Inhalin’ half-gallons and callin’ for more!
Well, “necrosis” means death of tissue, i.e. part or all of an organ. My medical dictionary (Dorland) defines the term as “the morphological changes indicative of cell death caused by progressive enzymatic degradation”, so theoretically this could apply to postmortem changes.
You’re right though that the term is generally used to talk about antemortem death of tissue.
Anyway, the signs of someone having been dead “for many hours” (whatever “many” means) typically include things like rigor mortis and settling of blood to dependent parts of the body (livor mortis), not necrosis of mucous membranes.
Your knee-jerk response has caught you in your own trap unfortunately. The correct terms of this should be *Jeffery's* London thugs.
If you are intelligent you'll realize that murder by barbiturate overdose was a common intelligence agency method of the time. And since Jeffery's MI bona fides seem to be arriving adequately and on time (as reality necessitates with factual things) we can therefore correctly relate them to this type of murder. We'll just set aside for now that we have a person who came forward and admitted he actually heard Jeffery confess doing this. After all, why let something like a confession of the very act and method from the person under suspicion get in the way of a swat fest, eh mates?
There's some simple logic that backs this method. The main logic being, that unlike the other more bloody forms of murder mentioned above, this drowning type looks like an accident. You would think people would realize this since it was taken as so for decades. So instead of bringing the murder method to doubt, the above poster actually reinforces this method and its practical deceptiveness. It doesn't take a genius to figure out that a slit throat or other bloody form of obvious murder would bring the authorities to bear in a criminal homicide investigation. This would only draw suspicion on Jeffery as a suspect with the motive he did have. This MI-type murder only serves to further incriminate Jeffery. I hope that would be obvious to anyone casting reckless doubt too quickly.
In my opinion your gross and sloppy disregard of the neatly emerging evidence for this only reinforces its obviousness and likelihood. Especially when this odd type of murder, as you point-out and react to above, can only serve to further the case.Dear God, that makes no sense. Drowning in wine looks like an accident? Why not just give him an overdose of heroin or some such?
The above is a textbook invocation of the nonfalsifiable hypothesis. Your conclusions are too obvious! The more obvious they are, the more likely they are to be false!
Please quit urinating on Jimi Hendrix’s grave. It’s quite unseemly.
Actually it’s disregard for the grossly sloppy “evidence”.
And the wind cried “Enough, already.”
I'll take the risk that the 4 hour period for undigested rice was strictly determinative. So far you've offered nothing to show otherwise.
No, I reject this entirely. There's no merit to this. The context in which this is happening is Burdon's remarking that he saw "LOVE" written by Hendrix on Danneman's rear window and recognized his handwriting.
Your are approaching this from the wrong side. The correct evidentiary approach would be Burdon made an unrelated remark that verified the early morning hour of his arrival at the flat. This is in the context of other evidence that shows Hendrix died much earlier than claimed in the official account.
And I would also assert the more than obvious bogusness of your efforts and entries here are shown by the fact you give no heed or even semblance of recognition to the fact the points you make are trivial and irrelevant in relation to what this does actually show. And what it shows is that Burdon got there near the dawn time he claimed. You give no consideration to the fact Burdon has already confessed to cleaning up the flat prior to calling the ambulance nor do you bother to register or even ask why and what incentive Burdon would have to make up such a story?
Please, if you're going to return with another hot air balloon's worth of sophistry in response, don't bother, you're just grinding against the obvious.
Sure, it makes sense to me that when forced to explain those otherwise benign, understandable reasons Monika's Danneman's reaction was to gas herself with carbon monoxide in response. Ya. After all, the choices were to admit a silly but minor misjudgment vs killing herself. Naturally, as you blithely suggest, there's nothing indicative there in her choice. As I said before, most suicides before court are taken as confessions.
If Danneman didn't commit suicide then we move to a whole new level of players and motives. And if this proves true may we bring the the full fury of the court of the gods on the murderers heads...
As would any physician under the circumstances. ER doctors have been known to try to revive people. Really, these are silly, time-wasting questions.
You haven't shown where Bannister was incapable of the simple medical judgment of determining an amount of wine, which really doesn't even need a doctor to do. Nor have you shown where Bannister's minor medical malpractices constitute any disqualifying level for such a simple medical judgment or are any different, on average, than those malpractices of our current litigious era. And I still submit the timing of his career problems was in direct synchronization with his coming forward.
Face it, Bannister witnessed an abnormal amount of wine in Hendrix and in an unusual way.
