Jimi Hendrix Was Murdered

Cafe Society
141

Can we first have a cite for his fluent Russian?

What’s your cite for this?

…and here we go again: every logical objection is spun into an even larger and more implausible and nebulous theory. You don’t need to cite for me that intelligence agencies kept an eye on celebrities who were involved with the counterculture. In fact it’s easy to see a PDF of Jimi’s FBI file online. There’s not much to it beyond some notes about arrested for drugs. I have no doubt Jetblast will find the shortness of the file suspicious as well.

Or just plain greed. Michael Jeffery may have been one of the worst, but music business managers are famous for being unscrupulous thieves. Not all of them are ripoff artists, of course, but there are more of those than there are MI5 and FBI agents in there.

142

No one ever expects a wine murder.

Except there is a legacy of wine and murder going together. We’ve already heard about the poor chap who was drowned in a keg of wine. In classical literary terms
there’s also the Cask of Amontillado. And wasn’t it Ezra Pound who assured us “There’s no wine like the blood’s crimson”? (unless it was Eric Clapton)? In California you can participate in outings on Murder Mystery Wine Trains.

And I find this “game” to be rather disturbing. The person who designed it is supposed to be named “Larry Zacher” - an obvious pseudonym. If you re-arrange the letters of "Zacher"s last name, you get “rache”, the German word for revenge (the Z is in there just to throw us off). And what of the suspects in this game? I refer of course to Otto Von Schnapps, Marilyn Merlot, Tiny Bubbles, Ralph Rottingrape, Papa Vito, and Hedy Shablee, not to mention the shady “extra guests”, Bonny Lass and Bud Wizer. Have the whereabouts of all these people during the time frame of Hendrix’s death been investigated?

Could it be that drowing Hendrix in wine was such an obvious gambit that the wine was planted to divert attention from something else? We don’t know what that something else was, but evidently the seeds of Disco were being sown even then, and killing Hendrix may have been part of a campaign to bring rock to its knees.

It worked too, at least for awhile.

143

Jetblast, I have a question for you. Are you interested in persuading or convincing anyone here to believe anything that you believe about the death of Jimi Hendrix?

This may seem like a stupid or disingenuous question, but I ask it in all sincerity and after having reread all you have written here with all of the intelligence and perception that I can muster. The conclusion I have reached is that you either have no interest in persuasion, or that you have no idea how to go about persuading. If it is the former, then I don’t know why any of us, including you, is bothering with this thread. If it is the latter, I have a couple of suggestions for you.

People are often persuaded by evidence coupled with logical argument. Take some aspect of the standard story of the death in question and argue, with the use of evidence that supports your argument, that this aspect of the standard story is not true. To do this, you should be familiar with the standards of evidence and the science, if it is scientific evidence, of the facts in question. As far as I can see in this thread, you have not done this with a single thing that you have contended.

Here’s an example. The time of death seems important to you in this case. You have made some assertions about this and the evidence surrounding it while demonstrating a high degree of ignorance of how time of death is usually established, and the degree of accuracy with which it can be established.

I am not a doctor or a pathologist or a scientist or a detective, but here are a few things I know about how time of death can be estimated. The temperature of some internal organs changes at a roughly predictable pace after death, depending on the temperature of the environment where the body was. This is not perfectly accurate, but if a body was in a temperature controlled environment, and the internal organs have not yet reached room temperature, the time of death can be estimated to within a few hours. A pathologist would, under the best of circumstances, give a range, not an exact number of hours. The contents of the stomach and the condition of those contents, if the time of ingestion is known, can also be used to establish an estimate, which would also be given as a range, not as an exact number of hours. The condition of the body, whether rigor mortis was present, whether blood had settled, whether any decomposition had begun, can all be used to come up within an estimated range for the time of death.

All of these things put together cannot pinpoint to within an hour the time the person died. The rate of digestion varies tremendously, rigor does not follow a rigid timetable, and it is hard to know what temperature conditions a body went through with any exactness. It is important to know this stuff if you hope to use evidence of time of death to persuade people who do know this stuff that the standard story is bogus.

It is also important to perceive what people are persuaded by. Evidence collected and recorded by disinterested observers at the time of the events is usually more persuasive than observations brought to light many years after the fact. No matter how much you don’t like this, scenarios which resemble the normal workings of the world we live in are more persuasive than outlandish stories which require fantastic assumptions.

