No, actually I stated that the circumstantial evidence of a large amount of wine as witnessed by the constable called to the scene by the ambulance attendants corroborated this. Those attendants were required to do so when arriving at a death scene with no witnesses or persons available. Danneman's flat should have been secured as a crime scene and treated so at that point. The ambulance attendants also witnessed a large amount of wine on and around Hendrix. So Bannister's account is backed by witnesses who witnessed the wine innocently and on their own. Your side has ignored this several times. The wine seen spilled around Hendrix, plus the wine Bannister noted, adds up to a large amount of wine, and the splashed wine possibly conforms to wine splattered around in the act of murder. There's much more than "spinning" here.
The reason this is so important is because the Inquest claimed Hendrix had choked on his own vomit because a barbiturate overdose had caused his gag reflex to shut-down. So if his gag reflex was stopped then how did so much wine get all over the place or go uphill and against gravity and into his hair? The ambulance attendants said he was covered in vomit and his bed and clothes were saturated in wine. That doesn't sound like any suppressed gag reflex to me. Also, there was never any explanation given for a wine-soaked towel that was found wrapped around Hendrix's neck.
Hendrix was found by the ambulance attendants fully clothed and lying on his bed. While Hendrix was sometimes known to sleep in his clothes Danneman's story was he had taken the Vesperax because he was haggard from stress and wanted to get a good night's sleep. So it is counterintuitive that he would have lain on top of an unruffled bed to do this.
So we have reasonably established a pattern of wine in and around Hendrix. If we go to Monika's story at the Inquest she specifically stated that she and Hendrix had a glass of wine with supper and that was it. That story conforms to the amount of wine in Hendrix's blood. Danneman did not tell the Inquest what she told Sharon Lawrence and that was that she tried to wash 'sick' off Hendrix using wine. In my opinion she was clearly trying to make up an excuse for the splattered wine she was obviously conscious of and trying to explain. (Who uses *wine* to wash vomit???) We therefore have no official accounting for the large amount of wine splashed on and around Hendrix. If we go back to the forensics we then have to ask if Hendrix was so incapacitated on Vesperax, as the Inquest claimed, that his gag reflex was shut-down then how did he manage to get so much wine into and on himself? THAT is what doesn't "compute" here. At that stage he would be passed out and therefore incapable of hoisting any wine.
This is where the probable explanation becomes more clear. The autopsy showed Hendrix had undigested rice in his stomach contents. The doctor said this shows Hendrix died less than 4 hours after eating that rice. We know Hendrix ate that rice at a party Danneman drove him to and picked him up at. I've seen one account that said she picked him up at 1am, another said 3am. So the latest Hendrix could have died, according to firm medical forensics, is 7am. Yet Danneman said she got up at 9am and went out to get cigarettes. When she returned she said she saw he was in trouble (but still alive). Also Eric Burdon said it was dawn when Danneman called him and that dew was still present on windscreens when he arrived at the flat. That should be closer to 5am. Plus Danneman's own accounts say she hesitated before calling Burdon. If we go back to the explosive nature of the wine evidence and lack of blood alcohol in relation we see the murder forensic appearing rather than the choking on vomit one. One thing is clear, Danneman is lying. The official cause of death relied 100% on Danneman's story. So I don't see any of our grand inquisitors who suggest they are such great critics of non-truth or doubtful information questioning this or even mentioning it at all.
No doubt the horrible grotesqueness of the death scene induced those involved to diplomatically soften what they then perceived as an ugly drug overdose. This was aided and guided by Danneman's deliberately false account. After being forced by English friends of Hendrix to finally account for her story in court Danneman was found dead in her Mercedes at her English countryside home. None of them stopped to consider that the ugliness was the result of a horrible murder.We’re left to wonder why the police did not consider the possibility that, rather than dying from a combination of powerful sleeping pills and red wine, Hendrix had bottles of wine shoved down his throat by unknown assailants.
