Whoa whoa whoa… hold up. I thought the businessmen drank his wine?
Wrong.
Precise measurements have been important in forensic pathology for a long time, going back at least fifty years before Hendrix’s death. Investigating the composition of body fluids is not something that was unknown to medical examiners of 1970. And if Bannister goofed off because the subject of his autopsy was black (not likely, seeing as he was dealing with a huge celebrity), we’re supposed to trust his remembrances decades later?
Sounds like fun. Why not e-mail him and see if he’ll stop by to share his insights with us? I may be an “Internet character”, but I’m also a practicing pathologist who did two forensic rotations during training, so my questions might possibly have relevance.
If we research this further you'll find you are attempting to hang a lot on a weak straw of contention here. There was a second attending doctor who is since deceased. If we research this further we'll most likely find Bannister was the attending Emergency Room doctor who passed off an obviously long-expired Hendrix onto the autopsists *after he had evacuated the "unusually large amounts of wine" in Hendrix's lungs and stomach.*.
If you researched this you'll find Bannister had no idea who he was treating and when told later on it was Jimi Hendrix he replied "Who is that?" I believe if we could examine medical forensic practices involving blacks at the time your contention that this was done faithfully or equally might be brought into question.
Even if you are a practicing pathologist I'd still back my claim that if we could put you next to Dr Bannister I think it would quickly become clear on who is presenting accurate facts. After all it doesn't take a high degree of medical training or capability to determine that there was a large amount of red wine inside Hendrix. I think your arguments expose themselves in their ignoring of not only that but, once again, all the damning circumstantial evidence suggesting it.
I have been unable to locate any cyber copy of the autopsy sheet on Google. Surely someone must have a copy of this? Really, this is not very strong. No doubt anyone who raises their head above the general mob scene of society with such a claim is going to draw attacks. I give this thread as an example.
If you were to examine claims towards doctors and their credibility in general I think you would find, in this crazy era of malpractice litigation, that to be normal for a large percentage of doctors - but especially doctors involved in a highly controversial claim with a figure of notoriety. But even if Bannister was a medicaid fraud or something similar I'd like to see how that affects his judging a simple amount of wine which is pretty basic for anyone, even people who aren't doctors. Your arguments seem to be that since Doctor Bannister didn't use razor precise forensic methods that therefore he wasn't capable of judging a large amount of wine. Or that because of that a large amount of wine indicating a murder forensic did not exist. I'm sure Jimi would appreciate your efforts and calls for precise legal science. (As would his murderers) In short, I doubt many of those detractors involved the total circumstantial case in their entries (like yourself).
Plus I think your claiming that it could have been mixed with other body fluids to be stretching it since those fluids would most likely not be available in the amounts you contend. I trust Bannister's view of the appearance of those fluids.
But the real exposer here is the fact you totally ignore that Bannister and others witnessed wine staturating Hendrix's bed, clothes, and a towel unexplainably wrapped around his neck, and his *hair* - which contained a non-polluted form of wine that would have had to flow contrary to gravity according to the position in which Hendrix was found. Bannister said there was a half bottle of wine in Hendrix's hair alone. Your point seems to suggest Bannister's hearsay reputation makes this a made-up lie. I disagree. I think the half bottle of wine in Hendrix's hair when interpolated to the suggested forensic offers daming corroboration.
I appreciate your comments on my input, however I think they visibly fall short of answering the things I am pointing out here.
If you read what your wrote you are saying the abnormal amount of wine and its associated forensic is rare. I agree. I don't think you realize you are tacitly helping establish the rare forensic of murder by drowning in wine as witnessed by St Mary Abbot's Emergency Room attending physician Doctor Bannister.
There's a fine line between people whose main intention is nitpicking and those who are truly interested. I'll try to find the autopsy sheet.
*Your* operative argument is plainly nitpicking doubt and naysaying (and ignoring the obvious).I killed him. I’d do it again. Axis: Bold as Love sucked.
You have me nailed. I’m a nitpicker and a naysayer. I think that you have bought into a ridiculous pile of horse shit, and that you couldn’t put together a sound argument to save your life. I have almost zero interest in fantastic alternative scenarios for the death of Jimi Hendrix, but having spent quite a few years believing whatever ridiculous theory was in the last book I read on JFK, I am interested in such theories as phenomina.
Here’s a little hint about some of the hostility you and your fantasy have attracted: if you start a thread making fantastic claims, you should come prepared to supply internet-based supporting evidence. The internet is where we interact, and nobody cares how convinced you are by some stuff that is in a book somewhere.
