Well, he kind of liked the music.
Or maybe he was expecting the Spanish Inquisition.
[quote=“Noel_Prosequi, post:196, topic:525578”]
Western civilisation is in thrall to the ghost of Sherlock Holmes…snip…But most of what he was doing was just WAGging.
Considering what you yourself are offering here, outside the otherwise obvious facts, you have some nerve.
Your entries are simply a foolish attempt against known criminal detection. If we followed your ideology there would be no such thing as criminal forensics or detection and no murders ever solved simply because those doing the solving failed to realize there's "too many variables" possible to lend any certainty to anything.
I'm fairly satisfied with forcing you into this fool's venture in sophistry because anyone with any common sense would see right away what evasive philosophical bluster it is, to use kind words. In short, your refusal to give any meaning to the evidence I've shown reveals your resentment to admit its validity.
I think most smart people would see your spurious questions fall short of either recognizing or answering to the known behavior of such drugs. In short, your answers fail miserably to account for the known effects and times that fall within reasonable definitions. The foolish trick you attempt is to try to say that somehow those minor variables disqualify the greater known behaviors or effects that we can reliably assume. Once you establish that reliable behavior you can then make reasonable conclusions from it. You give the falseness of your arguments away by trying to say your weak evasions serve to throw out or disprove ALL medical conclusions involved. But, once again, anyone with a wit of common sense could see that isn't true and that even with the flimsy excuse variables you try to create we can still draw reasonable conclusions from the evidence we do have.
Sorry your input is rubbish. The 3.9mg percent of blood is rock solid. It matters not how many pills were taken in what sequence. Your input is bogus because you and I both know it is very simple science to create a chart showing all possible timings and combinations to reach that 3.9 level. Your bs isn't working. What we then would do is compare the manner of death to that scatter chart to determine the minimal times in which that dosage could have been ingested.
Your questions are, frankly, stupid because we could easily access absorption rates from experts. The only reason you ask is because you know you can use that very weak wrench in this loose forum. Your question would be considered foolish in any competent legal forum (even though you pose yourself as the one teaching legal standards here). Again, anyone with any common sense would see bodily absorption to be a non-issue within the forensic we are talking here and what it shows. I consider it a widely displayed sign of your fatuousness that you offer it so boldly. I'm glad because it only serves my purposes that you shout your fatuousness to your own detriment without even realizing it.
We are very simply at a point here where the doubter's are trying to say that even though they bring forth the point of the extreme dosage of 9 Vesparax they reserve the right to deny its effects at the same time. When forced into the undeniable they then play dumb and make obviously irrelevant arguments about tolerance or absorption that, to any intelligent person, don't apply in this case. I consider their failure to yield to reality a victory because it clearly shows the disingenuousness or both their arguments and position. These are people who decry an 18 times dose while arguing it had no meaningful effect at the same time.
The problem with your offerings is they cut roughshod across other known circumstantial evidence. Hendrix's drug/alcohol reaction times were fairly familiar to his friends. With a full stomach, as seen in the autopsy and vomit, the alcohol effect would only stand to be less. Your arguments are too general in relation to what we've shown here. I'm not even sure what your point is? (Besides overly-general evasion by rumination) As far as I can tell your side is trying to deny otherwise obvious and witnessed large amounts of wine that are not accounted for by the official story. I'm not sure how what you write above has anything to do with that?
Here's where you skewer yourself and your credibility. There are such experts (you should know that if you pretend a position of legality) and they do make such judgments in court all the time. Your input continues to show us it is simply a silly exercise in denial of any and everything. Your entry borders on the self-damning idiotic simply because it risks ignoring that 3.9mg is a level at which any person of any tolerance would be knocked-out. Your denial draws your arguments into reckless risk - especially for someone posing themselves as possessing a superior argument (which is otherwise known as bombast).
Anyone with a lick of sense knows there are rock solid forensic drug reaction determinations that can't be overturned or undone by your rather foolish attempts to suggest otherwise. Your argument obviously exploits the lack of firm information we have and depends on getting away with it exactly because we lack those undeniable proofs. Most honest people can see you won't admit those proofs when they appear and therefore are not arguing genuinely or honestly.
