And we’ve been waiting for you to answer any of our questions since page one. Just like with the TWA 800 thread, you keep referring to documents that you fail to provide. Where’s the coroner’s report, for a starter?
I’ve heard you can light farts, but not that they burn very brightly.
This sounds like it might be Pope, but I don’t recognise it. It doesn’t make a whole lot of sense in the present context, nor does it make sense chemically, which makes it a pretty rotten metaphor.
And you ought not think that the banter between me and Jackmanii which prompted this quote from you is any kind of concession on my part that I am seriously resiling from what I have said earlier. I shouldn’t have to say this, but your disposition to interpret an absence of denial as positive proof of something prompts me to do so.
On another note, we all saw that JD Salinger died recently in his 90s.
On The Colbert Report last night, I saw Stephen Colbert darkly suggest “Was it murder?” as a joke, paying out on all those conspiracy theories that attach themselves limpet-like to every celebrity death. Princess Diana, Kurt Cobain, everybody.
When your theories have become the punch line to a joke, most people would pause for thought.
Of course it happens that sometimes celebrities are involved in murder as victims or perpetrators. But we know that because there is actual evidence of it, not just fevered speculation.
The intellectual process you bring to this can be applied to any given death anywhere to come to the conclusion that it “must” have been a murder. Did the deceased have enemies, or someone who might conceivably have profited from their death? Everyone does. Are there modest inconsistencies in accounts given? There always are. In almost all actual murder cases, there are bits of evidence that don’t fit, witnesses who think they saw the deceased after she was supposed to be dead, and so on. But this doesn’t mean that black is white, or that all evidence is of equal value.
Yet another thought for jetblast. The Eureka effect is very powerful emotionally - that sense of discovery that sweeps you away with the way in which it seems to unify so much. While it is emotionally powerful, people have for a very long time been aware of its capacity to mislead.
I am told that practically every scientist has had a Eureka moment that was wrong. The eminent physicist John Wheeler briefly entertained the elegantly simple idea that the reason electrons all have the same charge and mass and can (according to the equations) go backwards or forwards in time was because they were all the same electron. There was just one, whizzing back and forth in time all over the universe, creating an illusion of multiplicity.
The idea may have been elegant, simple, and powerfully unifying, but it was wrong, and he had the good sense to see that.
That is why your sense of captivation with the ideas you present is not to be trusted, and why we have rules carefully worked out about the onus of proof and the drawing of inferences. This is not technical mumbo-jumbo - it helps prevent us from being dazzled by ghostlights. If you don’t take the rules seriously, you wind up in the awful mess of confusion that you have. Everything seems to be evidence of everything, and all points to the Grand Conclusion. It’s like being trapped in the centre of a sort of black hole of thought, where all directions are one and every piece of evidence is only capable of pointing one way.
It must be both exhilarating and frustrating (when others don’t “get” it). In the end, I don’t envy you. The pleasure of certainty in an illusory discovery is no substitute for having the intellectual tools that equip one in the best possible way to get to truth.
Unfortunately, Noel Prosequi, I think your observations are going to get washed away by tons of vomit.
“Up is down, black is white…You understand that if we don’t find a stiff out here, we leave a fresh one…I am gonna send you to a deep, dark place and I am gonna have fun doing it!”
- Eddie Dane in Miller’s Crossing
Helium is non-flammable.
I suppose this means that everyone who has responded to your posts is something other than smart, and impervious to merit.
Have you noticed that what you have argued here has not won any converts? What do you think that means?
This is the bit I don’t get. **Jetblast **is continuously asked about the autopsy report. He even quotes Lemur866’s question about it:
and then doesn’t respond to the questions, but discusses completely different issues.
Anyone think he’s trying to avoid a question he just can’t answer?
There have been a few. But you're not offering a valid comparison here because an accurate analogy would have to include "How many rock stars died from choking on their own vomit who had low levels of alcohol in their blood, lungs and stomach full of wine, a doctor who said 'I'd never seen anything like it before', a false story used to determine the cause of death, a manager with a motive and MI5 background, and an alleged confession?" I think if you were being honest and true to the facts Jimi Hendrix is the only one to fit this description.
I disagree with this and think you are taking liberties with forensic pathologies that can be reasonably determined, at least within the parameters we are talking about here. The question still stands how long does the Vesparax 3.9mg percent of blood take to reach that level in Hendrix? The vomit and remaining rice contents, or whatever variable might intercede, can all be reasonably determined. One important thing that can at least be determined is the Tappy Wright story that pills were shoved down Hendrix's throat followed by wine can be discounted simply because the pills would still be in Hendrix's stomach, or even vomited right back out, if he was killed this way.
