Was Jimi Hendrix’s death a case of insurance fraud?

Forty-three years after his death, Jimi Hendrix is still considered one of the most influential guitarists in the history of rock and roll. Despite a short career of only four years, he permanently changed the landscape, ushering in the age of psychedelia and paving the way for heavy metal. He redefined the electric guitar, pioneering its use as a source for sound, to be transformed by wah pedals, whammy bars, and the previously undesirable effects of distortion and feedback. The result was something that couldn’t help but get a reaction. It was the sound of hard earned technical proficiency, raw passion, and a bomb going off next to your head. Whether or not you’re a fan of his sound, he expanded the range of what was thought possible at the time, and the ripples are still being felt today. Unknowingly, he spawned generations of future guitarists who would agonize for years over their attempts to emulate his playing. His technicality has since been surpassed by many of them, but there remains something about his distinctive, quirky sound that is almost impossible to imitate. However, the holy grail of his guitar tone is not the only thing that people are still trying to figure out. The circumstances surrounding his untimely death are shrouded in mystery. Gaps in knowledge and contradictory accounts of what happened on the night of his death have generated much speculation, but one conspiracy theory tends to get the most attention. It is often rumored that Hendrix was murdered by his debt-ridden manager, Michael Jeffrey, who wanted to cash in his £1.2million life insurance. Is this really justified by the evidence?

Unreliable evidence

Eyewitness testimony is notoriously unreliable. Unfortunately, as is the case with most historical events, circumstantial evidence like witness testimony makes up the bulk of the evidence, and the typical pattern of separate accounts diverging over time until they are virtually unrecognizable is glaringly evident. The fact is, no matter how certain people are that they are accurately recounting the past, there is no way to know whether they truly are without examining more objective, static recordings of the past itself. I­n fact, it turns out that the degree of confidence a person feels about how accurate a memory is has very little correlation to how accurate it really is.(1) People come away from dramatic events with memories that seem like vivid, static snapshots, claiming to know exactly what they were doing when it happened, who they were with, and where they were. But it simply doesn’t work that way. Experiments have tested people’s memory after a tragedy, and then again months and years later. The subjects are confident that their memories are completely accurate, but they aren’t. Huge details have been added and replaced by confabulated ones, and it is all beyond the test subject’s awareness.(2) Therefor, I don’t think we should take accounts of the event from long after it occurred too seriously. Although it is possible that, years later, someone could have remembered something crucial that had slipped their mind, or found the courage to let go of a dark secret, it would be an exception to the rule. If there is no direct evidence provided, there is no way to distinguish these accounts from the inaccurate ones. In a few cases, it’s even possible that a newly recounted memory was completely fabricated for publicity. For all of these reasons, I take individual testimonies with a grain of salt. That being said, when you have a collection of testimonies this big, enough of them may agree with each other strongly enough that they can rule out another testimony that opposes them, or corroborate one inference over another. If they do agree with each other, it shouldn’t be ignored.

The conspiracy theory and it’s claims

Here’s how the theory goes: Hendrix was legally bound to Jeffery in an increasingly abusive professional relationship. Jeffrey was manipulative and untrustworthy, coercing the band into non-stop touring, and siphoning off most of the money they made into an offshore company in the Bahamas called Yameta, never to be seen again. People were terrified of confronting him, as it was rumored that he had ties to MI6, the FBI, and the Mafia. In 1969, Hendrix claimed to have been abducted, imprisoned for days, and then rescued by Jeffery, and he believed that it was all just an elaborate ploy to make him feel dependent on Jeffrey. In 1970, the contract between Hendrix and Jeffery was up for renewal. When Jeffery got word that Hendrix was talking about firing him, he took out a £1.2million pound insurance policy on Hendrix’s life and then murdered him by forcing sleeping pills and red wine down his throat.(3)

There are different permutations of this theory. However, there are three central claims that serve as linchpins. The first claim is that Jeffrey took out an insurance policy on Hendrix’s life shortly before he died. Even if it were true, it wouldn’t constitute proof that Jeffrey murdered Hendrix; insurance policies are a standard practice in the music industry. It would mean that Jeffrey stood to gain from Hendrix’s death, but assuming a priori that this makes him guilty is as logically unsound as assuming that a murdered parent was killed by their only child, simply because the child is in the parents’ will. On the other hand, if it isn’t true that Jeffrey took out the insurance policy, the theory falls flat on its face. So, did Jeffrey take out a £1.2 million insurance policy on Jimi’s life? Those who maintain that Jeffrey killed Hendrix take this absolutely for granted. However, there appears to be only one record in the public domain that references an insurance policy on Hendrix, an old magazine article from 1968, in which co-manager Chas Chandler is quoted as saying, “you wouldn’t believe it, but we’ve got Jimi insured for a million dollars!”(4) However, it’s not clear who exactly Chandler was referring to, and Bob Levine, Jimi’s US manager and business partner of Jeffery’s, denies that Jeffery ever took out insurance on Hendrix.(5) The evidence is inconclusive, leaning towards Jeffrey never having taken out the insurance. The second claim is that the contract between Hendrix and Jeffery was going to expire in 1970. The only material I could find on this subject states that the contract expired in 1972, but I couldn’t verify it.(6) Inconclusive once again. The third claim is that Hendrix was discovered with an impossibly huge amount of red wine in his hair, lungs, and stomach. This idea appears to originate from interviews with John Bannister, who was one of the doctors that treated Hendrix at the now closed St Mary Abbott’s Hospital. In various interviews, Bannister has claimed that he spent over half an hour extracting wine from Hendrix’s body. “The amount of wine that was over him was just extraordinary. Not only was it saturated right through his hair and shirt but his lungs and stomach were absolutely full of wine,” he said.(7) Of all the hospital personnel who dealt with Hendrix that night, Dr. Bannister is the only person who claims to have seen any red wine in or on the body. Ambulance attendants Jones and Suau didn’t see any red wine when they arrived at the flat, and the man who conducted the post mortem of the body, Dr. Seifert, didn’t notice any signs of alcohol.(8) Strangely, Dr. Bannister said that he remembered being perplexed by the length of the body, claiming that it was hanging over the table “by about 10 inches.” This is suspicious because Hendrix was only 5’11; he wasn’t short, but by no means was he a giant. It seems plausible that Dr. Bannister was confusing Hendrix with another patient.  He didn’t know who Hendrix was at the time, so there’s no reason for Hendrix to have been more memorable to him than any of the other patients he treated at the time. That’s not the only alternative explanation though. Allegedly, Monika Dannemann (Hendrix’s girlfriend at the time of his death) claimed in an interview that the last thing she saw Hendrix drink was cola.(9) It’s possible that Dr. Bannister mistook the dark, cola-stained gastric contents for red wine.

Origin of the theory

So where does this theory, which seems to be getting more implausible by the minute, originate? In 2009, Former Hendrix roadie, James Tappy Wright, claimed in his 2009 autobiography, Rock Roadie, that Jeffery drunkenly confessed in 1971 to murdering Hendrix. According to Wright, Jeffery told him that—with help from a couple of other people—he had stuffed pills into Hendrix’s mouth and poured a few bottles of red wine deep into his windpipe. Jeffery allegedly said: “I had to do it. Jimi was worth much more to me dead than alive. That son of a bitch was going to leave me. If I lost him, I’d lose everything.”(10) However, one thing that both sides of the debate seem to agree on is that Jeffery was in Majorca, Spain, when Hendrix died in London. I don’t know whether this is true. If it is, we are left with two possibilities:

1. Jeffery hired someone else to do it and skipped town.

2. Jeffery was innocent.

There is a fairly unforgivable problem with the first one. If Jeffery wasn’t in London, then Wright’s claim is false, because it requires Jeffery’s presence at the murder. However, Wright’s claim is the very origin of the theory. If it is false, the theory is completely baseless—without even a sensational claim made by someone trying to sell a book to stand on. By this logic, if it could be proven that Jeffery was in Spain that night, the theory would be proven false by proxy.

If, despite all of that, you still put stock in Wright’s claim, you have no reason not to attach equal validity to a claim made by Bob Levine. Levine claimed that Wright confessed to him that he fabricated the story to give his book a selling point: “I told Tappy, ‘What are you doing making up this story? So you want to sell books – why do you have to print such lies?’ And he said to me, ‘Well, who’s going to challenge me? Everybody’s dead, everybody’s gone. Chas Chandler, Michael Jeffrey, Mitch Mitchell, Noel Redding…they’re all gone. Nobody can challenge what I write.”(5) Do I need to point out how ironic that is?

Just to be absolutely clear, it’s not my intent to tell you that the theory is false. Most of its claims aren’t falsifiable, because the past is just that, the past. All I can justifiably do is point to the fact that they are based off of suspicion rather than evidence. To say with 100% confidence that they are false would be to make the same critical mistake that the people making them are: 100% confidence on the basis of incomplete evidence. Proponents of the theory take it’s claims as gospel, but they appear to be moot. It would be arrogant to dismiss them entirely, because there simply isn’t enough evidence. Or would it? It depends on whether you agree with Christopher Hitchens when he said, “that which is presented without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.” What clearly is arrogant is to presume that they are valid, extrapolate from them wildly, and then scoff at someone for asking you to go back and prove your own premise…Welcome to the wacky world of internet conspiracy sleuths.

What I want to do now is take a look at what solid evidence there is, and try to figure out what the simplest explanation is. It must be consonant with the evidence and not require a load of unproven assumptions. How about the possibility that Hendrix simply fell victim to an excessive lifestyle, like so many others in his line of work?

The post mortem examination

In her original testimony, Monika Dannemann claimed that Hendrix had taken nine of her prescribed Vesparax sleeping pills, 18 times the recommended dose.(11) This is supported by the results of Hendrix’s post mortem examination. The doctor who conducted the examination, Robert Donald Teare, reported that blood tests revealed a mixture of barbiturates consistent with those from Vesparax.(12) Interestingly, professor Teare stated that the dose was “too low to be fatal.” However,  in the mid-1990s, one of Teare’s former students re-examined the report, concluding that the barbiturate level in Hendrix’s blood was above the toxic level. This degree of barbiturate intoxication inhibits the cough reflex, meaning that it would have been difficult for him to breathe during vomiting.(13)

Even if he hadn’t started vomiting, the dose was 3 ½ times the highest therapeutic level, a dose toxic enough to be deadly without fairly immediate treatment for barbiturate intoxication. Also, Teare didn’t take into account the interaction that would have taken place between the barbiturates and the alcohol in Jimi’s system.  Back then, people weren’t aware of how dangerous it is to mix barbiturates and alcohol. Both depress the central nervous system, consequently, combining the two results in a greatly decreased amount of activity in the nervous system, which can kill you.(14) But Jimi didn’t just make the mistake of mixing the two, he made the mistake of having very high levels of both in his system at once. In the post mortem, it was estimated that his “blood-alcohol level was probably at 100 mgs at the time when he took the Vesparax.”(15) If that’s true, by today’s standards he was legally intoxicated when he took the pills, and would probably have died that night with or without inhaling his own vomit.

If Jimi simply overdosed, the next logical question to ask is, did he do it on purpose? You can make a good case either way.

The case for suicide

The months leading up to Jimi’s death were a dark time in his life. He was being pressured constantly by fellow musicians, his manager, and the record company, all of whom had different ideas of what his direction should be, and he was embroiled in enough legal disputes to compromise his financial security for years. By the time he reached the European leg of his tour, he was worn out by a relentless string of gigs, chronic fatigue, a nasty cold, disillusionment with the industry, and emotional turmoil over personal relationships. It is said that he stopped showing up for sound checks, and during a performance in Aarhus, he walked off the stage after three songs, telling the audience bleakly: “I’ve been dead a long time.” It was obvious that he was in no shape for touring. His last performance was an informal jam with Eric Burdon’s band, War, in which he played uncharacteristically quietly, refraining from the trademark stage moves that had helped make him famous.(16) It’s impossible to know exactly what his state of mind was. Did he kill himself? Who knows. There is, however, one solid piece of evidence that supports the idea–without proving it outright. Just a few hours before Jimi’s death, he wrote a poem that can very easily be construed as a suicide note. The last stanza reads, “the story of life is quicker than the wink of an eye, the story of love is hello and goodbye. Until we meet again.”(17) Eric Burdon had recently discussed death and suicide with Jimi, and after reading the poem he declared to the press that he believed Jimi had killed himself.(18) He has since changed his mind, but perhaps he was on to something.

The case for accidental overdose

Superficially, popping 9 sleeping pills does seem like something that you would only do if you were intent on killing yourself. However, there are many things that this doesn’t take into account.

1. Hendrix was known for taking drugs very recklessly.(19) His reputation as a drug user has caused those who knew to casually dismiss the idea that a mere barbiturate overdose could have taken him down. On the contrary, I think that it makes it much more likely that he accidentally overdosed.

2. The product leaflet may have been printed only in German, in which case he wouldn’t have been able to read what the recommended dose was.

3. A common side effect of barbiturates like Vesparax is amnesia. It’s possible that Jimi forgot that he took a dose, so re-dosed, then forget he re-dosed and re-dose again until he eventually overdosed. In toxicology, this tendency is called “automatism.” Back in the days when barbiturates were still common, automatism was thought to have claimed many people’s lives, notably Judy Garland. However, whether automatism is a real phenomenon seems to be disputed within the medical literature.

Conclusion

For a glamorous rock star, being assassinated is a sexy way to go. Accidental or intentional barbiturate overdose, leading to asphyxiation on vomit, is not. It’s bleak and pointless–not befitting of a rock star. Thankfully, there are enough conflicting accounts, unsubstantiated rumors, and blog rants for you to piece together a variety of narratives that aren’t so bleak and pointless. If you’re in the mood for a web of intrigue, you’re in luck: all the ingredients are there for you to play a game of connect the dots ending with Hendrix getting killed by his manager. That is, if you’re planning on reasoning your way backwards and relying upon dubious anecdotes. If you’re planning on a more intellectually honest look at Hendrix’s death, prepare to be disappointed. When you use Occam’s razor to cut away all of its unproven assumptions, it turns out that the theory is artificially suspended by them, and comes crashing to the ground. In my opinion, the most likely scenario is that Hendrix accidentally overdosed, but I can’t say for sure. There’s just not enough evidence. To dismiss all other possibilities, come to a rock solid conclusion, and insult those who disagree is incredibly arrogant. But this kind of behavior dominates the online discourse over controversial matters where the evidence is lacking. Perhaps it is an unfortunate commentary on human nature, or perhaps people who behave like that are represented disproportionately in online discussions. For humanity’s sake, I hope the latter is true, but I’m inclined to think that it’s really a little bit of both.

 

Citations:

1. Clifford, B.R., Hollin, C.R. (1981). Effects of the Type of Incident and the number of Perpetrators on Eyewitness Memory. Journal of Applied Psychology, 66, 364- 370;  Smith, V. L., Kassan, S. M., & Ellsworth, P. C. (1989). Eyewitness accuracy and confidence: Within- versus between-subjects correlations. JAP, 74(2), 356-359; Berger, J. D. & Herringer, L.G (1991). Individual Differences in Eyewitness Recall Accuracy. The Journal of Social Psychology,131, 807-813; Penrod, S. D., & Cutler, B. L. (1995). Witness confidence and witness accuracy: Accessing their forensic relation. Public Policy, Psychology & Law, 1, 817-845; Sporer, S. L., Penrod, S., Read, D. & Cutler, B. (1995). Choosing, confidence, and accuracy; A meta-analysis of the confidence-accuracy relation in eyewitness identification studies. Psychological Bulletin, 118(3), 315-327; Tomes, Jennifer L., and Albert N. Katz. ” Habitual Susceptibility to Misinformation and Individual Differences in Eyewitness Memory.” Aplied Cognitive Psychology . 11.3 (1997): 233-251. Web. 11 Nov. 2013.

2. Nalbantian, Suzanne, Paul M. Matthews, and James L. McClelland . The Memory Process. MIT Press, 2010. Print.

3. Rowley, Scott. “The Mysterious Death Of Jimi Hendrix.” Classic Rock Magazine. (2013): Web. 11 Nov. 2013. <http://www.classicrockmagazine.com/features/the-mysterious-death-of-jimi-hendrix/&gt;.

4. Altham, Keith. “Jimi Hendrix: Jimi Brings Manager’s New Club Roof Down!” NME. 27 7 1968: Print.

5. Bosso, Joe. “Jimi Hendrix wasn’t murdered by his manager, says former business partner.” musicradar. 26 5 2011:  Web. 11 Nov. 2013. <http://www.musicradar.com/news/guitars/jimi-hendrix-wasnt-murdered-by-his-manager-says-former-business-partner-453035&gt;.

6. Richie , Unterberger. The Rough Guide To Jimi Hendrix. Alfred Publishing, June 2009. Print.

7. Simpson, Aislinn. “Jimi Hendrix murder theory ‘plausible’ says ER doctor.” Telegraph [United Kingdon] 20 7 2009, Web. 11 Nov. 2013. <http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/celebritynews/5869491/Jimi-Hendrix-murder-theory-plausible-says-ER-doctor.html&gt;.

8. Brown, Tony. Jimi Hendrix: The Final Days. Omnibus Press, 1997. 145. Print.

9. Glebbeek, Caesar. “Until We Meet Again: The Last Weeks of Jimi Hendrix.” Univibes. 3 9 2011: Web. 12 Nov. 2013.

10. “Jimi Hendrix’s roadie says guitarist’s manager murdered him.” NME. 1 6 2009: Web. 12 Nov. 2013. <(http://www.nme.com/news/nme/45021)>.

11. Cross, Charles R. . Room Full Of Mirrors: a biography of Jimi Hendrix. Hyperion, 2005. 332. Print.

12. Brown, Tony. Jimi Hendrix: The Final Days. Omnibus Press, 1997. 159-160. Print.

13. Brown, Tony. Jimi Hendrix: The Final Days. Omnibus Press, 1997. 164-165. Print.

14. Drug and Alcohol Office. Alcohol and Other Drugs Program, n.d. Web. 12 Nov 2013. <http://www.dao.health.wa.gov.au/DesktopModules/Bring2mind/DMX/Download.aspx?Command=Core_Download&EntryId=439&PortalId=0&TabId=211&gt;.

15. Shapiro, Harry. Jimi Hendrix: Electric Gypsy. St. Martin’s Press, 1995. 470–471. Print.

16. Brown, Tony. Jimi Hendrix: The Final Days. Omnibus Press, 1997. 107. Print.

17. Cross, Charles R. . Room Full Of Mirrors: a biography of Jimi Hendrix. Hyperion, 2005. 331. Print.

18. Cross, Charles R. . Room Full Of Mirrors: a biography of Jimi Hendrix. Hyperion, 2005. 335. Print.

19. Redding, Noel, and Carol Appleby. Are You Experienced?. Da Capo Press, 1996. 60. Print.

About Josh Weed

Hello, my name is Josh and I live in Victoria, British Columbia. When I was 17, I realized that I was completely full of crap, and I'm still trying to make up for it. I consider an intellectually honest pursuit of the truth to be a noble goal and an ultimate virtue. My hobbies include writing, guitar, and arguing with brick walls.
This entry was posted in Conspiracy Theories, History, Urban Legends. Bookmark the permalink.

301 Responses to Was Jimi Hendrix’s death a case of insurance fraud?

  1. Reg says:

    Josh, for anyone to toss back someone else’s meds shows casual disregard for their own welfare. Given that insurance companies would have done everything possible to squirm out of paying, I would feel certain they have done so. All that remains is a strong desire by certain factions to keep the tale of mystery alive, thereby keeping his name in the public consciousness ensuring there is a market for this fellow’s product.

    Same as the story of Mozart’s paupers grave and the story of his having been poisoned by Saleri. All rubbish created for the a market hungry for gossip.

    Don’t worry, all 17 yos are FOC and sometimes it even passes for wallpaper.

  2. Anonymous says:

    Josh, you smell good.

  3. Scrum Drum says:

    Sorry Josh but you’re way off. I suppose I am responsible for some of the “blog rants” you dismiss so quickly, however the evidence is much more sophisticated than your article allows. I’ve been deeply researching this since Tappy’s book came out and have been in touch with some serious witnesses. Your view is the popular Caesar Glebbeek version based on skeptical disbelief. In any case the real evidence confirms murder 100%. There are serious qualifying circumstances surrounding what happened in the Samarkand hotel that morning that your internet article doesn’t come close to exposing. It isn’t nearly as simple as your article suggests. I cringe when you dare mention “intellectual honesty” and “arrogance” in your predetermined assumption while using Glebbeek as a source. Any review of Glebbeek’s notorious disinformation piece ‘Until We Meet Again’ will see it is credulous and tries to validate Monika Dannemann’s long discredited story from that morning. Plus you obviously pose yourself as a condescending expert after reading a few books.

    Some quick things disprove your accidental overdose theory right away. For instance the Vesparax tablets came in plastic bubble packs of 10. So if Jimi had forgotten he had taken 5 already and tried to take more he would have seen 5 empty blisters and remembered. A more credible analysis would realize Monika told a German reporter “I gave Jimi the pills” the next day. Monika was quoted in public saying the pills were very weak, so at minimum it should be considered that Monika also told Jimi they were weak so he took 9 to compensate for his famous tolerance. Your article is simply unsubmittable because of the amount of true evidence it omits.

    You also stated that Dr Teare didn’t account for the reaction of the alcohol with the barbiturates, but that isn’t true. Jimi’s blood alcohol level was a miniscule 5mg/100ml. That’s about a pint of beer. The true forensic issue here is the “bottles worth” of wine Dr Bannister removed from Jimi’s stomach and lungs. You very simply couldn’t have several bottles of wine in your body and such a tiny blood alcohol content in any accidental overdose scenario. It just isn’t possible. Even worse the 3.9mg % of blood barbiturate content found at autopsy by Dr Teare would necessitate a period of unconsciousness of at least a half hour before death as such a borderline lethal dose requires. If the wine was in Jimi’s body during that period of unconsciousness it would have been absorbed into the bloodstream and created a much higher blood alcohol level. The tiny blood alcohol level proves beyond a doubt that the wine was introduced shortly before death, which fits Tappy’s scenario perfectly on a forensic basis. Dr Teare based his analysis on Monika’s timeline. He wasn’t aware she was lying and it was off by about 6 hours. Caesar also lies to try to get around this. He denies the wine. But if you look at Sharon Lawrence’s book Monika moaned in pain in reaction to a question about the wine. Sorry, but all the evidence disproves any accidental overdose.

    The Hendrix community is uncredible in this matter and prefers the noise Reg offers above despite the evidence. The insurance companies had evidence the witnesses were lying from their investigators. The detective who questioned the witnesses came back and said “They’re all lying”. They backed off because there was a political component to Jimi’s death that was controlled from powerful places equal to that of the government that investigated Jimi’s death. Those governments don’t even admit Monika was lying. There was plenty of opportunity for the insurance companies to squirm out just from Monika’s lies alone. Reg offers a shallow opinion in front of the evidence he ignores. In the end, it’s a wicked disservice to Jimi to repeat the inaccurate assumption of rock-star overdose that led to the original failure of the British Inquest to credibly investigate his death.

    • Josh Weed says:

      Thanks for the in depth reply, but I’ll need some time to go over your points. I apologize if I missed important evidence. The last thing I want to do is contribute to the misinformation on the internet. Just so you know, I was very hesitant to cite Glebbeek. He seems like he has an axe to grind, and doesn’t even attempt to prove anything he says, which is why I qualified things with “allegedly”, and “if that’s true.” By the way, do you know of any evidence that proves Hendrix had wine in his lungs, and a massive amount at that? I haven’t been able to find any. Everyone seems to be referencing Dr. Bannister when they say that. Obviously this has to be proven before moving on to the question, “why was his blood alcohol so low then?”.

  4. Tara says:

    Autopsy Report states he had massive amounts of wine in his lungs. Ever drink massive amounts of liquid into your lungs? Just sayin’

    • Josh Weed says:

      The autopsy report states that he had wine in his lungs? How did you reach that conclusion? If you have proof, please provide it so I can stop spreading misinformation.

  5. Moral Dolphin says:

    I’ll have to channel Steve Clark and Keith Moon on that one..Hng on, having drugs and alcohol forced down ones neck would put him in a different heaven than the rest of rock and roll.

    In the mean time.. I’ll have to pour some sugar on myself..

  6. Scrum Drum says:

    Somebody should tell Moral Dolphin this isn’t a trolling matter.

    I see Josh is 17 so I give him credit for at least showing interest and having a good mind for his age. Most older Hendrix fans don’t even bother.

    Dr Bannister is very real. If you met him you would see right away he’s eminently believable and telling the truth. There’s a group of intellectual delinquents on the Hendrix website ‘Crosstown Torrents’ who mock the murder evidence and ban anyone who intelligently discusses it. They even said Caesar’s publication was reasonable and the final word on the matter without detecting the glaring holes in it. They never even noticed that Caesar tried to validate Monika’s story. A story most of them don’t even believe. Crosstown is an abomination run by bully cowards who enforce their stupidity through banning. Not very bright and an insult to any serious Hendrix fan. Those creeps should never be allowed to run the internet’s only Hendrix website. Anyhow those who deny the wine should ask themselves what the doctors were doing for a full half hour?

    Caesar is also a coward who hides within his UniVibes magazine dark castle. He doesn’t dare come out and argue the facts because he knows he would be quickly dispatched. When I asked him why he didn’t mention Monika’s admitting the wine to Sharon Lawrence he shouted “Sharon is lying!” What’s obvious here is if we had Caesar confront Sharon Lawrence and accuse her to her face of lying about her conversation with Monika we would quickly see who the liar is. Another thing I asked Caesar was why he omitted Monika’s statement on his own radio show in 1975 that “The mafia murdered Hendrix for sure”? He refused to answer. That’s all you need to know about the cowardly Judas Caesar Glebbeek. I took care of his filthy publication ‘Until We Meet Again’ in a 36 page refutation I posted on the David Icke website.

    A common misconception posted on the internet is that the autopsy found wine drowning Jimi’s lungs. These people are confusing what happened at St Mary Abbot’s Hospital with the autopsy three days later. The wine Dr Bannister removed was disposed of down the drain at St Mary’s (this is against legal medical procedure and a mistake). Three days later autopsist Dr Teare found 400ml of “free fluid” in one lung. Bannister says this was remnant wine that couldn’t totally be removed due to the lung’s spongy nature. Teare failed to test the fluid.

    The wine is very real and there is additional circumstantial evidence I can’t post here without compromising proprietary information. When Sharon Lawrence interrogated Monika about the wine Monika literally moaned and made weird painful noises into the telephone for 20 seconds. Monika was a quick thinker as her entire history in this matter shows. Monika then responded to Sharon that she used wine to wash sick off Jimi’s face. Monika was making-up a quick excuse for wine she knew was used to murder Jimi. That’s why she moaned in response to the question. She had never been directly confronted on the matter of the wine before. Monika was dead a few weeks later.

    The problem with Monika’s quick excuse about washing vomit off Jimi’s face with wine, of all things, is that the ambulance attendants both testified Jimi’s face was covered with a gross amount of vomit. Also, Monika’s own story to the Inquest said Jimi only had a small trickle of vomit running down his chin. There’s no doubt Monika needed a quick answer fast when confronted by Sharon’s question. So she came up with the washing vomit off Jimi’s face story in order to avoid what she knew was the real story. Caesar has an easy way to deal with this. He calls everybody else a liar or says they were misquoted by zealous conspiracy theorists out to get Monika. Most people can see how preposterous that is. Caesar also outright lies about the attendants changing their story. So the wine is very real as admitted by Caesar’s own witness Monika Dannemann. Knowing he’s in trouble with this, the pompous liar Glebbeek simply pronounces the witness a liar, however he has no excuse for why the person he is trying to say always told the truth was one of the main witnesses to the wine in a very incriminating way just before her death?

    Anyone familiar with political assassinations should know right away that the British Government’s inexcusable disinterest in this evidence is a sign of their guilt. There’s no explanation for why they not only never interviewed Bannister but also never sought out the other nurse witnesses to the removal of the wine along with other witnesses. When Kathy Etchingham approached the Attorney General he lied and said there was no new evidence. There was new evidence in the fact Tony Brown proved Monika was lying and Dr Bannister and the attendants had witnessed serious medical evidence. Those who practice “purity of evidence” by demanding the actual bottles of wine be produced are availing themselves to something the overwhelming circumstantial evidence in this case doesn’t give them the right to. This was a covert murder using military intelligence methods, something Michael Jeffery was trained in and willing to use.

    • Noah Dillon says:

      Dude, you can post anything you want as long as you cite a source to give credit. Whatever evidence you alluded to can’t be something like a secret formula for Coca-Cola.

      There are two basic problems with any accusation of murder, such as for Hendrix or Kurt Cobain or any other star: one is that no evidence is presented that establishes a suspect, only doubt about the information provided about the cause of death. So that doesn’t go anywhere. Two is that as a super famous rock star their value is best sustained by keeping them alive and happy. The longer they live and the more they produce, the more wealth they produce. Anyone in Hendrix’s orbit had a strong incentive to make sure that he kept producing hit records, which meant giving him whatever he wanted (or at least looking the other way). That usually includes indulging their self-destructive behavior with regard to drugs, sex, alcohol, and other indulgences. If you contradict the star, they’re liable to shut you out. If you take away their drugs/sex/alcohol, they might become significantly less happy. Either way, you could upset the apple cart and lose a lot of money. That sort of indulgence pretty much only ratchets one way: toward outcomes like John Bonham, Kurt Cobain, Jimi Hendrix, Keith Moon, Lenny Bruce, John Belushi, Janis Joplin, Sid Vicious, Chris Farley, Philip Seymour Hoffman, Ol’ Dirty Bastard, River Phoenix, Elvis Presley, Amy Winehouse, Chet Baker, Jean-Michel Basquiat, Dave Brockie, etc. etc. etc. You’ll notice that all of those people died from their use of drugs and alcohol, and a lot of them also have fans who dig around and try to find explanations that exonerate the star, propose murder, and don’t ever get past the very severe evidentiary hurdles to provide a new plausible scenario.

      So you think there are a lot of gaps, and there are people that have made claims about what did or didn’t happen. The consensus that Hendrix died of barbiturate overdose is pretty sound and has far fewer gaps and far better evidence than hearsay, testimony, and suspicion.

      • Scrum Drum says:

        If you bothered to familiarize yourself with the case and read this thread you would see we are way beyond your uneducated viewpoint and generalizations. Your logic isn’t sound because what I’ve written shows reasonable evidence of homicide. Your logic says that since we can’t identify a suspect therefore there was no murder. That’s obviously foolish. I’m glad you are as cavalier and casual with the fact Jimi was murdered as you are. I’m sure Jimi would appreciate your dismissing his murder so superficially.

        What you say in your last paragraph is wrong. The official story has been demolished and no longer stands for any credible analyzer. Meanwhile what you call hearsay and suspicion has a lot more credibility behind it than you allow. If you bothered to read, cite, and answer what I wrote in this thread instead of using dishonest words to get around it you would see that. This thread has been a long debate with several persons trying to show the soundness of the official story. Each one of those challengers was forced to give up once I demanded they quantify their claims via the evidence. I take you as another such person seeing the inenterable generality of your input. People like you start by seeking the excuses and end up at the excuses as their intended destination. If you bothered to honor what was posted in the thread you would see that isn’t submittable and is what doesn’t stand up each and every time. You obviously don’t know much about this so I suggest you catch up before entering such regressive entries.

        Read the thread and live up to it by answering the gist of the foremost arguments without copping-out with that lame citation excuse and we’ll quickly see the worth of your evasive opinion. You simply don’t know what you’re talking about which is obvious from your entry.

        • @ Scrum drum
          Since you have “100%” certainty. You obviously have belief not evidence. I don’t need to check all the crazy theories to know that anyone who has 100% certainty about something has faith not evidence. It is obvious that you are a true believer, you don’t question your own assumptions. You attack others who question your assumptions. This is a common pattern in conspiracy theories/ theorists. the primary strategy of the conspiracy theorist is to make a demand for proof to an arbitrary level of certainty (meaning whatever evidence is available will never be enough), and then declare the failure to meet their arbitrary demands indicates that their alternate conspiracy theory wins by default. Sound familiar? – this is the same strategy as denialists, such as creationists. Also I was struck by how consistent the tactics and tone of scrum drum tends to be. They are heavy on sarcasm, ridicule, and condescension, and like to call anyone who disagrees with them “gullible.” Another consistent thematic approach of the die hard believers. Josh is just guilty of intellectual honesty. Josh is saying this is the available evidence, and it may not be complete. It sounds like a weak argument but that is far more intellectually honest than”I know” and is the way the world works. You will never be able to prove with 100% certainty that Hendricks wasn’t murdered/suicide/OD’ed/or cloned by aliens and taken to the Pegasus galaxy. The straight forward answer fits the majority of the facts. Drug and alcohol intoxication resulting in death is hardly a rare event. Anomalies don’t automatically mean murder is the only other possibility. Your assumptions, your tone and your unwavering certainty as well as the consistent way you denigrate others viewpoints to elevate your own is consistent with someone who really doesn’t want to know the truth. Your convinced that you already have it and set out to promote it. Frankly following your claims was for the most part a wast of time. Several other sites with lengthy rebuttals of why the are BS. I cannot agree.

          • Scrum Drum says:

            This is just ignorable, typical Skeptoid hot wind rhetoric. It passes on Skeptoid because the bar is pretty low. You obviously know zero about this case so your attempt to get away with that rubbish you post is somewhat amusing. Thank you, because your post is more an indictment of Skeptoid and their methods than anything else. If you bothered to familiarize yourself with the topic and the thread you would see I advanced a very credible argument of evidence and forensics that was never refuted in any credible way by anyone – including yourself. Sorry, but the facts and arguments are there. The fact you can’t answer them and choose to enter this off-point taunting in its place only reinforces them. Your post is as dishonest as it is wishy-washy since I am obviously the one not only in best possession of the evidence but also best able to argue it. You’re not being honest because any honest evaluation would admit that when each and every denier was forced to argue the points of evidence specifically they backed off and quit and were unable to do so. That would hold true for yourself as well if you ever attempted to actually address the facts I presented instead of offering this irrelevant, wholly dishonest naysaying. Your post is so aversive of the main arguments of evidence that I take it as the defiant Skeptoid trolling it is. You’re obviously avoiding the evidence we’ve been discussing. Who you think you’re fooling with that I don’t know. There’s nothing in there that’s really worth answering vs the progress of points we’ve reached in the debate. Thanks for indirectly showing the value of my arguments by being so publicly unable to answer them. Your post is dishonest because it uses the semantic trick of calling my evidence “assumptions”. My evidence comes directly from all the main proven facts of the case as is shown in your inability to show otherwise and need to name-call instead of addressing any direct evidence. You’re a typical denier who can only call people conspiracy theorists but can’t back it up with anything. The evidence and arguments are all clearly spelled-out in this thread. Go ahead, back up your accusations and disprove them directly. That’s the bar here. Put up or shut up. Or just be another Skeptoid clown in open contempt of the facts.

          • Thanks for proving every one of my points in one long post. At least you are consistent.

          • Scrum Drum says:

            When asked to directly answer the credible points of evidence I presented directly nurse practitioner Stephen Propatier refused and referred to his trolling instead.

            No, Stephen. Thank YOU for proving mine. You obviously can’t answer the facts and show a good example of what passes for debate on Skeptiod.

            100% of all challengers of my evidence and arguments cut and ran just like Stephen. That’s a 100% rate.

          • Scrum Drum says:

            The trick of Skeptoid denial is to always maintain the offensive and assume a superior argument and position no matter how obvious the garbage you post is. Stephen shows us a good example of that. No actual addressing the of substance of what is being debated is necessary for this type of deviant discourse.

            It’s kind of obvious Stephen wandered in high up in this thread after finding it and is just offering typical knee-jerk denial for something that he’s completely unfamiliar with. We won this debate long ago, as is seen below.

          • Oh I am not running. I am just reading your pontification and your self glorifying proclamations peppered with insults and how everyone is trolling you. Like this is your website. I feel debate is not necessary, I am 100% certain that if jimmy Hendricks returned from the death and confirmed the official story you would claim that it was a hologram or some such thing. So why debate you. I read josh’s article I find nothing compelling in your arguments. Your descrimination for what you call credible evidence is extremely low. That is my opinion. I find you self assured confidence with anger to be a pattern of behavior in believers not scientists. So why debate you. I will say that I find your statements of self proclaimed superiority to be insightful as to why you are so passionate about the subject. You obviously have a great deal of personal capital invested in being correct about this subject. I am curious why is that?

          • Scrum Drum says:

            I don’t believe you. I think you haven’t read any of my arguments below. Especially the forensic ones. I’m not going to follow you into any fact-evading trolling and leading of the discussion into a quagmire of endless filibuster designed to avoid answering the real evidence. Either answer my evidence-based arguments directly or I’ll ignore you. What you wrote doesn’t meet the standard I require for discussion of evidence (The evidence you haven’t yet mentioned in any of your trolling posts).

          • Scrum Drum says:

            Thanks Flyswatter. It’s good to see Skeptoiders trying to get away with their usual naysaying and then realizing they’ve bitten off more than they can chew with a real conspiracy with real facts behind it they aren’t afraid to embarrass themselves in front of. Stephen’s bombastic pseudo analysis quickly met its end when he was forced to talk facts. His folly is not realizing when the facts back you 100% you can be 100% certain.

          • Just asked you a question why are you so afraid to answer it. Why is this so important to you? If it is not important why are you so abusive about it?

          • Flyswatter says:

            Stephen, please explain how a casualty having stomach and lungs full of wine and only having a blood alcohol content of 5mg/100ml or .005% like Jimi did, can be anything other than a homicide victim?

            That’s the main point that you blatantly avoided with your responses. That is fact that you cannot get around.

          • I am sorry I missed where josh posted the autopsy report, or did you, or SD. I see that statement frequently. Yet I have not seen the report indicating that he had a bac of ,005. I see verbal claims to that effect. I see a death certificate that says vomit aspiration as cause of death. Making statements or quoting quotes is not the same as the evidence. How much is a “lung full of wine”- 400 ml post mortum removed days afterwards is not indicative of aspirate rather free fluid shifts to empty spaces after death which is normal. If it is a fact where is the evidence that I cannot get around? If he had a lung/stomach full of wine which you have no evidence of other than anecdote, you have vastly underestimated the onset of an overdose of vesparax on an empty stomach. Which squeezes the other claim anyways.

          • Flyswatter says:

            Stephen, the autopsy report and the Inquest records were pulled numerous times from the coroner’s office and the autopsy report clearly states that Jimi’s BAC was 5mg/100ml and Dr. Bannister says he spent nearly a half hour suctioning wine out of Jimi’s lungs and stomach. The autopsy report was listed in Tony Brown’s book Hendrix: The Final Days.

            You say there’s no proof of red wine, and yet Dr. Bannister has stuck by his testimony unflinchingly for over 40+ years and he was there.

            Your point about barbiturates is just a strawman because there never was any valid proof of Jimi’s fingerprints being found on any Vesparax packages or that Jimi took those pills voluntarily.

            It is you who cannot prove the official story to be valid. It was disproven in the early 1990’s starting with Kathy Etchingham’s investigation.

          • There is no way to prove that dead man voluntarily took pills of any kind unless he left proof. That is called a non falsifiable claim not evidence of anything. See my comment above on the red wine. The official story is not proof of anything and it can’t be. As I said before anyone saying they know 100% what happened that night is lying. The majority of the evidence leans one way and it is plausible, rock stars deceased on their own vomit is hardly unusual. A forced conspiratorial execution, for insurance money is at best… possible. Anomalies are always present. Despite claims anomalies don’t = proof of anything.

            Do you know what a strawman argument means because I don’t think that you do. How is jimmy taking too much of drug he was known to take a strawman argument?

          • Scrum Drum says:

            Stephen, you’re a nurse practitioner so you should offer more professional, seeking input than you have so far. The 5mg blood alcohol content is written in stone on Jimi’s autopsy sheet. The reason the Inquest’s death verdict says choking on vomit is because they never bothered to interview or cross-examine the attending emergency room doctors. In 1992 Dr Bannister read an account in Glebbeek’s book ‘Electric Gypsy’ where the main witness Monika Dannemann accused him of malpractice by failing to perform a tracheostomy. Dr Bannister shot a letter to Glebbeek protesting that a tracheostomy would have done Jimi no good since he was drowned in a large amount of red wine that he had suctioned out in an attempt to save him. Dr Bannister said it was “bottles worth”. A look at the hospital record shows Hendrix was received at 11:46am and the doctors quit their resuscitation attempt at 12:15, a full half hour later. This time period conforms to the period of time it would have taken for the doctors to clear Jimi’s lungs and stomach of wine before attempting ventilation. You cannot use the 400ml of free fluid witnessed by Dr Teare at Jimi’s autopsy because that autopsy occurred 3 days later and did not reflect the large amount of wine removed by Dr Bannister. Jimi’s stomach was not empty. Dr Teare noted a substantial meal which included a large amount of undigested rice grains. When called to examine the case in 1992, Dr Teare’s successor, the world famous Dr Crompton, told Scotland Yard that the undigested rice proved a time of death no later than 5:30am. Though the Inquest never bothered to determine any time of death, the accepted time was 11:45am just prior to hospital. This true 5:30am time of death radically changed the forensic circumstances. No British authority has ever admitted this.

            Sorry, but you need to familiarize yourself with this subject before offering an opinion on it. You are certainly no judge of Dr Bannister. And we are certainly not going to jump through your hoops of doubt. The wine is backed by much more than “anecdote” as anyone who had any real respect for this case and its evidence would recognize.

          • You claim a huge amount of wine was in in his lungs/stomach removed by a doctor post mortem. I can find zero evidence for that except for your anecdote statement about his statement, and other verbal statements that all link to the same book. No original data. This is medical question, related to autopsy, and it is a big question that you need to answer.
            How does the coroner test lung contents and determine the volume of wine(if indeed it was there) was present. Lungs have fluid in them aspiration causes massive cellular damage. Aspirating food will literally cause your lungs to fill with fluid. This is a physiologic fact not speculation. No one would know what was aspirated into the lungs by looking at it, unless a gas chromatograph of lung contents were done? Which wasn’t. The official report says he vomited and aspirated to death.

            You show a vast ignorance about the protective mechanism of the pulmonary system and the upper respiratory system. You cannot, and I repeat cannot force a large amount of fluid into someone lungs unless you insert a tube into there lungs and force it under pressure with a syringe. That would cause massive barotrauma(burst lobe) that would be easily apparent under coroner examination. You have offered no evidence of any trauma to the upper airway. You cannot simply put wine into his mouth and waiting for him to breath. Yes you may kill him if he aspirates a small amount because of pulmonary trauma and edema but only a small amount of fluid will induce upper bronchial swelling and laryngospasm that will literally close off the airway. Your whole premise of a large amount of wine is physiologically ridiculous unless they submerged him into a pool of wine with at least 4 feet of depth at that pressure there would be enough initial fluid on first reflex-inhalation to take in a large amount of wine average adult tidal volume is about 500ml of gas, fluid would be considerably less even if submerged.

            I am going to educate you both on aspiration physiology(forced or not) since you are obviously offering opinion on something you know nothing about.
            Food or fluid washing into the lungs as little as 50ml causes catastrophic collapse. Acidic fluid like stomach contents or wine(pH3.3-4) cause a more rapid collapse. Surfactant neutralization and avelolar(air sacs) collapse. The clinical picture shows massive capillary rupture and resultant fluid and cytokine shift causing massive influx of blood and intracellular fluid. This causes lung atalectasis(collapse), and broncheospasm(closing off of airways). Snowballing into a self destructive fluid filled collapse of physical space as well as disruption and damage to the oxygen transfer aveloar spaces. Attempting to inspire through the closed off airway would immediately cause more barotrauma to the aveloar spaces and resultant cascade of similar self destructive processes.

            What that means my friends is that you don’t need a large amount of wine to make someone die. 3oz in lungs could do it. Fluid drained from the lungs would be a morass of intracellular fluid blood and contents that Could Not Be understood just by looking at it. It just cannot be something that a person draining it out can know. Secondly you describe something offhandedly like you could force something down a semi-conscious persons throat no problem by yourself. As a person who has to do this to save people lives I will tell you this is no easy procedure, stick a tube in they vomit proliferately. Put something in their mouth they would cough it out. Only vomiting in a semi conscious person is both in the right area(larynx) at the right force, at the right time(you are exhaling forcefully when you vomit and reflexively inhale) is the only easy way to get him to aspirate. Plus it doesn’t take much. Then once you aspirate the whole breathing structure clamps down and fills with fluid. So yes a tracheotomy is useless no matter how much wine is there. That statement is nonsense from a doctors point of view. He wasn’t chocking on a piece of beef. Saying that he had a lot of wine in his lungs is equally nonsensical. Puts the Doctor’s knowledge in doubt in my opinion.

            So you see the irony guys. Your whole premise about the wine is physiologically implausible, this doctors guess about what he drained out is physiologically unlikely in the extreme. You would fine it easier to kill him by giving him a bunch a beer and putting ipecac in the last bottle than by forcing wine in. You would need medical equipment and someone knowing what he was doing to get it in. Plus you don’t even need it to kill the guy.
            So from my standpoint you took an anecdote from a book, didn’t even question if filling someone’s lungs with wine was even possible, and believe someone can know what was drained from a lung just by looking at it. Aspirate from a living/recently deceased person’s lung is a bloody mess, even if there was wine in the lungs it wouldn’t look like wine. What did doctor B do put it in a wine glass and check it’s legs, or maybe he is lung wine expert? Please, your lack of critical thinking about this major point puts all your other assumptions on an even shakier footing.

            Also I would like to see a source, other than this book of yours, that shows me that the drug came in blister packs in the 1970’s in the UK. I find no evidence for this on Physicians Drug reference and my historical research on blister packages. Although blister packs were invented in the sixty’s they became popular in 1965 when birth controls pills first started using them. By the 1975′ they were widely used in the UK and still are. In the 1969-1970 not so sure.

            Also where is the data showing that the blister pack was fingerprint free. If it was it tested where are the results?

            So yes I think you are arrogantly assuming things since you didn’t even take the time to question the basic premise of what you are proposing. Dr. Bannister thinks it was wine therefore it was. That is mountain of implausibility. Anything is possible but to prove extreme improbable you need something more concrete than one person’s unsupported implausible observation. He may believe it but that does not make it any more real than people who think that the see UFO’s. We are not reliable sources of data.
            What you are doing is not critical thinking you are finding something that fits your belief and accept it.

          • Wow , respect sir. But please don’t offend people who see ufo’s like they are idiots or daydreamers.Plenty of reliable witnesses can be consulted.I my self had a close encounter with something very real but unknown.

          • I did not, in anyway, classify Dr. B as a idiot or daydreamer. He is rather someone who believes what he saw, factually it is impossible to tell the products of stomach contents by looking at them, if it was tested that is missing from the records. He is not claiming that he tested the contents. That only makes him wrong not an idiot or a daydreamer. It is my opinion that most UFO believers are well intention-ed intellectually honest people who for the most part are not being hoaxed or fooled. Human nature is that we believe what we see and remember, but reality is a construct of or brain. We are not integrated video/sound recorders with digital memory. People can truly believe and have very real certainty. That doesn’t make the memory factually true. That is point I was trying to bring with my UFO content.

          • Scrum Drum says:

            You should be more careful Stephen because you’re talking to one of the world’s top experts on this. You’re obviously a nervy denier who is just learning about this but doesn’t refrain from assuming expert knowledge. The wine was also witnessed by the nurses who Scotland Yard deliberately avoided. Their avoidance of the nurses is proof alone you can’t answer. You can see my thoughts on this in the post I just made at the end of the thread.

            Stephen, you’re avoiding the evidence because Dr Bannister witnessed an amount of wine that is not normal for any accidental choking overdose. Nor in your long post of excuse-making did you ever attempt to reconcile this amount of wine with the incriminatingly-absent, necessary, commensurate blood alcohol content.

            You show confusion over the case because none of the things you list would be involved in what happened to Jimi. The autopsy was not aware of the massive amount of wine because they were never informed of it and the Inquest never interviewed or questioned the doctors. What you wrote is totally irrelevant to the case.

            Your disingenuous pseudo-scientific analysis is nice but doesn’t answer to the known facts. First, I’ve spoken to some seriously credible forensic pathologists. None of them said what you said above or made any such protest. Frankly I think you’re full of it and fishing specious excuses using your medical knowledge. Dr Bannister was very clear that he spent at least 20 minutes removing bottles worth of wine from Jimi’s lungs and stomach. I personally think your analysis is dishonest garbage as is simply shown by doctor Bannister’s witnessing. Plus, you don’t account for the time period registered in the hospital record that backs this. It shouldn’t have taken a half hour to declare an already-dead victim deceased unless there was a removal of fluid prior to resuscitation. You haven’t answered for this.

            Since you never mention the barbiturate paralysis necessary from the .7mg barbiturate blood level found in Jimi at his autopsy I’ll consider your input incompetent. Jimi was not semi-conscious as you say. His blood barbiturate level requires unconsciousness was any 9 tablet borderline lethal dose of Vesparax would require. I love seeing a pompous so called professional assuming down-talking expertise and then falling flat on is face. You simply have no working knowledge of the case, the evidence, or any credible ability to argue it, as is obvious from your input.

            When you catch up to the facts of case you’ll find the Vesparax tablets in question came in plastic bubble packs. You really don’t expect us to seriously respond to someone who has no knowledge of the case like you? You’re just another Skeptoid troll who has the hubris to suggest that someone who is just learning about the case has credible doubt over some of the world’s best experts. You people really are too much.

            I suggest you take a look at my post at the bottom of this thread and catch up before embarrassing yourself more.

          • Sigh, As expected another hand waiving set of excuses read my bs and pay no attention to basic physiology. Well I tried, but everyone reading this knows that arguing reality with a die hard believer is pointless. I suggest you take a look down the thread at my first comment and see my fortune telling ability blossom. I will say this that continually calling people trolls is considered ban-able on most websites. Yet we let you continue because your fun to read.

          • Flyswatter says:

            Stephen, you long-winded spiel, didn’t do anything except tell us that you are NOT educated regarding the facts of this case and that you are foolish enough to take your opinion for fact versus a very key eyewitness that was there (Dr. Bannister). Dr.Bob Brown has also made reference to the wine. The coroner, Gavin Thurston, told UPI representative Jack Meehan on Sept. 29, 1970 that Jimi’s stomach contents from the autopsy also revealed “that a fair amount of red wine had been imbibed”.

            Sorry, but the long-winded responses are just borish rhetoric that don’t tell anybody much of anything. Here some sources to help you get educated regarding this case.

            1) Kathy Etchingham’s book “Through Gypsy Eyes”
            2) Tony Brown’s book “Hendrix: The Final Days”
            3) The Aleem Twins book “Ghetto Fighters in Harlem World”
            4) http://www.rockprophecy.com/etchinghammitchell.html

          • I don’t need to be an eyewitness to know that when the LAD artery is blocked you get myocardial death. I don’t need to be an eyewitness to surgery to know that you will bleed.If you say to me I can fly like superman, well that one you got to show me. Eyewitness reports even from a doctor would not be enough for me to slap an s on your chest. I merely pointed out physiologic facts, and that they don’t fit with your expressed theory about the fluid drained from a lung. Both of your comments strongly indicated a lack of lung pathophysiologic understanding. Stomach is another story. How much is fair amount, how much food did he have in his stomach how long was it there? If you understand alcohol absorption you would know that time is critical. Food can take hours to digest. Alcohol is absorbed immediately. Why couldn’t the non alcohol components of the wine be sitting with the food in his undigested stomach contents. But the alcohol is long metabolized. Very plausible, and the theory falls apart related to the suspicious lack of elevated BAC. Untested stomach contents and eyewitness speculation, all to prop up a anomaly. I just pointed out one simplistic way the anomaly could have happened other than nefarious methods. You are talking about a person who was seen the day before he died to be visibly intoxicated for a gig. So much so he had to be sent home. He was taking his girlfriends medication a hypnotic barbituate with a high overdose potential. An unwise practice at best showing poor judgement on his part. Those facts are not in dispute it seems pretty straightforward to me that he could have made a mistake and taken too many. Certainly much more plausible than all the cloak and dagger proposed. Occam razor.

          • Scrum Drum says:

            I don’t know if Stephen is a moderator or not but I am unable to post replies to individual comments and I see he is. Whatever the case, he’s desperately trying an end around (which is typical of Skeptoid deniers) by stating his load of medical gibberish and then claiming victory. It’s quite obvious from his input that he has no working knowledge of the facts of this case and is going to pose himself as the lecturing expert who is citing the prevailing facts that we have failed to answer. His medical entries are, of course, complete bunk and don’t have anything to do with the direct facts involved in this case. But that’s the typical Skeptoid trolling method of answering to your own arguments and then ignoring the rest while claiming the other side failed to live up to your points.

            There’s no point in arguing with deliberately dishonest people who are deliberately and obnoxiously accusing you of what they know they are guilty of. That crap Stephen wrote doesn’t mean anything compared to the real evidence of the case he’s obviously clueless about. This is really a matter of how low are you willing to go to deny the evidence. Stephen obviously has way too much to say about something that he obviously knows nothing about.

            You’ll notice he flagrantly dodged every point I made in my response in order to enter an obnoxious taunting response saying I was amusing and that’s why I was allowed to stay, while also claiming he isn’t running from anything.

            That entry about lung fluid being unrecognizable is complete obfuscating crap. Because Stephen is ignorant of the facts of the case he doesn’t realize pure wine was seen in Jimi’s hair, neck scarf, and clothes. The 6 hours Jimi had that wine in his lungs would make no difference as far as being able to determine what the fluid was since the volume was so large. Stephen is obviously full of it and is just making up medical bs in order to make it sound like he knows what he’s talking about. However notice that he runs from answering what effect the recorded .7mg barbiturate blood level would have on all of this. Stephen is just like L3Fi. When asked to account for the tiny 5mg blood alcohol content he ignores it and accuses you of not answering.

            What Stephen is ignorant of is we have traced at least 4 bottles of wine back to the Samarkand Hotel that night that no one ever accounted for after the murder.

            He’s also ignorant of the fact that the autopsy showed the Quinalbarbitone and Brallobarbitone main ingredients of Vesparax in Jimi’s blood. Seeing how there was only one empty blister pack of ten found in the flat, and Jimi’s body levels of barbiturate showed a matching amount to the 9 pills that were missing, we can safely assume Jimi consumed 9 Vesparax tablets as claimed. Stephen is the only one who doubts this.

            Stephen claims to be a medical expert but then makes a foolish gaffe by trying to connect Jimi’s intoxicated state 2 nights before at Eric Burdon’s jam session with the events of that night. However any medical expert would know that the only pertinent information is that of the relevant forensic time period to the death. If you studied that relevant time period you would find Jimi was consuming lightly and only had a few glasses of wine from 6 to 10pm with some cannabis. The 5mg blood alcohol content Stephen forgets to mention in his evasive lectures fits Jimi not drinking anything after 10pm. Also Jimi sobered up and played with Burdon the next night.

            Finally a man who flagrantly ignores evidence and enters taunting, off-point, vacuous ruminations that aren’t even accurate. Who argues conclusively about a case he obviously doesn’t have the first clue about and doesn’t know any of the circumstantial evidence, who then sighs instead of answering the points because he wonders why anyone would be so dumb as to take him seriously – like all contemptuous deniers do – That man then pulls out the banning card with a veiled threat of banning over my calling him the troll he is. I think people can see what Skeptoid members are made of and how they react when they know they’re losing debates. You can see how they back up their pointless lectures about conspiracy theorists when they realize they’ve taken on someone whom they can’t get away with their usual level of intellectual/moral delinquency with. It just goes to show how honest Skeptoid deniers are and how much of an honest commitment they have to the alleged challenge of open debate they boast. I assure you Stephen you are making a great impression and people are overwhelmed by your brave interest in the truth and how you seek the facts of the case in order to back up your accusation of conspiracy theory.

            Does Stephen honestly think he’s getting away with that obvious off the cuff rattling off of completely unrelated medical talk? He’s filibustering and making an effort to hijack the debate into a soap box lecture where he answers to his own irrelevant arguments. There’s a lot of sites I know of where YOU would be quickly booted if you tried to get away with that level of dishonest evasion.

            A more honest medical evaluator would see the subtle forensic significance of the large amount of vomit witnessed at the Samarkand. The reason for this is a bodily counter reaction to Jimi having a large amount of wine forced in to him and drowning him. Sort of a Newtonian example of equal and opposite reaction. If Stephen knew anything about this case he would admit that 9 Vesparax, along with a two hour absorption period, with only a 5mg blood alcohol content is not enough to cause such an extreme wine-soaked reaction in a person with a known tolerance for Secobarbital.