I’m not a forensic scientist, so I’m asking this: could Hendrix have taken the pills and wine and died before digesting all of the wine? Could he have thrown up some of the wine but not all of it? Could the sleeping pills have suppressed his gag reflex later, only after he had thrown up some of the wine?
Irrelevant speculation. My experience is that people who are exhausted or drunk are the ones most likely to sleep on an unruffled bed. People who are not in a hurry to get to sleep will take the time to clear the bed.
A panicky, stoned idiot? Which would also go some way in explaining her changing stories.
Because it wasn’t. And why was Danneman knocked off in 1996, by the way? Michael Jeffery died in 1973, so it’s not like her testimony pissed him off. You’ve asserted Jeffery had links to organized crime or intelligence but you haven’t offered a shred of evidence for it. So who cares if Monika Danneman is alive or dead in 1996?
Jeffery's MI5/MI6 involvement is difficult to access from here. The best I could Google was Jeffery "claimed he was involved with MI5 during his British national service". However Jeffery spoke fluent Russian and claimed he did spook work in Egypt during his national service and even killed people. I would bet if you went to Jeffery's personal background you would find no source of Russian instruction. Intelligence agencies don't publicly admit their members. It's too long a digression to show many examples of known CIA persons who were officially denied to be CIA yet were later proven to be. If we were to try to get this from the British government I'm sure it would be met with a similar response to the re-opening request. This would probably be best answered by persons in the national service with Jeffery. My guess is intel instructs recruits in Russian not the regular British Army.
Hendrix wasn't flush with cash after his death, Jeffery was. Hendrix only had 20 pounds or so in his bank account at his death. Tappy Wright's duties required he be around Jeffery a lot. He said Jeffery was loaded with cash and paying everybody off after Hendrix's death. He said he had no idea where it came from. I myself speculate it came from the offshore accounts Jeffery was siphoning Hendrix's money into. Al Hendrix alone recieved $250,000 in 1970 money.So is Chuck Barris’ CIA involvement, if you catch my drift.
My mistake. But I’m still not going to trust a story he heard in 1971 and kept secret until he wrote a book in 2009.
I can’t find it on YouTube, but I understand that Dr. Bannister and his rock group (Johnny and the Struck-Off MDs) have re-recorded an old Cowsills’ hit with new lyrics that explain his theory of the Hendrix murder.
*I saw him covered in red wine
Wine gushing everywhere
They didn’t seem to care
They sat there and laughed at me
Then I knew (I knew… I knew… I knew… I knew)
that Jimi Hendrix was murdered (murdered … murdered)
Red wine in his hair
Red wine everywhere (everywhere)
You’ve got to say it’s plausible
Oh I don’t know just why; he didn’t overdose and die
It’s oh so plausible
There’s C.I.A. you’ll find; they crept into my mind
(To my mind… to my mind)*
I’ll keep looking for the video.
This ups my percentage of mockery in the thread to 20%.
Jetblast, you may be new to forensic investigation, but not everyone in the world is. It just does not work like you seem to think it does.
And for those who are not new to it, they are all too used to stories like this that hit all the markers for crank theories. Celebrity death. Relative Sexiness Differential ™ between the Mundane Official Story and the suspiciously tabloid-esque new theory that only the proponent of the theory and a small coterie have the cleverness to see.
I note a number of other signs.
-The apparent inability to recognise that murder is generally a highly unlikely cause of death, compared with misadventure.
-The inability to recognise the risk of confirmation bias in one’s own theorising.
-The style of “reasoning” that fails to recognise that micro-analysis decades after the event is unlikely to be productive of anything much more than data-mining ever is. Put another way, it’s a pre-disposition to overinterpret tiny details.
-And (this is a biggie) a style of reasoning that handwaves away objections with airy and unsupported references to the intelligence community and its apparent willingness and capacity to do almost anything at anytime it fills a need in the theorist’s plot. Such as plant stories in the press. There just aren’t that many MI5 agents to keep track of planting stories about all the famous people who have died where someone has claimed conspiracy. And it is a pretty prescient conspiracy if MI5 managed to get Bannister falsely struck off for fraud and incompetence long before he came forward with his story about Hendrix (there is not much detail about the dates, but I gather from the newspaper article you quoted that his revelations are much more recent that his striking off).
