To give Jetblast his due, this is correct. There is long list of British assassinations carried out by this method. Victims include the Duke of Clarence and Lord Nelson. I’m sure that the army (or possibly navy in Nelson’s case) were involved.
At the risk of feeling the wind rush through my hair: you’re being facetious, right? Clarence is legend, as there’s no proof of the butt of malmsey shtick. And Nelson wasn’t drowned, he was dead before he was carted back to Blighty in the barrel of brandy.
Hence the British slang term for having a drink, “Tapping the admiral”.
He tolerated them for longer than that, in fact. I was pointing out they were coming to a head.
What does Jeffery have to do with it? As my cite shows, Redding wasn’t fired, he quit. And he quit after being dissatisfied with his role in the band for a long time.
how?
We have to overlook them, since you’ve provided no reliable evidence.
Accounts of the “kidnapping” suggest it was pathetic, and an attempt by Jeffrey to bignote himself, or perhaps a failed publicity stunt.
And if it’s the CIA who murdered Hendrix, why does Jeffrey have to be involved at all?
There are two steps to your “confessions” from Jeffrey - the people who are now recounting them have to be telling the truth (that is, they must be both accurate and honest) and even if they are, Jeffrey has to have been telling them the truth.
You seem to accept that the truth breakdown may be on Jeffrey’s part. If so, why believe anything he is purported to have said? He is clearly merely grandiose. The world is full of army clerks and cooks who claim to have been Navy Seals and Medal of Honor winners. See the Stolen Valour websites. If he wasMI5, why did he say anything of any of this ever? The mere fact that he was so loose-lipped as you think he was (assuming that he was, which is not conceded) is compelling against the idea that he and MI5 were behind it. It’s always the wannabes who hint darkly.
This is all just made up conjecture. It’s also possible to the same degree he was having gay sex with the Prince of Wales, and that’s the reason for the “murder”.
Why would she do this if she was in on it, as on your account she must have been? If she was, she is painting a huge red target on herself. Surely she would just sit quietly and let it all go away? She can only have been doing so to get attention to the idea, attention which on your theory necessarily had to backfire on her. See what I mean by your theory being incoherent?
The fact that she was monging these stories (if she was) tells me she was an attention whore suffering relevance deprivation syndrome. People who want to convert closeness to celebrity into cash realise that to do so, they have to say something shocking.
So far, all you have shown is that she was a hopeless scatterbrained ratbag who eventually topped herself. As someone else has said upthread a short while ago, this stuff is always being said about every single celebrity who dies before their time. Perfectly acceptable reason for the authorities to not rush off to investigate every cry of wolf. It doesn’t require any lurid conspiracy to explain this.
Then spend your own money investigating it, and running any court proceedings, not the taxpayers.
Thought so. You bring nothing except paranoia and obsessionality.
Logical violation ?!?!?1111one
You’re the one telling us all the time about the “pattern” that this supposedly “fits”. Show us another murder by drowning in wine. I note elsewhere that notwithstanding that you identify all this as part of a “pattern” or “picture”, you excuse the absence of any similar cases by saying that MI5 (or whoever) repeating its methods would be a mistake. You must surely see the ad hoc nature of these explanations.
Brian Jones is just another example of how any celebrity death attracts these nutjob CTs. He drowned in a swimming pool. Where was the wine? And before you get to use Jones’s death to “prove” Hendrix’s murder, you have to prove Jones was drowned! Is this not obvious to you? Some crackpot somewhere hinting darkly that he was drowned is not proof. It is just confirmation bias on your part. By your reasoning, your claims about Hendrix would be proof that every person who was thought to die of aspiration of vomitus was in fact murdered.
(bold added)
Give us an example of the army murdering anyone by drowing them in alcoholic drink. Tell us how many murders add up to “common”. Once again, your acceptance of this assertion is just confirmation bias in free fall. You believe it because it seems to conform with and reinforce your bizarre beliefs about how the world works. To hell with any actual evidence of it. If someone somewhere wrote it down on a ratbag conspiracy site, that’s all the proof Ineed.
The first rule of MI5 black ops training is that WE DO NOT TALK ABOUT MI5 BLACK OPS. What part of this do you not get? All the talk of Jeffrey’s confessions to the killing (even if they are even remotely reliably reported)and his alleged claims of MI5 involvement just makes him a wannabe.