            I anxiously await Stephen’s next irrelevant lecture from his medical sidetrack journal.

          • Scrum Drum says:

            I should have mentioned that Dr Bannister said that after he drained the lungs they kept refilling with wine coming up from the stomach. So Stephen’s lung fluid obfuscations don’t show credible due medical acknowledgement that the majority of the wine Dr Bannister witnessed had nothing to do with his lung fluid condition arguments that are therefore irrelevant and invalid and don’t answer the point. Stephen shows a distinct lack of credible medical interest in very obvious evidence of forced drowning overkill where large amounts of wine were used to flood the victim’s body. This overkill was evidenced in a bodily profuse vomiting reaction witnessed by the ambulance attendants.

          • Scrum Drum says:

            Stephen wrote:

            ” Food can take hours to digest. Alcohol is absorbed immediately. Why couldn’t the non alcohol components of the wine be sitting with the food in his undigested stomach contents. But the alcohol is long metabolized. Very plausible, and the theory falls apart related to the suspicious lack of elevated BAC. Untested stomach contents and eyewitness speculation, all to prop up a anomaly. I just pointed out one simplistic way the anomaly could have happened other than nefarious methods. ”

            This is why Stephen should study the case before trying to deny it. The answer is because Jimi was seen to be in possession of his faculties and reasonably sober just prior to leaving the last party at 3am before returning to the Samarkand. Stephen’s question is so absurd that it disqualifies him on both the general competency level and facts of this case at the same time. The reason it disqualifies him on the medical level is because no large amount of wine can remain in the stomach while losing its alcohol. Stephen is a nurse practitioner but he would fail basic medicine 101 with this suggestion. Any fool would realize that a large amount of wine would go through the digestion process and removal of the alcohol through bodily filtering and elimination before any kind of crazy separating out of the alcohol while the rest of the wine remained in the stomach proposition occurred. That suggestion is medically impossible and ranks Stephen and his moderator-imposed credibility.

            The next thing that proves this impossible is we have reasonably shown that the real timeline here involves a 2 hour golden window from around 3:30am to a time of death close to 5:30am. This period precludes any digestion of the witnessed amount of wine down to 5mg. Stephen is running roughshod across the fine forensic facts he’s obviously unaware of. He’s doing blind armchair speculating from a position of total ignorance yet he informs us that we are lacking “pathophysiologic understanding” while he himself makes such a glaring basic medical goof as suggesting a large amount of wine could separate out its alcohol and remain in the stomach. And Stephen tells us HE is tolerating US.

            Stephen hangs himself by his own petard here because it is my very forensic argument that says, yes indeed, alcohol is absorbed quickly by the body so therefore with a .7mg barbiturate level the victim would have to be unconscious for at least the last hour of life. And since an unconscious person can’t consume large amounts of wine by himself that therefore proves the wine was introduced while the victim was unconscious. As far as I know all institutions of legal authority describe that situation as “murder”. For, if the victim had drank that wine on his own before unconsciousness, as Stephen agrees above, the alcohol would have been absorbed quickly creating a much higher blood alcohol content.

            When you apply the correct timeline to the forensics they prove homicide beyond a reasonable doubt.

        • Flyswatter says:

          Basic physiology? What’s so hard to understand regarding the basic physiology of a subject being in a barbitural coma (0.7mg in blood and 3.9mg in the liver found at the autopsy) and having wine poured down his throat to the point that he would drown and would die quickly, heart stops beating, and absorption of alcohol into the bloodstream ceases.

          Your point about suggesting that Jimi voluntarily took Monika’s sleeping pills, is offset by the fact that the ambulance men that were called to Monika’s Samarkand flat, found Jimi lying on top of the bed, uncovered by blankets, fully clothed, and dead and covered in dried vomit. They also said Monika wasn’t there, just Jimi’s dead body on the bed and the door to Monika’s basement flat had been left wide-open. The ambulance men, Reg Jones and John Saua had this entered into a sworn and notarized deposition on January 3, 1992, overseen by London Ambulance supervisor David Smith.

          Common sense should tell anybody that if Jimi had voluntarily taken those Vesperax, with intent to sleep, that he most likely would have undressed and crawled into bed and gotten under the covers. It’s most likely that Monika Dannemann pulled a dirty trick of some sort, with Jimi unsuspecting. Don’t believe it? Then I suggest you read the testimonial witnessing found in the Aleem Twins book “Ghetto Fighters in Harlem World”.

          Your statement about “a person who was seen the day before he died to be visibly intoxicated for a gig” is utter BS and destroys your credibility. He was visibly seen to be intoxicated on the evening of Sept 15, 1970 at the Ronnie Scotts club & that was the last account of anybody witnessing Jimi to be visibly intoxicated. The next night on the 16th of Sept., Jimi stood in and played with Eric Burden and War at the Ronnie Scotts club in London.

          It also shows that you haven’t studied the events of Sept. 17, 1970, because if you had, then you’d know that Jimi had nothing more than some weed and a moderate bit of French Red wine on that day <— this info was entered into an affidavit by Phillip Harvey and backed by a 2nd witness named Penny Ravenhill. Harvey had Jimi and Monika at his Clarke Mews flat as guests for about 5 hours from about 5:30PM to around 10:40PM on Sept. 17, 1970. Also present were two gals named Anne Day and Penny Ravenhill.

          Regarding the lungs, Dr. Bannister would tell you that the lungs are like a sponge & therefore can hold a significant amount of fluid, and he's had decades more experience in the medical field than you have, so I'll most certainly take his judgement over yours. Bannister also said the wine was all over Jimi's clothes and was in his hair.

          You also didn't answer Scrum's point about the fact they received Jimi's body at 11:46 and stopped the resuscitation attempt at 12:15PM. What were they doing, if not suctioning large amounts of wine mixed with gastric contents (as Dr. Bannister said) from Jimi's lungs, for that half hour? Barbiturates alone could not possibly cause that. Simple vomit inhalation would have been cleared quickly, resus attempt made, and declaration of death most likely would take no more than 10 minutes.

          You also didn't answer my point about the coroner, Gavin Thurston telling Jack Meehan that Jimi's stomach contents had shown that "a fair amount of red wine had been imbibed". Combine that with the BAC of .005% and there is no way that wine could have gotten in there innocently. The ambulance men said Jimi had vomited excessively, which is a very common symptom for drowning victims.

          Like it or not, Dr. Bannister is telling the truth, regardless if you want to acknowledge it or not.

          Sorry, but you are clearly exposing your lack of knowledge regarding this case.

  7. George Kanakaris says:

    Scrum Drum you write ‘ Dr Bannister is very real. If you met him you would see right away he’s eminently believable and telling the truth. Is that the same John Bannister who was deregistered in Australia and struck off the Medical Register on 28 April 1992 when he was found guilty on three charges brought against him after complaints from two of his patients for what the Medical Tribunal of New South Wales described as, “professional misconduct and inappropriate and unethical conduct.” ? Is that the same doctor who “has demonstrated a lack of adequate knowledge, experience, skill, judgment and/or care in the practice of medicine ” (Medical Tribunal New South Wales) ?Dr. Bannister was also found guilty on several fraud charges. The Tribunal stated: “The persistence of such deceitful conduct over a continuous period of five years from 1986 to 1990 comfortably satisfies this Tribunal on the balance of probabilities that his conduct indicates within his character a marked degree of moral turpitude and, it indicates that he is not of good character.’
    And , WHY kill Jimi ?

  8. Scrum Drum says:

    There’s a syndrome out in the Hendrix world that equates bashing Dr Bannister, via the legalese used to dun him, to disproving the evidence. The trouble with those who bash Tappy and Dr Bannister is that the full bigger picture backs what they say and the murder evidence is not dependent on them alone. However if we look at Dr Bannister’s case he suffered the fate that many witnesses of covert murder suffer. These people are attacked, defamed, and discredited in order to destroy their credibility. The timing of Dr Bannister’s being struck-off was right in line with the evidence that was emerging at the time through Fairchild and Kathy Etchingham. Dr Bannister was basically struck-off for billing fraud. So while some repeat the medical board’s damning descriptions of his failings a closer analysis will show his delicensing for billing mispractices really had nothing to do with his witnessing Jimi drowned in large amounts of wine. Something that is, really, a quite basic medical observation that wouldn’t really need much skill to determine. I’ve spoken to doctors who say a person who did what Dr Banister did would normally have gotten his license back in a few years. What people who say Dr Bannister wasn’t credible are suggesting is that because of this innate personal failing and lack of character Dr Bannister decided to invent a bizarre story about witnessing the wine that morning. Sharper observers, however, will see that Dr Bannister didn’t come forward with this until he had his reputation challenged by none other than Monika Dannemann in Caesar Glebbeek’s ‘Electric Gypsy’ when Monika accused him of failing to save Jimi with a tracheostomy. Dr Bannister protested that a tracheostomy would have done Jimi no good because his lungs were drowned in a large amount of red wine. Caesar tries to cover this up in his filthy disinformation piece ‘Until We Meet Again’ by saying the liquid was Coca Cola, however if it were Coke then the autopsy would have found elevated levels of caffeine. Besides, Jimi wasn’t a person known to guzzle Coca Cola to the point of it becoming a medical issue. Caesar’s suggestion is obviously preposterous. Gentlemen, Caesar really isn’t too bright because in his desperation to cover-up the wine he doesn’t realize he has just admitted a large amount of fluids drowning Jimi. If it wasn’t Coca Cola then perhaps it was the red wine Dr Bannister witnessed, maybe?

    No, Hendrix fans who doubt Dr Bannister tend to piss me off mainly because they ignore the serious arguments I’ve made above and try to reduce the issue to trashing Dr Bannister. They don’t explain why they grant themselves the right to ignore the multitudes of evidence I speak about, they just do it and try to push through inferior analyses. If these persons were more credible they would ask the same questions of Monika who is a very good target if you are sincerely interested in credibility and how it affects Jimi’s death. The entire history is based on Monika’s lies. This is what the doubters offer whether they admit it or not. It’s the hysterical “killing the messenger” syndrome of Hendrix fans that their idol couldn’t be murdered. And let’s not forget the British government. It didn’t do any investigation of the circumstances of Jimi’s death, never questioned any witnesses, never examined the forensic evidence, and never even made the basic determination of a time of death. After being petitioned to re-open the case in 1992 it then failed to even interview Dr Bannister, and also failed to examine Monika’s proven lies, as well as examine Jeffery’s motives and actions. Internet doubters pose themselves as having a highly critical approach but then don’t question some very glaring flaws in the case. Any detective would be really interested in Monika’s 20 seconds of painful moaning into the telephone when Sharon Lawrence asked her about the wine. That detective would not respond to that evidence by attacking Dr Bannister, well at least if he was interested in finding out the truth about what happened to Jimi.

    Again, what people who doubt Dr Bannister have to answer is what were the doctors doing for a half hour from reception to declaration of death? Dr Seifert said Jimi was flat-lining on the monitor when they hooked him up (as a person who had been drowned in wine would) so what took them a half hour to finally quit-off Jimi and declare him dead? What were they doing for that half hour? Suctioning wine from the lungs perhaps?

    Yes, it is the same Dr Bannister who was there and tried to save the man he didn’t know was Jimi Hendrix by dutifully removing “bottles worth” of wine from his lungs and stomach as he was trained. It is the same doctor who, as a reward for not only trying to save Jimi but for also bravely telling the truth about how he died, was rewarded by being attacked by a disbelieving internet mob who refuse to see the obvious and don’t want to admit their guitar hero was murdered.

    Jeffery murdered Jimi because, as Monika described in her book, Jimi had fired him around 5pm that afternoon.

  9. free radikal says:

    So you see Scrum, if you can’t even read josh’s age correct, which is a stated fact above, i’d have to question your ability to make any sense about something as nuanced as this topic . Then you use your misread “fact” as an ad hominim attack… a typical strategy of the “inspired” conspiracy fearist.

    • Reg says:

      🙂 You noticed that too. 🙂 Blinded by the rage is the term I suppose, as the red veil descends.

      Josh is 22 next birthday, maybe 23 by now eh? Unless he’s lying of course, that might be son of Josh or a PhotoShop of his sister.

      • Scrum Drum says:

        The creeps who troll this subject make me sick. Josh really should block them.

      • Josh Weed says:

        I turned 22 on the 22nd. A photoshop of my sister? I guess I did have long hair in that picture. Glad you think I’m pretty 😉

        • 1phd says:

          Unless one reads your bio blurb closely, it is easy to come away with the idea that you are 17 at first blush. You might want to re-write your description.

  10. George Kanakaris says:

    So by asking some simple questions , i am part of ‘a disbelieving internet mob who refuse to see the obvious and don’t want to admit their guitar hero was murdered. ‘?At age 56 , i couldn’t care less about some guitar hero.I love his music , period.
    So Jimi fired Jeffery , and was murdered that same day without any witnesses ?Hard to believe.
    And again , why kill the goose with the golden eggs ?

  11. Scrum Drum says:

    You’re not asking simple questions, you’re ignoring the evidence I discussed in order to ask dismissive questions that allow you to ignore the evidence you’re avoiding by asking them. I don’t post this stuff in order for people to enter clearly regressive/inferior input. Don’t act innocent, what you are doing is creating the excuse to deny something that is very serious to Jimi and his history. It’s an insult to deny something as serious as Jimi’s murder. Read Monika Dannemann’s book ‘The Inner World Of Jimi Hendrix’. One of the few times she told the truth was when she described Jimi sitting her down in front of the telephone at the Cumberland Hotel in order to witness him firing Jeffery. When Jimi and Jeffery’s lawyer, Henry Steingarten, was asked about this he declined to answer saying it was probably better off he not comment. If you read ‘Until We Meet Again’, Caesar offered statements from all the people directly involved like Steve Weiss and Alan Douglas etc who gave unaccountably positive, dismissive comments about Jimi’s relationship to Jeffery. This is incriminating because we know Jimi had a difficult relationship with Jeffery. So what Caesar has dishonestly presented is those who witnessed this relationship, including that final phone call on the 17th firing Jeffery, trying to cover it up. He has the balls to present the word of these people straight without explaining the conflicts in what they are saying just like he takes Monika’s word straight and tries to sell it to the public for 45 bucks. This is why Caesar is an evil person and Judas to Jimi. He spent the last 4 decades making money off of Jimi from his UniVibes magazine only to sell him to his murderers and defend Monika when the issue arose. What is most obvious about ‘Until We Meet Again’ is that a person capable of the depth of research and access like Caesar has no excuse for distorting and omitting as much as he does. It is quite clear Caesar didn’t offer this disinformation on Jimi’s death by innocent accident. When confronted with this he pompously retreats into his bombastic self-referenced rhetoric and refuses to answer. May serious Hendrix karma catch up to that lying betrayer.

    No George, if you want to ask ‘simple questions’ ask them about the real evidence I cited. I’ve seen too many people on the internet respond by saying they are only into the music part of Jimi as if there was an option to pick and choose how much of Jimi’s murder you could ignore. People like that disgust me because what they are basically saying is I don’t give a fuck about Jimi and his murder as long as I can enjoy his music. It is a rather self-indicting, depraved comment to make considering. It’s one that the degenerates on Crosstown espouse and defend at the expense of their credibility simply because they want to make it easier for themselves to suck off Jimi’s talent while not being put through the discomfort of responsibility for his murder. Jimi is just an object to those people like collecting baseball cards. The joke’s on them because they are the people Jimi was complaining about who just didn’t get his message. Jimi would be disgusted by them but they don’t care because they have him in a cage like an organ grinder monkey and no one can stop them. Their obvious disconcern over Jimi’s murder discredits them.

    If you were paying attention, Jimi fired Jeffery around 5pm in a phone call from the Cumberland Hotel to his New York lawyer Henry Steingarten. There were no golden eggs because Jeffery was severed. Jeffery had serious incentive at that point to eliminate the threat Jimi posed to him when he tried to find out what happened to his money. Jeffery had a history and modus operandi of burning down unprofitable establishments when they were worth more arsoned than standing. No honest Hendrix fan has any right to ignore this. Plus Jeffery was involved with people who would not take kindly to his being unable to pay up or leading the law back to them. Jeffery to Tappy Wright: “I had to do it, I had no choice”.

    Someone should tell “Free Radical” this is for serious responses only. Talk about self-mocking. He’s an example of what I was talking about. Most Hendrix fans are hostile to Jimi’s murder and those who try to expose it. Reg’s post made it sound like Josh was 17 so Free Radical’s suggesting that little speck discredits me actually discredits him since the public can see how much real information he is trying ignore with it. Tell Free Radical and Reg to get back to us when they can answer the adult facts. Anyone who would offer a response like that to what I wrote is a fool.

    • George Kanakaris says:

      What is Eric Burden’s role here ?Something tells me he knows more…

      • Scrum Drum says:

        Sorry to chew your head off George, I’ve been through the mills with the trolls and don’t have any patience for them. Eric knows everything. If you read his comments over the years his guilt forced him to give hints like telling the true time Monika called him in his 1986 autobiography. You can tell this was seriously incriminating because he backed off that account in his 2001 book ‘Don’t Let Me Be Misunderstood’. George, it wasn’t until recently that it dawned on me that the entire story from that morning was all bullshit. For years everyone was trying to figure out clues by examining Monika’s version of events. It dawned on me that the story of calling to get Jimi’s doctor’s phone number is just the story Monika invented in order to get around the real reason. She called Eric because Eric was close to Jeffery and would know what to do. How do I know this? Because Monika never bothered to call the doctor. She knew Jimi was dead. It’s very clear to me that Monika called Eric because she needed his help in dealing with Jimi’s murder that she had just witnessed. She did this at around 5:45 am as Burdon admitted in his autobiography. What Burdon did was call Stickells, Slater, and Barrett because they were in-house personnel who could also be trusted and would understand what happened. A no-brainer that dimwits like Caesar and the Crosstown dopes never bother to consider is the fact that none of those people have ever spoken about what happened that morning in public. It’s obvious to figure out why. People like Josh are victims of the information deliberately provided to the public by those who had a motive to conceal the truth. All of this never would have happened if the God-damned British Government hadn’t cooperated with its main ally’s Central Intelligence Agency and done no investigation into Jimi’s death. Scotland Yard would never investigate one of their own MI-6 members murdering an FBI Security Index COINTELPRO target and that’s why they are ignoring so much obvious evidence to this day. Any fool can see how easy it would have been to expose this if Scotland Yard had simply applied its regular practices. Eric knows. He was there.

  12. Scrum Drum says:

    I think most smart people will see “Free Radical” as the obnoxious troll that he is trying to assume an eloquent tone while offering a simple-minded argument. I’m glad he posted because he offers a good example of how Dr Bannister was attacked and by whom. Unfortunately his kind of cretinous input has gained momentum with Bannister and succeeded in creating doubt about him and his witnessing on the internet. What is most clear, however, is that Dr Bannister is a gentleman doctor who was there and Free Radical is just an internet troll who has the nerve to put his trolling before the information he dodges with it. He suggests a sensitivity to “nuance” but then offers an obnoxious unsubstantive response that goes for the weakest contrived crack simply because his obvious inability to answer the evidence I presented forces him there. Free Radical is just another internet miscreant like the Crosstown clowns who when asked to display his suggested nuance offers nothing. It’s pathetic that they think they’re fooling anyone with that. No, people who try to deal with this at the name-calling level have already dismissed themselves. Smart people will see, like Caesar, they can’t handle the facts.

  13. Scrum Drum says:

    This article has gained the attention of the Crosstown Torrents site. There’s not much traffic over there on the murder issue because the site is dominated by bully cowards who will shut down any serious discussion of Jimi’s death with obnoxious trolling. “Alien” is probably new to Crosstown and doesn’t realize the wolves he has taken up with. Crosstown is owned by a frivolous nincompoop named Pat whose reaction to the murder issue being discussed on his site was to say “You can’t do that here”. So much for Pat’s feeling of responsibility towards Jimi on the internet’s only major Hendrix site. Crosstown allows the moderators to troll users while pretending strict site monitoring, which is what usual happens when you give cheap shitheels power. The whole objective being to enforce their own level of dumb-downed stupidity and depraved indifference. Alien doesn’t realize that the reason there’s little discussion of Jimi’s death on that uncredible site is because the bullies have intimidated serious posters away from the topic. They do so by obnoxious abuse and banning.

    What is seriously wrong with that site is it allows British moderators to impose a British type of censorship, which is normal to them, on an American site. This is doubly dubious because Jimi was murdered in Britain and there’s an obvious bias by those British members to not admit it. As anyone can see they are cowards who specialize in mocking the people they ban while those persons can’t defend themselves. Those cowards are very comfortable with their corruptedly-imposed silence on the issue because it suits their agenda, however they don’t show up in the real man’s world to debate the issue because they and their methods would quickly be exposed for what they are. Anyone can see this evidence belongs on that site. The reason it isn’t there is because the public is forced to their low level of coverage by their cowardly censorship.

    When Caesar published ‘Until We Meet Again’ the usual Crosstown trolls praised it and said it was reasonable and the final word, even though the most basic analysis would show it possessed some seriously fatal flaws. Although the troll moderators said everyone would be able to comment instead they locked-the topic, as bully tyrants who abuse their power will do, right as I was about to post a 36 page refutation of Caesar’s notorious work. I protested it was not only a violation of free speech but of Jimi himself and was banned for it by a British coward who goes by the handle “Fender’s Fingers”.

    Although Crosstown Torrents offers an otherwise excellent Hendrix website this kind of scurrilous betrayal of Jimi shouldn’t be tolerated by any credible Hendrix public. The public accepts the Hendrix treasures offered on that website in a deal with the devil that they don’t mention Jimi’s murder. The serious issue of Jimi’s murder is denigrated by obviously unqualified moderators into the pegorative category of “Conspiracy Theory” that says more about the labelers than the labeled. Really, the public, if it had any Hendrix credibility, should tell them to take that site and burn with it. The site is unfit as a public Hendrix site. It’s a prime example of what happens when you give degenerate punks and philistines power. Those fools are so dumb that they don’t realize that is exactly what Jimi was fighting and why he was murdered. They have no honor and there’s not a real man amongst them. They know exactly what they are censoring and why. There’s also members who know this but are too afraid to protest and get banned. You can tell they’re cowards because they never venture outside what they can’t ban. May karma find them.

    Sorry, for the off-topic Josh.

  14. MusicOfTheSphreres says:

    Apologies, but I just don’t see a verifiable fact in anything written about Jimi Hendrix and about his death. All I can see or recall reading is a lot of he said/she said gossip (normal enough around anyone who has engaged the emotions of the pubic with brilliant art, science, or philosopy.) I see a lot of people grandstanding and shouting and boiling with a rage directed at the universe with nary a verifiable fact to be seen except for the sad fact that he died.

    And not one of the people ranting about murder, suicide, conspiriacy, embezzelment, or anything else has said the one thing they don’t say about Michael Jackson either:

    He was an astonishing creative artist whose death was a tragedy. His music touched my soul and I will never be the same.

    • George Kanakaris says:

      AND we have the music , plenty of it.

      • Scrum Drum says:

        And what we don’t have is justice. If you don’t understand that the moral void caused by this indifference to Jimi’s murder is equal to Jimi’s music and mystery itself, then no explanation is possible. I have very little respect for people who admire Jimi’s talent but then leave Jimi himself flapping out in the wind murdered while they make efforts to deny the evidence.

  15. Scrum Drum says:

    The problem with Jimi Hendrix’s death is people who are either personally incapable of interpreting evidence or have wispy sensibilities are all too anxious to chime-in with their worthless opinion. If you analyze the input of these people they stay clear of the actual facts and evidence while applying evasive wordsmithing to suit their cowardly agenda. These people should be given as much respect as their shallow input deserves – that is, none. No person who had a credible opinion on the subject would dare offer such insultingly empty thought after seeing the presented evidence.

    These evidence-evaders expose their true psychological motives by saying Jimi was a brilliant special person. He was, but that doesn’t give anyone the excuse to use that to avoid the evidence for his murder. People who say that are really saying their idol Jimi Hendrix can’t be violated by something so base and ugly as murder. It’s the ‘hysterical’ position of refusing to see the obvious and using Jimi’s talent as an excuse to avoid admitting the evidence.

    If we asked “MusicOfTheSpheres” to elaborate on what he called “gossip” you would soon see his self-appointed credibility unravel. Anyone who has studied this deeply would know that much of the critical evidence came from Monika’s own statements, doctor’s statements, police records, tape recordings, and other firmly established sources that can’t be avoided so easily. If you want to know why MusicOfTheSpheres is a phony with a phony opinion just consider that you will never see him question Monika or her statements the same way you see him attack the murder evidence. MOTS is very quick to attack with words like “grandstanding”, “rage”, and “ranting”, yet offers nary a word about Monika’s lies or their intent. I’m familiar with the “jellyfish” argument from Crosstown Tyrants. Those people are jellyfish whom Jimi directly despised in his lyrics. When you get down to it, what those false praisers are really saying is they don’t give a damn about Jimi or what he stood for, they just don’t want his murder to get in the way of their hedonistic pleasure. They’re unfortunate people who don’t understand how incredibly stupid it is to enter such comments in the face of the evidence.

    So if we ignore the jellyfish level of input we can say with good certainty that the fact Monika was lying in her accounts of that morning is “verifiable fact”. At this point anyone who says they can’t see it, well, that’s their problem. They can save their meaningless apologies. Credible people can and they then use their sense of responsibility for Jimi to further interpret it. The one thing these shallow level opinions don’t touch is the forensic evidence. It more than proves Jimi did not die accidentally. So, once again, the forensics are hard, written-in-stone evidence that can rightly be considered “verifiable fact”.

    If you view these comments you’ll see the deniers always enter a quick hit and run synopsis or flame but don’t ever really touch the actual evidence in any credible way. If you slowed them down and forced them to walk through the evidence step by step you would see it was actually them who lacked the credible arguments and failed to prove their point. You have to be tough with these people and force them to answer the evidence they are obviously in contempt of and trying to get around. When you get them to talk you’ll quickly see they are feckless people who need to get the topic down as quickly as possible because otherwise their incompetence and indifference will become too obvious. And some of them are bastards who know it is true but seek to obstruct the truth. No, like all deniers, MusicOfTheSpheres has entered the cheap dismissal that satisfies his shallow lack of interest and honesty and will use it to ignore the screamingly obvious evidence. He should be told he’s going to have to do a lot better than the airy, feel-good crap he enters above to beat this evidence. I suspect he’s a Monika-defender which is all you need to know about him, his input, and agenda. These people are trying to apply silence to Jimi’s murder to make it go away. They’re cowards. What stands out the most about them is their conspicuous lack of curiosity over the serious conflicts involved in Jimi’s death. These people are arrogant because they actually believe their self-assigned superiority of reverence for Jimi will serve as adequate excuse for denying his murder. Fools.

  16. Reg says:

    “My mind’s made up, don’t confuse me with the facts.” Saleri did not poison Mozart and there is not the slightest chance in hell that this bloke gets a look in when compared with him. If they screw around with low lives they invite a dismal demise.

    As you say, “These people are trying to apply silence to Jimi’s murder to make it go away. They’re cowards. What stands out the most about them is their conspicuous lack of curiosity over the serious conflicts involved in Jimi’s death. These people are arrogant because they actually believe their self-assigned superiority of reverence for Jimi will serve as adequate excuse for denying his murder. Fools.”

    uuummm yeah.

    • Scrum Drum says:

      Reg is just a noise maker. Par for the course with this subject. Smart people can see his trolling never answers the salient facts or evidence. For honest people his contemptuous inability to address the actual facts speaks as reverse admission. Again, the arrogance of these people is plain and the public can see who blatantly denies the evidence and how. Time for Reg to walk the walk.

      • Reg says:

        Rubbish Scum Drum, when will you realize there is no justice in his life, there are only winners and losers, on balance, equally guilty.

        • Scrum Drum says:

          You’re not credible Reg. Get back to us when you can discuss the actual evidence without trolling.

          • Reg says:

            You’re obviously a tool of the industry Scrum Drum, working to keep the tale alive for commercial purposes. You ought to be ashamed. 🙂

  17. Scrum Drum says:

    If we could bring Josh back in to this and resume serious adult discussion I’d like to inform him I made a mistake in my previous post. After checking the internet for the British legal driving limit for blood alcohol content I discovered Jimi’s registered 5mg/100ml blood alcohol content at autopsy was the equivalent of 1/8th of a pint of beer. Yeah, that’s right, just about a gulp’s worth. The reason this is important is because it obviously isn’t enough alcohol to become the forensic issue that has been cited over the years. Many of the works covering this event refer to 4 pints of beer. They do that because, if you examine the autopsy, Dr Teare admitted he estimated the alcohol level at the time of ingestion of the pills. Dr Teare took the liberty to interpolate the urine alcohol content at the time of Vesparax ingestion as being 100mg, however he did so under the false assumption that Monika’s timeline was accurate. It’s all in the autopsy report.

    What people who attempt to analyze this event, like Josh, fail to consider is that the autopsy is invalidated by Dr Teare’s inaccurate input. They don’t realize that the real evidence creates a completely different scenario, including the forensics. The assumption Dr Teare operated under was that Jimi took the pills somewhere between 3:30 and 7am. Dr Teare assumed an alcohol consumption history of Jimi partying all night, including the wine Monika said she shared with him at the flat. This would create, at minimum, a 4 hour and 45 minute alcohol digestion period that Dr Teare took the liberty of assuming. So the critical alcohol barbiturate interaction that was attributed as the cause of Jimi’s death was determined under these pretenses. Dr Teare’s calculation assigned an alcohol level at the time of Vesparax ingestion that was too high according to the real timeline.

    If we analyze Eric Burdon’s admission that Monika called him at 5:45 along with Dr Crompton’s undigested rice showing a time of death no later than 5:30am, we can safely conclude Jimi was dead around that time. MusicOfTheSpheres blithely suggested there were no verifiable facts. I hate to break it to him but this evidence is hard verifiable fact. So the real timeline here is Vesparax ingestion somewhere around 3:30am with death occurring around 5:30am. What the autopsist Dr Teare was unaware of was there was a 2 hour forensic window involved in Jimi’s death to which the forensic calculations applied. If he had inputted his forensic calculations into this 2 hour window he would have discovered his assumed alcohol digestion rate did not fit the facts and therefore demanded other conclusions. He would have realized that this 2 hour period was not enough time for the barbiturate to react nor did it allow the alcohol levels that caused the assumed manner of death. The calculus for 1/8th of a pint remaining after 2 hours would not be enough initial alcohol to instigate the assumed fatal alcohol barbiturate combination. This formula also decreases the original volume of alcoholic fluid, which then begs the question where did the extra volume of wine come from since it has no bodily forensic trace. To put it simply, the blood alcohol level does not allow for the amount of wine Dr Bannister witnessed. Gentlemen, you can throw the whole official verdict out because it was provably based on false evidence. Which means, by their own rules, the British Government is violating its own law that requires it to re-open cases that were not investigated properly.

    What this true analysis of the forensics shows is it is very possible that Jimi did not have any further alcohol past the wine he drank at Phillip Harvey’s party earlier that evening. The true forensic analysis would determine a consumption history that resulted in 5mg/100ml remaining at the time of death at 5:30am. Since this negligible blood alcohol level would result in an insignificant amount of blood alcohol at time of Vesparax ingestion at 3:30am we can therefore conclude the assumed manner of death was seriously mitigated by deficiencies in alcohol and time. In short, Jimi didn’t have enough time to die this way. Especially with his famous tolerance for barbiturates. Nor did he have enough drink in him either as the firm forensic facts show. Unless this true forensic history is entered according to the true timeline, no accurate determination of cause of death is possible. The British Government stands in shame because it refuses to admit this undeniable reality.

    I hope Alien is still reading this and asking himself why those moronic cowards on Crosstown Torrents react to this with silence and banning.

  18. free radikal says:

    Go to the mirror boy!

  19. free radikal says:

    No scrum, no troll here.. I just read your comments and the others posted here because it’s a fascinating topic, – and find a commenter who obviously feels his “indisputable insight” on the subject has been challenged, so posts his rambling convoluted “analysis” in an attempt to protect his self-professed expertise on the subject. But who, after reading the authors bio still miss-states his age in a pitiful attempt to discredit him! I almost never comment on blogs like this! Your arrogance is blinding you. Let me guess..you also subscribe to belief in 911 building 7 conspiracies, obama ordered the sandy hook massacre, the denver airport is a nazi hornets nest, the magic bullet, fema coffins, chemtrails, on and on… you must be the poster boy for “the arrogance of ignorance”.

    • Scrum Drum says:

      Case in point. Reg, Free Radikal, MusicOfTheSpheres, they are all obvious naysayers whose only input is defiant denial as shown by their public inability to coherently address the facts. As any sensible person can see their only input is to ridicule the topic from the safe distance of ever having to make any credible argument towards the evidence. Free Radikal is a perfect example of a Crosstown nitwit who is dumb enough to not have the sense to embarrass himself in front of the facts. He specializes in name-calling but anyone with any common sense can see he and his input are ultimately ignorable and he has no personal ability to discuss or analyze the evidence. Anyone with any common sense can see the difference between those who can intelligently discuss the actual evidence and those who can only discuss the discussion of the evidence. All Free Radikal is telling us is that he can’t answer what I wrote in my last post.

      The reason this pisses me off is because what I wrote is quite credible and proves Jimi’s murder at a courtroom level. Meanwhile the loudest voices in the Hendrix world are cretins like Free Radikal and their obnoxious, ignorant input. This especially goes for the only internet Hendrix site “Crosstown Torrents”. Free Radikal represents a perfect example of the input and quality of the Hendrix death material there. It’s clear to me that Free Radikal isn’t too bright so instead of admitting the arguments I posted above are over his head, he attacks them with the stupidity above.That goes for the other challengers who, if anyone cares to notice, weren’t able to respond to my last post. The definition of proof is usually that which its doubters can’t answer. The Hendrix Community is shameless in its silence on this. Or even worse, contempt as shown by lower characters like Free Radikal And Caesar Glebbeek.

      No, Caesar Glebbeek is a coward and Hendrix Judas. I could destroy him in an open debate, which is why, just like Crosstown, he avoids it at all costs and hides behind his bombastic “baloney” pronouncements made from his UniVibes dark castle. The so-called Hendrix community ignores this scandal with silence as it enjoys Jimi’s treasure while shamefully attacking those who try to do justice for Jimi. They rationalize that they are taking the high road by “Celebrating Jimi and his life,” but anyone who has even the slightest sense of what Jimi himself was about and was trying to say through his music can see what fools they are. This is a damnable scandal that hasn’t seen its resolution yet. May God help those who are foolish enough to get in the way.

  20. Anonymous says:

    Wow , this is the 1st I have heard of this. And here I thought he had died of lung cancer, that will teach me to get my facts from a BBC comody show. I guess I am going to be called a troll now. But really your ranting and raving has done nothing for your case. hopefully i will get a chance to look into it for myself and come to my own conclusion not one you are telling I must come to

    • Scrum Drum says:

      Another internet creature showing the public how they react at a shallow level in a defensive way before knowing anything about it. There were precise arguments in what I wrote that were most certainly not “ranting and raving”. If you had more credible understanding of this subject and its evidence you would see it is not me who is demanding approval but the facts themselves. So far nobody, including yourself, has overturned them. From your input I’m sure we’re all anxiously awaiting your conclusions. By the way, ‘comody’ is spelled “comedy”.

      • Josh Weed says:

        So far, the bulk of your rather lengthy comments has been composed of you insulting those who disagree with you. I guarantee that this behaviour has repelled people who would otherwise engage and listen to what you have to say. That is what you want, right?

        You are very passionate about this topic, but I strongly feel that if you want people to hear you out, you should tone it down a little bit. You haven’t exactly been effectively using this platform to your advantage – I for one lack the superhuman patience required to dig through your verbal diarrhea in order to separate out your argument.

        If you want to have a discussion about this, could you please concisely list the evidence that you have to support your position? If you commit one ad hominem, I’ll consider you a troll. I think that is a fairly trivial thing to ask from someone who has already put so much energy into this topic.

        • Scrum Drum says:

          I disagree with that Josh and think you are practicing a double standard. I have presented enough evidence that someone who pretends to offer an analysis of Jimi’s death should respect and respond to. Any person who has honestly researched this to the point of offering a blog should know that I am above being accused of being a troll from my input. I see that as an opportunistic slight being used to unfair advantage. It was also used on Crosstown where the actual trolls were rewarded and enjoyed the benefit of the current silence the site now enforces on the matter of Jimi’s death. I believe you said you were going to review my input and offer a response. I see you didn’t do that. Instead you returned with a threat of labeling the only person in this thread with any credible knowledge of the murder a “troll”. Hmm. I have committed no offense. All I am doing is agitating lesser observers into having to back up their obvious denials. The reason Jimi’s death went uninvestigated for so long is because no one did this. The agitation isn’t the offense here, the lack of response is. Apparently you don’t apply the same standard to those other posters who blow-off the evidence with uncredible input. I don’t think you’re being honest Josh. For anyone with any serious knowledge of this case the reason those others didn’t respond wasn’t because they were poor victims being driven off by a mean man, it’s because once you force them into the serious evidence their denials don’t hold up. You’re not honestly proposing that the substance-free, sassing ridicule coming from some of the commenters in here is the offended side? Trust me, the silence this thread has incurred is not because people are intimidated. It’s because there is shameful indifference on this subject that the public doesn’t want to be reminded of. That is seen by the silence out there in general and the lack of response to Glebbeek’s fraud.

          If you look at my November 27th post I already offered a sound argument that was most certainly not “verbal diarrhea”. Honestly, I see your challenge as enforcing a bias by the weakest means. This topic really needs a totally free forum where its deniers are forced to answer the facts. Honestly, I think the current situation is not one of “ad hominem” but of those who deny the murder being unable to offer any credible input. You have no idea how much evidence there is to this. I think the public is smart enough to see who’s really interested in the evidence and who isn’t and how. Give my November 27th post a shot. So far, no one has. I’m very interested in a serious discussion of this. Look at this thread and ask yourself if I am the one who has failed to give that? Honestly.

  21. Scrum Drum says:

    A good offering of the evidence in the London Guardian comments section:

    http://www.theguardian.com/books/2013/dec/02/starting-zero-jimi-hendrix-memoir

  22. Scrum Drum says:

    From the Wikipedia “Death Of Jimi Hendrix” article:

    ” He stated that Hendrix’s blood alcohol content was 100 mg per 100 ml, “enough to fail a breathalyzer test … the equivalent of about four pints of beer.”[69] ”

    This is the Wikipedia quote of autopsist Dr Teare as to Jimi’s blood alcohol content. Anyone who reads it would take it seriously and believe Jimi had enough alcohol in his blood to react with the barbiturates and kill him. However anyone who has any researched knowledge of this case, as I do, would know that the autopsy sheets said in plain writing that Jimi’s blood alcohol level was only 5mg/100ml at autopsy. In fact, wiser persons would realize that Dr Teare’s estimation of a 100mg/100ml level at time of ingestion was his way of indirectly admitting the registered 5mg/100ml level was too low. In other words, the whole reason why Dr Teare entered an estimation of Jimi’s blood alcohol content is because he realized the 5mg reading was too low.

    If you read the Wikipedia wording above there’s no argument that it leaves the impression that Jimi had a 100mg/100ml level at death. Nowhere does the article ever mention the easily available information that Dr Teare estimated this amount and that it was actually 20 times higher than the recorded amount found at autopsy. Even worse if you investigate the footnote it says the source is Moscowitz; Shapiro and Glebbeek. I don’t know who Moscowitz is or how he qualifies as a source for this, but I do know who Glebbeek is. Glebbeek is a notorious disinformationist and liar who published the scandalous disinformation work ‘Until We Meet Again’ which tried to disprove the murder theories. Sure, 100mg might be enough to fail a breathalyzer test and be equal to 4 pints of beer, the only trouble is that’s not what Jimi was scientifically recorded by the autopsy as having as his blood alcohol content. This information was easily available to any author writing on the subject. This is the classic fingerprint of Caesar Glebbeek who is an open liar and distorter of information on how Jimi died. It’s clearly deliberately misleading and has no excuse for not simply stating the real information and its context as I have.

    When I pointed this out to Wikipedia a super moderator swooped in and accused me of “Defamation” and being a threat to Wikipedia and banned me. So after being informed of this false, misleading information and the sources with the legitimate information Wikipedia decided to ban me and keep the false information. When you then appeal through their appeal process smug moderators chide you like a child with wishy washy unclear rules that basically say you’ve shown signs you haven’t learned your lesson or deserve to be resubmitted, even when Wikipeida is clearly in the wrong and in contempt of its own rules. And Jimmy Wales then asks for donations for this insult on top of it! The “Talk” page where this occurred was wiped out and the present page has no one daring to mention anything. It’s a blank with no one pointing out any of these egregious errors. Meanwhile the present article now has “Kensington” spelled “Kennington”.

    Wikipedia cites a strict set of rules that uses the best reliable sources. However when they are informed of not using those very sources and are directed to better more accurate sources they attack the notifier and keep the misleading, poorly-sourced information.

    Jimi’s blood alcohol content at autopsy was clearly indicated on the autopsy sheets as being 5mg/100ml. That was not enough alcohol to cause the assumed cause of death. Nor was it enough alcohol to correspond to the “bottles worth” of wine Dr Bannister witnessed inside Jimi.

  23. i’m with you scrum drum,jimi was murdered,i have been in discussions on crosstown about it,they did’nt ban me for voicing my opinion,jimi’s statement that he’s going to seattle in a pine box is probably true.i love the man and his views on life are some of my own.i felt his pain the first time i heard his album isle of wight when i was 13 years old,i’m 48 now.too many people are dead now and we will never get a definite answer,unless burdon comes clean(which he never will), you have a weath of information on this case and should think about writing a book,but try to leave out the crosstowntorrents anger,they are’nt the resident experts on the subject.

    • Scrum Drum says:

      No, you fail to see who the Crosstown people are. Fender’s Fingers is british and so is that pernicious troll “stplsd”. While most of the posters there aren’t too bright many of them are and several know exactly what they are doing when they attack and harass serious posters trying to discuss Jimi’s death. Like the Kennedy Assassination they know there’s a lot more to it than what was passed off as the official story. This is where a serious line is crossed because these people are knowingly suppressing the facts for an agenda. For some of them the agenda is simply avoidance of uncomfortable stuff that makes their head hurt by having to think. In a way Jimi is a victim of his own constituency because he created such a strong sensation and sense of freedom that he himself got put in the shadows by it. I’m guessing that the Crosstown board is the end result of other boards and other Hendrix fan clubs and newsletters etc. This leads to the second more common type of agenda of keeping Jimi’s murder under the rug. This is a very popular agenda shared by most of the witnesses and participants from that morning along with those who have a professional interest in Jimi like his producers and managers as well as the present company. Jimi’s murder is seen as a radioactive issue that can’t be breached at any official level just like the JFK Assassination. Jimi’s murder is so wickedly scandalous that it is even still dangerous today and people don’t want to touch it. The third level I’d like to handle personally. People with this agenda know Jimi was murdered but are working for the dark side and trying to muddy the waters. You see, if you have a greater awareness of what Jimi was and listen to what he was saying these are the people Jimi was taking on with his music and, really, the power behind his guitar. Which is why no credible Hendrix website should be allowed to ban anyone who has a good understanding of this in order to cater to a group of degenerate, contemptuous clowns who think they’re hot shit simply because they have reached Crosstown status in the Hendrix collector world. These people have gained the Hendrix world but lost not only their souls in the process but Jimi too. They are definitely on the dark side of the divide and to be the internet’s only Hendrix site and not get this is to be an insult to Jimi and what he stood for. Talk about being tone deaf to Jimi and embodying what Jimi himself was voicing discontent with right before his murder. No, my friend. Look closer. There’s some very Hendrix-knowledgeable people on that site. Like Glebbeek they obviously know their stuff so they have no reason for not being more knowledgeable of the details behind Jimi’s demise. No, there’s something bigger going on here equal to Jimi and what he stood for. You can’t excuse them so easily. There’s no reason why serious discussion of Jimi’s murder couldn’t go on on that site. If it were credibly moderated the trolling and ridicule, by even the moderators, wouldn’t be tolerated and those who did it would be the ones who were restricted, not the other way around. The site isn’t credible and it’s run like a private club by insiders who run it according to their own agenda. It isn’t intelligent and it isn’t respectful of the type of website Jimi would have not only wanted but deserved. In short, if you are going to run the internet’s only Hendrix website you’ve got a responsibility to run it the right way. Let’s get down to it, those Crosstown clowns are only out to collect MP-3 torrents and don’t want to wreck their buzz by taking active responsibility for the injustice that was done to Jimi as his fans. What’s happening here is Jimi is being made to perform like a circus act in a cage while people deliberately deny him the justice he deserves. Even if that justice is as simple as letting history know the real truth about how he died. After all, Jimi deserves that doesn’t he? Isn’t it the least we could do for him?

  24. my opinion on his death is that monika did it,lying sack of trash,”a cold girl will kill you in a darkend room”.

    • Scrum Drum says:

      According to the forensic evidence it doesn’t matter who poured the wine into Jimi so, yes, it is technically possible Monika did it, but I don’t think so. All I can say is do more reading on CIA, COINTELPRO and how they killed. Tappy’s story is probably true, but you have to look outside the box and see who was pulling the strings. Think about who Monika was afraid of and protecting.

      But thanks, so few get it.

  25. Dave says:

    I know nothing of the subject. I know of other conspiracy talks such as 9/11 and JFK being complete nonsense. I just read Scrumdrum agree with the JFK complete BS, credibility shot right there. If that was not enough, the HUGE posts he makes with one or two paragraphs of babbling, rambling, “facts” is sure ot make any casual reader ignore his take on the subject. I suppose it is an all consuming obsession for Mr.Scrum, so he tries ot inform in large doses. To the casual Skeptoid reader, he is a bore.

  26. Scrum Drum says:

    Sorry Dave, I don’t do trolling. This subject is only for serious viewers.

  27. Anonymous says:

    i’m sorry but until some more information is uncovered we will never have definitive proof of what really happened,and that’s how the whole thing was set up,monika and burdon did not want to get busted and the british government got the ok to just sweep it under the rug.jimi made too many mistakes during that time and payed the ultimate price.he should have had friends or a bodyguard to watch over him,especially when he knew something was gonna go down.but we can enjoy his great music.cause he sacrificed his life to make us happy.he was a friend of mine,even though i never knew him.

  28. i’m sorry but until some more information is uncovered we will never have definitive proof of what really happened,and that’s how the whole thing was set up,monika and burdon did not want to get busted and the british government got the ok to just sweep it under the rug.jimi made too many mistakes during that time and payed the ultimate price.he should have had friends or a bodyguard to watch over him,especially when he knew something was gonna go down.but we can enjoy his great music.cause he sacrificed his life to make us happy.he was a friend of mine,even though i never knew him.

    • Scrum Drum says:

      Since you agree Jimi was murdered, as the forensic evidence proves, then you have to ask why Scotland Yard never checked-out the easily visible evidence like we did? The answer is because there was a wicked Cold War going on during the Viet Nam era where the US Government was operating some very wicked intelligence programs against what it saw as its enemies. Constantine pretty much spells it out. However if you do some deep studying of those programs CIA and FBI were executing the COINTELPRO Program where they openly stated the intention of causing the deaths of their targeted individuals. Even worse, if you read the specific details of those programs from their own files they stated they intended to create situations were others caused the deaths of the targeted individuals. Once you realize Jimi was on FBI’s “Security Index” and had a controversial death where the authorities strangely ignored evidence, even years later when it was obvious, you are well into the evil magic kingdom of covert murder. Add to that the fact Jeffery was MI-6 and you have what is basically a royal flush as far as all the ducks lining-up perfectly as far as evidence. Put it this way, all things considered the odds of Jimi’s death being unrelated to gov’t political motives is extreme. Extreme to the point of impossible if you know the era and their methods. Government was doing psychological warfare against an internal enemy. That included decapitation operations like were commonly practiced by CIA overseas. What you wrote above is very telling because you have to ask who gave the British Government the OK to cover it up? The people who work outside the law are Intelligence. And as far as Jimi making “mistakes” don’t underestimate who Jimi was, what he stood for, and how he did it. Crazy as it might sound Jimi was a brave indian warrior and they don’t fear riding straight into the teeth of death with the confidence of the spirit. Don’t think he didn’t know what was going on around him or underestimated his enemy. He just knew what his priorities were according to his gift. Mitch said “Jimi wasn’t a naive man”. What you say above is on the money because Jimi was sacrificed and betrayed by all those around him, including his friends. And if you’re hip to the universe, like Jimi was, you can only get those stars to line up in certain situations involving heavy things. And there’s no argument Jimi wasn’t heavy. Yeah, Jimi’s my only friend too…

  29. L3Fi says:

    Josh, excellent article. Well researched, approached and concluded with balance, keep that up and you can’t go wrong.

    Scrum Drum, I’m happy to enter into a fact-swapping dialogue with you, providing everything is sited by source, no fantasies or unverifiable claims please. If you turn out to be obviously insane then I will quit the dialogue because there is no point in presenting evidence to fire.

    The forensic evidence does not suggest Hendrix was killed, by any means, it just proves that he died about 7 hours earlier than Monika claimed. He died because of the 9 sleeping pills, not the drowning, the amount of pills he took were of a non-survivable, toxic level. Stick to the facts.

    He took too many sleeping pills one morning, that’s the end of it. Whether it was a deliberate act to kill himself is another matter and mostly debatable but I think that the evidence suggests that it is likely to be the the case.

    This isn’t really about Jimi though, is it? It must be pretty scary to wonder where you’d be left without this angle to peddle across the internet? In your mind, every bit of resistance you face is a justified battle in your personal crusade to right this perceived wrong that occurred to Jimi. Standing in judgement of ‘untrue’ Hendrix fans, whereby logic and fairness fall by the wayside, get over yourself. His music is supposed to lift you to the heavens, not leave you on hell’s pedestal.

    You’re 40+ years too late to save Jimi and what’s more, he doesn’t actually need saving because he is more alive than ever. Enjoy the music, that’s what Jimi wanted, he even said so when he was alive and who are you to go against that request?

    • Scrum Drum says:

      You’ve already had your chance to enter your case. Instead you chose to enter an off-point opinionation over the issue rather than the facts for it. If you really had a case you wouldn’t need to bluster that much to work up to it. All you are doing is loading your effort with all the pre-emptive excuses you intend to use to avoid the facts. It’s nothing new. You give yourself away by backing a young person (Josh) who obviously has no adequate researched background on this besides what he’s read on the internet. There’s too many Hendrix internet buffoons out there who try to sell this ignorant crap as if they held the superior position but all they are is misery looking for company. What is really outrageous is their cowardly attempt to sell their selfish denial in a cloak of respect for Jimi and his music. F3Fi then makes the obscene suggestion that since Jimi said to enjoy his music after he died therefore I’m in violation of some kind of reverence – as if Jimi himself would take the side of fools in contempt of the evidence for his murder. Yes, these people really are that stupid and really are that desperate to justify their ignorance and denial.

      L3Fi is easily dispatched by his own words. He’s a classic fool dumb enough to not realize he just entered evidence Jimi was murdered without realizing it. By admitting Jimi died 7 hours earlier than officially claimed L3Fi doesn’t realize he has just pushed the forensics into the time parameters that exclude accidental death. Jimi was claimed to have died right upon entry to hospital at around 11:45am. 7 hours earlier than that would be 4:45am. Since the autopsy proved the chemicals in Jimi were that of the Vesparax, that means he didn’t ingest the pills until he got back to the Samarkand shortly after 3am. If Jimi took the pills at say 3:30am then your assumed 4:45am time of death is way too short a time period for any Vesparax overdose. Especially with Jimi’s famed tolerance for secobarbital. Caesar Glebbeek was good enough to provide us with several case histories of Vesparax overdoses. None of them occurred in less than 4 hours. Thank you Caesar. Plus you then have no explanation for Jimi’s lungs and stomach bursting with wine. There is no plausible reason for that in the accidental death scenario. And since you now admit a 4:45am time of death you also have no explanation for such a low blood alcohol content.

      Gee, I hope that’s not too “insane” for you. Why is it that the dumbest Hendrix fans are always the loudest and always sell themselves as being the best type of fan? If you want to quote Hendrix there’s plenty of lyrics where he calls for the truth and warns against fools. L3Fi is just another cheap excuse-maker seeking the easiest way out in contempt of the facts he gives no heed to in public. He would be more than welcome in that dungeon of stupidity otherwise known as Crosstown Torrents. There’s a reason for free speech that you people need to catch up to. Something Jimi not only stood for but was murdered for as well.

  30. L3Fi says:

    Scrum Drum, try to not waste your words insulting me and stick to the case. It doesn’t come across as particularly grounded or professional, two characteristics that even the average person would expect from someone worthy of respectable attention. Fortunately for you, I’m not that easily scared of and so we will continue…

    Let’s start with an easy one, the proof behind your claim: Evidence your source for: “Jimi’s stomach and lungs were ‘bursting’ with wine”. That needs to include medical reports and fluid analysis specifying wine and quantity of.

    Your loose use of the word ‘bursting’ can be forgiven as I don’t think you are actually suggesting wine was administered with such pressure that Jimi’s stomach actually ruptured, or are you? It’s hard to tell what you are trying to say when your clearly flapping around in your room full or mirrors, barking at your own reflection like a mad dog.

  31. Scrum Drum says:

    From your input you’re obviously an internet clown not worth responding to. Your phony pretense of demanding a higher level of discourse isn’t working or fooling anyone. It’s just the obvious cheap ruse that deniers who aren’t really seeking the truth use. I almost added a comment on to the end of my last post saying I predict you will try to impugn the credibility of Dr Bannister as a cheap out. Lo and behold that was the lowest hanging fruit and weakest crack you could exploit and there you are right on time. However more credible people would ask themselves why you are so obviously using this denial of Dr Bannister’s witnessing to avoid the arguments I made about the Vesparax above? Anyone with any reasonable sensibility would see that my timeline arguments for the predictable behavior of barbiturates stand on their own without the wine Dr Bannister witnessed. So why are you so desperately using your denial of Dr Bannister’s witnessing to avoid answering it? By doing this in public are you not showing the public that you are aware this is valid and can’t answer it?

    Anyone can see that you are just trolling an unreasonable demand for precise, complete, perfect evidence in order to avoid that which you conspicuously show signs of not being able to answer. In short the pompous pretense you wear around your head is not the decoration you assume in your bombast but is instead the ass’s crown of a fool who doesn’t realize he sports it so recklessly. Anyone can see your insincere dodging and spurious attempt to hang your flagrant evasion on such weak denial as proof for the wine, but any fool could see that any fluid to the degree Dr Bannister witnessed is irregular to the point of requiring serious explanation. Caesar was aware there was a problem with it so he tried to explain it away as being Coca Cola. In other words he recognizes the fluid. The wine is a done deal, however, because even Caesar’s own witness Monika admitted it to Sharon Lawrence. Caesar omitted this from his disinformation work. When I asked him about it he protested “SHARON IS A LIAR!”. That’s what Caesar does. When he gets to something he can’t get around he shouts and accuses others of lying.

    No, you were a dishonest challenger from the start L3Fi. If you were sincere there was more than enough information already in this thread for you to respond directly. Not only did you forfeit your credibility by not doing that but now you flagrantly try to get away with not answering my Vesparax timing arguments. Like all denial trolls you try to compensate by seizing the argument and forcing it to your own disingenuous, self-serving terms. But that isn’t how evidence works. It’s like being a little bit pregnant. No, to deal with this at the level I deal at you have to have better stuff than that. You can’t dodge evidence like you do here. It is all accumulative and interactively relative. If you were smart you would realize that the fluid, whether wine or not, was the acting member that caused Jimi’s death because, by your own admission, Jimi didn’t have time to die by barbiturates as your inability to answer shows.

    Thank you L3Fi. I really enjoy trampling fools like you, but especially enjoy crushing pompous blowhards like you who are not only too dumb to see the evidence in the first place but also too dumb to realize they’ve already lost. As I’ve said before, I still stand at 100% unbeaten at this simply because Jimi was murdered and these arguments are valid. Thank you for once again proving that. You may now join the long line of fools who tried to challenge this but universally all followed with complete silence (Or cowardly censorship like Crosstown). Or you can continue showing the public what you are so contemptuously willing to ignore while fatuously assuming credibility and authority like Fender’s Fingers.

  32. L3fi says:

    So, there we have it. Thanks for showing us all that you are an absolute charlatan and if I follow your logic: possible intellingencia disinformationist hoping to create a revisionist history of what actually occurred for who knows what ends… You see how easy it is to take your isolationist approach and then paint shadows through supposition? I don’t really believe that you’re part of some dark government program though, you’re just a lonely guy with a Hendrix obsession.