I think you are misusing the words forensic and circumstantial. That doesn’t help your argument, such as it is.
It doesn’t help Dr. Bannister’s credibility a great deal that Australian authorities found him guilty of multiple counts of professional misconduct/unethical conduct and took him off the medical register (I would think this is the equivalent of taking away his license to practice).
I was previously under the impression that Bannister was a medical examiner; instead he was supposedly on duty for emergency cases in the hospital where Hendrix was brought. This does not add to his qualifications for determining the cause of death.
On the other hand, the line between legitimate inquiry and dogged credulousness is more clearly drawn.
Apparently it doesn’t take a lot of red wine to drown in gullibility.
In my opinion, after offering an argument that I feel overturns your attempt to hang this entire issue on Doctor Bannister's credibility, the fact you then return a reply that excises all of my defining logic to once again concentrate on an effort to discredit Bannister sort of speaks for itself. You give yourself away by rushing too directly and too quickly to the character defamation most persons seeking to deny evidence do.
Let's cut to the chase. The clear answer here is an open and public vetting and analysis in a legal court of law with legal level standards. I suggest the reason this isn't being done is because of what it would show and the knowledge of those authorities making the decision of that. If you ask yourself how these authorities would go about preventing such an open investigation the answer is they would try to stymie it by destroying Bannister and then using that as an excuse to not investigate the majority of the evidence. If you look at all things involved, including this thread, the same people calling for greater scrutiny of the evidence are the same ones who refuse to honestly acknowledge it or allow it to be re-opened in a British court. I hope people are smart enough to realize that this is best done by experts in such a setting and the reluctance of those experts to provide such a forum is much more indicative than any character attacks or maligning of reputation. I'm sure honest people can see this hinges on much more than Doctor Bannister, though if you are sharp you'll see that what Doctor Bannister witnessed still hasn't been disproven. I think it's only fair, since there are valid questions of British MI6 possible involvement, to at least see if Bannister was deliberately destroyed in order to head off scrutiny. It's not like intelligence agencies haven't done that before. And I'm not sure if the inavailability of Hendrix's autopsy data isn't a sign of deliberate suppression by those same interests.
I agree with your statement that we are further defining the line between "dogged credulousness and legitimate inquiry" as your refusal now, in two consecutive posts, to recognize the prevailing circumstantial evidence shows. You're trying to lead the argument around on a very thin straw of attacking Bannister's reputation, but it's more than obvious, from your own displayed need to avoid the main evidence, that it isn't working. Those things you are saying might sound cute to you, and you may be having fun saying them, but they are a wickedly malicious excercise in denial of evidence.
There's a simple way to expose the flaw in your dubious attempt. Doctor Bannister specifically said that after he had uncorked the plug of vomit in Hendrix's windpipe that a large amount of wine was released and gushed out. He mentions it this way because he's pointing out evidence of a particular medical pathology that shows the vomit happened *after* Hendrix was drowned in red wine and that the vomit then proceeded to cork in the wine that was still in the body. When you then look at the murder scene and the amount of unpolluted wine in Hendrix's hair this reveals a source of wine that did not come from the body but was, instead, externally applied. After all, a person whom the medical record shows, and official manner of claimed death describes, as having a suppressed gag reflex from barbiturate overdose can't have vomited a half bottle of pure wine uphill and against gravity and into his own hair - especially when the forensic shows the wine went in first and was then plugged by vomit. The witnesses to this were many, including the constable, ambulance attendants, and others who witnessed the scene. Jackmannii is pretending he can force all this away on Bannister's record.
But no matter what Doctor Bannister's reputation or credibility is, we still have the blood alcohol level showing that the level of alcohol is not commensurate with the amount of wine witnessed by numerous witnesses.
Let's look further into Jackmannii's claim that he himself embodies thorough criminal forensic scrutiny. The government and its case has already been proven, and openly admits to, relying on Monika Danneman's story. That story has already been proven to be a lie. So while Jackmannii pretends to be a voice of objective reason he very visibly refuses to apply the same standard to his side. Furthermore, though somewhat indirect, Michael Jeffery, from his British national service, represents an agent of the British government and its practices. I have no doubt, that even if Jeffery did this completely on his own and for his own reasons, his methods and practices were those taught to him in intelligence training. I propose that the avoidance this is at least a partial motive of Scotland Yard in denying the re-opening of the case and could explain why they said it 'didn't serve the interests of the British Government' in their denial. So, I also suggest that this doesn't add to either the British government's or Jackmannii's positions. It doesn't take a lot of contrived obfuscation and disingenuous arguments to drown out evidence of murder either.
Let's try to find the autopsy sheets.
