And so castles made of sand, fall in the sea, eventually.
As with all these debates, this is becoming dully repetitious.
Circular argument:
Appeal to imaginary authority:
He repeats arguments long addressed and dealt with -
“Did too. Did not.”
The only way to resolve what is a critical part of your argument is to point to evidence of this. You still don’t get that I don’t have to, you do.
That you don’t get this is evident…
This last is just … extraordinary. You don’t need evidence. The authorities must constantly and forever re-justify conclusions reached no matter how long ago whenever J. Random Conspiracist says so.
jetblast, do you accept that there are any conspiracy theories that are wrong? Princess Dianna’s death? WTC Truthers? Moon-landing hoaxers?
If they are wrong, the proponents of the theories all claim to have evidence as iron-clad as you claim yours is. Do we keep litigating every conspiracy forever on the premise that there is no onus on the proponent of a novel and prima facie unlikely theory to establish anything first at the threshold?
The credulousness of this is startling. All authors are always right, because if they weren’t, they’d risk (gasp) their …credibility! What about the excluded middle here? Other possibilities include that he was simply wrong. Or misunderstood. Or misread. Or misinterpreted. Or oversimplified.
But I am not arguing with you about “3.9 mg percent” (whatever that means). I am arguing that it is only possible to interpret the consequences of this within broad parameters.
I can illustrate what I mean by observing that there are sites that say that as few as 10 Vesparaxcan kill. Maybe. But that doesn’t mean that 10 will kill. And it doesn’t mean that a person who takes any less than 10 is guaranteed to survive. There were only 10 cases in that study.
The concept of LD50 has some illustrative application here. Drugs don’t have a defined lethal dose such that if you take that dose you will die, but just less than that dose will not be fatal.
LD50 is the dose at which 50% of subjects (these are sometimes pigs or other human proxies chosen for experimental purposes) die. Now if only half do something as dramatic as die at a particular dose, you can see that there is a great deal of variability in reaction to a particular dose of a particular drug. No doubt 1000mg of morphine will kill anybody. But we are not dealing at that extreme end of possibility here.
Oh, by the way, here’s something interesting.
I found a cite that contains the following:-
The site might be shilling for DNA tests. I don’t know if that effects its reliability. But so far it’s the best general cite produced in this debate about Vesparax metabolism. Which is to say, it’s the only one. Where’s yours?
Here’s another site showing an apparently well-controlled study comparing the effects of Vesparax and Midazolam in getting gynaecological patients to sleep, using therapeutic doses. Each patient subject to Vesparax was given one tablet. What was measured was “sleep latency” (ie, how long it took the patient to get to sleep).
See the graph on the second page. Note the Vesparax entry. (The Vesparax graph is printed upside down for space reasons).
Look at the results. 30% of patients went to sleep within 20 minutes. 50% took 20-40 minutes. 20% took 40-60 minutes. 1-2% did not get to sleep for over 60 minutes.
You see now what I mean by variability of individual response? You just can’t say that a particular dose or blood level maps perfectly onto a particular response.
And if you can’t, your argument about what experts will say doesn’t get off the ground.
It was that, especially as the Draft had ended for you and I (class of 72). And it was pre-AIDS, so it could be worse.
Don't misquote me please. I've always said though there is good reason to suggest an intelligence connection to Hendrix's death, I said it should be set aside in order to focus on the more immediate evidence of murder. First things first.
You once again jump way too quickly.
First of all, what is keeping anyone from interviewing or cross-examining Wright? What I don't get is there is no reason to not further investigate this. I think it is more than clear that there's enough reason here to look into this at a much more serious level. We need to find these things out. Apparently your side insists there are too many variables but then suggests there are no possible variables within the proof being shown from our side. It is highly suspicious that no one tries to further investigate this to solve some very simple questions.
It could be Danneman was involved in a plot, or, as I've read on *Crosstown Torrents*, Danneman could have had a female hysterical reaction and done it herself. Apparently Hendrix had the habit of promising many girlfriends he would marry them. They speculate that Danneman's anger, witnessed earlier that evening at Harvey's party, could have been partly due to Hendrix's telling her he wasn't going to marry her. But we still haven't found out about the veracity of the group member overhearing Jeffery instruct Danneman that she was going to help him poison Hendrix. You would think that someone would try to follow this through? Because, if it is true, then you have the solution right there. So, you give yourselves away but not giving correct heed to what is most compelling here. A true observer of this would demand this stuff be found out and not try to make weaseling excuses around it.
