Very valid question.
People like Constantine, author of a book about the covert war on rock, suggest Hendrix had taken sleeping pills in large doses long enough to develop a tolerance. I have read others comment that there's no such 'tolerance' for 9 Vesperax which is like suggesting there's a developable tolerance for a large heroin dose. In any case this is all headed-off by the fact the cause of death was a mechanical drowning in wine rather than any nervous system suppression of vital bodily systems. A more complex autopsy today would probably show the more sophisticated bodily indications of drowning visible in today's autopsies. The autopsy doctor very clearly stated the Vesperax in Hendrix wasn't enough to kill him. And I don't think anyone has suggested the 5mg blood alcohol level was enough for a fatal combination - which, once again, would have shown up in the cause of death had it been so.
Starting to get it yet?Where did the coroner (“autopsy doctor”) conclude the nine Vesparax or the Vesparax and wine were not enough to kill Hendrix by themselves?
Thanks for the response.
The Henderson clip Marley brought us says " 5mg " blood alcohol content. I assume this is 5 milligrams? I don't pretend any background knowledge so this is why we need an expert to interpret this. These doubters don't ask themselves why, with so much controversy now surrounding this, no expert has ever been brought in to do such an interpretation? Just the opposite, there seems to be resistance against this.
I'd have to see what exactly the difference is between 5mg and 5 milliliters per 100ml, however, I've seen this amount (5mg) quoted as "just beneath the legal limit" which, in my area, is around two drinks. Far different, to any honest observer, than the amounts of wine being described by numerous witnesses. Not to mention we have a claimed source for these two glasses of wine with the dinner so therefore we have no claimed source for this extra remarkably outstanding wine - that is, aside from a murder confession and Danneman's preposterous claim that she "washed 'sick' off of Hendrix" with wine.Ah yes: Alex Constantine. His most “famous” book is:
The Covert War Against Rock
What You Don’t Know About the Deaths of Jim Morrison, Tupac Shakur, Michael Hutchence, Brian Jones, Jimi Hendrix, Phil Ochs, Bob Marley, Peter Tosh, John Lennon, and The Notorious B.I.G.
Just so everyone knows the breadth of his, um, “specialized knowledge” is, here’s the publisher’s blurb from two more of his publications.
and
I’m sure Jetblast will work in telepathic pedo Nazis somewhere along the line.
I thank you for bringing this.
I suggest you read about the use of major newspapers like the Times by intelligence agencies to establish the theme of how the public views them or what to expect from them. The whole idea being to provide just enough dirty stuff to satisfy the public that a 'critic' has exposed them and therefore democracy is properly lit with 'sunshine' for the very purpose of keeping the worst offenses secret forever. It's no secret what they do.
A smart person will see no one has even touched why the British Government can't simply admit the *membership* of an otherwise mundane Michael Jeffery as an MI5 asset? Clearly there are more than enough credible questions here that Scotland Yard's refusal to re-open the case has to be considered wrong and an injustice towards understanding the true facts behind Jimi Hendrix's death.
“5 mg” alcohol content is a meaningless statement, without clarification as to how it relates to volume of blood.
And without knowing whether “5 mg” is documented somewhere official, it’s even more meaningless.
Why is it “preposterous”? There’s a tradition behind using wine as a skin wash.
“While history fails to record the specific wine type with which ladies of Elizabethan times bathed their faces to improve their complexions, we do know that Anna Held’s legendary wine bath could only have been had in Champagne. Perhaps they washed with a fine Chardonnay or Pinot Blanc?”
Or red wine, perhaps? Maybe Vesperax made Hendrix’s skin break out, and his girlfriend didn’t want this fact to come to light.
It was the least I could do.
Lazy, lazy, lazy. You insist with scant evidence that he was an MI5 agent and thenuse the government’s refusal to “admit” his work as further proof of his work in this plot.
Already stated on page 3.
Alcohol blood level: 5mg
Quinalbarbitone (the main barbiturate in Vesperax): 3.9mg percent of blood
Vesperax had a secondary, longer-release barbiturate in a smaller amount called 'brallobarbitone' that was also present in correct proportion.