From here we can try to determine what merit, if any, Wright's story has? Was Jeffery making a false confession to clear Danneman whom he had gotten to kill Hendrix for him? Or did Danneman set-up the scene and clue the killers as to when Hendrix would be passed-out on the strong sleeping pills she set-up in her bathroom? Hence Jeffery's 'confession' would serve the purpose of clearing Danneman. Once an investigation found Jeffery to be in Majorca it would draw doubt on the accusation. (Why did Jeffery go to Spain? Jeffery was also out of town when strange mafia kidnappers abducted Hendrix in New York).
I think we should see what we *can* determine from the available forensic evidence. One should obviously reconstruct as much as one can. For instance we can say there's reasonable circumstantial and forensic evidence to say the 9 Vesparax were inside Hendrix and digested to the point of a 3.9mg percent of blood level. Don't quit too early here. Experts could tell us what condition Hendrix would have been in as far as consciousness or ability to administer an "unusual amount of wine" into and on himself. So it is, actually, very *wise* to do these things and not the opposite as you suggest.
And the "variables" are actually few to none here. One significant variable would be the amphetamine which might counteract the barbiturate and maybe even cause a vomiting reaction, however, the vomit is reasonably determinable from statements and analysis of the rice stomach contents. Otherwise I would imagine everything else would go right in line with the known forensic pattern for such drugs in such doses.
Right. This would be the only possibility for an accidental death.
The first thing I would do is go back to the main witness's story. That story says Danneman and Hendrix retired to bed after a late night meal. Realize the scenario you suggest says Hendrix then decided to go for broke by chugging large amounts of wine while Danneman is next to him and doesn't see it, nor does she get any wine or vomit on herself from this Rube Goldberg event happening right next to her.
First off, Sharon Lawrence, a sober-minded friend of Hendrix wrote in her book *Betrayed* that Hendrix was smarter than that and knew the potential lethal effects of such a mix. But, also, we are told Hendrix had a glass or two of wine that night before going to bed. So we have a blood alcohol level that corresponds to this alleged wine that would have had time to be absorbed.
I thank you for presenting this because it shows the only other alternative version to be absurd and unlikely according to what we know. If we take your version and hold it up against what we know it conflicts with many things. If you take the murder version and hold it up against what we know it works, or at least doesn't involve the same conflicts.
I'll allow it.
However we then have to go back and look at some strong behavioral signs of guilt. After Hendrix died Jeffery was flush with cash. He went to Hendrix's funeral in Seattle but stayed outside in the limousine during the service. I guess you could say this doesn't prove anything, or that Jeffery was steering clear of people who might ask him about the money, but you can't argue that this behavior doesn't conform to the anguished guilt of someone who had murdered him and didn't want to be seen.
If we have such a mundane and ordinary "druggie" panic reaction and flimsy story to hide the cleaning of the flat for drugs then why does Danneman decide to kill herself rather than simply admit it decades later? What does this desperate act suggest? Does it suggest not wanting to admit some simple covering of one's self after an accidental death where the person was just an innocent bystander, or does it suggest a confession-type exit of someone who had done something seriously evil to a major figure and was finally being brought to account for it? These things are normally brought to bear in any other case. If this was a movie it would be automatically used to conclude guilt. Why then, with Jimi Hendrix, does this suddenly mean so little? Is it because they were all "druggies"??? If there was any "druggie" component compromising anything here it was probably on the side of not resisting Jeffery.
If this is the case then Eric Burdon is in on it too. Because if Hendrix died the way you propose then Danneman would have seen right away that he was dead. Burdon arrived early on because, as he revealed, the call was at dawn. So Danneman was not the only one involved in this story. At this point we are starting to involve enough people that simply calling them "scattered druggies" doesn't add up. All considered, the murder scenario still sails smoothly through this scene. This is why it is important to locate and investigate the claim that someone heard Jeffery instructing Danneman that she would help him poison Hendrix.
