Xena killed Hendrix. It’s obvious when you think about it.
Xena was played by Lucy Lawless, who also played D’Anna in Battlestar Galactica. Since Jimmy Hendrix wrote All Along the Watchtower, it’s obvious that a time traveling robot from the past and/or future drugged Jimmy to prevent the reactivation of the final five. Or something.
Excuse me for not keeping up with this, but when has anybody ever established there was “pure wine” staining/splooshing over the scene or found within any body cavities? Is there some laboratory assay for “pure wine” that came into play?
Results: Deceased subject
Ingested wine purity assay:
11.3% spiritus fermenti
1.1% grapes
0.46% yeasty stuff
2.7% icky body fluids
28.93% groundless supposition
29.9% uncorroborated storytelling
17.3% recovered memories
3.9mg% Vesperax
We’ll need to see the official report, though.
Keeping up with the latest information, we now have the sinister-MI5-mob-thug-running-roughshod-through-the-insurance-scam-message-in-the-dew-fabricating-hysterical-wine-soaked-groupie-girlfriend-without-a-flat-cleaning-reason-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 criminal forensic of murder theory.
I still can’t give it five stars, not without a satanic angle.
/b/tard? How do you sleep at night? I take lots and lots of drugs.
Vesperax and wine work for me.
If there was proof then the investigation would be re-opened and obviously that hasn’t happened. There is no forensic proof that suggests the fluid in the lungs did not come from the stomach. Where is the chemical analysis that states there was no bile in the lungs as part of the chemical makeup of the fluids?
I never called for a collection of every speck of wine. That’s a strawman you invented to knock down. I challenged your obsession with the idea that the fluids extracted from Hendrix’s body were anything other than what he consumed and vomited. You’ve provided nothing in the way of scientific evidence to suggest the volume of wine was not something that could have been consumed.
I already provided examples of people using what is handy to clean something. Alcoholic wine makes an excellent cleaning solution and would be much preferred to vomit. Vomiting is rarely a singular event so your question doesn’t make sense. Given that he had taken sedatives it is likely that he had multiple sessions and that during an earlier event he was cleaned off by a friend. It makes sense if someone vomits to clean them up.
That’s funny because I’ve cleaned all my windows and every glass screened TV I’ve owned including the screens at my last company. Tannic acid works nicely against glass but thanks for telling me it doesn’t work when I already know for a fact that it does.
You’re assuming he took the pills first, waited, and then drank the wine. The only evidence you can truly rely on is scientific evidence. What we have is an autopsy that shows Hendrix died from asphyxiation that occurred after consuming drugs and wine. This is not an unusual death and there is nothing to suggest otherwise.
You’ve provided nothing forensic in the way of measurement other than use the word “large quantities”. There is nothing forensic to suggest that Hendrix did not consume the wine and under the additional influence of drugs vomit it back up.
I’m sorry but there is every reason to lie about how much wine was involved in a death. Her involvement would then be a contributing factor. The fact that she lied is supported by a lack of wine bottles.
People lying to avoid being connected to a death is a logical assumption to make.
We'll stand back and get out of the way because I'm sure Prosequi is going to rush in and tell you that violates some sort of greek law of invalid argument. Though I thank you for your honest admission that there actually was proof of pure wine counter to what you said. No need to discuss what this shows we'll just move one more trench back and deal with the next invalid argument. And no, there have never been any corrupt investigations before and governments are always honest and always respond to evidence. So we can just assume that when a government accepts a case it is a valid and when they don't it isn't. And they called my arguments ridiculous!
Actually there is. There was a recorded volume of wine that did not correspond to the blood alcohol level. No matter how much Prosequi tries to wiggle it there is a very predictable forensic rule here of the possible amount of wine in relation to the blood alcohol level.
There's another very predictable and firmly-ruling forensic determining factor here that makes Hendrix chugging wine into himself unlikely, that is, the 3.9mg percent of blood barbiturate level. Whether Prosequi admits it or not a scientific test could be done to determine how long it would have taken for the Vesparax to reach that level in Hendrix's blood. There's a clear graph relationship here between the rising barbiturate level and Hendrix's ability to administer a large amount of wine into himself. The higher the barbiturate level goes the less likely Hendrix would be in enough of a conscious state to chug wine (Let's make clear here that Hendrix's friends said he was a person who would know better than to guzzle wine in that situation. This is completely ignored by the naysayers.) If we approach the graph in the reverse direction the earlier into this barbiturate level rise the wine is ingested the higher it MUST register in the blood stream. Since the blood stream registered a minimal amount of alcohol this tells us the wine was introduced later into the graph rise of barbiturate.