The best you offer is this is being kept from the proper vetting you suggest, and at the level you suggest, because of legal technicalities. No need to investigate any confession then? By the way, what kind of law do they have over in England?
I would assume any "Open Verdict" would automatically necessitate a re-examination of the evidence once such serious allegations as a confession and doctor coming forward occurred? I'm sure there are trivial technical arguments against this but none stand as reason to deny what is more than obvious here. Your entries lose credibility when one realizes the venues that would conduct such a review, and at the level you seek, are the same ones denying a re-opening of the case.
My dear sir, I suggest that actual 'expense' of this case, and to whom, is what is yet to be determined. When one puts cost over justice one risks appearing as one who seeks an excuse to avoid that very justice or its reckoning. Moreso in a case with so much backing evidence whether circumstantial or not.
Your use of "style" and opinion as your main substance is exactly why the circumstantial points you have yet avoided for the third time, by the more than obvious means of classic legal obfuscation, continue to stand as solid evidence. In my opinion the more voluminous rumination you offer in response to them only indicates the level of truth you expose yourself as needing to overcome. So much so that you must be conforming to some logical formula out there in latin or greek. Surely there must be some logical science that dictates the more hollow obfuscation you offer the more truth you are trying to defeat. - I consider this a digression that detracts from the main arguments.
Which is just a self-exposing, cavalier disregard of what we already know. I whole-heartily agree with what you say. As a matter of fact it's exactly why we are here. I thank you for further reinforcing it. Did it ever dawn on you that a pure example of what you write is Monika's Danneman's story and its total collapse? Furthermore I would further suggest the fact these obvious slip-ups and the evidence for them are being so blatantly denied is because of their danger to those same authorities. While demanding legal thoroughness yourself you show us right in front of everybody that you never considered that perhaps the authorities themselves had reason to deny the evidence, or that maybe that's why such obvious exposing evidence hasn't been investigated. I give a good example of what you say in your own entry above. No matter how intelligent the perpetrator you yourself have failed to account for all the potential consequences in your attempt to deny the obvious.
But once again your offerings are very weak because they show no recognition that Danneman had long periods to clean up the murder scene. Nor do you seem to recognize how foolish that makes you and your arguments look.
The very simple answer to your naysaying diversion from fact above is that the forensic evidence involving the wine *IS* that very unplanned circumstance you outline above. Thank you for reinforcing it.
You haven't answered the question. I submit there's a greater gravity of circumstance surrounding Devon Wilson's death than you reflect. I would ask outright was the New York City Police Department told to lay of this? Did they investigate who was there and who she visited that day and why? Apparently Wilson being an agent of Hendrix's separation from Jeffery, and therefore the mafia, has no effect on you? Nor does her going around telling people Jeffery murdered Hendrix, which would have brought scrutiny on not only Jeffery, had it been investigated, but the mafia as well. - And who knows who else?
The lack of any feathers ruffling on your robe despite the obvious maelstrom of evidence bespeaks the dead air of your arguments.I believe the wind is correct. Wow.
This is yet another problem with your version of things, Jetblast: every objection is explained away with a new theory that is more complicated. In reality this only creates more questions, but you’re treating it like a mounting body of evidence. It isn’t. You have still provided zero evidence about the alcohol in Hendrix’s blood, on Jeffery’s connection to the Mafia or MI5, or other issues. Do you plan to post that eventually?
It’s not common practice to try and revive someone who is cold and dead and rotting already, as you have claimed Hendrix was. You also said he was pronounced dead at the scene, with the police called in and all. When someone is pronounced dead they don’t normally go to the hospital in an ambulance, they go to the morgue with the coroner. Even if they got to the hospital a competent doctor would say “this guy is dead, take him to the morgue”. Recuscitation efforts are not made on people who have been dead for hours.
Uh…rice?
It may be rice wine to you, but it’s sake to me. Ow!!!
Look that up in your Funk & Wagnall’s.
Um, how do you forcibly pour a bottle of wine down a person’s throat without breaking his teeth?
jetblast, I guessed when I started engaging with you that there was no point in trying to persuade you from your folly. The nature of your confirmation bias is that you have a pre-existing hypothesis and you are looking for things that confirm it, ignoring along the way things that don’t.
That puts the cart before the horse.
You don’t seem to understand fundamentals like onus of proof, and the difference between evidence and theorising, between asking questions and providing answers, or between ideas that are true and those that are merely fascinatingly interesting. You don’t seem able to test the excitement of a perceived discovery against real world standards of verity.You don’t seem able to attach appropriate weight to the strength of various competing propositions.
