costa86 02.03.2015 10:20 |
miraclesteinway wrote: It was actually a secret that was harder to keep than to spread. It is an enormous pressure on the friends and family of someone ill to not be able to talk about it except to a select few people, and Freddie didn't want to talk about it so he could focus on working and making the best of his years - fair enough. It could have been anyone that blabbed to the Sun about it. It could also have been that a stalking reporter hanging outside the house followed someone from the door of the house to a clinic to pick up the doctor, or to a pharmacy, and evidently they stalked Freddie many times on the way to his doctor. I heard somewhere (can't remember the exact source, so please take this with a pinch of salt) that Joe Fanelli let something slip in a bar or something, when he upset (maybe someone on here can dig out the exact story, or confirm that I am indeed talking bullshit!!). In hindsight, it perhaps would have been better if Freddie had made a statement earlier on, because it may well have alleviated the pressure from the press. That said, the press had no business stalking him the way they did, knowing full well that he was a very ill man, and he had the right to his privacy that was denied him in those years - I remember it seemed like years that it went on for. It's true that all celebrities use the press to their advantage, and the press use celebrities to sell papers, but there comes a point where a line should be drawn and enough is enough, and the press went far beyond that point with Freddie in those months. I think the reason Freddie didn't make a statement before wasn't because he felt ashamed, wasn't because of the fans, but I think he just didn't want his parents and sister to read it in the paper before they had to. He was aware that the whole situation would be very difficult for them and I think he just wanted to protect them from it a bit longer. It's easy to forget that Freddie was a human being, with a normal side to him. It's easy to forget that he would go round to his mother's for tea, meals, have a family life, and really not act like a superstar. But you can see it in the documentaries where his mother speaks - she's absolutely full of love and pride for him, and you can also see how sad she is that he's no longer here, and the difficulty of speaking about what actually happened. Jim Hutton came out and said in 2006 that he didn't think Freddie wanted to make the statement at all, and that it wasn't even written by him because in the 48 hours before the 24th, he was virtually unable to communicate, but Jim Beach has confirmed that the statement was prepared weeks before, and Brian May said that Freddie did want it to be known for the sake of awareness. A former friend of my family claims that she was in the lab that tested Freddie's blood positive in 1985. I don't know how much truth there is to her statement, because people have a habit of talking rubbish, but this was back in 2000 that she told us and it was the first time I knew anything about the 1985 tests. Any person in that lab could have blabbed back then, and of course there is that interview with John Deacon published in 1985, and the AIDS rumour is mentioned in that, so things were certainly happening in the press even then, and then of course there was the paparazzi shot from late '86, and there were a couple of flurries of information in '87 and '88 but the shit really hit the fan around the Miracle album didn't it. It was terrible actually. It's enough that you fall ill with a disease you know is going to kill you, without the entire country's media trying to drag your reputation through the dirt - that's all it was, sensationalism. They didn't give a crap about him, they just wanted a story, and sleazed it all up. How many of these journalists, though, if you delve into their private lives, would be caught with their pants down? It makes me a bit angry even today, not so much because of Freddie, but because these things are still happening.Regarding the former family friend - she could very well be telling the truth - the first tests having come out in 1985, it's to be expected that someone in such a high risk group would be tested as soon as they could. And we knew much less about the whole timeline in 2000 (most info came out in interviews after 2005), so the fact that what the friend said back then corroborates with what we know now, adds credence. Incidentally, that's exactly how news gets out - as you said, it's incredibly hard to keep a secret. So it must have been a dreadful burden for Freddie to keep mum for seven years. |
| miraclesteinway 02.03.2015 11:24 |