If you want to persuade us, pick one part of your alternative story and focus on it, persuading us by actual evidence used in forensic fashion to build a case for your story. To do this, you should remember that what people say is considered evidence by most people when it is delivered in court and subject to cross-examination and counter evidence. Otherwise, is just something someone said.

If you are in fact interested in persuading us, maybe you will want to give this advice some thought. Good luck!

144 
      "Far-fetched"? You have nerve. The 'theory' is actually very closely-fetched from the direct circumstantial evidence you avoid like the plague in order to waste our time with these useless exercises in doubt.

        Very weak point. If you bothered to reference correct history CIA and other intelligence groups had killed people using barbiturate overdoses. It's part of their modus operandi and is correctly referred to as a "sophisticated murder method" no matter how much you question it. It actually makes a lot of sense because *it worked* and was taken as an accident for decades. Your point that this couldn't be done by thugs is silly. Who else would do it, Cambridge fellows? (Well, maybe some old MI5 buddies perhaps?) Come on - make some smart points.

   No matter how strongly you deny it, I've brought a good case of circumstantial evidence that is backed by forensic evidence as well. The only thing you've brought is disingenuous nitpicking and doubt of what is otherwise fairly obvious. 

         Your entries are self-destructively weak because it wasn't only Jeffery's father who said these things it was just about everyone who knew him. The fact that's there's not one single case of anyone publicly challenging this or offering anything to show otherwise says all you need to know. Jeffery is now a fairly world class evil figure because of this. Did you ever wonder why no one ever followed this up or tried to dispute Jeffery's MI background?

       I think most honest people can see you preying on Jeffery's covert background simply because you are trying to exploit the fact it isn't very accessible. Most would understand that you're trying to do that because you're perfectly aware of what it entails. But let me ask, with such a now world-notorious figure, why doesn't the British government release the MI background of Michael Jeffery? There's more than enough cause here. There's a firm claimed confession backed by surrounding facts. What is so secret and unreleasable about a mundane cold war-era MI agent from Britain? Why does the British government feel it against its interests to release the simple fact he was a member? Certainly MI5 had members and had them during the cold war, so what would be the big deal about releasing the simple confirmation of MI status 50 years later? So while you protest lack of proof, clearly it is not my side that hasn't lived up to its onus. And therein lies the falseness of your approach and purpose.

         While I appreciate your advice on how to improve my case, I'd like to point out that the reason there are no books, articles, or information on Michael Jeffery, a person who is now of world-class notoriousness, is because Michael Jeffery was exactly what people are claiming he was, that is, a MI5 agent with a covered-up background. Like most spooks people like this tend to have hazy backgrounds. That, however, has no affect on you besides spurring reckless doubt that tends to collapse back on you when confronted. 

        Well, slow down here. Post-death producer Alan Douglas commented that he too heard Jeffery say things that he interpreted as admitting he had killed Hendrix. So let's re-open the case, since it's an open verdict and therefore prone to further evidence, and subpoena Tappy Wright and Alan Douglas (and poor unworthy Bannister deep from the galley of the stricken-off). Let's cross-examine Wright and maybe even give him a lie-detector test. After all, isn't the possible murder of rock's most-famous guitar virtuoso worth further investigating? Or is Hendrix's murder mostly a venue and crowning victory for legal procedure? 

          I think we've established Jeffery's told MI5 connections better than you've established doubt for them. You've failed to show how exactly all the witnesses to his service were wrong or what incentive Jeffery would have to lie about his service that not one single person has come forward to challenge or say "Hey, I was with Jeffery in the regular army the whole time". No, what is questionable here is your defiant doubt, not Jeffery's fairly reasonably-apparent MI service. You are like the one who complains he can't see the trees because of the shade they cast and cries out to us we haven't proven them.

     Your contention that I haven't supported my manner of death claims is ridiculous and a sign of the value of your input. Most honest people would see that my responses to their "plausible explanations" went unanswered. The medical forensics still back what I said despite your distorted interpretations (evasions really). And most of the counter-arguments are based on procedural technicalities that conspicuously stay away from the main evidence and obvious circumstances surrounding it in order to entertain specious doubt contrary to the greater grain.

        Your "memories can be unreliable" is preposterous and just the check-off list of gratuitous doubts that it is. Fact is, the original Inquest determined the cause was uncertain. The new information fits the forensics and confessions much more than the now-already disproven original story. You just plain ignore that. You don't have a right to.

