Nope. This is now out of the realm of the eccentric and into the realm of the delusional.
You have nothing but rotten arguments that were becoming repetitious and boring.
Arguments that attribute invented “concessions” to people who obviously have conceded no such thing are not arguments. They are proof that your head ain’t workin’ right.
This is an interesting discussion. But I have to say that some of the posts here remind me very uncomfortably of the bizarre theories woven by my woefully unmedicated, paranoid schizophrenic cousin. Who is of the firm belief that her real father is one of our other cousins… who, by the way, is actually younger than she is. She avers that this fact is being hidden from her in a conspiracy of silence led by her mother, uncle, and my sister, who she believes was brainwashed to murder our mother to keep the secret.
On a lighter note, over the years she’s also believed that Eric Carmen sent her coded messages on his album covers, and that the identity of the real author of Rocky Horror is being kept from the media / masses. (Why? I have no idea.)
Perhaps needless to say, the posts that remind me of these bizarre theories do not belong to Noel Prosequi, Marley23 or Jackmannii
Sorry, Jetblast. When a theory requires more and more stretching of logic, is unsupported by any objective expert, and relies largely on the 30-year-old vague (“lots of bottles”) recollections of a doctor whose credibility was in question even when he was practicing … it’s just not believable. (And this is coming from someone who every now and then sees some merit in the whole LIHOP thing, so it ain’t like I’m averse to considering largely disbelieved theories.)
My congratulations to the three folks (among some others) who’ve been fighting this weary battle, but I just don’t think you’re gonna get him to back down. He’s a True Believer. I can’t convince my cousin either, but at least she has the excuse of being mentally ill. I don’t think that’s the case here, at least I hope not.
Mama Cass was murdered by the Evil Ham Sandwich Of Doom.
I also heard that someone ripped a piece of Janis Joplin’s heart out, which is what killed her.
And don’t even get me started on Elvis, who isn’t dead at all.
~/~
Nice try at avoiding the main points here but it isn't working. Accusations of mental illness when corruption is exposed is something the Soviets did.
1st) You are avoiding the fact that the doctor wasn't the only one who witnessed the large amounts of wine and their effect. So, just like the majority of those challenging this you try the weak courtroom credibility device of character assassination of Bannister. That's pretty low. Unfortunately you would also have to assassinate the characters of the other resuscitation room & ambulance attendants. So your device doesn't work. In the end you've failed to show why we shouldn't bring all those other witnesses together to disprove this low attempt to discredit Bannister. I assure you if we sat Bannister down next to these faceless internet critics we would quickly find who has credibility and who doesn't.
2nd) No matter how many times you mention that Bannister's first recollections were **15** years after the event people will still come in and mention 30-40 years. If these people were in a court room they would quickly be defeated by the very same legal tactics they apply themselves.
3rd) Unless you can construct answer that acknowledges that the large amount of wine seen spilled on the bed, clothes, and hair at the flat corroborates Bannister, and therefore his credibility, you are offering something that hasn't met the requirements of valid, honest argument. Also you try to get away with ignoring - just flat-out ignoring - the fact Dannemann claimed she used wine to wash vomit off Hendrix's face. Nor do you give any intelligent recognition to the fact that the wine inside Hendrix had penetrated deeply, so it couldn't be the same wine used to wash Hendrix's face. Dannemann is lying. You're comfortable with that. I'm not. Marley says "she panicked". But he knows he would never accept that crazy answer from someone if he was involved. Sure, "she panicked" sounds like a reasonable answer to a grown adult pouring wine on the face of a dying choking person. Please, at least apply some standard of sanity to your denials.
4th) This is the most important point: If you follow the stern legal directives of our genuine and honest (weary) legal experts in this thread you have to throw out the original verdict as determined by the Inquest. It has been proven to be based on lies. I asked anyone to please explain to me why a false verdict should be upheld? Not one single person bothered to answer. That’s all you need to know. Unless you can answer that question you have lost the debate. There’s no getting around that and shameful ad hominem attacks won’t change it. Unless you can answer that question you lose. You forfeit the debate. That’s how reality works. Smart people will see that was the point where Prosequi conceded.
Answer the point.