-There is also a certain obsessional quality about the pursuit of the case and in particular the marginal detail that is a red flag as well.
Now don’t get me wrong. Attention to detail is generally a good thing. But taken to extremes, a virtue becomes a vice. Here, there is a very strong flavour of the sort of incapacity Truthers have to discriminate between important details and unimportant ones, and to discriminate between well-established facts and weakly supported ones.
And there is a failure to see holes as well. If Hendrix’s agent was some sort of intelligence community professional running a counter-intelligence operation with Hendrix (???), why does he supposedly confess? If he murdered him for money, what is the relevance of the intelligence issue, other than that it makes your tale suspiciously overloaded with “explanations”?
You seem to attach great weight to inconsistencies in various peoples’ accounts without realising that inconsistency of that order (even assuming it exists) is a given in any real forensic situation. It is just part of the background noise of real peoples’ imperfections of recall. Others have commented on the further related problem that you do not treat issues such as inconsistency even-handedly, alternatively forgiving it and condemning it when it
suits.
A real problem is the assertion you made that you would seek to have Dr Bannister’s misdeeds in Australia “stricken from the record”. Good luck with that. Your incapacity to see the importance of credibility problems in your witnesses does not bode well.
Unlike crime fiction, real criminal investigations are not the sort of syllogistic processes that are indulged in by Inspector Poirot. In Poirot World, each detail is clearly established, witnesses’ memories are all black-and-white and they are never merely mistaken nor do they ever forget important details nor do they ever innocently contradict one another nor are they ever misunderstood or misreported. The truth is then determined by logic-chopping.
That is not the real world. Have you ever noticed that if you read books about, say, Jack the Ripper, the first one you read will be utterly convincing in its thesis that the culprit was Dr X, but then the second will be equally convincing in its thesis that it was the Duke of Y, and the third that it was Prince Z and so on? They can’t all be right.
What is typically wrong with them is the unspoken assumptions made by each about how to approach evidence. They tend to mimic the style of reasoning of Agatha Christie novels. Facts are assumed to be established with much more certainty than is really ever the case, and mere human error is not allowed. They draw conclusions about what is possible and impossible with a much greater degree of certainty than is really warranted. They do not reveal much capacity to distinguish between legitimate inference and speculation. And in their breathless pursuit of their theory, they never identify or deal adequately with obvious holes that a critical reading would reveal.
Your theory hits the pegs on all these markers.
Here is an example.
This is where the probable explanation becomes more clear. The autopsy showed Hendrix had undigested rice in his stomach contents. The doctor said this shows Hendrix died less than 4 hours after eating that rice. We know Hendrix ate that rice at a party Danneman drove him to and picked him up at. I’ve seen one account that said she picked him up at 1am, another said 3am. So the latest Hendrix could have died, according to firm medical forensics, is 7am. Yet Danneman said she got up at 9am and went out to get cigarettes. When she returned she said she saw he was in trouble (but still alive). Also Eric Burdon said it was dawn when Danneman called him and that dew was still present on windscreens when he arrived at the flat. That should be closer to 5am. Plus Danneman’s own accounts say she hesitated before calling Burdon. If we go back to the explosive nature of the wine evidence and lack of blood alcohol in relation we see the murder forensic appearing rather than the choking on vomit one. One thing is clear, Danneman is lying. The official cause of death relied 100% on Danneman’s story. So I don’t see any of our grand inquisitors who suggest they are such great critics of non-truth or doubtful information questioning this or even mentioning it at all.