    I made one simple and polite request for proof to the claim made that: “Jimi’s lungs and stomach were ‘bursting’ with wine” and what do I get? Answer: No medical evidence, no credible source, nothing, just another bloated and circular statement from someone who doesn’t have their own axe to grind and so has to steal a dead-man’s… To make things worse, you waste the opportunity on laying out a fanatical series of unwittingly self-reflective put-downs!

    Get help man, one person drowning in their own vomit is enough. I know you mean well but you’re not well.

    • Scrum Drum says:

      I love seeing a fool tighten the noose around his neck by pulling harder on it. Being unable to answer the on-topic point about the Vesparax timing proving Jimi couldn’t have overdosed L3Fi then resorts to all he had in the first place – pompous bluster. L3Fi is classic of the fools who argue against the evidence. Remember, L3Fi stated that he would conduct a point for point discussion of this. When shown the simple proof he couldn’t answer he then resorts to the embarrassing arrogant stupidity in his last post. There’s people out there that absolutely hate the idea that Jimi was murdered who also lack the intellectual skills necessary to process it. These people are all over the internet. They are arrogant enough to think their denial is enough to simply pronounce down any claims of murder as you see the embarrassing blowhard L3Fi do when shown the cogent proof he calls for. He is so enwrapped in this psychological denial that he actually thinks he’s getting away with hiding behind that pathetic ruse of calling for the wine evidence, even though I just thoroughly disrobed him and left him unable to answer. These people dominate the internet and are incredibly arrogant as L3Fi shows us. They have no fear of making fools of themselves in public or being so obviously unable to answer the pertinent evidence. As anyone with common sense would see L3Fi is so used to the lack of challenge from his Crosstown Torrents degenerate peer group that he actually deludes himself that he doesn’t have to answer the Vesparax arguments I made above. As he shows us, while suggesting a higher level of argument be observed, he himself responds to that argument with flaming, basically, and arrogant refusal to answer the proof he so self-condemningly demands. He’s pathetic and anyone with any common sense would see he thought he could get away with his bluff through the single method of defaming Dr Bannister and the evidence but he bit off more than he could chew and didn’t realize his weak method was outdone by the real evidence and those who are able to articulate it in an effective manner. It’s a level of treatment he’s unfamiliar with from his moronic Hendrix peers.

      L3Fi is the worst kind of fool. One that fools himself. My Vesparax timing arguments were quite simple and deserved credible response. Look at what L3Fi responded with when asked the simple courtesy of answering the evidence he called for. And remember, this is from the person who had the balls to ask me to avoid personal comment and just answer the facts. I do thank him however. In his self-destructive offering L3Fi has shown us a good example of Hendrix murder deniers and what they’re made of. L3Fi is like the tiny little Donald Duck running around grabbing the pearl while saying it’s all mine all mine! He thinks that cheap ruse of denying Dr Bannister is enough to make all the other evidence go away. That’s delusional as this discussion and L3Fi’s conspicuous failure to answer the Vesparax timing argument shows.

      Show us what your words are worth Mr L3Fi. Answer my points about the Vesparax timing.

  33. L3fi says:

    Oh, and if it helps you feel any better: Hendrix was used to having his axe stolen…

  34. L3Fi says:

    Er, I don’t have problem with the vesparax timing…

    Jimi took 9 vesparax in the early hours of the 18th of September, that’s undeniable. We agree right?

    That’s where it ends though, he took a toxic dose which lead to inhibiting his choke reflex and he died from inhaling his own vomit and potentially some other fluid administered by a third party -though not to kill but in the belief that it would assist him back to consciousness. Just like people do when someone has drunk to much, they give them coffee -even though this is not proven to help at all.

    The point I am arguing is that he was not deliberately murdered, or don’t you get that?

    Jimi self-administered a lethal dose of Vesparax, 18 times the recommended dose and that is the cause of death. Or did that not happen according to you?

    IF anyone poured a fluid down his throat I believe that this was Monika trying to help wake him up with coca-cola (there is no proof that it was wine), after she rang Eric Burdon to try to source help for Jimi being non-responsive.

    Eric’s own words about that phone-call: “I told her to pour some coffee down his throat or something”… I bet she did just that and it only made things worse.

    THAT is about as close to the potential truth as you will get. No conspiracy, just an accident.

    THAT would explain why she felt guilty, why Eric Burdon also feels guilty and why there was a huge time gap between Jimi actually dying and the bull-story Monika concocted about being in the flat when the ambulance arrived and Jimi being alive until he reached the hospital. Because they spent the early hours trying to cover up the drug parephenalia in the flat and get the story straight about what had happened.

    Though ultimately the responsibility lies with Jimi and his reckless intake of Vesparax. Even left alone he would have died, it was a toxic lethal dose. Whether he meant to kill himself is debatable but the evidence of probability lies in the arena that he did. This I can also elaborate on if you just learn to ask the right questions instead of being so aggressively defensive.

    Hope this puts you out of your misery, it offers a way of accepting Jimi’s death for what it was without introducing any nonsense and is most likely the nearest thing to the truth.

    But then that would leave you with no purpose in life, eh?

  35. Scrum Drum says:

    You can’t trust Caesar’s toxicology data because it isn’t accurate to the actual scenario. Caesar bamboozles the public by inserting the autopsy barbiturate data into Monika’s 7:15 to 11:45 ingestion timeline. As you yourself admit that timeline isn’t accurate and is off by as much as 7 hours (most likely 5 hours).

    I’ve dealt with people like you before. You are of the group who believes that poor, dizzy Monika suffered a bout of female hysterics and somehow got confused, pouring large amounts of wine into Jimi in order to bring him around. L3Fi, just step back and look at that story and look at how ridiculous it is. Monika was no dizzy broad. If you look at her behavior after Jimi’s death she was quite adept at covering up the truth and maintaining a very cold-nerved cover story without breaking. That fact alone vs the intense pressure she was under excludes her from being any dizzy broad who panicked and didn’t know better than to drown an unconscious Hendrix in bottles of wine. Any credible detective would see that right away. Frankly, if you believe that story you’re stupid. No, that detective would see that Monika made up a quick excuse with Sharon Lawrence in order to divert from the fact she knew Jimi was drowned in wine. She said she used wine to wash vomit off Jimi’s face, however any look at the ambulance men’s statement would see that Jimi’s face was covered in grotesque amounts of vomit. Monika was lying. She knew what the wine was used for. If you buy the story that Monika tried to revive Jimi with wine you’re not seeing the obvious. Besides, the real record shows that Monika gave Jimi the pills. So knowing Jimi was knocked-out on her Vesparax would Monika genuinely try to revive him with alcohol? Be smart, man. Just pouring any liquids into an unconscious man is something any sane person would know better than doing. Your input is ridiculous on its face yet you still try to sincerely offer it.

    Plus, if you had any credible understanding of the facts, the hour and fifteen minutes (3:30am-4:45am) you allow for Vesparax ingestion wasn’t enough time to induce any vomiting in a man known to have a high tolerance for secobarbital. So your assumed pathology is disproven by the facts. But your assumption is wrong anyway because the vomit we are referring to wasn’t caused by any drug reaction with the tiny 5mg/100ml blood alcohol content. That’s not enough alcohol to cause that reaction, let alone in only 1:15. The vomit in question was the classic vomit reaction seen in drowning. The volume of vomit witnessed by the ambulance men should tell you that Jimi did not have an inhibited choking reflex. He died well early in to the pathological process of any drug reaction and the agent of death was physical drowning and not choking on vomit (as Dr Bannister clarified).

    Caesar tries to capitalize on the fact Jimi had a 3.9mg % of blood barbiturate level. While this level is high it is not fatal in a person with a high barbiturate tolerance. Caesar does one good thing in his disinformation work. He provides the Vesparax manufacturer’s product information data. That information tells us that Vesparax reaches its saturation point after 2 hours. The 3.9mg found in Jimi’s blood proves that Jimi ingested the Vesparax for about 2 hours, reaching the saturation peak. Dr Crompton was quite accurate when he said Jimi died no later than 5:30am. His estimation was nearly precise (which is why, like Dr Bannister, he was attacked).

    You take liberty in ascribing 9 Vesparax as a lethal dose. The product information Caesar provided says in writing that the lethal dose threshold is “9 to 10 tablets”. Once you input Jimi’s famous tolerance, that Caesar so uncredibly ignored, and calculate the true ingestion timeline we are actually provably below the lethal dose threshold. Include the fact Jimi had but a trickle’s worth of alcohol in him and we are at a loss to explain the alleged reaction. It’s just the opposite. The true facts prove that Jimi did NOT have enough Vesparax in him to kill him. The acting agent was the wine – and by drowning. Your loose assumptions above conspicuously ignore all the main determinative forensic parameters. You’re not arguing with an idiot here.

    The Coca Cola claim was a pure fabrication invented by Caesar to get around the fact he knew there was a suspect liquid involved. While claiming there’s no evidence for the wine (even though we have 2 direct witnesses admitting it) there is absolutely no evidence for a large volume of Coca Cola. That’s something that Caesar just made-up. Caesar’s not too bright however because if there was that volume of Coca Cola its caffeine level would have to register in the blood analysis. There was zero caffeine found at Jimi’s autopsy. Meanwhile we have Monika admitting to freshly-bought bottles of wine at the Samarkand. Caesar’s a really ballsy liar because he knows all this, though he chooses not to tell the reader in his deliberate deceit. Dr Bannister said it was wine. It was. So did Monika.

    All I can say is don’t take every story you hear from the Samarkand literally. You people are self-defeating fools because anyone can see you practice a rogue double standard of demanding strict evidence but, like Caesar, you then turn around and present the stories from the main witnesses that morning straight and without question. I’m sorry but your input is uncredible on that count alone. You don’t believe Dr Bannister, who had no reason to lie, but then believe provably notorious liars with a real motive to cover-up murder. Like Monika, the more you talk the more you help me.

    No, your laughable condescension is easily refuted. If your scenario of Eric and Monika wanting to cover-up a foolish accident were true then why would Scotland Yard not investigate this with so much evidence? What’s holding them back? Shyness? Plus, any credible observer would see that the record shows the police detective who interviewed all the main witnesses at the time came back and said “They were all lying”. So in a case of the death of a famous person since when do the cops hold back and not investigate people who they feel are lying? Cops are usually not shy on that kind of stuff nor is the famous Scotland Yard. Any smart person would see the Inquest also avoided some basic things like time of death. No, only a person trying to push through an incomplete version that seeks to ignore some very obvious evidence would dare offer the intelligence-insulting approach you offer. It’s a sick travesty to offer the wimpy conclusions you proffer considering how much strong evidence there is to refute them. But, really, only a person with an evil level of hubris would dare such sick condescension while trying to get away with ignoring Michael Jeffery and his more than obvious motives. Your pathetic scenario tries to fool the reader into thinking Jimi had a completely understandable self-induced fate. Poor ignorant, reckless, suicidal Jimi and dizzy Monika. You know where you can take that. But, heck, even Monika said Jimi was murdered – and by the mafia no less! Caesar even had the balls to ignore that too, while having the nerve to tell his readers he was going to cover it all and answer everything once and for all.

    The fact you are so contemptuously arrogant to take the tone with me that with the right instruction I will come to learn to ask right questions is pretty sick considering all the questions you ignore. Heck, anyone can see how ignorant you are of what I wrote in here alone.They can see you are already posing things that I’ve disproven – which makes you foolish (or maybe even worse) doesn’t it? And in no position to instruct. You even have the balls to suggest Jimi committed suicide, despite all the evidence that he didn’t. Even Monika said Jimi didn’t commit suicide. So did Chas. The reason they did that with such conviction is because they knew Jeffery murdered Jimi. Blaming the victim in this kind of case is pretty rottenly pathetic. But doing it in such a dishonest and fact-avoiding way is even worse. It deserves a response that I hope to soon deliver in the future.

    No L3Fi, you’re a denier seeking a denier’s path through the evidence. Meanwhile the proof is what I wrote and what you didn’t really honestly answer. Your input isn’t valid because you refuse to recognize and input your claims into the real 3:30am to 5:30am timeline. You’re fudging, like a person who knows they have a bogus argument would. But I don’t think you’re stupid. No, I think you’re more the deliberately evil type. A conscious disinformationist who tries too hard. That makes me very interested in you L3Fi. Only the lowest of the low deny Jimi’s murder. But only the lower than that deliberately mislead.

  36. Scrum Drum says:

    AstroVoodoo wrote:

    [ “The cowards on Crosstown Torrents” Buster
    Hey Fender Fingers,

    You hate the truth man! The indisputable proof Jimi was murdered man! You’re just part of the cog in the machine man…
    Subverting the truth because you can’t handle the truth….

    What a bunch of crap… He’s just butt hurt that there isn’t sufficient evidence to support the claim that he was murdered. Sure Jimi’s death is unfortunate and albeit a bit suspicious in my opinion, but to say there is a cover up and shut up operation going on around here is a farce.
    No one likes when people with conjecture and bad facts spout garbage as truth. ]

    The poster “AstroVoodoo” on Crosstown Tyrants is a perfect example of the neanderthal membership I was talking about. What kind of site would let an obvious idiot like him be the prevailing word on Jimi’s murder? Or by the pathetic means of stupidity-enforcing censorship? I mean who is AstroVoodoo trying to fool? Anyone with any basic smarts would see he’s just a pathetic creep who isn’t capable of interpreting the evidence for Jimi’s murder or having a credible opinion on it. I think he’s fooling himself that people can’t see that all he’s capable of is the stupidity above when it comes to Jimi’s murder. You’ve seen AstroVoodoo’s best here. Crosstown Tyrants is uncredible enough to let him have the last word over more credible people. And that’s the site’s problem. What pisses me off about creeps like AstroVoodoo is that they don’t practice the same phony pretense towards the British Government and their evidence for Jimi’s death. He’s also stupid enough to not register the conflict between admitting Jimi’s death was suspicious and saying the claims of a cover-up are a farce. No, there’s two reasons why there’s silence on Crosstown Tyrants. One is that the members are afraid of the dictator Fender’s Fingers. The other is that when you present the subject the members are made to look like the embarrassing dumb-asses they are. Thank you AstroVoodoo for giving us a good example. You may return to your Fender’s Fingers-protected caveman cave.

    Case in point as the clueless sycophant “AstroVoodoo” shows up to suck-up to the site capo Fender’s Fingers. This is the kind of garbage input Crosstown Tyrants prefers and promotes by means of the selective site and content control overseen by Fender’s Fingers. You won’t see anyone challenge it because, like in all dictatorships, the members are afraid to speak what they’re really thinking. So how do we judge who’s right here? Just go outside Fender’s Fingers cowardly control into the real world and you don’t see these protected cowards showing up anywhere to argue their beliefs on Jimi’s murder. There’s 2 reasons for that. First is because they are basically bums who are only out to grab Hendrix material on the site for their own pleasure. So they never really rise to the level of credible intellectual/moral concern for Jimi’s murder. The trouble it takes to exert responsibility for Jimi as his fans makes their dull brains hurt so they avoid it and attack anyone who does in order to reduce it to their idiotic level. Secondly, they know if they dared try their cowardly crap on a real unprotected site out in the real world they would quickly be shown to be the fools they are. What that tells you is they just don’t give a damn. They just don’t want to admit it. That the internet’s only Hendrix site would be controlled by a group of contemptuous dumb-asses like that is a crying shame that shouldn’t be allowed. The way they deal with it is through Fender’s Fingers draconian control of the site and its content. It’s very easy to make stupid viewpoints look good when those that expose them are deleted and banned by a vindictive dictator drunk on his power whose real purpose is eliminating opinions that expose both his and the site’s inadequacies.

    Fender’s Fingers pronounced that he would ban anyone who threatened the radio host. (Ban Ban!) However the overall effect was like a pathetic character in the movies being condemned by his own words. When Fender’s Fingers said that you could hear a pin drop like when a brute with bloody hands brags about his greatness. Fender’s Fingers is pathetic because he doesn’t hear the silence he gets in response or what people are really thinking. Nor does he notice the stupidity of the pathetic suck-ups who back him so dumbly. Crosstown Tyrants is an artificial world that stands in contrast to the real Hendrix world elsewhere. All created by the mean spirited censorship and hostility of those who made it that way. The site has all the Hendrix integrity of a Walmart Hendrix site overseen by fuzzy wuzzy corporate moderators enforcing their stupidly Hendrix-conflicting sense of political correctness and punkish delinquency in a way totally inappropriate to any true Hendrix site that had valid respect for Jimi and what he was.

    • Scrum Drum says:

      Another reason the dumb-asses on Crosstown Tyrants like AstroVoodoo are uncredible phonies is because after Caesar published his work of lies the idiot majority AstroVoodoo represents on Crosstown chimed in to say it was very reasonable and finally settled the issue. So to understand how this moron who gets approval from no less than Fender’s Fingers himself perfectly proves my point realize the phony pretense of being sensitive to Hendrix murder information, that AstroVoodoo credits himself with, never appeared when it came to Caesar, who offered one of the most outrageous collection of lies ever attempted on the subject with the full approval of this same buffoon and his Crosstown cohorts. As a matter of fact I was hunted and censored by Fender’s Fingers when I tried to enter posts showing what was wrong with Caesar’s notorious disinformation work. So don’t fall for the cowardly, self-serving crap that these phonies hide behind. When I tried to protest the outright censorship of my Caesar-refuting material I was permanently banned by the British coward Fender’s Fingers who imposed a British type of censorship on an American website. His reasoning in my banning window was “Oh well, it’s just Scrum Drum.” Like a tyrannical british lord pawing his defenseless prey. The coward knew he had no credible reason he could put in words. He just needed someone who could show the uncredibility of the site removed to make his tyrannical rule easier to get away with. Those cowards are in contempt of Jimi’s murder. They just don’t want to admit it. They have no honor because they’re willing to live with their silence and cowardly censorship (and idiotic reasoning like AstroVoodoo). I would rip any of those cowards a new one on any fair playing field – which is exactly why they don’t show up (like Caesar). Who are they trying to fool? They stay silent and ban not because of the flaws in the information but because of its obvious veracity. They’re not men, they’re cowards and they’re traitors to Jimi.

  37. L3fi says:

    Scrum drum. I appreciate your responses are more grounded now and getting to the point though I wish you’d make them concise. Lots of words and very little being said.

    Besides, your evidence is contradictory.

    You claim that is that as no caffeine was in Hendrix bloodstream, it couldn’t have been coke poured down his throat and yet…. your claim of bottles of wine in Jimi’s lungs isn’t reflected in the bloodstream either. So your evidence for all this wine comes from which coroner’s report? Because it doesn’t seem to show up, just like your argument for it not being coke.

    There is no evidence that the fluid that was in Jimi’s lungs was anything other than gastric contents. Even if there was fluid, there is ZERO evidence of it being wine and nowhere was it noted during the coroner’s report, either spewing out of his body or in the bloodwork. So, give that one up because that is not evidence, that is invention.

    You claim that Monika was no dizzy blonde and yet she couldn’t even get her story straight and has been shown numerous times on record to have been contradictory in her statements, changing her story several times. So, is she reliable or not? The evidence shows that she is not. That doesn’t make her a killer or an idiot, just unreliable and therefore UNRELIABLE.

    Jimi was found DEAD and in an empty flat by the ambulancemen, no Monika, this has been testified to. Yet she claims she was there and at the hospital, no-one can or could corroborate this.

    Noel Redding and Fayne Pridgeon both have spoken about Hendrix being suicidal on occasions, both before fame and in 1968. Neither had anything to gain from such admissions. Hendrix was impulsive and reckless. He constantly spoke of being free and unchained, whenever his situations got too tight he would split, that was the Hendrix way. I’ve far more evidence to this for why I believe it may have most likely been suicide but maybe we’ll get to that later.

    Mike Jeffrey’s had nothing to gain from killing the golden goose, he was the one that got Hendrix started by borrowing money off his parents along with Chas Chandler selling his bass Guitars to get the Experience started. Oh and he also came up with the ‘Experience’ name. Hardly the behaviour of a dark, covert force, going to his folks for a cash supply. There is no evidence of Hendrix’s life insurance being paid out to Jeffrey’s either. So,, drop that nonsense also.

    Jimi was knowledgeable and complicit in the use of the Jeffries’ Bahamas off-shore set up of Yameta, because they (Jimi, Jeffreys, Chas, Noel and Mitch) all wanted to bypass Inland Revenue. Bad move! But Jimi was not in the dark about it, he also signed contracts without reading them and you say he wasn’t naive? Come on man. He could play the guitar like no other and he used women as he pleased but he was no businessman.

    Just to save you writing loads of words, present the evidence concisely, point by point. Because thus far I’ve heard nothing but ramblings and invention from you. You’re driven by the dark idea that Hendrix was killed rather than face the horrible fact that Hendrix just did what he wanted when he wanted and at the very end, it was no different. It took that nature and level of determination for him to have got where he was. He had no true friends at the very end and he knew it but that is the price of wielding such power.

    • 1phd says:

      Are you ignorant? Just asking, because I’ve waded through this entire thread and there is ample evidence via Dr Bannister’s testimony claiming that huge amounts of wine were involved. If you believe Bannister, then there was wine. It’s all discussed here. Why come into a thread with comments denying it. Your only basis for denial would be that Bannister was lying about it or mistaken in some way, rather than stating it didn’t exist.

      • Scrum Drum says:

        He’s a troll. Any honest investigation of the evidence would show that Dr Bannister removed a large amount of wine from Jimi’s lungs and stomach at St Mary’s. None of these trolls have ever answered what they were doing for the registered half hour they worked on Jimi? That half hour is evidence of the wine because it would not have taken a half hour if there was no wine. Obviously a good portion of that half hour was spent removing wine from the victim before attempting resuscitation. Dr Bannister never varied from his story. Dr Seifert, on the other hand, diametrically changed his story. He insisted Jimi was dead and flat-lining when he arrived on BBC. After the controversy became public Dr Seifert said “There might have been a breath left in him.” That is impossible because a flat-lining patient who was witnessed with a hardened plug of vomit blocking their windpipe 20 minutes earlier could not possibly have any breath left in them. Dr Seifert was obviously ducking his witnessing of the wine. L3fi isn’t ignorant. He’s a troll thinking up any crap he can to deny the murder evidence.

        Monika’s reaction to Sharon Lawrence’s question about the wine also shows severe stress. In other words there was something traumatizing about it. The pure wine found in Jimi’s scarf and hair was obviously wine spilled while being forcefully poured into Jimi. It’s obvious these deniers are desperate to deny Dr Bannister’s witnessing. The bottom line is that it was just a straight, accurate medical witnessing by the attending doctor. These trolls are desperate to deny it because they know it shows Jimi was murdered.

        • Flyswatter says:

          And don’t forget, we have UPI representative Jack Meehan interviewing the coroner Gavin Thurston on Sept. 29, 1970, and Thurston telling Meehan that about Jimi’s stomach contents and “that a fair amount of red wine had been imbibed”. This is in Sharon Lawrence’s book. The autopsy and the Inquest did indeed know about the wine. CHECKMATE!!!

          • Scrum Drum says:

            Thanks Flyswatter. Indeed a checkmate against the trolls and liars who have an annoying tendency of not coming back to account for their failures. That quote is a total refutation of Caesar Glebbeek who said there was no evidence of the wine and no notation of it at the autopsy. One is then forced to ask how could Thurston, who wasn’t there, be quoting the wine when Dr Seifert, who was there, denied its existence? The obvious answer is Dr Seifert is lying and therefore showing evidence of a serious cover-up equal to that which we are claiming. Who intervened to tell Thurston and Dr Seifert to shut-up about the wine? Maybe the same ones who did so with Scotland Yard in 1993 perhaps? The willing stupidity people show in this is amazing. Do people now see why defaming Dr Bannister doesn’t work?

            In his haste to deny the murder evidence Caesar was too dumb to realize that there would be no notice of the large amount of wine in Jimi at the autopsy because Dr Bannister had removed it 3 days earlier at St Mary’s. So just the suggestion alone is evidence of Caesar’s petty incompetence. There’s only one way Thurston could have gathered that information. It had to have come from consultation with the witnessing doctors and police. This also incriminates Scotland Yard who told Kathy Etchingham they did a thorough investigation and found no new evidence.

  38. Scrum Drum says:

    Your attempt to take control of the conversation is laughable and is the obvious folly of an ignoramus who doesn’t understand what I’ve written. Your pompous pretense of assuming the superior position is self-mockery considering how little understanding of what has already been shown you display in public. I think most intelligent people would see you are just an obnoxious denier entertaining himself with gratuitous doubt rather than any serious observer of the topic. Most smart people would see a person who is incapable of understanding the evidence and arguments simply labeling them “ramblings” because they are over his head. This is otherwise known as “trolling”. Again, most smart people would know someone thinking-up the first, shallowest excuse and seeking the easiest, opportunistic cheap outs when they see it. The evidence is sound and reflects more on those that mock it in ignorance than anything else. Your arguments are mendacious and would only be presented and accepted by somebody who was willing to ignore/deny that evidence which disproves them.

    You’re not honest because we’ve covered the wine and you never adequately/credibly answered for it. You’re a cheap troll not worth wasting my time on because anyone can see all you have is that cheap accusation that there’s no evidence for the wine. When shown that isn’t true you ignore it and try your only weak hand once again because that’s all you pathetically have. I’m surprised you think people don’t see that. Again, Monika admitted to the wine. You are a clown who has already lost this debate because in your desperation you forgot even you yourself admitted Monika poured wine into Jimi. You’re a laughable buffoon because while bombastically condescending to me you can’t even keep track of your own arguments. But any credible observer would know that Dr Bannister witnessed it, and, even more importantly, Dr Seifert lied about it. All we have here is you wasting our time refusing to admit that you were wrong on both counts about the Coca Cola and the wine.

    Like Caesar, you further your stupidity by suggesting the wine would be registered at the autopsy. The wine was removed by Dr Bannister at St Mary’s on Friday the 18th. The autopsy was done 3 days later on Monday the 21st. Therefore there couldn’t possibly be any wine registered at the autopsy. Nor did the autopsists consult the emergency room doctors. The fact you and Caesar both don’t realize this only exposes your incompetency and how far beneath the required level of argument you both are. Your talking down to me while committing such bungling gaffes only accents this. However there was 400ml of what Dr Teare called “free fluid” found in the left lung. Had he sampled this it would have proven to be remnant wine Dr Bannister wasn’t able to completely suck out.

    No L3Fi, the reason you stay away from my vomit arguments is because you know you can’t answer them. I have clearly stated that the real timeline is not long enough to cause Jimi to vomit. Your timeline is 1:15. The real timeline is most-likely 3:30am to 5:30am as Dr Crompton confirmed. That 2 hours is not enough time to cause a person with Jimi’s known tolerance for secobarbital to choke on vomit, nor would the miniscule amount of alcohol in Jimi’s blood be enough to cause it. Nor does the known scenario allow Monika to miss such an extreme event. So what I have done here is shown the acting agent of vomit was not likely according to predictable pathology. The vomit did not cause Jimi to choke, it came after he was drowned as is commonly known in medicine as the drowning reflex. If you had a more intelligent understanding of medicine you would recognize that Jimi had too much vomit combined with too much fluid to match a typical barbiturate/alcohol reaction. The reason you are an ignorant ass in contempt is because if you bothered to go out and find case histories of such accidental deaths you won’t find a single other case where the victim had such particulars. The drone in response from Crosstown Tyrants is “you have no evidence” and “it happens all the time,” but anyone can see that is moronic compared to my level of analysis and only evidences why the dumb-asses on Crosstown should never be allowed authority or influence in this important matter. Crosstown offers stupidity and censoring silence. What I offer is what they are missing.

    Anyone with any common sense would see that the death scene shows evidence that overturns your feeble Monika poured wine down Jimi’s throat argument. Whether you admit it or not Dr Bannister said he removed “bottles worth” of wine from Jimi’s lungs and stomach.This is backed by the fact they took a full half hour in their attempt to save him. They removed this large volume of wine in order to determine whether or not they could save him. This half hour is evidence of the presence and volume of wine because there’s not one denier who can explain what Dr’s Seifert and Bannister were doing for that half hour? Any idiot would realize that’s way too much wine for someone trying to revive a person overdosing on barbiturates. Like all deniers you try to control the argument, however people are wise enough to look at what you don’t answer, and what you didn’t answer is why Monika would try to “revive” Jimi with a substance that would only be like putting out a fire with petrol. The readers can see you realize you were wrong and back off to the flimsy argument that there’s no evidence for the wine. But that chessboard spot has already been blocked. If we look at the real evidence there was too much spilled wine and too much wine in the body to be explained by someone wanting to revive Jimi with a substance that would only create the opposite result. The death scene as described by all witnesses was one of forced drowning and not the ridiculous suggestion of reviving an overdose victim with alcohol (Dumb). Like all deniers, you trap yourself in your quick excuses but don’t realize how much they refute you once more fully considered. A trait shared by Monika herself.

    Please, try to follow the arguments and answer them as they were made. And don’t try to mask what you so obviously can’t answer in accusations of me being wordy. You’ve been shown enough. People can see what you can’t honestly answer and what you make pathetically obvious excuses around.

  39. L3fi says:

    Scrum drum:

    WINE only ever came into the scenario through Monika (you know, the one that has been proven to be totally unreliable and found to be contradictory in her statements) in 1990, in the ‘Electric Gypsy’ book. Before then, NOBODY, not the ambulancemen, police, or medical staff mentioned wine. EVERYONE seemed to miss the buckets of wine apart from one man…

    Dr Bannister! Dr Bannister admitted to reading the Electric Gypsy book and then (surprise surprise) in 1992 suddenly remembered that Hendrix was full of wine! Just as Monika had suggested 2 years earlier but 20 years after the event. Strangely, Dr Bannister also forgot to mention this key fact at the hospital admission and at any point during the following 22 years. IF such a scenario of Hendrix being admitted alive (he wasn’t, he was dead hours before), under this, Dr Bannister could be accused of malpractise for not following medical procedures at the time, like a tracheotomy. So, your main witness could be viewed as the ‘murderer’. Normally, I’d give credibility where it is due but apart from this obvious failing as a professional doctor to act on someone drowning and even record it or mention it, Dr Bannister was struck off the medical practice for fraud (incidentally the same year he made these claims) for 3 unrelated counts of malpractice. His memory of Hendrix was of a giant whose legs were off the standard-sized table, not the 5’11” Hendrix we know. Unless of course all that wine made him grow a foot or two, a bit like your Pinocchio evidence.

    Dr Bannister: DISCREDITED.
    Your Wine evidence: NON-EXISTENT

    Also, Monika WOULD be the first to deny Hendrix committed suicide. Think about it, this amazing world-famous guitarist and musician has proposed to her, some unknown blonde from Germany (her not knowing that he proposed at least 3 times to other women previous) and then after a massive row the night before with her (where she berates him and totally emasculates him in public) decides he’d rather be dead. Of course she isn’t going to believe it was suicide! Imagine the guilt and the shame. DUH! Simple human behaviour, try it some time.

    Monika -UNRELIABLE, DISCREDITED

    Also, Monika could have left evidence of this so-called murder scenario behind when she killed herself, she didn’t. Why not? she seemed pretty keen to tell his spiritual story.

    So, I ask you again, give me some evidence, anything that supports Hendrix was murdered. Because so far I’m not seeing anything, lots of insults (or schoolboy attempts at) but nothing else.

    I’ll add some extras for you, regarding the suicide hypothesis (because that is all it can be): Eric Burdon spoke with Jimi in the weeks preceding, talking about death and suicide (oddly). Then after Hendrix’s death, Burdon goes on record saying he believed Hendrix killed himself. The last poem Hendrix wrote (according to your reliable Monika) is the Story of life, which I’m sure you’re familiar with, is quite a telling poem. At the end of it, the last words Hendrix ever wrote, possibly in the days, hours or even minutes prior to his death, are:

    …at the moment that we die
    all we know
    is God is by our side,
    and he says the word
    so easy yet so hard

    I wish not to be alone,
    so I must respect my other heart
    Oh, the story
    of Jesus is the story
    of you and me
    No use in feeling lonely,
    I am searching to be free

    The story
    of life is quicker
    Than the wink of an eye
    the story of love
    is hello and goodbye.
    Until we meet again.

    Hendrix was big into esoteric subjects, UFOs, spirituality, astral projection, and numerology. With numerology, he was particularly concerned with the number 9, he knew it to be the power number and that he himself was a ‘9’ person, like many others in history that had brought change for good in the world. Now this is all supposition (notice the difference between that and me claiming it is evidence?): he died on the 18/09, both multiples of 9. If he were to take an exit from this world then he would have focused on the numerological aspect of it and this also adds to why I believe he jumped ship on that day in particular and wasn’t forced. Again, this is inconsequential except to maybe those who knew how Hendrix perceived the world and his place in it. There are sketches and doodles by Hendrix himself of this in Monika’s ‘Inner World’ book to back this up. Again this is supposition but an interesting detail if you’re looking for subtle clues.

    Now, I guess you’ll want to reply with lots of insults and very little else. And as awful as it is to watch a man put on their home-made rope-necklace, I kind of hope you’ll come up with something that will allow your feet to find the ground.

  40. L3fi says:

    Oh, and in case it needed connecting, Hendrix took ‘9’ sleeping pills (a suspicious number by any means for someone wishing to top themselves or get a night’s sleep, why not take 50 or 1) and he was 27, another multiple of 9.

  41. Scrum Drum says:

    Don’t you understand that by responding to the very serious arguments I made in my last post by yet again returning to your pathetically-predictable attack of Dr Bannister you are only announcing to the public your own lack of credibility and the bankruptcy of your arguments? Anyone can see that when you are shown credible arguments and evidence you try to force the discussion back to your inferior level of analysis based mainly on the weakest of methods. If you read my last post you made no effort whatsoever to answer what I wrote. I asked you to answer what I wrote directly and you dodged it in order to return to your cheap attacks on Dr Bannister. Anyone can see you use that as a device to avoid answering my arguments and further avoid the necessary exploration of the evidence you are using it to ignore. I don’t see how you think you are avoiding anyone who reads this seeing right away that you are practicing a dishonest method of argument that deliberately avoids review of the real evidence and seeks to limit the discussion to your self-serving excuses. Any sensible person would see your excuses don’t cover the valid arguments of evidence I discussed nor do they give you any right to ignore them as you do. Those people would know right away that my arguments are sound and still stand and that you have no right to avoid them. Like Caesar, you are clearly a person who isn’t honestly seeking the truth in this matter. The convergence of evidence obviously goes beyond Dr Bannister and therefore exists outside him and his witnessing. The fact you try to dismiss this evidence by means of cheap discrediting of Dr Bannister shows that you are unable to account for the rest of the evidence and are therefore indirectly admitting its validity. As usual you are arguing a separate self-serving discussion parallel to my own. You are doing that because you know you can’t answer what I wrote.

    If you had a more credible grasp of the evidence and ability to articulate it you would know that the ambulance attendants said there was a dry and hardened plug of vomit in Jimi’s throat that their suction device couldn’t penetrate. This prevented those witnesses from realizing the wine this plug corked in Jimi’s lungs. It makes perfect sense that Dr Bannister would be a witness to this wine because they removed the vomit plug at hospital therefore being the first to access it. The fact you don’t mention this, once again, only denotes your incompetency and inability to accurately relate the forensic evidence. Dr Bannister was the acting physician in the removal of the wine. Dr Seifert also witnessed this but lied about it because of its dangerousness. The readers can see you ran from my question of what were Dr’s Seifert and Bannister doing for a full half hour if not suctioning wine? The half hour is indeed a corroborating witness to the wine as is Scotland Yard’s deliberate avoidance of finding the nurses who also witnessed it. Anyone can see the cheap method you practice and exploitation of the corruption of evidence in order to draw disingenuous conclusions dependent on deliberately short arguments derived from deliberately short evidence that doesn’t seek the greater facts.

    Again, you stupidly snare yourself in your own arguments. The fact Dr Bannister didn’t do a tracheostomy shows that the wine was there and he was aware a tracheostomy would do no good. In your rush to make cheap excuses you forget Dr Seifert was also there along with the nurses. The reason they didn’t do a tracheostomy is because after removing the plug they realized there was a significant volume of wine that needed to be suctioned before they could proceed to resuscitate the victim. If you were smart you would realize the only possible scenario here is Dr’s Seifert and Bannister clearing the plug of vomit from the throat only to encounter a massive amount of wine. What this obvious pathology is telling you is the wine is the only possible explanation for their not doing a tracheostomy since they just cleared the larynx. Throat cleared, you now need to explain what they took a half hour to do? Anyone can see all you are doing is trying to pile defamation on Dr Bannister. But the greater evidence you stupidly ignore refutes it. It’s you who lacks the credibility, not Dr Bannister. And he also spoke of the wine before ‘Electric Gypsy’. Your cheap denial hasn’t scratched the real body of evidence here nor will bashing Dr Bannister relieve you of the need to credibly address it as you have so far failed to do. And as far as the tall man canard, you forget Dr Seifert was there as was the hospital record of what happened that morning.

    Like Glebbeek, your discussion about Monika’s claim that Jimi didn’t commit suicide is conspicuously desperate and dumb. A credible analysis of Monika’s claims would show that she emphatically said Jimi did not commit suicide in the context of her admission to Glebbeek that “the mafia murdered Jimi for sure”. (Something Glebbeek omitted from his work while claiming he would cover everything) The fact the police showed no curiosity towards this tells you all you need to know about the depth of corruption and police complicity in this. Monika said Jimi did not commit suicide because she knew he was murdered. Your contention that Jimi killed himself because of Monika’s screaming fit outside Harvey’s is laughable nonsense. What that really shows is desperation on Monika’s behalf to get Jimi back to the Samarkand. It shows the pressure she was under. No, the real record you are in knowing contempt of shows Jimi was enthusiastic during that last week on making a management change. He wasn’t about to defeat all the hard efforts he had made in that last week by committing suicide. How do you think you are getting away with ignoring the fact this documented career move was the direct reason Jeffery murdered him? Sure, Jimi committed suicide with pills and ended up with lungs full of wine that you can’t find another example of in the history of barbiturate overdoses and a group witnesses who were all lying. Sure.

    1) Burdon said that because he didn’t want to be killed by Jeffery for what he knew. That’s why he backed off it. 2) What is tragically ironic is part of the reason ‘The Story Of Life’ was so fatalistic is because he knew there was a good chance Jeffery would murder him for firing him. You are ignorant of (or deliberately ignoring) the history of Jeffery’s intimidation and threats towards Jimi. Again, your lack of mention of them makes you and your arguments uncredible.

    Your talk of numerology is just laughable goobledigook you are using to avoid genuine discussion of the evidence. That’s what I love about you deniers. You boast a high standard of proof but then turn around and make arguments like this which have absolutely no evidence behind them. That makes you a hypocrite doesn’t it? If you look at this thread I have answered all of your silly gratuitous doubt. You, on the other hand, have categorically avoided the main cogent arguments and the evidence for them. There’s a couple of things you need to answer directly. Why would Monika use alcohol to revive Jimi from a barbiturate overdose she had given him? Why would the death scene with its wine soaking the hair, bed, clothes, and scarf around Jimi’s neck exhibit a volume and application of wine that would be way beyond any wine used to revive a person? This criminal forensic pattern is one of bottles of wine forced down Jimi’s throat while he was unconscious and not the preposterous wine used by Monika to revive Jimi you suggest. Only a fool would suggest Monika was so dumb that she poured bottles of wine into an unconscious Jimi Hendrix. That’s a ridiculous suggestion on its face that any person with common sense would realize. You also need to answer why, by your own timeline, Jimi would vomit if he only had the Vesparax in him for 2 hours with a tiny 5mg blood alcohol level? So far you’ve avoided answering this directly. Why? Also, where do you draw the line on Monika innocently trying to revive Jimi with wine? At what point, like f***ing lungs full of wine, does Monika go too far? Because, even if she did, the way the ambulance men found Jimi showed nobody tried to turn him over and get the vomit out of his throat. It doesn’t take a Sherlock Holmes genius to see that shows the people who first found him knew there was no point in doing that. Which is exactly what people who knew he was murdered would do isn’t it? Would Monika accidentally drown Jimi in bottles of wine and when he vomited just leave him there untouched? It doesn’t take much reasoning to see the preposterousness of your arguments as well as your having no excuse for not accounting for it.

    Oh, by the way, let the readers note that while you take a pompous tone of condescension towards me you yourself argue from the mushy foundation of saying Monika poured wine into Jimi while saying there’s no evidence for the wine. Saying it was Coca Cola while also saying Monika poured wine, and saying his death was 7 hours earlier without accounting for how that affects the barbiturate forensics. As well as backing Dr Seifert who diametrically changed his story while discrediting Dr Bannister who never changed his story one iota.

  42. L3Fi says:

    Again, Scrum Drum loads of words but where are any of the sources for any of your claims? They are all suppositions in your head without a SINGULAR piece of evidence that Hendrix was murdered.

    Show me a single source for any of your claims.
    Show me a single reference to wine being removed in the hospital records.
    Show me a single, verifiable source of evidence that convinces you that you knew that Monika was trying to get Jimi back to the Samarkand.
    Show me how Dr Bannister is anything but an uncredible witness and who was struck off as a Doctor off fraud.
    Even show me when Dr Bannister decided that the wine would be worth mentioning.
    Show me a single piece of evidence that show Dr. Bannister knew it was wine (did he taste it?) and that he removed such large amounts.

    Start by showing something other than conjecture. Show anything that would stand up in court. You know, that agreed law of determining truth with evidence.

    Everything I have stated (other than the bits I’ve clearly stated were supposition) can be backed up by real, tangible, verifiable sources. Official reports, eye witnesses, interviews, everything can be found by anyone who wants to go find it, freely available in bookstores, interviews, public records and eventually online.

    I thoroughly recommend any curious parties read all the books written about Hendrix, especially the Final Days by Tony Brown and definitively Charles. R Cross’s ‘Room full of mirrors’. Here you will find most of the truth about Hendrix’s personality and key events in his life. Noel Redding’s book also, after all, he was there!

    Scrum drum, I bid you farewell because you’re either insane, an idiot (worse) or some sort of weird AI program that someone is testing as a joke online, to see if it can mimic a human being. I sincerely enjoyed the exchange but successive repetition of watching someone trying to punch smoke gets boring pretty quickly.

    Currently, you make no sense, you present argument without any sources or reference points. You claim unreliable and discredited persons are being reliable and credible but then determine they are credible when it suits. You supply your own evidence of where other 3rd parties have shown you to be without credit or peer-respect and have banned you accordingly, you even bring their quotes! But no other evidence. You’ve been banned from forums because you contribute nothing and don’t listen, just shouting and attacking anyone who doesn’t agree with you. The final irony is that you compose sentences that clearly display some insight towards your own behaviour but then you project it on to all those in opposition to you. The mirror analogy is far too relevant here.

    In closing, your input here (and elsewhere online) will provide another nail in the ‘hendrix murder theory’ coffin. To your credit, with proponents like you, I think it will soon no longer be myth but will actually become a joke, that even the most ill-informed will laugh at, that anyone was dumb enough to believe it, let alone waste their life reading it.

    Until we don’t meet again ha.

  43. Scrum Drum says:

    There’s a phony trying even more desperately to re-enter even more evasive and even more general disingenuous questions exactly because he knows he can’t honestly or directly answer the seriously credible questions I just asked in my last post. L3Fi is a clown who only offers disingenuous doubt against the facts. He’s dismissed and disqualified himself from serious discussion because he obviously isn’t interested in the real facts. It’s comical to see him trying to seize control of the discussion when it’s obvious the only reason he’s doing that is because he can’t answer my evidence.

    Why does L3Fi let himself get away with that? Because he doesn’t give a shit and isn’t really in this to honestly find out what happened. I mean who does he think he’s fooling? If you read my last post there were some serious questions that deserved serious responses from anyone honestly looking in to this. What a surprise that L3Fi runs away from the discussion after seeing them. All he has is that dishonest bullshit he offers over and over while running away like a scared little girl when the real man’s facts show up. These jokers are all the same. While being forced to run away with his ass on fire he shouts back how badly I’ve lost and quits – as if no one could see the only reason he’s doing that is because of the evidence I showed him that he couldn’t answer. What an asshole. Typical. He’ll get welcomed with open arms on the den of stupidity called Crosstown Tyrants. The long and the short of it is these stupid losers who aren’t smart enough to realize the evidence always quit and run (or ban) because they aren’t in it for Jimi and don’t last as long as people who are. There goes another one out the door after being unable to answer my proof. What fools they are.

    Well, here I am again untouched at the top of the hill and still 100% unchallenged. Ask L3Fi to get back to us when he can answer the simple valid questions I asked and he ran from.

  44. Scrum Drum says:

    IT’S GOOD THAT L3Fi SCOOTED BECAUSE IT’S BEST TO DESTROY HIM WITHOUT ALLOWING HIM TO ENTER MORE BULLSHIT.

    L3Fi wrote: ” Again, Scrum Drum loads of words but where are any of the sources for any of your claims? They are all suppositions in your head without a SINGULAR piece of evidence that Hendrix was murdered.

    Show me a single source for any of your claims. ”

    ALL YOU ARE SEEING HERE IS THE DISHONEST COWARDLY RETREAT TO SOME VERY SELF-DISMISSING STATEMENTS THAT IT IS. THIS IS TYPICAL OF DENIER CLOWNS. AFTER BEING THOROUGHLY OUT-ARGUED BY THE FACTS HE PUBLICLY CAN’T ANSWER HE IS THEN LEFT WITH THE EMBARRASSING RESPONSE THAT THERE’S NO EVIDENCE. EVEN THOUGH ANY PERSON OF BASIC INTELLIGENCE COULD SEE HE WAS FORCED INTO THAT STUPID ANSWER BY THAT VERY EVIDENCE. GO AHEAD, READ IT YOURSELF. ISN”T THE FACT THAT HE CAN”T ANSWER IT PROOF THAT IT IS EVIDENCE?

    L3Fi wrote: ” Show me a single reference to wine being removed in the hospital records. ”

    YOU’RE NOT ANSWERING MY QUESTIONS. BESIDES, YOUR ARGUMENT IS FALLACIOUS. JUST BECAUSE THERE WAS NO MEDICAL RECORD OF THE WINE BEING REMOVED DOESN”T MEAN IT WASN’T. L3Fi, FOR THE 3RD TIME NOW, IS THERE A REASON WHY YOU CHOSE NOT TO ANSWER MY QUESTION ABOUT WHAT THEY WERE DOING FOR THAT HALF HOUR IF NOT SUCTIONING WINE? YOU HAVE NO CURIOSITY ABOUT THE NURSES, DR SEIFERT, OR WHY SCOTLAND YARD DIDN’T SEEK THE NURSES OUT? OR IT IS JUST EASIER TO LOBB CHEAP EXCUSES AND IGNORE ALL THAT?

    L3Fi wrote: ” Show me a single, verifiable source of evidence that convinces you that you knew that Monika was trying to get Jimi back to the Samarkand. ”

    SHE WAS THROWING A HYSTERICAL FIT AND TRYING TO GET JIMI OUT OF HARVEY’S FOR WHAT REASON THEN? SO YOU ARE SAYING THE SECOND EXAMPLE OF THIS WHEN MONIKA PUT ON A SCENE AT KAMERON’S IS IGNORABLE AND ALSO DOESN”T INDICATE THIS? YOUR ARGUMENTS SEEM TO BE PROTESTS AGAINST THE OBVIOUS. AT BEST YOU ARE SHOWING PEOPLE ALL YOU HAVE IS DEFENSE LAWYER WEASELING DEMANDS FOR STRICT PROOF. GEE, JIMI THANKS YOU FOR YOUR BACKING HIM UP.

    L3Fi wrote: ” Show me how Dr Bannister is anything but an uncredible witness and who was struck off as a Doctor off fraud. ”

    AFTER ACCUSING L3Fi OF ONLY HAVING CHEAP SLANDER OF DR BANNISTER AS HIS ONLY ARGUMENT HE ONCE AGAIN RETURNS TO SOME VERY CHEAP SLANDER THAT CONSPICUOUSLY AVOIDS THE NECESSARY FACTS. DR BANNISTER NEVER CHANGED HIS STORY UNLIKE DR SEIFERT FOR WHOM YOU HAVE YET TO EXPLAIN WHY HE GAVE 2 DIAMETRICALLY DIFFERING ACCOUNTS OF JIMI BEING “DEFINITELY DEAD” AND “MAYBE THERE WAS STILL STILL SOME BREATHING”. I’VE ALREADY SHOWED YOU. I SHOWED YOU THE NURSES WITNESSED IT FOR WHICH YOU HAD NO ANSWER. I ALSO SHOWED YOU THAT DR SEIFERT LIED AND COVERED IT UP. THAT’S A DIRTY DISHONEST LOADED QUESTION ASKED BY A DISINGENUOUS DENIER. TRUTH IS MONIKA BACKED DR BANNISTER WITH HER ADMISSION OF THE WINE. SOMETHING YOU ASKED THE DISHONEST QUESTION ABOVE INSTEAD OF ADMITTING. YOU HAVE YET TO ANSWER MONIKA’S ADMISSION OF THE WINE WITHOUT TRYING TO DESPERATELY DIVERT TO CHEAP SLANDER OF DR BANNISTER. NOR HAVE YOU ANSWERED FOR YOUR STATEMENT THAT MONIKA POURED WINE DOWN JIMI’S THROAT. HOW CAN YOU ALLOW MONIKA THE WINE BUT DENY DR BANNISTER? PLEASE EXPLAIN WITHOUT RUNNING AWAY.

    L3Fi wrote: Even show me when Dr Bannister decided that the wine would be worth mentioning. ”

    IF YOU WERE HONEST, WHICH YOU AREN’T, YOU WOULD ADMIT THAT DR BANNISTER DID NOT THINK ANYTHING ABOUT THE WINE UNTIL HE READ ABOUT THE CONTROVERSY IN ‘ELECTRIC GYPSY’. WHEN HE TREATED JIMI HE JUST ASSUMED THE WINE WAS PART OF AN ALCOHOL AND DRUG ABUSE TRAGIC DEATH. IF TAPPY WRIGHT PASSED A HIGH-TECH LIE DETECTOR TEST IT WOULD PROVE HE HEARD OF DROWNING IN WINE IN 1973. SINCE DR BANNISTER DID NOT KNOW OF TAPPY’S ADMISSION WHEN HE FIRST MENTIONED IT IN 1992 THAT MEANS DR BANNISTER COULDN’T HAVE GOTTEN IT FROM TAPPY. AND SINCE THE LIE DETECTOR WOUD PROVE TAPPY HEARD IT IN 1973 THAT MEANS TAPPY COULDN’T HAVE GOTTEN IT FROM DR BANNISTER. THAT’S PROOF OF INDEPENDENT WITNESSING OF THE WINE THAT DEFEATS YOUR FEEBLE DENIAL. ADD MONIKA AND YOU ARE JUST SPOUTING DENIAL AGAINST THE OBVIOUS. YOU HAVE GOOD REASON TO RUN NOW.

    L3fi wrote: ” Show me a single piece of evidence that show Dr. Bannister knew it was wine (did he taste it?) and that he removed such large amounts. ”

    YOU’RE JUST IN FLAGRANT DENIAL THAT MONIKA DIDN’T ADMIT TO THE WINE. YOU ALSO ENTER A RATHER GOOFY, SELF-EXPOSING FORM OF ARGUMENT BECAUSE YOU FORGET A FEW POSTS AGO YOU WERE SAYING MONIKA POURED WINE DOWN JIMI’S THROAT. AFTER ENTERING SUCH SELF-EXPOSING STUPIDITY AND BEING UNABLE TO ANSWER FOR IT YOU HAVE THE BALLS TO RETURN AND SPEAK DOWN TO ME. YOU’RE A MOCKERY OF YOURSELF. DR BANNISTER SAID THE FLUID WAS DARK RED LIKE WINE AND HAD A HEAVY SMELL OF WINE. IN THE MEANTIME WHY WOULD THERE BE A LARGE AMOUNT OF ANY FLUID DROWNING JIMI’S LUNGS? THAT’S NOT NORMAL FOR A CHOKING ON VOMIT BARBITURATE OVERDOSE. YOU GIVE YOURSELF AWAY IN THE QUESTIONS YOU DON’T ANSWER.

    IT TOOK A FULL HALF HOUR FOR THEM TO REMOVE THE FLUID JUST TO TRY AND SAVE JIMI. THAT RIGHT THERE IS TELLING YOU THE AMOUNT. ESPECIALLY SINCE I’VE ASKED YOU 3 TIMES NOW FOR ANY OTHER EXPLANATION OF WHAT THEY WERE DOING FOR THAT HALF HOUR AND YOU COULDN’T ANSWER. WE’VE BOTH PROVEN IT WAS EXACTLY AS DR BANNISTER SAID. ME DIRECTLY, AND YOU THOROUGH PATHETIC CONSPICUOUS DENIAL.

    YOU’RE DISHONEST L3Fi BECAUSE WE BOTH KNOW THERE’S NOT ONE SINGLE STATEMENT I MADE THAT ISN’T CONNECTED TO ALL THE DIRECT SOURCES FOR THIS EVENT. NOR COULD YOU SHOW ANY.

  45. Scrum Drum says:

    L3Fi wrote: ” Start by showing something other than conjecture. Show anything that would stand up in court. You know, that agreed law of determining truth with evidence. ”

    I ALREADY HAVE. YOU WERE UNABLE TO ANSWER IT. YOU ARE KIND OF GOOFY BECAUSE WHILE YOU YOURSELF ENTERED THAT JIMI WAS DROWNED BY MONIKA 7 HOURS EARLIER THAN THE OFFICIAL ACCOUNT YOU NOW WITHDRAW INTO THIS PHONY STRICT LEGAL PROOF ARGUMENT EXACTLY BECAUSE YOU CAN’T ANSWER THAT EVIDENCE. ANYONE READING THIS CAN SEE THE RECORD HERE. I ASKED YOU TO ANSWER SOME VERY SIMPLE QUESTIONS BASED ON THE ESTABLISHED FACTS OF THE CASE AND YOU WITHDREW INTO THIS BLATANT EVASION. WHAT THAT TELLS PEOPLE IS YOU KNOW IT’S VALID AND CAN’T ADMIT IT. WHO ARE YOU TRYING TO FOOL? ANYONE CAN GO BACK AND SEE WHAT YOU RUN FROM AND CAN’T ANSWER.

    WE BOTH KNOW MY ARGUMENTS WERE DERIVED FROM THE OFFICIAL INFORMATION FROM THE LONDON CORONER’S OFFICE AUTOPSY AND INQUEST. IN NO WAY IS IT CONJECTURE NOR COULD YOU SHOW IT TO BE. YOU’RE JUST A PERSON WHO SAYS “CONJECTURE’ WHEN HE SEES FACTS HE CAN’T ANSWER.

    L3Fi wrote: ” Everything I have stated (other than the bits I’ve clearly stated were supposition) can be backed up by real, tangible, verifiable sources. Official reports, eye witnesses, interviews, everything can be found by anyone who wants to go find it, freely available in bookstores, interviews, public records and eventually online. ”

    I THINK YOU’RE TRANSFERRING AND PROJECTING. ALL ANYONE NEEDS TO KNOW IS THE QUESTIONS YOU RAN FROM AND REFUSED TO ANSWER. THOSE QUESTIONS ARE BASED ON THE MAIN CREDIBLE SOURCES. YOU’RE DISHONEST BECAUSE YOU KNOW MY ARGUMENTS ARE ALL DERIVED FROM THE MAIN VAILD SOURCES AND REFERENCES. NOR DID YOU SHOW WHERE THEY WEREN’T.

    L3Fi wrote: ” I thoroughly recommend any curious parties read all the books written about Hendrix, especially the Final Days by Tony Brown and definitively Charles. R Cross’s ‘Room full of mirrors’. Here you will find most of the truth about Hendrix’s personality and key events in his life. Noel Redding’s book also, after all, he was there! ”

    BROWN IS THE BEST SOURCE HOWEVER L3Fi MISSES THAT CROSS IS UNCREDIBLE ON JIMI’S DEATH. CROSS COVERS JIMI’S DEATH IN ONE PAGE AND TRIES TO MAKE A CASE THAT JIMI DIED BY HIS OWN DRUG RECKLESSNESS. EVEN THOUGH THE CONTROVERSY ABOUT JIMI’S DEATH WAS KNOWN FOR MORE THAN A DECADE CROSS NEVER EVEN MENTIONS IT IN HIS BOOK. AGAIN L3Fi DISPLAYS HIS GOOFY LACK OF CREDIBILITY BY NOT REALIZING BROWN AND CROSS ARE AT SERIOUS ODDS WITH EACH OTHER. L3Fi IS TOO DUMB TO SEE CROSS IS PROBABLY A CIA DISINFORMATIONIST USING THE PERSONALITY PROFILING HE CREDITS TO CREATE A FALSE REASON FOR JIMI’S DEATH.