The story that I have is that this couple we know once lived in London. She was a microbiologist, at time working in a lab that dealt with blood from HIV tests. However it happened, the people testing the blood knew the names of the patient that they were testing, rather than simply a number - which isn't a problem because the people working in these labs know that they can't talk about any of the work they do that involves the name of a patient lest they lose their job. He was tested under his own name, but of course enough people knew his real name that it didn't slip under the radar. She said that after they tested the blood positive, they actually all stood in the lab and cried because they knew basically what was going to happen. The sentence she used was 'We knew there was no hope'. I can't tell you more than that, because that's all I know, and as I've said, I have no idea what the truth is behind this story. For all I know she could have made it up or be telling me a story that a friend told her, so I've never given it too much weight until actually, I realise now that the timeline fits with the information that we now have. Since Paul Gambaccini has told us that in the very early '80s Freddie's attitude was 'f**k it, I'm doing everything with everyone', we can assume that he was tested either because people in his circle started to test positive and he knew it, or because he started to feel ill then. While we can now pretty much say that he knew in '85 (we can't be sure, but if this story holds any water, it's possible), we can never be sure as to when he contracted it. Perhaps he knew himself - and in fact he probably did know - but it's not for us to know. What we know about the virus though is that it progressed much faster then than it does now. HIV today is weak in comparison, which is very good news. I know someone who was tested positive 7 years ago and is still not requiring medication. This was unheard of even 15 years ago. Of course it still progresses, but the progression is slower, and in the case of the person I know, the doctor does not want to prescribe medication to a healthy patient, because the medication itself still causes problems even today. |
| miraclesteinway 02.03.2015 11:26 |
- I know a more skeptical reader could say 'miraclesteinway, you could have made this story up because you know the timeline as everyone else does here', but you'll just have to trust me on this one. Well, or not, it doesn't matter really! |
| Costa86 03.03.2015 03:48 |
Very interesting story. I think it's believable, and it's probably the most realiable 'unofficial' news us mere mortals have had about when Freddie got to know for certain that his days were seriously numbered. It would have taken a few tests to ensure false positives/negatives were eliminated, but once these were done, the truth would have become apparent. It adds to our appreciation of Freddie, because he managed to keep up appearances so well - although he knew for 7 years that he had a death sentence hanging over his head. It shows that he was a very strong and deep man. |
| tomchristie22 03.03.2015 03:54 |
miraclesteinway wrote: - I know a more skeptical reader could say 'miraclesteinway, you could have made this story up because you know the timeline as everyone else does here', but you'll just have to trust me on this one. Well, or not, it doesn't matter really!I trust you! Incredible story if true. |
| Costa86 03.03.2015 03:55 |
It also fits in perfectly with what Barbara Valentin said - that he knew in 1985, and showed symptoms as well. |
| hachiman 03.03.2015 10:57 |
This was the probably taken the same day. link If this was taken in October, then it shows that if this duck video did exist, he could handle himself without any help since the photos show him walking and standing on his own. There's this other photo I know though that showed his bodyguard helping him walk. Probably taken the same year. |
| luthorn 03.03.2015 14:51 |
miraclesteinway wrote: - I know a more skeptical reader could say 'miraclesteinway, you could have made this story up because you know the timeline as everyone else does here', but you'll just have to trust me on this one. Well, or not, it doesn't matter really!That's an interesting fact, also very tragic. |
| hobbit in Rhye 03.03.2015 15:09 |
miraclesteinway wrote: She said that after they tested the blood positive, they actually all stood in the lab and cried because they knew basically what was going to happen. The sentence she used was 'We knew there was no hope'.Break my heart. Bless them. I admire these lab guys who keep their confidentiality all those years, while the press was wrecking havoc in Freddie's life. I know it's just basic standard in their job (lab job) but still. |
| musicland munich 03.03.2015 23:52 |
EXCUSE ME I HANDED OUT THE WRONG INFORMATINS ABOUT THE PICTURE !!! Sorry mislabelt photos will KILL me one day so here is the story to the grey suit shots. The pics are from late summer or autumn 1990 With those shots they start their final AIDS campaign against him... I could add some more facts but it would be too distracting...sorry for the mistake. here is the hopefully correct story... The crunch came days later, when Freddie was snapped with his doctor-friend, Gordon Atkinson, leaving The latter's Harley Street surgery, wearing a plain grey suit that looked several sizes too big for him, and bent forward, it was clearly an effort for him to cross the street to Atkinson's car. The pair then drove the 150 yards to Freddie's favorite earterie, Albert Roux Le Gavroche.... The name of the friendly guy who was so nice and did the shots : JASON( asshole) FRASER |
