How do you believe Jimi died?

[stplsd]

I really wish we could dispense with this irrelevant material.

Yeah me too there's mountains of unsupported verbosity masqueraduing as fact.

[kdion11]

Originally Posted by kdion11
KD: I remember that mag / issue. The author of the piece interviewed MD and faxed her a list of very ackward questions exposing her on all of her lies about Jimi's death. This was the first mainstream media article on her complete lack of credibility. She committed suicide shortly thereafter. I'll see if I can find my copy of this on the pile................

Looking forward to it kd, sounds veery interesting.

KD: Yep, I'll see if I can dig it out this weekend. Again, this is the first time (that I know / can think of) that Monica was
publically challenged on her dubious recollections by someone with a very good idea of what actually transpired. You can
virtually see her squirm under the scrutiny - a couple of months later she was no mo' !

[kdion11]

Oh I got your point all right. I've been making the same point for long enough, I would say dodgy rather than "subjective" though

My point though is that SD ignores anything that contradicts his story, he's very inaccurate and is just accepting things he's "heard", not quoting accurately, adding stuff that is not in the original, not reading the source, or finding out if the source claimed is genuine. A major one being the claim that Crawdaddy said a "death squad" killed Jimi. There is no article in Crawdaddy claiming this. His vehement claim that Hendrix was definitely murdered, beyond reasonable doubt, and then failing to provide reliable evidence of this, merely reasserting his claims in long winded, convoluted, diatribes, branding anyone that asks him to verify his "evidence" as "deniers", or worse, is an outrageous and unacceptable way to construct a reasonable case, or conduct a debate.

KD: Here, here. Well said STP - couldn't have said it better myself. As to the "moderator" who think STP and myself are ganging up or engaging in any "personal attacks" again SD or anyone else, I beg to differ. We are simply refusing to take any of his positions seriously because of his lack of evidence to back up his claims.

I'll continue to keep an open mind as to what did or did not transpire on the evening of Sept. 18th, 1970 but refuse outright
to go along with any wild conspirary theories not backed up by hard facts or evidence.

Nor would I expect anyone else to back any wild theories I may have without any evidence or facts to back those up either.

[kdion11]

Well, as long as everyone maintains an air of civility, people can and will debate the issue until the plug is pulled.

KD: Here, here.............. Isn't that what debates / message boards are all about ?
As far as

"Scotland Yard determined that the phone call for the ambulance came from the payphone across the street"

I would love to know that ! In 1970 there was no technology to determine "Caller ID" or specific origins of any incoming
phone call. Evidence please !

[kdion11]

Point is you knew the info all along, but proceeded w/your malicious agenda. The next time you antagonize a member in this fashion, be not dismayed if you are summarily dismissed.

KD: "Malicious Agenda" ? Now I've heard everything. At no time, IMHO has STPLSD gone after SD or anyone else with any
malicious intent. If SD or anyone else puts up anything here as "fact" then in the spirit of debate the onus should be on THEM
to provide the proof or origins of the information that supports their case.

So for asking for proof one here can be "summarily dismissed" ? Say it ain't so please !

[kdion11]

Sorry, I'll try to find the exact source. What happened was Kathy Etchingham spurred a re-investigation by Scotland Yard where they went and recovered the ambulance records. Ambulance calls usually involve serious matters so they are recorded. The Ambulance service recorded the call on their records and it showed it came from the payphone across the street from the Samarkand Hotel.

The reason this is important is because it legally proves Monika's story is false and therefore the official British Inquest death verdict is also null and void LEGALLY. Scotland Yard doesn't seem interested in this however and is still sticking with Monika's story. They also showed no interest in Eric Burdon's admission in his 1986 biography that Monika called him "as the first light of dawn entered my window" (5:45am) "and maybe even earlier".

KD: Again, "Caller ID" or any other type of inbound call record detail did not exist in 1970. Please provide written documentation
proving this "fact" from Scottland Yard.

[MourningStar]

So for asking for proof one here can be "summarily dismissed" ? Say it ain't so please !

It ain't so.

However, if you carefully review, you will discover that the information being demanded was already known and purposely witheld in order to force an issue. It is malicious and in 'the old west' would be analogous to 'holding a card up one's sleeve'. All know what happens to one who cheats at cards.

[kdion11]

It ain't so.

However, if you carefully review, you will discover that the information being demanded was already known and purposely witheld in order to force an issue. It is malicious and in 'the old west' would be analogous to 'holding a card up one's sleeve'. All know what happens to one who cheats at cards.

KD: I beg to differ. Just because STPLSD has a better understanding of the facts, and background of Jimi's death, not to mention the "rules" of serious debate, surely doesn't mean that he cannot ask SD to provide "facts" or evidence to support his obviously flawed viewpoint ?

[Rupe]

It ain't so.

However, if you carefully review, you will discover that the information being demanded was already known and purposely witheld in order to force an issue. It is malicious and in 'the old west' would be analogous to 'holding a card up one's sleeve'. All know what happens to one who cheats at cards.

I also beg to differ. If someone is making an assertion, they should be able to show where there information comes from. If they can't, they're just repeating hearsay. Nothing to do with cheating at cards!

[MourningStar]

KD-Rupe - Discussion, debate, whatever - if somebody gives information and does not provide support data, and I know of the support data that can confirm the information, and maybe even able to provide it, I will. What I will not do is play the children's 'prove it' game in this scenario. This is what has occurred and it is malicious as well as juvenile. End.

[thunderbaas]

I am really amazed... reading this mess..!Months after month..

Scum Drum; you don`t know shit about reality= ReaL Life!! You know what? I guess you don`t know anything about Jimis music! Prove me wrong!! You`re only one of these crazy conspiratory guys, they are all over the net. Jimis memory doesn`t need you!!

Jimi Hendrix is about joy and life - not death and conspiratic bullshit!!! But I know you are beyond sanety...

Pederpropell

Have to agree with peder propell here,what else has Scum Drum contributed to CTT than to keep this thread going,he probably get's off on people reacting on his conspiracy bull shit.
Hasn't downloaded/uploaded annything here, I guess he's just here for his own fun. Like PP said, wonder if he ever listens to Jimi??????
Thunderbaas

[MourningStar]

Have to agree with peder propell here,what else has Scum Drum contributed to CTT than to keep this thread going,he probably get's off on people reacting on his conspiracy bull shit.
Hasn't downloaded/uploaded annything here, I guess he's just here for his own fun like PP said, wonder if he ever listens to Jimi??????
Thunderbaas

careful there TB, you've just dredged up one of those old posts that brought the police in here swinging their night-sticks around. Fortunately, they just issued a few warnings, not looking very happy as they drove away.

[Scrum Drum]

1) The Scotland Yard tracing of the call to the pay phone is well-known and true.


2) Both my claims about Slater and this call were correct.


3) None of the doubters have bothered to answer any of the operative points. For instance, like if they held Burdon and Stickells to the same degree of scrutiny they hold me to. Do these people really believe Burdon called Stickells to tell him Jimi was in serious trouble but neglected to tell him where he was? From the condition of the body Jimi was dead. So it is fairly certain Jimi was dead when Stickells was called - which makes it even more unlikely Burdon would neglect to tell Stickells where he was. Very hard to get a direct answer around here...

[stplsd]

1) The Scotland Yard tracing of the call to the pay phone is well-known and true.

So you say. We have yet to see any evidence supporting this

2) Both my claims about Slater and this call were correct.

So you say. We have yet to see any evidence supporting this

3) None of the doubters have bothered to answer any of the operative points.

Yes they have, maybe you haven't read them?

Very hard to get a direct answer around here...

...that supports your "theories"

[stplsd]

What I will not do is play the children's 'prove it' game in this scenario. This is what has occurred and it is malicious as well as juvenile. End.

Accepting someone's word that he has read something, or quoted/understood accurately - when they have clearly been shown to be unreliable in that regard- without any proof of the alleged contents appears to me to be a dodgy way to go about establishing anything.
As to the rest I suggest you take a good look in the mirror etc.

[purple jim]

Drowning in wine in combination with barbiturates gives the appearance of a drug overdose.

Utter drivel. Let's look a little closer at the absurdity of this "theory".
As far as your fictitious killers were concerned, they left a body behind with lungs FULL of wine. They couldn't possibly have calculated that the vomit would plug the windpipe, hiding their crime to a degree. So they left the body with lungs full of wine to be carted off to casualty with full the knowledge that their crime was very easy to see. But hey, no problem, the British government are with us on this one, they have the power to cover it all up. Top guys at Scotland Yard have been breifed. If any of the doctors, nurses, porters or the coroner say anything about this suspect death, the boys will go round and see them all one by one and threaten to kill their children or parents, or even waterboard them aswell.

Also, if Burdon and Co. were covering something up, it, was their own disgrace after having cleaned up the flat where a lifeless Jimi lay, blue and cold with eyes wide open (obviously overdosed and choked with his own vomit - something which could have happenned in a 10 minute period before they all got there). Which still raises the question of what the hell Danneman was doing.

[Scrum Drum]

^ With all respect Purple Jim you are typing a lot there without really saying anything. Your efforts appear to be regressive equivocation rather than acknowledging the points. Jimi didn't get the wine Bannister witnessed into him while possessing a knock-out level of barbiturate in his bloodstream as was recorded at the autopsy. And he couldn't have drank the wine earlier because it would have necessarily shown up in his blood alcohol level. I'm afraid your logic is somewhat backwards and counter to what is obvious.

The British press did its usual tabloid business and went after Jimi at the throat with character defamation to make sure the public saw Jimi was a sex and drug maniac on heroin with 2 girls in his bed at the same time. When you look at Hendrix's murder in the bigger picture using educated understanding of Operation Mockingbird with all its techniques you can see them fully employed with Hendrix. These programs existed and were real and were used. You are seeing their full purpose and deployment here in the British press treatment of Hendrix. This is what they were designed for. The most recent manifestations are occurring right under our noses in the form of recent unchallenged articles showing Jimi was effeminate (Vanity Fair); or Bob Levine's denial; and even the obvious false account by Meic Stevens (that also went unchallenged). You have to be wise as a serpent with this business to see how they operate. Classic intel defamation/disinformation ops. Security Index listee Jimi never stood a chance. You pretend that COINTELPRO didn't exist or that Jimi wouldn't have been one of their main targets.

The fallacy of your argument is shown in the simple fact you refuse to answer why, at this point, is Scotland Yard still sticking with Monika's story? You never answered that. This is the gateway by which to crack the case. Scotland Yard slammed the iron gate shut by announcing it would never re-investigate the case and that "It was not in the interest of the British Government or its people to do so." A very curious comment. (one of many)

[MourningStar]

... or Bob Levine's denial; and even the obvious false account by Meic Stevens (that also went unchallenged).

Not being cognizant of the publications that these two accounts were in, can anyone who does know tell me if these are from the typical 'tell-all' type tabloids, publications that would not be worth any effort/energy to 'challenge', or highly reliable and repected publications?

[Scrum Drum]

Vanity Fair article that makes Jimi look like an unrecognized closet queen:


http://www.vanityfair.com/online/dai...able-side.html


Levine denial on "Music Radar" (British) site:


http://www.musicradar.com/news/guita...partner-453035


Meic Stevens fantasy - Daily Mail (British):


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz...c-Stevens.html




These stories are angled in such a way as to satisfy those who don't look too deeply. If you seek to dismiss these sources you do so at the expense of seeing how the information in them is being used to steer public opinion away from the murder.

[purple jim]

^ With all respect Purple Jim you are typing a lot there without really saying anything. Your efforts appear to be regressive equivocation rather than acknowledging the points. Jimi didn't get the wine Bannister witnessed into him while possessing a knock-out level of barbiturate in his bloodstream as was recorded at the autopsy.

In actual fact Bannister didn't witness any wine in Jimi. He was simply remembering somebody else! He said so himself...an "unusually tall man". FACT! (not many of those around here).
If not he invented to whole thing for whatever personnal reasons he had (Danneman's statements, the fact he was struck off, etc.).