       You haven't shown where the doctor was 'discredited' or how being struck-off for billing fraud disallowed his trained medical judgment over the simple matter of wine filling the lungs and stomach? Once again, you reveal yourself as preying on the vulnerable in order to make an excuse for ignoring the otherwise obvious. That, to me, shows a lack of honest inquiry and therefore taints the value of your opinions. You're clearly trying to manipulate legal weaseling in order to deny or disallow fair airing of otherwise obvious facts. Nor have you shown that Bannister wasn't persecuted or deliberately struck-off for the very purpose of destroying his credibility as the main legal witness to the murder. You give yourself away by the weakness of your denials vs the greater force of evidence here (that you yourself have failed to *disprove*).

  By all means let's all see the evidence. Let's see it brought before a British Inquest and the re-opening of the original case. Let's see some top experts interpret it. Let's see Danneman's story investigated and compared to the other witnesses'. Let's look at the full background of Devon Wilson's death and how it was investigated (or not investigated). There's way too many unproven assertions here with merit to deny any re-opening of the case. Some very strong evidence is being locked out by a very weak door. 
        Once again, however, the falseness of the doubters' case here is shown by the fact they don't question the government's case. The government's case is completely destroyed by the fact the one witness upon whom their total case relies has already been proven to have lied and told a deliberately false story. So while we read these grand protests from our so-called challengers keep in mind that they have no problem whatsoever living with a bogus case, without the same questions or protests they mount towards the real evidence here. So there are the fools who call for proof from the very den of proven non-proof. And there are the ones who protest way too much. 
      No, I don't see these protests as valid. I see them as exploiting and taking advantage of the means by which this was covered-up. It ends up having the effect of helping Hendrix's murderers keep him murdered. And if I were allowed to speak freely I'd say may God damn anyone who does that.
145

Can I try and sum up the OP’s position as I see it?

Everything he says is true. He doesn’t need anything as unreliable as actual evidence, the mere act of him typing it makes it magically true.

Anything not typed by the OP is wrong. Doesn’t matter if it’s backed with verifiable evidence, the fact that OP didn’t type it is proof that it is wrong.

Is that fair?

Regardless, I’m outta here.

146

Sounds about right to me. This is why I don’t bother wasting my breath with conspiracy theorists. I’m impressed at the effort and patience and level-headed discourse put forth by others, though.

147

I still want to know why a trained doctor would attempt to revive somebody who was cold and rotting. It seems like the entire ‘conspiracy’ rests on this idea.

148

I am saving this thread to be used in a course I hope to put together on Critical Thinking (preferably for use at a high school level, still good for a college course). It will aim to teach students how to evaluate ideas and claims, from a commercial level to political thought to conspiracy theories. A central focus will be on how, when someone presents a novel idea, it is up to that person to marshal compelling evidence for it, an obligation that becomes greater as the theory gets more far-out and goes against known facts (“Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence”).

We will teach about the lack of obligation of anyone to disprove a theory (though it may be helpful to do so; rather that it is the obligation of the person proposing the theory to prove his/her contentions). Time is finite, we’ve all got things to do, and we don’t have to run around doing lazy people’s work for them.

Maybe Bannister wanted to make sure the wine was properly chilled. :eek:

149

Ha! But also, ewww.

Can I just say I love the idea of a Critical Thinking course for high school age kids? I teach first and second year university students and even the smart ones who are great at the material we’re studying still have problems with common sense. Evaluating new ideas and being skeptical of extrodinary claims would serve them very well. Good luck!

150

If we look at Henderson’s 'Scuse Me While I Kiss The Sky page 9 he shows that the normal dose of half a Vesperax tablet was strong enough to induce 8 hours of sleep for a normal 160 pound man. Since Danneman claimed she had taken a full tablet Henderson questions whether she could have awoken fresh after only 3 hours of sleep and a good portion of red wine earlier that evening?

   I just want to add a side note that it is seriously stupid for any pharmaceutical company to booby trap their medication by making it deceptively stronger than other sleeping pills. Especially for something like sleeping pills where the danger should be obvious. Anytime a person would be accidentally induced to see one pill as one dose the manufacturer is at fault.

         Anyway the autopsy said the blood alcohol level was at not more than 5mgs percent. If I'm reading this right (and I'm not sure I am) this corresponds to just beneath the legal limit between 1 and 2 drinks. We know Hendrix was said to have had a glass of wine with the tuna fish sandwich Danneman claimed to have prepared for him, though the doctor said the stomach contents were mostly yellow rice. If we Wikipedia "Blood Alcohol Content" we can see 5mg corresponds to a minimal level in line with one or two drinks on the chart. 

