You are trying to put yourself above Bannister who was there and did the procedure. Anyone could see your whole effort here is a rather cheesy attempt to minimize the wine Bannister witnessed. You are obviously doing that because you know Bannister witnessed something forensically significant and you need to discount it. This all comes back to putting internet doubter Marley next to Doctor Bannister and posing his opportunistic doubts to the doctor and seeing what his responses would be. The reason I don't shy from these false challenges is because I know Bannister would shred Marley quickly and show him to be the doubt-offering obstructionist he is. I suggest Marley is so bold because he knows the corruption of the system will keep his stuff from ever being brought under scrutiny. These doubters are only accenting the need to analyze the information in a credible legal venue - while, it must be pointed out, calling for its exclusion from such at the same time.
We are right back to the same reason why your attempt would fail. There were other witnesses in the resuscitation room that could have corroborated what Bannister said. Plus Bannister said they rolled Hendrix on his side to clear his throat. The amount of wine was therefore an estimation by the doctor that wasn't as dependent on your suction tube canard as much as you would like. We can ask the doctor directly how much wine he withdrew and how, and how he used that to make his determination. The point is still how much overall wine in relation to the blood alcohol level. The more wine, and less blood alcohol, the more the death was quick and caused by drowning.
The truth here is your side would never accept the arguments you are making and that only serves to both strengthen my case and weaken yours. The correct argument here is still the overall witnessed amounts of wine as seen by numerous witnesses in many places. I know you are trying to restrict the issue to the suction tube and character defamation of Bannister however we can see it involves much more than that. If you go back and look at the things you didn't respond to they speak more.
You can't ignore the fact that there's some seriously incriminating statements and inconsistencies coming from Dannemann. She admitted pouring wine on Hendrix for which she should have been asked to elaborate. If Hendrix had that much wine in him and Dannemann admitted some kind of vague involvement with applying wine to Hendrix she should have been asked to explain. She also should have been asked to give her estimation on how much wine Hendrix had in him in relation to what happened that night. Or when she thought Hendrix could have drank that wine. Don't forget she was already caught lying over this. This stuff is fairly obvious and basic, yet it never happened. Your ignoring that Dannemann decided to commit suicide just before being forced to court to account for these things destroys your credibility. And we have to ask ourselves why, if Hendrix died innocently as claimed at the Inquest, did Dannemann then admit to a Dutch radio host that the mafia was somehow involved with his death? Why would she do that? If Hendrix had indeed died accidentally why would Dannemann expose herself to real further extensive scrutiny by directly contradicting that and claiming foul play was involved? And how does that line up with the already-proven falsehoods in Dannemann's story? All things are clearly pointing towards intrigue here yet you seem confident of the opposite.
The overall criminal forensic pattern certainly doesn't bottleneck at or depend on the suction tube. We still have an amount wine that isn't accounted for by the official story and one that Bannister was forced to remark over no matter why. Bannister can still be asked about that tube. He can also be asked to respond to this overall argument or the wine/blood level ratio. Your side fights against it.Your arguments don’t get any better with mere repetition.
I vote invoking Godwin.
Hitler did it.
Can we stop now? Nothing new is going to come from the OP.
Wine and cheese go together.
And your argument is crackers.
There’ve been “new” revelations at least every other post from Jetblast. If you mean “Nothing of value is going to come from the OP”, I concur.
He could not have performed it the way he described it. If he said Hendrix’s blood was green, would you believe that? I mean, he was there and I wasn’t…
I believe Bannister is incorrectly describing something that happened 40 years ago. What he’s said is implausible and what you are making out of it is even less plausible.
Even if the case is reopened (and it won’t be because all of your theories are ridiculous), I’m not concerned about being put on the stand.
You quoted him as saying he removed several tubes’ worth and the wine kept gushing out. That’s the issue.
I haven’t ignored her inconsistencies. I acknowledged them pages ago, and I have a better explanation than you do: she was panicked at the time of his death and probably on drugs. That’s a lot more plausible than your theory of intelligence operation/cooperating with Jeffery/jealous rage.
If you believe it’s significant that she killed herself at that time, it’s up to you to prove the relevance.
No, it does not. Fortunately I’ve raised a lot of other objections to your stories and so have other posters.
I think they have ways to do that. They have ways of showing valid analogies to pig or monkey experiments. I think you know that. We are still at the place of finding out the Vesparax Lethal Dose in relation to Hendrix's situation, his tolerance (which they say was high), and the other drugs and alcohol that were in him at the time. If we can establish there was still a reasonable time involved before Hendrix would expire just from the Vesparax alone - or not expire at all, we can then use that to determine what other factors caused his death and how.