You see the reason why you gentlemen hang so prominently high by your own petards here is because you choose to ignore the unignorable. You openly allow the meaning of Danneman's admission on Dutch radio in 1975 that she said she thought the mafia was involved in Hendrix's murder to fly right by you undetected. Now that is a fatal admission because you can't have her official story and this admission exist in the same place. It's either one or the other. And the way reality works is the admission destroys the official story. It's very simple, you can't explain why Danneman, if Hendrix had died accidentally from choking on vomit from an OD, would say Hendrix was murdered by the mafia? Your doubter's case is finished mates. You just can't get around the fact that Danneman's changing her story conforms and points towards the suggestion of murder. While you doubters try to force us to pay attention to your attacks you ignore the fact that your side is wearing its case around its ankles. You allow yourself the luxury of ignoring, that when called to a legal forum to account for this, Danneman committed suicide (?). If a prosecutor were prosecuting my case I think we all damned-well know how he would interpret that - Prosequi too.
Again, you give yourself away by trying to minimize the suction tube. Clearly we can find out what the capacity was of this tube and ask Bannister how many he withdrew from Hendrix's gushing windpipe? Or others who witnessed this. That fact you draw doubt on even the removal of wine by suction tube itself shows how bizarrely credulous your doubts are.
But you once again give yourself away as seeking to avoid the already obvious. The amount of wine withdrawn by Bannister when combined with the wine seen splashed at the scene creates an amount of wine you can't explain no matter how many specious attempts you make to avoid it. And that wine was witnessed by many people who you can't make weak lack of credibility excuses for. There's simply too much wine there for your weak attempts to cover-up no matter what you say.
The two do not necessarily cancel or contradict each other. Your input is very weak and shows flawed logic - the type used by persons desperately thinking of weak evasions and not seriously considering the facts.
Most would assume that superficial number counting on grammar would be the sign of a frivolous argument that it is. One that seeks to avoid the main facts.
Ask any of the many people released from jail after 10 years recently from DNA tests their opinion about prosecutors.
Your stuff is very weak. The wine is still there and you haven't come anywhere near to accounting for it.Ah, the magic windpipe theory again.
THAR SHE BLOWS!!!
Except that the human trachea (windpipe) cannot “gush” fluids anywhere remotely near the spectacular amounts Bannister & Co. supposedly reported.
According to this study, human tracheal volume averaged out to 22.59 cubic cm, or roughly 22 ml (and this was in people with emphysema, who often have larger tracheal volumes than the average person). As previously noted, a single standard-sized bottle of wine holds 750 ml. So you simply can’t have fountains of wine “gushing” from a human trachea. And what does all this matter if you’re now postulating that Danneman murdered Hendrix in a “female hysterical reaction” (nice appeal to the ladies for support there). Did she go out for cigs or munchies, come back, fly into a rage and impulsively commit murder by wine? Where was MI5 during all this, running shrieking about the apartment having male hysterical reactions? If I was Eric Burdon arriving on the scene and finding all this going on, I’d get out of the place, if it was the last thing I ever did.
So, to update, we now have before us the MI5-mob-thug-insurance-scam-message-in-the-dew-fabricating-hysterical-girlfriend-Eric Burdon-at-dawn-18-inch tube-fountains-o’-wine-gushing-from-the-windpipe-barbiturate-polluting-noble gas fart-exploding-3.9-mg-percent-tons-o’ vomit-undeniable forensic theory.
Yoo-hoo, Scotland Yard! Better get right on this, before the trail goes cold.
I understand you wish to reduce this to a pissing contest. As a matter of fact it has always been your side's obvious strategy from the start. Your contempt for what has been shown is more than apparent and self-creating some kind of legal spider web which you then refer to as the ruling authority in this matter is false and I don't buy it. Most honest people could see you are calling for evidence that you then ignore when adequately shown. Your sophist creations are no replacement for those unanswered points of evidence, nor is saying it is my job to bring the evidence an adequate excuse for not recognizing the meaning of what has already been shown. I assure you any boredom is on your behalf not mine.
Do you accept that governments regularly violate their own laws and call people who point it out "conspiracy theorists"? Show me the wine in any of those other conspiracies. But honestly, you shoot your own credibility in the foot very openly and in public because any 'prosecutor' would instantly answer that question by saying each and every case must be judged separately and by its own circumstances and evidence. So the fact you ask that question when any competent prosecutor would never accept such a question themselves shows us the level of credibility you have here. Honest people can see right away the only reason you ask it is because you're trying to avoid admitting there's good grounds here for re-opening the case.
Sure, but I can't let you take the argument out into the dissipation apparatus you are so obviously trying to set-up here. You don't have a right to because the relevant points still exist within the framework I've set-up.