As an example of the last, you boldly assert that Jeffrey confessed. In a real court, confessions to police are very powerful evidence. That is because we have the time, place, exact circumstances, and the exact words of the confession. When we don’t, and when there is good reason to think Jeffrey was a grandiose braggart, then confessions, while admissible, don’t carry much weight.
As an example of your failure to get the onus of proof, you seem to think that I have to show that Bannister was incapable of making what you describe as a simple description of an amount of alcohol. I don’t. You have to show that Bannister is both accurate and reliable on this issue notwithstanding the issues of the lateness of his revelations, the clouds over his competence and honesty, and the other odd features of his account pointed out by jackmanii and others. Your theory that maybe the intelligence community nobbled him is not evidence that any such thing happened, nor does it do anything to dispel the clouds of suspicion over him.
This is not some game of tennis where you assert something, then I have to disprove it with a reference to some other evidential minutiae, then you assert something back, then I disprove that, and so on. You are the one making the extraordinary claim. You don’t just have to assert something, or raise questions, you have to prove stuff. And my response doesn’t have to disprove it - just raise an objection going to why your alleged proof might not be sufficient. And even if I am wrong, that doesn’t somehow bolster your case, or make weaknesses in your case go away.
The mere fact that you don’t know the answer to the questions you would ask of the New York Police Department about the death of Wilson is not the slightest evidence that the answers would support your theory. Thinking of questions to ask is not evidence. Of course, it is a typical journalistic trope to pretend they are the same thing (“Questions remain after sheriff announces closure of investigation…”) but they are not.
By saying “you’ll take the risk” that the 4-hour time period after eating is determinative, you overlook that you have to prove that it is determinative, and from more than a book written by some self-serving hack or from some quote in a news story. Merely demonstrating that you are persuaded doesn’t take anyone anywhere.
Time of death determination is naturally one of those things that are used as drivers in fiction - it creates a platform to drive the plot forward. Thus, the detective will always ask the Ducky character what the time of death was, and the Ducky will always be able to say “11.45, give or take”, creating the false impression of the level of precision with which these things are capable of being done. But accurate assessment of time of death even today is extremely difficult, let alone trying to guess it from statements made 40 years ago. Shows like NCIS make this stuff up, you know.
And this-
is barking nuts. Suppose my logic is hopeless. Suppose my arguments are hollow. I had nothing to do with the events in London in 1970, nor the investigation. I was on the other side of the world. How could my error make your arguments any better than if I had just said nothing?
This is why I am addressing the debate not in the terms that you would wish (that is, scrabbling about happily in the sandbox of detail) but in terms you don’t like (that your capacity to assess these things is faulty.) I don’t have to master all the detail of this as you apparently have tried to do in order to be able to say that there are glaring errors in your thinking, and that those glaring errors are consistent with the pattern of errors we most commonly see in conspiracists.
I don’t have to have been to the moon personally and read every word ever written on the subject to know that Moon Hoax conspiracists are wrong - I can determine that fact not by engaging them on their terms (arguing the microlevel details) but by pointing out flaws in their capacity to think, and the obvious holes in their beliefs to which they are blind.
Here is a hole in your argument to which you seem blind - if the Evil Powers are rushing about killing people like Danneman and Wilson (whose sin seems to have been that Jeffrey confessed to him) why isn’t everyone dead - Bannister, Burdon, the author of the book written in 2009 - and you?
That last statement by me is an example of rhetorical overreach. It is a good argument to ask why Wilson was killed when others to whom you say confessions were made, and the author of the book dredging all this up again, were not. But it is a stretch to say that everyone who advocates the murder theory (including you) should sensibly be thought to be under an equal risk of being murdered even accepting the premise that anyone was murdered at all.
But I can recognise levels of strength and weakness within my own arguments like that. You seem to have a sort of lightswitch, all-or-nothing approach to things - all your arguments seem 100% conclusive to you. There is no apparent capacity to discriminate strength from weakness. (To anticipate something you no doubt will try to use against me - I engineered that last argument as a demonstration. No other argument I have advanced is anything like as weak as the argument that if your theory is true, you should be dead.)
Of course, because you don’t seem to understand how this sort of thinking works, you won’t get why my objections to your theory are not in the form of pieces of detail that answer your pieces of detail. They don’t need to be. A perfectly legitimate approach to debating with Creationists, Truthers, Moon Hoaxers, Grassy Knollers, Perpetual Motioners and the like is not to be distracted by a descent into detail, but to point to big-picture errors in thought processing.