Bannister’s “evidence” is dead in the water. I’m not going to add to the voluminous criticisms above.
(hints darkly) We may be able to make use of this phrase…
Are you suggesting that this case may contain more than one hopeless scatterbrained ratbag? Gasp. Perhaps even one not a million miles from this very thread? Double gasp.
BTW, sorry for my post’s repetition of the dark hint thing. Fingers on autopilot.
And I should add that when I say it is necessary to prove that Jones was drowned, I mean to convey that it is necessary he was drowned deliberately by someone (other than himself). That is probably implied, but if English is not jetblast’s first language it may not be clear.
You should reference Hendrix's feelings about this minor kidnapping where some thugs came in and wrestled him out of his apartment, shoved him into a limousine seat with a knee in his back, took him to a warehouse and threatened what had to be harm if he didn't call his manager and tell him to sign with the mafia.
Hendrix knew the manager of the mafia-owned Salvation nightclub. That manager resisted mafia control and was murdered. Hendrix didn't want to play the Salvation after that but the mob wanted him to. Jeffery was borrowing money from the mob at the time. After Hendrix declined playing at the Salvation he was approached by a man on the street in New York who took out a handgun, shot a sign across the street, and walked away. Hendrix played the Salvation shortly after. The well-known peace advocate, Hendrix, was later witnessed asking friends if they knew of any hit men - which he was talked out of.
This is the correct context of the kidnapping. We'll let others judge if most people would just brush this off as minor if it happened to them.
Furthermore, Hendrix and others viewed the kidnapping as something set-up and arranged by Jeffery since, right at the right moment, Jeffery's men stormed-in and chased the "kidnappers" away rescuing Hendrix. This right here was a serious sign that Jeffery was willing to violate Hendrix to a serious degree using thugs. This coming from a man who told others he had killed people before. There's no prosecutor on earth that would not point this out if the tables were reversed.
Jeffery would be perfect access to Hendrix had the CIA needed it. Plus he could be used to induce reason to murder him and then bumped-off himself in a way no one would question. (CIA would NEVER do *THAT*!)
Thank you. Which is exactly why your Inquest is invalid. All of Monika Dannemann's lies have been *proven* to be lies. Jeffery's statements are actually associated with much more witnessed fact than Dannemann's. I think it takes nerve to present this truth requirement and ignore how it applies to the other side - and much more so by your own standards.
Your argument is actually an argument for my side if you don't realize it. If we step back and are objective we can research the intel programs I wrote about and see they were real and backed-up by facts. Your offering has nothing backing it. There are no people suggesting what you suggest. There are, however, many people in credible positions suggesting what I suggest.
This is a good question that I'd like to know the answer to as well. Perhaps, as her panic to get Hendrix back to the flat shows, her part was simply to get Hendrix there to "talk" to Jeffery's boys (like another kidnapping). Perhaps she was told "Love, go fetch some ciggies" which meant they wanted to be alone and she complied. She then went for cigarettes and when she returned she found Hendrix in the same state the ambulance men found him. Seeing the potential consequences of the people she was dealing with she panicked, tried to figure out what to do, and then called Eric Burdon thinking he was close enough to both Hendrix and Jeffery to be a perfect intermediary. Knowing that any truthful telling of what happened could land her the same fate as Hendrix she simply told Burdon she was having trouble waking Hendrix. (I must say there's a second possible scenario where Dannemann is deeper into this than the dupe but that only alters the story slightly) Dannemann would also have a defensive position legally here that would also be incentive to stay quiet.
Dannemann came out with the mob admission in 1975 after Jeffery was dead. Crawdaddy Magazine wrote an article the same year suggesting Hendrix died from foul play. What I wrote is easily researchable by a person like me - so this had to be well within the purview and normal routine of official investigators. Its lack of investigation is suspicious at minimum - and the "theory" actually dovetails very precisely in a very evidentiary-coherent way. Feeling safe to blame it on Jeffery, perhaps her guilt pushed her to admit it indirectly.
Offhand the "Michael Jackson was killed by the illuminati" crowd doesn't have a doctor coming forward, a confession, and the blood and criminal forensics working in their favor. (And I don't know if Jackson was killed by the illuminati)
I'd have to see their own definition of law to see if "spend your own tax money" is part of legal code. In my opinion they don't have any choice, by their own law, since the original Inquest has been proven to be invalid.