Thus we go back to the necessary argument of asking what we *can* show from what we already know and have. The reason we are arguing the Lethal Dose parameters in the first place is because we need to establish a) what condition Hendrix would have been in from the data shown and b) that he would not have died from the Vesparax alone and c) what the blood level might show us as far as time of ingestion.
If we interviewed Hendrix's close friends they could testify as to his use of sleeping pills or other barbiturates to establish a reasonable suggestion of tolerance. So we could see cases of where Hendrix was said to have taken large doses of barbiturates and what the results were. I suggest the outcome would be that Hendrix would trend towards the tolerant side of the spectrum.
But you are forgetting an important operative fact here that Hendrix did not die from a Vesparax overdose. Let's involve ALL the relevant operating factors here. The reason we are looking into Vesparax and its effects is to try to determine a reasonable time period for which Hendrix ingested the drug. The LD is one factor but only in relation to all the other factors. Since we have 10 pills missing from Danneman's Vesparax package, and Danneman claims she took 1, we can work under the assumption that there is a good possibility Hendrix had 9 Vesparax in him. So the relative question is, still, how long would it take for someone like Hendrix to reach 3.9mgs percent of blood Quinalbarbitone? I suggest the absorption rates do not vary by so much as to preclude any determination that there was too much time involved for the pills to be shoved down Hendrix's throat followed by wine as claimed. So we can then focus on trying to get an expert to tell us what effect a 3.9mg level would have on a person like Hendrix? Especially what level of consciousness or ability to administer large amounts of wine into himself, as well as getting several corks open while under a clobbering dose of Vesparax.
It's important to try to define some coherent relative terms. The main point of this particular argument is to determine how the 3.9mg dose shows that the tablets had to be ingested an amount of time long enough before the death to preclude any forcing of pills down the throat followed by wine. Next, we still need to establish a reasonable definition of Hendrix's condition under this 3.9mg dose as far as functional ability to administer wine into himself (and possibly opening corks). We need to get an expert to tell us that the reasonably-established absorption time required to reach the 3.9mg level was enough to determine certain things in relation to the evidence. But, most importantly, that this absorption time could not occur *faster* than the period claimed. It is the establishment of a gap of time that is most meaningful here.
I have recently found out new information that Danneman had changed her story about Hendrix taking the Vesparax. She admitted that she gave Hendrix the pills. This makes a complete change of all parts of her story which can only point towards foul play. Even Prosequi must be forced to admit that this is at least suspicious if not damning. And let's not forget Danneman admitted to washing 'sick' off Hendrix with wine. (Something she did not tell the Inquest)
I think we've lost track of the pertinent argument here. It is still what 3.9mg Quinalbarbitone, along with the other substances in Hendrix's body, would do as far as capacity to function or inducement to vomit? The only relevant study would be one that involves a strong dose of 9 tablets. So the argument is, really, what variables can we eliminate from such a strong 3.9mg dose?
Also, I'd like to point out that the prosecutor's role in such a case like this is usually proving the case for murder. So Prosequi awkwardly positions himself on the wrong side and I hope people detect the wrongness in that and obvious conflict of interest.
No, you haven't answered why the British government should be allowed to get away with avoiding admitting its own case has been thoroughly destroyed by Danneman's admissions and story changes. And the fact you won't admit that is grounds in and of itself to legally sue and force the British government to re-open the case - not on the merit of the petition but on the failure of the government's own case. You don't live up to what you preach here. And your thoroughly public avoidance of it only serves to put what you say in its true light (which is very dark indeed).
Aside: Wright claimed Jeffery's thugs "broke-in to Danneman's flat". I don't think there was any sign of a break-in at the flat. (Which possibly shows others were in on it and that it was an inside job).
But genius, there are very unlikely to be any such studies! How you gonna get ethical studies that involve giving people 8 (or even 16) times the therapeutic dose? People are not Volvos that you can test to destruction.
The only such studies are likely to be ex post facto studies based on overdose cases that come into hospital, like the 10 member death study I mentioned. These will almost never have enough numbers to produce valid results as specific as you need to prove your case.
Your theory is derived from the “magic database” fantasy that drives TV shows - there is a database for everything. There isn’t. This is part of the reason why any real expert is unlikely to be able to tell you with the specificity you require what the effect in any specific case of a specific level of secobarbital (Quinalbarbitone) MUST have been. And secobarbital is not the only ingredient of Vesparax.
So unless you can show us these experts you claim can say all you want them to, STFU.
