Jimi Hendrix Was Murdered

Cafe Society
361

[QUOTE=Crotalus]
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?
[/QUOTE]

[Quote=Jetblast]
First, Crotalus’s last post asked me to answer some very specific questions, which I did. He then never replied.
[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=Jetblast]
I’ve already given the blood alcohol level. It was 5mg per 100ml. (About two glasses of wine)
[/QUOTE]
Is that the blood/ alcohol level according to the autopsy, or according to some book you read once? If it is from the autopsy, can you link to something that supports what you say? How about the second question, the one about how that level relates to standards of intoxication? And how about a new one? How quickly does blood/alcohol level decrease after ingestion? How much alcohol would have been in his blood when he was alive and taking sleeping pills?
[QUOTE=Jetblast]
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.
[/QUOTE]
The data I posted and linked to says directly that your belief that there is a rigid time-table for emptying of stomach contents is not correct.
[QUOTE=University of Colorado]
the table below presents rough estimates for transit times in healthy humans following ingestion of a standard meal (i.e. solid, mixed foods).
[/QUOTE]
That quote covers the table I pasted into my post. The graph you are referring to as vindicating your 4 hour time line involved a single volunteer.
[QUOTE=University of Colorado]
…shown in the figure below. These data were obtained from a human volunteer that ingested a meal …
[/QUOTE]
Did you read that and understand it? That graph describes a single meal by a single person, very carefully observed. It says nothing about the range of possible times.

362 
        I thank you because these are the type of "non-answers," that seek to dwell exclusively off the evidence, of which I was speaking. They only serve to reinforce my evidence.

         Surely no prosecutor should be allowed to ignore the Colorado State charts and how they disprove every single forensic evasion Prosequi was attempting.

        If Prosequi is seeking to argue a case for confirming the nefarious hypocrisy of state authorities and how they use pure violation of their own laws to enforce dual law and rogue corruption - I totally agree and commend him for arguing and representing his case well. After all, we are both arguing the same thing here. Myself from a direct position of honesty and himself from an indirect position of denial and legal loopholes.

         Sometime's it's not what people say but what they don't say that matters most.

         
    We don't know how much of Jeffery's confession is true and how much isn't. We'll just ignore that he's a trained MI5 agent and educated at deception. It looks like his alleged confession that he was there in London might be false, but the murder pattern looks correct. There's no excuse for not forcing Tappy Wright to come in and explain what he witnessed. The confession works if we use Dannemann as Jeffery's proxy. All she had to do was either aid Hendrix in taking some sleeping tablets, the strength of which he wasn't aware, or just leave the flat for a while. In this light Jeffery's confession would have relieved his guilt and gotten his assistant off because once it was investigated that Jeffery was in Spain the whole confession thing would be taken as false. There's no doubt from the people around him at the time that Jeffery acted like a guilty man after Hendrix's death. It's a very simple tweak of the confession scenario to simply get Hendrix to unknowingly take a strong overdose and then murder him after he couldn't resist.
363 
      No, I think the reasonable onus is on you now. What you are suggesting is Henderson, a major reference to Hendrix through his book *'Scuse Me While I Kiss The Sky*, made up figures out of his head and didn't bother to relate the information from the Autopsy sheet. I haven't seen any question Henderson or dispute those numbers or their source. If these are your best arguments you are practically arguing my case for me at this point. The Henderson reference is linked further back in this thread.

       All good questions. I have read that the 5mg/100ml (5 milligrams per 100 milliliters) blood alcohol content is an amount slightly above the legal limit and around two glasses of wine as a reasonable estimate. My argument is that there was much more than two glasses of wine present in and around Hendrix at his death. 

       Your questions above are actually good ones that would need to be determined. We would need to chart how much wine Hendrix could possibly have had in him in the relevant time period from when he ingested the Vesparax until he died. This would relate to what kind of medical reaction Hendrix would have had from mixing alcohol with barbiturates. Again, the triangulation here is a reasonable estimation of the amount of wine as witnessed vs the ability of that wine to reduce through bodily processes to the level of alcohol found in Hendrix's blood. Offhand I would say we would probably find the "bottles worth" to not be able to reduce to that level in the time period from 3am to 4am.

           So if you read what you wrote above there is nothing to show that the digestion times vary. I'm not sure what your point is since your own example doesn't show anything about what you were saying but *does* show what I was saying.

        Plus, if you were actually honestly responding to the progress of points here, you would see you failed to address or respond to the point I was making. That point was that Hendrix was not within the range of the variables that alter digestion times you claim. He ate the rice at the party at midnight and did not have any of the radically-altering influences you are referring to without offering any proof of them. He did not take the Vesparax until after 3am. That means he covered at least 3 hours of the charted digestion time on the Colorado State graph before any possible claim for digestion alteration could be made. If you look at your own chart it shows the stomach is almost completely empty by 240 minutes. Since the coroner said Hendrix's stomach was "full of rice" that means he was very definitely into the earlier period of digestion that would make his death closer to his arrival time back at the Samarkand rather than later. This earlier death fits some very damning scenarios that Hendrix didn't linger into an accidental death but instead was killed relatively soon after arriving back at the Samarkand.  