You keep waving this around like it makes sense. So you’re unhappy with a logical and physiologically plausible mechanism of death, because some witnesses changed or altered stories (purportedly - you’ve offered no proof of this claim). Your solution is to propose a multiplicity of bizarre explanations that rely on the recovered memories of the same unreliable cast of characters, some of whom are now dead and incapable of bringing forth truth even if their drug-addled brains were capable of it. Sorry, no sale.
Is being hoist on your own petard a mite uncomfortable?
Already, have. Many times. Just not in the way that conforms with your eccentric understanding of how these things work.
But let’s pretend you’re right.
Let’s pretend that I refuse to answer the point. You say it follows from that that I forfeit, and that I therefore lose.
So what does winning look like in jetblastworld? Has anyone reopened the investigation into Hendrix’s death now? Have any new witnesses come forth vindicating your position? Has any forensic scientist purported to support you? Have you been chaired in triumph through the streets to the cheers of all your “smart” supporters? Have you gained even one supporter, smart or otherwise?
The world is starting to look exactly as it would if you had lost.
What does that tell you?
Shine on, you crazy diamond.
I think I called it first 
Didn’t the original verdict say Hendrix suffocated due to aspirated vomit blocking his airway? And didn’t Bannister say he removed a plug of vomit from the airway of the corpse? Someone who was already dead from drowning in wine couldn’t vomit and then inhale the vomit, could he?
Try a little exercise in argument. Try to convince someone in this thread that the plug of vomit blocking his airway did not kill Hendrix. Try sticking to just that argument. Try to remember that the rhetorical burden is on you. And forget about what would happen in your fantasies if all of the witnesses could be assembled in a courtroom. That’s not going to happen. You are posting on a message board. Convince us.
You're misinterpreting the 'plug of vomit'. The correct forensic context that Bannister intended was that the vomit occurred *after* the wine and was therefore the secondary bodily reaction to being drowned. He said it is common for the body to react to being drowned by vomiting. He was specifically inferring that the plug of vomit he uncorked from Hendrix's windpipe was such a secondary event and that the primary event that caused the death was drowning in wine as indicated by the large amount of wine that gushed out after the plug was removed.
This is important because it shows the vomit more likely occurred because of drowning rather than barbiturate intoxication. I'm sure if we researched this further we would find that any wine consumed by Hendrix in the mad act of chugging wine after taking a large dose of Vesparax (which, technically, would qualify as an act of suicide) would result in a form of wine mixed with food materials from the stomach. If the wine Bannister witnessed as being present in Hendrix's lungs was fairly pure and uncontaminated it would be a red flag that that wine was inserted into the lungs independently of normal ingestion.
If we analyze how the body might act if a person was killed by being drowned in forced wine while incapacitated on barbiturates the lungs and stomach would be filled with wine killing the victim which would then be followed by an involuntary bodily response of vomiting. The death scene and body, as received, conform exactly to this scenario or criminal forensic. The plug of vomit blocking in a larger amount of uncontaminated wine seals it off as far as signs of murder.
What makes it even more obvious is the conflict established between there being visible wine on the bed and clothing, as well as hair, and wine witnessed at the hospital. You have two "gushing" events here that aren't possible from any choking-on-vomit-while-incapacitated scenario. While we have Dannemann describing a tiny drool of vomit running down Hendrix's chin that drew her attention the actual death scene witnessed by many had grotesque amounts of vomit covering Hendrix's face and upper body. This was a violent body reaction type event, not the fatal feeble choking on vomit scenario where Hendrix was too weak to even vomit. The kind of body reaction from drowning and not from OD'ing.
The reason Bannister's witnessing is key is because he has a second wine event separate from the one on the bed. We know Hendrix ejected wine forcefully in the bed because of the scene. Part of that wine was most likely spilled while murdering him. Challengers might argue that Hendrix first vomited wine, swallowed it into his lungs, and then had a secondary explosive vomiting after he drowned on that wine. There's only one problem with that. If he did die that way the second explosive death vomiting would have ejected the wine and plug of vomit. At the very least we are far from the feeble lack of gag reflex we are being told.
But what really cinches this is going to Monika Dannemann's account of all this and seeing how it lines up. She said she went out for cigarettes and when she returned she saw a drool of vomit on Hendrix's chin. The scene the ambulance attendants witnessed was one of horrific vomiting and splattered wine. Furthermore, Dannemann claimed she was sleeping next to Hendrix this whole time. The fact her story completely contradicts the witnessed scene should say enough.