The simple answer to this is we are being wrongfully denied access to that data by the same institutions that stand to be shown to have mishandled the original case. Your entries do, in no way, consist of anything close to showing why those institutions should be allowed to continue this denial. In fact, I think their flaws work in my favor and back my case. There's a clear conflict of interest here.
The ability to manage a large amount of wine into yourself while under the influence of 3.9mg percent of blood Quinalbarbitone and 5mg alcohol. Honestly, I would think that would be obvious by now. Perhaps you are so tangled in your excuse-seeking that you forget the basic point? You don't get to imagine it *out* of existence just as well. None of your weak excuses make anything near disproving the need for this basic determination. I think the fact you think they do shows how fatuous your arguments are.
That should be obvious. Because it fits the forensic evidence that Hendrix died from a large amount of wine introduced quickly into his lungs.
The reason you are such an openly obvious bogus arguer is because you present a full serving of questions insisting on the multiple variables involved in things but then when others practice that very same thing and point out that Wright's story could have variables in it as well you play dumb and violate what you yourself attack in others. The very simple answer is Wright's story could have partial truth in it that matches the forensic evidence of murder but other non-truth in order to avoid incriminating himself or possibly others.
You people are openly bogus because the obvious solution to this is to re-open the case and cross-examine Wright to find out. I hope people notice that you argue for more facts while arguing for the denial of a venue in which to discover those facts at the same time. Some take too much evil pleasure in that.
As long as you refuse to argue in context you only serve to strengthen my points. That context specifically was that Jeffery was out of town on both occasions when Hendrix had strange things happen to him with mob thugs. This conforms to spy behavior of creating an alibi (if you need it spelled out).I’d like to move to disregard any questions about Jeffery’s MI5 membership simply on the basis that if Michael Jeffery had served in the National Service in the regular British Army that there would be a simple record for it. I think the fact the doubter’s so brazenly question the obvious is reason to consider their input uncredible.
There's a simple point here that is being evaded at all costs by the deniers. We all know Michael Jeffery did British National Service so therefore he was busy doing something during those two years. If we take Hendrix and the claim he was in the American Army during his service period and look for proof we find a widely-available and verifiable service record with witnesses showing Hendrix served at Ft Campbell, Kentucky in the 101st Airborne.
If we look at Michael Jeffery we find a nebulous gray shadow in which his National Service was served. With all the other witnesses to suggest Michael Jeffery served in the British MI5, including Jeffery himself, we can only reasonably conclude that all reasonable evidence is pointing towards him having done so. Until any of the doubters can come up with a regular British Army service record for Jeffery they stand to have failed to disprove the allegation. The idea that Jeffery somehow served his National Service outside the regular army, yet wasn't in any MI outfit, is obviously preposterous as are those who make the suggestion.
Another thing that should be noted is the probability of all the deaths and suicides involved in this case. It is kind of like lightning striking twice that Danneman and Wilson's deaths could be explained away as other than Hendrix related. Surely a lucky match of such possibility is possible but it would correspond to the same degree of probability involved in winning the lottery. We can see the opposition is arguing the fringe of possibility, and on a consistent basis.
Also I hope people are seeing which side has resorted to one liners and ridicule - and why and when. That is almost always the surest debate "forensic".You have it exactly backwards. It is precisely because modern forensic methods take multiple possibilities into account and have safeguards to prevent false conclusions that we have something that can be called “forensic science”.
A fundamental error in detective work and forensic investigation is to start with a preconceived notion, and attempt to adapt and warp various pieces of evidence (or to accept highly dubious ones) to fit that theory. You’ve fallen into this trap repeatedly.
Rumination? Hey, maybe that’s how Hendrix avoided absorbing a toxic dose of Vesperax - it was spread out among his multiple stomachs.
We are? Where’s the autopsy report? Has it been denied to anyone?
This is your venue - where are your facts (as opposed to speculation)?
This is new to me. Was it spelled out in the dew, and if so was it fresh?
This describes your entire “case”, a.k.a. the MI5-mob thug-insurance-scam-message-in-the-dew-fabricating girlfriend-18-inch-fountains of wine-spewing-barbiturate-polluting-noble gas-fart exploding-3.9 mg percent-tons-o’ vomit theory.
I vote for digging up all the deceased persons even peripherally involved in this whole affair, and letting Dr. Bannister do a new set of postmortems on live TV (with narration by Geraldo Rivera).
