There is nothing you can point to to say the wine was in a “pure” state. It’s a meaningless description of the stomach contents. If someone is sleeping and gets reflux then it’s fluid that moves up the esophagus, not solid food. The sphincter muscle above the stomach acts as a gateway in this regard. It’s highly likely that this is what happened prior to vomiting and may have triggered it. Getting a lung full of fluid (wine in this case) is a tremendously unpleasant event. The idea of a 60’s era rock star consuming one or more bottle of wine is hardly a stretch.
You might consider dialing the attitude back a notch or two unless you want that explained to you slowly. There is nothing abnormal about someone in a sedated level of sleep dying from vomit induced asphyxiation. The doctor’s recollection 39 years later are being taken literally without any forensic evidence to back it up. He said copious amounts of fluid came out of the lungs and stomach yet he had no way of measuring how much came out of each organ. He also said there must have been a half bottle of wine in his hair :rolleyes:. What a complete load of estimating nonsense. I had a friend drink half a bottle of sweet vermouth as a kid and he painted his bedroom with it. It was everywhere.
One thing is for sure, either Wright is a bullshit liar trying to make money from a book nobody would normally read or he’s complicit in the cover-up of a murder.
No, the correct representation of where we are at is the autopsy information was correctly related by Henderson in his book and quoted by myself. The autopsy sheet is not available to the public as far as I know. I think we can safely say your argument tactic is disingenuous and an attempt to deny the already reasonably-established information through technical arguments that are not based on admitting to or discussing the true facts as they have been adequately shown.
Again, arguments trying to cut-off discussion by saying Bannister was struck-off or I failed to produce the autopsy sheet are not valid. We have more than enough to show and discuss both the relevant criminal and medical forensic evidence. I personally feel these claims are being used to dodge discussion of the obvious.
This is where you make it easy for me. Your entry is obviously your feelings as you sit by your keyboard, but the statement that people vomit when they drown came from the doctor as a medical fact. The fact you deny it, and try to use it as an arguing point places your arguments and their credibility in correct perspective. So while you speak as if you possess the authority in this debate the truth easily shows the opposite. I think we've disproven enough specious doubt already to still be entertaining this entry after entry.
We'll have to determine how much credibility your positioning yourself as having downtalking authority in this matter possesses considering you challenge the vomiting upon drowning, even though it comes from common medical knowledge.
Honestly, we spend way too much time proving the obvious and asking for way too much confirmation of commonly-understood things here. Myself, I think this is a debate tactic being used to avoid the obvious and discussion of the main points as they are presented. What is missing here is any acknowledgment or addressing of the abstract conclusions based on the yet-to-be-disproven facts I've presented. Some are trying to kill this discussion by trying to dwell on simple medical phenomena in ignorant doubt. But the sum result is my argued points remain standing while those challengers are satisfied they've defeated them - which I've easily shown here that they haven't.
This should be fairly obvious. And I'm pretty certain that if the tables were reversed the other side would be mocking that some internet poster's opinion should not be taken over that of a medical doctor. So far I haven't seen anyone show why we shouldn't trust Doctor Bannister's opinion about the wine? Certainly we must take his opinion over unknown internet posters who doubt even basic medical facts. Forget the fact that the Emergency Room assistants also witnessed the same thing.
I don't see the argument tactic of assassinating Astucia's character as being valid here. I also found three glaring mistakes in Astucia that could be used against him. The reason I brought his article was because he managed to collect and arrange the pertinent material from various sources. Your argument tactic is like saying the American government was guilty of false WMD claims so therefore we can just dismiss all technical arguments from America. As usual, we have yet to discuss the relevant material Astucia presents.
I can see an evasion tactic developing here by trying to establish Bannister's lack of credibility by saying he didn't have the competence to recognize a dead body when he saw one. But I consider that a bogus method. They don't call it a "Resuscitation Room" for nothing. Many people without vital signs have been saved before. So the assertion that a doctor should stand there and consider whether his medical reputation is on the line before trying to resuscitate a patient is absurd. We are spending way too much time dwelling on this kind of invalid doubt designed more as an evasion tactic than genuine argument. What is important here is what Bannister witnessed. So far we've avoided any kind of meaningful discussion of it.
Your arguments are very weak in my opinion.