I'm almost glad you responded to what I wrote with yet another even more expansive offering of sophist obfuscation.
The value of your offerings can be determined simply by your treatment of the rice issue. You aren't saying I'm wrong you're just saying I haven't adequately proven it. As you point out there are different levels of quality of information. If I compare the level of quality of my information, which cites a doctor's reference to the 4 hour determinative time period for digestion of rice stomach contents, to your overly-general procedural arguments I would say I've offered a higher level of quality information than you. My information sticks to the evidence. Your information draws us away from the evidence and into an endless discussion of presentation of evidence. But anyone with any common sense would see the reason the doctor mentioned it in the first place is *because* it was determinative. The sword cuts both ways and you haven't proven that it wasn't. Frankly I'll take the doctor's word over yours.
Again, if we get back to types of information and their quality I would assert that information which *directly* discusses the direct operative evidence is of higher value than information that only poses questions over it. If your purpose is to evaluate the known facts on a higher courtroom level I'm in complete agreement with you. That's exactly what needs to be done here which is why the fact the same authorities responsible for that are denying it is contradictory to what you seem to suggest (though I'm not really sure you honestly do). The reason I question your honesty is because the rice digestion issue is fairly reasonable and your doubting it only serves to color the sincerity of your input. In my opinion the rest of your entries can be judged by it. And frankly I think you are relying on the fact the British government's deliberate exclusion of any analysis of the type you call for serves your purpose which is really the exact opposite of what you seem to be calling for but really aren't. I look forward to your next multi-page reply that will once again categorically avoid the basic criminal forensics and the circumstantial evidence for them. That's just your opinion. I think it is (as do other serious people). Like I told Noel, there's a difference in quality of information. My arguments are associated with logic and reasoning that backs what I assert. As far as I can see your only offering seems to be repeated doubt. Of the two I would say my information is of higher quality, though you seem to suggest the opposite.
I e-mailed a Hendrix guru involved in the original petition and he told me he knows of no on-line source for the autopsy data but that it was available in some of the better-known Hendrix biographies. Your previous text link might work though. Thank you for bringing it.
I object to your statement that we haven't brought evidence of Jeffery's MI5 involvement. First of all such membership is inherently difficult to prove because of the nature of MI organizations and the fact they keep the records of their agents secret. I think that fact is being dwelled on and taken advantage of in order to avoid the otherwise obvious.
As I said before I doubt you'll be able to find any Russian language instruction in Jeffery's life prior to his national service and that, if you researched it, you would find such instruction came from the military intelligence branch. But what more do you need, really, a signed smoking document from the British government? Jeffery's own father admitted his son was in MI service and that he was dressed in civilian clothes during most of his national service. Are you suggesting he was wrong or lying in order to perpetrate some bizarre hoax? While in the service he didn't discuss his doings and took a part time job with a private detective agency which connotes having skills particular to that activity. Plus there were other friends of his that said he was in the spook branch - not to mention Jeffery himself who displayed the depraved and dangerous behavior of such persons. In light of this I don't think your repeated calls for evidence are sound, though I'm sure the evidence is there.
Jeffery's connection to the mafia is also displayed in such evidence as told by persons who went to the New Jersey mafia house to borrow cash. Plus if you know Hendrix's history he had scrapes with the mob including being kidnapped that had Jeffery's mob connections written all over them. He also had mafia problems with being forced to play in the Salvation Club. Ask Tappy Wright if Jeffery had any mafia connections or if questioning them is reasonable? One of the more nebulous and telling signs of mafia connection were the Bahamian banks Jeffery used to hide Hendrix's money. The reason those banks are meaningful is because they were a crossroads between mafia and intelligence agency money laundering. Both groups used those banks to hide and launder money. It's a serious red flag when Michael Jeffery pops up amongst them in this particular place. The New York City mafia involvement was probably just the mob's local office Jeffery was forced to deal with. No serious Hendrix observer questions either Jeffery's MI5 or mafia involvement. So I think your doing so shouldn't be allowed to carry the weight you suggest. I guess you could but how would you get such a heroin overdose into Hendrix if he wasn't using heroin? Plus that might involve getting caught with the heroin you were going to use to kill him. The cooking and preparation would put the killer in the flat for a longer period than drowning in wine. Any heroin overdose might bring the people involved, including Danneman, under more scrutiny and might bring Devon Wilson forward to say Jimi had cleaned up and wasn't doing any heroin at the time. This would, once again, draw possible attention to Jeffery.