    L3Fi wrote: ” Scrum drum, I bid you farewell because you’re either insane, an idiot (worse) or some sort of weird AI program that someone is testing as a joke online, to see if it can mimic a human being. I sincerely enjoyed the exchange but successive repetition of watching someone trying to punch smoke gets boring pretty quickly. ”

    RIGHT, AN IDIOT YOU COULDN’T ANSWER AND HAD TO RUN AWAY FROM. “INSANE”? YOU MEAN LIKE A GUY WHO ENTERS THAT HE THINKS MONIKA POURED WINE DOWN JIMI’S THROAT BUT THEN DEMANDS STRICT EVIDENCE FOR DR BANNISTER’S WITNESSING OF THE WINE? CRAZY LIKE THAT? LOL!

    MOST PEOPLE ARE SMART ENOUGH TO SEE A CLOWN SCOOTING WHEN HIS ARGUMENTS WERE FALLING DOWN ON HIS HEAD. IT’S FUNNY SEEING YOU CLOWNS ALWAYS POSING YOURSELVES AS WINNING EVEN WHEN IT’S OBVIOUS TO ANYONE HOW BADLY YOU LOST. THIS IS A SIMPLE MATTER OF HONESTY AND THE RECORD IS HERE FOR ANYONE TO SEE. YOU RAN FROM MY EVIDENCE-BASED QUESTIONS AND NEVER MADE ANY ATTEMPT TO HONESTLY ANSWER THEM. THAT’S ALL ANYONE NEEDS TO SEE NO MATTER HOW MUCH MORE CLEAR YOU MAKE IT WITH YOUR OBNOXIOUS TAUNTING.

  46. Scrum Drum says:

    I thank Josh for allowing this although L3Fi obviously made no sincere attempt to address the facts or arguments. Now that he’s gone maybe I can teach people who might be reading this a lesson in the flaws of what persons like L3Fi present. Here’s an excerpt of what L3Fi wrote early on that has some subtle clues he isn’t aware of that overturn his arguments:

    L3Fi wrote: ” That’s where it ends though, he took a toxic dose which lead to inhibiting his choke reflex and he died from inhaling his own vomit and potentially some other fluid administered by a third party -though not to kill but in the belief that it would assist him back to consciousness. Just like people do when someone has drunk to much, they give them coffee -even though this is not proven to help at all. ”

    Scrum Drum: In a previous post L3Fi wrote that he thought Jimi died about 7 hours earlier than told. So while he backed away at the end to doubting there was any evidence he forgets that he himself was satisfied there was enough evidence for him to believe Jimi died 7 hours earlier than claimed. L3Fi was not a credible analyst. While mocking and ridiculing me he refused to own up to conflicts like this or discuss them.

    Here’s where L3Fi failed to realize the complex evidence would not support his oversimplified claim above. L3Fi never accounted for how his admitted 4:45am time of death reflected in the barbiturate forensics. You see this case involves a solid evolutionary forensic pattern so when you claim something like a 4:45am time of death, like L3Fi did, you lock yourself into some invariable forensic values that you have to account for in you arguments. L3Fi forfeited because he never bothered to do that. He foolishly failed to realize that the 4:45am claim means that Jimi’s Vesparax ingestion was only about 1:15 along. So with a high tolerance for secobarbital, Jimi was unlikely to have vomited after only an hour and fifteen minutes, let alone overdose.

    You see where posters like L3Fi don’t realize they get in trouble is that not only is this timeline not enough time to vomit but you now have to explain Monika’s actions. If Monika poured fluid into Jimi to try to revive him then how did Jimi end up choking and dying with her trying to help him? L3Fi suffers in the details he doesn’t pay enough attention to. You see while saying I had no legal proof L3Fi ignored the fact the ambulance men made a statement that was notarized in a sworn deposition by a London Ambulance Service supervisor. You see a death is considered a serious event and ambulance accounts of that death are considered serious legal evidence which is why they do depositions. The ambulance men both detailed that Jimi was covered in gross amounts of vomit on the bed and was obviously in the same position he died in. What L3Fi foolishly fails to realize is that this untouched condition witnessed by the ambulance attendants doesn’t jibe with L3Fi’s claim that Monika was seeking to assist and revive Jimi. If this were so then it is unlikely Jimi would have been found unaided and covered in vomit. This is the finer detective-like evidence that L3Fi ignores with his careless simplifications. As the evidence the ambulance men recorded proves, there’s just no way Monika was making any attempt to assist Jimi.

    L3Fi wrote: ” The point I am arguing is that he was not deliberately murdered, or don’t you get that? ”

    Scrum Drum: The circumstantial and forensic evidence doesn’t allow that. L3Fi’s omission of Jeffery and his motives is a fatal donut hole in his case.

    L3Fi wrote: ” Jimi self-administered a lethal dose of Vesparax, 18 times the recommended dose and that is the cause of death. Or did that not happen according to you? ”

    Scrum Drum: Monika told Bild’s Egon Freiheit that she gave Jimi the pills and then lied about the interview. In any case, L3Fi had to calibrate this dose to his 4:45am timeline which he never did even after being asked many times. Monika had to know how powerful those pills were because she said she had taken them before. So you have to worry why she made public statements saying they were very weak. What L3Fi failed to do was cross check the evidence. He also foolishly failed to calibrate this dose to his 4:45am time of death. Also – 9 Vesparax tablets definitely was not a fatal dose, as he claims, for a man with a high tolerance and only 1:15 into ingestion. The cause of death was drowning in wine as the attending physician said.

    L3Fi wrote: ” IF anyone poured a fluid down his throat I believe that this was Monika trying to help wake him up with coca-cola (there is no proof that it was wine), after she rang Eric Burdon to try to source help for Jimi being non-responsive. ”

    Scrum Drum: Again L3Fi isn’t being careful enough with the facts. The Coca Cola is out because there was no caffeine in Jimi’s blood at autopsy. Once we have Monika admitting the wine to Sharon Lawrence as well as Dr Bannister’s witnessing – not to mention Monika’s admission of buying bottles of wine that afternoon, we are safely within the assumption that it was wine. Besides, why would Monika use Coca Cola to revive Jimi and then switch to wine to allegedly clean his face? (as the ambulance men witnessed, Jimi’s face was never cleaned) And don’t forget the moaning reaction Monika gave when Sharon asked her about the wine.

    Again, L3Fi is recklessly incautious with the evidence. Eric said Monika called him at dawn, which was about 6am. L3Fi doesn’t keep track of the evidence closely enough because Dr Crompton said Jimi died no later than 5:30am. There’s things I can’t reveal here but Eric knew Jimi was dead when Monika called. If L3Fi were more careful with his timeline and analysis he would realize Jimi was dead before any alleged assistance from Monika. Heck, L3Fi said it himself when he said Jimi died at 4:45am. This is why L3Fi was an uncredible poster, because he failed to honestly account for his mistakes. He also said I had no legal proof. Not true, Dr Crompton of the London Coroner’s Office made his 5:30am time of death determination based on forensic examination of the undigested grains of rice in Jimi’s stomach. Again L3Fi never made any attempt to account for this. It was wine I assure you. After all if Monika tried to revive Jimi with Coca Cola why didn’t she say so? Why did she admit to wine instead?

    L3Fi wrote: ” Eric’s own words about that phone-call: “I told her to pour some coffee down his throat or something”… I bet she did just that and it only made things worse. ”

    Eric knows Jimi was murdered. He’s just continuing the cover story they started long ago. The reason Monika called Burdon is because Jimi had just been murdered and Burdon was close enough to Jeffery that he would know what to do. Everything else is just a cover story the main participants concocted in order to avoid this. Even L3Fi admits that Jimi died early on. He should realize that his version above has Monika attending Jimi and trying to revive him. Therefore there’s no excuse for her allowing Jimi to vomit and choke to death while she was trying to help him. This is simple common sense stuff. L3Fi fails to respect the acknowledged timeline that puts any advice to pour coffee into Jimi well past the critical times even he admits. The key to all this is lungs full of wine. Something no one trying to help Jimi would ever do.

  47. L3Fi says:

    Eric changed his story from Suicide because of pressure put on him by the Record Companies that stood to lose out on insurance if proven Hendrix had killed himself, this is detailed in Cross’s book, whereby the insurance investigator tried to prove it was suicide but ultimately (like I have conceded) there is no solid evidence to prove it was suicide, only conjecture.

    Charles R Cross interviewed 300+ people and spent 4 years researching Jimi’s life and death by speaking to real, living people who were actually in Jimi’s life while he was alive. The reason he didn’t waffle on about Jimi’s death was because the preceding hundreds of pages of his book portray a very clear picture of a man who ultimately became a victim of his own drug-use and impulsive nature. It is clear to all who were there that Jimi ended up totally dependent on drugs to wake, sleep and feel good about existing, all because he found touring too much. He was burn’t out and surrounded himself with ‘Yes’ people, through his own life choices. Anyone who questioned his excessive drug-taking was filtered out of his circle, by him.

    Even in the days prior to his death he was witnessed swallowing a handful of sleeping pills and in the daytime! Probably to counteract some uppers he had taken but nobody really knows and then the rest of that day was one of his weirdest ever recorded of him talking and coming across like a crazy man -just like some of your posts. Except whilst he was rambling on about Winnie the Pooh, your subject of choice appears to be ‘Jimi’s Vomit Plug’.

    Carmen Borrero (one of Hendrix’s many girlfriends and also one of his alcohol-induced, violent-rage victims, requiring stitches on at least one occasion) is detailed in Cross’s book. She explained to Cross that in the year previous, when she was sleeping with Jimi, she often would see him take downers/pills before bed and then would hear him gasping for breath in his sleep, where she often had to clear his windpipe. Though you will probably discount this and argue that it was actually Carmen witnessing an invisible Mike Jeffries’ attempting to kill Jimi by pouring invisible wine down his throat…

    There is only one true mystery to do with Jimi’s death and that is: why Monika claimed Jimi was alive at a time when he was clearly dead. I put this down to the fact that it was such an overwhelming and traumatic experience for her to have gone to bed and then woke to find that the person she believed she was going to marry was now dead and that he’d swallowed a load of her pills, oh and he happened to be the world’s greatest guitarist and a hugely famous iconic figure. She needed time to consult those closest to him for advice and to help ensure the flat was drug-free by the time the authorities arrived, because he was a complete drug-fiend. No conspiracy, just another attempt by someone close to him trying to maintain and mythologise an otherwise impulsive, reckless, woman-beating, drug-addict, who paradoxically happened to play, talk and sing about love and peace in public. Without the music, Jimi was just another man and not always a particularly respectable one.

    Though I suppose in your mind he never hit women, never got anyone pregnant, never showed contempt for his audience, never took drugs, never contradicted himself, never spoke of or attempted suicide previously, never rambled incoherently (like yourself), never talked about quitting music, never said that he had nothing more to offer musically… When in fact, on occasion, he said and did all these things.

    Why stop at just murder? How about claiming Jimi was actually gay or that he is still alive and faked his own death? Maybe he and then later Jeffries, both faked their deaths and are still right now jamming with Bob Marley, Tupac, John Lennon, Jim Morrison and Janis Joplin in Kenya? Jeffries playing bongos and pouring drinks down everyone’s throats. You see how stupid it gets? Or maybe you actually consider all these things as possible, as long as it gives you the unique identifier as world’s number 1, 100% undefeated, Hendrix detective. Ironically, you are no Sherlock. No detective at all. Not even a Basil, the mouse detective. And unless you can present a qualified pathologist’s investigation into the actual workings of Hendrix body that morning then you have nothing, you’re not medically qualified to comment on timelines.

    What happened on the morning of Sept 18th was really no different to any other day, only somebody underestimated the strength of the sleeping pills they were shovelling down their necks, these weren’t the usual British stuff that he’d source. Jimi took a handful of pills to help him sleep after dropping an ‘upper’ several hours previous. On top of smoking cannabis for most of the day and evening and drinking alcohol, plus who knows what else (there was the unknown substance in the coroner’s report). Whether he knew the sleeping pills would contribute to killing him can only be answered by the man himself but if you read the stories of people around him in his last year and read his own quotes, it clearly paints a picture of a man who was not happy and even said he “would be dead before he was 28”, “had been dead a long time”, etc… Not because he had been threatened by his Management but because he was trapped in a self-serving and self-destructive lifestyle of his own creating and couldn’t escape it. He got everything he wanted and yet it still didn’t satisfy what he felt he craved, which was to satiate that longing for his mother’s love. He stated that “his REAL ambition was to be with his mother and family” -this was said at a point in his career when she had been dead for nearly 10 years.

    With all of this evidence, why do you still claim to know more than people who knew him and were around him? Because that’s where I’m drawing all my conclusions and evidence from, from witness testimonies that can be corroborated by others or by related events. Not supposition. The evidence is against you, you just have conjecture and it goes against everything quoted and recorded.

    IF you did have any evidence, then why wouldn’t you take it to court?

    My parting suggestion to you ScrumDrum is that you quit filling the internet with your smoke and mirrors. Instead set up a stand somewhere and sell waffles, because that is where your real talent seems to lie, in producing copious amounts of WAFFLE.

    Like everyone that has the misfortune to interact with you, I get bored of showing you up and trying to educate you publicly, it’s too easy and you probably in all reality do actually have some psychological condition which wouldn’t be fair of me to keep fighting. You can clearly write words but I think you need to focus on reading more, learning how to analyse and discern. You may be able to tell a bath-plug from a vomit-plug but you clearly don’t know Jimi and that is the biggest key.

    Enjoy wasting the rest of your life on this Mr Waffle. It’s just a shame that anyone that gives your non-existent evidence any form of serious consideration is also wasting their life as well. Shame on you Mr Waffle.

    Now if you’ll excuse me, I must be on my way…

  48. Scrum Drum says:

    If Cross said it you can be sure it’s a misdirection. If you check out the motives of Warner Brothers they were a mafia-connected music industry company that had an interest in not rocking the boat on Jimi’s death. Jeffery was still alive and Warner Brothers still had a vested interest in posthumous recordings. If you venture beyond your name-calling level of analysis you’ll see companies like Warner Brothers cooperated in COINTELPRO, seeing how US intel had a covert relationship with the mob. If you were smarter you would realize Burdon thought he had a clever out with the BBC suicide admission, which was a way of publicly sending a message to Jeffery that his secret was safe with him. Under incredible stress, in his haste Burdon forgot to think of the incidental consequences. He made the mistake of tip-toeing on the playing field of the big boys and was quickly straightened out. He knew exactly what he was doing. Furthermore, a more accurate look at the insurance detective would show he refused to release his findings. Gee, I wonder what he found out? If it wasn’t a suicide and was simply a drug overdose why would the detective refuse to release his findings?

    Cross is probably a CIA writer. Don’t you understand that it was Cross’s purpose to introduce the right-wing smearing and defamation of Jimi you proffer? Meanwhile an objective look at Jimi’s drug use shows it was pretty par for the course for most 60’s rockers of his fame. What Cross does is try to put some kind of pop-psychology spin on that to make it look like Jimi was predestined to his fate. He’s suckering the readers into a conditioned mindset that accepts his faulty conclusions about Jimi’s death. Cross is a pro. As you illustrate he successfully reduced Jimi to this helpless fatally-compromised basket case whose OD was inevitable. But those closest to Jimi say that was bullshit and that he was a much more self-determined person. Both you and Cross are taking advantage of the fact Jimi died. There were much worse abusers who are still alive today who don’t suffer the same opportunistic bullshit. To show how full of shit you are, Sharon Lawrence was openly negative towards drugs with Jimi. Jimi kept her as a close confident and tried to get her to come along on the last tour. Your propaganda is rubbish and is easily disproven. You operate in an intel defamation style with visible contempt for your target. Cross was a little more subtle. He masked his poisonous disinformation in faux appreciation. Caesar, he just straight-out fucking lies.

    The reason Jimi was swallowing hand fulls of pills on that last tour was because Jeffery was driving him to distraction. His tolerance for barbiturates is proven in the fact that Kirsten witnessed Jimi do this and only suffer the consequences of acting crazy. If you had a more credible approach you would realize Jimi took those pills and also downed a pint of whiskey. Now that whiskey would have created a blood alcohol level where you would start to worry about a dangerous reaction. The result? Jimi had a bad night and headache but basically cruised through it. This is evidence that Jimi would be on the safe side of the Vesparax reaction scale he underwent that night. The forensics would work for murder and against accidental death as this proof shows.

    While you mock the plug of vomit witnessed by the ambulance attendants you have yet to give a credible response to it. It sounds like it’s on your mind. The more you mock it the more you accent your inability to answer it. That kind of kiddy crap might go over on Crosstown but not in the real world.This subject isn’t really for clowns.

    No, I would argue that Carmen’s witnessing shows that it would be unlikely for Jimi to be with a woman like he was with Carmen and Monika and die the way he did. Keep in mind Cross is doing propaganda so I would be interested in the line of inquiry Cross took to get that from Carmen. There’s a simple answer to what you wrote. Carmen never found Jimi with bottles of wine flooding his lungs. If you view this thread I’ve made some very critical and precise forensic arguments that you ignored. Your input here, after ignoring my arguments and being unable to answer them, is to once again retreat into regressive, propagandistic rhetoric. As usual you can’t make these statements without accounting for them vs the established timeline. The only thing that counts here are the particular forensics for the night of the 18th. As I’ve shown those forensics prove homicide.

    Your next paragraph is very telling because you use the same type of defamation propaganda intel uses against its victims. You call Jimi a woman-beater and drug-fiend who hypocritically spoke of peace and love. However you forget you still owe me an answer for how your claimed 4:45am time of death fits the barbiturate forensics? We’ve been at this pretty long. You have yet to even attempt an answer for that. If you gave an honest answer to that you would see that your claim that Monika “woke up” would be disproven by the facts. You’re mixing false stories there. If Jimi died at 4:45am as you claim then Monika couldn’t have woken up because she would never have gone to sleep. Monika told the inquest she went to sleep at 7am. You see the reason Cross is probably CIA and is deliberately seeking to mislead is because he realizes this so he enters that Monika took a Vesparax at 4am and slept through the whole choking on vomit scene but just didn’t want to admit it. However there was nothing stopping Cross, a professional reporter who should know better, from simply opening Eric Burdon’s book and reading how he admitted Monika called him at dawn – which means she wasn’t asleep, as she told the Inquest. L3Fi, you need to go back and think up a better excuse.

    Your mormon/intel defamation perspective on Jimi is very telling about you and your agenda. I find that the British are some of the most vicious attackers of the evidence for Jimi’s murder. I personally think they don’t want to admit world famous guitarist and wizard Jimi Hendrix was murdered by one of their own intel spooks in an ugly evil way. I also think your mocking this in such a silly way destroys your credibility. I have provided some very credible forensic arguments that should be understood by anyone of average intelligence but you wouldn’t be any judge of that since you refuse to discuss any of the even most basic givens here. You’re a mockery of yourself L3Fi because any idiot could see you don’t need medical credentials to discuss the simple timeline I spoke about. It’s obvious to anyone that you’re dodging it exactly because you can’t answer. Ridicule is no replacement for credible discussion of the facts. You disqualify yourself by doing that.

    As for the rest, you’re just entering disingenuous evasive crap in order to avoid the obvious. The forensic triangulation between the barbiturates, alcohol, and time axis proves Jimi could not have died accidentally, as your repeated inability to answer shows. The rest is just you blowing harder to try and get around that. You have yet to give a credible answer to my plainly, visibly credible forensic arguments. You’re pathetic because you try to couch your evasion in Cross’s pop-psychology diversion, but the bottom line here is you won’t find any other case history of a barbiturate overdose with Jimi’s particulars of a tiny blood alcohol content combined with lungs full of wine. You seem to not realize that cheap defamation of Dr Bannister does not equate to disproving the wine flooding Jimi’s lungs. Dr Bannister’s witnessing was very real. He was there. It’s not true that this could only be answered by Jimi. That’s why they do forensics in the first place.

    Like a Dickens character you show some very pathetic pathos. L3Fi, you’re dishonest because the people who count the most stayed dead quiet for 44 years or told already disproven cover stories, as even you yourself admit. It’s very obvious to the readers what you’re struggling with here. However the sacrilege of you quoting Jimi in your craven attack of him and defense of his murderers is more than anyone should have to bear. Go, go back to Crosstown Tyrants where you belong and where the knuckleheads don’t require a high level of analysis or credibility. Be off ye denier. Get ye behind me.

    • alien says:

      L3Fi , you have some good arguments but first you support the suicide thesis with numerology , and now it is an accident from a junkie.

  49. L3fi says:

    I’ll repeat the question then, so IF you have credible evidence of this murder, why not present it to a court?

    The answer is because you either know you dont have anything that a jury of averagely intelligent people wouldn’t accept it on just hearsay or that a qualified pathologist would easily explain the timeline and process as follows: Jimi takes pills, becomes unconscious, vomits whilst laying on his back, bulk of the fluid going up to his throat and that which didn’t escape through reflex, then heads back and as he inhales into his lungs. Then the heavier, more-solid, mushy material eventually makes it’s way up into his throat, drying out when exposed to the air (because sealed fluid takes longer to dry out than exposed fluid at the same temperature) and therefore creating your vomit-plug, sealing the fluid in the lungs. This is the exact pattern that all waste systems follow, the fluid travels easiest and can reach all viable quarters (dependent on incline, gravity, resistance, absorption, etc) whereas the more-solid matter will remain mostly along the main exit route because it requires more pressure and is under greater resistance to move). Exactly when this process started, how long it took and when exactly Jimi died is not something you or I are able to determine. You’re keen on timeline details and there is nothing wrong with that but there are a whole myriad of factors beyond Jimi’s ‘tolerance’ (such as pre-existing conditions, illness or infections at the time, duration between drug-taking, contraindications between drugs and how compromised organs are at the time in question), which is what a trained and field-experienced pathologist would be able to go into.

    Hopefully that answers the issue for you. You keep focussing on other areas that aren’t important to the actual cause of death, for example: I don’t know or care when Monika woke up to find Jimi covered in his own vomit because it doesn’t matter, he is dead or byond help when she finds him. I never said that she definitely delivered any wine, coke or coffee or definitely assisted him from choking. I said (if you re-read my posts) that these scenarios ‘could’ have occured but none are necessary to the process I’ve outlined above which explains the fluid in the lungs and then the vomit plug. I suggest you go to a hospital and sit with a coroner or other medically trained professional in that field and you’ll see that there is nothing extraordinary about the way Jimi died. He was laying on his back, the various states of solid, liquid and mushy gastric contents would drown and choke him. Hence why people are put in the recovery position, to minimise this from occuring, because gravity is working against the main exit point. It is biological engineering which is mirrored in the real word through plumbing.

    I’m not here to smear Jimi, he did all those things. I accept him for that, the good and the bad, that’s called the ‘truth’, not what you want to believe because it doesn’t offend your own sensibilities. We are all products of what happens to us and all of what Jimi did can be traced to his childhood experiences, as can all of our shortcomings. And please dont tell me you’d give a single damn about the man himself if it wasn’t for his music! If that was the case, then why aren’t you investigating all people who died in similar circumstances? There’s plenty unsolved crimes out there. Just take any one of the points about Jimi that don’t particularly reflect the image he portrayed through his music: He fathered children, then refused to contribute money or acknowledge them beyond the smallest of gestures. That’s not smearing, that’s what he did. There are at least two people walking this earth as evidence of that.

    You can make assupmtions about me being some covert operative or claim that the British are vicious towards this but you could also look at it another way (which I can vouch for on the first point): that there are people who are out there that are just as interested in the truth as you but they see things differently, possibly because they have a greater understanding of how things work in the real world. That’s not to say that everything isn’t all controlled by mafia, government agencies, etc. but that nine times out of ten people are just people and often don’t need any help in destroying themselves. That’s reality, no-one is immortal, no-one is perfect but also no-one can play guitar or write music quite like Hendrix.

    Now, I’ll ask you again, what real world evidence do you have for your scenario that would be accepted in a court of Law and if you have such evidence why aren’t you even able to present it online to convince even the most average intellegence of people?

    For example, for your scenario to be true: can you factually place Jeffries (or any other party) at the crime scene and can you demonstrate this here or in a court of law? And by demonstrate, or as I asked previously to ‘show’, I don’t mean just write ‘Jeffries was there and poured wine down his throat’. That is not evidence, do you understand the difference between claim and proof? Eric Claption might as well have been there and pouring your bottle of ‘vin de morte’ for all words are worth. Drop something significant or get off the toilet…

  50. Scrum Drum says:

    L3Fi, all you are doing is re-entering a parallel argument that doesn’t live up to what I wrote. You’re wasting people’s time because you are arguing with yourself in your responses. You forfeit credibility by doing that. You’re either too stupid to understand what I’m writing or dishonestly in contempt of it – either of which I have no time for. You’re just repeating your same old already-disproven weak entries again in your last post. They’re not good enough. My material has already disproven them.

    Your moronic scenario of Jimi’s death above ignores the fact that Jimi did not have enough time or alcohol to vomit. Caesar’s Vesparax overdose case histories in ‘Until We Meet Again’ shows that people don’t die from Vesparax in less than 4 hours. Additionally, Jimi had some serious factors working for him on top of this like too little alcohol and a high barbiturate tolerance. Also, I’ve pointed out repeatedly that if Monika was trying to revive Jimi, as you said, then why did she let him choke on vomit? Your moronic entry above ignores this and doesn’t account for it. If you remove Monika from the scenario you still have to account for Jimi overdosing and choking in only 2 hours. It’s very obvious that if Monika was trying to help Jimi, as you claim, then why did she let him choke and die? You can’t answer that. I’ll tell you why you can’t answer that. Because it’s proof your stupid scenario is bullshit, as what I’ve already written, and you ignored, proves. You can just dismiss everything you wrote because you refuse to respect the timeline that refutes it. Your clownish attempt at discussing the timeline above is laughable because it doesn’t make any effort at calibrating the events you describe with the time axis and accompanying forensic evolution. You’ve dismissed yourself because your material isn’t credible or even enterable at a basic level of qualification for this discussion. Your bozo entries show your aren’t qualified and don’t understand the basic premises I am positing. It’s easy to see from your writing why you don’t understand the evidence for Jimi’s murder.

    You also make a false contention above. You said it isn’t possible to determine exactly when Jimi died. But people can see the hypocrisy of you calling for expert witnesses and then ignoring them when they appear. I’ve already told you several times that Dr Crompton determined Jimi died no later than 5:30am based on some serious forensic evidence. Don’t try to discredit him with unpaid parking tickets. Also, all the other circumstantial and forensic evidence points towards Jimi being dead when Monika called Burdon at dawn (6am). You are also stupidly forgetting you yourself entered that you thought Jimi was dead about 7 hours earlier than told (4:45am). You might want to go into your own head and ask yourself what made you think that? You’re a curious fellow. While taking a bombastic tone of superior position you offer goofy contradictions within your own material without accounting for it. How do you think that would fare in the courts you quote so freely? You seem to suggest you observe a high level of scrutiny but ignore the fact you offer such self-exposing buffoonery. So which is it L3Fi? Did Jimi die 7 hours earlier, as you say, or is there no evidence? Did Monika pour fluid into Jimi or not? Your pseudo-scientific discussion of the variables involved with tolerance ignores the fact that the time parameters force certain forensic certainties that invalidate your points. Again, you are uncredibly unobservant of the necessary respect for, and reflection of, the necessary forensic timeline and its effects. You are arguing outside of the established facts that saying we need an expert doesn’t answer. The reason you’re a fool is because an expert would tell you exactly what I told you.

    Again, your suggestion that Jimi was dead when Monika found him only shows your rogue lack of respect for what is being argued. According to the facts you so clearly run away from here, there’s no way ,according to your own scenario, that Monika could have found Jimi dead by accidental overdose. What you are doing here is refusing to answer the obvious fact that Monika couldn’t be trying to help Jimi, as you claim, and find him dead. You can’t answer that so instead you offer the evasive bullshit you do above and arrogantly say “I don’t care”. You just destroyed your credibility right there and lost this debate. Thank you. Yes, Jimi was absolutely dead when Monika found him, but not from any accidental overdose. To arrogantly say, as you do, that it doesn’t matter when Monika found Jimi is a credibility-destroying and self-dismissing statement. No serious person need answer you at that point. The time that Monika found Jimi can’t be anything but a critical forensic event. Anyone who would so stupidly dismiss it as you do is only dismissing themselves. You have no credibility. You further your stupidity by trying to weasel out of the fluid in the lungs through non-commital, however anyone can see the lungs full of fluid need a much more serious explanation than you offer. Again, all you are doing is displaying the lack of credibility in your approach and arguments. You’ve failed to answer for the lungs full of wine – and it’s important because you won’t find any other such case of a person accidentally overdosing on Vesparax while having bottles of wine flooding their lungs. What you don’t answer is more telling than what you do. Nobody, not even Caesar, can find a similar case history of a victim with lungs full of wine and a tiny blood alcohol content. By not being able to answer this all you are doing is failing the evidence. No, you can’t duck out of what Monika was doing from 3:30am to 5:30am because, as I’ve already shown, Jimi didn’t have enough time to vomit and choke to death in only 2 hours according to the case histories of Vesparax overdoses. If you refuse to answer that you are simply forfeiting. You’re saying there’s nothing extraordinary about the way Jimi died is in contempt of the forensic triangulation I’ve more than clearly explained. Ignore it at your own expense. Thank you for showing the public a good example of a crass denier.

    The rest of what you write is just you babbling filibuster against that which you can’t answer. No serious observer of this subject should be made to read it. You make no attempt to answer for Cross’s obvious deception. If you had any sense you would save yourself the embarrassment. While doing irrelevant smearing of Jimi you contemptuously ignore the serious factors concerning Michael Jeffery, his background, behaviour, and motives. That destroys your credibility alone. Michael was a man who was known to burn down buildings he could parlay into future profits once cornered. Also, you pose yourself as the level-headed victim of uncredible claim makers who don’t show enough proof, but anyone can see the value of that claim from your performance here. You represent the assholes on Crosstown Tyrants well. While offering a level of stupidity similar to your own they are actually quite aggressive and ban anyone who dares articulate a more intelligent approach to the evidence behind Jimi’s death as I do. The nincompoop Pat and his hostile, biased British gate-keeping dictator Fender’s Fingers have succeeded in intimidating the public from discussing Jimi’s murder at threat of banning. They are the epitome and description of cowardice. They are dishonest morons who mock anyone who claims the topic is censored while at the same time having a “conspiracy theory” forum that has no activity. Open discussion of that doesn’t happen because the members are afraid to say what they feel. The tyrant Fender’s Fingers has no problem with that since he exerts his power in the Hendrix world with his cowardly censor button. Just the fact they disparage this credible proof as “conspiracy theory” proves this alone, as does their ignorant satisfaction with their silence. Like all cowards they guard their opinions through censorship and bullying. L3Fi is just an example of one of their all too comfortable miscreants fatuously at ease with his decrepit arguments.

  51. L3fi says:

    Humdrum. Enough of the side-stepping and insults.

    Just answer the questions please, which I have asked several times previous:

    1. Provide evidence that puts Jeffries or any other party (other than Jimi and Monika) at the supposed crime scene.

    2. Provide evidence that it was actually FRESHLY POURED WINE in his lungs and not wine that could have been part of gastric contents. PS: Such Wine would be RED or WHITE, NOT BROWN -like vomit can be if mixed with gastric contents.

    3. IF you have such infallible evidence then why don’t you present it to a court of Law?

    If you can’t answer these then why don’t bother replying? Because your tactic seems to be just turn everyone off with loads of irrelevant words or side-step with insults or other areas.

    “INHALATION OF VOMIT DUE TO BARBITUATE INTOXICATION”

    7 words that say more than all your millions. Read them and understand.

    Your timeline is baloney. It does not take into account the very likely scenario (and there are many possible scenarios but not the one you choose to believe, not without some form of evidence) Jimi himself downing a load of wine just before passing out to help him sleep/kill himself. Like you correctly mentioned he did exactly this previously with Whisky, though not with the level of barbituates and certainly didn’t lay down afterwards and go to sleep. Jimi was known to have bucket in the middle of his studio for vomitting sessions when they snorted or smoked heroin or imbibed too much of whatever. Read Noel Fielding’s book for proof of the extent of the drug-use. He had the equivalent of 8 units of alcohol in his bloostream, which is the greater part of a bottle of wine/four pints of beer. So, what is missing here?

    The fact that maybe not all the alcohol he consumed was not in the bloodstream is because the liver will not have had time to process it, because it never reached the liver. If Jimi had downed a load of wine and to knock himself out (or to top himself) then most of the wine he would have drank would have been vomitted back up into the lungs before all of it would have reached and been processed by the liver.

    Loads of people have died in the same or similar manner, some are even famous too. Usually though, when a person drinks, vomits and inhales the contents they die of pnuemonia related complications, such as Jon Bonham. Jon had a high tolerance of booze (just like you claim Jimi had of barbituates) but then Jon went to sleep one night after a days boozing, went to sleep one night, vomitted and then inhale his vomit. DEAD. No Mike Jeffries around oddly, just Jon and his super tolerance of alcohol. But what killed him? Alocohol. So stick your ‘immortal-level tolerance’ theory up your windpipe.

    IF you dont answer my questions (exactly as asked) above then you’re just a pretender, a time-waster and a fraud.

  52. L3fi says:

    Edit: Noel Redding’s book, not Noel Fielding! Page 71 to be precise for the ‘drug vomit bucket’. Also Noel confirms Jimi’s violence towards women, whereby he states that JImi hit some girl for sleeping with Noel in tead of him. I guess that’s just part of the government smear campaign eh?

    • alien says:

      ‘Edit: Noel Redding’s book, not Noel Fielding! Page 71 to be precise for the ‘drug vomit bucket’. Also Noel confirms Jimi’s violence towards women, whereby he states that JImi hit some girl for sleeping with Noel in tead of him. I guess that’s just part of the government smear campaign eh?’

      So what ?This is not to the point , shit happens.Jimi was no saint , neither are we.

  53. L3fi says:

    If you read the preceding posts then you’d understand the relevance of the point and in the context of the person I was directing it at. The point is that Scrumdrum claims that anything that paints Jimi in a light that is not desirable is actually a CIA-led smear campaign, and thus not true. My point is that this is not the case. So, it is valid. Why don’t you read the history of the exchange before commenting?

  54. L3fi says:

    Okay, I’ve just seen your previous post and appreciate your input from it, so apologies for that. Though you have to forgive me as I have to scroll back through posts to read replies that have been entered and I don’t sign up for notifications, so I won’t know if anythign other than my latest reply has been responded to.

    Your observation that I appear to suggesting different things, ie: suicide and then suggest accidental junkie overdose, is totally correct because the truth is we just will never know and that is why I’m always saying it is supposition for anyone to guess the intention of Hendrix on this particular act. However, it is clear that he was not murdered and there is no evidence of that, that is what I’m trying to bring to this. The rest is just up for whatever anyone chooses to believe and generally the more you dig and learn about the real Hendrix through books, the clearer the picture becomes.

    I’ve always stated that personally I believe it was suicide but also that it is not provable.

    It was more of an impulsive, ‘might live/might die/dont care’ sort of approach that Jimi demonstrated almost every day of his life in the last years and that’s why I think he is ultimately responsible and it got to the point where he just didn’t care. It’s a form of suicidal behaviour.

    To quote Noel: “Jimi, who was always longing for an escape, even for a few hours, of ‘the next best thing to being dead’…”

    Hendrix was a complex character with lots of contradictions. If you haven’t already, I thoroughly recommend Noel’s Book or the Cross book to get an idea of the times and how prominent and reckless drug-use was in the 60s. Page 77 of Noel’s “Are you Experienced?” tells it exactly how insane it was and many pages continue the theme afterwards…

    Even Scrumdrum wouldn’t dare claim Noel was an insider operative, or maybe he would?!

    • alien says:

      I have the Cross book and also the one from Mitch Mitchell , not Noel’s.I was under the impression that Noel’s book was not too detailed.I bought Mitch’s book , and boy did he had a bad memory : nothing substantial is in it .BUT : it has magnificent pictures.

  55. L3fi says:

    Yeah, Mitch’s book doesn’t bring anything to the table in this field of things. Noel’s book contains a lot of detailed calendar entries with dates and events for pretty much each month that he was in the Experience, he also goes into detail about the business side of things and how naive they all were about the music industry.

    Mostly, Noel is presenting a warning to any wannabe musicians throughout: take care of business if you want to make any money out of your craft. He paints an honest picture of what was going on, ie: who was screwing who financially and how they can get away with it in terms of law.

    Of all the people in Jimi’s life, I’d say argue that he was the closest thing to a proper observer of Jimi during the months they were playing together. He doesn’t paint anyone as a saint, not even himself and has that ‘matter of fact’ way of speaking, which may annoy anyone who’s seeking a bit of filigree layering to how things went down. Overall though, he watched it go from good times to bad and then very bad…

    Annoyingly, he hints at a lot of things where he should have given way more detail, for example: he mentions in a couple of lines that Jimi slashed his wrists on one occasion on tour and says that it was kept very quiet but everyone who witnessed it was horrified. That’s all he goes into on the matter! It must have been superficial slashing, ie: skin breaking only and not vein trauma, because nothing significant shows up on Jimi’s coroner’s report 2 years later. Only a single scar of about 1 inch length is noted, on Jimi’s left wrist, and this has been corroborated as occurring prior to Jimi leaving for England with Chas, before the Experience was formed. Apparently this scar came from a previous suicide attempt -according to Fayne Pridgeon, though she too does not give that much detail. I believe this is in Cross’ book.

  56. Scrum Drum says:

    I answered L3Fi’s questions in my last post but it was censored and deleted. Unfortunately this room has passed on its credibility because it censored information that soundly refuted L3Fi’s questions.

    The quick version would show that Dr Bannister witnessed pure wine in Jimi’s hair that couldn’t have gotten there from accidental vomiting according to the position the ambulance attendants found Jimi in lying on the bed. For wine to get in to Jimi’s hair from that position would require it going uphill and against gravity as well as up and over his face. As I’ve repeated several times, the wine soaking Jimi’s clothes, hair, bed and scarf was wine spilled in the act of forceful drowning. Meanwhile the bottom line here that L3Fi keeps ignoring is that nobody will find an accidental barbiturate overdose victim with lungs bursting with wine. The volume of wine was too much for any innocent overdose. This volume was testified to by the half hour it took Dr’s Seifert and Bannister to remove it at hospital. When I asked why it took them a half hour L3Fi couldn’t answer.

    The post that was censored said that L3Fi destroyed his credibility by suggesting Jimi “downed a bunch of pills and wine”. L3Fi ignored Jimi’s 5mg/100ml blood alcohol content that disproved that theory. He then entered provably false information about Jimi’s blood alcohol level. The autopsy sheets will bear me out and prove correct as well as proving L3Fi wrong. As this tiny blood alcohol content proves, Jimi did not down any wine.

    I asked L3Fi to please discuss Dr Crompton’s insistence that Jimi died at 5:30am and how that reflects on the forensics? He has repeatedly declined while demanding I answer to the evidence.

    I mentioned that L3Fi once again proved his incompetency by suggesting there was no barbiturate in the liver. Jimi’s autopsy showed high levels in the liver. The suggestion that no alcohol made it to the bloodstream is foolish since Jimi’s barbiturate level shows he would be passed out. People who are passed out can’t drink bottles of wine (something Jimi would never do anyway after taking barbiturates).

    Bonham’s forensics prove why Jimi was murdered. If L3Fi was paying attention he would realize Bonham had a high blood alcohol content. He also didn’t have lungs full of wine and a manager who wanted him dead. Bonham is a good example of an accidental alcohol choking on vomit death. Jimi isn’t.

    L3Fi demands that others answer his questions – which I thoroughly have. However he doesn’t practice the same himself when it comes to the real evidence. Ask him to please answer the point about Dr Crompton’s 5:30am time of death determination that he has repeatedly ignored. Also ask L3Fi to honestly explain what made him himself think Jimi died 7 hours earlier like he said?

    When they have to censor you you’ve already won. The reason my last post was censored is because its information destroyed L3Fi and his ignorant opinions, as does this one.

    • You didn’t “win” — you made a post laden with profanity and personal insults. Keep it intelligent or find another site to vandalize.

      • Scrum Drum says:

        Anyone can see the valid points I made that you couldn’t answer. I think it’s rather obvious you are deluding yourself against what you know to be true with that last answer. Why don’t you answer my points? Do you honestly think L3Fi is making an honest attempt to answer the valid evidence? Seriously.

  57. Scrum Drum says:

    It’s time Josh be made to answer for his material. His original article clearly starts with the premise that the murder theories are bogus and then fills that in with logic that backs it. For instance his opening part suggests that witnesses are unreliable. However if you read his last thoughts in that section he admits that they can be reliable as well. The mistake Josh makes is not all memories were from years later. Many of them were accurately recorded at the time.

    In his next paragraph Josh takes the bait from Caesar. He says Dr Bannister may have mistaken Coca Cola for wine. Dr Bannister, however, wasn’t a fool. He was there and saw the dark red fluid that had the strong odor of wine. Dr Seifert was lying. He witnessed the same thing but didn’t want to get involved. Also Jeffery may have had other motives to murder Jimi than insurance. If Jeffery’s books were scrutinized he would have done jail time. In any case Josh, whether he realizes it or not, recognizes the fluid by admitting to the Coca Cola. We know it couldn’t have been Coca Cola because Jimi’s blood didn’t exhibit any elevated caffeine levels. So what else was it but the wine Dr Bannister witnessed? Caesar’s a liar. He’s clearly fabricating the Coca Cola because he knows he’s in trouble with the wine. Also, it’s well established that Dr Bannister treated Jimi that morning. You won’t find any other victim with lungs full of wine and flamboyant clothing that Dr Bannister could have mistaken. Besides it’s foolish to suggest that, since Jimi’s death was followed a few hours later by a frenzy of public sensation that brought massive attention to St Mary’s that Dr Bannister remembered. People are so interested in backing their theories that they forget the obvious.

    In the next section Josh tries to dismiss the source of the claim by questioning Tappy Wright. First of all the claim is not totally dependent on Wright. So dismissing it through Wright would not be valid. Josh realizes this so he goes into a discussion of logic 101, however there’s much more to it than that and, like Dr Bannister, you can’t dismiss all the evidence through Dr Bannister and Wright alone. There’s much more to it than that. A deeper more credible analysis would look at Bob Levine who was lengthily quoted in McDermott as saying there was something suspicious about Jeffery concerning Jimi’s death. So what does Josh do after admitting he hasn’t disproven the murder theories? He submits his biased claim that perhaps Jimi was a victim of his extravagant lifestyle. By doing this Josh is openly admitting he’s not pursuing the path of the deeper evidence. The origin of the theory is much more complex than Josh allows.

    As I’ve shown with L3Fi, Josh’s examination of the post-mortem report is seriously lacking. All the evidence shows Jimi was only 2 hours into absorption of the Vesparax. Dr Crompton insisted that the undigested whole grains of rice Dr Teare found in Jimi’s stomach precluded any time of death later than 5:30am. This was a serious medical witnessing that set the bar as far as the forensics. One that can’t be ignored in any credible examination of Jimi’s death. The reason Josh’s entry for the post-mortem isn’t submittable is because it doesn’t account for the fact Jimi’s borderline lethal dose wasn’t high enough to kill someone only two hours into absorption. Once you calculate Jimi’s famous tolerance for barbiturates he was well clear of not only lethality, but vomiting as well. Again, you can just throw out everything Josh writes about the blood alcohol level. Dr Teare’s “100ml” was an estimation based on Monika’s timeline. Since we know Monika’s timeline was false therefore we have to reject all science based on it. The true science was that reflected in the autopsy report which registered in stone that Jimi had a 5mg/100ml blood alcohol content. This level was not enough to cause the alcohol/barbiturate reaction Josh cites. The whole basis of Josh’s paragraph here is based on inaccurate information. When he says Jimi had a high blood alcohol level he is exactly wrong. The 5mg/100ml level Jimi had was negligible – weighing-in heavily on the murder side and against what Josh surmised.

    As for Jimi committing suicide, if you judge this closer to the facts and by those who knew Jimi at the time, both Chas and Monika insisted Jimi did not commit suicide. I know for a fact that they did that because they both knew Jeffery, and both knew Jeffery murdered Jimi. But the real facts show Jimi was enthusiastically making preparations to change managers and get recording again. There’s no way he would have committed suicide as the person who was there that night, Monika, said. The question is not as up in the air as Josh makes it if you have a good understanding of the evidence. But the evidence I’ve shown, that proves murder, automatically disproves suicide anyway.

    Josh’s entry for accidental death is dismissible just on its lack of discovery for Jeffery and Monika. If you simply honor Dr Crompton’s correct determination of Jimi’s 5:30am time of death you’ll realize the forensics are seriously restricted to a 3:30am to 5:30am 2 hour golden window. If you read my entries in this thread you’ll see I’ve proven that Jimi could not have died accidentally according to this true timeline when the accurate forensics are applied. Josh makes a conclusion he himself doesn’t have any evidence for while uncredibly ignoring the greater evidence that disproves it. All his accidental death scenario proves is that it can only be reached if you ignore the greater evidence.

    I think anyone who has done extensive research into this like I have would see Josh is opening with a premise and seeking that which justifies it. What I wrote, however, proves why he is wrong and is seriously lacking in the greater evidence and arguments for it. Sorry Josh, but if you are going to call for intellectual honesty, as you do, you should demand it from those who deny the murder evidence. As you can see from what I wrote, and deniers couldn’t answer, Jimi was more than provably murdered.

  58. Scrum Drum says:

    I’ve been told this post was filtered for insults. Here it is cleaned-up (though I feel a double standard is being practiced here):

    There’s two important things L3Fi dodged in his last post. The first was that he himself said Jimi died 7 hours earlier than told. L3Fi should be made to account for that and explain why he said that? Once you get L3Fi to honestly answer why he thought Jimi died 7 hours earlier you would see it reinforces my timeline claims. The reason L3Fi refuses to answer is because it proves that Jimi was only 2 hours into his Vesparax absorption when he died as he himself admits.

    The second thing is Dr Crompton’s 5:30am time of death claim. If L3Fi were more honest he would admit Dr Crompton’s estimation is proof that Jimi died around 5:30am and therefore locks-in the forensics I am discussing. The readers should realize that L3Fi is a person who he himself suggests Jimi died around 4:45am but then comes back and tells you the evidence isn’t there. To reiterate what L3Fi has failed to answer here, since both Dr Crompton and the circumstantial evidence shows Jimi died around 5:30am then the Vesparax was only 2 hours into absorption. Seeing how we know the blood alcohol level was negligible, this and Jimi’s notorious tolerance for secobarbital means we are at a loss to explain what would cause any drug/alcohol reaction in a period that Caesar’s own case histories show was too short a time period for the suggested drug reaction and overdose. These are the hard terms of the evidence here that must be answered. A more credible forum would demand L3Fi live up to the evidence.

    1) I’ve proven the murder forensics above. While Michael Jeffery did kill Hendrix, the subject here is evidence for murder. But if we got in to the evidence, Jeffery had a motive and history of using similar tactics on Jimi. It’s kind of obvious L3Fi isn’t interested in all the evidence that shows Jeffery murdered Jimi. And there’s a lot of it. Drowning in wine while incapacitated on barbiturates is a military intelligence type of covert murder that Jeffery would be trained in. Jeffery was also witnessed acting suspiciously after Jimi’s death.

    2) Dr Bannister witnessed pure wine soaking Jimi’s hair and clothing. The pure wine in the hair is proof enough because Jimi was found lying on the bed with his head on a pillow. Not only does the pure wine prove murder alone, but the way Jimi was laying in bed with his head on a pillow proves that no wine could possibly flow uphill and against gravity, as well as up and over his face and into his hair from that position. This is, once again, physical forensic evidence of homicide since this vomit pattern would be impossible for any accidental death. It would, however, perfectly fit the wine splatter pattern of a person being forcefully drowned in wine. A smart detective would see that there was forceful vomiting involved in Hendrix’s death from what the ambulance attendants witnessed. This was not the usual weak vomiting associated with barbiturate paralysis. The reason for that is because pouring bottles of wine into somebody creates a sort of equal and opposite reaction. The large amount of vomit the ambulance men witnessed was that equal and opposite reaction. As was the wine spilled on Jimi and his clothes wine spilled in the act of forceful drowning. And, as I already told you, the half hour Dr’s Seifert and Bannister took to remove the wine from Jimi attests to a volume that was above that possible from any accidental death – not to mention the unexplainably low blood alcohol content.

    3) This is just your way of admitting there’s something to present to a court – just like your admission that Jimi died 7 hours earlier.

    Sorry L3Fi but you offer a uncredible level of input because you say there’s nothing to prove Jimi didn’t take a bunch of pills while downing a load of wine right in the face of the 5mg blood alcohol content recorded at autopsy. Your shooting yourself in the foot right there proves the credibility of my timeline that you couldn’t answer. You are also entering false information because Jimi’s recorded blood alcohol level at autopsy was written in stone on the autopsy sheets. It was 5mg/100ml. You completely miss the point that when Jimi did drink whiskey with barbiturates, and did have a high blood alcohol content, he did not have any such drug reaction, which proves he was on the safe side of the formula on the night he died. Your answers visibly fail to account for this.

    You then confirm this in your next paragraph. Jimi’s autopsy sheets showed he had high levels of barbiturate in his liver. Your mistaken attempt to explain the lack of alcohol in Jimi is of a similar variety. It would be impossible for Jimi to die the way you say because he could not have drank a large amount of wine while possessing the 3.9mg blood barbiturate level shown at autopsy. You foolishly don’t realize that Jimi couldn’t have downed bottles of wine while passed out, which is why my evidence proves murder. All you are doing is showing why Jimi couldn’t possibly have died by accident.

    Bonham choked on vomit with a high blood alcohol level. So, by showing how this known accidental death differed from Jimi’s death all you are doing is reinforcing my evidence. Thank you L3Fi. You have done a thorough job of showing the public the uncredibility of those who doubt the murder evidence. Please get back to us when you can answer what I actually wrote.

  59. L3fi says:

    FACT 1: Dr Bannister described Hendrix’s body as being of “an unusually tall man”, who’s feet were sticking 10″ off the trolley. The average length of an NHS trolley in 1970 would have been approx 6.5 – 7 feet long. Hendrix was 5’10”. Bannister is clearly not describing Hendrix here.

    FACT 2: Dr Bannister is quoted in 1993 as saying that the medical staff (not him) used a metal tube to try to unblock the body’s airways but it kept filling with wine from the STOMACH. Two years later, he changes his story. In 1995 he is quoted as saying that there was NO obstruction of the AIRWAYS. Bannister contradicts himself and is clearly not a reliable witness.

    FACT 3: Dr Bannister claims that this volume of wine was incredibly unusual BUT fails to mention it to anyone, report it or notify the authorities -exactly as his job would require him to in such scenarios. He didn’t, he waited until Hendrix was back in the press again 20 years later. Bannister is clearly not a dependable professional nor a conscious-driven individual.

    These are all facts and your entire eye-witness account rests on this one uncredible man, who was struck off the medical register for FRAUD. Why do you choose to ignore them?

    I don’t think you have particularly good grip on the human body and pathology because downing a load of wine and then vomitting it back up after passing out (due already being compromised by the vesparax) would leave little chance of the alcohol to register in the bloodstream. Do you not understand that basic premise?

    I’m aware of Jon Bonham’s high alcohol in his bloodstream, after all he had been drinking all day and so it had time to filter through and show up. Unlike JImi, he hadn’t just downed a load of booze on top of a load of sleeping pills, then vomitted before all the alcohol had been absorbed by his stomach. There is a difference and you really need some schooling if you can’t see that. Hence why the causes of death are different for both. I never said they were the same cause of death, only to show that a high-tolerance does not make you immortal. Eveyone knew of Bonham’s legendary tolerance for alcohol.

    If Hendrix was forced to swallow a load of sleeping pills, made to wait for them to digest and then forced to swallow bottles of wine, where are the restraining marks on his body? He was a muscular man, prone to lashing out. So if he was held down or just held still, why not even a single bruise or restraining mark? Because that didn’t happen!

    You wouldn’t make it past the court application stage.

  60. L3fi says:

    Oh, and just to demonstrate how you make false claims about what I have actually written, explain this quote of yours:

    “I mentioned that L3Fi once again proved his incompetency by suggesting there was no barbiturate in the liver. Jimi’s autopsy showed high levels in the liver.”

    So please EVIDENCE from my posts, where exactly I said there was no barbituate showing in the liver?

    You do this a lot, make false claims about what I actually said and then argue them as if I actually said them.

    Learn to read posts before you respond. You started by not even getting Josh’s age right and have continued that reactionary blindness ever since. You’re not supposed to be assisting me in making your responses without credibility.

    • Scrum Drum says:

      Correct. I misread your post. I thought you said barbiturate in the liver. I’ll admit a mistake there (something you have yet to do) and trade it for your “Noel Fielding”.

      It matters not since your blood alcohol/liver arguments aren’t credible anyway as I’ve already shown.

      I’d also like to protest that an obvious troll’s posts go through right to the board with no problem while my posts say “awaiting moderation” when entered and sometimes take more than a day to post.

      Don’t answer this post. Answer the fact-based one I made before it. Like with Dr Bannister, people can see your desperation to overblow minor trivialities in order to avoid the substance. This is actually a blessing. Like with Dr Bannister’s tall man I made a minor irrelevant mistake while crushing L3Fi with sound arguments and evidence. You give yourself away because you show a sensitivity towards precision in some areas and recklessly ignore it in others.

      • L3fi says:

        Ha! Weak.

        They are not the same:

        I made a mistake of writing ‘Fielding’ instead of ‘Redding’, which had nothing to do with any claim by me of what you had said. AND I actually corrected my mistake so there would be no confusion!

        YOU made false claims and attributed to me to reinforce your flimsy evidence. AND let them remain so as to muddy the field!

        It’s the difference between a accidental death and a murder.

  61. Scrum Drum says:

    1) Your side cannot produce any other patient whom Dr’s Bannister and Seifert treated who fit that description. You are ignoring the fact we know for a fact from hospital records that Dr Seifert and Dr Bannister both treated Jimi that morning. Dr Bannister said the patient he treated had flamboyant clothing and a vest (who was famous for his vests?). Your problem is you cannot identify any other patient that Dr Bannister treated who had flamboyant clothes and the afro hair he recounted. There’s a lot of people, including Caesar, desperate to disprove this. They would be very happy to identify this imaginary tall man in order to disprove the murder. The reason they haven’t been able to come up with anybody is because there is no other murder victim with flamboyant clothes and an afro whom Dr’s Bannister and Seifert treated. You’re not going to win this one with such obvious thin excuses and denial because the nurses also witnessed and assisted Dr Bannister in this procedure. The fact Scotland Yard could have easily used their resources to locate those nurses but didn’t is condemning. Also, you are ignoring the fact Dr Bannister said the tall man he suctioned wine out of was the same man people later told him was Jimi Hendrix. A huge sensation happened later that day at St Mary’s associated with the man the doctor treated. Your tall man canard isn’t working against the greater preponderance of the evidence. Please, L3Fi, convince us of the credibility of your argument here by honestly explaining to us in detail why Scotland Yard never approached or bothered to interview Dr Bannister? You would think they would at least be curious? Also honestly explain to us why they never approached or interviewed the nurses who could confirm Dr Bannister’s witnessing? Your posts are self-refuting just in what they ignore alone. It’s clear that the British government would not have allowed anyone to get away with what they got away with here and that anybody who was honestly looking in to what happened to Jimi would not ignore. You are just a denier seeking cheap outs by the easiest route and repeating the same cheap excuses against that which you repeatedly refuse to answer.

    2) This is just contrived jumbled nonsense. The true offender here is Dr Seifert who was quoted on 2 separate videos saying diametrically opposite things. In 1995 on BBC Dr Seifert turned to the camera saying “I want to make one thing certain. Jimi was definitely dead when we received him. We hooked him to a monitor when we received him and it was flat-lining.” However after the murder controversy came out Dr Seifert was on video saying “There might have been some breath left in him, but nothing I would call life.” This is your uncredible witness because you can’t flat-line when hooked up to the monitor and have any breath at the same time. Especially when the ambulance attendants said there was a hardened plug of vomit in the windpipe. Not possible, but somehow, while pretending you are a superior analyst, you didn’t notice that. You have an annoying habit of not answering irrefutable evidence like this while telling us how bad a case we have.