As I said before the most important thing to establish from his 3.9mg Quinalbarbitone level is that it could not have reached that level before a certain absorption period. You argue absorption rates wildly vary. I challenge that, I don't think they do. Perhaps the full stomach might mitigate absorption somewhat but I'm sure the absorption rate is fairly predictable for blood intake of the barbiturate by ingestion. So we could reasonably discount the pills shoved down Hendrix's throat - unless - this was done by force with a waiting period in between. But if that is true than Wright's story that wine followed the pills is false. He needs to be brought in for further questioning.
Anyway, if Devon Wilson's account is true then we could reasonably assume Hendrix followed his doctor's advice and took the pills himself. Since he allegedly told the doctor they were Tuinols that could explain why he took so many.
We are really at the point here where we need an expert opinion to narrow down the 3.9mg blood percent barbiturate level and what condition Hendrix would be in. If we establish that the 3.9mg level is an incapacitating amount under any condition we can then start to evaluate the wine and its presence in relation to the manner of death. We can observe Dannemann's numerous changing stories and admissions of applying wine to Hendrix and see how they reasonably relate to the cause of death. We can see if it is reasonable to suggest that after Hendrix was passed-out on this dose if he could have administered wine into himself to such a degree. And we can see if Dannemann's stories about Hendrix sleeping next to her this whole time make any sense or are the self-incriminating lies they are. I believe this form of inquiry would reasonably establish that Hendrix had too much Vesparax in him to administer the amounts of wine witnessed and therefore had that wine forced into him by someone else.
Dannemann's story is key to assuming foul play because if we look at it we can see that if Hendrix died accidentally, as she claimed, she would have no reason to invent the crazy falsehoods she did. We have a claimed time of death from Dannemann that is drastically different than that determined by the doctors. We also have a second key witness in Burdon who admits an earlier time of death. Since this forensic and admitted time of death pushes the event into a time period where Dannemann would have had to experience more, and been involved with more, than she admitted we can assume her deceptions were invented as a means of hiding her true involvement. If indeed her deceptions were merely invented to hide the fact they had cleaned up the flat then there would be no need to invent the story that was counter to the way it happened. She could have just told of the profuse vomit and wine, instead she chose to tell a story minimizing both the vomit and wine. This clearly conforms to someone who felt guilt over the vomit and wine and what they indicated. Her claim that she went out for cigarettes is also an obvious means by which to get her away from something she would have witnessed. Since we know Dannemann has told a mostly false account we can reasonably assume her cigarette trip story is false also. So why did she tell it? Why did she feel a need to place herself away from Hendrix's death scene? And with the true description of the scene as seen by the ambulance men why did Dannemann feel such a strong need to minimize it? Why couldn't she have just told of the profuse vomiting event? Why did she need to hide it? If it was just because of the drug cleaning of the flat are we then being asked to believe that Dannemann didn't try to assist Hendrix after waking-up and finding him in such an extreme condition? Are we being asked to believe the preposterous tale that she tried to help Hendrix by washing 'sick' off of him with wine? That an adult would see a man dying in such a desperate condition and respond by pouring wine on his face? Yet this is what we are being asked to believe, and watch people wonder about, without drawing the obvious conclusions.
No, the answer to all this is to address what the doubters have been avoiding here. That is, to get a good legal force together and sue the British Government and Scotland Yard on the legal grounds of a false Inquest based on provable lies. Since they refuse to do the honorable thing and admit the failure of their own case they should be forced to do so by their own rules. The simple legal fact here, that these false protestors assert themselves, is you can't have a sound case built on unsound evidence. And since it is long proven that the Inquest itself was based on such unsound evidence therefore it is broken and invalid and therefore must yield to calls for its re-opening. The British Government cannot take the position that it can only entertain sound compelling evidence when it has not met those requirements itself. That is a simple contravention of law from which no sound proposals of law can emanate. And therefore it behooves them to respond as they must as active agents of law and legal process and re-open the case. The only other alternative is to force known injustice and to maintain wrongful justice on that which is plain and can only stand to further the offense. And should such broken justice be allowed to lie then where can justice ever stand again.Right! It’s as plain as the nose on your shoulder.
If Bannister worked on Hendrix for an hour, as claimed, then it is highly plausible despite your denials of it. We have your description of the evacuation possibilities. If you don't mind I would prefer the doctor's and his staff's.