A partial quote from the London Telegraph:
This quote suggests proneness to exaggeration on Dr. Bannister’s part. Hendrix was not exceptionally tall. He was 5’ 10" or 5’ 11", depending on which source you believe. I expect Bannister’s informal testimony regarding the amount of wine in and on the corpse is similarly exaggerated.
The issue of Hendrix’s height aside, I think this needs to be requoted for emphasis:
I’m stunned.
It didn't take long to discover that Doctor Bannister had his medical license taken away because of billing fraud. If we were in court I'd move that any suggestion that this unrelated incidence had any affect on his competency as a practicing physician be stricken from the record. Clearly Jackmannii knows this which is why he forgot to mention the reason.
The question is then how Dr Bannister's loss of medical license for billing fraud is cause to dismiss his statements given as a qualified physician whose credentials are not mainly ruled by a criminal offense but by his long-term abilities as judged by years of medical training and the passing of medical competency examinations in school as well as his common practice.
I would further put forth that under the circumstances where there is cause to suspect a serious conflict of interest exists between the British Government and the information provided by Doctor Bannister that it should, at minimum, be investigated as to whether or not Doctor Bannister and his doings received more than average attention specifically for the purpose of undermining his credibility.
These are, once again, I am forced to point out, the classic fingerprints of an intelligence operation that should at least be looked at before being honored. Granted, Bannister could have lost his license on his own with no connection to his being the main credible witness to a possible intelligence agency murder - or even politically-embarrassing murder by Jeffery, but that doesn't change anything towards what I wrote above. I also noticed that.
I suspect the reason it was so prominently perched there right at the beginning was to flavor the article with doubt towards Bannister and his credibility. I suggest you research how governments place agents in the media to plant such stories. I've already provided examples of such with the heroin overdose stories so prominently placed in the media right after Hendrix's death. So while pointing out deliberately-placed undermining information, the doubters don't question the heroin story, or Monika Danneman's story that was accepted and unquestioned by that same media, or even Tappy Wright's confession that has at least two big unanswered holes in it. Governments do something called a "limited hang-out" of information that is supposed to contain enough truth to make it believable and therefore lead you to the conclusions they want you to believe. The Tappy Wright story is such an example in my opinion. It leads you to believe Michael Jeffery killed Hendrix but it doesn't offer anything at all like the questions the media poses towards Bannister or the tricky way they pose them.
I have to point out that the post above is yet another example of someone trying to overturn the entire body of evidence, which is fairly strong, by means of a single criticism of Bannister. This is easily refuted by simply pointing out how many other people witnessed the large amount of wine. It's common sense that a small amount of wine could not create the outwardly commented-on amounts of wine witnessed at the scene and in and on Hendrix. This amount was testified to by the constable, ambulance attendants, and others.According to the link I provided, Bannister was found to have rendered incompetent/negligent medical care (for instance, the hip surgery patient who supposedly didn’t get antibiotics and other proper attention). That speaks to his “competency as a practicing physician”.
It’s not up to us to disprove anything. Those who make sensational claims are under the obligation to prove them with evidence.
I see, your inability to come up with evidence is a demonstration of the Conspiracy. Admirable logic.
You know, this business about “bottles” of wine “gushing out” of the guy’s upper respiratory tract ignores a basic element of human anatomy. The human windpipe (trachea) and major bronchi are rather slender tubes that do not hold a lot of fluid - a pint or so would be more like it (Jackmannii, personal observation based on a couple hundred autopsies). “Bottles” worth is obviously a gross exaggeration. Similarly, how the hell would Bannister know that Hendrix had a half bottle of wine in his hair? Did he wring out the hair and get a half bottle’s worth? At best he could have noted that Hendrix’s hair was wet and smelled of wine. But hair does not absorb and hold large quantities of fluid. It could have been a glass worth, or less based on what he might have observed and then dramatically recalled decades after the fact.
All this speaks further to his credibility, which you are clinging to like a (sorry) drowning man, but which is poor to any knowledgeable observer.
No such claim was made.
Good, good. The speculative stuff is pretty silly.
Although I’d like to know where Peter Noone was when all this was going on. Hendrix had supplanted him as a pop idol and there could have been considerable resentment. Cliff Richard might have had a motive, too.
Only if you are trying to force it so, as you obviously are. Like I said there wouldn't be such a malpractice crisis if there weren't a slew of such instances prevalent amongst doctors. Your point is self-exposingly weak and doesn't, once again, show anything to say why Doctor Bannister couldn't judge a drowning pathology or unusual amount of wine (which you've already indirectly admitted in your entries). The only thing this really speaks to is your desperation to avoid the obvious. Surely none of these things would constitute reason to doubt or overturn the judgment of an unusual amount of wine in Hendrix or its pathology.