My opinion is that this is either:
1) A murder by female hysterics by Dannemann (I don't think it is this one since there's too much other motive to kill Hendrix and a confession of that motive).
2) A murder where Dannemann was influenced by intel tactics to somehow cooperate in the murder.
The death can't be accidental because there was too much wine witnessed in the lungs to match the 5mg/100ml blood alcohol level. The vomit scene was also one of forceful death.
Jack Ruby interviewer, Dorothy Kilgallen was murdered by the CIA using barbiturates. It was successfully labeled a suicide. This is a Nazi state police tactic.
I read that Keith Richards always suspected the strange work crew that was taking over Jones' house. This is a whole other can of worms, but it is a drowning death of a rock star alleged to be murder. Jones and Hendrix were good friends by the way.
It is my opinion that the very fact drowning in wine in combination with barbiturates is so rare and hard to find examples of is exactly why it is an intel murder method. If you study intel murder methods they use exactly this kind of rare, hard to detect method. I also think you are close to protesting too much (against the obvious).
Here's where I think you really expose yourself. Victor Marchetti was one of few Americans to have a book censored or having to be reviewed before being released. He was a CIA agent who wrote the book *CIA and the Cult of Intelligence*. There have been numerous ex intel members who spoke about or wrote books about CIA and their doings. Doug Hemming was a CIA contractor who spoke about his experiences during the anti-Castro campaigns. He also spoke about his interactions with Lee Harvey Oswald. Even though it was well-known Hemming was a mercenary CIA operator he was disavowed by the agency.
Jeffery was obviously MI5 during his national service and it hasn't been *disproven* by anyone. Unless, of course, Jeffery somehow disappeared during his national service.
To me Bannister's witnessing is so condemning that it has to be ignored and he has to be defamed as being "struck-off" and therefore uncredible.
I personally think we've broken the barriers of reasonable proof or cause.Garbage on top of garbage is still garbage.
Give them a few years. And you used someone who believes a theory like this as a source.
“Somehow?” Well that explains everything!
No, that would make too much sense.
Vomit does not indicate a violent death.
Yet another unproven assertion.
This is the exact opposite of logic.
I was pondering Prosequi’s arguments in my head when it dawned on me that many people have died from accidental synergistic combinations of barbiturates and alcohol. A survey could be taken of the death scene of those victims to see if any had profuse vomiting surrounded by saturating wine. If indeed most of these unfortunate victims quietly die without any vomit/wine scenario similar to Hendrix this would legitimately constitute reasonable reinforcing circumstantial evidence of Hendrix’s murder.
I knew the Nazis would get dragged in eventually! Hurrah!
We still lack some key elements for the Murder Conspiracy Theory (such as Mossad, the Masons etc.) but I expect them to materialize before long.
Jetblast, has it occurred to you that the ulterior motive behind every single poster in this thread having pooh-poohed your theories about Hendrix, is that we are all agents of the CIA/MI5? Your file is getting very thick. Something will have to be done.
Meantime, thanks for your latest update, which is chock-full of Jetblastologisms which beg to be incorporated into an updated version of the Theory, to be accomplished as soon as a fresh shipment of hyphens is received.
That’s Lord Admiral Tapping to you 
I challenge that because it is *very* logical to use a deceptive method that wouldn't be discovered. Contrary to what you say, it is actually very logical to use a method that would appear like an accidental drug overdose and did. In fact it is so logical that it IS the covert intelligence agency method they used against Hendrix. So it is completely logical on both counts - the covert method and the reasoning that shows the evidence for it. And this is at the end of a long sequence of logically-arranged evidence which culminated in Hendrix's murder, including his MI5/Mafia manager, FBI Security Index listing, and other strong circumstantial forcings. Sure they told people he quit but if you study the actual background it was the way I described it. You are relying heavily on semantic emphasis however the true circumstances I outlined are the correct context. They may have told you Redding "quit" but he was forced out and forced out under the situation I described.
What is significant about your entry is it accentuates the fact concerts were becoming Vietnam-era uprisings with Hendrix at the center making public statements for change. This is exactly what got Hendrix on the FBI's Security Index.
Your article sort of suggests the riot and crushing of the van was the last straw in a circus Redding had become inured to, however the tipping point was Redding's inquiry into the band's proceeds and the correct context is Redding had become so disgusted with his situation that he worked up the nerve to breach the topic.