If we try to explain Dannemann's contradictions by saying she lied in order to make a cover story for her cleaning the flat of drugs then we have to ask why would she try to get away with such an obvious lie? Why couldn't she have just said when she came back from the trip for the cigarettes she found Hendrix in that horrible state? No, it's obvious more than just the drug cleaning is being covered-up by her story. We simply can't believe that when Dannemann woke-up fresh after one of those Vesparax, and left the flat, that our 9 Vesparax-dosed Hendrix got up and decided to chug a large amount of wine. It simply isn't believable. The natural conclusion is Dannemann had to make this crazy timeframe-defying story because she was trying to cover something that happened closer to the medically-determined time of death.
If we go back we can find exactly when Hendrix ate that rice. Since medical forensics tells us rice will not remain undigested for more than 4 hours after being eaten we can narrow down a time of death. Some are saying 4am. This is backed by Bannister and others' witnessing that Hendrix had been dead for several hours before he arrived at hospital. Dannemann and others said she picked Hendrix up at the party sometime around 3am. If our medical estimation of the time of death at 4am is accurate we are down to this one hour timeframe to find out what really happened.
Sadly, we have to assume Burdon and the others cleaned the flat in the presence of what they understood was Hendrix's dead body. This is, evidently, the cause of the lapse in truth in the official account - but it isn't forensically adequate as far as cause of death.
Dannemann is clearly within the normally-described definition of perjury. Why this wasn't investigated this way in the first place is beyond belief. At the very minimum we have proven incompetence by the British authorities - if not the suggestion of cover-up.You type too much.
Tell us, briefly, and using facts if you know any, why the initial verdict was wrong.
And so collapses another towering Babel of conjecture.
Have we adequately considered the possibility that Hendrix drowned himself in wine? He foreshadows this in the lyrics to “Manic Depression”:
Well, I think I’ll go turn myself off,
And go on down
All the way down
Really ain’t no use in me hanging around
In your kinda scene
This is both spooky and conclusive, and defying such a conclusion only strengthens it.
Man, this thread has been a frustrating mess.
WTF? If you drown by having litres of wine poured into your windpipe, I guarantee some will also enter the stomach. And, since we’re talking LITRES, there will be LOTS of wine in the stomach. So, if you vomit as a result of dieing from drowning by wine, your vomit will not be able to form a “plug” - it will be liquid. Red wine liquid. Uncorkforming red wine liquid.
I think Marley23 was in on it. Marley23, where were you on the night on September 18th, 1970?
Good grief. :rolleyes:
But your argument cuts both ways. I agree that the wine would spill over into the stomach. As a matter of fact that's exactly what Dr Bannister said he witnessed. So your logic once again confirms what our derided doctor claimed. And if you look at what you write you are basically saying the wine was poured into the lungs - which is murder. Step back a moment and read what you wrote.
What you are basically saying is the lack of any mixing of vomit and wine shows the wine was a separate event. Thank you, we are both saying the same thing.
The problem with what you contend is that your mixed slurry of wine and stomach contents would have also gone into the lungs. Bannister said wine was issuing from the stomach and lungs - not a slurry mix. The fact there was solid vomit enough to emerge and block the windpipe indicates more of a separation of wine and vomit where the wine went in separately, and last, and came out separately, and first. The last material to emerge from the stomach and lodge in the windpipe was solid vomit from deeper in the stomach pushed out by an extreme bodily reaction to death. This is seen by the purer wine seen in the clothes, bed, and hair surrounding Hendrix as well as the piles of vomit closer to his mouth. We are clearly talking a forensic separation of the two materials that indicates they were not in the stomach long enough to mix by digestive process into the slurry you speak of. This is reinforced by the incongruous blood alcohol level. Your observations are very keen and pertinent. In fact your curiousness over them, once again, only accentuates the evidence for murder. Does anyone else notice that this pattern continues to show up time after time against these challenges?
You see, Karl, your very disagreement supports Jetblast’s contentions!