You are using indications that are at best vague in order to draw conclusions of absolute certainty. “Four hours” in this context does not mean exactly four hours and not a minute longer. There is always a substantial error bar on these things. And using the presence of dew to “prove” that Burdon or someone else is lying about the time is overreaching. Times are best guesses, and the presence or absence of dew is determined by the macro and micro-climate at the scene, not your speculation. That issue will never be satisfactorily resolved 3 decades later. Why couldn’t Danneman be honestly mistaken as to the time? All this theorising from second hand sources is uncompelling. And anyone who thinks in terms of evidence as being “explosive” has absorbed too much bad journalism.
The skill in all these sorts of cases does not lie in assembling elaborate chains of reasoning from primary axioms like mathematicians do. It lies in separating signal from noise. Most sensible people would consider Bannister’s late account as noise.
In another sense, we are trying to determine whether your theory is signal or noise (against the background of all the other similar theories in the world). We have very good examples of what noise looks like (pretty much all the conspiracy theories others have discussed). Your theory depends at the moment upon Dr Bannister’s late account, without which there is no reason to conclude drowning occurred. The doubts about Bannister’s reliability are manifest.
In principle, solid confessions of wrong doing by the agent could survive without Bannister but at the moment the dubious confessions you refer to, without time, place or actual language used, are so far hopelessly unimpressive.
For those reasons at least your theory does not emerge as anything more compelling than any other CT.
Because the main witnesses admitted they thought it was an overdose common to that era in London. Even the ambulance guys said that.
The autopsy forensics should show the Vesperax blood level. A good expert would be able to tell you the relation of the barbiturate level found in Hendrix's blood and what that indicated as to the time he took those pills. That time would tell you what state Hendrix was in in relation to the amount of wine in him.
Those are, actually, good and pertinent questions according to what we've seen. The problem with them is Danneman was allegedly with Hendrix the whole time any profuse vomiting, as witnessed by the attendants, would have occurred. Her story was they had a glass of wine with a tunafish sandwich meal and Hendrix then went to bed. She said she then got up and 9am and Hendrix was OK. She then went out to get some cigarettes and when she returned she saw a drool of vomit on Hendrix's chin and couldn't wake him. Now that's an entirely different account from what the attendants saw which was a profuse amount of vomit covering Hendrix above the shoulders. The two accounts of the vomiting action are completely opposite each other. The attendants' account is true.
So according to Danneman's story the only way Hendrix could have vomited wine to that degree would be some sort of wine application occurred after Hendrix was passed out. If we reject Danneman's story all together we still have a profuse vomiting reaction to something. So far we have good reason to think it was wine. What we need to determine here is Hendrix's blood barbiturate level in relation to how much vomit he could expel under those conditions. And also in relation to his getting any amount of wine into himself under that condition.
The important thing to note is that Mr Hendrix's blood alcohol level shows the wine went in and then out quickly. So any time we are talking a barbiturate level commensurate with suppressing the gag reflex to the point of choking to death we are talking a level of consciousness that would necessarily preclude any auto-administration of large amounts of wine.
I suggest you familiarize yourself with Danneman's account. The scene was more like a casual late night dinner then bed. Hendrix was having trouble sleeping. It wasn't a tired sack of potatoes hitting the bed exhausted it was Hendrix taking Vesperax to try to get some needed sleep. Murder claimers are saying the clothing and bed conditions indicate murdered and placed onto the bed. Or even murdered on the bed.
Perhaps, but that only shows the lack of credibility of the main witness upon whom the British government relied for the official verdict. I have yet to see anyone question the government's credibility even though its lack of it has been PROVEN.
No, I refuse to believe even a hysterical woman would penetrate Hendrix with that much wine and not know she was doing something wrong. It would take a level of either mental retardation or psychosis to do something like that innocently that I just refuse to believe. Well, maybe psychosis, but that's still murder.
Oh, there's more than just a shred of evidence for Jeffery's mafia involvement. Listen to the You-Tube link I posted. Tappy Wright said he drove Jeffery's office manager Bob Levine to New Jersey to pick-up loans and that he was in Jeffery's office when the mob called asking for their money. Plus Jeffery bragged about it to people himself. And his offshore banks were the same ones used by the mob to launder their rackets proceeds. I suppose your argument is this was all made-up?