     I thank you for your asking me if I understood the link.
         
          Now try answering what I wrote directly.
364

What’s to ignore? There’s no compelling evidence he ever had anything to do with MI5. And I thought your most recent argument was that he arranged to have Hendrix killed for money?

Noel could speak to this better than me, but in most criminal cases the prosecution has a theory as to how and why the crime occurred. Prosecutors don’t generally say “Well, the crime probably happened this way. But if you don’t like that theory, it undoubtedly occurred this different way. Or maybe three other people were involved in an alternate plot, which we could prove if only they weren’t dead. And here’s our star forensic witness whose conclusions are unimpeachable except that he’s a laughingstock with a criminal past.”

Who is going to get involved in prosecuting such a farcical mess? (Well, maybe you could interest Jim Garrison but he’s kind of old for the job).

An absolute triumph of obfuscatory verbal contortion. I am in awe. :dubious:

365

[QUOTE=Jetblast]
No, I think the reasonable onus is on you now. What you are suggesting is Henderson, a major reference to Hendrix through his book 'Scuse Me While I Kiss The Sky, made up figures out of his head and didn’t bother to relate the information from the Autopsy sheet. I haven’t seen any question Henderson or dispute those numbers or their source. If these are your best arguments you are practically arguing my case for me at this point. The Henderson reference is linked further back in this thread.
[/QUOTE]
Here’s a little hint about true crime books that you should also apply to conspiracy theory books. If the author doesn’t include in his book copies of vital primary documents on which he bases important and less than widely accepted claims, don’t believe what he writes. It’s that simple. Most of us here are unlikely to read Henderson’s book. If you want to come here arguing his case, you need to bring links to proof we can look at. Henderson, based on the excerpts I have read, has no credibility with me without supporting documentation.

[QUOTE=Jetblast]
So if you read what you wrote above there is nothing to show that the digestion times vary. I’m not sure what your point is since your own example doesn’t show anything about what you were saying but does show what I was saying.
[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=Colorado State University]
First, there is considerable normal variability among healthy people and animals in transit times through different sections of the gatrointestinal tract. Second, the time required for material to move through the digestive tube is significantly affected by the composition of the meal. Finally, transit time is influenced by such factors as psychological stress and even gender and reproductive status.
[/QUOTE]
Thanks for proving that you didn’t read or understand the material on my link.
[QUOTE=Jetblast]
Now try answering what I wrote directly.
[/QUOTE]
I’m sure you are incapable of understanding this, but what time Hendrix died isn’t even important unless you can somehow prove that a change in the generally-accepted time of death proves that the accepted **cause **of death is wrong.

As others and I have said over and over again, you have not convinced anyone here of anything except certain unflattering things about the way your mind works.

366

Jetblast has told us repeatedly that Jeffery worked for MI5. How can you remain unconvinced?

367

Jetblast’s theory of motives is “the more the merrier.” Since he has no evidence for any of them and a lot of them don’t make sense, he’s trying to make up for it on volume.

368 
              You can justify your dodges anyway you wish but what I said holds true. I understand your need to make excuses to avoid answering it.

     Henderson's book is not a "conspiracy book" as you say. It's a Hendrix biography with a chapter mentioning his death. I don't think he draws any conclusions.

       There's another rule of thumb that is much more closely applied here. That is people who ask never-ending expanding questions that avoid answering unavoidable points are people who aren't arguing honestly. Henderson's information will check out as material directly gotten from the Autopsy sheets. And when it is you won't admit it and you won't register it in your approach. 

       You dodged the material - you lose. It's that simple. You are only fooling yourself that your excuse for avoiding the obvious is valid. There can be no debate without honest input. You aren't offering any honest treatment of this. Your input is the obvious evasions it is.

        No, I don't think you can justify that with what we know. If we applied your own rules to what you wrote you haven't shown any chemical interference with normal digestion in Hendrix. By your own rules and strict demands for evidence your Colorado State reference hasn't shown what exact foodstuffs vary, or how much they vary, the digestion times? If you are trying to create confusion or deny fairly reasonable evidence you are doing all the right things, however I think we are past your obfuscations even where we are. 