Of course you don’t. If it weren’t for lunatics like him, there wouldn’t be anyone else on your side. In any case it’s not character assassination: my statements about his views are correct.
Are you kidding? He says Hendrix had been dead for hours. People who have been dead for hours, meaning their blood is not pumping and their brains are deprived of oxygen, cannot be resuscitated. Maybe if he’d been frozen in ice or something.
And his absurd, unreliable post hoc descriptions of what he witnessed.
To review Bannister’s credibility (based on accounts provided by your motley array of sources): Not recognizing (not to mention not smelling) a rotting corpse that’s turning black is potentially a hint that a person should consider an alternate career to doctoring. I would not care to be an ER patient in the hands of a doctor who alleges that fluid could not be cleared from the airways of a corpse because they kept refilling from the stomach (a statement that makes no anatomic sense). It’s beyond fishy that someone would claim to clear several bottles’ worth of fluid from a corpse’s innards using several applications of a narrow-bore tube that could handle only a minute fraction of the claimed volume. It has also been noted that a panel recommended Bannister be struck off the medical register for not treating patients properly. The fraud stuff is icing on the cake. Put it all together and you’ve got a character who is less Quincy M.D. and more like Curly of the Three Stooges. And Bannister is the most compelling witness you’ve got. :dubious:
Wrong. Bannister and others witnessed pure wine in the hair and clothes. I've been trying to tell you there's way too much wine here to be accounted for by the official verdict. The amount of wine outside the body when combined with the amount of wine inside the body is too much wine in a forensic configuration indicating foul play. The tipper is the pure wine outside the body. Dannemann was forced to account for this privately to Sharon Lawrence because there was too much wine to try to stay quiet and she knew it which is why she admitted to washing Hendrix's face with wine. This alone disqualifies the Inquest because Dannemann never officially mentioned this. You people are trying to pick this apart by the individual pieces, but the greater investigative triangulation shows intrigue. You can't make the arguments you are making without tying all these things together. Dannemann's proven lies and the pure wine are important elements.
What I love about this case is there is no person in here who would ever accept a person explaining away the death scene by saying they washed the victim's face with wine. That's what is so glaringly outrageous about this is there is no prosecutor who would hear of this claim and stand there and say "OK, I see, no problem." The prosecutor would jump on that like a tiger on prey. Who is fooling who here?
The pure wine is wine that hasn't been accounted for by any reasonable explanation. The only explanation for it came from the real person here who lacks credibility whom the alleged 'critics' in here don't seem to have any problem with, that is, Monika Dannemann. Once again, the British Government's Inquest, case, and verdict are all solidly built on Monika Dannemann's story. Monika Dannemann's story has been proven to be complete lies. I asked why the verdict should be allowed to stand when it has already been more than legally proven to be invalid and no one answered. A real, factual, and honest addressing of the wine associated with the death scene has too much wine at the bed and inside Hendrix to be accounted for by the official story. The pure wine is the clincher because it couldn't have gotten there unless there was a physical event where it was spilled in combination with the existing surplus of wine in the medical forensic. In any other case the prosecutor would jump on Dannemann to ask her why she failed to account for all this wine. What does it tell you that the legal authorities involved are still doing their best to avoid this?
That might sound good as you're typing it and making up excuses by a keyboard but we are well past that in the evidence. Your constant referral to wild rock druggies is disproven by those who knew Hendrix better. Plus you fail to register or involve Dannemann's lack of accounting for those bottles of wine. It's plain basic common sense that if Hendrix had recklessly abused that wine there's no reason for Dannemann not to say so. Dannemann's lies seem to be fine with you and don't lead to any incriminating assumptions that they normally would in any other legal case. Dannemann's account could be fairly described as *avoiding* any explanation for that wine rather than revealing it - and don't forget her private admission of face washing. Dannemann's being found dead in a Mercedes full of fumes right before being forced into court to explain all this??? - No Problem!
The reason your entry above is unsubmittable is because there was a strong vomiting event with wine at the scene. This wasn't some kind of "Tums" event with acid reflux. The scene shows a forceful death event. And you avoid the absolutely necessary and bearing guiding forensic that Hendrix could not be asleep with that much wine in him while only having a 5mg/100ml blood alcohol content. You must observe the correct forensic argument here.
An argument that can only be made by completely and blithely ignoring every single forensic argument I've made.