Danneman claimed to have stepped-out for cigarettes.
I suggested that if she was a co-conspirator this would have been the time when the killers came in. The bogus story Danneman gave perfectly fits the scene she would have returned to had the killers done their job and left. (If this is, in fact, what happened).
Use of women was a well-known CIA tactic of the period from their own writings. You need to do a little reading. (If it happened that way) I'll try to find the quote. But don't forget that none of the professionals involved ever claimed Hendrix would have died anyway because of the amount of barbiturates and alcohol in him. And don't forget that this is all moot anyway since the claimed manner of death was asphyxiation from physical suffocation by vomit.
If you were to check this out on your own I assure you 3.9mg percent of blood of Quinalbarbitone and its brallobarbitone enhancer in association with 5mg blood alcohol would not be enough to kill Hendrix on its own. Fairly simple isn't it?
I'd also like to add that the large amounts of vomit and yellow rice commented on by the main witnesses would only have a mitigating effect on the alcohol. And I'd like to add that if we were to further investigate the pathology of significant rice contents of the stomach being in place at the same time as significant vomit and wine outside the body that this corresponds to a large amount of wine being forced into Hendrix and ejected out in the kind of bodily event that would necessarily follow.Good luck with that.
And neither did I. I said I thought it might have, because it’s 18 times the recommended dose. My point - which of course you didn’t address in favor of focusing on this instead - was that there is nothing suspicious about 9 Vesparax and wine as a cause of death. If he’d taken two Tylenol and died, that would be very strange. On the other hand, he took 18 times the recommended dose of a sleeping pill, drank a little wine, and had a few other things in his system. So in that light, what happened isn’t so surprising.
Do your own homework. People have been asking you about this all thread and you haven’t managed to answer it.
You should be aware your answers are very self-indictingly weak. Nowhere in any history of this is there any doctor saying the barbiturate/alcohol combination found in Hendrix would have killed him. If we can find the quote the doctor at the Inquest said the just the opposite, that the amounts would *not* have killed him.
Sleeping pill "addict"???
Really, a celebrity sleeping pill habit used to get sleep against the stress and schedule of stardom is hardy outside the norm for many stars who didn't get labeled "addicts" back then. Heck, we haven't really established any 'habit' either.
Wright needs to be cross-examined. Right now I figure he's telling half the story because it has enough truth to take advantage of to cash-in on a now aging story without fully incriminating himself with what he really knew. Hence the holes in his story while the forensics fit the claim.
You expose the weakness of your arguments by not realizing Wright's association with Jeffery is well-known and isn't questioned. His London speech use of "Jeffries" is probably common. It's a very weak point and shows us you waste our time by focusing on the frivolous.
One might be forced to ask why, then, did he die this time with so many lies and so much unaccounted-for wine involved?
You must use more care here. If they simply overdosed him on pills it would have brought the suggestion of suicide to bear within reason of the evidence. Warner Records had a nominal million dollar artist's policy on Hendrix. Any claim of suicide might provoke Warner or its insurer to demand a greater inquiry which only would have brought Jeffery and his motive into question. The use of wine in this case would not *compromise* the method it would *enable* it. The death would then look like an accidental combination of barbiturates and alcohol. An accidental death would provoke no further investigation, and that's exactly what happened. This is the possible sign of a very clever and diabolically-sophisticated intelligence agency method - an equation in which some stronger sleeping tablets managed to get into Hendrix's reach. You miss the subtle expertise in this.
There are examples of others being killed this way. They are out there in covert operation information in books and other sources. Amongst the knowledgeable this is a well-known method and not questioned. I'm not going to digress into the examples because I feel they, and doubting discussion of them, will be used to avoid the main points here.I’ve been following this thread from the beginning, and I’ve got to say that Jimi Hendrix was not an addict! He was a Christian man, he believed in God…not like those heavy metal, devil-worshipping slobs! 
(Apologies to Steven Banks)
On a more serious and contributory note, I can’t help but agree with those who’ve, in my opinion, demolished the OP’s argument. While it’s certainly not impossible for Hendrix to have been murdered, it seems to me the most likely cause of death was nothing more than a tragic accident. No conspiracy required.