This may seem bizarre and incomprehensible to you, but it just means that you have failed to appreciate the inevitableness of 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-extreme body reaction-evacuation process-3.9-mg-percent-plug-o’ vomit-undeniable forensic theory, which Jetblast has so eloquently explicated.
You must go back and read the last six pages, so that the crosstown torrents of logic can drown your doubts in a slurry of recovered memories.
Then we can all sit around and toast each other with red wine, which due to its resveratrol content means that this thread will live forever.
To wit:
Monika Dannemann has been proven to be a liar by multiple credible witnesses like the constable called to the scene for the very reason that Dannemann was not there, unlike she claimed. The very fact that a constable was called proves she wasn't there because law required the attendants to summon the police if there was no one present at a death scene.
Monika Dannemann told the official Inquest, at which the official cause of death was determined, that she was at the flat and met the ambulance when they arrived. She said she witnessed their handling and removal of Hendrix to the ambulance in which she then accompanied them to the hospital.
Both the constable and attendants said there was no one in sight at the flat and that Hendrix was taken to hospital alone.
Dannemann's story was that she woke up around 9am and found Hendrix fine and breathing and that she then stepped-out for cigarettes (Researchers say there was no nearby store). When she returned she said she noticed a drool of vomit on Hendrix's chin and that he wasn't breathing or responding.
The ambulance attendants said that Hendrix's head, shoulders, and pillow were covered with dense vomit and wine.
Dannemann said Hendrix was alive when the ambulance men took him.
The ambulance men said Hendrix was dead but they had to treat it like a potential recovery.
Eric Burdon admitted to a Hendrix author that they cleaned the flat of drugs before they called the ambulance (so they must have known Hendrix was dead because it defies belief they would clean the flat next to a choking and dying Hendrix).
So we have more than enough proven evidence that the official verdict was based on proven lies which now makes that verdict invalid.
I'd also like to add that the easily-disproven story could just as easily been disproven back then with some simple investigation and the fact no such effort was made is suspicious.You know, I promised myself that I wouldn’t get involved in this, but your statement (below) demands that I respond.
Hey, I don’t need to read what I wrote, because I wrote what I wrote. And, I wrote:
Did you miss the “If” as in “If you drown . . . by . . . wine . . .”? How does me saying “If” he was drowned by wine, prove that he was drowned by wine? You can’t be serious.
No. No-one does. The “pattern” is entirely in your own head. You cannot sanely take the words of someone whose views are directly opposite yours, and somehow imagine that they magically transform into support for your proposition.
The fact that you seem to be able to convince yourself that you can do it, and indeed to imagine you see it happening “time after time”, indicates that you are fixating on an overvalued idea and are beyond the reach of rational discourse.
You laugh (you LAUGH!) about this, but there are people convinced that Mama Cass and many other pop/rock stars were done away with by the government, just like Jimi Hendrix. Here’s a list of deceased performers who’ve been linked to the Conspiracy:
John Lennon Paul Kossoff John Bonham
Elvis Presley Jim Reeves Steve Parson
Buddy Holly Berry Oakley Bob Marley
Otis Redding Tim Buckley Sal Mineo
Brian Jones Jim Croce Harry Chapin
Jimi Hendrix Richard Earina Brian Epstein, Beatles manager
Janis Joplin Lenny Bruce
Jim Morrison Larry Williams Michael Jeffery, Jimi Hendrix manager
Duane Allman Bon Scott, AC/DC
Mama Cass Elliot Richie Valens Rod McKernan, “Pig Pen” of the Grateful Dead
Gram Parsons J. P. Richardson
Phil Oakes Ronnie Van Zandt
Marc Bolan Steve Gains Donald Rex Jackson, Grateful Dead mgr.
Keith Moon Sid Vicious
The theory is that all of the above were too effective at communicating resistance to the Powers That Be, so they had to be eliminated. Never mind that for quite a few on the list, premature death was an excellent career move, resulting in their music attaining (or maintaining) a high level of popularity.
The conspiracy theory writer whose site is linked to above, has a new piece out about Lady Gaga and the Illuminati. It’s must reading.
Your excizing of the operative points in order to accentuate an out of context snip says all we need to know about you. Honest people can see you conceded the debate when it came to the point of being forced to answer when your own methods are turned against yourself.
You dodged the point about the government's case being invalid. You don't practice what you preach.