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blood_alcohol_content

  Quinalbarbitone, the main ingredient of Vesperax was at 3.9mgs percent of blood. The secondary ingredient brallobarbitone was also present. Some amphetamine and seconal from the "Black Bomber" Hendrix took earlier at the party was also detected. 

        I can't interpret the barbiturate level or expected result in the person's condition, however I expect that it corresponds closely to the number of Vesperax claimed otherwise someone would have noted it. Obviously we need an expert to provide us expected absorption rates for Vesperax and how they relate to the barbiturate levels found in Hendrix's blood. Specifically the question is: What does the barbiturate level found in Hendrix's blood tell us and what would his condition be in relation to that level? Also: (And this is important) How long would it have taken to reach that level from the time of ingestion? The next thing we have to carefully determine is how much wine was found in all areas involved and how does it relate to the blood alcohol forensic as well as claimed manner of death?
         

          I suggest people read the information in the Henderson clip Marley brought us. It shows us that Danneman's story was completely false and was completely contradicted by ALL other witnesses - all of reasonable credibility. Also included is mention of an 18 inch suction tube used to clear vomit from Hendrix's windpipe. I image you can safely calculate that several of these pipes worth, in addition to the splattered wine at the scene, and wine drenched in hair and clothing, can safely bring us above anything challenging that the witnessed wine was in conflict with the stated amount - which it obviously was. Finally, the amounts of vomit was remarked over as "tons of vomit all over the pillow". This is in drastic conflict with Danneman's slight drool on the chin.
151

Hmmm…since Hendrix had taken nine of these pills (in addition to whatever other drugs/wine he had consumed), aren’t you making a case that he died of seriously stupid?

“Tons of vomit” - I continue to marvel at these scientifically precise units of measurement.

152

Jetblast, you keep talking about what the autopsy reported about Hendrix’s blood alcohol level.

How do you know what the autopsy actually said?

See, you might have seen the autopsy report, but the rest of us haven’t. And if you haven’t seen the autopsy report, how do you know what it said?

153

As I noted twice upthread, Vesparax [we’ve both spelled it wrong several times] is a powerful sleeping pill. I didn’t realize you hadn’t comprehended this information, but it’s critical to understanding why Hendrix’s known drug intake was MORE than than enough to kill him. Nine Vesparax might have been enough to kill him by themselves, but a combination of those pills and wine killed him faster.

I haven’t read the book, but they were both regular drug users. It’s possible that’s why they knocked her out for three hours instead of eight. That would also explain why he took nine sleeping pills when that’s more than enough normal sleeping pills for anyone.

I don’t know if that’s the case or not - for all we know the pills were clearly marked and he didn’t pay attention - but it does turn out that Vesparax was pulled from the market at some point. It’s possible that was the reason.

154

And Hendrix had taken, you said in your first post, nine tablets? Sixteen times the normal dose? And that plus some wine is insufficient cause of death?

155

Well, here’s another wrinkle: the “authorized biography” of MI5 has now been published (it was, coincidentally, (:dubious:) reviewed in yesterday’s N.Y. Times Book Review).

This makes it imperative that we read it carefully for clues.

If there is no mention of Hendrix, then obviously the coverup continues in full flower. A casual denial of any connection between MI5 and Hendrix ignores the huge compendium of factoids, rumor and innuendo that has built up on the subject and will satisfy no one. If there is a detailed refutation of links between MI5 and Hendrix’s death it will mean nothing, since this is an “authorized biography” and many files remain untapped.

Intriguingly, a reviewer describes the book as “an incredibly complex story in which bizarre and improbable reality often outruns the most rococo fabrications of the spy novelist”.

I guess that leaves the door wide open to the MI5-gangster-insurance-scam-message-in-the-dew-fabricating girlfriend-fountains of wine-spewing-tons-o’ vomit theory. :confused:

156

You are looking ominously purple, Jackmannii. Are MI5 thugs trying to drown you in red wine?

157 
     I've been spelling it "Vesperax" because I thought I saw a video where they scanned some of the autopsy information and it was spelled that way.