Should be entertaining.*
*(ducks to avoid volcano-sized eruptions of wine, vomit, bile, Vesperax and inane speculation)
You recklessly run roughshod across the known facts here. First, you should realize that you are admitting to the ridiculousness of the story here. Which is why Danneman's account has been discredited. You could only take your position if you held that the multiple witnesses to the wine in the bedroom, as well as Bannister's witnessing of wine, were all false. But I think we've more than reasonably shown that there is a genuine claim for unaccounted-for amounts of wine. Since you deny that you discredit your own arguments.
Danneman said she went out for cigarettes. So we have a time where such an event could have occurred. Some might suggest that Danneman's cigarette trip story was deliberately designed to explain her absence at the critical time. So while you mock you fail to see we have a story that does fit. Some might also suggest increasing mocking around calmly seated possible explanations might suggest self-exposing, though indirect, admission of their viability. The sleeping pills have always been assumed to be accidentally introduced into Hendrix's environment. With Jeffery's background, and possible collusion with Danneman, what if they weren't?
He nearly did. If you study it he just made it there and had to be prodded by his secretary. I suggest he intended to miss the funeral with a weak excuse of transportation or schedule or information failures. Probably the only reason he showed up was because he realized how he would look by not going after being prodded to do so. Hence Jeffery hangs-out in the limousine.
By the way, after your heckling has blown-up on you several times here when does your attitude show any acknowledgement of that? How do you account for your own instinct above, of Jeffery having tried to skip the funeral, actually having happened? Clowning ridicule??? At what point do you reel-in that 'tude???
But even more important, with the value Hendrix was to Jeffery, which was nearly total, when called by a reporter a week later in Majorca he told the caller that this was the first he had heard of Hendrix dying. Understand that Hendrix's death was a major world news story. Being Hendrix's manager, and being known as so to just about everyone around him, what we are being asked to believe here is that even if Jeffery had somehow sequestered himself in a cave and not been prone to any normal news coverage, that his many friends and cohorts, including his secretary whom was very Hendrix-aware and active in her professional duties, that somehow he missed all of these necessary means by which to learn of Hendrix's death. I suggest if someone had interviewed those around Jeffery at the time they would find that to be the preposterous story that it obviously is.
So what does Jeffery tell this curious reporter seeking Jeffery's feelings as manager? Jeffery abruptly cuts him off and says "I knew that sob would quit/die on me" (paraphrase). Jeffery then hangs up on the reporter for a major media source. He later called him back and apologized.
Do you believe Jeffery didn't know about Hendrix's death for a full week? I don't. So what does this behavior tell you? Is this the obvious attempt to distance himself from a murder he was aware of that it is? I think it is.
That's a stupid argument. You're obviously unable to admit or recognize that the several 18 inch suction tubes worth of wine, that not only Bannister witnessed but the aids helping him witnessed as well, puts us up and above the amount of wine suggested by the blood alcohol level. And thereso creates a conflict you are obviously aware of and avoid like the devil. Your clownish protestations in relation to this only strengthen my case. Except you don't apply that to yourself. You are exactly right above, of course, but only in the sense that the official story continues to be doggedly believed even when we've already proven it to be based on lies. So your willingness to ignore this, while offering arguments that show the failure of your side more than mine, shows what obscene reversals your arguments are.
To wit, we have your side that has already been proven to have come to a "false conclusion" by the very criminal forensic science you cite, yet you have the utter audacity to suggest, from the broken seat of your own position, that it is our side that is somehow failing to meet that standard?
It would take a fool to miss that it is that very forensic standard to which you aspire that has shown us the evidence for drowning in wine. You can hang yourself as high as you like on your own petard.
Thank you for relieving us of having to take you seriously.
The salient data is clear enough. And you clearly can't answer it. I think we need to move this case to a British court where it can be handled more professionally.
The answer to your question is -yes- it *has* been denied to the persons petitioning Scotland Yard in 1993. An adequate legal analysis of the autopsy information and alleged evidence for murder has already been denied by Scotland Yard.
Most likely written by Hendrix that evening. Burdon can tells us. I think the suggestion was Hendrix wrote it on his way in to the flat after being picked-up by Danneman at the party.