    You are deliberately fishing misquotes from Dr Bannister. What Dr Bannister actually said was that there was no plug of vomit when he got to the patient because the other staff had removed it. He was then very specific about there being red wine gushing from the nose and mouth that took at least 20 minutes to remove by suction tube. I’ve repeatedly asked you to explain what they were doing for the recorded half hour that they treated Jimi? You keep refusing to answer. Meanwhile persons more respectful of the truth would recognize that Dr Bannister’s actual quote was that he removed wine from the lungs but they kept refilling with wine from the stomach. If you honestly view Dr Bannister’s real statements there’s absolutely nothing wrong with them. He’s telling the truth.

    3) Your point 3 is totally irrelevant. It’s a sad fact that black people, in 1970, were still systemically discriminated against. You can find quotes from Dr Bannister saying he thought Jimi was just another drug and alcohol tragedy of the era. Meanwhile his story has not changed one iota in 44 years. You, on the other hand, have no problem with Dr Seifert, which makes you uncredible. Hypocritical, really. You’ve used-up your farthing on cheap discrediting of Dr Bannister. Time for you to start answering some real facts. You’re also dishonest about how Dr Bannister got involved. He got involved because he defended himself against charges from known liar, Monika Dannemann, of malpractice for not doing a tracheostomy. You’re not credible because you don’t show the same criticism towards Scotland Yard whose job it is to look in to these things.

    4) Dr Bannister has had a blemish free career as a legal medical consultant since his being struck-off. It is very likely he was struck-off because he witnessed something dangerous and needed to be discredited. Usually doctors who lose their license for billing mistakes get their license back. If you checked it out this is true. Meanwhile I think we have proven that all you are capable of is jumping up and down and crying how uncredible Dr Bannister is while ignoring everything else. I accuse you of only being capable of cheap defamation of Dr Bannister as your only method and you return again and again with that same ploy, proving my point. It isn’t working. What you refuse to answer exposes you and your dishonesty. Attacking Dr Bannister is not going to relieve you of answering for Dr Seifert or the rest of my points.

    You are obviously incompetent because I have already explained that Jimi’s 3.9mg barbiturate percent of blood content means that he had to be passed-out for at least the last half hour of his life. Now take your clownish downing wine with no registration in the blood theory and input it in to that solid forensic scenario. Tell us when exactly Jimi downed bottles of wine and vomited them right back up according to the timeline (which is preposterous anyway since Jimi would not do something as foolish as down bottles of wine after taking a large barbiturate dose). You’ll see that is impossible according to the forensics. He couldn’t have done it during that last half hour because he was passed-out, and he couldn’t have done it before because the wine found in his body would have registered in the blood. Besides, you’re kind of goofy. While telling us we have no evidence for the wine you make arguments saying there was wine involved. While telling us Dr Bannister is uncredible because of alleged contradictions, you yourself offer some reckless contradictions that show a wild indifference to the facts and arguments. The reason Dr Bannister found so much wine in Jimi is because it was used to kill him and wasn’t vomited right back up. Also, Jimi would not have downed bottles of wine while lying down in bed like he was found. By the way, what was Monika doing during this violent vomiting event? The reason your scenario is silly is because there was too much wine in Jimi to fit any amount a person could self administer, let alone still have in him after vomiting. The correct forensic scenario shows that for Jimi to die innocently he would have to have the wine in him for the period he was passed-out. And there’s simply too little blood alcohol to allow that. The wine that was in him was introduced shortly before death which is evidence that it was used to drown him, otherwise it would have created a much higher blood alcohol content.

    I never said Jimi was forced to take the sleeping pills. You are putting words in my mouth. Most likely he was told they were weak German sleeping pills and that he needed to take many. A sign of covert intrigue likely to be associated with the knowledge and practices of Michael Jeffery. The 3.9mg barbiturate level shows Jimi was passed-out and therefore wouldn’t offer any resistance to his murderers. People who are passed-out can’t drink bottles of wine.

    Your contempt is more than clear in this thread. Contrary to your defiant denial I think we know what a jury would say if shown your conflict-ridden, incompetent and contemptuous entries.

    • L3fi says:

      What exactly is your theoretical scenario of what you think occurred?

      Give us something concise and to the point, like this:

      3:00am: Hendrix takes 9 vesperax
      3:30am Hendrix passes out, laying on his back, face up.
      4:00am: Hendrix mouth is opened by a third party, wine is poured down his throat and he promptly drowns
      4:05: Time of Death

      Then also explain what is going on with his body from the moment he swallows the vesperax until rigor-mortis sets in, both externally and internally, in parallel with your proposed timeline.

  62. L3fi says:

    And another quote of yours making false claims about what I said:

    “You are a clown who has already lost this debate because in your desperation you forgot even you yourself admitted Monika poured wine into Jimi” -Scrumdrum

    Where did I state/admit that Monika poured the wine into Jimi? Please copy and paste the exact section where you claim I said this and keep the quote in full please.

    There is a difference between entertaining a possibility (it’s called theorising) and actually claiming it to be true. The word ‘IF’ at the beginning of a sentence is a useful device for such occassions, please learn to focus on such details. It’s this sort of biased and untruthful approach that undermines any integrity you may have had -prior to people reading your posts that is, after that it’s kind of all over…

  63. alien says:

    Scrum Drum , is that you who wrote a positive review on the book from holocaust denier Wilhelm Staeglich ?If so , shame on you

  64. Scrum Drum says:

    Thank you. In his last post L3Fi just blinked. I will answer his last questions, however he has to answer mine first. So far he hasn’t.

    I have asked L3Fi to please explain what exactly made him say he thought Jimi died 7 hours earlier than told? After answering his last Bannister-bashing entry I realized he had not responded to my questions asking him to answer a few direct points. So, please L3Fi, you’ve had many opportunities. Please answer the question. And when L3Fi does answer I would like him to please input how his stated 4:45am time of death affects the barbiturate forensics? Specifically I want him to honestly answer how his admission that Jimi died at 4:45am relates to the barbiturate level and how far along the Vesparax were in absorption? The known scenario shows Jimi most likely took the Vesparax at around 3:30am. That means 4:45am would only be one hour and fifteen minutes into the Vesparax absorption period.

    The next thing I have repeatedly asked L3Fi to answer and he has repeatedly ignored is Dr Crompton’s 5:30am time of death determination based on the undigested grains of rice in Jimi’s stomach. Dr Crompton was a top expert of top credentials from the London Coroner’s Office. He was also Jimi’s autopsist, Dr Teare’s, successor. Dr Crompton established a firm forensic landmark with his determination. It shows Jimi died no later than 5:30am which is only 2 hours into absorption of the Vesparax.

    The reason L3Fi’s theory above, that Jimi drank large amounts of wine and vomited it right back out, therefore explaining both the wine and the low blood alcohol content, is disproven by the facts is because 1) Jimi was found with lungs and stomach full of wine. As I’ve proven this wine could not have failed to seriously register in the blood alcohol content. 2) Even if L3Fi’s theory were true Jimi would still have had no significant alcohol level in his blood that would cause him to react that way. 3) And even if true, Jimi would not have had enough barbiturate absorption to kill him after only 2 hours.

    If L3Fi would be so kind as to directly answer my questions above I can proceed to show him why they prove murder and disprove accidental death.

  65. L3Fi says:

    Again, please quote where I stated that “Jimi died at 4:45am”?

    I recall saying he died ‘about’ 7 hours previously than ‘Monika claimed’.

    So, from whom did the time of “4:45am” actually come from? Oh, it was by you, AGAIN. Not me, YOU.

    How did you arrive at that time and then believe I stated it was fact? Provide me with the quote where Monika specifically says: “Jimi died at 11:45am”

    Now that I’ve answered your question (which I didn’t bother with previously because it was and is inconsequential) and hopefully shown you that you where the one that came up with that time. Now, stop dodging and spit out the answer to my request for your scenario of what really happened. Surely, this is your moment?

    I’ll happily answer another load of your deflecting questions if it helps buy you a little more time to respond?

    • Scrum Drum says:

      You should know the official story says Monika was told Jimi was OK and was only being taken to hospital as a precaution and that when the ambulance left at around 11:30am Jimi was still alive. Since Dr Seifert insisted Jimi flat-lined when he was attached to a monitor upon arrival that means the official story puts the time of death shortly before arrival at hospital. As far as I know you can’t have lungs full of wine and be flat-lining and still be alive so 11:45am is pretty much the established time of death in the official account. So Monika’s story is generally accepted to place the time of death at 11:45am. While speaking to me in a condescending tone, you don’t seem to realize the only reason we are wasting bandwidth on this is to overcome your lack of knowledge.

      However, even when attempting to answer my question you don’t ever really answer the question. I specifically asked you to honestly answer what exactly made you think Jimi died 7 hours earlier than claimed? What was the specific evidence that made you think that? Typical of you, you diverted to defensive questions about otherwise widely understood givens like the 11:45am time of death, but you never answered what exactly made you conclude Jimi died 7 hours earlier like you said?

      Also, do you have some kind of comprehension problem? There was a clearly stated second part to the questions I asked. Go back and read it. I asked you to comment on Dr Crompton’s witnessing and how it reflects on the barbiturate forensics. Is there a reason why you ignored that yet again? You seem to have difficulty answering basic points of evidence.

      Now stop beating around the bush and demanding trivia nobody else questions and answer the questions.

  66. L3Fi says:

    Oh, maybe your last post actually was your attempt at a scenario and I didn’t realise.

    You do realise that drinking a bottle of wine/vodka/beer and then throwing it up minutes later means that only a percentage of the total alcohol content of the drink would have a chance to be absorbed by the stomach and then show up in the bloodwork?

    Do you think that the body instantly processes alcohol on contact?

    Do you believe that if a person drank a bottle of wine and then threw it up, then their blood would show up the full amount of alcohol that was in that bottle? Is that what you believe happens when someone drinks alcohol? It is instant alcohol to bloodstream on contact? Is there no such thing as absorption of alcohol by food contents or anything like that?

    Sorry, me and my dumb questions?! I thought I’d ask the expert though!

  67. L3fi says:

    Scrumdrum, clearly you’re not prepared to present your scenario as I’ve requested, so your argument appears to fizzle out there.

    After all, you’re the one claiming to know what happened and how it differs from the accepted version, so the burden of demonstrating what you think and why you think it, is on you. Otherwise, what are you doing on here?

    Lay down your cards. Or are you too scared that I and others will be able to tear holes in it once you’re comitted to a detailed and fixed scenario?

    I’m not going any further with this, with you, unless you present your timeline and event scenario.

    I notice that you didn’t respond to Alien’s question either about whether it was you that left a positive review for a book by a Holocaust-Denier.

    So, let’s here that as well: Are you a Holocaust-Denier? Alien never owed you any answers so answer his question at least.

    If you can’t answer these two simple questions without some tit-for-tat exchange then we can assume that you are a Holocaust-denier and a Henrdix-ghoul, unable to present anything when asked.

    Besides, I don’t think it really matters anyway as you’ve evidenced enough for anyone who can be bothered to see that you’re stumbling in the dark, tripping over empty bottles of wine.

    • L3fi says:

      Edit: Alien may be female, so apologies to Alien for assuming ‘his’ in my post.

    • Scrum Drum says:

      Thank you for conceding the debate L3Fi. In case you think you’re fooling anyone, typical of deniers, when finally confronted to answer the question “What made you say you thought Jimi died 7 hours earlier?” you refused to answer. If you look at this ‘debate’ you’ll see I have been able to, and did, answer any question you could bring. You, on the other hand, present a wholly dishonest denial position stilted on a phony pretense of a courtroom evidence standard that you show the public you don’t practice yourself when it comes to you. The way to defeat a denier is to take away the aggressive seizure of control that they must maintain in order to practice their delusion. What any honest person can see is happening here is once that is done and you are made to answer for your own evidence you can’t do it. You’re like a pathetic little Wizard of Oz who has just had the curtain pulled back and is shouting “Don’t look at that man behind the curtain”. What is happening here is a denier, who knew that if he honestly answered my question about Jimi dying 7 hours earlier he would expose both the wrongness of his position and rightness of mine, refused to answer while having the nerve to respond with a protest that I was the one refusing to answer. What is most obvious here is that if L3Fi attempted this kind of dishonesty in any of the credible court venues he keeps referencing it is HE who would be dismissed from the court and not allowed to continue this kind of obvious dishonest deception and deliberate untruth. He wouldn’t be allowed to arrogantly come back and accuse me of what he was guilty of in such a pathetically self-exposing way. In L3Fi’s mind his flagrant inability to answer simple fact is somehow my failure and somehow I have failed to live up to his factual demands. The whole time coming from a person who just passed on his credibility by refusing to answer some simple questions that he himself doesn’t hesitate to demand answers to. That kind of hypocrisy would not be tolerated in any credible court or internet forum. But somehow the majority of internet Hendrix people seem to support this kind of hostile hypocrisy in order to defend their cowardly disinterest in Jimi’s murder. Because of this fools like L3Fi have no fear of basically saying “I don’t have to answer any questions, you do.” (There’s the delusion of control reappearing right on time) These people were never honest to begin with and shouldn’t be allowed to get away with that by any credible Hendrix public. Anyone can see that each and every time we got to the pertinent evidence L3Fi tried to steer it away into his own parallel discussion designed to divert away from what he couldn’t answer, just like he did above when finally confronted to answer the facts. L3Fi is very happy to reduce this to a pissing contest that drives people away, but he does that because he really isn’t interested in the truth, as anyone can see.

      The reason L3Fi ran from the question “What specific evidence made you say you thought Jimi died 7 hours earlier than the official claim?” is because he knows that it trips up his line of logic and shows, that while demanding strict proof himself, that he himself also saw evidence that satisfied him that Jimi died before Monika called Burdon. The reason he refuses to answer this is because it all too clearly exposes his false and dishonest approach to denying the evidence behind Jimi’s murder. A credible room would not let such a proven dishonest presenter continue with such an arrogant tone. What is all too clear is L3Fi consciously avoids committing to evidence he knows will refute his position and prove mine. All the while demanding that I commit – which I already have. The commonly known word for this is “fool”. You are seeing the conversation that would have ensued on Crosstown Torrents if it wasn’t censored by people who knew what was coming. L3Fi has failed his own standard. That means that my evidence proceeds. All you are seeing here is L3Fi being unable to keep up with the real broader evidence once forced out of his restricted, limited viewpoint as his inability to answer proves. Once forced out of their Bannister-bashing the real evidence is obviously over their heads.

      • L3Fi says:

        L3Fi this, L3Fi that…

        You’re now becoming obsessed with me!

        If you’d clear your rage for a minute you’d note that I’m not saying that Hendrix died any time after 5:30am. I believe he died in the exact same time-window you are claiming he died in.

        So we agree on that, work with it instead of against it.

        The key difference is that I believe he died from inhaling his vomit due to barbituate intoxication, not from being drowned in wine. AND I can show the forensics can prove it.

        Now, if you’d kindly give your timeline and event scenario, I will also show you exactly where you are going wrong but until you give it, we can’t progress. I’m answering your questions and you’re ignoring the ones that I and and another have put to you.

        Keep it concise and relevant or admit you have nothing to offer.

        • Scrum Drum says:

          My response to L3Fi was moderated and deleted. I have to protest this, however in my deleted post I wrote that I was able to back any and everything that I write and have. L3Fi, on the other hand, is not able to do that with his 7 hour claim. The way evidence works is you have to be able to account for all your arguments. I believe L3Fi refuses to answer for how he determined Jimi died 7 hours earlier than claimed because he knows it shows a fatal crack in his arguments. His calls for me to live up to his demands therefore have no merit.

          Nope, I have answered all of L3Fi’s demands yet he is trying to use new demands to avoid answering mine. I must insist that he answer specifically how he determined that Jimi died around 5:30am and what evidence he specifically used to determine it? This is critical to the arguments and evidence because I can show by means of L3Fi’s answer why his evidence proves murder and disproves accidental death. A debate is like a ship. You have to have a completely sound hull or any hole will cause the ship to sink. L3Fi has a large hole in his hull with that question he refuses to answer. Yet he’s pretending to sail on.

          I also entered a very detailed entry on Dr Crompton that deserves an answer. It disproves the quick excuse L3Fi last entered about Dr Crompton’s 5:30am time of death, which means he owes us an answer since his previous entry has been refuted.

          Additionally, if you read this thread I have shown where his ridiculous theory that Jimi drank a large amount of wine and vomited it right back out is disproven by the evidence. Being unable to answer for his 7 hour claim he is just repeating this silly claim again in contempt of what I already showed. Any fool could see it is preposterous to suggest that Jimi took a large amount of pills and followed it by guzzling wine. That scenario is obviously the forced route of someone desperately trying to avoid the otherwise obvious. Besides, as I already said, it is disproven by the fact Jimi was found with lungs bursting with wine that wasn’t vomited out and was in him for a proven time period that would prohibit any tiny blood alcohol content.

          Nope, the onus is still on you L3Fi. It’s a very simple question, please answer it. Answer what specific logic and evidence you used to determine Jimi died at 5:30am? Why are you running from this simple request?

          • Scrum Drum says:

            Still waiting for L3Fi to answer the question. In case anyone needs this interpreted to them the reason L3Fi is putting up a bluff and refusing to answer the perfectly reasonable simple question of how he determined his 5:30am time of death is because L3Fi consciously knows that he’ll trap himself if he answers. It’s very clear that while L3Fi tries to steal the show and make demands that he himself can’t live up to his own methods. When you try to get around the truth, like L3Fi is doing here, eventually you will contradict or get trapped by the facts. L3Fi’s 5:30am time of death claim is where his grossly oversimplified argument gets trapped by the facts. You see L3Fi is quite aware that he must keep his arguments to a fact-avoiding, oversimplified level in order to avoid that which contradicts them. He knows that if he ventures into the detail of his 5:30am claim he’s going to go beyond the boundaries of his deliberately-constructed, oversimplified scenario. He doesn’t want to come out into the clear daylight of truth so he has to stay safely within the dark confines of his deceptive arguments. Knowing this he’s clearly trying to switch the subject and get back in control to make it look like he is the one with the better arguments and that I am the one who is refusing to answer. No, I can and will answer anything he writes, however I won’t be led by someone trying to avoid the facts as L3Fi is clearly trying to do. If you go back and read this thread I already have answered what L3Fi demands. However I will say that L3Fi’s preposterous notion that Jimi drank a large amount of wine and vomited it right back out is a ridiculous suggestion that can’t be fit into the real forensic scenario. L3Fi thinks we don’t see that his quickly vomited wine theory is something that was forced by the facts he was conscious he couldn’t answer. It’s very obviously something that evolved from L3Fi needing to explain the low blood alcohol content so he contrived this imaginary wine guzzling theory. Something Jimi’s friends said he would never do, let alone after ingesting a large amount of barbiturates. It’s pretty clear L3Fi led himself into this logical box canyon exactly because he was following the path of denial that allowed himself to dismiss Dr Bannister’s witnessing on such shallow grounds. Once you disallow the wine Dr Bannister and the other evidence witnessed you can entertain such foolishness as this fictive wine vomiting however the true facts don’t allow it. L3Fi senses that so he dares not dip a toe into the real scenario and deal with it in truthful detail. That’s why he’s not answering this question. He dares not answer it because he knows he will be forced to account for things that will very quickly undo his imaginary scenario. It think most intelligent people are smart enough to see things that saying “the burden of proof is on you” doesn’t quite live up to – or the necessary answer any honest person would feel obliged to give if they were really truthfully looking in to this. What L3Fi shows is denial of the murder evidence very definitely depends on a structured framework of approach that consciously avoids the evidence. Once forced outside that framework murder deniers can’t live up to their own demands.

  68. L3fi says:

    And just so you can’t say I didn’t answer the Dr Crompton Question (because there really is nothing to say, Dr Crompton did not see or witness Hendrix’s body, just the notes years later), according to a footnote published in Musician #210, June 1996, Dr. Crompton “now is on record as saying that it is impossible to ascertain the exact time of Hendrix’s death.”

    So, is Dr Crompton right or wrong? If he is right then you have to concede with that quote.

    Now, timeline and event scenario please.

    • Scrum Drum says:

      You’re in no position to demand since you passed on your own suggested level of debate by refusing to answer what made you think Jimi died 7 hours earlier. You’re bluffing L3Fi. You’re hoping that you can get away with being publicly unable to account for your own material and still maintain credibility. But anyone reading this can see you have been asked to live up to your own methods and failed. You’re in no position to demand anything. Even worse, any credible person reading this will see I have already presented what you demand. The only reason you don’t realize this is either because you are beneath the level of discourse here or ignoring it. What you demand has already been clearly spelled-out.

      Just like with the 7 hour claim now you are trying to weasel out of the Dr Crompton issue. The reason you expose yourself as a denier is because at each and every turn you seek the cheapest, quickest excuse in order exit the greater universe of evidence as quickly as possible. So your form gives you away in itself. The majority of the uneducated would think your citation might have merit – as it is designed to do. However, anyone can see a visible shift between your playing dumb with gross generalities in some instances and being able to retrieve precise quotes in others. This means you held back and deliberately, dishonestly withheld the greater circumstances surrounding Dr Crompton. At that point any credible reader would be forced to ask why, if you could fish-out a quote like that couldn’t you locate other material concerning Dr Crompton? Like Caesar, you fool the less intelligent by presenting a dishonestly-spun version of events.

      If you were more honest you would divulge the fact that in 2004 Dr Crompton was involved in a scandal with his investigation of the death of Serbian Petar Sutovic in London. In a death scene that was clearly set-up to look like a heroin overdose Dr Crompton came to the conclusion that Mr Sutovic died of a drug overdose. Sutovic’s mother knew that he didn’t do drugs so she hired a Serbian forensic pathologist to look at the evidence. He came to the conclusion that Sutovic’s heart had been removed by organ thieves and that he was murdered with morphine. So some might use L3Fi’s primitive standard to dismiss Dr Crompton’s credibility all together, however, like with Hendrix, it isn’t that easy. The true context this reveals is that, like many others, real pressure was put on Dr Crompton after his 1993 5:30am time of death claim. Like Dr Seifert’s switch in statements, Dr Crompton came out with a simple one-line reversal on Jimi’s death. L3Fi is desperate to make this comment work and be the final say on the matter, however, like with all the rest of the evidence, it’s much complicated than that and deserves much more complicated answers. As he did with Sutovic, it’s clear someone got to Dr Crompton and made him change his story. This has to be so because his 5:30am claim was based on technical forensic examination that can only be reversed with an equal explanation. That examination cannot be reversed so easily because it involved the simple judgment of the digestive condition of the rice in Jimi’s stomach. Once cited it can’t be denied so easily. L3Fi, of course, being only interested in escaping the proof, doesn’t demand that explanation, however more credible observers do. Dr Crompton was clearly pressured into reversing his witnessing. Meanwhile L3Fi, like Scotland Yard, has completely failed to answer for Dr Crompton’s original correct conclusion. If we do an honest tally here we have evidence of Dr’s Seifert and Crompton succumbing to political pressure in their medical witnessings. Who, then, is the one doctor whose story never varied? Dr Bannister of course. The man deniers like L3Fi and Caesar are desperate to discredit, and I think we know why.

      What L3Fi writes above, is, once again, false. Dr Crompton’s witnessing is not ignorable as he says. By citing the fact Dr Teare witnessed whole undigested grains of rice in Jimi’s stomach Dr Crompton proves Jimi could not have died according to the official scenario. That’s why Dr Crompton came back and said Jimi died no later than 5:30am. He was correct. His 1996 statement no more accounts for this than L3Fi’s refusal to account for his own 7 hour claim. It’s comical that L3Fi pretends to throw iron lances of evidence considering the mushy ground anyone can see he stands on. Meanwhile the real evidence shows that no undigested rice could be seen according to Monika’s scenario. Monika said Jimi did not take any pills until 7:15am. That would mean Jimi would have had four and a half hours to digest the rice he ate at Kameron’s at 2:45am. Since known science says the stomach clears its contents in 4 hours that means any undigested grains of rice would be impossible. It proves Jimi died before the rice could digest. You see this kind irrefutable proof is exactly why they do forensic analysis in the first place. Anyone can see L3Fi’s type of argument woefully fails this higher standard. Yes, like the British Government, he wants to dismiss this quickly and move on from it. However any honest observation of the real evidence shows he can’t. The reason L3Fi cannot provide adequate answers to this is because it is credible proof. That’s the definition of proof – that which its doubters cannot answer or disprove.

      The simplest way to describe what L3Fi is doing wrong here is that all sides have to conform to the same standard of evidence. While L3Fi falsely says the burden of proof is on me he ignores the fact that the worst failures of that very burden have been committed by himself and the Inquest which never made any attempt whatsoever to prove accidental death. At best it dismissed suicide and came to the conclusion of open verdict. As L3Fi’s inability to answer credible arguments shows, the burden of proof has now shifted to his side. It’s pretty clear why he wants to end the debate now.

  69. Scrum Drum says:

    L3Fi’s total argument on Dr Crompton’s witnessing:

    ” (because there really is nothing to say, Dr Crompton did not see or witness Hendrix’s body, just the notes years later) ”

    This answer is evasive and isn’t good enough for anyone honestly investigating this. First of all the doctors in the London Coroner’s Office were top notch and educated at places like Oxford and Cambridge. Dr Teare was world famous and known for his expertise. So was Dr Crompton. It’s important to know that after Dr Teare died in the late 1970’s Dr Crompton succeeded him and assumed all of his records. This is why Dr Crompton was chosen to analyze Jimi’s autopsy records. So Dr Crompton was not just some transient giving cursory evaluation to Jimi’s autopsy. He was well familiar with Dr Teare and his methods. Knowing this Dr Crompton cited Dr Teare’s recording of whole undigested grains of rice in Jimi’s stomach. A very important matter and equally important forensic witnessing.

    Typical of L3Fi, what he writes above isn’t valid or acceptable. He tries to quickly get by this problem by saying Dr Crompton didn’t see Jimi’s body. Well, as any credible person would realize, Dr Crompton didn’t need to see Jimi’s body because Dr Teare already had and had already recorded the serious forensic issue of undigested rice. So, once again, what L3Fi writes is provably false and, once again, doesn’t answer the issue. The form of L3Fi’s responses give him away and show that he really isn’t qualified to offer any arguments on this subject.

    For those who are more reality-oriented, Dr Teare’s witnessing is important because Jimi was witnessed eating that rice at 2:45am at Kameron’s. It then becomes critical evidence once you realize the official story is claiming an 11:45am time of death. That means, according to this account, Jimi would have had 9 hours to digest that rice before death. Since the stomach clears its contents in an average of about 4 hours that means there should not have been any discernable undigested rice in Jimi’s stomach. So, contrary to what L3Fi says above, there actually is a lot to say about Dr Crompton’s witnessing.

    Dr Crompton was instructed to re-evaluate Jimi’s autopsy by Scotland Yard after Kathy Etchingham petitioned the British Attorney General. When he presented his 5:30am time of death claim he was attacked and accused of using antiquated methods. However, if one stops to think for a second what exactly would be “antiquated” about the simple judgment of the digestive condition of a grain of rice there really isn’t anything that could be shown to invalidate Dr Crompton’s method. The digestive condition of rice is a pretty basic forensic determination for which there hasn’t been much technical evolution in the ensuing years, nor did Scotland Yard offer any. Dr Crompton suffered the exact same treatment as Dr Bannister, which is pretty telling since both witnessed some pretty serious evidence for Jimi’s murder. Not only was Dr Crompton’s witnessing valid but the claimed time for digestion in the official account more than provably disallows any undigested rice. So it’s not Dr Crompton’s methodology that’s faulty, it’s Scotland Yard’s. Something both Scotland Yard and L3Fi have yet to come up with a credible explanation for.

    It’s pretty clear L3Fi passes on both his credibility and the debate with this self-exposing non-answer. You can’t just hand-wave around this and still pretend credibility.

  70. Simeon says:

    I’m with Lefi on this one, I do not believe Hendrix was murdered and Lefi is right about Doctor Bannister. Scrumdrum is ignoring the evidence that this man is anything but reliable and credible.

    Here’s a link to the official docs regarding Dr Bannister as a medical professional and the findings that had him struck off (copy and paste):

    http://www.mcnsw.org.au/resources/542/Bannister%20-%20COA.pdf%E2%80%8E

    Decide for yourselves but I wouldn’t want this man operating on me. Nothing in the link comes from anyone but Dr Bannister’s and his behaviour as a medical professional. He wasn’t set up, or subject to any smear campaign. He only has himself to blame. Read and see.

    • Scrum Drum says:

      I hit that link and it tried to open my downloads folder on its own. Thank you Simeon. I don’t think you realize L3Fi indirectly conceded the debate when he abandoned his position. I’m still here and L3Fi isn’t. The true and honest reason for that is because L3Fi wasn’t arguing the facts behind Jimi’s death he was arguing denial. He was willing to jump ship because he knew he wasn’t arguing anything he would follow-through to the end. L3Fi sensed he was about to lose the debate so he quit. He wasn’t getting away with his deceptive methods and couldn’t answer to his own claims. If he really believed what he was saying he would defend it. He knows he can’t. What’s crazy here is Dr Bannister is a gentleman and truth-teller being unfairly maligned by persons interested in denying the truth behind Jimi’s death. If we brought Dr Bannister next to L3Fi and Simeon we would quickly see who to believe and who had merit. Dr Bannister was there that morning, these internet deniers have the hubris to put themselves and their shallow denial before him. I mean, who are they trying to fool? All they are doing is classic defamation in order to avoid the facts.

      This Bannister-bashing business is silly and has already been refuted by the rest of my arguments. Deniers make the mistake of thinking the whole issue depends on Dr Bannister. It doesn’t. The circumstantial evidence and incriminating behavior of the authorities exonerates Dr Bannister. To try to blame the whole thing on Dr Bannister is too weak a method as I’ve already shown. What people like L3Fi and Simeon try to get away with is not owning-up to the fact that this Bannister-bashing is an indirect way of saying Monika’s and Scotland Yard’s input are all credible and sound. What these people don’t answer always says more than what they do. You see, that’s why these deniers focus on Dr Bannister, because they know it will save them from having to answer the rest of the evidence. It’s an insult, really, to come back and offer what Simeon offers after what I wrote. Really, the only answer Simeon deserves is “Now go back and try answering the rest of what I wrote”. L3Fi wasn’t able to. The crime being committed here is Dr Bannister is a knight in shining armor compared to those who criticize him in such an opportunistic, shameless way. What these people forget is Dr Bannister, like Dr Crompton, made a very simple medical observation. All Dr Bannister witnessed was a large amount of red wine flooding Jimi’s lungs and stomach that he suctioned-out with hospital equipment. It’s an observation anyone could have made and what stands out the most is this way overkill of questioning Dr Bannister’s credibility and competency doesn’t account for how easy a medical judgment it was, which therefore didn’t depend on the level of credibility these people suggest. These people protest too much and attack Dr Bannister a little too hard. They’re obviously trying to get around something their actions give away. They use too blunt an instrument for such delicate evidence.

      This debate is a little like a master wizard coming in and saying you can tell the trolls by their inability to speak anything but Bannister-bashing. You accuse these people of only possessing the cheap device of impugning Dr Bannister and they have the hubris to ignore the greater arguments and return with, yet again, another round of Bannister-bashing as their only offering. The wizard continued in Wonderland and came upon another elf. That elf could only speak Bannister-bashing. What is really being said the loudest here?

      I have spoken to doctors and they told me anyone who committed the billing fraud offenses Dr Bannister committed would have had their license back long ago. What Simeon ignores is that Dr Bannister continued on as a very successful medical legal consultant. His ensuing career had no such competency or credibility issues. If Simeon were really an honest critic he would aim his criticism towards Scotland Yard, whom, as I have shown above, has committed some gross malfeasance and incompetencies far beyond anything Dr Bannister is having trumped upon him. If you are really looking for fraud there’s a rich source. I find British-based people somehow unwilling to do that however, which is part of the reason Jimi’s death went uninvestigated for so long.

      Simeon has real hubris because the point where his champion bailed-out above is where we were just getting to the part that proved Jimi could not have died by accidental death from the barbiturates. So what killed him then? Simeon has no right to ignore it like he does. Nor would any objective observer say that regressive returning to simple credibility dismissing of Dr Bannister would overturn that which has been shown. What Simeon needs to answer is if Dr Bannister is so uncredible then what did they take a full half hour to do at St Mary’s when they were trying to save Jimi? Dr Seifert said Jimi was flat-lining on the monitor when he arrived. Since this patient was technically dead (as Dr Seifert insisted on BBC) then what did they do for a full half hour before quitting? And why did Dr Seifert act evasive and change his story while Dr Bannister never varied from his story? Simeon, are you just not interested in that? No curiosity? Looking for the first cheap out perhaps? And why didn’t Scotland Yard use its world famous resources and ability to locate the nurses who could have settled the issue? Indeed why haven’t those nurses come forward?

      Sorry Simeon. We’re way past that and you need to do better. Like your champion L3Fi, you are only reinforcing what I wrote by ignoring it. You can hide a murder behind that hand-waving you’re doing there and have for 44 years. Time to answer the real facts.

    • Flyswatter says:

      Simeon, I’ve read all the documentation & there’s just one major problem. Where does that documentation ever state that Dr. Bannister was guilty of ‘speech fraud’ regarding the medical condition of one of his patients? Absolutely nowhere!!!! Now, can the same be said of Dr. Seifert in light of his 180 degree turn in his testimony regarding Jimi? Nope. Dr Seifert is clearly a proven liar as proven by his initial statement of Jimi being “Let me make one thing clear, Jimi was dead on arrival” to later on “there may have been a few breaths, but nothing I would call life” <—both of those statements cannot be true…….no way, no how. Can't have it both ways.

      • Scrum Drum says:

        In my opinion, Flyswatter, you are arguing seriously with a troll who is never going to go beyond his cheap level of Bannister-bashing. As my writings here show the evidence goes far beyond Dr Bannister and exonerates him. It’s pretty obvious that these deniers are trying to reduce the argument to a simple self-serving level where they can get away with dismissing it on such shallow grounds exactly because they are trying to avoid honestly discussing the real evidence. That real evidence is plainly available in this thread. Simeon is simply dismissing himself from credibility by ignoring it and trying to reduce the terms to dishonest attacking of Dr Bannister and his credibility. The most pathetic thing here is if we put Dr Bannister next to L3Fi and Simeon on stage in a fair debate and had them directly accuse Dr Bannister of being an uncredible liar we would quickly see who was credible and who were just internet slimers trying to get away with hack murder. Simeon is just a person who comes in to endorse the opposition despite the facts. He had every opportunity to answer the main arguments. He never did. He practices the cowardly Crosstown method of getting a majority to agree on cheap dismissal by means of discrediting Dr Bannister. Those cowards are willing to collectively hide behind that cheap ruse. Scotland Yard, by the way, is doing the same thing. Simeon and L3Fi are the frauds here, not the good Dr Bannister. I consider this debate won.

  71. L3fi says:

    Good question Scrumdrum. What did they take a full half hour to do at St. Mary’s? Probably ‘popped out for a fag’ -that’s English for going out to have a cigarette.

    Why do you ask? Did you think there was anything to shed light on that half hour other than your wild ‘man of borneo’ imagination?

    Do you have any physical or recorded evidence that they did anything other than skip out for a break or just stand around laughing at the unusual and incredibly long, 7 foot Jimi Hendrix they had on their table?

    You keep failing to accept that Dr Bannister did not feel that there was anything untoward or out of the ordinary about this patient, to feel that it was worth recording on hospital records or raising with any other parties at the hospital, or anyone else…

    ..until 20 years later when he was about to be struck off the medical register for fraud and Hendrix was re-surfacing in the press…

    Your move.

    • Scrum Drum says:

      I think most sensible people can see L3fi has terribly failed to live up to the level of debate here. The true evidence shows the doctors at St Mary’s worked on Jimi from around 11:45am to 12:15pm when they quit. Realizing he’s in trouble with this L3fi enters the ridiculous suggestion of a cigarette trip (just like Monika when she got in trouble with the obvious). Of course no serious person would suggest this since we know they were trying to save Jimi, so no jumping out for a smoke is possible in such a serious hospital situation. Also, I don’t think Dr Bannister smoked. By doing this L3fi shows us he’s in contempt of the facts and can’t deal with or answer serious evidence. A serious forum would boot him at this point since he’s obviously not honest and is wasting everyone’s time with what is basically trolling.

      Thank you L3fi. As I said there’s not one person who can beat me concerning the evidence for Jimi’s murder. The reason for that is because Jimi was murdered – as the facts deniers are in contempt of prove. The reason they took a full half hour to treat Jimi is because Dr Bannister spent at least 20 minutes of that registered time removing a large amount of wine from Jimi’s stomach and lungs. The reason I was banned from Crosstown Tyrants is because a British coward moderator named “Fender’s Fingers” knew that if the discussion were allowed to continue the juvenile trolls who occupy that site would suffer the same fate as L3fi and show the site wasn’t credible. Really, should such bullies be allowed to dominate and control the internet’s only Hendrix site while censoring the murder topic? A few months ago the Neanderthal “AstroVooDoo” protested that no censoring was done on Crosstown Tyrants. Since then no posts have been entered in response to “Alien’s” bid for discussion except for the suck-up “Mourningstar” brown-nosing instruction to look at the archives. They have the nerve to suggest that the topic was already covered by their credible site overview. Of course what I wrote, and they are in contempt of, proves that isn’t so. This uncredible position, of course, is carefully guided by the coward Fender’s Fingers who deletes the posts of anyone who points this out and bans the poster. Fender’s Fingers’ avatar is an attack dog. This is proof the subject is censored. The attack moderators allow the trolls to defeat the topic while pretending a high level of site content. Anyone who reads some of the higher quality posts on that site can see some of the posters have a very high level of Hendrix knowledge. So they have no excuse for not applying it to the murder topic. Read the “Purple Haze Records” thread and BlackIrish55’s posts. You can see him approaching the fact Jeffery murdered Jimi and therefore shouldn’t have any production rights but pulling back because of the site’s oppressive content control. If they dare speak this begged fact they’ll be pounced upon by those bully moderators who present themselves in a hostile way with throat-cutting blade always looming. No censorship huh? You might as well have Jeffery himself moderating that site.

      L3fi can’t answer exactly how his 5:30am time of death claim works via the forensics because he knows once you rise above his primitive approach and are forced to answer to higher science his childish theories fall apart. You have to play by the rules. Once L3fi refused to do that he forfeited. The outcome is that he can’t live up to his own demands for evidence once they are turned towards him. He can’t validate his arguments in relation to sound science. This is proof Jimi was murdered. As L3fi shows us, only fools doubt the murder evidence. L3fi is ignoring provable forensic arguments and therefore disqualifies himself from serious debate and isn’t worth answering.

  72. Buster says:

    L3Fi: Good question Scrumdrum. What did they take a full half hour to do at St. Mary’s? Probably ‘popped out for a fag’ -that’s English for going out to have a cigarette.

    You see your answer is good evidence that there’s a serious problem with this case. Normally such an obvious clownish proposition would be met with serious ridicule from other observers. L3Fi has just suggested that Dr Seifert and Dr Bannister left an emergency room patient on the table in order to go out for a smoke. Most message boards would dismiss such a person as the nut they were after offering that. L3Fi represents a good example of those who doubt the murder evidence and how. You can see the extreme ridiculousness they allow themselves in the attempt to get around the murder evidence. Besides, Dr Bannister didn’t smoke. Now that L3Fi’s simpleton’s excuse is shot down what is he left with? Why doesn’t he come back and answer for it? I shouldn’t even answer this because what I already explained and L3Fi refused to answer has already made it moot. The fact he ignores what refutes this and yet again returns with already-disproven Bannister-bashing should clue most people that he’s already lost. L3Fi is a fool because the nurses could corroborate Dr Bannister’s 1/2 hour attempt to save Jimi. It took that long because Dr Bannister removed several bottles worth of wine from Jimi. Yes, it is a good question, as is evidenced by your inability to give a serious answer to it.

    L3Fi: Why do you ask? Did you think there was anything to shed light on that half hour other than your wild ‘man of borneo’ imagination?

    The clownish answer of someone who can’t answer the point. It was already clear why I asked, because all the witnesses said Jimi was dead when he arrived. So, since the Crosstown idiots and Caesar asked why any competent doctor would treat Jimi for a full half hour if he was dead, the answer is because several bottles of wine had to be suctioned before they could attempt to. Your treatment of this is noticeably moronic. What stands out the most here is all you have is trolling mockery while our side has a very reasonable explanation that fits Dr Bannister’s story. Only a fool would not realize that the half hour itself is evidence of something occurring during that period that needed explanation. I’ve given one that is backed by the evidence. You haven’t. What I don’t understand is what makes you feel justified taking the attitude you do when you offer so little and offer it so stupidly? Isn’t it obvious that the reason you offer that moronic cigarette trip explanation is because you know you can’t explain it? You’re in contempt of the obvious in other words.

    L3Fi: Do you have any physical or recorded evidence that they did anything other than skip out for a break or just stand around laughing at the unusual and incredibly long, 7 foot Jimi Hendrix they had on their table?

    You’re not credible. Anyone can see that the best you can offer are preposterous scenarios and taking advantage of the lack of a detailed record from the Resuscitation room. In other words your argument is self-dismissing in its form alone because anyone could see all it is based on is preposterous gratuitous doubt and stupid reductio ad absurdum evasions. I’ve already explained why the tall man canard you keep using isn’t credible. You ignored it and returned with it yet again in order to deny the obvious. We know Dr Seifert and Dr Bannister treated Jimi that morning because Seifert witnessed it and it was on the death certificate. We already covered this and you were unable to answer it. Where we left off was you were trying to say Dr Bannister remembered another patient drowned in wine. But that’s ridiculous because the patient Dr Bannister was referring to as the tall man was the same person he treated that he was later informed was the famous Jimi Hendrix, who then caused a sensation at the hospital he remembered clearly. You, on the other hand, ignored this and couldn’t answer because you know damned-well that you can’t find any other such patient that both Dr Seifert and Dr Bannister treated who they then mistook for Jimi. There was no such patient and you have yet to answer for all the already-shown proof that it WAS Jimi. Anyone can see that all you have is this tall man canard you are using to evade the rest of the evidence. You’ve already lost by doing that. Meanwhile the man Dr Bannister described also matched the man the ambulance men described along with everyone else. You’re going to have to do better than that if you’re trying to deny it was Jimi. All you are is a mocking denier who is in obvious contempt of what I’ve shown and is therefore reduced to the idiotic answers you give. What you’re ignoring refutes you, which is why you’re ignoring it. Since both your suggestions above are obviously ridiculous and easily dismissed we can therefore assume my scenario is accurate. All we have here is an internet clown vs serious evidence.

    L3Fi: You keep failing to accept that Dr Bannister did not feel that there was anything untoward or out of the ordinary about this patient, to feel that it was worth recording on hospital records or raising with any other parties at the hospital, or anyone else…

    ..until 20 years later when he was about to be struck off the medical register for fraud and Hendrix was re-surfacing in the press…

    Your move.

    Your attempt to talk down to me or judge my input is laughable considering the nutty input you have offered. Again, I already answered this and you ignored it. Dr Bannister said that at the time he felt Jimi was just another black Notting Hill tragic drug and alcohol casualty and didn’t give it much thought. Your supposition isn’t credible because at the time Dr Bannister had no means of knowing the controversy or blood alcohol content. Unfortunately in 1970 African Americans still received a lesser degree of professional attention than others. The planned covert murder method of appearing like a drug overdose worked and Jimi was considered just another tragic drug misadventure as intended. I’m not failing at anything. What’s failing here is your moronic entries and more than obvious excuse-making. You are attributing incriminating guilt to Dr Bannister’s actions at hospital for which you have even less evidence or cause yourself. Meanwhile the true record shows Dr Bannister did what the credible witness of such an event would do. He spoke-up when challenged. L3Fi, you are not honest. Dr Bannister did not speak-up once threatened with being struck-off, as you contended. The documented record shows Dr Bannister spoke-up once he read Shapiro’s ‘Electric Gypsy’ and Monika’s accusations of malpractice inside it. Your inference above that Dr Bannister was motivated by a need to counter his delicensing is slanderous, false, and libelous. Your last entry is a malicious distortion and specious contrivance that deliberately misrepresents Dr Bannister and his actions that morning in order to come to a false conclusion. It is easily disproven, as I have done, by simply examining its truthful components in honest context. The half hour treatment time at St Mary’s, that you are in denial of, witnesses Dr Bannister’s removal of the wine. As does your idiotic inability to offer any serious answer for it. Also, your reducing this to Dr Bannister alone is not credible. I’ve already explained why. Your ignoring my explanations and returning yet again with the same already-disproven arguments destroys your credibility. There were many others who witnessed it. While doing your best to discredit Dr Bannister people can see you unaccountably have no curiosity over the other persons attending the event, their stories, and their credibility. That alone dismisses you and your credulous, disingenuous arguments. It proves that all you have is Bannister-bashing that you are using to avoid the greater evidence. You’ve already lost this debate. I just enjoy skewering trolls.

    So now that your answer has been proven ridiculous, what were they doing for that half-hour?

  73. Scrum Drum says:

    So, to sum up L3Fi’s failed credulous challenge, L3Fi is obviously a brit who is used to no challenge from the intellectual ghetto of his usual peers. He tried to claim that Jimi was dead at 5:30am like I am claiming, but with a non-murder cause. When I asked to him justify that via the established forensics he refused and tried to take control by demanding I answer his evasive, regressive arguments. Because of his unchallenged background he’s used to getting away with that – similar to the lack of any credible standard on Crosstown Tyrants where a coward moderator makes sure persons like L3Fi prevail by means of bully moderation, censorship, and banning. This is the bankrupted playing field L3Fi originates from, which explains his credulous input and obnoxious contempt. I think most smart and honest people will see a fool who got in over his head bolting as soon as he realized he would have to deal at an honest, credible level and answer the real, intelligently and accurately presented facts. Unfortunately, L3Fi didn’t want to admit he didn’t understand those facts nor was he capable of discussing them. Our unqualified challenger was used to offering attacks on Dr Bannister as his main approach. The true definition of what went on here is once L3Fi was forced by the facts to go outside his cheap method he was literally incapable and returned once again to Bannister-bashing, which was just an indirect way of yielding the debate since he had no right to not answer how his claimed innocent 5:30am time of death matched up to the forensics. Let’s be honest here. Once L3Fi realized he was going to lose he bailed and, typical of trolls, left the room shouting over his shoulder how badly I failed to live up to his arguments. Meanwhile there’s not one person who disproved anything I said or showed so by the facts.

    If you look at these people who offer nothing but defamation of Dr Bannister they never veer outside that cheap device. Meanwhile we have Dr Seifert who told two diametrically opposite stories of that morning having no such criticism put upon him by those pretend critics. Dr Seifert is on BBC video insisting that Jimi was absolutely dead when they received him. He emphasized that the heart monitor they hooked Jimi up to when he first came in flat-lined. However in Caesar Glebbeek’s filthy disinformation piece ‘Until We Meet Again’ the post-controversy Dr Seifert now enters that “there might have been some breathing involved but nothing I would call life”. You can’t have a flat-lining monitor and breathing in the same place. Think about that, the breathing stops before the heart. Also the ambulance attendants insisted Jimi had a plug of vomit in his throat that they couldn’t remove. If you observe the documented 28 minutes from the attendants first encountering Jimi to his admission at hospital he would, scientifically, have to be dead with a plugged windpipe. Dr Seifert is lying. Meanwhile Dr Bannister, the one whom these doubters are calling uncredible, is the one whose story never changed one iota in the decades he told it. These critics ask us to accept their ignoring Dr Seifert’s serious conflicts and their significance while they attack the truth-telling Dr Bannister who the evidence backs on all counts. There’s a clown upthread calling himself “Free Radikal” who says I can’t get my figures straight. I haven’t seen him around lately. Ask him to answer this.

    When cornered by the facts and the good arguments for them, L3Fi claimed that Dr’s Bannister and Seifert stepped out for a smoke during the half hour they treated Jimi. That preposterous suggestion is also another yielding of the debate, since anyone knows they would be arrested and charged if they tried to do that in front of hospital staff on a patient. No, L3Fi is a typical British internet Hendrix murder denier offering a good example of their stuff. He’s a Crosstown epitome. He was sent appropriately packing like he deserved and the murder evidence still stands. What’s really creepy is the organized indifference to this evidence whose validity was proved by L3Fi’s defeat. Look at some of the doubters further up in the thread like MusicOfTheSpheres. They don’t get into this depth of conversation and don’t show-up when the facts become clear, yet they insist on having a strongly-held opinion. Even with the science proven right there in front of them. It’s really creepy that more people are interested in denying Jimi’s murder than admitting it. Like I said at the beginning, and L3Fi shows us, there has never been a single person who can take me on on the murder evidence for Jimi. Undefeated king of the hill I am. And the reason for it? Because Jimi was murdered and I can prove it. May the fools take their proper place.

    I accept the silence over this as the concession of victory that it is. Thanks.

  74. Scrum Drum says:

    I have to make a public correction since I discovered a mistake in my arguments. The “3.9mg % of blood” barbiturate level I have been referring to was actually the level found in the liver. Somewhere along the line I got crossed-up and mistook the liver barbiturate level for the blood. A bit of an embarrassing gaffe I must admit, however once corrected it makes no difference. It is basically a typo. I apologize to those seriously following my posts.

    The actual blood barbiturate level recorded by Dr Teare at Jimi’s September 21 1970 autopsy was .7mg % of blood. A curious thing then happened. Dr Teare adjourned the autopsy for more tests and came back with an additional 1.3mg of Seconal discovered in the blood. I don’t know what to make of that except that the main ingredient in Vesparax, Quinalbarbitone, is of the secobarbital family. Never the less Dr Teare found and recorded a .7mg barbiturate level at the September 21 autopsy. The liver barbiturate level was 3.9mg.

    This is basically a typo and makes no difference to the forensic arguments I’ve made in this thread (Though I now have a full internet record of me incorrectly referring to a 3.9mg blood barbiturate level to deal with) .7mg holds just as true to the forensic arguments and the problems with them.

    • L3Fi says:

      Thought I’d just pop in to visit the misguided one.

      So you couldn’t tell the difference between ‘blood’ and ‘liver’ and you want us to take your grasp of pathology seriously. Like I said previously, go to medical school or speak to a professional pathologist.

      I’ll give you this Scrum Drum/Buster, you’re quite amazing. I mean, how does a person manage to nail themselves inside their own coffin?!

      Zero credibility, keep ranting your nonsense.

      Jimi is alive, ‘liver’ than ever…

      • Scrum Drum says:

        L3Fi was a troll from the start. My forensic arguments are very sound, as shown by L3Fi’s running and disappearing once I demanded he answer for his own forensic claims. In case anyone needs reminding, L3Fi is a typical Hendrix murder denier smart-ass who thought he could get away with his bogus theories on how Jimi could have died by accident. Once he realized he wasn’t going to get away with it he disappeared like all trolls do when caught. That hasn’t changed and we are still at the impasse L3Fi originally ran from.

        If you view L3Fi’s input, like all trolls he tries to maximize minor trivialities in order to compensate for his own failings. My blood barbiturate content mistake was mostly a typo and, as I said, doesn’t affect my arguments in any way. They still stand by the same logic and scientific certainty. In fact they still stand by the very same science L3Fi is still unable to answer and offers trolling instead.

        I think anyone of average intelligence would see that you don’t need to be a trained pathologist to understand my forensic arguments. Their value was already proven by L3Fi who saw them and ran from them only to return with self-exposing trolling which, really, was all he had in the first place. Alien pretends that I am at fault for not being respectful of the other posters, but Alien is a fool who asks respect for obvious trolls like L3Fi who is obviously not here for serious purposes.

        I thank L3Fi for coming in and reminding us where the argument stands. I offered credible forensic arguments that not only could L3Fi not answer but when demanded to answer he fled and left the discussion only to return months later with his true purpose that is, trolling the subject like the uncredible troll he is. People are smart enough to see the difference between a person who has a good command of the subject and can back it with sound arguments and a Skeptic troll simply offering denial rubbish in order to obstruct the issue. This is really a matter of men vs trolls. L3Fi assumes his true form and offers trolling. I assume my true form and offer serious real man arguments.

        To once again prove the issue, where we left off was L3Fi was entering laughable garbage like his theory that Jimi drank a load of wine quickly and then instantly vomited it out. L3Fi also admitted Jimi died early at around 5am. When I asked him to then reconcile his claims with the forensic evidence L3Fi realized he was going to have to play in the real man’s world away from his trolling stupidity. A place where he would have to grow up and answer real men’s questions and match his goofy claims up to science like real credible men who can back their points with sound arguments do. At that point, like all trolls when called, L3Fi took-off and left the debate declaring victory on his way out the door. It was plainly obvious L3Fi had no credible knowledge of the forensic evidence and didn’t want to admit it or have it exposed. He still doesn’t. These are the people the opposition offers. L3Fi represents them well.

        If L3Fi comes back to troll the thread once more only accents a victory I won long ago when the opponents gave up and couldn’t answer. Smart people will see who has credibility here and who runs from the real arguments while accusing others of not having credibility.

        If you observe the history of this thread Josh said he would consider my arguments and return with a response. He never did. That’s all you need to know. The true history of this thread shows that when Hendrix murder deniers are forced to answer the real evidence they can’t do it. That’s a reality existing right in this thread in front of you that can’t be denied or trolled around as L3Fi attempts.

        I still stand at 100%. In the years I’ve been arguing this on the internet there’s not one single person who has been able to beat me in a debate on Jimi’s murder. Thank you L3Fi for coming back and making that clear.

        • L3Fi says:

          If you could just get your mind together, you would see that the greater percentage of what you write is not about the facts of Jimi’s death but about insulting others and boasting about yourself.

          It is not about beating others in a debate, it is about discovering the truth. I feel your priorities are wrong.

          I’ve invited you on numerous occasions to actually give a timeline event scenario of what you believe occurred that night and not once have you offered it. Who poured the wine? How? When? etc.

          So, apart from the fact that you have personally confirmed to the entire internet for all history to review that you don’t know the difference between blood and the liver, we don’t actually know what it is you are trying to say.

          How about you start afresh and put your full theory down?

          I’m betting that you won’t and will instead rant on about everyone being a fool but you.

          It’s a simple request, no strings attached. After all, that is what these forums are for, to present your evidence not your egotistical projections. Can you man up and accept the challenge?

          I doubt it because you don’t have anything solid, you severely lack a grasp of pathology and you’re more concerned with spreading hate and division. Kind of the exact opposite of what Jimi was about.

          I wouldn’t count on him being your friend with that approach.

          So, let’s see if there is actually anything you have to offer?

          • Scrum Drum says:

            Nice try L3Fi. All anyone has to do is look upthread to see we have done this repeatedly already. You have repeatedly entered off-point trolling crap while attempting to assume authority in the discussion with specious, evasive points that show you don’t have the first understanding of the evidence. While you are the one guilty of avoiding the coherent facts you have the trolling nerve to make that accusation against me.

            If you were honest (which you are not) you would admit that we have already done that and it was your turn. I made that clear in my last post. Instead of owning up to it and backing-up your input you once again enter the attempt to regain authority in the discussion while never entering anything to show that you’ve earned any right to do so. Sorry, but if you look at the thread you’ve already asked that question before and it has already been answered. The reason you ask it again is because it is all you have. It shows that you don’t have a clue about the evidence and it’s all you’re capable of. Even after it’s already been explained to you repeatedly.

            Meanwhile if you go back and re-read the thread you’ll see we got to the point where my arguments forced you to enter the claim that Jimi drank a large quantity of wine and vomited it right back out. That claim shows you have no credibility because any fool would know that Jimi Hendrix would not do such a stupid thing after taking a large dose of barbiturates. An honest person would admit that that foolish claim is evidence of your desperation and therefore the lack of credibility of your arguments. Besides, Jimi was found with lungs and stomach full of wine as Dr Bannister witnessed. So he never vomited any wine right back out as you claim. I’ll take your last post to be the indirect admission of that claim’s bogusness and it’s withdrawal that it is. You’re dishonest L3Fi because instead of admitting your wrongness you try to smear my arguments instead. In the meantime, while using this diversion you never own up to what conclusions the failure of your arguments leads us to.

            The reason you took-off before is because I asked you to calibrate your scenario with the forensic evolution of the main forensic components. You see this is serious business and you have to be able to live up to the bar when arguing at this level. Who are you trying to fool L3Fi? The reason you scooted is because you don’t have the first clue about the forensics and have no basic ability to argue them. I already posted above that the forensic evidence is a double-edged sword that cuts both ways and if you want to propose a theory on Jimi’s death you have to be able to back it up in forensic terms. It is quite obvious that when asked to do it you realized you couldn’t and took off. In my book that means you lost. So, really, why should I be fielding questions from somebody who already proved he can’t live up to the same demands himself? We did this already. If you remember we got to the point where it was your turn and you defaulted. If you bothered to read the thread above, I’ve already answered the questions you ask. Honestly, the real problem here is you don’t understand the answers when they are given. As L3Fi shows us, the main problem with murder deniers is their ignorance and basic inability to comprehend the forensic facts.