So why haven’t MI5 and the C.I.A. killed him to keep him from blabbing the rest of the story, using some diabolically clever means like force-feeding him carrots and lettuce?
Right. Engaging the services of drug-addled morons, seeding the “environment” with a common variety of sleeping pill (why didn’t they use untraceable drugs or poisons?) and pouring the contents of an entire wine cellar down his throat was obviously part of a sophisticated black ops plan.
Just think how much smoother this would have gone if Mossad had been involved.
Wait a minute…:eek:
Bold added.
This is from the OP. How did the CIA/MI5/Illuminati/Knights Templar get the vomit into his lungs?
Do you accept that drug abusers choke on their own vomit with distressing regularity? It is indeed the classic rockstar death in the public imagination.
It takes time for drugs and alcohol to be ingested after consumption, as we all know. If you are correct that the Vesparax was in his system in significant quantities, then that suggests (I won’t put it any higher than that) that he had consumed them some time before he died. It is unwise to attempt to reconstruct with great precision things like time of consumption and quantity of consumption from blood levels because there are too many variables.
As the drugs start to take effect, he tops up with wine. He passes out shortly thereafter from the effects of the drugs, and vomits while unconscious or near unconscious, aspirating the wine/vomitus before the alcohol in the wine has had time to be absorbed.
There is thus vomit and undigested wine in combination in his lungs, but not much alcohol in his blood.
Note that I don’t say with absolute assurance that this must be what happened. Just that it is one possible explanation of events. Hendrix’s druggie girlfriend then panicked and lied to cover up drugs in the house, or her own drug use, or just got the details wrong because she was scattered. Other druggies known to Hendrix died, because that is what druggies regrettably all too often do, whether by suicide or overdose. The demons that got them into drug use don’t go away just because they once knew someone famous. The mere fact that you’re fixating on Hendrix doesn’t mean that everything in their life was all about Jimi.
Your answer to all this is that there is too much wine in his lungs. This from extraordinarily imprecise measurements, that would seem to conflict with biological possibility. How do you know what experience Bannister (who seems to have been an orthopaedic surgeon or at least eventually trained to become one) had of any of this?
You say you have a good circumstantial case. One of the principles in dealing with circumstantial evidence is to take small steps. Contrary to popular fiction, circumstantial reasoning can indeed be powerful, but it is necessary to be cautious. If you see a man and a woman walking hand in hand, you can infer they are in an affectionate relationship. It would be going too far to infer that they were married, and far too far to infer they must have been thinking about having kids and what colour curtains they were going to get. It’s possible that’s what they are thinking, but it doesn’t follow from the evidence - they could have been thinking about all sorts of other things as well.
This is why your leaps to certainty are flawed. Upon some tiny detail, you build a sort of inverted pyramid of speculation that is of no use because the tiny detail can’t support it. The writing in the dew is of that category.
You regularly advise us to read up on certain topics, but it seems clear enough that what you read are books that simply reinforce your own world view - Constantine’s book, breathless and extravagant books about intelligence operatives and so on. From them, you purport to say with great conviction that such-and-such is a classic covert intelligence technique, or the like. How on earth would you know? How would the hack who wrote the book know?
Most GeeWhiz books promoting dark conspiracies by intelligence agencies suffer from buying into the myth of hypercompetence. Most of the “reasoning” towards their conclusions is just elaborate WIFOMs, or arguments that if X had a motive to do something then that is evidence that he did it, or the creation of elaborate conspiracy scenarios that only seem possible with the use of hindsight that the people allegedly conspiring necessarily did not have.
Note also the Chinese Whispers problem that arises from not going to original sources. You said that that Bannister “determined that Hendrix had not choked on his own vomit but had been drowned in wine instead”. Elsewhere in this thread, other material tends to suggest he was much more circumspect, saying merely that it was “plausible”. This tends to happen typically in books about outlandish things where a small coterie of authors quotes each other with a new layer of interpretation added each time, so that a sort of quote inflation occurs. This is why you are being pressed for sources. The mere fact that someone wrote a proposition down is not the same thing as a primary source.