We can be clued to the accuracy of your views by considering that I've mentioned at least a half dozen times that Bannister first came out with this in 1985. Every single time I've mentioned that it is returned with "memories of 39 years later". As I've repeated again and again the correct way to deal with this is to subpoena Bannister and all the hospital attendants involved and legally scrutinize their information. It is your side that fights this.
The argument that we need a precise calibrated measurement of every single milliliter of wine that came out of Hendrix is invalid. Doctor's opinions have been taken and used before in court. And don't forget the corroboration of all the other witnesses. This tactic is defeated by the fact that we already have too much wine to account for by any other explanation. The real pertinent measurement here is the excessive wine not accounted for by any credible explanation. The inverse is true here and the "non-wine" has yet to be proven.
You use the 'rolleyes' too quickly. The burden is still on you to explain how that pure wine got up and against gravity and into Hendrix's hair according to his position on the bed? Thank you, but if you don't mind I'll take the trained and registered medical opinion of the attending doctor if it's all right with you. You can ignore the fact the bedroom scene and its spilled wine corroborates the wine in the hair at any expense to your own credibility you wish. Pretty explosive acid reflux there, eh?
What was your friend's blood alcohol level???
It's obvious what we need here is for Bannister to be sat in a court and explain all this stuff thoroughly. - His estimation of the wine's purity and its relation to being in the body. - His estimation of the wine in the stomach and lungs and its meaning, etc.. Wright too.
I think I've more than proven that these evasion attempts are invalid and have failed. To answer them with yet another round of even more off-point evasions and superficial criticisms only reinforces the point. There are two qualities of argument here, those that confront the relevant points and those that try to avoid them by means of spurious excuses.
Any person with common sense would see:
1) The main points (which are valid) are being avoided here. The only conclusion has to be that there's material in there the avoiders need to avoid.
2) There were other Resuscitation Room witnesses to the wine.
3) The evader fatuously fails to realize that his strident confirmation of the earlier time of death only serves to reinforce the murder scenario.
The avoidance of credible arguments can only be taken as a default and forfeiture of the debate.
Make that “not a single person in this thread sees” you making a credible argument for murder.
Apart from aging, drug-addled rock hangers-on, struck-off MDs and the denizens of Wild-Assed Conspiracy Nutbaggery forums, is there anyone with “common sense” who wants to reopen this matter?
I think the problem is that your endlessly varying theories of the crime are not sexy enough. Have you considered a satanic cult?
With a satanic cult, you could interest those Italian prosecutors who see satanic conspiracies under every bush. They could apply for standing to hold a new inquest - someone’s bound to be found guilty as a result.
Just tell them you’ve got a fabulous incredibly sinister-MI5-mob-thug-insurance-scam-message-in-the-dew-fabricating-hysterical-wine-soaked-groupie-girlfriend-Eric Burdon-at-dawn-Third Reich-18-inch tube/metal sucker-fountains-o’-pure-wine-gushing-from-the-windpipe-literary roadie-barbiturate-polluting-common sense-crazy Wadhams-noble gas fart-exploding-extreme evacuation-process-in-the-Resuscitation Room-3.9-mg-percent-tons-o’ dense-vomit-undeniable forensic theory.
Italians love wine. They’ll leap at the chance to make forensic history. I foresee an exhumation and lots of eloquent hand gestures.
Oooh! Oooh! I’ve got the satanic tie-in you need to get the Italians involved!!
“Jimi Hendrix, who admitted demon possession, also was deceived by the satanic lie that it is better to burn out than to fade away. Hendrix said before his premature death, “It’s funny the way most people love the dead…Once you’re dead you are made for life.””
And if that’s not enough, here’s proof of the tie-in between British military intelligence and satanistic practices!
It’s all bound up with The Beatles, Ed Sullivan, Aleister Crowley, Woodstock and the C.I.A. too. Plus Jimi Hendrix.
You don’t have to thank me. But let’s get this circus a-rollin’!!!
There is no basis of measurement of “purity” or volume for anything you’ve said nor was there any rational reason at the time to pursue it. There is nothing to suggest that Hendrix died of anything other than asphyxiation due to vomiting.
What is so outrageous about wiping vomit off someone’s face with the closest liquid available. Ever have your mom lick her thumb and wipe a smudge off your face as a kid? I clean my computer screen with hot tea when I’m drinking it.