            Again, back up your stuff. Show me where I lack a grasp of pathology like you said. I’ve offered a clear set of forensic arguments connected to the direct numbers and math above. Please, show us by example and answer your own call for addressing the evidence directly. I’ve done that with you and you ran away. Do it with me and I’ll answer anything you can present (like I already have).

            Post your scenario of how Jimi died innocently and I’ll disprove it using the direct evidence. And don’t run away this time. You don’t seem to understand that the way this works is you also have a requirement to prove your accidental death scenario. So far, you are the one failing your own demands the most here.

          • L3Fi says:

            I can’t reply to your reply scrumdrum (must be a conspiracy to stop me eh?) so am replying here.

            I can easily prove Jimi died innocently, all the official records attest to the fact, check out his Death Certificate. The onus isn’t on the person agreeing with the official established version.

            Jimi was a druggie, that was what he did. hundreds of people, famous and not have testified to Jimi’s ingestion. He ran out of luck because guess what, he was a human being.

            As you clearly like your own words A LOT, I will now quote you to evidence how your logic is circular and contradictory:

            “Meanwhile if you go back and re-read the thread you’ll see we got to the point where my arguments forced you to enter the claim that Jimi drank a large quantity of wine and vomited it right back out. That claim shows you have no credibility because any fool would know that Jimi Hendrix would not do such a stupid thing after taking a large dose of barbiturates.”

            Well, you also said this “If you had a more credible approach you would realize Jimi took those pills and also downed a pint of whiskey”.

            So, in one post you say Jimi wouldn’t do such a stupid thing, then in an another you evidence the opposite.

            Hey Joe, guess what? Your words, your gallows.

  75. alien says:

    And if you stop insulting others too , all is ok.

    • Scrum Drum says:

      It’s obvious some people are making sensitivity excuses because of their cognitive dissonance over the evidence. It’s not OK. I assure you most of those in contempt of the facts still preserve a defiant resistance to the evidence and deny Jimi’s murder. This is a war. Official sources still pretend there’s a controversy, or even worse openly state Jimi OD’ed and the evidence is ‘conspiracy theory’. Don’t patronize me. The reason Jimi’s murder goes unaddressed is because of those who worry more about insults than justice. The biggest insult out there is the indifference of Jimi’s fans to his horrific victimization. Mostly because of their depravity and stupidity, which makes it even worse. Those Crosstown people are scum who don’t want Jimi’s murder to get in the way of their cheezy collector elitist self-glorification and souvenir grabbing. That site is just exclusive collectors trying to be the hottest Hendrix people on the planet but they’ve lost their souls in the process and kicked Jimi out on the street when he came to them for justice. They’ve gained the world in Jimi’s treasure but sold their souls and have nothing. All captained by Pat Peterson whoever the f*** he is. That’s the insult you should worry about. Of all the stupidity. I’m the only one who stood up for Jimi against the philistines, trolls, deniers and power Nazis and I have to answer stupid criticisms over table manners. Besides, if you look at the other side they don’t hesitate to insult, so that’s hypocrisy as well. Be honest. They’re not quiet because they’re resentful of insults. They’re quiet because they’ve been whipped in a debate and don’t want to admit they’re wrong. Dishonest people shouldn’t be allowed to be the judges or make excuses for their ignoring evidence.

      • Bradshaw says:

        Jimi was a great man, he lives on when we listen to his music
        His death was as tragedy as are so many.He wouldnt of wanted us to waste our time on death, But fighting for are own lives and doing what is wright.Amen god bless Jimi.

        • Scrum Drum says:

          There’s a lot of cowards out there who justify their own stupidity and indifference by saying Jimi would not have wanted us to do justice for him. I think most smart people can see the stupidity in that. Bradshaw should sign on to Crosstown Torrents. He’ll do well over there. I can’t think of anything more stupid than saying not fighting for Jimi against his murder is “doing what is right”. Talk about dumb.

  76. L3Fi says:

    Ooh, a typo (a real one), I meant to say: Hendrix was not immortal, his music IS and that’s what he wanted.

    So easily done isn’t it!

  77. L3fi says:

    My last post was on here for sevral hours and then it was removed. Yet my follow up, two sentence, edit note above remains?! Left totally without context…

    So, this is where my input ends. The ‘forum’ is all yours scrumdrum. Good luck all.

  78. Scrum Drum says:

    My post was also deleted. Its main point was that Jimi’s chugging of a pint of whiskey before the Arhus concert along with what Kirsten Nefer described as being a “handful” of barbiturates resulted in a blood alcohol content of 260mg. In this forensic situation Jimi showed a high tolerance for barbiturates because while the witnesses said Jimi was talking crazy and acting drunk he never passed-out and never ended up vomiting. If you use the Arhus event as analog you can see it works in favor of my forensic arguments because Jimi basically rode out a real case of alcohol and barbiturates with nothing more than a little embarrassment and a headache. This incident shows Jimi had a pretty good tolerance for secobarbital. That would also only work in favor of my drug behavior forensics – meaning Jimi would not be very likely to overdose in only 2 hours. 2 hours in to the Arhus event he would have had about a 180mg blood alcohol content at the same forensic point that he had a 5mg blood alcohol content the night he died. The reason I introduced the Arhus event is because it stands in such good contrast to the event on the night he died. The most important contrast is that Jimi did not end up dead with 5 bottles of wine in him at Arhus like he did at the Samarkand.

    Thank you. The board was always mine anyway since no one really offered anything to refute my evidence and arguments.

  79. L3fi says:

    Oh well in that case, I’ll put the deletion of my post down to a ‘glitch’ and not ‘subjective censorship’. Unfortunately, that means I have to remain in the game I’m afraid Mr Scrumdrum!

    So, let’s drive south…

    1.) How exactly do you ‘know’ Jimi’s blood alcohol content was 260mg before the Arhus concert?

    2.) Where did you (and Mike Jeffries apparently) get the ‘5 bottles of wine’ figure from?

    3.) Sharon Lawrence. Is she reliable or no?

  80. Scrum Drum says:

    Where this debate left off was you were required to enter the forensic data associated with your bogus claims that Jimi drank a large amount of wine after taking the pills but then vomited it right back out, explaining both the wine and low blood alcohol content. That claim was ludicrous to begin with and was disproven by the large amount of wine Dr Bannister witnessed as well the fact Jimi would never ingest barbiturates and then drink many bottles of wine. Not to mention the fact Monika mentioned nothing like this.

    This is where the debate left off and where you defaulted, lost, and quit. I take offense to your obnoxious, cutsie little Hendrix references in your denier posts. It shows you and your posts are not serious and not worth my time.

    1) British drunk driving website. “Blood alcohol calculator” feature on said site.

    2) Dr Bannister was quite clear. If you were sharp, however, you would realize the documented time it took at St Mary’s indicates a period of time equal to that needed to remove such a volume.

    3) Sharon is very reliable on her witnessing of Monika on September 19 and moreso on Monika admitting the wine shortly before her death. She is not reliable on her bogus claim that Jimi played cosmic russian roulette with 9 pills and committed suicide. Sharon was a mainstream media reporter so her influences and agenda are highly questionable. Especially since she attacks anyone who tries to discuss her claims.

  81. 1phd says:

    Ok, I’ve read through this entire article and thread. I even left a few comments earlier. I have two questions that it appears have never been really discussed. 1) Was Michael Jeffrey in London the night Jimi died or out of the Country as has been claimed? 2) Has anyone seen or been able to track down the alleged $2 million life insurance policy listing him as the beneficiary? Both of these would seem to be compelling pieces of evidence that have not been directly spoken to.

    • Scrum Drum says:

      1) Maybe. Right now Trixie Sullivan, Jeffery’s secretary, said he was with her in Majorca. Jeffery’s Electric Lady Studio manager, Jim Marron, said Jeffery was in Majorca at the time. Bob Levine, Jeffery’s New York office manager, said he spoke to people who said they saw Jeffery at the same party as Jimi the night he died. Whether Jeffery was actually in London really doesn’t matter since any well researched understanding of him would show he had gangland thugs who did his dirty work.

      2) No, as far as I know. But it wouldn’t make any difference because one analyst who looked in to this after Jeffery’s death said up to 5 million 1960’s dollars were missing from Jimi’s accounts. Jeffery, who was witnessed by employees being cash-strapped prior to Jimi’s death, was suddenly flush with cash and paying-off debts right after Jimi death. He gave Jimi’s father $250,000 in cash for Jimi’s share of the studio.

      I really wish you had asked me about the forensics. I’ve analyzed this to the point where it is obvious Jimi only had the Vesparax barbiturate in him for 2 hours at the most. When you look at the autopsy information there was not only too little alcohol to cause the assumed drug reaction but there was also too little time for Jimi to overdose.

      Dr Bannister and Dr Crompton are obviously accurately conveying their witnessing. When you correctly input this into the forensics it proves Jimi was murdered. Those who oppose this are obviously psychologically deviant personalities thinking up any kind of crap they can to deny it. Jimi died from being drowned in a large amount of wine that was poured down his throat after being deliberately incapacitated on barbiturates.

  82. UPLATE says:

    I think there are a lot of unanswered questions regarding the circumstances of Hendrix’s last hours . The more I read the more concerning the implications of the issue. I am thinking aloud….

    I was particulary struck by the testimomy of the ambulance drivers who recall the empty flat and Hendrix being on the bed fully clothed and having passed away.There are other details that are quite unpleasant, but point to the fact that Hendrix was already deceased.

    This does not seem to indicate that he intended to take pills and get some sleep. Normally one undresses and gets into bed-even if you are taking sleeping medication. A bit of an obvious statement, but the whole scenario points to something more sinister and additionaly both of the ambulance drivers state that they saw no woman matching Monika D at the flat. What conclusions can be drawn from that?

    I dont have access to the info that some have but I would like to know if there are any records kept regarding who took the ambulance call , when and what they may say regarding the details of the call.

    I think we can only really peice together a half sensible idea of what happened if we can get reliable witnesses who are perhaps more objectively led than Hendrix’s immediate asscociates at the time who may or not , for various reasons be able to.The ambulance drivers did not know who Hendrix was until later. So I can conclude that they in all probability were telling it as it was to the best of their knowledge and memory.

    I have no problem with concluding that Monika D’s statements are not great. I recall reading somewhere that she claimed to have made Jimi a fish sandwhich the night before his death. The doctors recall rice grains in the contents of his stomach- as an example.

    I dont know about his death being an organised one. They would have had to have known about the pills and by the same token a plan would have been hatched to get him to take them and so on. It would have had to have been an opportunist affair though. All though if it could be verified that Monika D did not have a legitimate perscription for them, as she claimed some questions are posed. Any plan would therefor have to be based four square on the tablets, and this could be seen as a bit unlikely. Monika D would have had to have volunteered these to persons concerned and worked out a plan on that basis. The more I think about this, the more unlikely the scenario is. She would have to have been a plant, equipped with these tablets and a story to follow. The wine adminstered afterwards for good measure.

    Without Monika D now with us to explain all that she really knew of those last hours we are a little stretched. I am of the opinion that she was probably not high on the list of his priorities at the time, but was nevertheless with her.albeit in a vulnerable position. I notice that in some of the footage of the Isle of White Festival, he appears gaunt and one could be clearly forgiven for thinking he was on some kind of stimulants. There is a lot of jaw angling, chewing, and licking of lips.These are signs of amphetamine use. I think as others have said, that Jimi was in a bad space in some ways. Things were changing for him and there were business and artistic issues effecting him. I suspect his normal drug use and lifestyle were not helping either. If he had of lived it may be that this would have had to have been addressed if he was to continue in his career.

    I dont think Hendrix may have been used to Barbituates as some claim he was. 9 tablets , are excessive by normal standards.and even if Hendrix had taken downers in the past, he could have lost tolerance over the time since the last dose. I dont recall anyone in claiming Jimi was big on downers, there is plenty of evidence that he took LSD and smoked pot though. Jimi could I imagine get plenty of the “good stuff” with out having to rely on other peoples perscriptions!

    It is quite possible that he took the tablets as a matter of course, but was not aware of how strong they were- I dont recall any detail of her saying anything about this, only that she noticed they (as she claims) some were missing.Which implies she wanted to imply that she had no knowlege of his taking them. This leads me to ask about how Hendrix knew they were available and felt led to take them with out asking her first? If indeed he took them willingly allbiet unwisely.

    It could be he was in a vulnerable and suggestive state, apt to misjudge things and was given these tablets unwisely and without due consideration of the implications. But having said this, we have to consider the wine issue. This puts a whole new slant on the affair. I read elswhere that because there was so much wine in evidence and so little in Hendrix’s blood, it could be concluded this was given him after the tablets. These had time to be absorbed, but not the wine. In fact it has been postulated that Hendrix could not have been able to physicaly drink anything as he would have been rendered unconscouse by that time, because of the Vesperax. All it could do was what it did- drown him.

    I read somebody theorizing that there was some kind of wild party at the flat, and that people were out of it, pouring wine into a sleeping Hendrix, who had already taken the tablets. I dont know really. Stuff like that does happen at Parties. I know of similar things happening when people get out of order. A long shot I suppose…. I have said on another similar website that the first casualty of drug problems is the truth- and I got shot down for it.

    In the end I have to agree that Hendrix’s death is at the very least, mysterious and unpleasant and there is a real sense of non closure on the real nature of how it was he came to be in the poisiton he was found in. Fully clothed, alone with apparently wine administered in a state he could not have done so himself being virtually comatosed. The question is, really was this a deliberate murder, opportunist of planned, or some other act by irresponsible parties ? who will not come out and admit to what had happened.

    • Noah Dillon says:

      Dude, junkies overdose fully clothed all the time. Lots of people lie around on their beds without undressing, like I’m doing now. Whether or not he was going to sleep (which, also, some people sleep in their clothes sometimes) doesn’t point to anything sinister. Unanswered questions don’t automatically suggest conspiracies. Nothing that you point to (fish and rice, clothed, paramedics seeing someone around or not) points to murder.

      • Scrum Drum says:

        Yes it does. Your statement is too general and doesn’t give credible notice to the correctly oriented facts or what they collectively suggest. For instance Jimi taking 9 of the most powerful sleeping pills on the market might have something to do with his being found in his clothes. What counts is Monika Dannemann’s statement that Jim and her went to bed and were talking. This suggests they took their clothes off and went under the covers. The real evidence doesn’t show that and Monika never mentioned anything about Jimi still being dressed. I’ll cut to the chase here as a person who has studied this deeply. Monika was lying about going to bed, or if she did lay on the bed with Jimi it was after he had taken a dangerous dose he wasn’t aware of at around 3:30am.

        You can’t just nitpick the evidence piecemeal and deny it point by point. The arguments above are clearly stated as a gathering of the collective evidence. If you analyze how that evidence all fits a covert murder it very much does constitute evidence. In fact, sometimes unanswered questions do point to conspiracies. For instance, like those questions you didn’t answer in your grossly-oversimplified response. If you read my entries above there’s a good case for homicide in the correctly-rendered forensics. Something the British Inquest never did.

    • Scrum Drum says:

      I suggest you learn more about this before offering uneducated speculation gotten from reading the thread. I’ve been researching this for several years and it’s obvious you are offering an armchair opinion after perusing the basics. There’s a lot more to it than your entry allows.

      First, where do you grant yourself the right to just wave off the idea that Jimi’s death was an organized one? There’s serious reasons to think it was a highly planned, subtle covert operation that used foreign language label pills intentionally so the target would not know their strength. Monika and her background smell to high heaven. Jimi’s manager was MI-6 and trained in such covert methods that would kill without leaving any marks on the body and appear like a drug overdose. You have to understand that once Jimi was on FBI’s Security Index under Nixon and Hoover that his chances of being targeted by such an operation went up exponentially. Plus the lack of any serious inquiry also smacks of organization. It’s nice you offer your opinion, but forgive me if I stay with what all the incriminating evidence points towards for those with the knowledge to detect it.

      Jimi was under enormous stress from his problems with Michael Jeffery. He was doing too much cocaine and getting too little sleep. Your observation is useless because it doesn’t fathom how the things you point out were directly connected to Jeffery. The state you so judgingly cite led directly to Jimi firing Jeffery and Jeffery murdering Jimi in return. You seem to be blaming Jimi for that.

      Jimi’s tolerance to barbiturates was well known amongst his friends. You are just an internet expert coming in to offer his ignorant opinion. Jimi’s famed tolerance was well known and was equally a part of the formula that night as far as the forensics. Forgive me if I don’t take the opinion of someone who obviously doesn’t know what he is talking about.

      You could have saved us the idle speculation and just wrote your last paragraph. First, no one poured 5 bottles of wine into Jimi at any wild party. To believe that is to believe a child’s tale that ignores the common sense that most adults would realize such an act would be murder and wouldn’t do it. So, yes, the forensic conflict between the amount of wine flooding the body and blood alcohol content does constitute evidence of foul play. It just doesn’t go past that.

      In a few months something is going to come out that puts all this idle speculation to rest once and for all. People who simply stroll in and say “I don’t think so” will be shown to be the ignorant doubters they are whose lack of knowledge leads them to foolish statements.

      • George Kanakaris says:

        Cocaine ? Really ?

        • Scrum Drum says:

          The cocaine was probably mostly in New York seeing how it would probably be less available in England. However I think someone said Jimi snorted some cocaine behind the speakers at Isle of Wight. Kathy witnessed Jimi withdrawing from something at the Londonderry Hotel when he arrived. Probably mostly cocaine with probably a small element of heroin. But UPLATE makes a specious, out of context remark about Jimi’s drug use because it has very little to do with the forensic circumstances involved with Jimi’s death. Sure his drug use was somewhat unadvisable, but his stress over Jeffery was definitely a big part of it that UPLATE ignores. Jimi asked the producer at Arhus for some cocaine.

          George, with all the evidence for murder is that the best you can do as far as a response?

          • George Kanakaris says:

            No , just wondering.

          • George Kanakaris says:

            I never believed in the suicide option , he had too many plans for October 1970.
            On the other hand , his remarks ‘…if we can get over this summer he he he…’ on January 1970 shows he knew something was coming.

          • Noah Dillon says:

            Something like a lot of work, recording, touring, and likely exhaustion?

          • Scrum Drum says:

            More likely one of the long hot summers of the ’60’s with their riots and protests that increased with the warm weather and only exacerbated things with the heat. If you look at Jimi’s FBI file, FBI tried to connect Jimi to those troubles and comments like Jimi’s only made it worse. This was all part of what got him killed.

  83. uplateagain. says:

    I said in my comment that I was thinking aloud, just going over the theories and things I have read down the years since about 1983/3. It is speculative and I am not sayiing its true even, but it is not idle.Yes I refer generaly to Jimi’s drug use. The fact that he was in a drug using culture, is a catalyst in the process that lead to his death. Also there was his appetite for women, wether or not they were good for him or not.

    Many would agree that this would have given fertile ground on which to generate a murder plan make it look like something he did to himself. I dont dispute this. However, why bother with sleeping pills, why not a heroin overdose? You mention the speedball detox he was going through when he arrived in the UK. I read about this too, apparently he had to stay in a hotel room for a while to get it together. Other drugs were available to him and they could have done the job equally as well, if not better and no complications or awkward questions would have been asked.

    There is a consensus amoung many of us who are fans of Jimi, that there was foul play, But all we have are the various sources of information that are coming to light and so on. I am aware of these and refer to them. I have not just jumped on the thread. You clearly have more access and more of these to hand, but in this please be respectful to those of us who dont, but still can go through a process of thought based on what they have seen and read. Even it is ultimately incorrect. It is all part of the process. No need for over the top implications as to the nature of my thoughts..”I suggest you learn more about this before offering uneducated speculation gotten from reading the thread.”, is not really fair I have been a fan since the early eighties and have read quite a lot of stuff-not just this thread.

    I did not go into Mike Jefferies I admit, there are other players and facts that should be considered and I did not do this. However, quite apart from this site, I had read previously that Mike Jefferies was actually in Spain at the time of Hendrix’s death. That does not mean he could not have been the mastermind behind the affair, but as I said before this would have had to have been an organised plot .

    If my reading of the facts are right Jimi mentioned, that he was getting rid of Mike Jefferies during the time of the ill fated tour. This only lasted about a fortnight, so he would have had to have moved rather quickly to get things done.

    Simply,

    Monika would have to have been conscripted and been a kind of long term “sleeping” partner with Jefferies and was made live once Jefferies knew of Hendrix’s intentions. I am aware that Monika had previously met Jimi a year or so before they met again in early september 1970

    She would have to have been certain of engaging Jimi in a relationship that would allow her to dictate circumstances to allow her to procecute the murder and use the methodology concerned ie sleeping tablets from Germany.And then to have a narrative of the events that make it look like an accidental overdose or a suicide. Its a bit like she carried the tablets around as one does a loaded gun knowing that she is waiting for the opportunity to use them. I accept though that Jefferies as the Road Manager could have played a part in organising gigs in Germany where it would be very easy to link up with Monika again.

    This is a bit of an uncertain base on which to get to Jimi, he could have just as well as ignored her or not picked up the thread of the relationship or really wanted to take her tablets.

    On the other hand one could say, that she could have been very inovative and was trained to use what ever method and opportunity she was afforded. There may have been several options open to the parties involved. I have not read up about the relationship, and you may well have info that it was strong enough to gain the ground neccasary to achive the end. It could be postulated that Monika was skilled in manipulating and used phycological methods to get a grip on Jimi at the time.

    It is apparent that Devon Wilson who had a relationship with Jimi had also arrived in London with an entorage. It is also evident that Jimi had contact with that group- I dont know if my memory serves me here, but I read a couple of years ago that Jimi was in attendance at a Party with these people shortly before his death. Apparently Monika was outside pining for him to leave the venue and there was an argument of some kind?

    In one hendrix biography the author maintains that the realationship with Devon was by Jimi’s Standards the most enduring one. The fact that she came to the UK is testament to this. I think that Monikas relationship to him was exagerated and less than she maintains.

    I dont know if you have any thoughts on some of the roles or import others associtated with Jimi at the time may have in the events.

    However, thanks for your reply I appreciate constructive criticism and I look forward to the revelations that are coming out which you alude to.

  84. Scrum Drum says:

    Jimi was most likely targeted by a CIA political assassination black operation that manipulated Michael Jeffery’s problems with Jimi into a situation where they could induce Jeffery to murder Jimi by pulling the strings to compromise Jeffery so badly that he would be forced to do it. If you read CIA’s self descriptions from their formation they said they had a license of “plausible deniability”. Getting MI-6 Jeffery to murder Jimi would not be hard since he was intel trained and not likely to refuse any orders from people he knew would kill him with impunity. The situation was so well crafted and Jeffery was so perfectly compromised that no orders were probably even necessary. If you read the FBI files for their CHAOS Program they said they intended to kill targeted individuals by creating conflicts amongst their friends and rivals that would induce others to kill them. It’s right there in their files.

    People like you tend to anger me because you brushed off the idea of an organized operation in your first post but then entered information in your second post showing you had knowledge that suggested otherwise. In my mind you don’t even have to look at the machinery of the plot itself to realize this. You can just look at the British Government’s flagrant disinterest to understand how that obvious organization was so obvious that it required such a blatant cover-up of openly-available evidence. That’s organization in itself that requires much more response than “thinking out loud” if you’ll allow me. The British Government needs to be sued hard on this. They got away with legal murder and are still doing so at their own word.

    Even a first year detective would not miss the fact that Monika’s desperation to get Jimi out of both the Harvey and Kameron parties was a sure sign she was tasked to keep Jimi within the sphere of control of the Samarkand death trap. It pisses me off that people deliberately prefer to remain dumb on this instead of seeing the obvious.

    Why not use heroin? Because Jimi would be more likely to take sleeping pills at bed time than heroin. A CIA operative telling him they were weak German pills that you needed to take more of would be much more likely to succeed in their mission than someone trying to hot shot him. This modus operandi smacks of intel because of its subtleness. But it also guarantees the needed result because the murderers are there, hands on, making sure the victim is dead by drowning. Don’t think the people who did these things didn’t study their targets. Be smart. Once you realize that they also similarly formulated Devon Wilson’s death the organization becomes painfully apparent.

  85. Notupsolate says:

    I appreciate your taking the time to reply . Dont be angry though, I am not trying to provoke this in anyone. I have knowlege, but I am just trying to process and formulate it by putting out there for modulation. I learn from this and as I say it helps me to reconsider my position on things.

  86. Uplate says:

    I was wondering why Devon Wilson is cited as a target? Her sphere of influence appears only to have been with Hendrix himself. Her and Kathy Etchingham appear to be the only long term girlfriends that he had. At least in the books and articles I have seen they are the ones who seem prominent.

    Devons death appears to be due to her herioin habit-at least that is how it seems on the surface of things. What possible threat could she have been to anyone?

    I can understand Hendrix being seen by the powers that be, as a powerful influence over young people and possibly detrimental to the establishment.in their eyes. Back then I suppose the governing powers were not so liberated as they are now. You might recall the ad hoc interview on the Isle of Wight Festival footage where the pipe smoking ex naval inteligence officer concludes that the festival was not just “hippy fun”, but had behind it all Black Power and Communism.That post war conservative generation has gone. If they were still here they would have to kill off almost all the pop icons of our era. All of them do more things in a month than Hendrix did in 3 years.

    If Hendrix was murdered by black ops , they were wasting their time. One only has to see the development of the pop culture and society afterwards till now. IT ACHIEVED NOTHING. They only succeeded in creating an Icon and Martyr of him and his influence increased all the more. This alone makes me wonder if they are as clever as people make out. Or as may well be the case- That Hendrix’s death has as yet open questions that are not linked to Black Ops. I personally think that it can be theorized that they can be explained partly by the chaos and party life style and culture of the time. Also some dishonesy/ irresponsibility about what really happened at the time by people who were close to him.

    We make a mistake possibly if we are working on the assumption that all involved were mature adults making astute decisions . It appears to me to be a right mess. An aborted European tour, which apparently seemed to down to drug issues with one of the musicians, or a nervous breakdown of some kind. Depending on the sources. There were pressures to provide new records. There had only been one LP that year and there were issues with the film that had been made of the Albert Hall Concert. The detail of which you can hear Hendrix discussing with the road manager on the” Wild Blue Ange”l CD, just before Hendrix goes on stage. Also Jimi asking if the the gig also was going to be recorded. A funny time to be discussing things like that? To me it seems that there was lack in communication and everything to me smacks of disorganisation and procrastination. The bits seem to be falling off all the time and the rudder of it all with the rest.

    Hendrix seemed to be playing less than his best at times and clearly having issues with chemical dependancy or at least heavy use. Kathy Etchingham said that at the time he was going preaturely grey and appeared to be just bumbling along. He was unsettled and unsure- Apparently he had contacted Chas Chandler again about recording in the UK and had to be reminded about the expensive studio he had built in New York. This is cited by his sound enginner I think on the above CD.

    The Last 24 hours are exactly the same ilk, parties, drugs, people saying they watched him drink down a small bottle of whisky, others saying he drank red wine from a pint glass, others saying he was doing a lot of speed, he was unwell etc etc. We can assume that some of this has some truth to it.

    Many say that Hendrix was on the verge of new phase of his career. I dont see it on the strength of the evidence. It seems very much like everyone was struggling to keep it all going particularly Hendrix himself and at at best he had reached block in the road. He would have needed new sensible management, times were changing and so was the industry and quite possibly, it would have taken quite a lot of effort and support for him to have overcome his issues and got back on track and maintained some popularity. People were not going to wait around for him indefinitely. I can quite understand people running out of patience and believing that his death would be the best possible outcome to ensure financial and personal ambitions did not wane with his career.

    The one person who can answer the questions accurately about that night is not with us any more.

    • George Kanakaris says:

      ‘Many say that Hendrix was on the verge of new phase of his career. I dont see it on the strength of the evidence. ‘
      Nonsense.Do you have any idea on how many songs he was working on during the last monhts of his life ?
      Most musicians can only dream of having a fraction of these.

  87. Scrum Drum says:

    Uplate, since you admit you aren’t very well researched on this why don’t you spare us your ill-informed ruminations. Your submission that today’s stars commit more threats to government in one month than Jimi did in three years is laughable considering how neutralized and bland today’s stars are. You can’t compare the eras as you do. I don’t like what you’re doing here because your material suggests you should know better but you still insist on entering inanities like this. Jimi existed under COINTELPRO, Nixon, Hoover, and a Woodstock generation that succeeded in forcing the US government out of Viet Nam. My God, are you seriously trying to say Justin Bieber makes Jimi look like a boy scout??? You’re not giving credible recognition to the era or its murderous programs.

    Surely you’re joking. The 60’s era crashed right after they killed Jimi. I can tell what a martyr Jimi is by how many people come forward to defend him against his murder. There were plenty of other martyrs besides Jimi. The current brain dead neutralized public in combination with our authoritarian western governments makes sure there’s no affect. That is a more accurate description of the situation rather than your taunting disagreement. You say there were other reasons for Jimi’s death besides black ops but then ignore the undeniable evidence above. Both the covert type of death and cover-up shows a pattern of government involvement that would not be done for those others. Those others could not get the British government to cover up as badly as they did. The pattern clearly shows a need to cover up a covert assassination. You’re doing your best to blame it on Jimi and his 60’s friends. That would be a good present day neo-con preference, however it doesn’t answer to the motives that clearly prevail.

    All of Jimi’s actions in those final days can be tied to his battle with Michael Jeffery and attempts to separate from him. To regress to neo-con like defamation over Jimi’s lifestyle and peers is to do insult to what has already been shown. It is lesser, lower quality analysis being offered in the face of better analysis while always trying to trend towards blaming Jimi, while ignoring the pressing evidence.

    The statement “People were not going to wait around for him indefinitely” is a sordid defamation and wrongfully inaccurate in context – once again trying to blame the victim. I realize it comes from a person trying to get around the murder evidence who also doesn’t know what he’s talking about, however any examination of the facts would show Jimi was actively busy trying to fire Jeffery in his last week. Uplate is trying to make Jimi look like a drug-addled star putting a drag on his management, but that’s nowhere near the truth just as much as his “pint of wine” reference above, from Meic Stevens’ bogus account, isn’t either. Uplate is simply credulous because he suggests that by overcoming the drug problems he contrives that Jimi, with new management, might eventually get his popularity back. That is laughable because Jimi was, at the time, a person who could literally demand any concert he desired anywhere in the world and get top dollar for it. At best, Uplate offers dishonest out of context defamation that takes advantage of the fact Jimi was murdered.

    Uplate then confirms his contempt for Jimi by saying:

    ” People were not going to wait around for him indefinitely. I can quite understand people running out of patience and believing that his death would be the best possible outcome to ensure financial and personal ambitions did not wane with his career. ”

    Even Uplate quaintly agrees Jimi was at fault and had it coming. All perfectly understandable to him. I think the perverse morality involved with this statement should be obvious to most normal people. You know, Jimi failed the expectations of his criminal MI-6 manager who was ripping him off for millions and may have had him kidnapped. The statement is quite Nazi in its depravity. The statement makes perfect sense if you don’t mind a wonder of the world guitar genius being murdered by a sleazy manager.

    You don’t need Jimi to prove all this. There’s plenty of proof for people who aren’t avoiding it with the depraved nonsense Uplate offers here.

  88. I’d seen a photo of Hendrix in ‘Crawdaddy in 1967 and followed his career closely long after that shocking morning in September of 1970. My own astrological profile actually paralleled Jimi’s, so the typical mainstream ‘reverse-whitewash’ defamation seemed doubly insulting, like a ‘Spinal Tap’ joke. Jimi was almost certainly murdered by water-boarding. Mike Jeffrey, clearly suspicious, was however, reportedly in Majorca when Jimi was killed. Supposedly, members of his road crew were, for some reason, at the scene of the crime. Jeffrey died? a year later. Devon Wilson – suicide? in New York. Monika Danneman – suicide England. Emotional remarks from Buddy Miles, accusing Jeffrey are also quite telling. Still mystery enshrouds the whole story. Thanks for this heartfelt thread! Here’s my own video ‘two cents’. -Steevo66. http://youtu.be/UgArd6vQYd0

  89. A.Nonymous says:

    Jimi

    “Purple Haze, Jesus saves,” sang Jimi,
    But how could he have known that time would change the lyrics to his song,
    And irony would mock the meaning of his former words
    As if by twist of fate to prove him wrong,
    That he himself would soon become the sacrificial lamb,
    The truth by which he lived engulfed in treachery and sham.

    No, Jimi was not the first in line to be led down the primrose path,
    Nor will he be the last,
    As long as there are hypocrites and worshipers of the golden calf;
    And although the holy covenant foretells a promised land,
    The tragedy of Jimi’s life begs questions that still stand:

    Do we have to die in order to be saved?
    Is that the meaning of the cross?
    Must we follow Jimi to the grave,
    To be martyred for another’s loss?
    And where and how did the problem begin –
    Isn’t that what some people call the “original sin?”

    Those who know don’t speak.
    Those who speak don’t know.
    Was the Buddha only deceiving us then?
    Was his Dhamma nothing but a passing show?

    It all depends on one’s perspective:
    Don’t try to speak unless you’re really dead,
    And if you want to kill the Buddha,
    Then kill Jimi instead.

  90. Scrum Drum says:

    The poster JHendrixFanatic at Crosstown said he saw this site and liked the article. He then mocked me saying he got a laugh out of my entries. This, of course, suggests that I’m some kind of laughable goof worthy of his ridicule and contempt and that he, of course, is some kind of credible opinion. The poster Alien wanted to engage in debate about it on Crosstown but was quickly shut down by the bully tag team that always shows up when the murder topic is mentioned on that site. The implication being that they have already had the final say on this and their silence is measured disregard for something that they have proven is no longer worthy of discussion due to their superior input. Both JHendrixFanatic and Mourningstar are obviously dishonest cowards because there’s serious information I’ve shown in this thread that is way beyond the simple level they deal at. Any fool could see that the reason they shut down the subject so quickly is because they are aware of that and need to get that which disproves them out of sight as quickly as possible. When they can’t outright censor, like they did me on their pathetically uncredible site, they simply ignore. The reason you don’t see those cowards come over here to defend their viewpoint and back it up in honest discussion is because they know they can’t. You’ll never see them venture over here away from the safety of their bully den because they know they won’t last long in any honest debate where the moderators don’t troll and abuse their authority. JHendrixFanatic mentions the Crosstown poster STPLSD as if he had credibly refuted my arguments. Any fool could see STPLSD is a rabid troll who will say and do anything to deny the murder evidence. Any look at this thread will show I won hands down. So much so that the opposition quit and gave up on their denial nonsense. While JHendrixFanatic mocks me after safely banning me he hasn’t and won’t shown anything credible to back up that opinion because he can’t. There’s a very simple rule of thumb here. The evidence for Jimi’s murder is so obvious that anyone who stays silent on it isn’t credible. Especially a group of pretentious creeps who dare run the internet’s only Hendrix website and allow 18 year olds to ban some of the world’s most credible experts. It’s obvious those Crosstown creeps are content with the current enforced silence on the murder topic on that site because it helps guard their stupidity, cowardice, and contempt. It’s pretty obvious that the Crosstown site is a group of cowards who don’t want to draw any heat on their MP-3 pirating by discussing a dangerous topic. What pisses me off is when those obvious fools refer to themselves as the best of the Hendrix world. They obviously have zero respect for Jimi. Both Scrum Drum and Jimi get kicked to the alley way and banned while those fools celebrate their depraved site and what great Hendrix fans they are. I can’t think of anything dumber or more cowardly. Come over here like a real man JHendrixFanatic and back up your words. Show us what your laughter is worth.

    • Flyswatter says:

      Scrum Drum, you know that JHendrixFanatic won’t come to an open discussion such as this and debate the subject about Jimi’s death. But, we know the fuse has been lit on a major bomb that’s going have JHendrixFanatic’s laughter dying in sorrow. Oh, and the “rigor mortis” strawman that CT members like to hump up their neighbors dog over, is going to be obliterated by an autopsy report of a particularly interesting casualty, soon enough….soon enough.

      • Scrum Drum says:

        Those jerks don’t really care whether their rigor arguments are sound or not. They’re just looking for the nearest object to throw in order to beat the topic down. It’s an insult to Jimi to have a majority of murder-denying bullies and dummies in charge of the Hendrix internet but they don’t care. They’re not in it for Jimi they’re in it for themselves. For instance look at L3Fi. He’s making a clownish argument that Jimi drank a huge amount of wine and vomited it right back out just before passing out. He doesn’t believe it himself, he’s just using it to troll. L3Fi has no respect for Jimi. I think there was a Ferguson in London in 1970.

        By the way, watch out. The Skeptoid site has language standards they enforce with moderation, just as an FYI.

        • Flyswatter says:

          As for Jimi drinking wine before passing out, that’s impossible with a barbiturate blood level of 0.7mg/100ml — that’s enough to sedate an African Cape Buffalo. That means that Jimi was quite incapacitated and could not have drank wine on his own. And there is no proof Jimi voluntarily took those 9 Vesparax.

  91. The Blue Bus says:

    The Blue Bus covered this topic and played some of his music on our Sept 18th program marking the 44th anniversary of his death. We also covered the topic on our program broadcast coming up Nov 27, 2014 on Thanksgiving and Jimi’s 72nd birthday broadcast. Here is Tappy Wright’s radio interview on Coast to Coast radio. http://www.mixcloud.com/just-forest/tappy-wright-claims-jimi-hendrix-was-murdered-on-coast-to-coast-radio/

  92. Scrum Drum says:

    I went to the Sept 18 link for Blue Bus but all I could find was an archived music program link. No talk about Jimi’s death. This is still an active case that still needs to be correctly prosecuted. Thanks for being one of the rare minority that sees the truth in this.

    • The Blue Bus says:

      The Blue Bus is a hosted music program and the part where we discuss Jimi’s death and then play a set of his music begins at the 2:11 point of the program during the last fthirty minutes or so of that 9.18.14 broadcast. We also have now Tappy Wright’s 14 minute interview from Coast to Coast radio posted, which is all talk and no music.

  93. Gadesh says:

    Well Josh, I don’t think you thought you would open up a can of worms like this one when you posted your original article. Well done for providing a board for debate and despite some insensitive comments by some, a worthy debate. Even if we knew the truth about Jimi’s death…..we probably still wouldn’t all believe it. I am just thankful that I was around when Jimi was and know how much his music changed my life. However his passing, his legacy of colour with sounds will always live on.

    • Scrum Drum says:

      Not really a worthy debate. You can see most of the opposition are trolls or deniers who ignore evidence, mock, offer silly arguments, and then get out of town quickly before they have to answer anything. They never offered any legitimate position and never made any attempt to seriously look at the evidence. Josh himself said he would get back to me with his reply. He never did. Though I agree he is more tolerant than most and thank him.

      I have very little patience for people like Gadesh. They don’t really offer anything and try to make it sound OK to move on. Meanwhile this case needs action and justice and is still very provable. The british should really stay out of this since all they offer is this kind of thing. They are false praisers who are afraid to confront the evil edict existing in England preventing exposure of Jimi’s murder and cover up.

      • Flyswatter says:

        Not to worry, as we already know the fuse has been lit on a major bomb that obliterates the “accidental death/OD” scenario and that nobody anywhere in the world will be able to provide substantial refutation to it.

  94. ‘ The british should really stay out of this’
    What do you mean by this ?

    • Scrum Drum says:

      I’ve been arguing this on the internet for years. Most of the worst opposition are brits. I would say at least 80% of the worst rabid opposers and deniers are brits. They are vicious in their hatred and contempt for the topic. I think it’s obvious that they have a vested interest in not admitting their nation was the one that destroyed a wonder of the world guitarist. A brit named ‘Fender’s Fingers’ banned me from Crosstown Torrents for telling the truth about Jimi’s murder. He banned me because I refused to accept that site’s moronic tolerance of trolls and goofs entering crap under the guise that they deserved a right to their opinion and that somehow I was violating their rights by showing what utter stupidity they were entering. I mean who do they think they are fooling? It’s obvious a group of scum have seized the Hendrix world on the internet and just don’t want to be reminded of their indifference because it gets in the way of their MP-3 pirating. It was a brit who banned me in order to enforce the silence enforced on Jimi’s murder in England.

      You ask some pretty dumb questions George. You were also quickly shut down by those people when you tried to bring the subject up.

      The brits have already had their turn on this. In fact I think this British syndrome has something to do with not only Jimi’s murder in the first place but also its lack of investigation. This goes beyond Britain to the international terror and murderous impunity of western intelligence agencies. Those Crosstown bozos are too stupid to understand what a mortal insult they do to Jimi and should never be allowed to be in control of the Hendrix internet.

  95. Wishing Justice says:

    Scrum Drum, You have the voice of sanity as concerns this matter. Thank you because you are humane.

    • Scrum Drum says:

      Thanks, but to be honest with you that and two bits gets you a cup of coffee, ridicule, knee-jerk opposition from Hendrix fan scum, and banning from idiots who should never be allowed to be moderators on or own any Hendrix website. Funny you say that because I just saw someone respond to one of my posts on another site by saying I was insane. No detailed answer to my points, of course, just that I was insane. I think those of us who are more credible know what’s crazy here.

  96. Scrum Drum says:

    LET’S LOOK AT JOSH’S CLAIMS ABOUT THE WINE FROM THE ORIGINAL ARTICLE:

    ” The third claim is that Hendrix was discovered with an impossibly huge amount of red wine in his hair, lungs, and stomach. This idea appears to originate from interviews with John Bannister, who was one of the doctors that treated Hendrix at the now closed St Mary Abbott’s Hospital. In various interviews, Bannister has claimed that he spent over half an hour extracting wine from Hendrix’s body. “The amount of wine that was over him was just extraordinary. Not only was it saturated right through his hair and shirt but his lungs and stomach were absolutely full of wine,” he said.(7) Of all the hospital personnel who dealt with Hendrix that night, Dr. Bannister is the only person who claims to have seen any red wine in or on the body. ”

    THIS IS ONLY TRUE IF YOU HONOR JOSH’S SHALLOW ANALYSIS AND DON’T ASK ANY BASIC INTELLIGENT INVESTIGATORY QUESTIONS. JOSH SEEMS LIKE A PRETTY INTELLIGENT KID SO YOU HAVE TO ASK WHY HE DIDN’T ASK THESE BASIC OBVIOUS QUESTIONS HIMSELF? THE FIRST THING YOU HAVE TO REALIZE IS WE HAVE MADE A FIRM CASE ABOVE THAT DR SEIFERT WAS CAUGHT LYING. WE HAVE PROVEN THAT DR SEIFERT TOLD TWO DIAMETRICALLY OPPOSITE STORIES ABOUT WHAT HE WITNESSED. THEREFORE WE HAVE REASON TO BELIEVE DR SEIFERT COVERED UP. THE READER ISN’T AWARE OF THIS BECAUSE JOSH NEVER MENTIONS IT. NEXT, IF SCOTLAND YARD WAS TRULY CURIOUS OVER HOW JIMI DIED ALL THEY HAD TO DO WAS GO OUT AND FIND THE ATTENDING NURSES. THIS IS BASIC INVESTIGATION PROCEDURE THAT ANY POLICE AGENCY WOULD AUTOMATICALLY DO IN ANY GENUINE INVESTIGATION. IT’S VERY OBVIOUS THE REASON THAT SCOTLAND YARD MADE NO ATTEMPT TO LOCATE THESE CONFIRMING WITNESSES IS BECAUSE THEY DIDN’T WANT TO HEAR WHAT THEY WITNESSED. THIS IS CLEAR EVIDENCE OF A COVER UP. JOSH DISMISSES DR BANNISTER BUT NEVER MENTIONS THESE OBVIOUS THINGS THAT VINDICATE HIM AND BOLSTER HIS WITNESSING.

    ” Ambulance attendants Jones and Suau didn’t see any red wine when they arrived at the flat, and the man who conducted the post mortem of the body, Dr. Seifert, didn’t notice any signs of alcohol.(8) ”

    DR SEIFERT IS LYING AS WE’VE MORE THAN REASONABLY SHOWN. JOSH JUST TAKES EVERYONE AT THEIR WORD AND NEVER CONSIDERS THAT DR SEIFERT MIGHT BE COOPERATING IN THE COVER UP OF A MURDER. THIS ALONE INVALIDATES JOSH’S SKEPTOID APPROACH AS WELL AS CAESAR GLEBBEEK’S. THERE’S TWO REASONS WHY THE AMBULANCE ATTENDANTS DIDN’T MENTION ANY WINE. THE FIRST IS BECAUSE WHEN THEY ARRIVED THE WINE DID NOT HAVE ANY INCRIMINATING CONTEXT AND WAS JUST GENERALLY REFERRED TO AS “VOMIT”. WHEN YOU WENT OUT WITH FRIENDS IN COLLEGE AND THEY PUKED YOU DIDN’T SAY THEY “WINED”, YOU SAID THEY “VOMITED”. WELL THAT HOLDS TRUE HERE AS WELL. THE SECOND REASON IS BECAUSE THE SOLID DRY PLUG OF VOMIT THE ATTENDANTS WITNESSED BLOCKING JIMI’S WINDPIPE HAD CORKED-IN THE LARGE AMOUNT OF WINE IN JIMI’S LUNGS. THAT WINE WAS NOT VISIBLE TO THE ATTENDANTS BECAUSE OF THIS. SO JOSH’S CLAIM THAT THE ATTENDANTS DIDN’T WITNESS ANY WINE IS NOT NECESSARY MEANINGFUL OR TRUE. DENIERS REPEAT THIS FALLACY WHEN THEY SAY THE AUTOPSY WITNESSED NO WINE. THESE CLAIMS ARE MORE INDICTMENTS OF DENIERS AND THEIR METHODS THAN ANYTHING ELSE. THE DEEPER ANALYSIS OF THE INCIDENT JOSH AVOIDS PROVES THIS.

    ” Strangely, Dr. Bannister said that he remembered being perplexed by the length of the body, claiming that it was hanging over the table “by about 10 inches.” This is suspicious because Hendrix was only 5’11; he wasn’t short, but by no means was he a giant. It seems plausible that Dr. Bannister was confusing Hendrix with another patient. ”

    IT’S NOT AT ALL PLAUSIBLE. THIS IS JUST FISHING EXCUSE-MAKING AGAINST THE REST OF THE EVIDENCE. WE KNOW DR BANNISTER TREATED JIMI HENDRIX ON THAT DAY. WE KNOW DR BANNISTER KNEW THAT DAY IT WAS HENDRIX AND ASSOCIATED THIS PATIENT WITH THE HUGE SURGE OF MEDIA INTEREST THAT FOLLOWED. THIS IS SILLY BECAUSE ANY STEP AWAY FROM THIS OBVIOUS EXCUSE-MAKING WOULD REALIZE THAT FOR IT TO BE ANOTHER PERSON WOULD MEAN THAT ALL THOSE INVOLVED FAILED TO COME FORWARD AND SAY, “NO, I REMEMBER IT WAS THIS OTHER PATIENT WHO CAME IN DROWNED IN WINE AT THAT TIME OF THE DAY WITH ALL THE SAME PEOPLE INVOLVED”. IT’S SILLY TO THINK YOU CAN SEPARATE CLEARLY-REMEMBERED DR SEIFERT FROM THIS MEMORY FOR, CLEARLY, DR BANNISTER REMEMBERS DR SEIFERT WORKING ON HIM AS WELL. SO WHY DIDN’T DR SEIFERT REMEMBER THIS OTHER TALL MYSTERY PATIENT WHO WAS DROWNED IN WINE? THE REASON NO ONE HAS EVER DONE THAT IS BECAUSE THERE IS NO OTHER SUCH PERSON. HE DOESN’T EXIST. HE ONLY EXISTS IN THE DESPERATE DENIALS OF THOSE USING SMOKE AND MIRRORS AND THE LIES OF OTHERS TO PROPOSE THIS OBVIOUSLY RIDICULOUS SUGGESTION. LOOK AT WHAT THESE DENIERS ARE ASKING YOU TO BELIEVE. THEY ARE ASKING YOU TO BELIEVE THAT WITH ALL THE POLITICAL CONSEQUENCES INVOLVED HERE NO ONE, INCLUDING SCOTLAND YARD, COULD FIND THE HOSPITAL RECORD OF THIS EASILY-LOCATABLE EXTRA TALL PERSON. AND THIS IS COMING FROM PEOPLE WHO ARE PRETENDING TO SCRUTINIZE EVIDENCE. “PLAUSIBLE”??? NO, IT’S OBVIOUS THAT DR BANNISTER IS JUST STRAIGHT REMEMBERING HIS TREATMENT OF JIMI HENDRIX AND THAT DR SEIFERT IS LYING. DENIERS ARE QUESTIONING THE CREDIBILITY OF THE WRONG DOCTOR HERE. THE NURSES SCOTLAND YARD WENT OUT OF THEIR WAY TO AVOID WOULD CONFIRM THIS. JOSH HAS NO INTEREST IN THIS SINCE HIS SHORT SUMMARY COVERS HIS DISMISSIVE NEEDS.

    ” He didn’t know who Hendrix was at the time, so there’s no reason for Hendrix to have been more memorable to him than any of the other patients he treated at the time. ”

    THAT’S NOT TRUE. DR BANNISTER WAS INFORMED IT WAS JIMI HENDRIX SHORTLY AFTER HE TREATED HIM. HE HAD A DIRECT MEMORY OF THE PERSON HE HAD JUST ATTEMPTED TO RESUSCITATE. SORRY JOSH YOUR VERSION IS DEFICIENT IN NECESSARY ACCURATE INFORMATION. THE REASON DR BANNISTER REMEMBERED JIMI SO WELL IS BECAUSE HE HAD NEVER HAD A PATIENT DROWNED IN SUCH AN UNUSUAL AMOUNT OF WINE. IN OTHER WORDS JIMI WAS THE ONLY PERSON HE EVER EXPERIENCED WHO HAD BEEN MURDERED BY POURING BOTTLES OF WINE DOWN THEIR THROAT WHILE UNCONSCIOUS.

    ” That’s not the only alternative explanation though. Allegedly, Monika Dannemann (Hendrix’s girlfriend at the time of his death) claimed in an interview that the last thing she saw Hendrix drink was cola.(9) It’s possible that Dr. Bannister mistook the dark, cola-stained gastric contents for red wine. ”

    WHILE JOSH IS QUESTIONING THE GOOD DR BANNISTER HE NOW USES THE WORDS OF THE MOST NOTORIOUS LIAR ASSOCIATED WITH THE CASE, MONKA DANNEMANN, WITHOUT QUESTION. THIS IS WHAT ANOTHER NOTORIOUS LIAR, CAESAR GLEBBEEK, DID AS WELL. THIS IS OBVIOUSLY ABSURD BECAUSE IT IS THE OBVIOUS EXCUSE OF SOMEBODY DIRECTLY INVOLVED IN THE MURDER BEING TAKEN STRAIGHT AND WITHOUT QUESTION FROM PERSONS PRETENDING TO BE SKEPTICS. AS I’VE ALREADY SHOWN, IF THE AMOUNT OF FLUID DR BANNISTER WITNESSED WAS COCA COLA IT WOULD HAVE REGISTERED A SERIOUS LEVEL OF CAFFEINE IN JIM’S BLOOD AT AUTOPSY. THERE WAS NONE REGISTERED. MONIKA AND CAESAR’S CHEAP EXCUSE IS BLOWN RIGHT THERE BUT YOU DON’T SEE CAESAR COMING BACK TO ANSWER WHAT THE FLUID HE IS HAVING TROUBLE ACCOUNTING FOR WAS THEN SINCE IT WAS PROVABLY. SCIENTIFICALLY, NOT COCA COLA. AGAIN, DENIERS ARE FORCED INTO ABSURDITY BY THE EVIDENCE AND COME UP WITH YET ANOTHER PREPOSTEROUS EXCUSE. THEY NEVER STOP TO CONSIDER HOW RIDICULOUS A PROPOSITION IT IS TO SUGGEST JIMI CHUGGED BOTTLES WORTH OF COCA COLA FOLLOWING A VESPARAX OVERDOSE. DENIERS GIVE THEMSELVES AWAY WITH THIS BECAUSE BY ADMITTING THE LARGE AMOUNT OF FLUID IN QUESTION THEY TACITLY ADMIT TO THE FLUID DR BANNISTER WITNESSED. IN THEIR HASTE TO DENY THEY FORGET THEY WERE QUESTIONING DR BANNISTER’S WITNESSING OF THE FLUID ALL TOGETHER. YET HERE THEY INDIRECTLY ADMIT TO IT BY RECOGNIZING THE COCA COLA. THESE PEOPLE WOULDN’T DO WELL IN FRONT OF A JURY. THIS IS JUST ANOTHER EXAMPLE OF CAESAR’S INVESTIGATIVE INCOMPETENCY. THEY ARE ASKING US TO BELIEVE THAT A MAN WHO WAS SMART ENOUGH TO PASS MEDICAL SCHOOL COULDN’T RECOGNIZE RED WINE WHEN HE SAW AND SMELLED IT. ANY CHECK OF THE RECORD WOULD SHOW DR BANNISTER EMPHASIZED THAT IT LOOKED AND SMELLED LIKE RED WINE AND WAS ALSO STICKY. AT BEST JOSH’S CASE IS A DEFENSE OF ALL THE OBVIOUS LIES BEING USED BY THOSE DOING THE COVER UP. A QUICK LOOK AT MONIKA’S ORIGINAL STATEMENTS SHOWS NO MENTION OF ANY COCA COLA.

    I TAKE JOSH’S YEARS OF SILENCE OVER THIS AS A CONCESSION OF THE DEBATE.

    JOSH: ANY OPINION ON WHY MONIKA DANNEMANN WHINED AND MOANED INTO THE PHONE FOR 20 SECONDS WHEN SHARON LAWRENCE WAS THE FIRST PERSON TO EVER DIRECTLY ASK HER ABOUT THE WINE? OR ITS RELATION TO MONIKA’S STRANGE DEATH SHORTLY AFTER? OR MONIKA’S QUICK EXCUSE FOR THAT WINE THAT WAS DISPROVEN BY THE AMBULANCE MEN’S TESTIMONY? OR MONIKA’S ADMISSION OF THE WINE ITSELF THAT CAESAR IGNORED IN HIS ‘UNITL WE MEET AGAIN’ PUBLICATION?

    • Flyswatter says:

      That Coca-Cola story is completely asanine and only fools would accept it without question.

      That rubbish about Jimi having Coca-cola didn’t come out of Monika Dannemann’s mouth until circa 1994 and AFTER Dr. Bannister had come forth with his testimony about the red wine.

      The suggestion that Dr. Bannister couldn’t tell the difference between red wine and Coca-Cola is just plain STUPID.

      • Scrum Drum says:

        Oh, and while the deniers are seeking this other mystery tall man patient whom the crooked, faulty-memoried Dr Bannister mistook for Jimi, they should take note that Dr Bannister detailed a “jumper” or scarf around the victim’s neck that was saturated in wine. In their sincere search for this other mystery patient they should take note that Jimi was photographed by Monika that day wearing her large scarf around his neck. A clothing object that just so happened to perfectly match the wine-soaked scarf Dr Bannister clearly remembered on this tall man. Yet, despite all this verifying evidence deniers insist that Dr Bannister’s claim that Jimi’s legs stuck off the end of the table dismisses all this and proves it was another person they have no evidence for and can’t locate themselves. Clearly, the preponderance of the evidence verifies Dr Bannister who was just directly remembering his treatment of a drowned and murdered Jimi Hendrix whose wicked covert assassination caused some of the other witnesses to get fuzzy memories, as is common in such political assassination cases. Especially ones involving government agents as the suspect.

      • Flyswatter says:

        But, of course the excuse seekers are going to discredit Dr. Bannister, because his testimony point squarely towards homicide. The excuse-makers can’t face that reality. I suppose next the excuse-makers will tell us John Lennon dies because he discovered a hole in his shoe, instead of being gunned down.

  97. Ralph Yates says:

    Hey did you hear the one about John Lennon discovering a hole in his shoe?

    He died.

    • Scrum Drum says:

      It’s low to steal the handle of somebody who respects the evidence behind Jimi’s murder and use it to troll a serious discussion of it. These are the type of people who deny the murder evidence.

  98. Scrum Drum says:

    Reg:

    You’re obviously a tool of the industry Scrum Drum, working to keep the tale alive for commercial purposes. You ought to be ashamed.

    Music Of The Spheres:

    Apologies, but I just don’t see a verifiable fact in anything written about Jimi Hendrix and about his death. All I can see or recall reading is a lot of he said/she said gossip (normal enough around anyone who has engaged the emotions of the pubic with brilliant art, science, or philosopy.) I see a lot of people grandstanding and shouting and boiling with a rage directed at the universe with nary a verifiable fact to be seen except for the sad fact that he died.