Other failed conspiracy theories are relevant. Look upon those fractured chains of flawed reasoning as history’s lessons drowned in red wine. I’m sorry you see the facts and logic presented here as a black fly in your chardonnay, but realism can be painful.
I can’t understand that Danneman though. She has Moet et Chandon in a pretty cabinet, but hauls out sweet cherry wine (I don’t know about you, but I haven’t had that spirit here since 1969).
Poor jetblast. Never understood a single word he said, but he always had some mighty fine wine.
But there isn’t. And if you think it should be set aside, you can’t go around implying it over and over again. You’re the one raising the subject.
Because there’s no reason to investigate it further. His story and the theory you have created about it are both full of holes and they’re both absurd.
Yes, they do. Endlessly. But they don’t provide proof and neither do you.
Have you ever seen one of these suction tubes? Because I have. There is probably some variation in size, but they are thin and have little suction power. It would be absurd to use them to remove bottles of wine from the throat of a patient. He would die hours before the job was done. If Bannister says he removed bottles’ worth with a suction tube, his memory has failed him or he is lying.
They don’t support each other.
And you ignored my list of all the statements you haven’t backed up and made no attempt to support them. I think that speaks for itself.
I’m so cheesed off I can’t contribute a song pun to a fundamentally American board without some explanation, or no-one will get the reference.
There is an Oz band called Cold Chisel (hugely successful rockers).
They have a song that starts:
Once I smoked a Danneman cigar
Drove a foreign car
Baby that was years ago
I left it all behind
Had a friend, I heard she died
On a needle she was crucified
Baby that was years ago
I left it all behind for my…
And what did he leave it all behind for?
(and a three day growth.)
This song was released in the late 70s/early 80s. It is not about Hendrix at all. Eerie coincidence, though.
[jetblast reasoning]
Obviously, Cold Chisel were in on the hit. THERE CAN BE NO OTHER EXPLANATION for all the references to things related to Hendrix! I think we ought to examine Jimmy Barnes’s background. He is Scottish by birth - this implies links with British Intelligence - IT CAN BE NO COINCIDENCE that James Bond (as played by Sean Connery) was Scottish. And Jimmy Barnes’s initials are the same as James Bond’s!
And they are Australian! IT CAN BE NO COINCIDENCE that it was Australian authorities who were behind the discrediting of Dr Bannister! Now we have some good evidence as to exactly who it was who did that, and why!
Blather, blather, blather…
Why are the British and Australian governments still allowing Cold Chisel songs to be played? They MUST be called to account! No more hiding behind legal obfuscation! I demand a Royal Commission! Anyone who opposes that is clearly on the side of murderers, now that the OBVIOUS evidence is laid out!
[/jetblast reasoning]
I am proud of my very first attempt at inventing a conspiracy theory.
I await your inevitable confirmation that I am indeed a person of great perspicacity to see it all in its grandeur. There couldn’t possibly be any criticism due to come my way, because the evidence is so watertight.
I give you all permission to subscribe to my newsletter. 
I consider this important discovery. I found it on Crosstown Torrents. It is in the Buzzy Linhart Interview thread on Torrents.
This is vitally important and shows the state of mind the only witness to Hendrix's death was in at the time of his death. It is a clip from Henderson's *'Scuse me While I Kiss The Sky* again.
I have to add that as much as I seriously disagree with some of the entries being waged against this topic that I appreciate Straight Dope's hosting it.
Also critically important. I confess offering less than an adequately informed case because this wasn’t included. From the Buzzy Linhart interview. (Linhart speaking):
How disappointing.
From the beautiful complexities of the MI5-mob-thug-insurance-scam-message-in-the-dew-fabricating-hysterical-girlfriend-Eric Burdon-at-dawn-18-inch tube-fountains-o’-wine-gushing-from-the-windpipe-barbiturate-polluting-noble gas fart-exploding-3.9-mg-percent-tons-o’ vomit-undeniable forensic theory, we descend to “woman scorned”.
You can’t get much mileage out of that.
If Monika was so pissed off at Jimi having younger women around and decided to kill him, what becomes of the geysers of wine theory? Wouldn’t she be a lot more likely to do a Claudine Longet and shoot him?
*"Another little-known piece of the puzzle that took years to surface concerned three people who encountered Jimi and Dannemann as they drove in traffic on the afternoon of September 17
[/quote]
Where else would you drive?
[quote]
One of the young women was Anne Day, a redheaded Canadian folksinger of nineteen who was staying there with Phillip; the other one was Penny Ravenhill, who was sixteen. They were, according to Harvey, “very attractive in a natural kind of way, they were both wearing tight blue jeans without any makeup or adornment at all.”*
Gotta love that natural beauty. Though Monika seems to have had an abundance of natural charm herself.