Yes, the explanation is that Hendrix drank a lot of it and threw it back up. Your fascination for the word “pure” has no forensic basis of fact beyond the context that Hendrix consumed a lot of wine.
The room was cleared of drugs and wine by his friends before the police arrived. What’s so complicated about that?
You already know that nobody on this board falls into that category, on either this subject or TWA 800. So help us out here - who have you found out in the real world who agrees with you? Anybody at all? Can you give us a name or two of these “persons with common sense” so that we might learn from their example?
Having spent the last 24 hours spewing torrents of vomit and feeling generally miserable, I’d like to thank the contributors to this thread for taking my mind off my malady for a good hour. The image of randomly barfing corpses will stay with me for some time.
However, as a British subject, I’m concerned. I’d hate for anyone to mistake me for a wine drinker, so does anyone know if MI5 take advance requests for alternative drowning media? Admittedly, I am notably less subversive than Hendrix, but one can’t be too careful when one’s reputation is at stake.
And please - replies from SMART PEOPLE ONLY! You know who you are!
Before this thread eventually disappears (though at this rate, millenia will pass before it does), I would like to extend my thanks and admiration to all the main parties for their persistence and to the OP for his sheer intransigence.
You're not keeping up with the information. There's a clear basis for determining the purity of the wine. Monika Dannemann admitted she washed sick off Hendrix's face with wine. Therefore there's pure wine at the scene that was corroborated by other witnesses as well as Bannister. Between yourself and Bannister the latter has correctly identified pure wine in both the towel, hair, and lungs. You have managed to publicly destroy your own credibility by denying this already-established pure wine. So while you claim Bannister has no credibility we have actually proven that he has and you do not.
As far as measurements of wine we've also proven, within reason, that there's more wine than Dannemann claimed. This is a judgment that can be reasonably made from the wine witnessed in and around Hendrix. Demanding that we have to collect every speck of wine and measure it is not a reasonable request in these circumstances (unless the objective is to defeat the otherwise obvious). This still comes down to taking the word of the witnesses and a trained medical doctor over unknown internet posters and I'm afraid it's the latter that have failed to 'measure'-up. The lungs and stomach full of wine, in a medical forensic configuration that suggests murder, is reason enough to suggest a different cause of death than officially claimed - no matter how many times it is stubbornly denied against the obvious.
The objectors give themselves away because they refuse to involve any of the circumstantial clues surrounding this - especially Dannemann's lies.
You're not answering the point. Have you ever in your life heard of anyone using wine to wash off someone's face? Especially a choking dying person?
Your answer runs so roughshod across the already-known that I hold it as confirmation of what I'm saying. According to what we've confirmed, the only time Dannemann would have had to wash off Hendrix's face was after he was dead. It defies belief that any grown adult would see a choking dying person and respond by getting some wine and pouring it on their face. That just doesn't make any sense. And the fact you ignore this and refuse to address it in its proper context says a lot. At that point a towel and warm water was just as accessible. But if Hendrix was being cleaned-up by Dannemann then why did she leave such an unholy mess around Hendrix? No, the wine on the face story is most likely because Dannemann knew from the scene she had to come up with something to explain all the wine on and around Hendrix. Or perhaps she either knew about or was involved with wine being poured into Hendrix. In either case it's silly to deny that a prosecutor wouldn't let her get away with that story. Your answer is invalid simply by the fact alone you refuse to address that Dannemann did not tell this story to the Inquest.
Hot tea shouldn't be used on computer screens. Read your owners manual.
Except that there's no account that says that. Dannemann's story was that she and Hendrix had a casual glass of wine before bed and that she then retired with him and was right next to him the whole time. You are simply running roughshod across the known fact that there is no place in Dannemann's account where Hendrix's wine-chugging could have happened. Not only was Hendrix a person wise enough to know not to do that but he was also a person who couldn't have done it under the known conditions of being knocked-out on a 3.9mg percent of blood dose of barbiturate. You are running roughshod against an unavoidable forensic constant here of the barbiturate graph line rising, and therefore making Hendrix unable to chug any wine, and the blood alcohol graph line that necessarily reflects how long any wine could be inside Hendrix - especially a "large amount of wine". The fact you disconnect yourself from the necessary determining argument here to offer such simple offhand responses only strengthens my case whether you agree with that or not.