| Costa86 04.03.2015 03:29 |
musicland munich wrote: EXCUSE ME I HANDED OUT THE WRONG INFORMATINS ABOUT THE PICTURE !!! Sorry mislabelt photos will KILL me one day so here is the story to the grey suit shots. The pics are from late summer or autumn 1990 With those shots they start their final AIDS campaign against him... I could add some more facts but it would be too distracting...sorry for the mistake. here is the hopefully correct story... The crunch came days later, when Freddie was snapped with his doctor-friend, Gordon Atkinson, leaving The latter's Harley Street surgery, wearing a plain grey suit that looked several sizes too big for him, and bent forward, it was clearly an effort for him to cross the street to Atkinson's car. The pair then drove the 150 yards to Freddie's favorite earterie, Albert Roux Le Gavroche.... The name of the friendly guy who was so nice and did the shots : JASON( asshole) FRASERLe Gavroche is a classic. Freddie had good taste in food too, it seems, although he was more of a "always leaving some food on the plate" type of guy, than a big eater. |
| miraclesteinway 04.03.2015 09:06 |
Yeah that was the photographer, who said that he agonised whether or not to share the photos (yeah, waited to see who paid the most more likely). Actually the knowledge that he had the disease in 1985 makes me have even more respect for him. Bear in mind that he probably wouldn't have been tested if he didn't feel ill. It's highly likely that he noticed something wrong in the 18 months before (or even longer), and that means that probably he did the end of the Works tour, up to Mr Bad Guy with a feeling that things were about to get ugly, and from Live Aid onwards (basically) he was working in the full knowledge that he was infected, and did that whole album and tour knowing that it would probably never happen again. It's quite possible that the appearance at the Dominion in 1988 was him also testing the water to see if he could do some performing again, but I say that in the knowledge that going on and performing a couple of songs is not the same as doing a whole concert. It seems that apart from in terms of coping with having AIDS, and doing benefits, donating money to the cause, Freddie wasn't all that interested in AIDS as a defining feature in his life - other than knowing that it would probably kill him. It seems that he had the illness, and chose to ignore it so that he could get on with being Freddie Mercury the musician and man. Actually given the time that he lived with it and the attitudes towards it back then, he was pretty brave. Well done Freddie. |
| Costa86 04.03.2015 10:00 |
miraclesteinway wrote: Yeah that was the photographer, who said that he agonised whether or not to share the photos (yeah, waited to see who paid the most more likely). Actually the knowledge that he had the disease in 1985 makes me have even more respect for him. Bear in mind that he probably wouldn't have been tested if he didn't feel ill. It's highly likely that he noticed something wrong in the 18 months before (or even longer), and that means that probably he did the end of the Works tour, up to Mr Bad Guy with a feeling that things were about to get ugly, and from Live Aid onwards (basically) he was working in the full knowledge that he was infected, and did that whole album and tour knowing that it would probably never happen again. It's quite possible that the appearance at the Dominion in 1988 was him also testing the water to see if he could do some performing again, but I say that in the knowledge that going on and performing a couple of songs is not the same as doing a whole concert. It seems that apart from in terms of coping with having AIDS, and doing benefits, donating money to the cause, Freddie wasn't all that interested in AIDS as a defining feature in his life - other than knowing that it would probably kill him. It seems that he had the illness, and chose to ignore it so that he could get on with being Freddie Mercury the musician and man. Actually given the time that he lived with it and the attitudes towards it back then, he was pretty brave. Well done Freddie.Mary Austin said, I think in the 2000 DoRo documentary, that when Freddie got sick she realised the deepness which existed in him as a human being - things which were always there, but which became more apparent when he was nearing his end. I think she called it "an exaggeration of what was always there". |
| miraclesteinway 05.03.2015 08:07 |
I think that happens a lot with terminal patients. It's not surprising really, it's such an enormous upheaval to come to terms with. It's strange in some ways because we all know we are going to die, but somehow we don't believe it until we are faced with a terminal illness. |