          The only solution to this is to get some of those digestion experts and get them to detail what sort of digestive pattern the Chinese food rice meal would have? They could consult with the coroner and see what kind of state the rice was in. I personally think we are past the effective point of your digestion canard simply because you have failed to show how a full stomach of rice, as witnessed by the coroner, could possibly remain after at least 4 hours, which, by your own provided chart, shows a nearly empty stomach after 240 minutes. No, I think you've made a good try, however we just have too much rice in the stomach to cover your digestion differences. The correct determination here is: The average person's empty stomach after 240 minutes vs the amount of rice witnessed by the coroner vs whatever digestion alteration you can produce. This would come down to the medical opinion of digestion experts after having consulted the coroner on exactly what he witnessed. The evidentiary conclusion would hinge on whether or not there was simply too much undigested rice in the stomach to cover all possible digestion variations. If the amount of rice is too large and too undigested to cover most normal extremes of variability it would represent reasonably suggestive evidence. 

        That is the correct argument, and the onus is still on you.  (And you still haven't managed a canard for the wine) (Or the government's case being invalid) ;)
369

Generally, you’re right. I’ve hinted at this above. There is some room for flexibility, but not to this level of incoherence.

Medical students are taught the patent medicine principle - the more ills a patent medicine is supposed to be good for, the less likely it is any good for any of them. This identifies a quirk in human nature that allows that if a medicine can cure all these ailments (the grip, croup, constipation, migraine, cough, consumption, gangrene, cancer - you know how the lists on these things go) then it must be “strong” or “powerful” and therefore good value. In truth, ideas about strength or power in this context are nonsense - the biological aetiology of migraine and gangrene are so different that any medicine claiming to cure both cannot sensibly exist.

A similar principle applies here. Take the issue of motive. More “motives” do not make the case stronger, notwithstanding a naive belief, following the shotgun principle, that if you have lots of potential motives, one of them must be true. The fact that jetblast has so many inconsistent motives weakens the case. It merely underlines the fact that the evidence in support of any one of them is so weak as not to be able to rise above all the others clamouring for attention.

That is subject to the proposition that it is possible to have multiple cumulative motives - killing one’s parents for the inheritance as well as the fact that they are insisting you marry a nice girl from the old country, Ficticioustan.

Here, the MI5, mob, and rip-off motives are not really cumulative in that way. The chances of Jeffrey having all these different motives arising simultaneously are vanishingly small. It’s pretty clearly one or the other. And if the evidence can’t elevate one to a position of dominance, that indicates that the evidence ain’t worth much.

Similarly, if it is said that Jeffrey got his mob connections to whack Jimi, then you would need at a bare minimum some evidence of contact with specific mob thugs, like phone records, or witnessed meetings, and then evidence that those specific
mob thugs did the killing. This is why real cases of mob murders have phonetaps and surveillance photos and undercover agents and supergrasses. Not just “John Gotti is a bad guy involved with the mob and I think the mob killed X so there you go. Indict Gotti. What are you waiting for?”

The mere fact that Jeffrey was flush and Hendrix was not (if indeed this is even a fact) is not any evidence at all that Jeffrey stole Hendrix’s money, and establishing that theft is necessary to demonstrate the theft motive. Given that there were any number of people interested in what happened to Hendrix’s money, if there was any, such as record executives, Hendrix’s estate, etc, it would be surprising if allegations of theft had not emerged before now if there was any substance to them. Yes, managers have been known to rip off their clients. But we know that because there is evidence of it in the books, not just wild speculation based on stereotypes about nasty rock managers.

I have a feeling I may have posted to this effect before, and if I have I apologise. Life’s too short for me to go back over all this again and double check.

370

Just a point I want to make. Hendrix had the rice at midnight. He could not have had the Vesperax before 3am. He was found to have level of barbiturates in his blood. Therefore there was time for the barbiturates to be ingested, absorbed and to enter the blood stream. This took place from sometime after 3 am.

He presumably had the stomach “full of rice” at 3am. That is beyond the stomach half-emptying time, so presumably there was a delay in his digestion process already. I don’t see why a stomach full of rice should be expected to suddenly empty itself by 4 am because one volunteer in a study had an empty stomach in 240 minutes.

371

Most of you are probably already aware that Jimi Hendrix has a new album coming out this month (yes, he’s still dead, but under better management). In addition to the songs mentioned in the link, the album will feature the following:

Bottle O’Wine
D.W. Washburn
Drinkin’ Wine Spo-Dee-O-Dee
One Bourbon, One Scotch, One Vesperax
Tappy’s Lament
Secret Agent Man
Clean Up Woman
In-A-Gadda-Da-Vida
Message In The Dew (with Sting)
The Undeniable Forensic Blues

plus a special appearance by The Tubes!

I’d order now, pressings are limited.

372

[QUOTE=Jetblast]
Henderson’s book is not a “conspiracy book” as you say. It’s a Hendrix biography with a chapter mentioning his death. I don’t think he draws any conclusions.
[/QUOTE]
From page 19 of the book
[QUOTE=Dave Henderson]
Jimi Hendrix did not die of a drug overdose. He was drowned.
[/QUOTE]
That looks remarkably like a conclusion to me. He then lists people associated with Hendrix who died of other than natural causes, a favorite ploy of CT purveyors.