"Pure" is *very* relevant here because it exists in two critical places. First, on the bed, clothes, and in the hair. Which means wine was somehow spilled in a way counter to that of the official story. Second, in the lungs and stomach in large quantities that directly reflects the criminal forensic of murder. This existing wine as witnessed by Bannister is in direct conflict with the official account. The only valid analyses of this wine are those which include how they relate to Dannemann's account. It still stands that there is too much wine configured in such a way as to not be reasonably accounted for by the main story. Since there is no given explanation for what Magiver now admits was a large amount of wine the only valid entries that can be made are those that deal with and address this wine in relation to the official accounts. Since Magiver fails to do that he therefore disqualifies himself.
I hope people note that in the same post Magiver demands a precise measurement of the wine while admitting a large amount of wine further down in the post.
I'm not sure what your point here is? The relevant information is how much wine was in and around Hendrix? What does it indicate? And how does it relate to the official account?
The reason these doubting entries defeat themselves is because they are based on the acceptance of the official account. So while claiming there is proof Hendrix simply choked on his own vomit that proof is based on Dannemann's proven lies. This is the ruling juncture we are at in this debate and if anyone cares to notice - even though this has been cited repeatedly, not one of the challengers has yet dared to confront it. Those challengers defeat themselves because while positioning themselves as great critics and imposers of a higher standard they completely ignore the failure of that standard by their side, and in doing so show us their true feelings towards the value of the standard they suggest. This debate currently originates from the ability to recognize that the official verdict is now disqualified because it was based on proven lies. Since the very standard these legal gadflies try to impose necessitates there being a credible legal judgment involved they fail to meet their own obligations. Their ignoring of and refusal to answer this simply destroys their credibility no matter what they say. Once we determine the official verdict is invalid we are then legally forced to entertain new information. When Scotland Yard refused to do that they violated their own form of law and are now standing with a provenly false verdict. Some have no problem with that even though they pretend to offer a high level of legal scrutiny.
A more intelligent analysis of Dannemann's statements would show that she had no reason to lie about any large amount of wine if Hendrix had drank any. She was at an Inquest to determine how Hendrix died? Those who argue that she made those lies up to cover the cleaning of the flat ignore the fact that there was no reason to lie about Hendrix chugging a large amount of wine. If anything, if Hendrix had done that it would have helped Dannemann in her situation. It would have shown that Hendrix had overdosed from a reckless drug incident. So there's no reason for Dannemann to cover it up. And, from her story, there's no realistic way for her not to have witnessed it. The flat-cleaning excuse clearly doesn't cover this.
Additionally, Dannemann got caught telling weird stories about a trip to the hospital with Hendrix in the ambulance and other interactions with the emergency personnel that never happened. Once again there is no flat-cleaning reason to make up these stories at that point in the game. The ambulance ride is a point well past the flat-cleaning time period that needed to have an excuse made for it. So there's really no rational explanation why Dannemann is making-up this completely false scenario at this time. What this tells you is that Dannemann was of a state of mind that went beyond practical excuse-making for the drug-cleaning. She was of the state of mind of a person who felt she needed to construct a complete story to account for something. This kind of unexplainable overreaction or over-compensation is the sign of a person possessing guilt of something beyond what has been told. It's also something no competent prosecutor or Inquest would miss if they were doing their job.
The problem with every single one of Dannemann's accounts is that they match the pattern of someone who was involved with Hendrix being drowned in wine, as does the criminal scene, as well as her being found dead just prior to having to account for it.
This is the song that never ends,
It just goes on and on, my friends.
Some people started singing without knowing what it was,
And they’ll keep singing it forever just because…
I must admit that I laughed out loud at this one, though.
That may be the first time I have ever seen Jimi accused of wisdom. So thanks for that.
One “runs roughshod” over things, not against them.
There is no “graph.” There is no “forensic constant.” I don’t think there is even a particularly well established timeline or what was consumed in what order.
Despite the holes in Dannemann’s story, her general version is infinitely more believable than any of the conspiracy theories you have offered.
You have not disproved the original ruling.
You haven’t proved she was lying instead of simply being wrong.
Right, and killing yourself is ironclad legal proof you’re guilty of a crime you have not been accused of.