As Magiver shows us none of the challengers have managed to admit or confront this.
It's only my opinion of course, but I think if you seriously proposed the use of wine to wash vomit as a normal thing you would be laughed out of court. Look - I asked if you ever in your life heard of anyone using wine to wash someone's face - especially a dying choking person. I think you've given your answer.
It could be argued that Dannemann panicked and grabbed a wine bottle in a state of female hysteria to wash the grossness off Hendrix, however it doesn't make sense that once she started the cleaning process that she would have stopped and left Hendrix in the vomit-covered state the ambulance attendants witnessed. Also, the only time she could have done this was after Hendrix was dead. So it doesn't make sense that if she had the time to get a towel and warm water and do a good job that she wouldn't have. Let's get to the point here. The wine washing story looks like an excuse being made for wine that was used not to wash Hendrix but to murder him. No competent prosecutor would miss that or fail to follow-through on it. I'm sorry, but all you've offered are offhand excuses against the yet-to-be-disproven obvious. And I'm not the one who suggested a friend sees a friend having several vomit events on their back while passed-out on a heavy barbiturate dose and attends to their regular vomiting by cleaning it off and standing by while they choke to death. - YOU are the one who just offered that straight-faced.
You must have thought so because I already caught you admitting the large quantity of wine above. The doctor's judgment still remains the best yet-to-be-disproven judgment of the wine as well as the wine seen by every other witness (Apparently that has no affect on you). Nor does the fact that we've traced 4 bottles of wine to the flat that night from testimony. Of course the last thing we'll ever do is cut right through these defiant arguments and get the witnesses into court to testify as to the wine bottles. No, that's the last thing we'll do as long as never-ending excuse-making is still available.
Only if you ignore all existing examples of incriminating motive and evidence. Michael Jeffery was involved with a kidnapping of Hendrix. His background and witnessed mafia connections, as well as his pilfering of Hendrix's assets comprises what would normally be considered prime motive in any other case. Yet, extraordinarily, the Inquest never sought to look into any of this and just glossed-over all normal criminal inquiries. Monika Dannemann's story was preposterous and easily disproven yet there was never any effort at all to investigate it. So it is rather unbelievably naive to stop at Dannemann's possible innocous involvement and accept that as her reason for lying and not consider other more incriminating reasons - which no living prosecutor would ever do. So why wasn't it done in this case? Henderson suggests it was because of racism. I would suggest to him that it might be something much more sinister. Much more corresponding to the larger possible dimensions here that are backed by suggestive evidence and motives.
I'm not sure what point you are trying to make about the wine bottles? We've established four wine bottles in the flat. We've also reasonably established stomach rice contents of a meal eaten around midnight. Since it takes 3-4 hours for the stomach to digest and clear its contents, the time of death is reasonably around 4am - as was corroborated by Doctor Bannister. I also think Prosequi has destroyed his credibility by suggesting this firm medical forensic was somehow wiggle-able. I believe, if he is a prosecutor, that he would quickly be disavowed of that notion once confronted in court by experts - which is why the British Government is desperate to keep this out of court.
I'm sorry, I must have missed two answers. The first being what right does the British Government have to uphold a verdict based on a broken Inquest? So far, after repeatedly asking anyone to answer that no one has. In my mind I've won the debate until someone is honest enough to answer that. The second is why did Dannemann admit on the 1975 Dutch radio show that the mafia was involved, and why was there no follow-through on that condemning admission? Eventually the follow-through did occur in 1996 and Dannemann was promptly found dead just before being forced to account for this. Do people take their own life over a simple matter of minimizing their involvement in an accidental drug death that even your side insists was long long ago? And if it was such a simple matter of contributing to the death by supplying the Vesparax and wine why would Dannemann cryptically suggest the mafia was involved?
In my opinion, you can ignore every single thing I've argued above and continue to return to the offhand belief that there's nothing to show anything other than choking on vomit, but you do so at your own expense and only show you can't confront what I said directly.Since you appear to be online now I’m going to ask this again in the silly hope that you will give us a straight answer. You keep saying things like:
What was his blood/alcohol level according to the autopsy, and how does that compare to accepted standards for intoxication? And if you can’t or won’t answer that question, what are you doing here?
Your proof of this is “he was out of town when the kidnapping happened.” You are not in a position to say anyone else in this thread would be laughed out of court.