I think you missed the context of what I wrote. I meant *Hendrix's* horrible murder was missed. It's a good question to ask who cares if Monika Danneman is dead or alive in 1996? Especially when she's about to go to court and possibly spill all she knows about that night. That, I also think, is a good and pertinent question... A short digression here.
If we look at the question of Jeffery's alleged MI5/6 service we see there's no one denying it. There's no official statement. In fact there's a rather conspicuous lack of any kind of investigation of it that stands as abnormal in this instance. I think your bringing it up was at least partially motivated by that fact. So I'd like to make the point that the usual indicators are all green lights down the tracks as far as that possibility if we just look at it in a general way. Could this possibly explain Scotland Yard's reluctance to even review Danneman's disproven story?
The question would be was he still active or not? I'm avoiding this because there's no evidence and it will only confuse the case of evidence for murder. In my opinion, however, the type of death does have Military Intelligence fingerprints on it - as does the strange lack of investigation.Well said, Noel Prosequi.
So have you seen the autopsy results or not? And could you please clarify this point: are you alleging Jeffery’s thugs forced both the Vesperax and the wine down Hendrix’s throat, or are you saying he took a bunch of sleeping pills and then coincidentally someone killed him by forcing wine down his throat? If it’s the latter, there should have been evidence he was beaten or choked or something similar.
Maybe so. The problem is this: while there are holes in Danneman’s story, her general explanation is much more credible than that of Wright et al. We have a person who took a bunch of sleeping pills and wine, vomited, and died. With those facts, an accidental overdose and drug interaction is much more believable than a murder.
Wright is also the author of the 2009 book that says Jeffery confessed he’d had Hendrix murdered. I wouldn’t be surprised if Jeffery was involved with some unethical people since he was one himself, but that doesn’t make him a mobster or an MI5 agent.
So did Jack Ruby. People sometimes brag about this kind of thing when they want to sound like tough bigshots.
Very well.
Then answer it!
So what? You just said yourself that intelligence agencies rarely disclose their members. Why would they go out of their way to deny this? (And further, we don’t know anyone’s asked.)
Why WOULD anyone investigate it?
Sophisticated military intelligence thug fingerprints. Right. :rolleyes:
I thank you for your response. It's well written and you obviously put some effort into it. But to be honest with you I looked hard in there to see if you said anything to counter any of my direct points. You didn't. As well written as it is, your post seems to focus on a critical overview of my entries while really not adding anything of substance or meaning towards the operative points.
I disagree with your quote above. I think if we were to take this to a credible forensics scientist he would tell us the reason they mentioned the rice and its state of digestion was because the 4 hour point is the maximum you can have undigested rice in the stomach contents. Now I see you have gone to lengths to prove otherwise, but I don't think you have. Contrary to the description you give it as being "vague", I suggest this is very much the opposite and is a precise and telling forensic.
On the other hand, we can judge *your* input and see that you never bothered to gage this reference to its relevant points which were the fact that the 4 hour digestion time greatly varied with the 11:30am occurence of death. So while I appreciate your condescending that I am "new to this" I must point that out.
The dew is very much credible evidence that would be used in any court. Burdon saw Hendrix's finger-written "LOVE" on Danneman's rear car window with fresh wet dew around it. It is very much credible forensic evidence to research the London weather conditions that morning including dew point, temperature, sun, etc to determine how long that dewy window would remain so before the day burned it off. But we can get a good estimate of this simply from Burdon's recorded statement that he was woken by Danneman's phone call around dawn. I'd like to know just when Hendrix wrote that?
Your arguments are deficient on their face simply because they fail to register the serious conflicts in Danneman's accounts or even the significance of HOURS of difference in her given times. Burdon did admit in a book that they cleaned the flat out of drugs before the cops arrived in order to prevent the police from cracking down on London rockers. Bannister noted that obvious necrosis in Hendrix's inner cheek suggested he had been dead for many hours.