Bannister's first public recollections were in 1985, 15 years after Hendrix's demise.
Bannister's version is backed by the ambulance attendants and the wine they witnessed at the scene. Your proposal is to ignore that and focus on specious accusations against Bannister.
Bannister's version is backed by Dannemann's bizarre (and uninvestigated) admission that she poured wine on Hendrix.
Dannemann kept a wine bottle from that night as witnessed by a later friend.
Of all the descriptions of the wine those used by the Inquest have all proven to be false. Those backing Bannister have all been corroborated by witnesses. Yet you choose to focus on denigrating Bannister while ignoring everything else. You then proceed to speak down as if you possessed the better position and dare call what has been proven true "implausible" in defense of already proven implausibilities. I'm sure if we interviewed Bannister and his cohorts on his evacuation process we would find it sound and reasonable.
Correct. And we need to find out how many and how much wine.
There's another quote from Bannister that is important. He specifically said that after he removed a plug of vomit from Hendrix's windpipe the wine gushed out. That means a significant amount of wine capable of gushing out and being determined to be "a large amount of wine" by a medical doctor had to exist in the lungs *before* the vomit, which is a forensic indication of being drowned in wine. I understand your need to attack Bannister because anything less would require admitting obvious evidence of murder.
And panicked again when she decided to take the ultimate route out of her court date I suppose? There's a point when unlimited excuse-making meets the obvious and I think we are well there. Forget the fact that everything points towards murder by wine (and a confession). Forget that murder comfortably fits in the dark scene Dannemann had to lie to get around. Anything but that.
You're just in outright denial that most courts would take this kind of thing as a confession. Friends of Dannemann said she was morally averse to suicide so that leaves open some very damning possibilities that no court would ignore were the situation reversed. Possibilities that only serve to reinforce the suggestion.
And very weak ones at that.Then find out yourself. It’s your theory.
And he described it as several bottles’ worth. We’ve discussed at length how implausible that is. You’re now walking that back into ‘a large amount as determined by a doctor.’ He was more specific and said something ridiculous, which impeaches his credibility.
Or of aspirating it due to intake of barbiturates and alcohol. None of the doctors attested to any sign of your expert assault, did they?
Again, you’re declining to prove this.
Absolutely nothing points to that. It’s a positively stupid theory that you have only managed to support with a roadie hawking a book and a doctor who lost his license for fraud, and a series of shifting conspiracy theories that contradict each other at every turn.
She wasn’t charged with anything, so there was nothing for her to confess to.
My “nothing new” comment was partly directed to the post immediately prior to it which was just repetitive argument by assertion about things long picked over upthread. I figured he’d talked himself out.
It was also partly directed to the idea of no new revelations of significance. He’s fired all the shots in his locker. The discovery of any more detail now is hardly likely to be case-breaking because we can expect he would have mentioned it before.
He continues to make new assertions, but without evidence to support them (his theories about suicide = legal confession, for example, is odd).
That is what I meant collectively by nothing new.
Oh, and … Third Reich!
In the name of the sainted Jimi, I invoke the spirit of Godwin to cleanse this thread, and heal the internets of its presence!
Hmm, so a confused drug-addled groupie pours 4 bottles of wine into Hendrix in order to drown him, spills a bunch of it in his hair, and doesn’t drench herself in the process?
C’mon, she would’ve been soaked in the stuff too. The ambulance attendants would have been able to wring her out and party all night on the excess wine. Where are the references to “wine-soaked floozie” in contemporary accounts? If Bannister had tried to resuscitate her the wine should have gushed out of her orifices too, but does he mention this? No. And he’s not the type of guy to forget anything.
Sorry, but that’s definitively the final nail in the coffin for the MI5-mob-thug-insurance-scam-message-in-the-dew-fabricating-hysterical-wine-soaked groupie girlfriend-Eric Burdon-at-dawn-Third Reich-18-inch tube-fountains-o’-wine-gushing-from-the-windpipe-literary roadie-barbiturate-polluting-noble gas fart-exploding-evacuation process-3.9-mg-percent-tons-o’ vomit-undeniable forensic theory.
Requiescat in pace.
Hey, but wait, you've spent many posts scoffing at what ridiculousness any looking into this is. You've slipped here. You've indirectly conceded there's something to possibly look into here. You're tacitly admitting my logic forced you to admit there's something to look for. Since it isn't reasonable to place such a burden on an individual that's why we've developed court and legal systems. The answer is this is best done in a public venue where we could interview Bannister and find out. And since there seems to be a possible conflict of interest here then there needs to be an organizing and funding of a private investigation.