I think the reason you try to force the "imprecision" of the wine amounts is because it is exactly the opposite and you know it. We can easily find the volume of the 18 inch suction tube Bannister claimed to have evacuated several tubes worth wine with. Bannister stated even after removing several tubes worth the wine still kept issuing from the stomach. So, opposite to what you suggest, we are well within conclusive evidence of the amounts of wine that would establish and compose condemning evidence or, at minimum, a criminal forensic contrary to the official account. Your attempts to establish anything else are disproven simply by the fact Bannister was not the only one to witness this. There were other Emergency Room personnel. We lose precious time (which I suggest is the British Government's dishonorable strategy here) to call those other witnesses to testify and legally establish this wine from a source outside the unrelated-ably discredited doctor. Any fool would see once we add up all the wine involved, including that on the bed, clothes and hair, it is well beyond any normally explainable amount and therefore does point towards the manner of death we propose.
You are rather like the fellow who asks us to prove the town was ravaged by flood by coming up with precise measurements of the amount of flood water involved.
If we worked backwards we could establish when the latest possible time the writing could have existed was? But it is somewhat moot, however, since we have Burdon admitting he was called by Danneman at dawn. Burdon's phone records should have been investigated, as well as Danneman's.
If you researched it you would find it to be correct. I'm avoiding it because I know it will be dwelled upon in order to avoid the main facts of this case.
Everything seems fairly well described here. Jeffery had both a background and motive. The act was fairly simple and could have been Jeffery doing it for his own purposes, or it could have been a black op. The fact Hendrix was smeared as having died from a heroin overdose in the newspapers shows signs of a classic intelligence operation that is clearly described in FBI's own documents of how they would conduct such operations and were doing so at the time. Look up the COINTELPRO and CHAOS programs. You are arguing this rather philosophical argument right underneath the granite cliff of such a documented and ongoing program at the time.
The British have to tip-toe a little more than others because of their libel laws. The emphasis of the word "plausible" is just an exploitation of Bannister steering clear of the same forces that had already stripped him. It doesn't change anything towards the main facts and evidence you still really haven't answered. Surely you bend context because while you accuse him of being imprecise he is actually being more precise. The reason he says "plausible" is because he is referring to the suggestion of murder. It is a sign of his professional competence and wisdom to separate his medical judgment of drowning in wine, where he did offer a significant determination, from that of the criminal case on which he was commenting.
The wine is still there. It haunts this case like a Shakespearian pool of blood that won't go away.There’s something here that won’t go away, but it’s not the wine. 
You’ve got two “witnesses,” Jetblast, and both have huge holes in their stories. Wright didn’t come forward with his story for more than 30 years, and his statement about forcing pills and wine down Hendrix’s throat doesn’t fit with the evidence that he took the pills earlier in the evening. And none of the doctors made any comments about injuries that would have been evident from a scenario like this, such as bruising or broken teeth. And not only was Bannister disbarred, he appears to be wrong about Hendrix’s height and is contradicted by others about the condition the body was in.
And once again, when you can’t rebut the obvious, you’re forced to stretch your theory even further to explain the lack of evidence. But that only compounds your problem. You first said Jeffery had Hendrix murdered, and now you’re adding that Wright may have been in on the plot, along with Monika Danneman, MI5, the Mafia, and Eric Burdon of the Animals.
Please don’t let me be misunderstood here: this is getting dumber and more implausible the longer it goes on. You’re not adding facts or shoring up holes in your theory, you are stretching a paper-thin story further and further while not providing evidence. Including evidence you said you had.
Please, tell me that was intentional.
Yes, it was intentional. Give me a little credit. 
Even more bizarrely improbable is that she slept right through the saga of ham-handed MI5 goons forcing “bottles of wine” down Hendrix’s throat, after he was tempted by Vesparax pills that had been salted around the “environment”. Oh wait - you told us that Danneman (after having “retired to bed” following a late night meal) suddenly got the munchies or something and left, providing a window of opportunity for the wine-stuffing assassins.
I think that convenient out just came back to bite you on the ass.
(snerk)
Guess there had to be one in the bunch.
Wouldn’t it have been more appropriate then to avoid the funeral entirely?
Whoa.
It’s one thing to cast suspicion on Peter Noone and Shirley Jones. But when you pick on Eric Burdon, well those are fighting words.
Which makes her diagnostic skills superior to those of Dr. Bannister, who attempted to revive a rotting corpse.
How about “scattered druggies, hangers-on and wannabees with convenient memories attempting to cash in on a celebrity death decades later”?
Oh Jesus God, this again.
In order for, say, a nasogastric suction tube to suck out “bottles of wine”, 18 inches worth would not have been enough, assuming Bannister wanted to get out of the ER sometime that century. You’d need a tube stretching from the hospital to Brighton Beach, at the very least.
Well, we’d sort of like to see some documentation of whether it even rained or not.