Its importance is mostly because it backs Burdon's claim he was called at dawn and got to Danneman's flat early. I know you're not serious so I'll explain to you that the contextual significance of this is that it conflicts with Danneman's stated times by many hours and conforms to Bannister's witnessing of signs of death hours earlier than claimed. (So rather than being uncredible, as you suggest, Bannister and his information prove *credible* as they are reinforced by surrounding evidence)
Clowns usually provide clownish input.
Yes. It has been obvious from the start.Just so you’re aware that nobody is falling for your “suggesting” tactic, I’ve compiled several of the big ones.
Jetblast, you’ve promised a lot of evidence and never posted any of it. Do you plan to, or do you think anyone is going to fall for this hopeless stalling?
This kind of personal insult is not appropriate for Cafe Society. Don’t do it again.
twickster, Cafe Society moderator
Sigh.
jetblast, I am a prosecutor. (My username here is a modest joke at my own expense.) Most of my work is prosecuting people who kill. I have been doing this for a very long time. I know how criminal detection works. I know how forensic science works (although I hasten to say I am not a forensic scientist).
I use the results of forensic science constantly to gain convictions.
I am well aware of the power of forensic science. I am also well aware of its limitations. It is not magic.
I use timing of death evidence. I use pharmacological evidence of absorption/elimination of drugs.I do so regularly, of course - these things are tolerably common in criminal trials.
(None of these things is advanced as evidence or argument, by the way. I don’t advance such authority as I have as evidence in this debate. My post is not my cite. I am simply filling in a blank so that when you make criticisms of me, you know where I am coming from.)
You say my entries are a foolish attempt against “known criminal detection”. What do you know about criminal detection?
You overgeneralise my position to assert that a consequence of it is that forensic evidence is without value. Nonsense. I use it all the time. But I don’t abuse it, which is what you are doing. I don’t fill in gaps with guesswork based on silly fantasies of how forensic science works.
You say-
You have not once told us what these “known behaviours” are with anything like sufficient clarity to support your case.
You have made this up. You have no idea how simple or otherwise it might be. You imagine that it is simple. This is a problem for all autodidacts, who think their mighty intellect can recreate the world from scratch. We don’t need no steenking experience. Or actual knowledge.
Then do so. That would be evidence. If you are right, your case would be advanced. But the burden is on you to demonstrate this.
Again, what makes you think this? Why would anyone say this, who had absolutely no legal experience (except perhaps as a litigant)? (I can tell you’re not a lawyer from your use of language.)
I know there are experts. Indeed I know substantial numbers of them. But you haven’t provided one who supports your theory. How do you know what they say, other than from TV shows? Handwaving that they do this “all the time” is a way of avoiding the detail here. It is true that they give evidence. But I doubt that they would ever give evidence with the specificity you need to make your case. My expectation is that they would, if asked, speak of a range of possibilities that was too broad for your arguments to gain traction. And then, of course, that would prove they were part of the conspiracy.
And I am entirely content to let others judge who is guilty of bombast.
There is great difficulty debating something with a person who a) shifts from one subject to another on an arbitrary and sudden basis, and b) hauls out various claims, stated with great conviction but virtually without any citations whatsoever (and even those, when given are from dubious secondary sources).
Let’s revisit one of Jetblast’s major points, which he thinks is solid evidence that Hendrix was “drowned in wine” - the bit about Dr. Bannister evacuating “several bottles of wine” from Hendrix’s upper respiratory and digestive tracts, amounting to “several 18-inch” tubes. I commented that this seemed like a highly inefficient and unlikely turn of events, which did not go over well with our intrepid conspiracy theorist.
So I’ve made an attempt to calculate just how much fluid one of those “tubes” might hold.
Not knowing exactly what type of “tube” Dr. Bannister might have used (disregarding why he would have been suctioning out fluids from a decaying corpse), I somewhat arbitrarily assigned him a tube equivalent to a large-bore nasogastric tube, say a 15 French, which would be roughly 5 mm in diameter. Using the calculation for the volume of a cylinder, it would appear that an 18-inch tube of that diameter holds about 0.01 liter (it’s late and my math generally sucks, but that’s what it came to). Now, a standard wine bottle holds 0.75L. Let’s say that the “several” bottles of wine Bannister supposedly extracted from Hendrix’s nether regions was 4 bottles. That’s 3 liters of wine. In order to suction out that much wine using an 18-inch tube of the diameter previously mentioned, you’d need to repeat the process about 300 times. Dr. Bannister must have been one exhausted dude when he got finished.