I can see what you are doing. You're trying to force the argument into the exact, precise confines of "several bottles worth". To me I think what Bannister is doing is saying the accumulative result of what he witnessed was from several bottles worth of wine being forced into Hendrix - a significant portion of which ended up in Hendrix's stomach and lungs. Surely your semantic contrivance doesn't overturn all we know. And as long as you don't hold the same contempt for Dannemann's lies, that the official Inquest is based on, you stand on jellied ground. By all means, let's talk to Bannister and find out exactly what he meant.
Your arguments are evasive and seek to avoid the obvious fact that what is "implausible" here is that two glasses of wine would create this remarked-over amount of wine as witnessed by Dr Bannister. Your arguments show you seek to get around that, but you haven't, and that only proves its merit. The murder scene very clearly shows the signs of forced wine and its ensuing result and you know it. I think anyone reading this thread can see that.
Again, your input attempts a direct run right through the middle of all the forensic and circumstantial evidence we've been discussing. I noticed the same argument made in *Crosstown Torrents*. The poster "stplsd" claimed the autopsy doctor made an accurate assessment and entered it in the record while trashing Bannister. But that poster failed to realize that the autopsy doctor got all his information from the attending doctor, Dr Bannister. So while trying to praise the autopsy doctor that poster didn't realize he was praising Bannister, albeit indirectly. I think you get the point.
Your argument above just ignores all of the forensic evidence of the wine being in the lungs in a manner indicating foul play. The reason the doctors didn't detect it is because they assumed it was a drug overdose and choking on vomit - within which the symptoms of murder were concealed. A drug-taking, counter-culture rock star is a personality for which accidental drug OD can be assumed and was.
Dannemann's suicide could be because this whole thing was coming to a head and she couldn't take it. It could have been a coincidence, but if we look at the whole background, her lies, and what they suggested, it has to be suspicious at minimum if not condemning. You're simply not being honest about the fact that -legally- if Dannemann was under prosecution by the British Government that her suicide would be formally taken as a confession of guilt. Since Dannemann was being dragged-in on a libel contest where she was going to be forced to finally explain her stories in court we can at least assume it had some connection, whether strictly proven or not. I'm not sure what the legal status was of admitting she lied to the Inquest. I assume it had serious consequences because lying to an Inquest in the matter of death has to be a serious crime. I don't know what the legal repercussions would have been. I'd like to find out. I'm sure her lawyers would have tried to weasel around it like you guys are doing. Her boyfriend said Dannemann didn't believe in the concept of suicide. Funny, that's the same thing they said about Hendrix.
You have to be kept honest. Dannemann said Hendrix had a couple of glasses of wine with a light meal she prepared for him. One of the road crew guys, Terry Slater, commented that the flat at the Samarkand had no food preparation facilities - nothing. Your entries are just flat-out ignoring the specific testimony we have from the two ambulance attendants that there was wine soaking the area in which Hendrix lay. There was wine soaking his clothes and hair as well. Then we have the remaining wine, commented upon by a trained medical doctor as being "a large amount of wine," inside the body. This is much more than two glasses of wine. The fact you deliberately ignore that Dannemann admitted the crazy act of washing 'sick' off Hendrix with wine means you aren't arguing this according to the known facts. We are very clearly well into the area of credible information to establish the original Inquest was based on false information and is therefore not valid. And I think your attempts to deflect this are very weak and self-exposing and only serve to show you can't really refute what all this points towards. You can't get around the fact there's a fatal conflict between Dannemann's need to explain the washing with wine and how that conflicts with a large amount of wine penetrating the body. I don't need to spell out that Dannemann's wine washing story doesn't match the wine deep into the body. Or that her need to explain it is therefore necessarily incriminating. Or that your avoiding of this is also exposing.
The real criminal forensic you avoid so desperately here is that we have persons who witnessed the event telling us Dannemann had purchased one bottle of white wine and one bottle of red wine and brought them to the flat that evening. This is from testimony. Next, we have people who attended the mysterious party telling us Hendrix took two opened bottles of red wine with him from the party in the anticipation of perhaps going to another party and bringing some wine. If I am interpreting this information correctly, Hendrix was detoured from any other destination and driven by Dannemann back to the Samarkand. So we now have two full bottles and two partially-filled bottles allegedly arriving back at the flat. It doesn't take a genius to figure out that we could have asked Dannemann the status of those bottles at the death scene. But more importantly, we have several living witnesses, including Eric Burdon, who could tell us the witnessed status of those bottles.