    And not one of the people ranting about murder, suicide, conspiriacy, embezzelment, or anything else has said the one thing they don’t say about Michael Jackson either:

    He was an astonishing creative artist whose death was a tragedy. His music touched my soul and I will never be the same.

    Free Radikal:

    So you see Scrum, if you can’t even read josh’s age correct, which is a stated fact above, i’d have to question your ability to make any sense about something as nuanced as this topic . Then you use your misread “fact” as an ad hominim attack… a typical strategy of the “inspired” conspiracy fearist.

    We have presented a very clear case of evidence that has caused the opposition to back down and quit.

    These people tried to dismiss the evidence with their first posts. Afterward they never participated in any credible argument of the evidence.

    These people clearly aren’t credible, can’t back up their in opinions in fact or respectful credible argument, and, most importantly, don’t admit when they are wrong after the facts become clear.

    • Flyswatter says:

      That’s right. It’s just a simple matter of discussing the evidence directly, instead of putting up phony arguments that are opinion-based and have no substance.

  99. L3fi Vast says:

    Scrum Drum, get some psychiatric help please. I’ve seen you all over the internet spreading this paranoid and fantastical garbage, behind several other screen-names: Flyswatter, Exiles 800, Buster -to name a few. I’ve even seen your video of you cycling in Florida, with your 50+ year old face and grey hair. You will not rewrite History to your own conspiratorial ends but you may just get sued for slander and defamation of character(s), and you have laid into quite a few people. Jimi accidentally overdosed and choked on his vomit, get over it.

    Uplate, thank-you for your clearly, deeply -onsidered contributions. Your questions and observations are spot on, ignore the elephantine troll in the forum trying to detract from the objectivity of figuring out what really happened to Jimi.

    I will say this, the only person that we are able to know of, that really knows what happened to Jimi that morning (and is still alive) is: ERIC BURDON. If he is/was a true friend to Jimi then we wouldn’t still be questioning the events to this day. He needs to step up to the plate. Question Burdon, he needs to explain what happened from the second he got the call from Monikka to the point where he and she left the flat to await the Ambulance turning up -after being present for several hours at the death scene. BURDON is the last and only known, living, remaining chance to discover what really happened to Jimi.

    • Flyswatter says:

      Wrong again, L3fi. Flyswatter would be ME, not Scrum Drum, and I can assure you that we are NOT one and the same person, and I have never even met Scum Drum face-to-face.

      You have proven the old saying “can’t attack the message, so attack the messenger” — and that’s mainly because you are butthurt about your phony and stupid arguments getting shredded by the messenger (in this case Scrum Drum). All you are really telling anyone is that you need to follow your own advice regarding getting psychiatric help, seeing as how you repeatedly like to urinate on your own head and tell yourself that it is raining — as evidenced by this stupid statement:

      “Jimi accidentally overdosed and choked on his vomit, get over it.”

      This has repeatedly been shown to be false throughout this entire thread. Not only that, if Jimi really had accidentally overdosed & choked on his own vomit, then it would have been validated right from the get-go by the powers that be at the time of Jimi’s death & the ambulance men and doctors that attended to Jimi on Sept. 18, 1970 (who incidentally were excluded from the Inquest in Sept. of 1970) would have validated it, as well. But, such a thing never happened.

      Your problem is that you can’t see how you foolishly contradict yourself with own statements, but here is a glittering example:

      “Question Burdon, he needs to explain what happened from the second he got the call from Monikka to the point where he and she left the flat to await the Ambulance turning up -after being present for several hours at the death scene.”

      That right there blows your theory of “Jimi accidentally overdosed and choked on his vomit” all to hell. How do we know this? Because Eric Burdon did state that Monika’s Opel sports car was parked right out in front of the Samarkand on that very morning, which of course, raises the question of: why bother with calling an ambulance in the case of accidental overdose/vomiting when both Monika and Burdon in tandem could have easily gotten a 160 lb man on his feet and taken him and put him in that car and transported him to the closest hospital? That thought never dawned on you, now did it?

      • Scrum Drum says:

        Thanks Flyswatter. Sensible people will see L3fi is not an honest person who will ever admit the objective evidence and that his purpose is to reduce everything to his denial stupidity. It is obvious to honest and intelligent people that he has no interest in the truth. What is outrageous about L3fi is his pretend concern over Jimi and advice to seek out Eric Burdon. Clever people will see that this is L3fi’s way of leaving himself an out again his crass denial.

        These people do not come from a very credible peer group or one that calls them on their stupidity because they are simply interested in getting rid of something they don’t want to deal with or let get in the way of their Hendrix exploitation for pleasure.

        In a thread where we have backed the deniers into a corner with sound evidence and argument L3fi dares pop up years later and re-enter the same level of stupidity by claiming Jimi simply OD-ed and choked on his vomit. L3fi simply ignores we had argued the opposition into silence in the very thread he posted that inane denial in. Jimi could not have choked on his vomit because he was found drowned in wine with a tiny blood alcohol content that proves the wine was not in his stomach before his heart stopped. This is forensic proof Jimi was murdered and only the most primitive and unintelligent would dare ignore it in order to offer such science -defying stupidity. That’s all there is to this and those deniers have shown their true feathers. What we are seeing here is an internet bozo vs those who offered the ‘Tough Reality’ link that shredded Caesar and his similar simple denial.

        These people are not friends of Jimi. Friends of Jimi would be attacking and questioning the British authorities on why they failed to investigate a 5 hour time difference, like they were required to do, after they learned of it from Kathy’s investigation. These dummies put no similar pressure on the elephant in the room, the British government, and its breach of public trust in following its sworn duty to investigate serious evidence in the case of murder. Instead these dummies attack the heroes and somehow forget to apply their skepticism where it is deserved the most.

        The public is smart enough to see people who give extreme analysis full of extensive esoteric Hendrix information in their denial, but then refrain from giving that same level of analysis to the murder evidence that is equally accessible. In other words these people are just as capable of applying their Hendrix knowledge to the truth, only they don’t because they have a denial agenda that is the equivalent of backing Jimi’s murderers against Jimi. Yet they have the temerity to pose themselves as outraged Hendrix fans protesting our purpose, evidence, and arguments. These people pretend to be outraged protesters, but the truth is they haven’t accounted for their anti-Jimi denial. Our entries are the going standard. Any smart person can see they have miserably failed them.

        L3fi’s laughable attempt to patronize me is undone by all the credible evidence and arguments he is so contemptibly ignoring in order to try to return the thread to its original simple level of denial.

        • Flyswatter says:

          No problem, Scrum. If people like L3fi want to bury their head in the sand because they are too fearful of facing reality, then that is their problem — not yours or mine.

          Not only that, it was pointed out upthread that if Jimi really had OD’d and choked on vomit, then they would NOT have spent a 1/2 hour trying to clear Jimi’s airways & would have had his airways cleared and declared him deceased in no more than 10 minutes. Common sense and logic should tell anyone that the 1/2 hour time frame spent working on Jimi is consistent with a drowning victim and NOT consistent with a victim choking on vomit (like John Bonham and there are no reports anywhere stating that a medical team worked on Bonham for a 1/2 hour trying to clear his airways)

          The truth is on our side & working against them. Hear the crickets chirping?

          • Scrum Drum says:

            These people are fools. Anyone who was honestly or objectively looking at the evidence would note that Bonham and other famous alcohol/choking on vomit victims had high blood alcohol contents that were commensurate with their causes. Jimi had a trace blood alcohol content that wasn’t congruent with his alleged cause of death. These people don’t logically compute that if Jimi didn’t have the alcohol on his blood to cause the alleged drug conflict that was the assumed cause of death then what caused him to die? The answer is right there in the evidence. Jimi was plied with pills that were stronger than he was told and drowned with wine in an act of overkill where wine was poured down his throat until he could take no more. Anyone who was truly looking at the evidence would see we have provided enough proof to make this conclusion. These people are just saying anything that sounds good in order to deny the murder. They should not be given the influence they have had so far and should not be given equal say amongst people who are more faithful to the truth.

        • Flyswatter says:

          I just noticed something posted earlier by L3fi where he clearly rips things out of context just to support his phony arguments. If you go upthread and examine L3fi’s Feb. 14, 204 post here’s what L3fi stated:

          “INHALATION OF VOMIT DUE TO BARBITUATE INTOXICATION”

          7 words that say more than all your millions. Read them and understand.”

          It does NOT say that on Jimi’s death certificate or any of the coronor’s forms. There words “DUE TO” do NOT appear ANYWHERE. Anyone who owns Tony Brown’s book Hendrix: The Final Days will see that on pages 172 – 173.

          Therefore, those “7 words” don’t say anything, except what L3fi wants to hear — as evidenced by his insertion of the words “DUE TO”.

          What is really said on the death certificate is:

          -Inhalation of Vomit
          -Barbiturate Intoxication (quinalbarbitone)

          The words “DUE TO” are NOWHERE TO BE FOUND !! And that is not all. It also says:

          -Insufficient evidence of circumstances
          -open verdict

          Those last two lines tell us that L3fi’s theory of “Jimi accidentally overdosed and choked on his vomit” was never validated & common sense should tell any that if the powers that be at that time could have validated such a thing, then they would have done so without any hesitation. But, as I said before, such a thing never happened.

          Who is it that is really lacking understanding here?

          • Scrum Drum says:

            We have provided enough background that the word “vomit” on the autopsy sheet and death certificate is interchangeable with wine in this case. As we have already stated above, vomit can be anything from a thick nasty-smelling solid to almost pure fluid. Persons like L3fi are outright liars who seek the worst twisting of semantics in order to mislead and reduce the argument to an oversimplified version that suits their purposes instead of honestly speaking in the context we have taken many pages to establish. That context is clearly one where the “vomit” indicated in the cause of death was not accurately forensically defined to the point of a violation of medical standards. The vomit in question was clearly mainly liquid wine to a degree that demanded more precise forensic identification than the simple designation “vomit”, which did not adequately define the medical circumstances under which Jimi expired. This was a case of medical malpractice and forensic injustice. It is clear the question L3fi is deliberately ignoring is how could such a volume of wine escape detection in the bloodstream if it was innocently ingested? The answer is it couldn’t and there is no other case involving accidental overdose and choking on vomit with similar forensic particulars. This is a clear case of homicide that L3fi hasn’t come close to living up to in his execrable attempts to ignore the true evidence.

            The British government was very clever in its approach to both its non-investigation and non-verdict. It preceded that “open verdict” ruling by making the Inquest mostly and investigation of whether Jimi committed suicide or not. This was a red herring to mislead the public away from any notion of foul play, but also to channel people’s minds towards whether Jimi committed suicide or not. This shifted blame to the victim and took attention away from everyone else, especially the authorities who had violated just about every rule in the book in their handling of what happened that morning. It was in this conditioned context that the Inquest ruled “open verdict”, as if they had failed to show any proven evidence for suicide. But what they were doing was creating a scene where they didn’t have to commit to any openly false ruling – leaving a giant out for themselves in legal terms. Like L3fi, they left the cause of death as vague as possible in order to escape the more precise reason.

            The pattern of this business is, unfortunately, strictly in line with foreknowledge and criminal complicity on the behalf of the British authorities. There was clearly an intent to not thoroughly investigate the true evidence. Simpletons like L3fi ignore all this and want to explain to us why we should take those same authorities at their word. Right in the face of the years-worth of posts above that clearly show why we shouldn’t.

          • Flyswatter says:

            If one looks at page 174 of Tony Brown’s book Hendrix: The Final Days, they will see a form showing that it does have the words “INHALATION OF VOMIT DUE TO BARBITUATE INTOXICATION” printed on it. However, close examination of it reveals that it doesn’t have the Coronor’s signature on it & it is dated 21 June 1976, and it was printed and signed by some paper-pusher that was working at Coronor’s office at that time, in response to Tony Brown’s request to have copies of the inquest records produced so Brown could have copies of the records for his own keeping.

            One can easily see that the party-line of “INHALATION OF VOMIT DUE TO BARBITURATE INTOXICATION” was in full force at that time, which unfortunately, a great majority to this day are still gobbling up like a doo-doo eating dog gobbling up freshly dropped feces — and this, in spite of all the information proving otherwise that has been manifested over the years.

            Much to the chagrin of many, that party-line of “INHALATION OF VOMIT DUE TO BARBITURATE INTOXICATION” got obliterated when Dr. Bannister wrote to Harry Shapiro in Jan. of 1992, telling Shapiro what he had witnessed when he attended to Jimi on that day at the St. Mary Abbots hospital. And much to the chagrin of many, the coroner (Gavin Thurston) let it slip to UPI representative Jack Meehan on Sept. 29, 1970 that the autopsy revealed that Jimi’s stomach contents showed that “a fair amount of red wine had been imbibed”, thereby validating Dr. Bannister’s testimony.

            Once again, CHECK and MATE!!

          • Scrum Drum says:

            So much for the dummies who were saying Dr Bannister was the only witness to the wine. Thurston was the chief coroner who signed-off on the death certificate. When you show this condemning proof the dummies ignore it. Caesar Glebbeek doesn’t come forward to respond and the punks at the degenerate and uncredible Crosstown Torrents Hendrix website don’t change their information, even after banning you when you prove to have been correct. Sounds like the people who need to be sued are the ones who refuse to alter their false information. Yet in L3fi’s mind, we are the ones who need to be sued. Selling Jimi to the devil elicits no response from his spineless so-called fans who are only out to suck the treasure out of Jimi while they leave a black man to die in the gutter after having stripped his golden talent from his pockets. Hendrix fans have no problem with Hendrix sources betraying Jimi and backing his murderers. What cowards.

  100. Buster says:

    The one, mate, who needs psychiatric help is the one who attacks with ad hom but then ends his entry with basically an admission that there’s something to tell. Something that needs to be explained. You people are so controlled by your denial that you don’t see how dumb your entries are. It’s incredibly foolish to use shallow reasoning like you do to impugn the credibility of the main proponent of the evidence and then end your submission with basically an admission that something needs to be exposed. This issue is mostly a contest of the unskilled and incapable vs their opposite. Those in denial vs those who push for the truth. These people live in under a delusion that they aren’t in open defiance of vastly detailed plain evidence as presented in this thread. A more honest accounting of the debate in this thread is that I demolished the side represented by the Skeptoid article and left them unable to respond. Any person who doesn’t plainly see that is the one who is nuts.

    You can tell cowards by how they flee quickly to defamation and lawsuit in order to compensate for their failures. Since when do fools and liars not deserve to be laid into? Especially in defense of the cowardly and evil murder of Jimi by not only governments but also his so-called fans, as it now seems? No, you fools have had too much say and, as L3fi shows us here, are willing to ignore obvious evidence in order to reach for your shameless and stupid denial. What kind of low, bottom-dwelling creature would threaten legal action against the one person who stood up and told the truth about Jimi’s murder? Only the vilest, most corrupted, and evil. Only those willing to work the rotten fruit of ‘skepticism’ to its full malevolent end. Only cowards afraid to back their opinions in direct honest discussion. Liars and fools do not stand at the same level as heroes nor should they be allowed to pretend. And those who openly ignore evidence should not be allowed to falsely claim offense. The only honorable path to that claim would be through the evidence. When those cowards dodge it like L3fi, they tell people all they need to know.

    All any smart or honest person needs to consider is how those in denial are perfectly willing to ignore a full thread’s worth of valid argument in order to come to their fatuous, denial-driven conclusions. A contemptible narcissist who ignores not only the arguments that prove it, but also those intelligent persons in this thread who recognize and whole-heartedly endorse it. Only a fool would enter what L3fi enters in the face of this. This is debate is won. And it wasn’t won by those who grant themselves the privilege of ignoring already-given proof…

    L3fi forgets he had every opportunity to directly refute anything I wrote. The two years of silence he responded with speaks the loudest. How dare he. How many radio hosts told their listeners to read L3fi’s idiotic denial? None. How many posters said L3fi was a remarkable authority who should ignore his detractors? None. Nay, it is not me who is reality-challenged.

  101. Buster says:

    L3fi continues to enter his name-calling-based denial while pretending he wasn’t unable to credibly answer a full thread’s worth of proof. Pathetic.

    It’s clear he is intellectually deficient and only here to repeatedly offer “Jimi took too many pills and choked on his own vomit” no matter how much cutting edge evidence or arguments it runs roughshod against. Our content proves this is a moronic, already-refuted level of discussion (contempt really) that we owe no attention or answer to.

  102. Buster says:

    L3fi is obviously not to be taken seriously on this. He has no credible interest in the real facts or evidence and is obviously here just for denial and trolling.

    A perusal of this thread shows I demolished those who don’t believe the murder evidence and left them unable to answer. The internet, unfortunately, is full of creeps who enjoy attacking those who try to take serious responsibility for Jimi.

  103. Bob Wyman says:

    I became a fan of Jimi when I heard his first releases on my clock radio, low fidelity with a 2 inch speaker. The deal was sealed when my 9th grade pal Marque Coy, on his birthday, had his father drive us into Denver to see The Jimi Hendrix Experience at The Denver Pop Festival. There is an article that first appeared in Univibes magazine and then in Experience Hendrix in which I was interviewed about that night. Toward the end of his performance I managed to get to the right side of the stage just a few feet from Jimi and watched him as he played “Voodoo Child”. I was backstage when roadies carried Jimi off stage and tossed him into the back of a rental truck. Read the story on my website http://bobwyman.com/hendrix.html
    This talk of Jimi being murdered I do not for an instant buy into. I was in 4th grade when JFK was assassinated and lived through the years of conspiracy talk which I was undecided about until I was able to get more information. I have no doubt that Oswald acted alone and shot the President in Dallas that day. I have also learned about people, the media and a million hazards that will be thrown in front of us during my 60 plus years. I know that music people especially those in rock music have an inflated opinion of themselves and are prone to saying whatever they please for fun or just because they know it will be heard by many people. Consider David Crosby being tossed out of the Byrds because one of his problems was his big mouth. Nothing is more annoying to me than going to a concert back then and the “star” starts a rant while the audience cheers. Eric Burden is another good example of bad behavior and inflated ego. Most rock “stars” are born bullshitters. I won’t go much further here but just want to say that speculation is just that and proof is another thing. No proof means you do not know and anything less becomes gossip and innuendo. This page is filled nonsense from amateur minds. YOU were not there means you do not know. As with JFK the EVIDENCE is there and more than enough to convict Oswald and no other person. The general public does not believe that though. That shows how dumb people are or can be. I was extremely lucky to have seen Jimi as he was and is the best guitarist in rock-n-roll. Years after his death when I started hear about the “murder” I wanted to either cringe or scream. Leave it alone unless you can prove something. Perhaps some young bright energetic person can devote many years to find the answers but until then I would say drop it. Do not tarnish a man’s legacy with mindless fables especially as vague and inane as I read on this page. You do not know anything so do not say anything. Jimi was not an addict and drug use was common and still is but drug use does not by a long shot mean addiction. Motive, means and opportunity DOES NOT indicate guilt in a murder trial in any way and any law student will tell you that is not enough to even level a charge at someone.
    How do you want to be remembered? Truthfully or with ignorance? Jimi was immersed in his work which was also his love. All of us should be so lucky or talented. Telling tales makes one look a fool and is a waste of time, none has that much time to throw away so recklessly. Jimi made music, great music and that is all you and I know. Listen to him often and at maximum volume then turn your crap down to a minimum forever. Please, and thank you.
    PS In the footage on the DVD of Hendrix complete performance at Woodstock Noel Redding talks about the concert in Denver. Noel was there as was I. The only thing that Noel said that was correct was that it was in Denver and he quit the band. He was wrong about the 35,000 people and wrong about the tear gas. He was wrong about almost being crushed. I stood right there and watched the whole situation. He had left the stage before Jimi stopped playing. Of course the first assumption is to believe what Noel said but read what I said in the interview and you can decide. The Denver concert on June 29 1969 was the night Noel quit the group and Jimi did not perform again until August at The Woodstock Music and Art Fair.
    PSS As an aside- My friend Marque was hired in 1980 by Frank Zappa to be his stage and studio monitor sound person. Marque stayed long after Zappa’s death and was the employee who had been with Frank longer than anyone.

    • Dartanian says:

      Keep drinking the kool-aid. If you don’t think JFK was shot by more than one person you are truly clueless so why would anyone care or give creedance to your opinions of Jimi’s death?

      • bob wyman says:

        I give everyone benefit the doubt until I am able to discern their motives whatever that may be. That may take a week or a few minutes but my disgust at people who would cast aspersions on others especially Jimi Hendrix based on hearsay and lies is intolerable to me.
        I detest liars most of all and a lying person has baggage which is usually sociopathic in nature and most always includes some type of criminal behavior.
        I do not care what hearsay you have that you call evidence and those that never entertain in a polite fashion anything contrary are a liability to themselves and their family. Nothing I can say would ever sway any of you to pause for a moment and reconsider anything.
        Those that use the tired “Kool-Aid” metaphor do not even understand what they are actually saying.
        It is indicative of not much education for anyone to invent scenarios that are merely just that and when confronted by the contrary devolve into immature behavior. That behavior is something none of you would dare display to anyone who is standing in front of you especially your (lame) insults because the only thing you can be sure of is getting an education that is quite painful.
        Continue on and do what you do, the more intelligent ones in your group will bail. That is a fact.

        • Buster says:

          Then try doing that with the biggest liars here Bob and the worst offenders of Jimi Hendrix – the British Government and their official story that was based on Monika’s proven lies.

          Everything I wrote is based on fact. You couldn’t show anything I wrote to be hearsay and lies, as you falsely accuse.

    • Buster says:

      Ignore Bob Wyman. He is obviously a nervy denier hoping his hot wind rhetoric will fool some of those who only want to see what they want to see in order to deny Jimi’s murder. How dare he ignore the serious arguments we made in order to offer such point-evading offhand denial. I would suggest to him that if he really wanted to challenge the claim that he try actually directly answering what was written next time. What Bob writes is also false, by the way. He says we haven’t shown any courtroom evidence or evidence a lawyer would accept. Not true, and the evidence he is dodging in his evasive reply tells you what he is avoiding and unable to answer. Bob is trying to seize the narrative and speechify around evidence he clearly can’t acknowledge or answer. It is actually he himself who is offering the lacking material that wouldn’t survive a judge’s scrutiny towards answering the proven facts. As I have been repeatedly saying – Bob is a good illustration of a dishonest hypocrite in his pretending he represents a call to sound evidence. In the meantime he offers not one peep of similar phony protest about the soundness of evidence over Monika Dannemann’s official story or the British Government’s unquestioning acceptance of it. Bob has no problem with it because he’s trying to deceive us that he offers a credible opinion. He doesn’t. He’s just a ballsy denier willing to insult the good work and effort of people who care and work hard to offer the true facts. Bob is playing to a crowd that just wants to hear what they want to hear no matter how stupid or how badly it runs roughshod against the better arguments. And he tries to pose himself as a person who saw Jimi at the time, as if that gave him license to sell out Jimi as badly as he does. In a more credibly moderated room Bob would be given the opportunity to answer the facts and if he failed he would be shown the door. What Bob is avoiding with his empty propaganda is that 5 bottles of wine witnessed in a body by a medical doctor, with a 5mg blood alcohol content, is forensic proof of homicide in and of itself – which is why honest Bob here avoids addressing it in his ridiculous hand-wave above. You won’t find that in any other real choking on vomit alcohol death and Bob hasn’t accounted for it – which is why it is proof. Sorry Bob, you’re going to have to try to sell your contemptuous stupidity to someone else. The Hendrix crowd is one of the most notorious groups of cowards in the world. Jimi is just an N-word stage act to them that they suck the most out of at least cost and avoid giving justice to a black man because that is how a white-dominated system works as it seeks the most depraved easiest course of least resistance in its pathetic path…And, by the way, legality is not always the pure system Bob Suggests. We live in a time where similar science to our own is freeing innocent men who have done decades in jail under the system Bob refers to without critical detail. Bob is a dark-sider who enlists the dark side of law, that which attacks, impugns, and denies the good evidence and innocence of victims in order to serve murderers. It is outrageous that such a crass denier as Bob tries to convince us his evidence-evading con-job is a sincere attempt to serve Jimi the best. These are fools who accuse heroes doing hard fought justice of “tarnishing a man’s legacy”. You have a 5mg plaque around your neck Mr Wyman that you haven’t answered to. May it appropriately sink and drown you in your ignorance. You also brazenly ignore the serious incriminating evidence against Monika Dannemann that no true fan of Jimi would ever ask people to take him seriously while ignoring.

      Get back to us when you can answer what was actually written.

      • Bob Wyman says:

        You need some sunshine and fresh air, get out of the basement chump. really. Is “denier” the word of the decade? Nuh uh Nu huh sez you…chump chump

        • Buster says:

          The words of an out-argued troll who can’t answer the substance of what was written. Thanks. No other real choking on vomit victim has a body full of wine with only a trace blood alcohol content and you won’t find any other case that had those particulars.

          You’re done.

          • bob wyman says:

            Well let’s see: name calling, very mature…
            Insurance fraud? Think about it. Think it through. Jimi was probably worth a substantial sum as he earns $10 million a year now and his worth is well into the 100s of millions. Insurance companies are not stupid and do not cut a check just like that especially where big bucks are concerned. Do you follow me so far?
            Now what do you know about the autopsy? Do have the report? A copy of the original(s)? I bet the insurance company does and I bet they studied it thoroughly. Did they pay out? If not then maybe they saw something suspicious and would have notified authorities which common practice.
            Everything is now a conspiracy which is having “the boy who cried wolf” effect
            I do find it disrespectful to the man to make allegations but I am also harboring the same animosity toward those who were around him at that time: gold-diggers and pompous rock stars.
            Show me the autopsy and police report and /or the insurance claim. If foul play was suspected the police report would be available.
            I do not believe there are many if any cases of murder where the prosecution had motive, means and opportunity to use against the defendant. Those things are not even enough to justify an arrest warrant. They have to have evidence.
            Jimi’s manager had a contract and Jimi would have to honor it even if he fired the guy he would have to pay or litigate it. Contract b******t is the music business and it happens all the time but nobody kills each other over these things.
            So far, killing Jimi would have made nobody any money. So what is the reason you all are hell bent on beating this into the ground and trying to insult me for?? Find productive things to do, like killing Janie “Hendrix”. I will back you up on that endeavor and Jimi would approve as well, I am sure.

          • Buster says:

            Bob Wyman is just blowing smoke and obviously doesn’t know the first thing about what he is talking about. If he had more sense he would be able to detect a serious player and serious evidence – none of which he has been able to give any direct response to short of overly general rhetoric.

            Bob did it ever dawn on you that since you yourself show you are clueless and don’t know anything about the subject that maybe YOUR opinion is the one that lacks here? Did it ever dawn on you that your knee-jerk denial might be the true offense here against Jimi Hendrix and his memory? I’m sorry Bob but you are obviously a fool who operates from the assumption that everybody is as ignorant as he is and all share the same equal playing field. The only offense here is your ignoring clear proof and forensic evidence in order to make us listen to your offhand excuses. That’s the real insult to Jimi Hendrix going on here. You’re the one committing the disrespect.

            Yes, I have the full autopsy sheets. If you had more knowledge of what you speak you would already know that the germane data is available in Henderson and Tony Brown. Both those authors posted the relevant autopsy data in their books. Honestly, did you think I was just making up the autopsy information I posted? What do I know about the autopsy? Obviously a lot more than you. Your ignorance disallows you from realizing I am literally probably the world’s top expert on Jimi Hendrix’s autopsy.

            The industry insurance companies paid out on the recording contract policy. If any other companies paid Jeffery is unknown because he was an expert at hiding paperwork. But that is irrelevant because the forensic discussions you haven’t addressed prove murder, so it doesn’t matter what the insurance companies had done.

            You are a fool Mr Wyman because you have already seen the germane autopsy information if you just bothered to read and comprehend the posts in this thread. I’m thinking you haven’t even bothered to do that and are just assuming this is some kind of unserious internet discussion that will support your deficient input. You insult our intelligence and show your incompetence towards what is being discussed by even suggesting there would be a police report that mentioned foul play. Anyone who reads this thread will see the police deliberately avoided any investigation of the incriminating evidence and that is the whole problem in the first place. You show an extreme naivete towards cover-ups, especially those that involve a political target and an Intelligence agent murderer.

            A private detective was sent in to inquire by one insurance company. His report was so damning that it was sealed and the detective kept it under wraps. Your ignorance of the case prevents you from knowing that the cops who Kathy Etchingham instigated to reinvestigate told her “they’re all lying”. Usually when the cops find out everyone is lying they investigate harder. In Jimi’s case they dropped the investigation. For you to demand the things you do from these deliberate evidence evaders is a sign of your ignorance. If you had a more credible grasp of what is being discussed in these threads, you would realize we have established a good case that they failed to do what you demand and that is the problem, as well as evidence of a cover-up.

            Motive, means, opportunity? What kind of nutty comment is that? We’ve shown all three in Jeffery’s case. His motive was to avoid jail and even death for being caught stealing from Jimi’s accounts.

            To say nobody kills over rock music contracts is to show extreme ignorance, contempt really, of established rock history and the number of musicians who were killed by management. You’re a fool if you don’t realize this and are only showing your lack of credibility. You are also ignorant of the large amount of money Jeffery made off of Jimi posthumously. As well as Jimi being very vocal with many people about walking from Jeffery’s contract the week he died. There were many witnesses to Jimi saying he would let Jeffery keep the proceeds if he would let him break the contract. You obviously aren’t very well read on this and think we are just making this stuff up.

            You’re a fool Mr Wyman because if you had any sense whatsoever you would realize that I am Jimi’s best defender and most loyal fan. I’m doing the right thing against the foolhardy resistance of a large percentage of absolutely ignorant and outright stupid so-called Hendrix fans like yourself. In your epic fatuosity you fail to realize that I am a serious person and am offering the world’s best cutting evidence on this subject. The nature of your questions shows that you don’t have a clue and deal from a vastly uninformed perspective. If you had better sense you would slow down and absorb what we are writing here. It is fact-based and answers most of what you’ve asked already and pre-empts it with actionable evidence that demands response instead of the clueless equivocating you offer in front of case-cracking evidence you are too foolish to detect.

            Please get back to me when can actually credibly show where anything I wrote isn’t accurate to the case or is not an accurate conclusion from that good evidence. You don’t seem to realize your ignorant response here fails to answer what we’ve already shown. You’re the one insulting Jimi here not me. You should probably leave it to us because the material is obviously over your head. It is also probably a good idea to study the subject first before offering absolute denials.

    • Alien says:

      One more thing about Oswald : why was he killed so fast ?

      • Buster says:

        Don’t take Bob’s bait of switching to the Kennedy Assassination.

        Make him answer the Hendrix murder facts he’s avoiding.

  104. Buster says:

    Bob Wyman is one of our typical American neo-cons who pretends to respect Jimi and his memory and then in the same post calls Jimi an ‘addict’ who basically got what he deserved. Bob is offering a dishonest parallel argument that any smart person can see never attempts to answer the actual evidence or arguments we offered while condemning them. He says we offer “amateur speculation” but then never actually offers any direct argument towards the evidence to show why. His avoidance of the actual arguments of proof we have posted above should tell most smart/honest people what the deal is. Meanwhile ask Bob to try to back up what he writes and slow down and make an actual argument. Ask Bob to actually detail in science how Jimi died accidentally and I will shred it with the facts (As I have done above). There’s no detailed scientific argument of evidence (that phony Bob calls for above but then never offers himself) that I couldn’t destroy with the actual provable facts Bob is in contempt of above and tries to get around with rhetoric. Our offerings our quite the opposite of amateur speculation and are instead sound forensic science-based proof that Bob conspicuously can’t directly answer. That’s why it is proof. We offer facts, Bob offers opinion, and then Bob has the balls to turn around and accuse us of what he is guilty of.

    Go ahead Bob. Give it a shot. Don’t try to get around it with irrelevant speech-making like you do above.

  105. Scrum Drum says:

    Here is the final nail in the coffin for Caesar Glebbeek’s disinformation work ‘Until We Meet Again’. Glebbeek wrote the work in a way that led up to the quote: “If you don’t believe me listen to Jimi’s manager Bob Levine”. Caesar then quoted Bob saying the murder theories were all bs. Here is what Bob really thinks:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2eSp1DPjp_k

  106. L3Fi says:

    Bob Levine, in your own video, clearly does not support any murder theory. You keep pushing him to agree with you but he doesn’t concede. He even dismisses that Michael Jeffrey was responsible.

    Ha! Own Goal.

  107. Buster says:

    As usual L3Fi offers nothing but denial. In a case where actually going to Bob, familiarizing him with all the facts, and then asking him his real opinion, gets a much different result than the false impression previously given by the media, L3Fi ignores all this and reaches once again for the denial. Meanwhile, if you honestly listen to this interview, instead of seeking the habitual denial L3Fi seeks, you’ll see that Bob has a much different opinion than that offered by the likes of Caesar Glebbeek and does not think the “murder theories are all nonsense” as he was previously quoted. I have had other conversations with Bob where he told me – quote unquote “I guess Jimi was murdered and you should take your evidence to the FBI”. You see being a pestering denier L3Fi hasn’t done the years of actually doing the research I have done or reaching out to the actual witnesses, so his wicked pursuit is a much easier trick that really doesn’t require much accept denying any and everything he sees. It’s not true that Bob dismisses Michael Jeffery’s involvement and Bob has told me separately that Michael got Karma when he crashed. Anyone honestly looking at this video would admit he was implying that in this video too (“Look what happened to Michael”). Apparently L3Fi is fact-challenged and has trouble understanding Levine when he says “I have my suspicions, I don’t have any proof but I have my suspicions”. I was the instigator of Bob being educated on this subject. His true history was he was an employee of Michael Jeffery and does not want to be remembered as working for the management that killed Jimi. He was in New York when Jimi was murdered and not privy to the facts and witnessings. And he wasn’t the type to seek them out. Bob was impressed with me and when I came up with names and facts he was trying to remember he said “I’ll tell you, you’re good. You know your stuff”. In his previous interviews Bob was just trying to remove himself from the controversy. I had hours of conversations with Bob in person and by telephone. I even slept over his house because he needed someone to make sure he didn’t take the wrong medications because of his legal blindness from a stroke. I take pride that before Levine died he finally learned the truth about Jimi’s murder. After I explained all the real happenings and evidence his response was “I guess Jimi really was murdered”. I can’t image what someone who fights for murderers against their victims feels as far as self-accomplishment? Bob told me “I consider you like a son”. I gave those sun glasses Bob is wearing to him because he said his stroke made him sensitive to light.

    Offering only simple denial, L3Fi ignores that Bob was quoted in John McDermott’s book ‘Setting The Record Straight’ giving many examples of incriminating evidence that pointed towards Jeffery’s involvement in Jimi’s death. I suppose this is what denier L3Fi considers “dismissing Jeffery’s involvement in Jimi’s death”.

  108. L3Fi says:

    Further evidence, from Music Radar website, interview by Joe Bosso, May 26, 2011:

    Now retired. living in Florida, Levine says that he’s saddened that Wright’s story might have found a way into Hendrix folklore. “It’s totally unfair to Jimi,” he says. “It’s unfair to everybody who was around at the time. I just think it’s really unfair to the fans, to anybody who ever loved Jimi Hendrix. Yes, he died a tragic death, and he died much too young. But spreading these lies that he was murdered? It’s utter crap, and I’ve been silent about this for much too long.”

    I rest my case. your honour.

    • Buster says:

      Nice try but no L3Fi. To show the stupidity of your entries the imaginary judge you address would quickly point out that Bosso’s article was from 2011. My video was from 2016.

      If you are trying to play gotcha by showing contradicting statements then please show Levine’s statements from 1992 when he told McDermott that Jeffery was acting suspicious. Levine warned Jimi not to sign a personal life insurance policy that Jeffery made out with himself as the beneficiary. It is obvious Levine had bad feelings about Jeffery’s intent. Levine also detailed Jeffery not being reachable for 6 days after Jimi’s death and when he finally got through Jeffery pretended not to have known Jimi was dead. Also, Jeffery stayed out in the limousine during Jimi’s funeral. The behavior of a guilty man. So if we are one-upping each other on quotes, why did rock journalist Bosso ignore Levine’s most significant quotes?

      Only a person dedicated to non-truth and craven denial would write what you do in your last post while flagrantly ignoring Mr Levine’s own words in the video where he says “I have my suspicions, I don’t have any proof but I have my suspicions”.

      Bob has directly contradicted himself. The law always seeks the incriminating. Bob’s opposite claims are what is usually called incriminating. So why didn’t the law pursue it L3Fi? Seeing this the law would immediately seek Levine’s accusatory material as being of interest. Certainly any credible journalist would too. So why didn’t Bosso, and why did he omit it from his 2011 interview with Levine where the real pushing towards one conclusion occurred? Why are these publicly-promoted faulty journalists so anxious to ignore the incriminating facts and dismiss the murder claim?

      If you are going to quote Levine quote his original quotes. Those quotes are in McDermott’s 1992 book ‘Setting The Record Straight’. He clearly points the finger at Jeffery. He does so in the video too, even if reluctantly…

      • L3fi says:

        Speaking of contradictions, you claim your video in 2016 somehow invalidates what Bob said in 2011 due to it being more recent and yet you then go to what Bob said in 1992 as somehow being the truth?! How does that work exactly?

        Bottom line, Bob Levine still does not support the murder theory in your video in 2016. And guess what, you provided that evidence. Haha! Thanks.

        • Buster says:

          It works because Bob spoke the truth in 1992 before any of this became controversial. If you had a more intelligent understanding of the topic you would realize that Bob was interviewed before Kathy Etchingham petitioned the British Government to re-open the case in 1992. Therefore the pressure wasn’t on main members of Jeffery’s office at the time. What this means is Bob’s fingering of Jeffery (which he clearly does if you bother to read ‘Setting The Record Straight’) is his original statement and original feelings.

          This is what you deniers do. You ignore the points that you are clearly losing on and go right to aggressive questioning. You do that as a dishonest tactic in order to avoid honestly discussing evidence you know you can’t answer. No person who was honestly evaluating this would dare ignore, even after being pointed-out several times, that Bob says “I have my suspicions. I don’t have any evidence but I have my suspicions.” This, in combination with Bob’s clear incrimination of Jeffery in ‘Setting The Record Straight’ leaves no doubt that Bob leans towards Jeffery murdering Jimi – counter to what the media tried to impress.

          Nice try at denial L3fi, but no. What you write is obviously desperate seeking to get around the obvious. You were not there when I explained the evidence that Bob was unaware of. It resonated with Bob and added up according to the witnessing he gave in ‘Setting The Record Straight’ (which I’m sure you haven’t read).

          Get back to us when you can actually answer what was written and honestly answer why Bosso and Glebbeek did not ask Levine about his previous statements in ‘Setting The Record Straight’?

          This is typical of Skeptoid. In a case where an explosive video actually shows that Bob Levine doesn’t believe the murder theories are all nonsense, what desperate deniers do is ignore all the evidence and come to the opposite conclusion. L3fi is just an internet denier. I am a credible researcher who has spent years at this and actually befriended Bob Levine. Bob said to me after hearing my evidence “I guess Jimi was murdered”. L3fi knows this.

          Bob clearly does support the murder evidence and does not support the denial he was set up to endorse by some very devious people. My showing of Bob’s statements and their chronological significance was more than adequately explained. L3fi is playing dumb because he knows he’s been caught and can’t honestly answer. It proves that when Bob is not being interviewed by people looking to exploit his unwillingness to get involved he believes Jeffery murdered Jimi – as he clearly implied in his original statement in 1992. L3fi is looking to ignore it, just like so-called journalists Joe Bosso and Caesar Glebbeek.

          Get back to us when you can actually answer this L3fi. Yes, I did provide that evidence.

  109. Buster says:

    Josh wrote:

    ” If, despite all of that, you still put stock in Wright’s claim, you have no reason not to attach equal validity to a claim made by Bob Levine. Levine claimed that Wright confessed to him that he fabricated the story to give his book a selling point: “I told Tappy, ‘What are you doing making up this story? So you want to sell books – why do you have to print such lies?’ And he said to me, ‘Well, who’s going to challenge me? Everybody’s dead, everybody’s gone. Chas Chandler, Michael Jeffrey, Mitch Mitchell, Noel Redding…they’re all gone. Nobody can challenge what I write.”(5) Do I need to point out how ironic that is? ”

    You see Josh also ignores Levine’s previous statements in ‘Setting The Record Straight’. If you go back in this thread, I have pointed this out several times and have never gotten an answer from either L3fi or Josh on this. So L3fi is just repeating his ignoring of this serious qualifier in his dishonest entries. Bosso and Glebbeek did the same thing. They drew your attention to this allegedly devastating comment from Bob when he was being set up, but every single one of them ignored Levine’s statements in ‘Setting The Record Straight’. They even ignore them when pointed-out. And now they ignore his true feelings even when they are shown on video.

    These people are using the dishonest method of trying to dismiss the murder claim by means of Tappy Wright. The reason Bob Levine agrees with me in this video and also commented to me “I guess Jimi was murdered” is because I explained the rest of the evidence these false sources all deliberately ignored. The murder evidence does not depend on Tappy Wright alone and goes much deeper into Hendrix history, like the Etchingham investigation that these sources also ignore and also ignore its significance towards the murder claim.

    Again, outside of denier message boards the authorities seem to show no interest in these radically-conflicting claims and their evidentiary significance. If you study criminal justice they usually focus on conflicts like this. So why aren’t they in this case?

  110. L3Fi says:

    You often mention Kathy but she has never suggested that she believes the Michael Jeffrey murder theory either. So drop that nonsense as well.

    Here’s a link:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7aQqs62oOEg

    Go to: 28mins 14 seconds. Much like your own interviewing method with Bob Levine, the interviewer is clearing pushing for some agreement on the theory, however…

    Kathy laughs at the suggestion, stating that “He (Michael Jeffrey) is dead and can’t defend himself. You can say anything you like!”, “Anybody that had that information had a civic duty to report it but they didn’t. If that was the case, you wouldn’t keep that to yourself and it’s a bit short on details. How did he do it?” (she laughs).

    Equally, why did you not bring up the 1992 quotes from Bob to him when interviewing him? You fail your own test of integrity. You didn’t give him a chance to explain and refute you.

    I believe you are nothing more than an agent of confusion, leeching off of Jimi’s death to prop up your own ego. You may believe you are correct but you have started with a conclusion and then stubbornly sought to fill in the blanks with non-evidence. That isn’t objectivity is it?

    • Flyswatter says:

      Wrong again, L3Fi, for the umpteenth time. Kathy is not aware of Albert Allen’s witnessing of Monika showing the photos to Mike Jeffery at Electric Lady Studios, shortly after Jimi died, that she had taken of Jimi at the Samarkand. Two of those photos showed Jimi’s dead body on her bed. Are you foolish enough to think that Jeffery would have Monika come all the way from Europe to the U.S.A. to have her show him those photos, if Jeffery wasn’t involved? You can read about this on page 159 in the Aleem Twins book “Ghetto Fighters in Harlem World”. Roger Pomphrey was told about this witnessing in 1997 & Buzzy Linhart has also known about it for decades.

      Once again your phony argument is rendered INVALID !!

    • Buster says:

      L3fi is obviously just fishing for excuses. I have had extensive conversations with Kathy. In her conversation with Montalvo she is obviously seeking a line of reasoning to let her dismiss Tappy’s claim without ever dealing with it directly. She’s trying to infer that if Tappy’s claim were true he would have come forward with it sooner. I have already extensively discussed the reasons why he didn’t with Kathy privately. I’m afraid she is reluctant to accuse the Crown and, like some women do, is thinking of excuses around what she doesn’t want to admit.

      Look at this this way. Kathy is a person who herself opened an investigation where the people she got some very damning evidence from had not come forth in the 20 years prior. So she already knows from first hand experience that people not coming forth is not necessarily the firm determiner she makes it in Tappy’s case. Kathy knows the reasons why Tappy didn’t come forward. She’s preferring a position that gives her the public excuse to not go past Monika. As usual, what L3fi is avoiding in his dishonest line of reasoning here, is accounting for the real context of Kathy and her input. She proved that the official story the British government presented was based on provable lies. What deniers like L3fi do is put on a strong attack in order to avoid answering evidence they know they can’t answer. That’s what L3fi is doing here. The truth is Kathy’s position on Jeffery is not credible and she refuses to recognize why. While being a strong proponent in the exposure of the truth in Jimi’s murder, Kathy is a person who will not venture beyond Monika in her accusations. Just like the deniers misrepresented Levine, they are also misrepresenting Etchingham. Sorry Kathy, but speaking as Jimi’s advocate you’ve done something very wrong there and no matter what you have done for Jimi in the past you are not working in Jimi’s interest by ignoring some very credible evidence for Jeffery’s involvement. Approval from L3fi is something Kathy should be worried about. And L3fi still hasn’t accounted for what the lies Kathy proved signify as far as the evidence.

      I discussed this with Tappy and he said he did tell it to Bob Levine at the time. A more honest or intelligent approach would admit criminal justice history shows that people do not come forth with everything for various reasons of personal compromise or even cowardice. Please forgive me Kathy, but what Kathy is doing here with Jeffery is a good example. Any legal expert would tell you that the suggestion that all people come forward immediately, truthfully, and if they don’t they are lying is simple-minded and is the obvious excuse-making it is. Meanwhile the rest of the evidence L3fi is flagrantly ignoring squarely points to Jeffery, including the motive.

      I’m afraid Kathy has reached her political limit and is over her head. Kathy was a rock girl. This only illustrates the wicked offense governments commit when they break their public trust and don’t investigate honestly (as Kathy proved herself and L3fi so conveniently ignores).

      • Flyswatter says:

        Just look at L3fi’s laughable post below. He tries to use the copout of “That is complete fabrication by the Aleem Twins to sell their book”, because he can’t refute it and it makes him look foolish. Regarding Albert Allen’s witnessing, anybody with any common sense, who has read the book, would know that you can’t make this up.

        But, as we’ve seen already, common sense isn’t one of L3fi’s strong suits.

        I find it laughable that he says that you have “yet to answer why he didn’t present Bob’s 1992 quotes to him and clear up the matter. He criticised others for missing this trick, so why didn’t he do it?” — and yet L3fi himself has never answered to this:

        “…if Jimi really had accidentally overdosed & choked on his own vomit, then it would have been validated right from the get-go by the powers that be at the time of Jimi’s death & the ambulance men and doctors that attended to Jimi on Sept. 18, 1970 (who incidentally were excluded from the Inquest in Sept. of 1970) would have validated it, as well. But, such a thing never happened.”

        Talk about “straining at a gnat & swallowing a camel” or in modern day terms “the pot calling the kettle, BLACK”.

        • Buster says:

          These people fool themselves that their cheap excuses are working and that they aren’t just reflexively using obvious denial to shield themselves from the facts they don’t want to admit. Flyswatter, Albert Allen’s witnessing is just as damning as the wine. The deniers use the same method for both those cases of evidence exactly because they are aware of its damning nature. They desperately can’t admit the wine because of their awareness of its significance towards the murder evidence. And, equally, they are forced into desperate denial of Albert’s witnessing because of its same significance.

          This is just a flagrant denial of reality because once you mingle in the direct Hendrix world like I have you quickly realize Albert is not lying and others have witnessed Albert telling of this encounter way back to the time it happened. Like I said, Albert would easily pass a lie detector test on this and Monika also confirmed the visit in her book (which L3fi ignores or more likely is ignorant of). Monika did not mention seeing Albert at Jeffery’s office. I think we know the reason why.

          Typical of deniers, knowing he can’t answer why Bosso and Glebbeek didn’t ask Bob about his original 1992 incrimination of Jeffery – face it, Bob is clearly pointing a finger at Jeffery in ‘Setting The Record Straight’ – L3fi accuses me of not asking him. The only problem with that is I did ask him that directly in an other video and Bob resoundingly confirmed it. So did McDermott. So the long and the short of it is L3fi has failed to answer. The obvious reason he is avoiding answering is because he knows that it proves neither himself, Bosso, or Glebbeek had any intention of seeking the truth and just wanted to dismiss the murder claim by any dishonest means. That’s why L3fi refuses to give a straight answer. No credible journalist would avoid asking Levine that. In L3fi’s mind, even though I was the only one to ask Bob about his 1992 statements, somehow I am at fault and the deniers escape criticism. I am guilty for them not asking Bob.

          Bob clearly agrees Jimi was murdered, counter to what false journalists were trying to impress. Levine cannot be honestly used as a source to deny the murder evidence as he has been.

          Caesar never publicly responded to this video and got his mob to ignore it.

  111. L3Fi says:

    Are you really that stupid?

    That is complete fabrication by the Aleem Twins to sell their book, made up to create a hook for a book, just like Tappy did.

    I’m assuming you’ve seen their interview in Joe Boyd’s 1973 film entitled ‘Jimi Hendrix’?

    The Aleem Twins are shown speaking at length about Jimi’s death, they show no signs of having even the slightest inclination that Jimi was murdered and instead go off on fanciful theories as to why Jimi died, such as the ‘Alpha Jerk’ theory, where they go on about how Jimi could have been exploring his alpha field and just decided if he could die, or just said ‘F*ck it’.

    Clearly they did not believe at that time that he was murdered and this interview was conducted well after any supposed meeting of Monika and Jeffrey. They seem quite content with the official line, very odd how they didn’t seem to mention this tall tale of death photos at the time but then suddenly less than a year after Monika’s death you have it coming out to others. The reason why? Because they knew Monika was now dead and couldn’t defend against such a nonsense statement.

    I mean, it is so ridiculous. Can you really see Jeffrey and Monika flashing around photos of Jimi’s body to his close friends after his death. Who would do that, let alone those supposedly behind his death, surely they’d be wanting to keep a low-profile? Ha! Desperate. And IF it was true (which it isn’t) why did the Aleem twins do nothing in the face of such an act? Either that makes them complicit by their inaction or just fantasists. My money is on the latter.

    Besides, Scrumdrum (or his pseudonym aka you) has yet to answer why he didn’t present Bob’s 1992 quotes to him and clear up the matter. He criticised others for missing this trick, so why didn’t he do it?

    • Buster says:

      Unlike L3fi, who is just an armchair Skeptoid internet denier, I actually sought out and met Albert Allen in person. I confronted him on that very point and he was quite unhesitant and forthright on the matter. If you read Albert’s book (which I’m sure L3fi hasn’t) you’ll find the story of the twins doing a cocaine deal in upper Manhattan where the Detroit buyer snorted a nice spoon full of coke in order to sample it and proceeded to keel over and die in front of them. Albert explained to me that at the time they thought that maybe this happened to Jimi too and the thing that Albert witnessed between Monika and Jeffery was some kind of collusion but didn’t really make any difference. You see the twins, as they explained in their book, were two hot shot coke hustlers and were not inclined to press that kind of thing at the time due to other compromising interests. The true honest situation L3fi is trying to get around here is Albert and Arthur were still dependent on Electric Lady and the still-alive Michael Jeffery for their musical pursuits and like most of the other witnesses had some kind of personal interest that kept them from coming forth. L3fi is a denier, so he is just working the gratuitous doubts. The real evidence clearly points in the direction of collusion between Monika and Jeffery. Like the wine, this kind of evidence is damning to the naysayers so they practice their most outrageous denial of the obvious in instances like this.

      I know Albert and I’m sure if L3fi accused him of making up a tale to make money he would quickly straighten him out. Albert would pass a lie detector test on his witnessing because it is real. People in the know realize he has been telling it all the way back to the day it happened. There are witnesses for it that Albert can produce.

      L3fi is ignoring that when I directly mentioned to Bob Levine in the video above that Jimi was murdered he responded “perhaps”. I reminded Bob of our conversations where he agreed there was foul play involved in Jimi’s death and he responded (3:10) “There could be, there could be”. Somehow, while trying to convince us of his sincerity L3fi renders that as “Bob definitely doesn’t agree that Jimi was murdered in your video”. L3fi has yet to make any effort to answer why Glebbeek and Bosso failed to discuss the evidence that made Bob say that in their grossly one-sided so-called journalistic efforts? Or why they were so desperate to deny the murder claim? Those articles clearly try to use Bob’s dishonestly-induced statement that “the murder theories were all nonsense” to end the issue using Tappy Wright as the sole source. However, if you view the video, once Bob is briefed with the full evidence Bosso and Glebbeek’s suggestion isn’t exactly true is it? It isn’t exactly honest to use Bob Levine as a source to deny the murder claims is it? Nor is it credible or honest to use Tappy and his claim to ignore the rest of the evidence as the media seems content to do. And you are asking US if we are that stupid?

      The answer to L3fi’s really sincere question about who would be so reckless as to flash around evidence of conspiracy in Jimi’s death, or a relationship to Monika – would be Michael Jeffery, an MI-6 agent who openly bragged about his covert exploits numerous times before. A person in total control of Electric Lady Studio with an entire 3rd floor for his personal office. A man who felt fully confident that no investigation would ever occur by the CIA and FBI who had Jimi as an open enemy on their Security Index. Jeffery knew the British government was on his side and would never honestly investigate. He thought he was alone with Monika and safe. Monika was there to secure a done deal with Jeffery and assure her loyalty, therefore dispensing with any need to get rid of her too. Unfortunately Jeffery was not protected from that himself 2 years later.

      L3fi has real balls because he is now accusing me of not presenting Bob’s 1992 statements to him for confirmation – something his side is guilty of. Well, the answer is I did. I presented them not only to Bob but also to McDermott. They both confirmed Bob said those things. And Bob even told me he stood behind what he said.

      L3fi still hasn’t answered why Bosso and Glebbeek didn’t do the same? Why they were so desperate to deny the murder via the sole source of Tappy’s claim? I did clear up the matter as shown in this video. Despite what deniers are saying, Bob does believe Jimi was murdered.

      • L3fi says:

        So, let me get this straight: a pair of coke-dealing thugs who happily exhort violence to get their way are now the bastions of justice and honesty? And yet these two fearless characters had neither the balls or frame of mind to take the pictures from such a petite woman such as Monika and then do something with them, like go to the authorities?! If someone had photographs of a dead friend of mine who also happened to be the highest paid act of the day, I’d not just walk away like that was a normal thing. Nobody would. They clearly didn’t fear Jeffrey if they were planning on giving him a hiding, so sounds like they overlooked the matter just so they could continue to use the studio. Either way, they have no excuse. With friends like that, Jimi needed no enemies. Ridiculous concocted story.

        • Flyswatter says:

          You want to get things straight? Get a copy of the book and read it. Of course, you won’t because it doesn’t tell you what you want to hear. If you read the book, then you’d know that both of the Twins were not on hand to confront Monika. It was just Albert Allen that was in Jeffery’s office, and Monika was not alone, as Jeffery was there also.

          And your stupid suggestion of “taking the pictures & showing them to the authorities” is laughable. What authorities? Where? Jimi’s death happened in England completely out of U.S.A. jurisdiction. Albert’s witnessing occurred in New York City, U.S.A., not in London, England.

          • L3fi says:

            I’m not purchasing a book full of fantasy and nonsense.

            So there were no Police, Courts, Independent or Private Investigators in the USA in the 70s?

            With logic like that then there is no hope for you to ever prove that Jimi was murdered and if you truly believe that is the case, why are you even bothering? Oh, because it gets you attention on the internet.

          • Buster says:

            L3fi is just naysaying something he is obviously aware is true. If you look at the thread he has backed off all his disingenuous complaints about Albert Allen.

            L3fi backs into denial generalities while ignoring there was no hope for an FBI Security Index listee ever getting any assistance from the same police agencies that murdered him.

            L3fi is lying here and anyone with a comprehensive knowledge of the case knows Albert is telling the truth. L3fi ignores that Monika admitted to the photos when Albert confronted her. Albert would pass a lie detector test.

    • Flyswatter says:

      The stupidity is clearly on your side. You haven’t even read the Aleem Twins book to find out that the witnessing was by random chance, not because of pictures being “flashed around”, as you stupidly suggest (and if you read the book, then you’d know that). There is no fabrication as you say, and that witnessing has been known for decades, and you’ve had the names of those that have known about it given to you already. Buzzy Linhart knew about it long before Monika died.

      The Aleem Twins didn’t put that info into their book, just to try and sell it — they put that info in there because that event really happened. That “Alpha Jerk” video that you refer to was recorded in 1972, when Jeffery was still alive and was giving the Twins free studio time at Electric Lady Studio (to try and cover his tracks), and they didn’t want to tip anybody off as to what they were really thinking, at the time. A short time later, the Twins beat the living hell out of one of Jeffery’s bookkeepers (for padding the books) & were planning on giving Jeffery the same treatment, except he died in the plane crash. Your stupid statement of “Clearly they did not believe at that time that he was murdered and this interview was conducted well after any supposed meeting of Monika and Jeffrey” is pure hogwash.