And if your mother had wheels, she’d be a teacart.
Who would you be libeling by saying “I think Hendrix was murdered but I don’t know who by”? Even in Britain I don’t think they can convict you of anything for making vague all-purpose accusations.
It must be rather nasty after all this time, though I suspect someone would bid for it on Ebay.
Oh Lord!
He must make amends.
Western civilisation is in thrall to the ghost of Sherlock Holmes, who seduced us with the attractiveness of the idea that everything can be reconstructed. From tiny little signs (shiny shirtsleeves, etc) he purported to be able to “deduce” practically the whole life story of some person. And since it was all fiction, the writer made sure Holmes always turned out to be right. If you read it uncritically, it seems impressive.
But most of what he was doing was just WAGging. In the stories, no recognition is given to the hundreds of possible explanations of his observations which would exist in real-life. We are made to feel fools because we aren’t "smart"enough to make the deductions that Holmes makes. In truth, we didn’t make the deductions because we were too smart to - we recognised instinctively the multiplicity of possible explanations that could cover scuffed shoes and so on.
You don’t seem to get (as Conan Doyle didn’t) the limits of reconstruction, nor the perils. It’s not as though if a little reconstruction is good, more must be better.
Let me give you an illustration, adapted from a real life case (so that you understand the gruesome details are not a product of my imagination). Suppose the naked corpse of an attractive woman is found in a relatively isolated place covered in a towel that was otherwise brand new. On the towel are dispersed drops of semen. Injuries show she was obviously killed non-accidentally.
It is safe to infer that her killer was male, and that the killing was sexually motivated. But that’s about it.
According to a certain world view (your world view) it should be possible to examine the distribution of drops, find out the details of how much liquid is ejected in each ejaculation and with what pressure and speed, and reconstruct the height of the male and the position where he was standing. If the suspect whose DNA matches the semen doesn’t conform to that calculated height, then (again according to this world view) he cannot be guilty. He’s the wrong height!
The problem with this sort of reconstruction is that each step depends on the previous one being determined with absolute certainty. The reconstruction of height depends very sensitively on assumptions about pressure and speed of ejaculation, about the orientation in space of the man involved and idealises away all the variability between individuals commonly known to exist.
Just so here, the reconstruction you want to perform about drugs in the body is very sensitively dependent upon variables we cannot know. Did he consume a few pills, then, dissatisfied that they didn’t work right away, consume more 15 minutes later? 10 minutes later? These things make a difference. What rate of absorption of the pills was Hendrix’s system capable of? To what extent did the other contents of his stomach impact upon that? As well as absorbing drugs, the body is at the same time eliminating them, so there are two curves (the absorption curve and the elimination curve) working simultaneously in opposite directions. Are you familiar with the concept of elimination half-life? Are you aware of the extent to which individuals show variability from the statistical average in the extent to which they both absorb and eliminate drugs?
Are you aware of the variability with which humans react to a given level of drug in the body? Even your own experience of alcohol will have demonstrated that some people can appear to consume large quantities of alcohol with little effect and others very little, and the difference is not solely related to weight or sex or experience with liquor.
You don’t get to make up evidence. “Experts could tell us…”? You have no idea. And you haven’t produced any expert who purports to do so. You seem to think that there is a one-to-one mapping between a particular blood level of drug with a precisely identifiable level of capacity to consume liquor. You don’t demonstrate that, you just assume it. Experience suggests this is nonsense. Real people and their metabolisms are too complex.
Once again, you don’t get to just “imagine” evidence into existence. What “known forensic pattern”?
If Wright’s story is so fatally flawed in such an important respect, why are you giving credence to his reports of a confession?
I have said before, the mere asking of portentious-sounding questions is not evidence. It only serves to disguise rhetorically the hopeless inadequacy of what you present. Why did Jeffrey go to Spain? To work on his tan? You don’t seem to see the circularity in your reasoning. Jeffrey’s going to Spain is only significant if you assume the truth of your thesis in the first place.
Give him a break. He’s just a poor boy whose intentions are good!
To all of the folks who have attempted to engage our OP, thank you for what I have learned. I have reached the conclusion that we are dealing with a true nut, He actually seems to think that our responses are on trial here, to be judged by him alone, when our normal way of dealing with each other is that the poster of claims needs to support them. A through the looking glass world.
Has he yet posted a claim supported by a citation?
Yeah! Plus I’ve been spending my life in pain and misery in the house of the rising sun.
How do you know he’s not a foxy lady?