I would further add that Doctor Bannister's reading of Shapiro's book and subsequent coming forward occurred in 1985. This medical license business did not occur until *after* this coming forward. Doctor Bannister was a doctor for many years before that without any problems. So the question is valid whether Bannister's professional practices received abnormal attention after he had come forward? Bannister lost his license in 1992. The same year Hendrix's English friends were petitioning Scotland Yard to re-open the case.
The usual excuse for ignoring obvious evidence. Like I said, the fact you ignore the obvious circumstantial evidence speaks more than any legal procedure excuses. Confessions, motives, suicides before testimony, friends falling from buildings, etc. Usually a suicide before testifying is taken as a confession. But I'm sure you'll need that thoroughly proven too (ya). (That is if it was a suicide)
Very weak. What didn't fill the lungs went into the stomach.
You're avoiding the blood alcohol forensic. I don't think the facts allow you that privilege.
The operative criminal forensic here is the amount of wine at the murder scene and in and on Hendrix in relation to the amount that gushed out. The overall sum would connote bottles of wine used to drown Hendrix as claimed.
You're not answering the point about how any remarkable amount of wine managed to flow uphill and against gravity according to the pathology Bannister noted of the vomit corking-in the wine? Nor are you recognizing the fatal conflict between the Inquest claiming Hendrix's gag reflex was suppressed and the fact that therefore there couldn't be any gushing wine exploding like a volcano into Hendrix's hair. The only way that could happen would be a large amount of wine was quickly administered to Hendrix. Since the blood level conflict corroborates this you then have evidence of murder. You have no right to ignore this. Hendrix would not have vomited if he hadn't had a barbiturate overdose, nor could he have administered a large amount of wine into and all over himself if he was knocked-out on such an overdose. You're simply violating the terms of the criminal forensic here. And they have nothing to do with Bannister or any cheap excuse of using his alleged lack of credibility to deny them.
Funny, you talk about "silly" but then make speculations about jealous pop stars killing Hendrix in mockery. Forget the fact Michael Jeffery was well-known for his dirty business and had a motive. He also claimed he killed people in black operations and was known to have committed insurance scams.
Are you telling us your efforts aren't really sincere here?
When we get the autopsy information your gratuitous doubt and petty armchair naysaying will come into clearer focus.So do you have a cite for absurd amounts of wine “gushing” out of Hendrix or not, Jetblast? Here’s an image of the death certificate, but I can’t find an autopsy report online. When I searched for one, I mostly found links to discussions like this one, so I expect the report isn’t available on the internet. You’re taking Bannister’s new version of events at face value with no particular evidence and spinning a theory out of it.
The book “The Jimi Hendrix Experience” by Jerry Hopkins said Hendrix also had Seconal and ‘an unidentified amphetamine’ in his blood stream when he died. His source is Robert Donald Teare, who conducted the autopsy. Unfortunately the quote is cut off there, so the list of drugs in his system is not complete. This web site completes the list by saying it was nine Vesparax tablets, small traces of Seconal and 20 mg of an amphetamine.
By the way, Dr. Bannister says the murder story is “plausible”, so he is not standing as firmly behind it as Jetblast is.
I’m waiting to hear about the magical medical mechanism by which vomit forms a plug in both the trachea and the upper G.I. tract, and then when that “plug” is dislodged in a dead person, “several bottles worth” of wine gushes up from the lungs and stomach like Vesuvius. It does not compute.
Ah, so supposedly being involved in insurance scams is damning evidence against your alleged killer, but alleged involvement in billing scams (and other misdeeds) is non-relevant when it comes to the credibility of Doc Bannister?
I’d say my efforts have been approximately 90% debunking of silly conspiracy theorizing and 10% mockery. That’s a pretty good ratio considering the goofiness of what’s been presented in this thread.
Alright, I can’t take it anymore.
I tend to avoid even the implication of being a grammar Nazi, but goddamnit, “forensic” is an adjective. Please, please stop using it as a noun.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Anyway, Jetblast: what’s your source for Michael Jeffery having any connection to any intelligence agency? I should have mentioned this earlier. It’s not even the most outlandish idea in the thread so far but it’s worth pointing out that it’s unsupported and it’s a key part of your theory. I also don’t know that Hendrix was “flush with cash” when he died. He was going through a difficult phase in his career and had been struggling to create new music.
When? What issue? What year? Give me a citation. I want to read the original source material.