So manifest that you won't answer the points I made above? Bannister's loss of license was mostly based on billing fraud. I made the point that Bannister had qualified as a competent medical doctor as decided by his medical school teachers. I haven't seen anyone show otherwise. In my mind it is more than telling that Bannister had no career problems prior to 1985 when he came out with this. It was from that date on that he had professional problems and finally lost his license the same year Scotland Yard was being petitioned to re-open the case. I think your response is rather lacking in comparison. Nowhere do I see anything to suggest Bannister, according to the competency assigned to him by his medical school teachers, was incapable of judging a large amount of wine inside one Mr Jimi Hendrix as witnessed as the presiding doctor that morning.
I think your categorical avoidance of all the germane circumstantial and forensic evidence and the arguments for them speaks more than anything. In my opinion they weigh heavier than offhand opinions and would, step by step, fact by provable fact, bear themselves out. There's a reason this is being kept out of court and I don't think it's because it is "unimpressive" or not "compelling".
Why was Devon Wilson found dead after falling from the Chelsea Hotel? Why didn't the police seriously investigate it? Devon Wilson was going around telling people Jeffery killed Hendrix.(Bolding mine)
And how! Just look at how many billions of people have bought into the whole choked-on-vomit thing.
But seriously… some London thugs want to kill someone quickly–they’re low-class so perhaps not the most intelligent or creative dudes around; and remember, they want to zip this guy without too much fuss. So…what to do, what to do?
Shoot him? Strangle him? Beat him to death?
No. Not quick enough. And besides, your typical London thug would never dream up such esoteric techniques. Think again.
Hmmm… how about stabbing him, or maybe slitting his throat? Perhaps they could poison him… or maybe… yeah! He’s already in the bathtub, right? Suppose they drown him? How about that?
The stabbing and poison ideas are ridiculous. Far too complex and bizarre for a London thug, and besides–they would take too long. This is supposed to be a low-class, quick murder. However, you might be on to something with this drowning thing. Think quick and easy–that’s the idea here–so clearly drowning in water is out.
I’d suggest drowning by wine.
Perfect!
PS-- I’d be obliged if Jetblast would now enlighten me about TimeCube’s role in the wine-bomb* detonation in 7th-Dimensional space deep below the WTC on 9/11, and what role Monica Lewinsky’s twin ghost had in that whole conspiracy. Do tell.
*I always forget–does on serve white or red to go with mass carnage?
ON EDIT— Shit! I thought this was all about Jim Morrison! Well… same thing, I suppose. They were both most likely drowned by wine.
I hope your post is the lucky charm and gets us an answer to that question, I Love Me, Vol. I.
The dew? How the hell did we get onto the dew??
This is almost as strange as the Trevi Fountain of Red Wine. When did “cheek necrosis” become an indicator of time of death? You can get a mouth ulcer lots of ways, and it doesn’t mean you’ve been dead for hours, unless you have been dead for hours, and there’s real forensic path stuff to help tell us that, like internal organ temperature which might be in the autopsy report unless MI5 has sealed it until the next millenium to protect the guilty or because it’s neat to have secret files.
I’d have to agree with…huh?
I believe that white wine goes best with Vesperax.
Incidentally, why wouldn’t wine-killers go with white wine instead of red? Less messy, it seems to me - you don’t get stains on your clothes, for instance. On the other hand red wine is more heart-healthy, but I hardly see the killers worrying about that aspect.
Jesus, now I gotta worry about the dew.
Which was my point. No amount of descent to detail will ever persuade you, because you deal with the detail by attempting to set the background rules of the debate according to premises which those who really do this work do not accept.
You don’t get to make up evidence. Your guess of what a credible forensic scientist might say means less than nothing. Do you know any? Have you ever used stomach content evidence in a real-life forensic situation? Do you think that it’s a possibility that your amateur understanding of forensic science might perhaps have been led astray by the hopelessly artificial style of CSI-type shows?