300 seems a bit more than “several”. So either my calculations are totally messed up, Dr. Bannister was full of it, or something got very lost in translation along the way to Jetblast’s claim.
As to the “clownishness” remarks, there’s definitely something clownish about the Hendrix Murder Conspiracy - either in the alleged planning/execution of the scheme or the presentation of all the competing theories and speculations, resembling one of those trick cars that careens around the rings of a circus, suddenly spilling out unbelievable numbers of clowns.
It has however been gratifying to view the evolution of the MI5-mob-thug-insurance-scam-message-in-the-dew-fabricating girlfriend-Eric Burdon-at-dawn-18-inch tube-fountains-o’-wine-spewing-barbiturate-polluting-noble gas fart-exploding-3.9-mg-percent-tons-o’ vomit-undeniable forensic theory.
Jetblast, you should’ve given up on Page 1. Noel Prosequi and [Jackmannii know a MAJOR FUCK more about the topic than you are likely to ever imagine. Shit, even I, whose (sorta-trained) forensic anthropological experience mostly stops at nitpicking TV series, find your claims laughably baseless. And I’m being kind while I paternally hope you pull your head out of your ass.
The Truth:
I adore Jimi but he was a god with feet of clay. That goes for all humans that others try to deify. Dude had mental and drug problems. At the time nobody argued with The Official Story because we were awash with similar deaths of both idols and friends. As an elder might tell you, “Yeah, especially, Autumn '70 truly blew.”
Listen to your elders, cuz Autumn '70 TRULY blew.
FTR: '67-73 blew chunks. Nostalgia for anyone in high school during that stretch? Sorry, I remember that time and it (listening for the choir) blew chunks.
For guys and, I suppose, the girls who loved them.
Thank you, dropzone. Modesty demands that I say that I do not know a great deal about the detail of Hendrix’s death. But my experience allows me some capacity to tell shit from shinola, as they say, when it comes to whether a particular turkey of this ilk will fly.
[/outrageously mixed metaphors]
Can we rename this thread “In Which Noel Prosequi, Marley and Jackmanni Demolish Poorly Argued Conspiracy Theories”?
I laughed, o yes I laughed
All you are doing here is trying to raise the debate to a level beyond the capabilities of this board. I could, perhaps, spend months getting the courtroom level information you ask for but I'm fairly sure the "fart gas" strict moderation constituency to which you refer might not be worth the effort. I'm sure most serious readers of this realize that you are merely taking advantage of things I cannot reasonably produce in this forum. This is not a court of law, it's an internet message board.
But anyone reading this can see you are not offering genuine criticism simply because you refuse to acknowledge even the most obvious evidence while pretending to aspire towards greater accuracy. You are simply a creature of your own arguments and dwell completely within them for the obvious reason that you can't venture outside of them where you would be forced to admit reasonable truth. So the sum effect of your doings is *not* a greater establishment of truth as you suggest, but the exact opposite. You obviously offer motes of doubt against logs of reasonable evidence.
I guess the answer to your question about how much I know about criminal detection is "enough to make you so brazenly dodge the evidence as you do in this thread." Your input is mostly puffery. Puffery against the substance of the evidence I produce that you refuse to address directly. If you are indeed a prosecutor the effect of your failure to answer or admit to even the most basic points, that most people would see are impossible to deny, only serves to enhance my case. You give yourself away when you say "most of the people involved are dead or too old to remember, so why bother" (paraphrase). You expose yourself by conceding the possibility while claiming my case is so poor. If you are going to cop-out on that and not own up to it by saying "I was only showing you how poor a legal case you present" then you are simply admitting to not dealing with the facts I present. Of the two levels of information the one that deals directly with the evidence is the higher. You present a lower form of argument no matter how much you say otherwise.
