It's immoral for someone who calls himself a prosecutor to participate in a vandalous game of sophomoric taunting of evidence of murder. Prosecutors are supposed to identify and explain evidence of murder and not play mind games trying to deny it.
You lose this cheap attempt because the sword cuts both ways and we are well within the ballpark of reasonable forensic evidence provided by experts that you should be well aware of if you are a prosecutor. You stand in contempt of the fact prosecutors use such evidence regularly and regularly get convictions from it. You admitted so yourself.
The onus is clearly on YOU and no matter how aggressive your denial tactics are it is YOU who have failed to show why these normally-accepted forensic models don't apply in this case. We are talking some very simple forensic rates here like alcohol and barbiturate absorption. If you are asking me to present exact tables you are simply offering a bogus argument on its face. Those tables would be present in a competent court case. And they would show what I'm arguing.
Yes sir, you could - but it would do nothing to change the fact we are well within the ballpark of forensic conclusiveness. This is a simple matter of your bogus evasions vs what the forensic evidence indicates - despite your attempt to confuse it. The forensic evidence speaks more than your obfuscations and therefore has more meaning towards evidence. It is your opinion that we are at a "yes it did - no it didn't" stage. But that only works for your attempt at denial. The truth is the forensics I've outlined haven't been disproven by yourself, although you suggest they have, and do, in themselves, constitute material of much greater value and credibility than what you propose. Your arguments, no matter how much validity your grant them, are the simple specious denials and excuse-seeking that they appear to be.
It is a truth which you cannot get around nor escape through these false assertions that when we manage to get the true forensic rates presented by experts in a court of law that they would prove correct and accurate and your input would not. You are trying to deny simple things like blood absorption rates and their predictableness. You can't get away with that. It is the "part of the truth" that proves murder that you avoid which is why you dwell only in these evasive formulations instead of admitting what is undeniable. For instance you brought quotes of the extreme strength of Vesparax yet failed to admit that that would make Hendrix drinking any wine on his own unlikely. And we aren't talking any weak dose because he had 3.9mgs recorded in his blood. In short your denialist arguments are quickly shown to be what they are because they are so weak to begin with and the evidence quickly disproves them.
You forget my good fellow that we've broken the Inquest. The Inquest is no longer legally valid by your own rules and standards. Therefore the onus that you impose is and has been on yourself and you have failed to admit to or own up to it. Thank you for proving it with your very own words which you don't seem to apply to yourself.
You are, by your own definition above, a person who has 'lost'. The best you can be here is a person who has lost demanding that others answer to things he refuses to himself.
You're just in broad, plain contempt of the fact that we've established the Inquest is incompetent in its failure to detect Dannemann's lies or offer even the slightest attempt in its inquiry to address the more than obvious criminal intent of the manager who had what can clearly be called undeniable motive.
How dare you defend the British Government when it has more than been proven the Inquest was incompetent; and when a doctor came forward to state the manner of death was not properly recorded; and when people have come forward to say there was a confession! How dare you!
Your arguments are too far removed from the facts to bear the weight you suggest. You show the pattern of someone avoiding something.
I'll take that as the round-about admission that it 'tis. Thank you.
We're not idiots Prosequi. I've called for you to apply that to yourself and answer why a broken Inquest should be allowed to stand and why they should avoid the moral/legal obligation incumbent upon any "open verdict" to entertain new evidence as would seem to be the natural, unavoidable consequence of such a situation.
It is you sir who has failed - and by your own words...
Why do you persist in imagining that everyone is conceding arguments all over the place, even though they are saying they are not? Perhaps your divination of plainly non-existent concessions is brought about by the same process by which you divine a case for murder. You simply will it all into existence, and evidence be damned.
And please don’t try to tell me what a prosecutor’s ethical obligations are. You have no idea. You think I have to agree with you because of my job?
I also wondered if English was a second language because I don’t understand a lot of what he’s saying.
Jetblast, we’ve all been patient with your conspiracy theory but the short answer is that the level of alcohol and level of sedatives do not represent a combination that could not be duplicated by varying the timing of consumption. It’s logical to assume the sedatives were taken last or close to the end of the days activities. It is logical to conclude that once the alcohol and sedatives were consumed that he vomited more than once while lapsing back to sleep at intervals until the final vomiting event which asphyxiated him. The sedatives created a slower reaction time which eventually caught up to him.
That is the logical progression of events.
You said that He had to have been dying when the vomit was allegedly cleaned-off because the official verdict said he choked on his own vomit. That is simply not true. As I pointed out repeatedly, most people vomit in a serious of purges when they are sick. He could have been cleaned off one or more times prior to choking.
Regretfully, one must note the continued refusal by Jetblast to consider the Crazy Wadhams theory (which is a theory only in the sense that evolution and gravity are theories). I have conclusively proved by any accepted* forensic standard that Monika Danneman spoke the truth and that the official inquest’s findings are accurate.
It is time for Jetblast to stop impugning the characters of the dead via the maunderings of nitwits, and to concede that by his own standards, he has lost the thread.