Of course it is evidence, and would be admissible. Just wouldn’t mean much, because the universe of possible meanings (most of which are simply neutral from the point of view of advancing your thesis) is much greater than you think. But no amount of “research” will tell you what the micro-climate was at the exact point of the car’s window at the relevant time. It’s all just unrecoverable after all this time. Dew deposition can vary from the front of the car to the back (depending on shading and coverage) and even from one part of a window to another. The nearest observation point in London is likely to have been miles away. But even it it was yards away, it wouldn’t mean much, so far as trying to determine something about the timing of these events is concerned. CSI type shows pretend that all these little details mean much more than they really do in real life. Your idea of what amounts to a good “forensic” (you really should use the language properly if you are to be taken seriously) is meaningless.
This is an example of precisely what I mean. Why does the discrepancy in Danneman’s account have to be explained by murder and nothing else? It makes perfect sense to me that she made ill-considered judgments on a stressful morning about cleaning out drugs and that her attempt unwisely to try to cover that up might be one possible source of such problems as you identify.
Yet he tried to resuscitate him? Have I understood that correctly?
Once again, you don’t get to make up facts, or to dictate the rules of debate. If your defence of him is to rely on the fact that he was dishonest (but not incompetent), and you can’t see the problems with that, then you need to have a good lie down. In truth, the material quoted by jackmanii indicates that incompetence was an issue as well.
But if your argument is correct, then there is no such thing as an incompetent doctor. They all passed medical school. Are you seriously contending that that fact alone means we have to ignore any evidence that tells against his credibility because someone once gave him pass marks on exams? That is seriously not consistent with the real world. Do you have any direct experience of the difference between academic learning at a University and its real-life application?
Do you not understand that you can’t “bolster” your arguments by asserting evidenceless conspiracies when it suits you? The primary reason it is being kept out of court is (I suspect) that no-one with a legitimate interest has made a formal application in some form to litigate whatever issues it is you want to ventilate. I am not even sure what sort of proceeding you have in mind.
The second reason is because the propositions you have raised are so weak. Matters are not generally relitigated to find the evidence you are guessing must be there, they are relitigated to assess the evidence that someone like you produces. Royal commissions or reopenings of inquests (if that is the sort of proceeding you have in mind) are not cheap, and very good reason has to be demonstrated before it is done to justify it. Your evidence does not seem to me to constitute such a justification.
And of course the third reason it is being “kept out of court” is that there is no point to bringing it back. Courts do not conduct proceedings to satisfy your curiosity. They do so for a purpose. Since your star suspect is long dead, as is Danneman, what purpose is served by having a proceeding? There is no-one to prosecute or imprison, and the dead aren’t around to give what might be perfectly sensible explanations for your theorising.
Whether you would disagree with these reasons or not, they are collectively a perfectly sensible explanation of why the matter has not been brought back to court without having resort to a conspiracy explanation. Leaping to a conspiratorial conclusion in the face of the obvious mundane explanations underpins the points I made earlier about the style of thought you bring to this.
This is a prime example of the style of thinking I am talking about. A common trope of crime fiction is that one murder commonly spawns more (I’m looking at you, Midsomer Murders), ostensibly to cover up the previous ones. Call it the Macbeth syndrome. In reality, that almost never happens.
Killing someone carries enormous risks of detection. The common idea that a killer can get away with his crime if he is clever enough is false. Cleverness doesn’t enter into it. The problem for a killer is that he simply can’t plan for every contingency, no matter how clever he is. He has almost certainly no or very little experience of it, and has little idea of what to expect at the scene. He has little idea of who might randomly turn up, who might see him go to the scene, how much blood he might have to clean up, how hard the victim will fight, what cleaning up he might have to do, and so on. He has to make real-time decisions that commit him based on his best guess of what the future will hold and what else is going on at the same time that he cannot know. And he has to make these decisions in extreme haste and under extreme pressure. The police are not so constrained. They have all the time they need to go back and look at things. In short, it is a highly risky business. It is, as Clint Eastwood said, " a helluva thing to kill a man".
To do it all a second time just magnifies the risk of being caught for both killings rather than reduce the risk of being caught for the first.