And another thing 
: You keep claiming that the 3 to 4 hours for food to leave the stomach is a hard and fast law of nature. You are wrong about that. Every true crime book I have read that included testimony that relied on digestion included lots of information on the many factors that could slow down the process. Taking sedatives and drinking alcohol are among those factors.
Bolding mine. Link.
Unlike a high school debating competition, the participants are the judges here, and as others have mentioned, you haven’t convinced a single person of anything that you believe. You have not won the debate. As far as I can see, you are refusing to engage in it, hiding behind opaque and fact-free 1000+ word posts full of unjustified condescension and insults. So if you are once again typing furiously, stop. Try giving a couple of short answers to some simple questions.
Seeing as how poor Monika Danneman has taken a beating here from Jetblast alleging her complicity in Hendrix’s death, it is only proper to offer a competing explanation that exonerates her.
I call this the Crazy Wadhams theory (after the old-fashioned ambulances referred to by the attendants quoted awhile back).
A key bit of evidence that’s stuck in everyone’s craw (sorry) is that Hendrix was allegedly decomposing and turning black at the time of Bannister’s heroic emergency rescue efforts in the hospital. This makes Monika’s supposed statement that Hendrix was alive when transported look…well, odd.
But could it not be that something happened during the period when Hendrix was being taken to the Resuscitation Room? We can logically question whether the two ambulance attendants made a detour on the way to the hospital. Let’s say that they entered Hendrix’s apartment, immediately decided he was dead (one has claimed he can tell this just by walking into a room), and figured there was no rush, so why not stop off for a couple of pints of brew? You know how it is, time passes when you’re having fun, and when our heroes finally stumble out of the pub hours have passed and Hendrix’s corpse is starting to turn. Perhaps the attendants bought a couple of bottles of wine for the road, and when entering the ambulance lost their balance and accidentally poured wine over and into Hendrix, soaking his hair and producing the amounts witnessed by Bannister.
Now this may sound far-fetched - but we had an incident locally not long ago where employees of a funeral home stopped off at a gentleman’s club, leaving their hearse (and its occupant) out in the parking lot for an extended period of time.
I submit that the Crazy Wadhams theory is superbly viable and accounts for puzzling discrepancies in witness statements. Certainly there is no way for Jetblast to disprove it, and if he ignores it that will only serve to demonstrate its validity.
Best of all, there’s still room for Satanism. I mean, you don’t start turning black within hours of death unless the Evil One has a hand in matters.
I have no idea what this means or what you think I admitted to about the autopsy.
Again, I have no idea what you’re trying to say. What is the recorded volume of wine, what was the blood alcohol level, and how long was the wine documented to be in his stomach?
Great, what is the firmly-ruling forensic evidence that Hendrix could not consume wine and pills to match the levels found in the autopsy? The reality of the situation is that Hendrix could have taken the pills at anytime and that he could vomit at anytime which makes the levels of drug absorption and alcohol intoxication completely infinite and independent of each other.
I’ve given you an answer to your question and that is to say that it would make sense to clean someone’s face off with wine. I’ve seen people do this to themselves in a drunken stupor because they don’t like the taste or smell of vomit. You’ve made another strawman out of the statement by saying he was dying when it happened. If someone was choking it wouldn’t make sense to clean any of it off nor would it be possible with someone thrashing around. Your conspiracy theories lack common sense.
It does if you consider a person rarely vomits just once and that once the situation became a choking event she WASN’T washing his face as you keep suggesting happened while he was choking. It’s a very reasonable and logical progression of events.
Again, no idea what you’re trying to say here. What have you caught me admitting? All I’ve done is agree with the autopsy that he died from asphyxiation resulting from the consumption of alcohol and sedatives.
OK, feeding your conspiracy theory, why would a mob connected MI5 ninja agent go to the effort of all this when for a couple of bucks he could hire a mafia hit while sipping wine at a fancy bar to establish an alibi?
Probably because nobody understands the question.
Of that we can all agree that in your mind you think you won the debate. The rest of us will wait for evidence that Hendrix didn’t die of asphyxiating on his own vomit after consuming wine and drugs.
In all fairness he was always black.
Well, there’s black…and then there’s **black**.
jetblast, I have answered these assertions above.
Why do you believe these “predictable forensic rules” exist? Has someone told you of them? If so, who? What are their qualifications? Show us. You have been asked to do this repeatedly, and yet you reply only by repeating these unsupported assertions again and again. Do you believe them because they seem to make sense to you that the world should work this way? Do you believe them because it seems “logical”, but you have not actually been told of them?