No, just the opposite of what Marley contends here - which is why this case is so crazy - because there's some screaming evidence that lay right out in the open here - there's a lot of cogent and sound circumstantial evidence to be revealed and discussed here that could lead to a better understanding of what happened that night. I think most people could see there's something crazy here that the cleaning of the flat doesn't quite cover. And Dannemann's story that Hendrix only had two glasses of wine (or was it one?) just doesn't wash. It's more than beyond a doubt here that there's a provable amount of excess wine that hasn't been accounted for and there's no reasonable explanation for it.
You need to keep up with the facts here. She actually was charged with criminal libel according to Britain's ambiguous libel laws. Noel Redding wrote a book accusing Dannemann of leaving Hendrix to die when she stepped-out for cigarettes. This then evolved into a fight between Dannemann and Kathy Etchingham in books and articles. Etchingham won a libel decision against Dannemann that Dannemann violated by continuing to call Etchingham a liar in her new book. Dannemann was being forced back into court to answer for her violation of the court order when she died.
You're just ignoring the fact that Dannemann's story given to the 1970 Inquest has been proven to be lies. So, contrary to most of the foolish denials you make over and over here, anyone with any sense of the topic would know she had very much to confess. I can't see your weak denials as doing anything other than strengthening and bolstering my case. Thank you.:rolleyes:
You asserted “we need to find out how many (suction tubes) and how much wine.” I said you should do that if it’s so important. That’s not an admission of anything. There’s nothing for me to concede because I think your theory is laughably implausible crap.
At this point you’re basically accusing everyone who disagrees with you (which is everyone who has posted in this thread) of being in on a coveup. This proves you don’t have anything to offer.
Actually, we already knew that. This merely confirms it.
I think most people could see Prosequi has been thoroughly reduced to this input-less point by my arguments. That was obvious from his first entry on. He can only engage this topic by establishing a secondary means by which to remove all relevant discussion and hang the debate up in a legal argument framework where he can sanitize it of any pertinent content or discussion of it. In short he chooses Godwin over God, and I think we know who will win that one in the end.
*The unruffled feather of thy robe
amidst such whirlwinds of treachery
betrays the dead air of your argument*Who the heck are these “most people” you keep referring to? Because I don’t see any of them.
I accept your folding and concession of the points by being unable to answer them.
Thank you. I guess the answer to that would be the people who can see people fooling themselves that they aren't only capable of giving these one-line answers instead of being able to answer the argued points. There is a thing called integrity of arguments and methods here that I think it is due time to invoke. I especially like Prosequi and his absolute certainty that his sophist evasion tactics, that have left him so obviously unable to answer, and therefore conceded the points, is somehow a superior position and has somehow created a result he is happy with.
Sometimes people say more by what they don't say than do. Or what they avoid.
Unfortunately unless anyone can answer why the British Government should be allowed to stick to a verdict based on proven lies then there really is no other argument. So to answer your question the people to whom I refer are those who see that not one single challenger in here has ever bothered to answer or confront the fact that the British Government's own case has failed much more, and in a worse way, to meet all the same standards those same challengers apply to my case. So, really, it's time for YOU to be answering the questions here. It's YOUR turn. You passed. You lose.
That's how it works. (That's why Prosequi quit. He knows I'm right about that.)
The more you defy that the stronger you make my case.I’m not the only soul who’s accused of hit and run
Tire tracks all across your back
I can see you had your fun…
You’re just like crosstown traffic
So hard to get through to you
Crosstown traffic
I don’t need to run over you
Sorry, you don’t get to decide who wins or loses a debate. The people you’re trying to convince do. And, so far, I haven’t seen you convince a single person. In fact, the more you argue, the more crazy your argument sounds. It was kind of interesting to me, from page one, but the longer it went, the more outlandish and ridiculous the claims. Through six pages, your arguing has moved me from thinking “interesting, but probably not true, I’ll stay and listen” to “absolutely crackpot theory with more holes than a fishing net.” So that’s one observer’s opinion. While I can’t speak for others, to borrow your phrase, I think “most people” could see you’re desperately grasping at straws.
Your case couldn’t be any weaker. You are posting on a message board. Your job is to convince us. You have not convinced anyone. Why is that?