      I don't see where you justify saying I didn't comprehend the abnormal strength of Vesperax (a?)? I think it has already been noted several times. But if you were paying attention one of the doctors at the Inquest stated directly that the amount of Vesperax in Hendrix wasn't enough to kill him alone. I think you are trying to establish a slant here to try to head-off the murder scenario as sort of an argument tactic that isn't really faithful to the evidence. While you assure us the Vesperax was "MORE than enough to kill him" the doctor already said it wasn't. Pay attention. Also, your entry defies the blood alcohol level which wasn't one that would have been fatal in combination with the amount of Vesperax in Hendrix. So your assertion goes contrary to what was shown. 

    I've gone to the Hendrix website "Crosstown Torrents" and scanned their entries on this. Interestingly, many hardcore fans think the murder theory is questionable. However, if you read their input they come nowhere close to making the real arguments (like the doubters in here). 

        Yet Devon Wilson claimed her and Hendrix were trying to clean-up from their past use. (Wilson was a heroin user) 

     I think we can put Danneman's taking 1 Vesperax aside because we can't prove or disprove it because we have no forensic evidence for the claim. I do wonder, though, why she would wake up if she had taken a full dose in combination with more wine than claimed for Hendrix? Was this tenth tablet taken by Hendrix?

      One thing I learned from *Crosstown Torrents* is that Hendrix had grabbed numbers of sleeping pills like that before and taken them. Some on that site are suggesting he took that many because he needed to counter the "Black Bomber" amphetamine he took at the party earlier that night. 

  A sound examination of sleeping pills and their effects shows that a "strong" sleeping pill such as Vesperax (as noted by yourself above) isn't likely to "knock-out" someone for only 3 hours. Once they reach that point they don't wear-off after only 3 hours. But I will admit this isn't conclusive because any number of unstated factors could intervene.

        If I were a wild Conspiracy Theorist I might suggest this strong sleeping pill was deliberately introduced into Hendrix's environment in a classic intelligence agency black operation where the result was intentionally-planned and guided by a cooperating insider who just so happened to commit suicide before being brought to court to testify. A person who, as it turns out, had every single one of her accounts of what happened that night proven to be complete lies. A person, whom, as is being said, was allegedly accidentally overheard having Jeffery tell her she was going to help him 'poison' Hendrix. But, gee, that might not be "provable" right? People might be "skeptical" over it...
158

Where are you getting this? It’s not in 'Scuse Me While I Kiss the Sky.

You’re now presuming expertise on drug-alcohol interactions?

So as part of his effort to clean up, he took nine sleeping pills? Addicts relapse. It’s a sad fact of life. Even your source, Tappy Wright, says Hendrix was on a lot of drugs and going crazy toward the end of his life. (By the way, even though he knew him for years and picked up mob money with him, Tappy Wright keeps calling Mike Jeffery “Mike Jeffries.” That’s a credible witness for you: a guy who keeps quiet about his version fo the story for decades, and then implicates only people who are dead, and gets the name of the murderer wrong.

So taking large amounts of sleeping pills is consistent with his previous behavior? Well then it has to be murder!

I’m sure you wouldn’t suggest that. It’s just too stupid. For starters, what would be the point of covertly giving a man a load of powerful sleeping pills (assuming he would overdose*) and then compromising it by having people shove a bottle of wine down his throat?
And how is that “a classic intelligence agency black operation?” Who has ever been killed this way?

159

So if they don’t mention Hendrix, it’s evidence MI5 murdered him; if they dismiss it casually, it’s evidence MI5 murdered him; and if they refute it in detail, it’s evidence MI5 murdered him. Clearly the only thing that will prove MI5 didn’t murder Hendrix is if they confess to murdering Hendrix.

160

What doctor? Qualifications? What was the Vesperax level in Hendrix’s blood?

What was the blood alcohol level?

What was her blood alcohol/Vesperax level?

It’s hard to sleep when your roommate is being “drowned in wine”.

Sounds like an unimpeachable source. Does the “Torrents” part refer to the Niagara Falls of red wine that Bannister discovered during his heroic attempts to resuscitate a rotting corpse?

Nah, this is not supported by the forensic.

Doncha just hate sneaky broads who covertly introduce barbiturates into your “environment”?

So now we have the MI5-gangster-insurance-scam-message-in-the-dew-fabricating girlfriend-environmentally-secobarbital-polluting-fountains of wine-spewing-tons-o’ vomit theory. And it’s still not disproved, therefore true.

Have you read the MI5 book? Maybe they admit snuffing Hendrix. 40 years later, it’s not that big a deal.