Rubbish. You suggested absorption rates were varied enough to affect forensic conclusions. Any expert would laugh you out of court because the absorption time for the amount of Vesparax involved is irrelevant. Hendrix had no special qualities that would change this invariable absorption time. There's a very simple reality happening here that your evasive puffery won't save you from. That is, that the varying absorption time argument is credulous and bogus and is the cheap argument tactic that it appears and that it destroys your credibility in this case. Let's make that clear. And your return of "you have no idea" shows you as the bogus arguer you are. I DO have an idea and it's much more credible than yours. This would be bourne out by experts and when it was I'm sure we'll get one of your evasive excuses when proven. You're simply WRONG here and the absorption rate will prove to be reliable and determinable in the context I present. Also, you show contempt for intelligent analysis of the facts here because the 3.9mg's is all you need to know. The fact you try to deny it or question its validity shows the truthfulness of your arguments. It obviously came from the autopsy information (Or Henderson pulled it out of thin air and risked his credibility as an author) You offer nothing - besides pompous self-reference to your credentials.
I whole-heartedly agree with your calling for this to be brought to a credible legal venue with actors more qualified than myself. But I would like to point out that venue was denied by persons like Prosequi using arguments like Prosequi uses. (hypocrisy?)
(He once again allows the case might have merit)
The above is just empty pondering. I suggest, in comparison to the direct facts it is being used to avoid, it strengthens the credibility of those facts and how they are presented. This is true whether a person who calls themselves a prosecutor does it or not. But it is especially true when such a person does it - no matter what they say. I daresay the main reason you know I'm not a lawyer is because I speak the truth directly and demand truth in response outside of any legal prisms designed to 'process' that truth as you so thoroughly display.
I'd like to know the legal status of the government's case. Specifically, I'd like to know what the terms are for the British Government being able to stick with a case containing an "Open Verdict" while the basis for that case, that is, Danneman's account, has been proven to be lies? The British Government is getting away with a very squirrely definition of law here. What it is proposing is that in a case where there's an "open verdict", which suggests that the verdict is still open and prone to further investigation, that the government's case being based on lies is no matter and it sticks with it while denying otherwise compelling evidence for murder. What is the legal situation here as far as forcing the British Government to account for its own case? And how would that affect any re-opening of the case?
I think most in this thread don't realize the 'burden', which is so prominently referred to here, is not on those petitioning for re-opening. The burden is clearly on the British Government to account for the proof in its own original Inquest. I think the screaming travesty being committed here (and don't think for a second that Prosequi and others aren't fully aware of this) is that the British Government is using the cheap legal stymie tactic of preventing scrutiny of proof of the government's flawed case by denying any re-opening. In light of this most would see Prosequi as the grandiose gatekeeper he is chiding us for not showing us what is on the other side of a door he himself locks and guards using the legal tricks he does to justify it. A wholly immoral "catch 22", and one that only scoundrels would uphold. (Or those seeking to hide evidence of murder)
Let us open that door and bring this case to a British Court.
(I'd also like to add that a second case should be considered here to see if forces connected to the British Government railroaded Bannister's career specifically for the purpose of destroying his credibility as a main legal witness of evidence for the murder of one Jimi Hendrix)This is a list of statements Jetblast has made that have not been sourced, or which he’s said he’s going to cite and then not bothered. It doesn’t include most of his baseless speculation or other questions he has not answered. Or some other ridiculous errors.
Through all of this, every time Jetblast is ignorant of a basic fact or is shown a simple contradiction in his story, he tries to explain it away with a larger conspiracy that is itself harder to prove. His main “witnesses” are Wright and Bannister. Wright was incorrect about Jeffery’s whereabouts and was wrong about pills and wine being shoved down Hendrix’s throat - and for most people, the fact that Hendrix seems to have taken the pills on its own contradicts any plot that relies on both pills and wine because it’s an absurd coincidence. Bannister was wrong about Hendrix’s height and the idea that anyone would try to remove “bottles” of wine with a small suction tube is absurd. (I’ve seen these types of tubes, and it would be like bailing water from a boat with a thimble.)
There are other contradictions here. Jetblast suggests intelligence involvement in the “plot” but also implicates Jeffery’s need for cash.
All this from someone who misused the word “forensics” about 20 times despite claiming superior knowledge to a prosecutor, and who thinks if your lungs get full of wine, the rest spills into your stomach.
Seriously? Damn, that’s some chutzpah. Do you really think anyone reading this thread at all thinks you’ve got the better case here?
Does anybody but Jetblast give a rat’s about it any more? Blame the Illuminati and move on.
**
dropzone**, I graduated high school in '73, and yes indeed it blew chunks. It was also a very alive time as well.