[QUOTE=Jetblast]
Henderson’s information will check out as material directly gotten from the Autopsy sheets. And when it is you won’t admit it and you won’t register it in your approach.
[/QUOTE]
The autopsy report is not available online, as far as I can see. Based on what I can see using Google Books, the Henderson book does not contain a copy of the autopsy report. It appears to quote from it on page 9, but it does not directly say that the quotes come from the autopsy report. But you are vouching that this will all check out, so I suppose I should just accept that.

[QUOTE=Jetblast]
You dodged the material - you lose. It’s that simple. You are only fooling yourself that your excuse for avoiding the obvious is valid. There can be no debate without honest input. You aren’t offering any honest treatment of this. Your input is the obvious evasions it is.
[/QUOTE]
You’re right, I lose. I am dishonest, self-deluding and evasive. You win.
[QUOTE=Jetblast]
No, I don’t think you can justify that with what we know.
[/QUOTE]
Who is this “we” you keep referring to?

Having been soundly defeated, I will retire from this thread.

373

jetblast, I am ready to conclude from your refusal to answer the question that you have, in fact, not convinced anyone anywhere of your “theory” about Hendrix’s death, or about the cause of the TWA 800 crash for that matter.

Please, everyone, you’re banging your head against a brick wall here. Surely you have something else to do.

374

No, no - keep on. This is far too entertaining to stop now.

375

I just assumed that his computer has a mouse and that he keeps it in his pocket.

376 
         Your attempt to pose yourself as having credibility while being forced-off the main points is somewhat humorous. 

      Anyone with any common sense would see that Henderson's scholarship is of the level where he is not likely to destroy his own credibility by making up autopsy information. You are simply arguing against yourself here and wasting our time by trying to dwell on the frivolous.

        I don't think you ever intended to honestly answer the facts here so your retreating when it comes to the point of having no choice makes sense to me. If your best argument was challenging the veracity of Henderson's autopsy reference I think we can fairly assume you have failed.

       Though I would like to point out that Henderson, a major Hendrix source long before any accusations of murder, also thinks Hendrix was drowned.
377

Jetblast, you will dispense with these comments or the thread will be over. I think every single post you have made in this thread has contained a couple of snide remarks like this, and I’ve gotten tired of indulging your nonsense.

378

Any credible scholar would include his sources.

379

He must have consulted the Queen, since he’s apparently using the royal “we”.

We are amused.

380 
     I take Prosequi's input as the filibustering rumination it is. However, this quote is worth answering because it is the very assumed follow-through of phone record-checking and other basic investigation procedures that never happened in Hendrix's case that make it so suspicious. If we were to analyze real cases of manager murder for motive and see the evidence available from each of those cases we would see that Hendrix's case has more than enough of the regular clues for manager intrigue to spur the investigations that happened in all those other cases. So the question must be asked, "why didn't it happen in Hendrix's case". The problems between Hendrix and his management were fairly well-known amongst his close associates. The closest one to all this was Devon Wilson whom after telling people Jeffery murdered Hendrix was found dead beneath the 8th floor window of the Chelsea Hotel. This, of course, doesn't at all bother the filibuster crowd. The lack of investigation in this instance can only spur questions of higher involvement. The mafia cannot control a government investigation.

         Some friends of Hendrix stole a ledger from Jeffery's office and brought it to Hendrix. Inside it showed that Jeffery was reporting $50,000 payments to the band members as being $10,000. Jeffery set-up offshore Bahamian bank accounts in Hendrix's name, as well as other accounts, that just so happened to be deposited in some of history's worst CIA/mafia connected banks. The BCCI bank was a major scandal and was shut down for laundering dirty money. It's a long story but CIA used this bank to launder its cut of mafia money paid to it by the mob in return for the mob's anti-communist activities. So Michael Jeffery was storing his Hendrix loot in amongst the most notorious CIA assets that were ever used to fund assassinations. CIA did this in order to have funding it didn't have to account for. All true if you research it.  

        Many of the lawyers involved were amenable to and chosen by Jeffery. Hendrix left no will and those officers in charge of the Bahamian banks were less than forthcoming when approached. Any record executives were not interested in pursuing the cause of death because any intrigue would tie up their company artist death insurance claims. And they had no interest in pursuing Hendrix's earnings because their end of it was selling his product, not pursuing what happened to his personal assets. Any nominal pursuit into the cause of Hendrix's death would involve legal expenditures that no person besides Jeffery was in any position to make outside of using their own assets. Do you realize every single thing you wrote above has been easily overturned by the plain facts of this case?

        Now do you understand why there was no serious investigation of Hendrix's death?