Why do you continue to misuse English in such a curious way (for example, using the word “forensic” as a singular noun)? Is English not your first language? Is your education perhaps limited? (I don’t mean to insult you - I am looking for explanations for some of the odd features of the way in which you argue here.)
I could explain to you till I was blue in the face how your thoughts about graphs of consumption and elimination are only part-truths that idealise away the large range of variability in the effects of drugs (which I showed you with a cite about Vesparax in a post earlier in this thread). And you would simply repeat your arguments by assertion to the contrary in an endless did-too, did-not dance.
So is there a way out, when debate is reduced to this?
Yes, there is. I have tried to explain it to you before. It is the use of the onus of proof. Shortly put, in any argument like this, the person proposing the novel theory has the burden of proving it. If the debate descends to did-too/did-not, then the person with the onus of proof necessarily loses.
I apprehend that you don’t understand this, or think that the onus of proof can shift for reasons specific to this local debate, like your beliefs about the purported villainy of the UK government. Perhaps you think that the mere fact that you believe yourself to be right is sufficient to recast the onus on your opponents.
Well, no, it isn’t. The issue is deeper than the terms of this debate, or any specific debate. Copernicus was right about heliocentricity, but when he first proposed his ideas, he bore the onus of proof. Doesn’t matter that he was right and the geo-centrists were wrong. He was proposing a theory that conficted with hitherto well-established and apparently self-evident ideas. He discharged that onus, so that now anyone trying to say (for example) that all the planets revolve around Phobos would have the burden of overcoming the Copernican view.
The same thing happened to every novel idea since proved correct - Wegener’s plate tectonics, Einstein’s relativity, the lot. They all had to overcome an onus to prove they were right. Fleischmann and Pons’s cold fusion is an example of a novel theory that was not able to discharge the onus of proof. It is not enough to say that Fleischmann and Pons might be right. In principle, they might be. But until they demonstrate it, the only course rationally open to the world is to proceed as though they are wrong.
This principle rises above all debates. There is no room for a meta-debate about it, so please don’t try.
Your apparent failure to grasp this, to think that it is a mere debating point, is part of what leads me to wonder as I did above that maybe your education did not cover this stuff. On a related not, are you familiar with the principle of parsimony, sometimes called Occam’s Razor?
Once again, I don’t mean to insult. But your arguments seem to proceed without an awareness of these fundamental ideas.
You bear the onus. So far, the 100% consensus is you have failed to discharge it. There have been over 20,000 views of this thread and no-one has supported you. But if you can, have at it.
There needs to be a “mercy killing” point for threads such as this.
What is the rule for invoking the Kerkorian option?
Iwas thinking of the rule in some sports (maybe fictitious) where one side is so far ahead they invoke a mercy clause.
I won’t say which side I think is far ahead here 
There are definitely such rules in amateur sports leagues in the US. They are often called “slaughter rules”. 
Are you sure that discharging an onus is legal in the city limits? Can we get a warning before it is discharged so that we can put our fingers in our ears (the OP has been doing this since page one, so we should get to do it too)?
I want some love for the Crazy Wadhams theory. It has not been disproven, and it carries a mighty onus.
Uh huh, I'm sure you don't.
You said I had no evidence of pure wine. Monika Dannemann admitted washing Hendrix's face with wine and you seem to agree. Therefore some of that wine spilled outside the body and was not ingested which makes it fairly pure. I give this as an example of the lack of credibility of your arguments. As well as your response above.
In particular we could subpoena Doctor Bannister and ask him his opinion on the wine in the lungs and stomach in relation to how he thought its purity related to the manner of death. I'm sure the challengers in here would love the debate to stay within the limits of their naysaying entries, however there's a much more intelligent approach they avoid and refuse to admit to. The amount of wine Dr Bannister witnessed, its location in the body, and its purity can be judged to determine whether or not it got there accidentally. It is simply not honest to not admit the wine witnessed by Bannister was more than the glass of wine testified to by Dannemann.
You'll excuse me if I don't believe that. What I wrote was clear enough.
The volume of wine was judged by the doctor. It was such a volume to a) be much more than told by the main witness b) be in a location to make the doctor feel the patient was drowned rather than choked c) to be such an amount of wine as to make the doctor say he had never seen anything like it before d) and was in such contrast to the official account to make the doctor come forward to challenge it. A small or mistaken amount of wine is not likely to incur such a thing. You are simply in denial of the facts here.