Noel makes too much goddamn sense.
I find that peculiar. :dubious:
Now you’ve got me scared.
Again, Jetblast, I didn’t say they did kill him. I said they might have because it’s a huge dose, which you didn’t seem to realize until this page.
If you have a quibble about the definition of addict, take it up with AA or a dictionary. Meanwhile we have someone who thought he was taking nine regular strength sleeping pills to get a regular night’s sleep. He ended up taking 18 times the recommended dose and drinking wine, which you find a suspicious cause of death.
You don’t know that, but it’s a minor assumption compared to the big ones you’ve made elsewhere.
No, I simply dismiss it as a moronic and implausible fairy tale for paranoids, because that’s exactly what it is.
Then post them. And while you’re at it, post the autopsy details you keep saying you have seen, and the statement from the coroner, and all those other pieces of evidence you keep saying support your case but which you haven’t bothered to provide.
What a surprise. :rolleyes:
*The humble spark does bust noble gas just the same*
*And in doing oft makes truth's brightest flame* You sort of suggested his drug use would have killed him, if you admitted what you wrote. His friends, like UPI reporter and trusted "straight" friend Sharon Lawrence and other close Hendrix insiders say otherwise.
OK, as much as I consider your input a very poor, less than honorable dismissal of obvious fact I'll allow you that because it's a valid point and needs to be determined. The question is: "What would have been the medical/health outcome of the Vesparax and wine found in Hendrix if no choking death had occurred?" Or, more specifically, could the drugs and alcohol found in Hendrix's body have killed him alone if allowed to play out to their ultimate end? We need to ask an expert.
I've always been aware of the strength of the Vesparax dose. You're patronizing over it puts your input in proper perspective.
What you wrote above only works if you ignore everything I've written up to this point. I suggest the reason you do so, and try to get away with it, is because you're aware you can't admit or confront the valid material I present or the way I present it. It's plainly a dishonest form of argument.
This is tricky because we have Tappy Wright coming along and claiming Jeffery told him they shoved pills down Hendrix's throat followed by wine. The forensics, however, show that the barbiturate level was too high to have happened that way. The barbiturate 3.9mg percent of blood meant the pills were in the body long enough to get to that level. So Wright needs to answer some questions.
But there's a simple point here the doubters continue to ignore. The official cause of death listed that Hendrix vomited because of a barbiturate overdose. So, if he did, that meant he was seriously incapacitated. We don't know how or when Hendrix got those pills into him? There's a fair possibility he just took them on his own to sleep.
What the doubters are ignoring is the fact the "tons of vomit" witnessed by the professionally-credible ambulance attendants shows a quite active gag reflex and not one suppressed by a large dose of sleeping pills. It would be a valid question to ask "Was his gag reflex still active enough to cause this vomiting but inhibited enough to cause Hendrix to choke? The 3.9mg barbiturate level could at least help us with this if interpreted by an expert.
You protest too much. A wise person would see that if it really was such a moronic and paranoid thing that you would be able to offer better than this. They would see that you really haven't answered why Danneman would kill herself over it if it was as easily dismissible as you say. Who was the Hendrix band associate who allegedly heard Jeffery plotting with Danneman to poison Hendrix? This should be investigated before being cut-off and called "paranoid".
I think smart people see that you offer low quality input vs the things I've written. The things I've written have merit. If not seen directly then seen in your avoidance of them. They deserve better answers than this.What happened to the doctor you mentioned? The one you said supported your argument and said the pills and wine were not enough to kill Hendrix?
Which blows an enormous hole in your theory, and you’ve yet to explain it away.
It certainly is.
I think I asked that several pages ago.
At least four people have explained at great length that not a single element of your theory makes any sense.
There’s no evidence this is why she killed herself.
You tell me - it’s your theory.
There can’t be too many smart people in this thread, then.
They exhibit little understanding of the facts, a haphazard attitude toward research, zero credulity, and a complete lack of sensible logic or common sense. Your grammar is okay, though. Does that count as merit?
And yet you don’t answer other people’s questions, and don’t even do the research to back up your own assertions.