I can't find it right now, but you forgot to include a very important Noel Redding reference. It was Noel himself quoted from his own book saying, "It wasn't until I asked about where the suitcases of money were going that I was asked to leave the band."
.
Prosequi I must offer you an apology for my dullness of wit and slowness of mind. It just recently dawned on me that the answer to your question of where there are examples of anyone being killed this way and examples of how that shows it to be a government method are all perfectly illustrated by *Waterboarding*. I apologize for offering less than a well-presented case by not realizing it sooner.
Waterboarding is exactly what they did to Hendrix and prime evidence that he was murdered by intel tactics. Who are the people who waterboard? I think we all know who that is.
This is why I said before as the prosecuting attorney in this case I would step back and formally charge the British Government with the crime of covering-up and concealing, and therefore obstructing evidence for murder in the case of one James Marshall Hendrix, otherwise known as Jimi Hendrix.
It really is that simple.
http://aconstantineblacklist.blogspot.com/2008/01/jimi-hendrix-was-waterboarded-to-death.htmlWaterboarding is an interrogation technique, not a means of murder. Bad analogy.
Finally, some action in the case.
You’ll be like Lewis Carroll’s cunning old Fury - judge and jury both, trying the whole cause, reacing a verdict and passing sentence. Be sure to drop us a line when the trial is finished.
No, you said ‘this type of murder is very rare and hard to find, which proves it’s an intel method.’ What it actually indicates is that it is not a method of murder at all.
No it isn’t. (See? Two can play this game.)
Your theory frequently contradicts itself, to the point where even you are blindly guessing at the motive or the killers. That’s not a logical arrangement.
God, on top of everything you don’t know what the hell waterboarding is. And Constantine is still a raving maniac. Here is what waterboarding is: SIMULATED DROWNING. Do you get this? YOU DO NOT WANT YOUR WATERBOARDING VICTIM TO DROWN! YOU WANT HIM TO TALK. In fact, unless you screw it up completely, it’s not possible to drown them. In waterboarding, a person is strapped down horizotally, with his head slightly lower than his feet. His face is covered with a cloth or plastic wrap, and a liquid (usually water, but what the hell, you could use wine) is poured onto the wrapping. This makes the victim feel like he is drowning. It’s a reflex action and it’s supposed to be unbearable after only a few seconds, which convinces him to talk. So you would not waterboard someone by dosing him with a fistful of barbiturates and then pouring wine down his throat.
And once again, if Hendrix had been forced to take the pills and drink wine - and your theory requires he was forced to do both, because the idea he took the sleeping pills on his own and happened to get drowned in wine the same night is so stupid it can’t be described in words - there would be physical evidence. They would have had to use force to subdue him, and then he’d have chipped a tooth or sustained bruises or cuts in the struggle.
Waterboarding is done by the CIA, the CIA is in cahoots with MI5, Dorothy Kilgallen was killed by the CIA in the same way, hey, it all fits, what’s your problem?
Oh I get it. There's no variations on this that include murder. Doubters argue unlimited variability when it comes to our side but restrict things to one strict form and nothing else in their arguments.
This manner of death is very rare actually. So rare that Prosequi's request to find someone else who was killed this way was literally not findable. The only place to find it is, literally, waterboarding - which is such a rare form of torture/murder that intelligence agencies are literally the only people who practice it. This in and of itself is conclusive evidence of both murder and murder by the people suspected of using the methods they were exclusively trained in.
It's possible he took them on his own as we've covered. He had telephoned the New York doctor who told him to take some sleeping pills. The 3.9mg percent of blood barbiturate was high enough that there had to be a time period between his taking the pills and his death. I'm thinking that tells you he took the pills on his own and was under their influence when he was killed. He could have been murdered by Dannemann in this scenario or he could have been murdered by people who showed up after they saw the two return to the flat. Just like Jeffery's hired kidnappers showed up the time before.
The fact you restrict the murder scene and its evidence to one form of murder disqualifies your arguments. There's more than enough evidence as it is.
I have no doubt the extra strong Vesparax were planted in Hendrix's environment as an intel strategy to get him to take them and pass-out. Intel are the exact people who would think of something like that and make it look like an accident.I would just like to thank Marley23, Noel Prosequi and others for a valiant attempt to use logic and dialog to lift the level of this to an actual debate.
Most of all, though, I want to thank Jetblast for illustrating so clearly virtually every logically fallacious tactic in the book in a stalwart defense of his religion.