I assure you the drowning in wine makes a lot of sense. A type of murder that no one expected, including yourself, worked for many decades to hide the fact Hendrix had been murdered. What groups know of and plan such murders?
I take serious offense to this. I don't see how persons trying to help Hendrix get justice are "urinating on his grave"? If anything those who seek to deny the obvious in order to make their consciences feel better are the ones doing ill to Hendrix. If there's any pissing being done on Hendrix here I don't think it is being done by me.Jetblast: you have been asked this repeatedly. Do you, in fact, intend to answer it? You have said
Logic and reasioning are, of course, very worthy, but they are not cites. So far, what we have is your opinion. You have produced various arguments to support your theory, but only verifiable cites can support your arguments indisputably. Without them, this thread isn’t going to go anywhere.
I thank you for bringing this weak objection because it made me realize I may have done a disservice to your protest. Indeed I might have shorted the two persons who allegedly helped Jeffery by calling them "low class street toughs". I apologize. I just realized in doing so I may have denied credit to two of Jeffery's MI5 colleagues. That would make sense since they would be "old friends from the past" as Jeffery called them in his confession and they would also be adept at what they were being asked to do. Not to mention persons of reliable invisibility.
So I thank you for bringing that to my attention. It should at least be considered.Your information (and its sources) are not sufficiently strong to back up the far-fetched theory you are asserting.
This is definitely not true. In the same breath you’ve said the death was a sophisticated intelligence operation and the act of street thugs. Do you not realize how nonsensical that is?
I don’t care if you object! You have not brought the evidence. It’s an important part of your theory and you are making excuses to cover up a lack of proof. And no, I’m not convinced because the man may have been able to B.S. his own father.
Read a book about him - preferably not an attempted cash-in that was written decades later - and find out if he had any or not.
This is an appeal to authority and it’s singularly unimpressive as such.
Another unproven assertion.
We don’t know that he confessed to anything. He died 35 years ago and cannot deny what he is being accused of having done or said.
To review: you say Michael Jeffrey used his intelligence and mob connections to have Jimi Hendrix killed. You haven’t substantiated the intelligence or mob connections. You said the amount of wine in Hendrix’s body was not consistent with the relatively small amount he is said to have had with dinner, but haven’t supported what his blood alcohol level was and haven’t been able to rebut more plausible explanations. You’ve said key witnesses have changed their stories over the decades, which is true, but not strongly suggestive of a coverup because of the stresses involved with the situation and because memories can be unreliable. You’ve cited a discredited doctor and a roadie who did not come forward with his story for 35 years as sources for your theory, but neither is very credible. You’ve made repeated references to the forensic evidence as backing your case, but you haven’t seen it. And you’ve alleged several other people were murdered but not provided any evidence or reasons, since the timing is “suspicious.” I think that sums up why people are skeptical.
[quote=“Tapioca_Dextrin, post:120, topic:525578”]
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
I opened the article and it doesn’t say anything like what you claimed. It’s the same general references seen elsewhere.
If what you wrote was meant sarcastically I'd like to see you account for Jeffery's fluent Russian. The falseness of the doubters in this thread is proven by the fact they universally avoid my point that Jeffery had no instruction in Russian in his personal life prior to entering the national service and if you checked it out such language training was the purview of Military Intelligence. You'll see the doubters' sarcasm cut quickly by these facts, which speaks more than anything here.
These are good questions. It makes me wonder if Michael Jeffery was placed in amongst the emerging rock 'n roll movement as an asset from the beginning? Even if he wasn't you can't argue that the description of Jeffery's management style (by "normal people") was one of MI subversion more than nurturing oversight. The fact you try to ignore that in plain sight speaks for the credibility of your entries.
This part of your post is valuable and I suggest people read it.
In it Jeffery's father speaks of his son being an MI agent. Are the doubters arguing that Mr Jeffery sr was somehow mistaken or also making up a fantastic tale for some unknown bizarre reason? That despite other people saying it, that Jeffery had somehow convinced him to go along with this hoax?
There's also some good material in there discussing the fight between Etchingham and Danneman that's worth reading. Etchingham's bizarre description of Hendrix as a heroin addict and brute woman beater is somewhat weird. This was part of why Danneman was calling her a liar and why Etchingham sued her. (Looks like Danneman was correct - though I hesitate to defend someone who was obviously involved in his murder)
I especially recommend the last part that details the dirty operations of the US government and the things they did during the period. It is worth reading because it makes clear that a lot of the illegal tactics they describe were eerily similar to things happening to Hendrix.
Thanks for bringing that. I consider it Discovery.