Anyway, the case has been mooted by the announced plans for a new Jimi Hendrix Experience tour. Jimi is dead but the music lives on.
Meanwhile the glories must sadly end for the the sinister-MI5-mob-thug-running-roughshod-through-the-insurance-scam-message-in-the-dew-fabricating-onus discharging-hysterical-wine-soaked-groupie-girlfriend-without-a-flat-cleaning-reason-Eric Burdon-at-dawn-Third Reich-we-are-not-idiots-18-inch tube/metal sucker-fountains-o’-pure-wine-gushing-from-the-windpipe-sword-cuts-both-ways-literary roadie-barbiturate-polluting-common sense-crazy Wadhams-Satanistic-noble gas fart-exploding-extreme evacuation-process-in-the-Resuscitation Room-3.9 mg-percent-5 mg-per-100 ml-profuse-dense-vomit-event-how-dare-you-undeniable-ballpark-of-criminal forensic of murder theory.
It was fun but now it’s like a snake eating its own tail.
Said a poster much to our grief
“There’s too much confusion,
I can’t get no relief.
Business managers they, they drink my wine,
Girlfriends dig my earth
No one will level on the line
Nobody of it is worth
Hey!”
“Every reason to get excited”
The poster he kindly spoke.
“There are many here among us
Who feel this thread is but a joke.
But ah, you and I we’ve been through that.
And this is not our fate.
So let us not talk falsely now,
The conspiracy’s getting late.Hey!”
All along the watchtower,
Princess kept the view
While all the women came and went,
Barefoot ninja’s too.
Outside in the cold distance
A coroner did growl
Two ambulance riders were approaching
And the wine turned into bile
Hey!
All along the watchtower.
First, Crotalus's last post asked me to answer some very specific questions, which I did. He then never replied.
I knew someone would try this. After all, it is a logical point in relation to what I said. I thought of it myself because if I were arguing the opposite side it is the first thing I would think of. However it doesn't work here because the rice was witnessed being eaten at Peter Cameron's party around midnight. Hendrix did not take any Vesparax until at least a little after 3am after Dannemann drove him back to her flat. So the vast slowing down of the predictable 3-4 hour digestion rate being claimed isn't valid. If I were to practice the same level of petty denial I would say Hendrix had taken a Black Bomber amphetamine which would have sped-up his digestion. But I won't because I know the digestion rates of which we speak are still within useable reasonableness for what needs to be proven here.
The main forensic value of the rice stomach contents and their predictable digestion time is that they irrefutably disprove the Dannemann story. However, they do point to a time of death near 4am as does the other corroborating witnessings Crotalus chooses to ignore like Bannister's and the ambulance attendants' judgment that Hendrix was long dead. There's nothing to stop us from asking the witnessing coroner what state he thought the rice was in and what it tells us?
I believe even a High School debate has rules unlike some other forums.
No, that isn't accurate. An objective look at this debate shows I've asked some very specific questions that are being universally avoided and answered with responses like yours. There is a debate here I am refusing to engage in and that is the obfuscatory removed-from-the-substantive-points debate that some are attempting in order to avoid answering the direct operative material. The main question here is, do medical references to retarded digestion rates from various influences overturn the greater body of evidence showing an early death time like the hard dried vomit, or Bannister's observed necrosis, as well as Burdon's reporting that he was called at daybreak? The answer is clearly no.
1000 word responses that detail complicated evidence is not the problem here. The problem is short non-answers to those 1000 word posts. And I doubt any objective analysis of my input would call it "fact-free" as you say. Your's I'm not so sure of...
I thank Crotalus for bringing his Colorado State University digestion time analysis. I opened it and read it after my last post. Not surprising, Crotalus fatuously failed to realize his own material proves what I was saying. If you look at their own graph chart the stomach empties at around 240 minutes, which is 4 hours. There is a playing out for another hour of minor hard to digest contents but the chart shows those contents are both minimal and the exception. The maximum time for total stomach emptying is 5 hours.
Now if you were paying attention to my case the attending doctors said Hendrix's stomach was "full of rice". This is clearly not the minimal remnants described in Crotalus's reference. This means Hendrix was still in the main digestion period which is a serious indicator of time of death here in relation to the rice eaten around midnight. The full stomach necessarily makes it earlier, not later, which is critically-telling as far as the criminal trace here.
Since we have now established a firm forensic indicator that Hendrix died closer to 3am rather than 4am we are now within some very dangerous criminal forensic grounds here. The problem with this time is it allows some very damning scenarios to emerge.
If I was the prosecuting attorney here I would stop immediately and step back and tell the judge that we are now formally charging the British Government with obstruction of justice and the crime of aiding in the concealment of evidence for murder. I would directly make the accusation that Monika Dannemann's behavior that night in her anxiousness to get Jimi Hendrix back to her flat was because she was part of a murder plot. We are now within the forensic "bulls-eye" of Hendrix dying the way that was confessed.
I did ask if there was anyone, anyone at all, out in the real world (there are none on this board, obviously) whom you’d been able to convince of your thesis, it being so reasonable and obvious to anyone with “common sense”, as you say.