Say, instead of this pointless speculation about Hendrix’s death, can we move on to the real mystery - whatever happened to Hendrix’s black Stratocaster? I demand we reopen the (guitar) case.
How can you possibly think that the God-knows-how-many-hand hearsay babbling of pathetic people is critically important to anyone or anything?
And I’ll ask this again: how can you think your ridiculous beliefs are worthy of an official investigation if you can’t even persuade a single person on a message board to come over to your way of thinking?
Within limits, it is sometimes possible to present alternative theories. Thus, if A and B are known to have been with the deceased when he died in circumstances that obviously lead to the conclusion of murder, one can sometimes say A killed him in combination with B, B killed him in combination with A or both killed him. But there are strict limits to this.
But here, you start with the idea that Hendrix was murdered, and have so many mutually inconsistent theories that the position is absurd. Was it Jeffrey who killed him because of some CIA connection? The mob? Jeffrey because of some theft? Danneman because of jealously? Remember the inconsistency - theory X cancels out theory Y and so on.
The fact that you have so many disparate possibilities is an overwhelming demonstration that you have no coherent case at all. The more possibilities that are left open, the less cogent your case is, not more.
This is turning into that Onion story: ‘JFK shot 563 times simultaneously by the Mob, CIA, FBI, Cubans, Russians.’ Now Jimi Hendrix was killed by Michael Jeffery for money, and as a COINTELPRO-style operation, and by his jealous girlfriend.
I'm very sure that if we could somehow arrange to have Bannister in a courtroom situation with the equipment involved we would all very quickly see Bannister to be credible and the amount of wine to quickly establish itself well-above any reasonable amount of wine that would possibly fit the official Inquest's determination of the cause of death. Smart people who are reading this would see the true facts we would establish by doing this and how they cut right through Marley's dubious denials and show his input to be what it is. In fact Marley's laughable denials of the obvious only serve to strengthen my case in their attempts to cheat reality. There's no doubt many suction tubes plus wine that continued to 'gush' out after those tubes were evacuated can only point towards an unaccountable amount of wine. Marley exposes himself as dwelling in the realm of non-reality because he makes the accusation above that no tube Bannister could possibly use would be adequate to the job. And that's just silly, as are Marley's self-referenced protests. He suggests that the often-done procedure of windpipe clearing that those tubes are designed for is something no equipment is adequate for and no judgments can be made over - which is absurd in itself. Again, Bannister on a stand vs Marley would quickly clear-up this nonsense. Marley deals in the absurd and leaves himself open to the question of "what, then, do they use to clear fluids from the windpipe? Never does Marley stop for one moment to think that the reason Bannister is commenting is because there was so much wine that he had trouble clearing it. I believe most intelligent people would see Marley's ridiculous denials to be what they are. He suggests hospital equipment would be unable to clear a windpipe in less time than hours. He offers that without shrugging at the obvious stupidity of it on its face. Hence we have the value of Marley's input.
From my readings there are 4 bottles of wine present at the death scene. Two uncorked bottles taken from the party by Hendrix and two bottles at the flat brought there by Dannemann.I’d pay good money to see this. Kind of a Dope Inquest of the Absurd.
Noel Prosequi could be Lord High Prosecutor, I’d volunteer as the Dubious Expert Witness testifying about tube and windpipe capacity and Crotalus would report the proceedings for TruTV while Jetblast anchored coverage for www.whale.to.
Dynamite ratings, I tells ya.
I wonder why none of the smart people are posting. And why you won’t provide cites for all the points I mentioned upthread. They’re waiting, you know.
Or a ludicrous scenario that never happened.
Have you ever seen one othese devices used, Jetblast? Because I have. Repeatedly. They are small and not very powerful because they are intended to suck out small things without damaging throat tissue. So I stand by what I said: it would be ridiculous for a physician to try to suction out tube after tube of wine. Maybe you’re picturing something enormous like the breathing tube that gets attached to a respirator, but those don’t suck air out of the throat. That would be like shoving a vacuum cleaner into someone’s mouth. The tubes actually look like this. I’m sure there is some variety in size, but I believe you already posted that a tracheostomy was performed on Hendrix, so a device very similar to this would have been used. See how thin it is? Do you see why this would be a problem?
That’s aside from your awful failure in anatomy, which is frankly a bigger problem than the size of the suction tube.
Oh - hey! I was off in MPSIMS, in another thread since my last post back on page 2 of this thread…so, did I miss anything?
::d & r::