None of this means that Macbeth-esque multiple killings never occur. Just that they are a highly unlikely explanation of events. You, on the other hand, seem to think it plausible to just throw around allegations of murder willy-nilly, merely for reasons of narrative drama.
And of course once again this is evidence of your conspiratorial style of thinking. In the conspiracy world view, everything is linked. People (even people who hang around the drug demimonde) never just die, in that view. Importantly, you will note that you have produced no evidence that Wilson was murdered. What you call a “serious” investigation (which you say is lacking) is simply code for an investigation that reaches the conclusions that you want it to reach - by definition, any investigation that doesn’t, didn’t look hard enough. You have put two and two together to get a hundred and pi.
Once again, you can’t use your overarching theory as evidence of secondary facts (like the supposed murder of Wilson) and then use the murder of Wilson as evidence of your overarching theory. You don’t just get to raise questions or possibilities, you have to answer them.
You are the second such person these boards have had in recent weeks. Does the phrase “blue blood is black blood” mean anything to you?
This is an interesting thread. Not particularly interesting because of the facts or propositions being spouted, but interesting because **Jetblast **started this thread with a post stating that Jimi Hendrix didn’t die of natural causes, but was murdered. He has backed this up with what he sees as cast iron reasoning. Not a single poster has been persuaded by this, with many counter arguments as to why Jetblast’s reasoning cannot be right.
Yet he has not budged one inch. He is obviously convinced by the facts as he sees them, and equally obviously feels strongly about his views, and for the need to convince everyone else. I never thought this would reach 115 well argued posts, but I feel that, unless some new evidence comes up, neither side will change the other’s point of view. Both sides seem equally entrenched in their beliefs.
But it has been fascinating to observe the moves and counter moves.
I think it is astounding that Jetblast, 107 posts into this thread, is still treating a fact not in evidence as evidence. He keeps saying that the blood alcohol level proves something, but cannot quote the blood alcohol level.
Hey Jetblast, what is the blood alcohol level that you are relying on and haven’t shared? Where did you find it?
Not to belabor the credibility of Doc Bannister, but that supposed observation of his about “obvious necrosis” of the inner cheek proving Hendrix had been dead for many hours, smells.
Literally.
If tissue breakdown after death has gotten to the point where there is “obvious necrosis” inside the mouth, the person is well into decomposition and would not wind up in an emergency facility getting their windpipe unplugged for resuscitative purposes. The smell would be a tipoff that life support measures will be futile and it’s time to call the medical examiner. Or re-animator.
Wine, wine, wine (elderberry)
Wine, wine, wine (Or sherry)
Wine, wine, wine (blackberry)
Wine, wine, wine (half 'n half)
Wine, wine, wine (oh boy)
Pass that bottle to me
- Stick McGhee
There must be some reason why Hendrix didn’t record this song.
There are not many medical terms that I feel qualified to talk about, but the necrosis comment strikes me as one that would not have come from a doctor. Due to my interest in venomous snakes and my friendship with some guys who have survived pretty serious snake bites, I have run in to the term necrosis before and I have seen instances of it on my friends. If I understand the term correctly, it means localized tissue death on a living organism. It is not used to describe decomposition of a dead body. I have trouble believing a trained doctor would use this term in the suggested context.
This Jeffery chap must have been a remarkable guy. British National Service ran for a total of ten years between 1950 and 1960. The length of service was two years. In those two years, this raw 17 year old underwent training, was noticed by MI5 and/or MI6, was retrained a field agent and then given 00 status a la James Bond. According to this article
And then what does this International Man of Mystery do? Goes on to manage a rock band.
Of course normal people might believe that Mr. Jeffery was a bit of a fanatsist, especially given the total lack of evidence that he was a Super Secret Super Assassin. Total lack of evidence seems to be a common theme.
If anyone is interested in slightly more coherent fabrication of the events surrounding Jimi Hendrix’s death (it involved the CIA / FBI / MK ULTRA / MI6 / and probably alien space lizards as well), try here