Yes, and you’ve brought nothing to disprove Hendrix could not have consumed the wine and sedatives that killed him. Anyone who has ever thrown up the morning after a drinking binge knows there is food and fluids in the stomach 8 hrs after the event. There is a huge window of variability in the time it takes for the stomach to empty. Therefore, any time-line you want to offer up as proof of a conspiracy lacks the hard science to back it up.
There is nothing particularly unusual about Hendrix’s death. Asphyxiation due to inebriation happens all the time. Jimi Hendrix, John Bonham, and Sean Patrick McCabe all died from it.
Wait, I thought it was full of wine. It had to be to at least partially account for the enormous quantities that Bannister supposedly recovered with his Fabulous 18-inch Tube and which kept spewing into the lungs like an organ possessed. This could not be, if Hendrix’s stomach was “full of rice”.
Unless, as with the lungs, Hendrix’s stomach was a Magickal Organ which not only could hold unlimited quantities of food and drink, but participate in barf-fests after death.
Nah, I think we can stick with the idea that the “attending doctors” have either been incredibly misquoted/interpreted or were a bunch of jive turkeys not even fit to administer sleeping meds to Michael Jackson.
And hey, what about the Crazy Wadhams theory? No reponse by Jetblast = proven theory.
Umm…if you were the prosecuting attorney? Who are you prosecuting? Dead people? (Note to Jackmannii - add “ouija board prosecution” to the list.)
And you can’t charge “the British Government”. The British Goverment (aka “the Crown”) is the source of prosecutorial authority. Prosecutions are brought in the name of the Crown. What’s the indictment going to say - “The Crown v The Crown”? Just think about it for a second. If you charge “the British government” and win, whom do you imprison? Who pays the fine? To whom? Itself? Who actually gets to mow old peoples’ lawns as part of the community service order?
This nonsense idea of yours tells us a great deal about just how bizarre your legal theories of what “any competent court” would do are.
Specifically who is concealing this “evidence”? Specifically who is obstructing justice? Precisely what are they concealing? Precisely how are they obstructing? These are questions real lawyers must ask themselves before they hare off spouting rubbish. It may feed your feelings of grandiosity to imagine yourself charging the entire British government, but grown-ups have to actually think things through, not just spin fantasies.
Unless you can even approximate an answer to these questions, I can assure you what a judge would do. And it wouldn’t just involve throwing your case out of court - he would be making a call to the people in white coats.
And I thought you had accepted that the “confession” to Wright (which involved forcing pills and liquor down Hendrix’s throat) could not reflect the way things happened?
I think it says a lot that the OP thinks that any Government - let alone one as large as the UK- operates as a single entity- and can be charged as such.
I suspect you have nailed a core problem for jetblast. He thinks of organisations as monolithic hive-minds that are unalterable forever. In reality, MI5 was a group of people in 1970, and is now a completely different group of people necessarily embedded in and taken from a completely different cultural mindset. The Cold War is over. The people there now, and people throughout the British government said to be tied up in all of this conspiracising ™, no longer have a personal stake or any particular interest in Hendrix.
But for the OP, organisations are the equivalent of one immortal mind. There is no internal dissension, no politicking, no jockeying for position, no bickering about budgets, priorities and policy or who gets the biggest desk. There is nothing but an impossible level of group-think, like Imperial Stormtroopers or the ubiquitous villainous henchmen in cartoonish Evil Overlord fantasies.
What must be done now in the face of all this appalling skepticism, is appeal to the Queen of England (assuming she can take time out from running the world’s drug trade).
*Dear Queen:
Only you can reverse a great injustice, viz., the murder of Jimi Hendrix. You, as a common sense monarch, will no doubt want to immediately intervene in the case. I have set out the details below, in what may be termed:
The Queen won’t do anything to help Jetblast, she’s too busy being a shape shifting alien lizard. Assuming shape shifting alien lizards part of the conspiracy, of course.
I have posted before about a nutter who came to believe that the entire government of my country was illegal because of what he perceived (nonsensically) to be an unconstitutionality in the voting system which had been in place since the early part of 20C. Because everyone in authority had been appointed by governments elected by said process, literally everyone in government was “tainted” by this, and no-one could break the Gordian Knot he imagined into existence.
His solution? He wrote a letter to the Queen (who is not elected, and so was insulated from the electoral contagion) setting out the issue, and ending with a note saying “If I have not heard from you within 14 days, I will assume you have appointed me Attorney-General with full power to set up an interim lawful government.”
The chutzpah, it burned.
She, of course, declined to respond, leading to a series of expensively hilarious legal manoeuvres as said nutter tried to have various high government officials arrested for treason when they wilfully failed to see the reasonableness of his position. I will spare you the details of how the Archbishop he appointed was tried for fraud.
I suggest that jetblast’s letter to Her Majesty should include a similar self-executing clause, so that (since the entire British Government is unreliable) if she should not reply within 14 days, jetblast may assume that he has been appointed Attorney-General and Home Secretary, with all necessary powers to re-open the investigation.