I've already given the blood alcohol level. It was 5mg per 100ml. (About two glasses of wine)
The time in the stomach can roughly be determined by the estimated amount being interpolated into the common alcohol absorption rate of the body. Since the doctor and others estimated "bottles worth" we can simply ask an expert what the absorption rate would be for a person with a rice meal and 9 Vesparax in their stomach. I can guarantee you that despite the specious denials made by some that this is a relatively predictable rate that could reasonably include or exclude various scenarios.
However, you've already ignored or played dumb over the necessary parameters I've outlined.
You're obviously clueless to what was explained before. (Or playing dumb to avoid admitting it) It's very simple, Hendrix could not have hoisted the wine into himself while his barbiturate blood level was at the recorded 3.9mgs at the time of death. He would have been knocked-out. In fact, the Inquest even said so. We know a large amount of wine could not have been in the body too long because it would have necessarily registered in the blood stream. The large amount of wine could not have been introduced into Hendrix early on into the barbiturate dose because it would have shown-up in the blood. And it is impossible for Hendrix to have introduced this large amount into himself later in the barbiturate dose because he would have been passed out.
The individual forensic components here are not independent of each other as you claim but the exact opposite. In fact, you have presented nothing to show why they would be. The correct forensic configuration here is there's a necessary and indisputably determinating triangulation between the barbiturate level, the alcohol level, and the amount of wine, in direct relation to the manner of death. These are all directly dependent on each other because the amount of wine can't be high without a corresponding blood level OR not being in the body too long. And the barbiturate level can't be too high if Hendrix is going to drink the wine by himself.
You are running roughshod over and violating the forensic terms of the argument here because if Hendrix had drank that wine early on in the barbiturate dose and vomited soon after he would have died too soon for the barbiturate level to reach 3.9mgs. The triangulation is firm and unavoidable. Additionally, there is no time in Dannemann's story for this to have happened. If Hendrix drank that much wine it is doubtful he would have flooded his lungs with it. The profuse vomit event is one of death - death after drowning in wine. If it happened early on Dannemann would have been awake.
Now try answering what I said directly.
Your incoherent answer mangles the logical sequence involved and therefore destroys any credibility you might possess.
Dannemann did the washing not Hendrix. She wasn't "in a drunken stupor".
He had to have been dying when the vomit was allegedly cleaned-off because the official verdict said he choked on his own vomit. Your answers are credulous.
You're completely off-base here because you show no grasp of what is being said. Dannemann never admitted to the Inquest that she washed vomit off Hendrix. She did it privately because people were suspicious about the death scene. Your answer runs in contempt of the fact the official account says the vomit was the cause of death, so therefore she had to have been washing either when he was dying or after he was dead. In Hendrix's condition there was no point where he could be vomiting and not choking. Your answer is incoherent and comprises a disqualification of your input.
You haven't answered the basic facts yet to speak that way.
But to answer your question Michael Jeffery was ripping Hendrix off of large amounts of money. Hendrix was on to this so he was going to take him to court where proof of his ripping Hendrix off would have broken their contract. Hendrix had so many lawsuits and rip-offs happening to him that he chilled on his career and formed some loose experimental bands to counter what was being done to him. I suspect Hendrix did this partly knowing that Jeffery would have to spend some of the cash he ripped-off from him to keep the band going. But instead of using Hendrix's stolen money to finance the band Jeffery borrowed money from the mafia. If Hendrix had proved Jeffery was stealing from him not only would their contract be breached but Jeffery might even go to jail. If Hendrix had succeeded in this it would not only have ruined Jeffery but it might possibly have also gotten him killed. Jeffery had claimed he had killed people and friends said he had participated in false insurance claims involving arson. This was a desperate character known to commit desperate acts who was being backed into a corner. Tappy Wright claims Jeffery even confessed to it later on. Jeffery pretended he didn't know Hendrix was dead when an associate called - but that associate said he thought he was lying. Jeffery sat outside in a limousine at Hendrix's funeral. Later friends said he was flush with cash and paying everyone off including a US$250,000 payment to Hendrix's father (probably the stolen money). Unbelievably, this failed to spur any interest in the British Inquest.
His "mafia hit men" might have been Dannemann, or perhaps the people Dannemann let into the flat.
Nope, I don't think this is being debated honestly nor are clearly obvious facts being acknowledged. It's immoral to fight for denying proof of murder. Murder should always be investigated on the basis of suspecting evidence until disproven and not by any weak armchair offhand denial method. Hendrix's death scene clearly shows a man who was drowned in wine after ingesting an incapacitating dose of barbiturates - as does Dannemann's crazy story and lack of truthful accounting.
Of course one can keep repeating that they don't see anything to show anything other than the official verdict but then we are back to that nagging quality of input issue again...