      When Monika’s court with Kathy came up, Monika tried to enlist the help of the Aleem Twins, not realizing that they were same Twins known to Jimi as the Allen Twins & that one the Twins had saw the photos she showed to Mike Jeffery. When TaharQa Aleem (Albert Allen) spoke to Monika directly, he told her who he really was & about the pictures that he had seen her showing to Jeffery & that he had always believed that she was involved in the murder of Jimi, and he wasn’t going to help her in any way, shape, or form. Monika didn’t deny it, and could only give a stuttering response. Monika died a short time later. The Twins didn’t just do “nothing”, as you suggest, and of course, all you can do is employ the same little girlish copout of “can’t attack the message, so attack the messenger”.

      So you see, it is true, and your denial of reality doesn’t change or alter reality. Your denial of reality just proves that you like to urinate on your own head and tell yourself it is raining ( a form of cheap thrills, perhaps? ).

      As for ScrumDrum’s video with Bob Levine, the subject of it wasn’t about Levine’s 1992 quotes (which he has never publicly denied), it was about Caesar Glebbeek’s misquotes & Bob’s denial that he ever even spoke to Glebbeek — meaning that Glebbeek was fabricating things and was lying. You’re just grasping at straws.

      • L3fi says:

        I enjoy watching you flailing when you’re clearly on the ropes Scrum drum aka Buster aka Flyswatter aka Exiles 800 aka Ralph Yates. Shame you need all these different monikers to give the pretence that there are others in agreement with you, you fool no-one and it is an indicative trait of someone who gets caught out a lot.

        You’ve not proved a thing to date, what an absolute time-waster. I thought you may have had something to offer, hoped really but in your hands Jimi’s death is safely mired in confusion, contradiction, fantasy and nonsense.

        Not one shred of evidence other than folklore, myths, lies and hearsay. You’re boring to read also, all waffle and insults.

        You drag poor old Bob Levine out of a hospital bed just because of some vendetta you have against Glebeek and then fail to seize the chance to address to very issues you accused other people of avoiding in their interviews with the man. You’re a joke! And not a particularly funny one.

        • Buster says:

          Thank you for backing into the trash-talk deniers usually revert to when out-argued by the obvious facts L3fi. You obviously have no honest interest in the truth and are just here to naysay anything we show. Thank you for showing the public the best you can do is name-call when confronted by strong evidence you can’t refute.

          You said Levine obviously did not believe Jeffery killed Jimi from what he said in the video. That’s clearly dishonest because anyone can see that when I confronted him with the direct question he said “It could be, it could be”. He also said “Perhaps”. Finally he said “I have my suspicions, I don’t have any evidence but I have my suspicions”. He then added “Look what happened to Jeffery” and gestured a plane crashing. I have another video with Bob where he does the same thing but then adds “I guess Michael got karma when he died in that plane crash”. He was obviously referencing Michael getting karma for murdering Jimi (as he was here). Sorry L3fi but any honest person can see a crass denier desperately trying to convince himself of the opposite of what the video is obviously showing. In fact the video is based on Bob’s true feelings vs Caesar Glebbeek who did exactly what you are doing here. He tried to lie and say Bob didn’t believe Jeffery murdered Jimi and that you “should listen to Bob Levine”. Like what you are trying to get away with here, I knew Glebbeek was trying to get away with murder in his dishonest rendering of Levine and the evidence. Like you are doing here, Caesar tried to ignore and avoid Bob’s real original statements from 1992 in McDermott’s ‘Setting The Record Straight’. If you examine your trash-talk response here you are doing your usual and aggressively attacking – but you are also conspicuously avoiding giving an honest answer to the incriminating comments Bob made in that book. You are probably ignorant of them. If we forced you to respond to those comments in detail you would probably do what Glebbeek did and attack the credibility of original witnesses like Levine in order to get around what they witnessed. You’ve already falsely accused Albert Allen of making up that story. Albert had no way of knowing Monika documented her visit to Jeffery’s Electric Lady office exactly at that time in her book. Sorry L3fi, there’s witnesses to Albert Allen’s telling it long ago. You can knee-jerk the accusation Albert fabricated it to sell a book, but once you get down to the honest details he clearly did not and trash talk won’t get you out of it. There are witnesses to his telling it at the time. You can’t get away with that cheap denial, nor can you ignore its consequences on your credibility.

          The fact Caesar had the hubris to do that is what Bob is openly criticizing in this video. Bob realizes Caesar is full of it and openly says he is a well-known bs artist. Kathy told me the same thing. So, Caesar is correct about one thing – listen to Hendrix manager Bob Levine. Neither Glebbeek or Bosso bothered to ask Levine about the rest of the evidence and they did that intentionally because, like you, they were not interested in the truth. When Bob’s position is fully investigated and dealt with in an honest manner it is very clear he believes Jeffery murdered Jimi. L3fi was not present when Bob told me verbatim, after I had briefed him on the full evidence he wasn’t aware of, “I guess Jimi was murdered”.

          Get back to us when you can honestly answer the facts L3fi…

        • Flyswatter says:

          LOL. Wrong again (as usual). I am not one and the same person as Scrum Drum and have never met Bob Levine. The only one flailing is YOU. Hear this sound:

          PSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS

          That is the sound of you urinating on your own head and telling yourself it is raining. It is you that hasn’t proven anything & are the real joke (and very laughable one at that) that is butthurt because you can’t refute the points that have been made that do indeed prove that Jimi was murdered.

          • L3fi says:

            If you can prove Jimi was murdered then do it. There is this thing called Law, you basically present evidence to a court of Law and then a decision is made based on the weight of the evidence.

            It has been nearly 50 years since Jimi died and nobody has presented anything.

            If one of the Aleem Twins had really witnessed a photograph of their dead friend and world famous person, you would think they would react differently other than just ignoring it, only to bring it up in a book 40 years later. Bottom line is they failed Jimi if it was true, though it wasn’t so just succeeded in lying to push a book.

            So, stop whinging on internet forums and prove the case.

            You bore.

          • L3fi says:

            And enough of the watersports references, clearly you’re not very mature or serious about adding anything to the disussion. Boy, Jimi would be so proud to have you on his side!

          • Gadesh says:

            I have to agree with L3fi. I have follwed this link since it was formed by Josh back in 2013. I am a lifelong fan of Jimi’s and I do actually believe he might have been murdered, but I just don’t understand why certain respondents have to be so insulting with one another.

            Surely we all are entitled to our own opinions and hopefully those opinions are made by ‘experiencing’ the evidence before us. I don’t deny that certain people have had access to information from other sources that we can’t access and there are fewer and fewer people alive who were around at the time of Jimi’s death to corroborate any information, but L3fi is right in that if there is so much compelling evidence in someone’s possession, why hasn’t that someone actually done anything about it?

            Please people, less of the insults and just stick to the facts and theories on the question without spending all the time slanging one another off.

          • Flyswatter says:

            You are lying, L3fi, and once again urinating on your own head and telling yourself it is raining (and call it a water-sport — sounds like you are well practiced at it). You can’t have stomach and lungs flooded with wine and a blood alcohol content of .005 % in any accidental death or suicide scenario, as that is both physically and medically IMPOSSIBLE! <— That IS the medical proof that has been posted here more than once & you keep ignoring it and keep cuckoo-birding "no proof".

            CUCKOO! CUCKOO! CUCKOO!

            Gadesh, the Jimi Hendrix death case is not about opinions. It is about the facts and evidence of the case which have been posted here repeatedly.

  112. Buster says:

    L3fi is lying again. Albert Allen did not ignore his witnessing. He was telling it to people over the years. In fact, if L3fi were more able to honestly follow a debate he would see that Albert used his witnessing to confront Monika on it in 1995. Albert’s pressuring Monika on that event is part of what led to Monika’s “suicide” in 1996. Monika’s German boyfriend, the guitarist for the rock group the “Scorpions”, Uli Roth, said Monika spoke to him and said she would never commit suicide. Roth thinks Monika was somehow murdered. Roth refuses to talk to anyone about it. Is L3fi going to attack Roth now for not talking?

    The worst thing about L3fi’s insincere position is that it is actually his side that has failed the legal standard of that very rule of law he cites. L3fi ignores the fact that Kathy Etchingham’s investigation proved beyond a doubt that Monika’s story was based on lies. What that means is the official verdict is not credible. It is not legal for the authorities to ignore new evidence in a murder case. So while his side has actually committed the biggest failure in Law, L3fi has no problem with it and barks at us to come forth – even though we have come forth and satisfied the Law more than anybody.

    We have already proven that Jimi was murdered because it is forensically impossible to be witnessed by a medical doctor having 5 bottles of wine inside your body while only having a 5mg blood alcohol content. If this wasn’t proof enough the British government’s failure to act on these proven conflicts and their legal significance should tell any intelligent person all they need to know.

    It is totally disingenuous to ignore the serious conflict of interest existing in this case where the British Government is unwilling to investigate its own wrongdoing and the murder of an international celebrity by one of their own Intelligence agents. It is beyond insincere to ignore all this, and to ignore the strong evidence that the British Government was involved in the covering up of the evidence at the time. What that shows is a strong indication that the British Government was cooperating in the political assassination of an FBI Security Index listee during the COINTELPRO era. An honest appraisal of this situation would suggest that it would be impossible to receive either honest legal review or justice in such a case where the authorities themselves are an accomplice in the crime. Where those guilty authorities are allowed to rule upon themselves. The ultimate conflict of interest.

    L3fi continues to practice profound dishonesty when he says nothing has been shown in 50 years. L3fi flies right in the face of Kathy Etchingham’s investigation that proved Monika’s story was false. He also ignores my forensic arguments that cinch the medical witnessing. It is not true to say nothing has been shown, because what all this points to the most is the British Government is unaccountably ignoring evidence that no credible investigatory body would dare ignore if it were doing an honest investigation. We have proven in this thread that the British Government is flagrantly ignoring that the real timeline of events creates a whole new forensic situation that was never properly evaluated by any Inquest, and if it had been it would have proven homicide beyond a doubt.

    That’s where we are in this discussion for anyone credibly following the arguments and evidence, and it’s what needs to be honored and answered accordingly. L3fi is clearly avoiding doing that so his offerings should not be taken seriously. As can be seen in his current backing down, we can prove what we say. L3fi is in no position to be making any demands. There’s nothing dumber or more dishonest than someone seeing a profound circumstantial and forensic case for a sensational murder that is powerful enough to indict an entire government and turning around and saying “show us the proof”. You’ve seen the proof, and there’s no doubt it indicates murder.

    Gadesh, this is not the sensitivity training thread. Try addressing what is actually being said. Murder is rough business, as is murder denial.

    • L3fi says:

      Monika lied about the timings so that Jimi’s ‘friends’ could turn up and clean the flat -free of drug paraphernalia! This has been established. It does not indicate or conclude that a murder took place!

      Where is your evidence? Take it to court if you have any. The fact that you instead choose to argue with people on the internet either makes you an attention-seeking fraud or someone who has all the evidence and is not prepared to present it to the Courts. The latter makes you either uncertain about what you claim or just complicit in keeping the truth buried and that makes you worse than any alleged perpetrator of crime.

      You’re making the claim, prove it! OR just keep masquerading around like some two-bit supermarket Jesus.

      • L3fi says:

        PS: You give ‘Alpha-Jerk’ a new meaning and rightful definition.

        • Flyswatter says:

          And you give “water sports” a whole new meaning just by the way that you keep urinating on your own head and telling yourself it is raining, as evidenced by this stupid statement:

          “Monika lied about the timings so that Jimi’s ‘friends’ could turn up and clean the flat -free of drug paraphernalia! This has been established. It does not indicate or conclude that a murder took place!”

          Yes it does, because those same ‘friends’ of Jimi’s refused to talk for decades afterwards about the incident & none of them were there to identify Jimi when the ambulance arrived at the Samarkand. They also had no comment about Tappy Wright’s claim.

          Cleaning up drugs and paraphernalia would only take a matter of minutes, not several hours. Monika’s Samarkand flat was NOT a drug-traffiking storehouse.

          As for “taking evidence to court”, it just so happens that Kathy already tried & she got stonewalled, with the British authorities stating they would never reopen the case. Like yourself, they don’t want the truth to be known.

          And you are still playing your stupid little girlish game of “can’t attack the message, so attack the messenger”, so who is it that is the attention seeking fraud, here? It is you. The Nazi propaganda minister, Joseph Goebbels, would have loved you, seeing as how you like to employ his tactic of “accusing the other side of that which you are guilty of”.

      • Buster says:

        Your approach exposes your lack of credibility L3fi. If you bothered to accurately reflect what has been repeated numerous times above, Eric Burdon admitted in his 1986 book that Monika called him at dawn. We have established that the so-called flat cleaners delayed calling for at least 5 hours. Common sense tells you it doesn’t take 5 hours to get some drugs out of a flat. You reference Law, but no law enforcement agent would ignore the fact that people would not take 5 hours to clean a flat of drugs that would only take a few minutes to get rid of with a person in a life threatening medical condition in a bed next to them the whole time. We can assume Jimi was dead at 6am or earlier as the dried vomit indicated. Your grossly oversimplified argument here self-servingly ignores the evidentiary implications we have explained numerous times above. If Jimi was dead by 6 that means the barbiturate was only in him for 2 hours at the most. When you input that 2 hour timeline into the medical forensics at the autopsy it is impossible for the Vesparax to have killed Jimi the way that was claimed. There is our evidence. Your comment here foolishly ignores that Monika’s lie allowed the Inquest to ignore critical forensic information that would have radically changed the forensic evidence. So much so as to invalidate the Inquest and its conclusions. When intelligently analyzed Monika’s lies actually do prove murder.

        If you bothered to read our arguments above you will not be able to find any accidental choking on vomit alcohol/barbiturate death where the victim had Jimi’s forensic particulars. You don’t seem to understand that the fact no victim of a true alcohol/barbiturate choking on vomit death can have a large quantity of wine flooding their lungs while only having a 5mg blood alcohol content IS evidence. You keep ignoring that the Inquest said Jimi died because he mixed alcohol and sleeping pills. 5mg is about a 1/4 glass of wine or less. That is not enough alcohol to cause the assumed drug conflict. It is proof that Jimi did not have the required amount of alcohol to cause the vomiting in the first place. And it is even stronger proof that there’s something wrong with someone with such a tiny blood alcohol content being found with his lungs flooded to the hilt with wine. There is no explanation for that in a normal accidental choking on vomit death and you won’t find a single other case where a real choking on vomit OD death involved such an amount of wine. There is our evidence and you haven’t credibly answered for it. Nor has the British Government.

        • L3fi says:

          It also doesn’t take more than a few minutes to murder someone, so what’s your point? That it took several hours to kill Jimi? What a joke.

          You have already been corrected numerous times on this thread about your forensic pathology errors and not just by me, though you don’t listen. The world is full of independent and private professionals who could investigate this for you with the appropriate knowledge of pathology. When one of them produces a paper regarding the physiological events surrounding Jimi’s actual death then you will have more than just personal supposition and error.

          There is also no evidence anywhere for 5 bottles of wine (or 3.75 litres) being removed from Jimi’ body. Again, personal invention by yourself. Show us the medical papers that detail this substance and measurement?

          You don’t seem to understand the difference between proof and belief. The former requires evidence. This isn’t a case of faith.

          • Buster says:

            You’re lying L3fi and it is YOU who has been corrected. We have proven that Dr Bannister was telling the truth because we have found evidence that Dr Seifert was seriously lying. Documentary maker David Kramer came forth in a similar discussion on another Hendrix site because he saw someone make the same claim as you that there was no evidence for the wine. Kramer posted that he did a video interview with Dr Seifert in London in the late 1990’s and Dr Seifert is on tape saying he witnessed Jimi covered in wine. Now if you look at an interview of Dr Seifert after Tappy’s claim came out he panicked and made a sloppy mistake. He said in that post-Tappy interview that he detected no alcohol on Jimi. There’s no court of law that would ignore the obvious conclusions from that. Being a doctor employee of the British state Seifert knew what he had witnessed was seriously incriminating and tried to cover it up. Meanwhile Dr Bannister’s story never changed one iota in the decades he has been telling it. We also have the head coroner, Gavin Thurston, being quoted in a Sept 29 1970 interview with UPI reporter Jack Meehan that “Jimi’s stomach contents obviously showed a large amount of red wine had been imbibed”.

            For your information I have had the top forensic pathologist in America, Dr Cyril Wecht, agree with my conclusions and give me permission to act under his direction to formally pursue this in England. So far every single British forensic pathologist of equal credentials I have approached has declined. Dr Wecht was the chair of the American Academy Of Forensic Sciences and was on the American Congress’s House Select Committee On Assassinations. His approval is not without serious weight but apparently that doesn’t impress the British pathologists.

            Your obnoxious questions fail to realize that England broke serious medical law when the chief coroner failed to input knowledge of a large amount of wine into the forensics. A smarter head would see Dr Teare probably was informed of this wine and tried to get around it by making an “estimate” of the blood alcohol level at the time of ingestion of the pills. Another forensically illegal act, but the kind of thing you would expect in a government-corrupted Intelligence Agency assassination. Let’s be clear that instead of doing his duty and using this dilemma to further examine the time of death, Dr Teare is making up excuses instead. The British Inquest made no effort to determine any time of death. Ever wonder why?

  113. L3fi says:

    Thank-you Gadesh.

    Below is a link to that video about the ‘Alpha Jerk’… Featuring one of the brothers that it is claimed had witnessed (prior to this video being recorded) a photograph of Jimi’s corpse, taken by Monika, immediately after he choked to death at the Samarkand. And yet said and did nothing about it!

    I don’t know about anyone else but does this appear to be the sort of theorising you’d expect about Jimi’s death from someone who was convinced that Jimi was deliberately murdered by his Manager?

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uHGlj62lSv4

    • Flyswatter says:

      Try opening your eyes & look up. You’ve already had this explained to you. We aren’t claiming that Albert Allen witnessed what he did, it is Albert Allen himself that has made that claim and the source has already been referenced (page 159 in the Twins book ‘Ghetto Fighters in Harlem World’).

      As for that video link you posted, Albert Allen was smart enough to know that if he had said anything about Jimi being murdered, that they would have edited it out.

      • Noah Dillon says:

        Did he say something or didn’t he? You seem to be making two contradictory claims: it’s in his book, he told people about it for years, but he didn’t because it would have been edited out. Which is it?

        • Flyswatter says:

          No, there isn’t a contradictory claim. You are not reading correctly.

          When I said “edited it out”, I was referring to the video clip taken in 1972 (which I stated), not the book.

          • Buster says:

            The movie in which Albert speculated that Jimi may have deliberately taken a cosmic route out of life when confronted with the “exit” in a drug induced near-death state (which soul brother Albert calls in poetic 60’s street terms the “Alpha Jerk”) was produced by Warner Brothers. Warner Brothers was well-known to be mob-connected through Frank Sinatra and was the company Michael Jeffery contracted Hendrix music with. It is an act of absolute ignorance for L3fi to suggest Albert could just bring up the murder topic and it would be allowed by the Warner Brother’s editors. I spoke to Albert in 2012 directly at his house. He told me some other interviewees tried to say Jimi was murdered and their interviews were cut out of the movie. I have interviewed one of those people.

            So the reality here is L3fi’s dishonest attempt to conflate Albert Allen’s lack of mention of his witnessing at Electric Lady in the 1973 Hendrix movie, is not sound and doesn’t answer the greater issue or the evidence for it. It is just L3fi’s typical way of trying to deny the evidence, which seems to be his only intent here and that isn’t honest. By the way, L3fi is obviously British.

            There’s no escaping the obvious conclusion from Albert’s witnessing. Monika Dannemann was in cahoots with Michael Jeffery and was part of a political assassination protected by the British Government and most likely sponsored by the American Government’s Central Intelligence Agency.

          • Flyswatter says:

            One more thing:

            If anyone reads the Aleem Twins book, they will find out that Jeffery had been tipped off inadvertantly about Jimi’s intent to separate from him by a lawyer named Ed Howard prior to the start of that European tour.

          • Noah Dillon says:

            He was afraid of something being edited out of video but not a book?

          • Flyswatter says:

            Noah, look up at what Buster just posted, in particular the first paragraph. There’s your answer. The film-makers would have edited it out back in 1972, if Albert Allen had said that he thought Jimi was murdered. It wasn’t fear, it was just common sense. The book ‘Ghetto Fighters in Harlem World’ id the Twins personal book & was published in 2014.

            You should know that in their own book, they can say anything they want to, but in a Warner Bros. film back in the early ’70’s — No, the film-makers would have edited it out.

          • Noah Dillon says:

            Why? There’s no statute of limitations for murder. It’s actually not common sense. People accuse others of murder and testify about accused individuals all the time. Like, allll the time.

          • Buster says:

            Noah, you’re ignoring the points. Albert would not be allowed to speak of any evidence of Jimi’s murder in the Warner Brother’s-owned 1973 Soundtrack movie. Other people tried to and they were cut out of the film. Devon was cut out of life.

            You are not credibly answering the fact that there are witnesses to Albert telling that story all the way back to the day so he isn’t lying. And you haven’t credibly responded to the fact that he DID tell the story finally in his 2014 book.

            The answer to you evasiveness is Albert DID make that accusation.

    • Buster says:

      L3fi is just an internet denier trying to naysay good evidence. Meanwhile I am a hands-on researcher who has gotten intimate knowledge of these events and interviewed the witnesses directly. I have already explained that the twins were caught in a compromise after Jimi died because they still depended on Jeffery and Electric Lady for their careers. L3fi is ignoring that I have already explained that I confronted Albert with this and he said the Detroit dealer they saw die in front of them from a cocaine-induced seizure made them consider maybe Jimi did the same. But L3fi is stupidly ignoring the fact that in 1971 when Albert witnessed this there was no controversy whether or not Jimi was dead. They knew Jimi was dead on the bed so there would be nothing incriminating about those photos of Jimi dead and covered in vomit at the time. The photos did not have incriminating context until Kathy Etchingham’s investigation that revealed Monika said Jimi was alive when he left with her in the ambulance. Both lies.

      The truth is probably explained by the part of Albert’s book where he was going to fight Jimi over his treatment of them at the studio and not promoting their music. The truth is more likely the Twins were going to get what they could whether Jimi was murdered or not. Something most of the creeps surrounding Jimi also did.

      But this avoids the main point anyway. We have witnesses who said Albert told this story all the way back to the day. Albert tried to tell people but they weren’t interested. If L3fi paid closer attention to the facts, Albert also told this to Monika in 1995 and Monika said “come to England and I’ll explain the whole thing to you”. Hardly the action of someone making up something to sell a book and hardly the reaction from somebody who was involved. It’s all in the book.

      You’re lying L3fi and trying to contrive the Alpha Jerk comment into an evasion of all the rest of the evidence. The whole world was fooled by the official story and a covert murder designed to look like an accidental OD. I know, I was fooled too. Why not the Twins?

      Answer the point directly, L3fi, how were the twins supposed to know a photo of Jimi dead on the bed proved murder in early 1971 when the fact it conflicted with Monika’s story didn’t come out until 1992?

  114. L3fi says:

    I’ll try to answer your question of “how were the twins supposed to know a photo of Jimi dead on the bed proved murder in early 1971 when the fact it conflicted with Monika’s story didn’t come out until 1992?”

    Well, for a start: a photo of a deceased person does not PROVE murder, it is just a photograph of a dead person. What would prove murder is if there was a photo of Monika and/or Jeffrey pouring 5 bottles of wine down Jimi’s throat while he was alive -just as I believe you claim happened. So, your question is already loaded with a problem that can’t be resolved when phrased that way.

    Do you not think it slightly odd that someone would take two photographs of someone who has just died?

    I would, why did the twins not think this? Why didn’t they react with “Why the hell did you take photos of Jimi in that state?”. Why did they not get hold of these photos? Surely, any normal human being would be a bit outraged to say the least that someone had taken photos like that, particularly of someone not only supposedly close to the Twins but also a major international figure. It just doesn’t make sense.

    Also, if Monika did kill Jimi, she wouldn’t need to take photos as evidence, to prove to Jeffrey. Did he think she really needed to prove he was dead, in case he was hiding out somewhere on an Island?! It seems a huge risk to take and if these people were as ruthless and organised as you suggest then it would be a needless risk. Sorry, I just don’t buy the snuff photo tale.

    While we are on it, what do you really think occurred in the Samarkand flat when Jimi returned with Monika? ie: Did he take the 9 pills voluntarily? Then she gets out 5 bottles of red wine, uncorks each one and then pours all 5 of them down his unconscious throat? Then decides for posterity to photograph the corpse, twice?

    Is that what you believe occurred? Or were there others at the flat? Please correct me where I have made assumptions because I’ve not read you anywhere committing to the actual supposed crime events/participant(s).

  115. Buster says:

    Your offerings are of little value L3fi because you continue to ignore several years worth of context that we have built up in order to offer your pretend educated doubt. You said you would answer but you never did and the truth is, according to all that was known at the time, there was no reason for Albert to think photos of Jimi dead and covered in vomit on the bed at the Samarkand represented anything other than photos of Jimi dead just like had happened. The photos Albert witnessed did not possess their true context until Kathy Etchingham interviewed the ambulance attendants who told her Jimi was definitely dead and Monika never went with them in the ambulance. Albert knew the photos he had seen showed Jimi definitely dead, so he knew Monika was lying. The true context is Albert then confronted Monika about those photos when he met her at a concert in 1995.

    You are not being honest L3fi, because while you go out of your way to pose us as nutty conspiracy theorists we have just provided prima facie evidence that Monika’s story was false and that she deliberately lied. The evidentiary context of those photos shows that Jimi was dead and dead early on since Monika probably took those photos before the others came over to do the “flat cleaning”. Once we use this evidence to establish an early time of death for Jimi we can then input the correct forensic evidence and make the correct forensic conclusions from it that were never done by the British Government. You have no right to ignore this like you do because it has been made more than clear in the thread. When you use this correct timeline for the forensics they prove homicide.

    You don’t seem to grasp the context here that Albert did confront Monika on those photos and Monika told him “Come over to England and I will explain the whole thing to you”. Now if you look at that you realize that for Albert to be fabricating this witnessing it would not make sense for him to expose himself by confronting the woman alleged to be involved with what could be proven to be a lie. If Albert had fabricated the claim then his confronting Monika with a false claim might actually expose him. Monika didn’t react by saying what are you talking about, she reacted by acknowledging the photos and telling Albert she would explain it. Your ignorance of the subject prevents you from realizing Albert did ask those questions and for the reasons you pose as well. Monika reacted by trying to get the Twins over to her safe MI-6 playing field where she had successfully hidden the truth with their aid.

    I think it is obvious to me that Monika took photos of what she experienced after Jeffery’s boys pushed her out of the room and what she saw after they left. Many people pose Monika as a dizzy blond, but she’s actually a very cool German operator when it comes to extreme situations and taking those photos is proof of her real cunning nature and smoothness under pressure. It would be irresponsible detective work to ignore Monika might have had outside Intelligence affiliations and those photos were a message to Jeffery. That Monika was working Jeffery for greater Intelligence purposes at that point. Many people ignorantly ask why Monika wasn’t killed herself if she was involved? Well, there’s your answer. Not to mention that Monika actually DID end up dead (And not too long after Albert’s confrontation)…

  116. L3fi says:

    Okay, so we’re getting somewhere.

    Your scenario is: a minimum of 2 (of Jeffrey’s) men entered the flat, I’m assuming let in by Monika. They then pushed Monika out of the room, forced Jimi to take 9 vesparax, waited until the pills took effect and then poured 5 bottles of wine down him?

    Is this correct?

    • Buster says:

      You obviously haven’t bothered to read the thread. Monika’s job was to tell Jimi the foreign language-labeled pills that he couldn’t read were weaker than the usual Tuinols he was used to. Jimi was murdered by an Intelligence operation where foreign language-labeled pills were deliberately introduced into his environment for the purpose of overdosing him. The pills didn’t end up there by chance. They were deliberately, subtly swung in to his surroundings by a pretty blond. This is a classic Intelligence operation for those who need it explained to them against their ignorant doubt. It is the kind of operation that would occur against a Security Index listee.

      If you had a more intelligent understanding of the forensics, Jimi had a barbiturate level in him at autopsy that showed the pills were inside him for at least an hour. You can determine this by examining the claimed number of pills (9) vs the known absorption rate, as well as examining Jimi’s known doings that evening.

      You are a very unskilled detective L3fi. The evidence would obviously point towards the killers coming in after Jimi was incapacitated by the Vesparax. In this scenario it is possible Monika was unaware of their murderous intent and simply followed orders to dose Jimi.

      Seeing what I have shown here I hope you understand the serious error Kathy is committing. I have seen those who are afraid to venture further than Monika propose that Monika poured the wine in to Jimi. If you know anything about Intelligence Agency deception they often float such deceit in order to present enough real information make people believe what they are trying to convince them of. In Intelligence parlance this is called a “Limited Hang-Out”. It is real bait that uses dangerous partial information to lead people in a preferred direction. I believe Sharon Lawrence did that in her book where she points towards Monika. It is very possible Sharon Lawrence is such an Intelligence disinformationist. Sheila Weller too. Any read of Charles Cross’s similarly-misleading book would also suggest Cross is working for Intelligence.

      It is more than clear -as I have explained numerous times above, that the barbiturate level in Jimi necessitated a period of unconsciousness of at least a half hour. If Jimi had the unexplainable full lungs worth of wine in him for that half hour it would have been absorbed into his blood to a level much higher than the 5mg that was found. Whether you realize it or not this IS forensic proof of homicide and as I have repeated over and over you will not find any other victim of a real barbiturate and alcohol choking on vomit death with those forensic particulars (which is also proof of homicide).

      I see you have dropped your previous doubts about the photos and wine.

      Please L3fi, let me know if I have to repeat anything for the 100th time…

  117. L3fi says:

    I haven’t dropped my doubts about the wine or the photos, sorry but I don’t go back on any of my posts or convictions, unless of course ‘evidence’ is produced to the contrary -and that means, beyond suspicions and people who have something to gain from promoting a tale that helps them sell books or raise their profile in the media. There’s no point in going back and forth, we disagree and both have put our sides across.

    I was more interested to see how you imagine this played out, you’ve not anywhere in the previous threads responded with the actual crime scene scenario of Monika being accessory but not actually pouring the wine when I have requested a timeline scenario previous.

    I do appreciate anyone putting the time and effort in to respond, nobody can really ask for more than that, your passion for the subject has never been in doubt, just your conclusions and your unfortunate trademark aggressive approach to it, which can be off-putting to most people who you are trying to see your point. Fortunately, I don’t get phased by that.

    Three questions:

    1. If this was a ‘classic method of cointelpro assasination’ as you have claimed many times before, then why would there only be one victim in the entire history of the world who exhibits such forensic particulars?

    2. What evidence do you have that Monika worked for the intelligence agencies? Where does this supposition come from?

    3. What do you make of Gerry Stickells and Eric Barrett going through and taking Jimi’s letters/messages in the flat? If Monika is to believed, this is an odd thing to make up. Why did they especially focus on paperwork?

  118. Buster says:

    Sorry L3fi but you have backed-off to the point of visible concession of the points. Anyone honestly reading this would see that you have met your match and had your gratuitous doubts handed to you by a competent researcher you and your Skeptoid ilk hadn’t anticipated on this board. A more objective view would admit that Josh’s original post benefited from the lack of accurate information the media deliberately failed to present over the years in order to mislead the public away from the real cause. Josh quoted Bob Levine, but as my video shows, the truth is far from what Bob has been falsely portrayed as espousing.

    1) This is a logical fallacy. Just because there are no other prominent examples of drowning in wine doesn’t mean that the evidence we are showing is any less valid. However there was a case I located in my research of an Army member who was killed this way by Intelligence. I can’t recall the specific name offhand. The closest example would be reporter Dorothy Kilgallen who needed to be killed quickly like Jimi and also went the way of a planted CIA boyfriend and killing her with barbiturates and alcohol. The boyfriend Ron Pataky was CIA, so this is proof it is a CIA covert murder method.

    2) She’s a classic spook who no one ever investigated the background of. I can’t mention the other evidence without compromising my research seeing how this is still an active investigation. Anyone with any sense would see Albert’s witnessing strongly suggests such a status. She shows Intel capabilities in being to cover it up as cooly as she did for as long as she did. Monika’s a cool customer. The Selina Scott video of Monika showing her Intel training in lying in an interview has been removed from Google owned You-Tube,

    3) Because they were aware Jeffery murdered Jimi and were actively seeking to remove evidence that would show a relationship to Jeffery. Smart detectives would realize THAT is the reason it took 5-6 hours to “clean the flat”. If you were a better detective you would realize Monika was sending a strong hint by mentioning they were looking for notes. Smart detectives would note that Monika wrote in her book that only her and Jimi knew about the Samarkand hide-away that Jimi was using it to escape the office. No Scotland Yard official ever asked Monika why then there would be telephone messages from Jeffery’s office at her flat? This shows you who really did it and why and who the British Government was protecting. Stickells lied when he said he didn’t know about the flat that was only around the corner from his own flat.

    My aggressive approach only annoys those who are refusing to admit the obvious facts. I have committed no vice against their dishonest denial. They are obviously seeking an excuse for their own wrongdoing. No of those dishonest persons has ever apologized or admitted their wrongness even after my material has completely refuted their incorrect information.

  119. L3fi says:

    In short, your answers to the questions are:

    1. You cant produce any others with the exact same forensic particulars, despite claiming it being a ‘classic method’ of murder by supposed agencies. So, yes your claim is a logical fallacy. If it was classic then there would be plenty other examples.

    2. You concede that you can produce no evidence whatsoever that a young, German, ice-skater and artist that Jimi picked up was an intelligence operative. Maybe she was just a young, German, ice-skater and artist that Jimi picked up. That’s what we do know.

    3. No evidence that the messages they were looking for were from Jeffrey or that Barrett and Stickells were in on anything. Again, all supposition. They tried to take his guitar as well, because that also somehow linked Jeffrey to this alleged murder. Duh.

    All claims, no evidence.

    Anyone can make claims about anyone else and any historical situation but they only remain claims until proof is provided and claims are verified beyond any doubt. Again, I thought you had something solid to share but seems we will have to wait until your ‘investigation’ is complete and you submit your findings publicly in a book or something more profitable.

    Come back then and we can try again.

    • Buster says:

      1) That’s preposterous L3fi and if your best response is to back into that ridiculous semantic contrivance your side is done. Thank you for doing it in public. You are confirming that you cannot answer the main evidence we’ve provided against your lies above that got us to this point. Your cheap work trick here is obviously a desperate attempt to not honestly answer how we have shown it was used in Jimi’s case. Only a fool would ignore that forensic evidence in these cases is not available because they are covert murders and it takes a real effort to get it like in Jimi’s case. The forensic evidence in Dorothy Kilgallen’s case proved the barbiturates that killed her were not available in her townhouse. So what you are saying is not true and you are dishonestly using it to deflect from what Jimi’s case tells us alone, which is all you need to prove murder. You’re answering to your bogus contrivance but you are using it to avoid honestly answering the evidence we’ve shown.

      2) You obviously know nothing about this case and are ignoring Albert Allen’s witnessing. What we know is Monika was worked in to Jimi’s surroundings and almost certainly was working for Jeffery, as shown by Albert’s witnessing. Sorry, but for serious people you can’t get away with ignoring evidence so badly L3fi. It makes you uncredible. You’re in open lying contempt of all the serious issues that have been documented with Monika over the years and how Albert Allen’s witnessing puts them in context. Only a dedicated liar would ignore all those issues in order to pose Monika as an innocent ice skater. A wholly disingenuous proposition seeing how Intelligence operatives are usually concealed by their controllers. Her precise Intel status does not negate the evidence we’ve shown of her involvement in Jimi’s murder and you no have no right to deliberately ignore it like you are doing here. A more honest analyzer would admit the fact we don’t know anything about Monika is a typical red flag for a spook. But the most telling thing is the lack of interest by authorities who had no right to not look in to her background. This is a classic pattern for an Intel spook, not to mention Jeffery was a spook and once you input Albert’s witnessing it automatically makes Monika one too.

      3) You are obviously just here to annoyingly naysay. You’re British and the British are crass deniers of the evidence in order to not admit Jimi was murdered by them. Why would Barrett and Stickells be looking for any messages at all and why would Monika mention it as being suspicious? If you look at her statement she said it in a suggestive way. Monika said they were only interested in finding those messages. You even phrased it in a curious way yourself. You are not honest L3fi because you raised the point yourself that it was suspicious. A more honest analyzer would admit that Barrett and Stickells’ dead silence on that message-seeking tells you all you need to know. Your whole line of reasoning is disingenuous because at this point we know that message-seeking had to be done while Jimi lay dead in the bed. There’s no District Attorney in the world that would overlook that instead of calling an ambulance they were tidying up messages from the office. This was not a cleaning of the flat for drugs, it was conscious removal of evidence associating the circumstances to Jeffery by loyal (British) employees. This is the obvious context of Monika’s mentioning it that even you detected. Surely you’re not trying to get away with that cheap deflection of something you yourself acknowledged? Monika was obviously trying to say there was something wrong with it. And you never answered the point about Monika lying and saying the Samarkand was a hideaway from the office and then stupidly spilling evidence that the office knew about it. In any case, the literature says Jeffery was seeking Jimi that week and Monika said messages from the “office”. Jeffery was the “office”. Your question here is a crass effort in clumsy denial considering. You are in open dishonest defiance of the fact Monika said “They were ONLY interested in finding messages from the office” as if there was something wrong with it. Very convincing L3fi. You ignore that we have already proven Barrett and Stickells were conspiring because they lied about the true times and haven’t ever spoken about it. Only a crass denier would brazenly ignore all the serious incriminating evidence involved with Barrett, Stickells, and especially Monika and try to paint them as innocent. A more honest observer would admit Stickells was obviously lying about not having knowledge of the Samarkand deathtrap just around the corner from his flat. Mitch Mitchell said he called the Samarkand from Stickells’ place. More likely Stickells went to the Cumberland Hotel to remove messages there too.

      You’re obviously in contempt of the evidence and just here to obnoxiously deny. Anyone can read this thread and see your Olympic backpedaling record on your previous similar silly denials. You probably knew nothing about Bob Levine’s incriminating statements against Jeffery in ‘Setting The Record Straight’. You Brits have no shame. Any honest person could see your desperate attempt to avoid your categorical retreat from your previously unsupportable denials in to this phony attempt to seize the narrative. You’re obviously only interested in the denial and not the facts. You’re simply not to be taken seriously.

  120. L3fi says:

    You clearly have an issue with the British, and yes I am from England (in Britain). Well done, I spell words correctly like ‘colour’ instead of ‘color’. It doesn’t take a genius to figure that out. Equally I know that your real name is Brian Doyle and you are big into Conspiracy Theories such as JFK, and other things like, er: holocaust denial!

    Thing is, it was British folk that truly saw the potential that Jimi had, it was British folk that welcomed, paid for, housed and warmly took him under their wing -invested time, money and belief in Jimi, whilst America left him walking from state to state like a forlorn tramp (Highway Chile): ignored in America by Americans. Those British people worked with and for Jimi to help him find a place where his artistic genius could be nurtured and then went on to present him back to America via Monterey. It was two British musicians, two British Managers and a whole host of other British people who supported and nurtured Jimi to find his way. Jimi said that when he returned to Britain, that if he died, he wanted to be buried in Britain! Unfortunately, the American influence went against this and dragged his corpse back to Seattle, against his wishes. He felt at home in Britain. So, before you start running the British down, just remember Jimi’s own words and wishes. He loved the place. He loved the people. He felt at home in Britain. And Britain loved him back, hence why you ever got to hear him in the first place. He came back to Britain when everything was crumbling but unfortunately he had burn’t too many bridges here by shagging loads of key people’s wives and expected everything to be as it was before he made it big back in the states.

    So, where does that leave us? Well, his body is in the United States and has been for nearly 50 years. What’s to stop you from getting a reliable body of evidence to have him dug up and re-autopsied by American forensic specialists? It’s not like you need to bother with Britain anymore, the evidence for any forensic re-evaluation is in your own country. All the main issues with Britain are historic.

    You said that you have Cyril Wecht on your side (noted for being indicted on 80 odd charges by the American Federal Government for alleged fraudulent expenditure, very credible and honest credentials indeed!), so get him to sort something out instead of bothering the British Medical Profession. Any potential forensic evidence is in your own backyard, so to speak.

    I’m sick of your endless yap about me being dishonest, a denier, etc. Yawn.

    I’m not trying to be a detective of any sort, wannabe detective is your fantasy and psychological crutch. I am here for the truth and I will go with it wherever it manifests but you don’t strike me as anything other than a fantasist, as I have said before: someone who doesn’t really understand Jimi and his message but more of a conspiratorial nut who will paint with the colours (note the british spelling again Mr Detective) of confusion. You are seeking some sort of reward for your own ego. Like anyone else who has observed the inconsistencies surrounding Jimi’s death, I am wanting the truth and so far you have only disappointed.

    You have been blocked by many important figures in the scene, barred from the biggest Hendrix forum on the planet, insulted many of the key people who actually knew Hendrix and had your arguments rejected by almost everyone you encounter online. So, what do you actually have to offer?

  121. L3fi says:

    Okay, so I replied to your post and it came up with ‘Awaiting Moderation’ immediately and then has not appeared, so am assuming it has been rejected. I put that down to one or two things, predominantly that I named you but also one other potential sensitivity. Fortunately, I knew this may happen and so kept a copy of the original. It may not be the real reason for the rejection of my post but if you are reading this then it has obviously gotten through with my ‘censored’ version. Who Knows? as the Band of Gypsies sang…

    So here is my my original post, albeit with censored comments:

    “You clearly have an issue with the British, and yes I am from England (in Britain). Well done, I spell words correctly like ‘colour’ instead of ‘color’. It doesn’t take a genius to figure that out. Equally I know that your real name is *CENSORED* and you are big into Conspiracy Theories such as JFK, and other things like, er: *CENSORED*-denial!

    Thing is, it was British folk that truly saw the potential that Jimi had, it was British folk that welcomed, paid for, housed and warmly took him under their wing -invested time, money and belief in Jimi, whilst America left him walking from state to state like a forlorn tramp (Highway Chile): ignored in America by Americans. Those British people worked with and for Jimi to help him find a place where his artistic genius could be nurtured and then went on to present him back to America via Monterey. It was two British musicians, two British Managers and a whole host of other British people who supported and nurtured Jimi to find his way. Jimi said that when he returned to Britain, that if he died, he wanted to be buried in Britain! Unfortunately, the American influence went against this and dragged his corpse back to Seattle, against his wishes. He felt at home in Britain. So, before you start running the British down, just remember Jimi’s own words and wishes. He loved the place. He loved the people. He felt at home in Britain. And Britain loved him back, hence why you ever got to hear him in the first place. He came back to Britain when everything was crumbling but unfortunately he had burn’t too many bridges here by shagging loads of key people’s wives and expected everything to be as it was before he made it big back in the states.

    So, where does that leave us? Well, his body is in the United States and has been for nearly 50 years. What’s to stop you from getting a reliable body of evidence to have him dug up and re-autopsied by American forensic specialists? It’s not like you need to bother with Britain anymore, the evidence for any forensic re-evaluation is in your own country. All the main issues with Britain are historic.

    You said that you have Cyril Wecht on your side (noted for being indicted on 80 odd charges by the American Federal Government for alleged fraudulent expenditure, very credible and honest credentials indeed!), so get him to sort something out instead of bothering the British Medical Profession. Any potential forensic evidence is in your own backyard, so to speak.

    I’m sick of your endless yap about me being dishonest, a denier, etc. Yawn.

    I’m not trying to be a detective of any sort, wannabe detective is your fantasy and psychological crutch. I am here for the truth and I will go with it wherever it manifests but you don’t strike me as anything other than a fantasist, as I have said before: someone who doesn’t really understand Jimi and his message but more of a conspiratorial nut who will paint with the colours (note the British spelling again, Mr Detective) of confusion. You are seeking some sort of reward for your own ego. Like anyone else who has observed the inconsistencies surrounding Jimi’s death, I am wanting the truth and so far you have only disappointed.

    You have been blocked by many important figures in the scene, barred from the biggest Hendrix forum on the planet, insulted many of the key people who actually knew Hendrix and had your arguments rejected by almost everyone you encounter online. So, what do you actually have to offer?”

    Anyways, in light of this ‘moderation’, I won’t be back to reply. I do not believe that in a so-called ‘free society’ that anyone should be moderated for speaking their truth, however offensive it may be to certain sensitivities. I wouldn’t want that for you, me or anyone and I think that on this issue we can agree, if nothing else.

    It would appear to be a huge double-standard: YOU can fully name people (deceased or otherwise) and accuse them/slander them with allegations of Murder on the internet but I can’t name you for doing so even though I gained that information from yourself via the internet. So, I will not be returning to this board ever again. I’m sure you will be pleased with this.

    For anyone else reading this: good luck, this world is one odd and f*cked up place indeed. Humans don’t like it up ’em.

    • Gadesh says:

      Well said L3fi. And for your benefit, the original post was posted on Skeptoid, so the censorship thing didn’t happen. Shame if you don’t come back again, if for nothing else, to see how much more of an intolerant “Yankee” Mr Doyle can become.

      Wasn’t it the Yanks who were the rebels against the Crown, guerrila fighters and terrorists. Attacking their own people, head of state and government back in the 1760’s. Of course we don’t like referring to it as the history books used to say “The American Revolutionary War”, that implies too much of Russian type of thing, we now call it “The American War of Independence”.

      Unfortunately the “Independence” didn’t necessarily bring common sense and civility.

      Whatever the truth is about Jimi’s death, and one day we may even find out, Jimi will always be a part of us and continue to live in our hearts.

    • Buster says:

      This is what the deniers always do. They shout about their victory over their shoulder while scooting out the door after realizing they can’t answer our evidence. This is a routine they have perfected and enforce with cowardly banning and uncredible justification as L3fi shows here.

      Any smart person can see that L3fi is well aware of the legitimacy of our evidence and trying to get around it by citing Britain’s positive influences on Jimi. It is painfully obvious that the only reason he’s doing it is because of his dishonest awareness that our evidence is coming in as good against his transparent denials.

      There’s too many dishonest Hendrix fans that allow somebody who is obviously offering a false position, and obviously seeking an excuse to get out of the debate he is clearly losing, to use the censorship excuse to get out of the contest. I have also had many posts never go through. Smart people will understand that those who are not offering an honest position are the first to bail and those who are defending Jimi in righteous justice do not give up. What kills me is how these people pretend to sell themselves as Jimi’s better fans. Nobody who fights against Jimi and for his murderers would ever dare attack the good evidence so wrongfully.

      L3fi is a liar because any objective honest person can go to the Electric Guru and Crosstown Torrents sites and see that I was banned not for the petty superficial reasons L3fi falsely claims here but because I had gotten the upper hand on the majority of uncaring idiots with the real evidence. The moderator who banned me from Crosstown Torrents goes by the handle “Fender’s Fingers”. He is British and abuses his moderator position to prevent any evidence from arising. He banned me before I could get my 36 page refutation of Glebbeek’s disinformation work ‘Until We Meet Again’ posted. He knew what was coming and needed to use cowardly banning to prevent the members from seeing the real evidence Glebbeek was lying to get around.

      L3fi is only proving my point for me. If you look at what he writes he avoids saying directly that my evidence is no good. Instead he disingenuously says the majority “rejected” my evidence. L3fi is totally dishonest because I was posting the same evidence on those sites that I’m posting here. There’s no doubt that I am clearly winning this debate and L3fi is consistently backing down off his false claims as our evidence is produced. Just look at his epic backpedaling ever since he posted about the Bob Levine video.

      If you want to gauge L3fi’s incredible dishonesty realize that since I got banned by those two scofflaw Hendrix sites I have radically altered the previous evidence and shown information that refutes most of the denier’s offerings in an undoubtably credible way that can’t be ignored. The reaction of the banner’s? They showed no interest and the brit (you know the great brits who L3fi says were so good for Jimi), Fender’s Fingers, is harassing and intimidating anyone who attempts to discuss the further evidence on Crosstown. If L3fi were honest he would objectively admit that when I was banned it was at a point where the opposition justified it by saying Bob Levine agrees with Caesar and Dr Bannister was the only witness to the wine. Any true Hendrix fans would see from my offerings that isn’t at all true and our efforts have disproven their excuses for ignoring the evidence. Again, after banning the main proponent of the good evidence, those same members have no interest in the true facts they were denying and never came back to admit their wrongness – even after we showed irrefutable proof. The moral consequences of that towards Jimi shouldn’t need to be explained. That dishonest, feckless majority that doesn’t admit their wrongness and uses cowardly defamation, like L3fi does here, are the same people L3fi credits with rejecting my evidence.

      As is always the case when deniers start losing the debate they veer into personal attack and discuss the discussion instead of answering the evidence we are pointing out. Most smart people can see that L3fi’s last post is just a pathetic attempt to get around the clear preponderance of evidence we have revealed that he doesn’t want to admit. For him to admit it would mean confessing that his side acted abominably and attacked the heroes who defended Jimi. He knows what that entails so he is going to cling to his denial as long as he can get away with it and will not admit the truth unless forced to.

      They already killed one messenger L3fi. No need to kill another. If you want to get a good taste of the outrage in L3fi’s hypocrisy he tries to say I don’t understand Jimi and his message – yeah, you got that right. HE says I don’t understand Jimi or his message. It is time these deniers be disallowed from justifying their rogue dishonesty by means of Jimi’s message. In no way did Jimi intend his very mystical “message” to mean cowardly denial of his murder or how it finally defines that message in an almost messianic way.

      Once again, after all is said and done L3fi should get back to us when he can honestly answer what we are saying, and answer our evidence honestly and directly. I thank him for making my point for me. If L3fi’s people were in charge of this room I would be banned long ago and he knows it and he wouldn’t miss the evidence we’ve produced that he couldn’t answer. It is extremely low to defame somebody as being insulting and rejected by the main Hendrix society when the only reason you’re doing it is to ignore evidence for Jimi’s murder. Credible Hendrix fans will insist that judgment be made directly by the evidence. Uncredible ones like L3fi will try any trick to get around that.

      • Buster says:

        ” Nobody who fights against Jimi and for his murderers would ever dare attack the good evidence so wrongfully. ”

        I meant to say “No credible Hendrix fan would ever dare fight against Jimi and for his murderers by attacking the good evidence so wrongfully.”

  122. mudguts says:

    Astounding..

  123. Buster says:

    Gadesh:

    ” Whatever the truth is about Jimi’s death, and one day we may even find out, Jimi will always be a part of us and continue to live in our hearts. ”

    Like I said, these people are aware our evidence is good.

    People like Gadesh are willing to ignore that they haven’t ever actually directly addressed our evidence. This kind of brazen dishonesty is the going norm in the so-called Hendrix community and is the banning-enforced preferred input.

    Gadesh has already been shown the facts. That’s why he can’t answer them directly. It’s a Tough Reality these truth-avoiders are going to have to admit. Our Revolution was partly inspired by the rogue dishonesty of the British system that these two guys probably don’t realize they are showing a very good example of here…Kind of weird to try to deny it while avoiding admitting that the two guys who showed up to vehemently deny the evidence just so happen to be brits – proving my point…

  124. Buster says:

    L3fi wrote:

    ” Anyways, in light of this ‘moderation’, I won’t be back to reply. I do not believe that in a so-called ‘free society’ that anyone should be moderated for speaking their truth, however offensive it may be to certain sensitivities. I wouldn’t want that for you, me or anyone and I think that on this issue we can agree, if nothing else.

    It would appear to be a huge double-standard: YOU can fully name people (deceased or otherwise) and accuse them/slander them with allegations of Murder on the internet but I can’t name you for doing so even though I gained that information from yourself via the internet. So, I will not be returning to this board ever again. I’m sure you will be pleased with this. ”

    Just to let you know how rich an irony this phony protest from L3fi is, L3fi is obviously a member of the main Hendrix community and its websites. When I tried to show the same evidence I am showing here on those websites that L3fi attends I was set upon and ridiculed and had moderators openly trolling my offerings as well as making up non-existent site rules in order to delete them. Eventually when it started to become clear I was gaining the upper hand on those false authorities and proving the moderation wasn’t credible, and my evidence was, I was viciously censored and booted from those websites with no such protest over censorship from our great principle-ist L3fi. What a hypocrite. It is more than obvious that L3fi is realizing he took on somebody who he didn’t expect to hand him his butt in the fair debate of the facts that he isn’t used to due to the corruption of those uncredible Hendrix sites. So please get a load of L3fi’s obvious excuse for ducking and running here in this discussion where he has summarily had all his cheap excuses handed back to him by sound arguments and evidence. What is happening here is L3fi is obviously looking for an excuse to get out of this discussion because he knows the balance of evidence that’s he’s obviously in denial of is hugely against him and his denial is becoming clear for what it is and isn’t working.

    This is typical of deniers and anyone with any common sense would see that L3fi has found the excuse he was looking for to ignore the actual evidence we are showing. This is what deniers do. They try to steer the conversation in to an irrelevant side issue in order to avoid discussing what they have clearly been out-argued on. He’s obviously trying to switch the subject to pretend outrage over people being correctly called on their bad input while ignoring the evidence that those accusations are based on.

    I hope people catch the rogue irony of L3fi posing himself as the truth-teller against censoring sensitivities. When I was banned from those groups I lost the ability to participate and keep up with the community. Facebook makes banishment from a site become the complete removal from the site and total invisibility. It makes sure that dummies and liars have the ability to completely eliminate and remove someone and cut them off completely giving reward to their wrongdoing. And Crosstown Torrents keeps the best evidence from being presented to people who dare call themselves Jimi’s best fans. Banning from those groups is complete banishment with less intelligent/honest people seeing it as deserved. All for the crime of trying to defend Jimi against his murder on websites that dare represent themselves as the best Hendrix outlets. I think we know what the real double-standard is here…

    No serious credible Hendrix person would ever turn from the legitimate evidence we’ve shown here or make such an overt effort to deny it. It’s clear that the British do not and will not honestly admit to themselves that Jimi was murdered by one of their own and it was covered-up by their government. It is a horrible Tough Reality they don’t want to admit due to its obvious monstrousness. Talk about a “double-standard”…

  125. Tim says:

    Was Donald Teare’s autopsy suspect? As you know he was the pathologist in another celebrity autopsy with insurance ramifications, that of Bruce Lee, in which there was motive and menacing circumstances, and rumours of evidence of poisoning (blacken extremities suggesting arsenic). Only rumours mind you. Here is a photo of the doctor
    http://www.topfoto.co.uk/imageflows/preview/t=topfoto&f=0199144
    walking to this trial where he made another mistake
    https://books.google.co.jp/books?id=8-K8VRyJUTsC&pg=PA130&lpg=PA130&dq=Hume+Trial+teare&source=bl&ots=zCGGuwUZ8_&sig=3mADJLzQsKBCWUjShbiC9b6miCM&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiliPzE8oHUAhXPq5QKHQZZD4AQ6AEIJDAA#v=onepage&q=Hume%20Trial%20teare&f=false

  126. Buster says:

    Teare is automatically suspect because he didn’t participate in a full autopsy investigation. As the autopsist Teare should have demanded a thorough inquiry where all the witnesses were questioned. Teare never even bothered to determine a time of death so his genuineness and possibly being corrupted must be questioned. Also Michael Jeffery was Military Intelligence and Jimi was on Britain’s main ally’s FBI Security Index during the COINTELPRO era. These two factors would make it all too easy and all too legal in Britain for Teare to be ordered to do a partial investigation.

    Dr Teare’s objectivity and his possibly being influenced has to be brought under consideration for the sole reason that he failed to make the necessary conclusions from Jimi’s tiny blood alcohol content. Instead of red-flagging Jimi’s impossibly-low blood alcohol content Teare made up an excuse for it and violated strict autopsy ethics by guessing that Jimi had a higher blood alcohol content when he took the pills. That was a violation of autopsy procedure. Instead of properly interpreting the low blood alcohol content and where it led scientifically Teare made up an excuse and didn’t follow-through. If he had he would have discovered evidence of foul play. In my mind at this point, considering the circumstances, it is highly called for to question Teare’s possibly being influenced. A close examination of Dr Crompton also shows a backing-off from his original claim that the autopsy showed Jimi died no later than 5:30am. There are classic signs that Crompton was forced to reverse his correct determination.

    I think we are all saying the same thing gentleman. There’s no doubt the US’s CIA combined with MI-6 to conceal Jimi’s political assassination that Jeffery was manipulated into doing.

    If you have any doubt about this just look at the amount of evidence here that the British government is ignoring.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *