How do you believe Jimi died?

[Scrum Drum]

I think what is fairly obvious here is that deniers can't answer reasonable points of evidence. They refuse to confront the fact that Monika's claim that she washed vomit off Jimi with wine doesn't match the condition Jimi was found in. Jimi was found covered in grotesque amounts of vomit that hadn't been washed-off. There's no person who would start to clean vomit off Jimi and then stop and leave Jimi covered in the amounts of vomit he was covered-in. Any person in Monika's position who claimed to be cleaning-up the "untidy mess" Jimi was covered in would have continued and gotten the mess off Jimi they claimed to be cleaning-off. The reason deniers refuse to answer this is because they know they can't confront it and still maintain their position at the same time. That in itself is proof of its strength as evidence. Only people not interested in seeking the truth would think they were getting away with ignoring this.

What becomes very obvious is that Monika never washed any vomit off Jimi. If she had she never would have left Jimi with so much vomit covering him. Besides, who cleans vomit off a dying person with wine??? Especially when warm water, soap, and towel were just as nearby in the small flat. So why did Monika lie about washing Jimi's face with wine? Obviously because she knew she had no excuse for it so she thought up the first excuse she could. Monika knew Jimi had been murdered with wine so she diverted Sharon's question by quickly saying she wiped some vomit off Jimi with wine to explain it. A quick look at the body, however, would show no effort was made to clean vomit off Jimi.

Where this really becomes obvious is when you involve Bannister's witnessing. There's no way the "bottles worth" of wine found in Jimi and his lungs was anything that accidentally entered Jimi during any cursory face washing. The amounts Bannister witnessed were too great to be explained this way. There's no way that Monika's claimed action of washing some vomit off Jimi's face with wine would resulting in the massive flooding of the lungs Bannister witnessed. Also, forensically and pathologically speaking, the drowning in wine is what caused the vomiting. And since Jimi was killed by being drowned in wine, which then induced the vomiting, that means that any washing of vomit was well after the initial cause of death - which means the face washing didn't kill Jimi. These are simple and clear forensics that were simply never processed by the British Government. Deniers just ignore them.

It's proof of murder fellows...

[MourningStar]

Edit: Could a mod add the "Other (explain below)" option to the poll? Thanks

I'm guessing mind you, but I think that the poll cannot be modified or your request would have been accomplished by now. That or the procedure to do it is currently unkown. However, I do know that you can create a new post and poll, then a mod can move all these posts into it, then delete the old thread. This I know has been done before.

[purple jim]

I think what is fairly obvious here is that deniers can't answer reasonable points of evidence. They refuse to confront the fact that Monika's claim that she washed vomit off Jimi with wine doesn't match the condition Jimi was found in.

So in your tiny world, people only vomit ONCE? She might have made a pathetic gesture of wiping his face, left the room for a second, while Jimi vomitted again and again and again...

Where this really becomes obvious is when you involve Bannister's witnessing. There's no way the "bottles worth" of wine found in Jimi and his lungs was anything that accidentally entered Jimi during any cursory face washing.

We keep telling you that here weren't "bottles of wine" in Jimi's lungs! That was Bannister's invention (or memory of another case).

[stplsd]

reasonable points of evidence

To a kangaroo court maybe. "I think what is fairly obvious here is" that conspiracy waterboarders will accept any obvious twaddle written, twisting and turning the conflicting "stories" in an intellect, medical science and logic defying manner, until, ‘Hey Presto!’ they “think” it fits their waterboarding theory.
"They refuse to confront the fact that" Lawrence's claim that Monika confessed to her that she poured red wine down Jimi's throat because he looked "untidy" and that this killed him, is seen as patently ridiculous twaddle by any “people who are smart". It's even more ridiculous than Tappy Wright's confession claim (now utterly discredited, as if it wasn't already obvious rubbish to anyone with half a brain) and utterly conflicts with it, as does Tappy's and their just as ridiculous claim that he was waterboarded to death by a specially trained "death squad". And Bannister's implication, in his tracheotomy alibi (which the other two have clearly “used”), that he drowned due to guzzling too much wine too quickly in a greedy fashion.

Only people not interested in seeking the truth...

...and who are obviously only interested in promoting their bizarre "waterboarding" conspiracy theory...

...would think they were getting away with ignoring...

...everything that contradicts it.

Obviously because she knew she had no excuse for it so she thought up the first excuse she could. Monika knew Jimi had been murdered with wine so she diverted Sharon's question by quickly saying she wiped some vomit off Jimi with wine to explain it.

.
Why would she confess to killing him by pouring wine down his throat – as Lawrence actually claims, (but at the same time not confess to what "actually happened" – as the waterboarders see it) to a woman she hardly knew, if at all (the only evidence that Lawrence ever met her or spoke to her is Lawrence - how convenient ), for no good reason, to a woman who was very hostile to her.

The amounts Bannister witnessed were too great to be explained this way.

Here we go again. Bannister's story is nothing more than a stark staringly obvious, deceitful and inept attempt by Bannister to cover his arse over a further charge of malpractice on top of the several he was already facing at the time (not to menton the fraud, which was seen by the first and succeeding tribunals as serious enough for him to have been struck off the medical register permanently, despite his several attempts over the years to be re-instated) Not to mention that both of these ridiculous, contradictory "wine confessions" were only made after the "confessors" were dead, were the main selling 'hook' in almost unreadable guff by people who have no new stories of interest and who obviously barely ever met the man.

It's proof of murder

It’s not “proof” of anything (apart from how gullible some "authors" think their perceived market is). No matter how logic defyingly it’s twisted, at, a very charitable, best it’s hearsay
All conspiracy waterboarders have as "evidence" for their fantasy is Bannister's “alibi” and those two completly ridiculous and contradictory "confessions" based on it, used to sell rubbish books. No one else who was actually there including the other two doctors, the ambulance men, the hospital admissions porter, the policemen, the roadies, Burdon, Alvenia, Monika, Slater, or anyone else claiming to be a witness to that day in their several statements and publications has ever mentioned wine in connection with his death, or that he was other than fully clothed.
The entire "conspiracy"/murder (except the wineless scenario where Monika is solely guilty for, somehow, "giving him" the tablets and/or not phoning the ambulance in time) is based on Bannister's 1992 transparently false alibi against malpractice story, obviously conjured up in panic when he was awaiting the tribunal's verdict for other malpractices and FRAUD.
You either believe Bannister’s wine story and the intellect and medical science defying, illogical mangling of this and the two subsequent, contradictory “confession” stories to fit the “waterboarding by “death squad” “theory”. Or you don’t - and that’s the end of that “theory” for you.
That’s the bottom line. No amount of further tedious reams of verbose juggling by conspiracy waterboarders are going to change that, "fellows".

[stplsd]

By the way KD, what's happening on the Musician mag front, did you find it? It won't change anything (according to the two authors that have read it: Fairchild, who claims the main points as plagiarised from his own articles and Peter Nelson, who based his account on it and quotes liberally from it), but it would still be interesting to have a read of it

[Ezy Rider]

In my very simplistic understanding of the "waterboarding"-theory, if it is possible to understand it at all, it seems that the theory is not so much based on "evidence" as on a whole series of deductions, inferences, premises etc in order to prove it. It may therefore seem clear if one can wholeheartedly "believe" all these reasonings but without any evidence, it is not possible to convince anybody of the "waterboarding"-theory.

What I understand thus far would look like something as the following:

1) Bannister claims Hendrix was drowned in wine

2) Tappy Wright claims there was a hit squad who waterboarded Hendrix

|

|

|

10) Hendrix was murdered by his manager Jeffery for the insurance money

11) Jefferey worked for the CIA/MI5

12) Danneman was a plant by Jefferey/CIA/MI5

13) conclusion: Hendrix was killed by the CIA/MI5 and some others.

Between steps 2 and 10 is a series of assumptions (pills, wine, MD, autopsy report etc, mostly all the stuff nobody knows for certain) that are "interpreted" in a certain way (the deductive reasoning mentioned above) that would make it sound "logical" that steps 10 to 13 are also valid inferences.

Well, as anyone can see, there are some big problems in this line of thinking. Not only are many of the premises unfounded (eg the first one on Bannister), many of the reasoning takes place in some very foggy part of the brain. If evidence accompanying each step could be given, the whole theory would of course be more sound but at this point I can only see a bunch of unfounded and unconnected claims and events.

[dino77]

In my very simplistic understanding of the "waterboarding"-theory, if it is possible to understand it at all, it seems that the theory is not so much based on "evidence" as on a whole series of deductions, inferences, premises etc in order to prove it. It may therefore seem clear if one can wholeheartedly "believe" all these reasonings but without any evidence, it is not possible to convince anybody of the "waterboarding"-theory.

What I understand thus far would look like something as the following:

1) Bannister claims Hendrix was drowned in wine

2) Tappy Wright claims there was a hit squad who waterboarded Hendrix

|

|

|

10) Hendrix was murdered by his manager Jeffery for the insurance money

11) Jefferey worked for the CIA/MI5

12) Danneman was a plant by Jefferey/CIA/MI5

13) conclusion: Hendrix was killed by the CIA/MI5 and some others.

Between steps 2 and 10 is a series of assumptions (pills, wine, MD, autopsy report etc, mostly all the stuff nobody knows for certain) that are "interpreted" in a certain way (the deductive reasoning mentioned above) that would make it sound "logical" that steps 10 to 13 are also valid inferences.

Well, as anyone can see, there are some big problems in this line of thinking. Not only are many of the premises unfounded (eg the first one on Bannister), many of the reasoning takes place in some very foggy part of the brain. If evidence accompanying each step could be given, the whole theory would of course be more sound but at this point I can only see a bunch of unfounded and unconnected claims and events.

Good post - that's the "murder conspiracy" in a nutshell. It does not seem overly simplistic at all. The whole conspiracy falls (or stands, if mr Bannister one days provides some bullet-proof evidence of his account) on assumption number 1.

You have to admire Mike Jeffery's stamina. Jeffery must have been quite the multi-tasker, being a CIA agent at the same time as handling the biggest star in rock.

[stplsd]

Well, as anyone can see, there are some big problems in this line of thinking.

A major one being 3) Tappy only claimed that Mike said "I was in London... together with some old friends from 'up North' [ie Newcastle] we... got a handful of pills and stuffed them into his mouth, then we poured a few bottles of red wine deep into his windpipe." He tells it as a casual and brutal force feeding by Mike personally and a few thugs. Not that an organised "death squad", trained in the slow, messy, 'waterboarding' torture technique carried it out. The only motive money. No hint that it was because of his political utterances. No hint of the "Mafia," FBI or CIA, MI5 and neccessarily various other UK official bodies.

In my very simplistic understanding of the "waterboarding"-theory, if it is possible to understand it at all, it seems that the theory is not so much based on "evidence"

Without Bannister's 1992 wine story it doesn't exist, everything else follows it, no "masses of red wine," no conspiracy to murder theory, no murder by red wine.

[stplsd]

The whole conspiracy [...] stands, if mr Bannister one days provides some bullet-proof evidence of his account) on assumption number 1.

No. The whole conspiracy does not "stand" if evidence of Hendrix having "drowned" (ie "choked" in the normal description of someone that is not immersed in liquid) on red wine turns up. It rather, can only begin if. . . And that is not a possibility in the real world. If Bannister's masses of red wine cannot be shown to have existed beyond reasonable doubt there is no start to the "theory", everything else that depends on it falls.

[goose334]

one must be careful
http://www.23ae.com/files/goldendawn.pdf

[dino77]

No. The whole conspiracy does not "stand" if evidence of Hendrix having "drowned" (ie "choked" in the normal description of someone that is not immersed in liquid) on red wine turns up. It rather, can only begin if. . . And that is not a possibility in the real world. If Bannister's masses of red wine cannot be shown to have existed beyond reasonable doubt there is no start to the "theory", everything else that depends on it falls.

Yup, that's exactly what I meant, thanks.

[Scrum Drum]

Deniers protest too much. It's plain dishonest to try to conflate Bannister's legal problems with his witnessing of the wine. You should ignore anyone who suggests that because they are inventing something in order to cloud the issue. There's a simple thing here that needs to be admitted. Bannister witnessed the wine. He had no reason to invent it or lie about it and it came about naturally after Bannister responded to one of Monika's lies. Anyone who says Bannister invented the wine in order to save himself from legal problems is a knowing prevaricator and should be ignored. They are sophist/semantic spider web spinners who want us to make the mistake of entertaining their dishonest arguments in order to mire the evidence in the quagmire they keep trying to drag it down into. Smart people will realize Bannister didn't have to invent any wine to save his reputation since Siefert and the attendants already said Jimi was dead. What this suggests is that Bannister thought to himself "hmm, I'm in trouble I better invent this crazy wine story to save me". The preposterousness of this should be obvious to most normal people (not desperately interested in denial). The more rhetorical bluster these people answer with the more they expose their need to overcome the facts they are denying.


Once Monika admitted that wine was applied to Jimi it corroborates Bannister's wine witnessing. Even better, Monika admitted keeping one of the wine bottles. Since this controversy has been out there long enough for those present to attest to the status of the wine bottles, yet they haven't come forward to tell us what condition they were in, that speaks for itself. The denier's arguments are obvious from their own form. They have the hubris to put themselves before people who were actually there and say that ALL the witnesses were uncredible and liars with some mitigating agenda. You can tell the dishonest semantic/sophist nature of their arguments just by looking at them. They give themselves away because they protest way too much and have created a denial history corpus completely of their own invention that they then refer to. Their answers are visibly trivial and visibly seek to evade the true facts. What they want to do is remove the discussion into their denial contrivances and keep it there. But anyone can see their arguments are reactionary and dwell mostly in the frivolous.

So if we get back to reality and try to ignore this deliberate intellectual obstruction, Bannister witnessed the wine as Monika and all other honest evidence points to. Repeating "Bannister never witnessed any wine" over and over again won't make this go away. Bannister had a firm memory because the shock of later learning who his patient was locked the memory into his mind. The large scarf seen around Jimi's neck in Monika's photos was most-likely the same towel-like item Bannister witnessed soaked in wine. Deniers, desperate to avoid this obvious evidence, will say Bannister invented it in order to reduce the level of conversation. Funny how Bannister happened to nail the exact item of clothing Jimi was last seen wearing in his 'invention'. But, heck, we'll just raise the level of noise to avoid the obvious. Every time we see obvious evidence we'll just reduce the conversation to lesser denials. The sexiness of the game is what's fun here. Jimi, he can just flap out in the wind murdered. Or we can just un-murder him with denials...

[MourningStar]

2) Tappy Wright claims there was a hit squad who waterboarded Hendrix|

|

|

10) Hendrix was murdered by his manager Jeffery for the insurance money

Actually, if you are going to list 'claims' that Jimi was murdered, it would be a larger list. And I differ as to MJ doing it for insurance money. It was a heavier scene and Hendrix, whenever the legal process to fire MJ and aquire new management took place, would expose all the illegalities of MJ's financial portfolio and in so doing reveal these covert connections/operations, a motive much more logical than mere insurance money.

Finally, a 'murder' scenario can exist without Bannister and wine. Think about it.

[Scrum Drum]

So in your tiny world, people only vomit ONCE? She might have made a pathetic gesture of wiping his face, left the room for a second, while Jimi vomitted again and again and again...

The excuse-making nature of your replies is obvious. If Monika wiped Jimi's face of vomit because she was repulsed by the untidy-ness of Jimi's state, as she said, then why did she leave Jimi covered in grotesque amounts of vomit? Your supposition suggests Monika cleaned a small amount of vomit but then left a huge ugly amount of vomit untouched for hours in front of other people cleaning the flat. Your entries once again blithely grind against the obvious and conspicuously fail to answer the greater questions. No, what you suggest doesn't make sense and grinds against the facts. Monika was obviously making up a quick excuse for the wine that was inherently contradictory in comparison to the evidence. If Monika was concerned about Jimi's messiness then she has no excuse for leaving Jimi in the state the attendants found him in. She's lying. And you're reaching for excuses around the obvious.

We keep telling you that here weren't "bottles of wine" in Jimi's lungs! That was Bannister's invention (or memory of another case).

I trust a trained medical doctor over internet posters. One who was actually there and treated Jimi Hendrix. Your wild doctor Bannister making-up crazy wine stories is obvious for what it is. I think some people are so driven by denial of the obvious that they actually delude themselves into believing this. Bannister recalled the unusual amounts of wine he suctioned from Jimi Hendrix the morning of September 18th 1970. Simple as that. Deny it if you want.

[stplsd]

Finally, a 'murder' scenario can exist without Bannister and wine. Think about it.

We know that. We are talking about the alleged murder using red wine, the only method discussed by "conspiracy theorists" here and which they claim was administered using the slow, messy "waterboard" torture technique, by or in associaton with the FBI, and failing that anyone they can drag in as a suspect to fit the bill, as they see it. Monika because she was there. Jeffery being dragged in because they claim he benefitted from an alleged insurance policy. Though they haven't explained why he would need to be involved.

[goose334]

"Tappy's" statement. 2009

"I was in London the night of Jimi's death and together with some old friends...we went round to Monika's [Jimi's girlfriend] hotel room, got a handful of pills and stuffed them into his mouth...then poured a few bottles of red wine deep into his windpipe. 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."
- Mike Jeffery (allegedly)

The roadie claims Mike Jeffery said he'd taken out a life insurance policy on Hendrix worth $2 million (£1.2 million), with Jeffery as beneficiary. Jimi was murdered in September 1970 because, says the roadie, three months later, in December 1970, Mike Jeffery's management contract with Hendrix was due to expire and Jimi planned to hire a different manager.
To people familiar with Jimi's story, three red flags jump out from these claims:
1) Mike Jeffery wasn't "in London," he was in Spain when Jimi died in London on September 18, 1970.

"There was a freak storm across Majorca [Spain] and all the phone lines were down. Somebody told Mike that Jimi had been trying to phone him. The first call that got through was to say Jimi was dead. Mike was terribly upset at the thought of Jimi not being able to get through to him." - Trixie Sullivan, secretary/assistant for Mike Jeffery

2) Motive: "in December 1970, Mike Jeffery's management contract with Hendrix was due to expire." Wrong. The Hendrix/Jeffery management contract was not due to expire until 1972, and beyond that Jimi & Jeffery shared ownership interests in a recording studio, as well as film contract commitments well into the '70s. In 1970 imminent contract expiration was no motive for Jeffery to kill Jimi.
3) Motive: "Jeffery had taken out a life insurance policy on Hendrix." Wrong. The only insurance policy on Jimi's life was taken out by his American record company, Warner Bros.

"Jeffery wanted a 'key-man' insurance policy that - should one partner die - made one million dollars available to either partner to buy out the full interest in the company." - Jim Marron, Hendrix/Jeffery business associate

"When we were in Hawaii filming Rainbow Bridge (August 1970, a month prior to Jimi's death), Jeffery was trying to get Jimi to sign a million-dollar insurance policy. I had bad feelings about it and warned Jimi not to sign. I then later confronted Jimi in Oahu, asking if he had signed any agreements, and he said, 'Just some performance contracts that I was behind on.' I was relieved, but I still warned him to look out for it."

- Bob Levine - assistant to Mike Jeffery


Mike Jeffery was in no position to benefit from Jimi's death. Hendrix left no will, his death meant his father then controlled all "product."
John Hillman, a British solicitor who specialized in international tax laws, set up an offshore tax haven company called Yameta in the Bahamas for Mike Jeffery. "Part of Jeffery's trouble," observed Hillman, "was that he was untidy. He did a whole lot of side deals…He did divert funds, there's no question of that, but that doesn't necessarily mean he stole anything."

I'd say the best testimony comes from the ambulance workers

John Saua was one of the ambulance crew (2 men) who answered the call to 22 Landsdowne Crescent, London on the 18th September 1970. The call came in at 11:18 A.M. They arrived at 11:27 AM. John had only worked with Reg Jones for one month, as Reg Jones' regular partner was in the hospital. John left that position shortly afterword and had no contact with Reg Jones since, nor were they particularly good mates at the time, being of different age groups. John still is an ambulance man.

John Saua's Statement:


Well, I remember we had a hell of a time trying to suck him out, I mean the vomit was dry and there was a hell of a lot of it. The aspirators in those days were all right, but not like you have today. They couldn't shift that lot.
We knew it was hopeless. There was no pulse, no respiration. We got down to the flat and there was nobody but the body on the bed, we had to radio for the police from the van, and we couldn't touch anything in the flat. As I say we knew he was gone, he was on top of the bed dressed, but I didn't recognize him. I don't know if any anybody would've recognized him. His own mother wouldn't have recognized him. He was in a pool of vomit, it was everywhere.
But we are not doctors and it's our job to keep trying till we get them to the hospital. We can't proclaim anyone dead...so as soon as the police arrived we were off. I was in the back with Jimi, Reg Jones drove. When we moved him the gasses were gurgling. You get that when someone has died, it wasn't too pleasant. The vomit was all the way down. We couldn't have got an airway down. He was flat on his back when we got there. It's a shame he wasn't on his side because he might have pulled through.


Questions for John Saua:


Q: Did you sit Jimi up in the ambulance?
A: Of course not, but I really kept on trying to do what I could for him even though we knew it was useless. I was really sorry there was nothing we could do to help.
Q: Why have you never talked to the press or come forward?
A: What do you mean come forward? I would never talk to the press, well you can't in our job. We sign a conditions of service agreement. If we go into a building of national security, or a member of the royal family or a celebrity, we can't talk about it, and quite right too. No one has ever asked me about it before anyway.
{John was then shown the account in the bio "Electric Gypsy" regarding Jimi's death.}
A: Well that's fiction isn't it? What a load of old cobblers!
Q: Don't you remember this girl (Monika Dannemann)?
A: No.
Q: Surely you remember this girl. Blond hair and a German accent.
A: Sorry, doesn't jar anything or ring any bells with me.
Q: Did you speak to anyone on your way to the hospital?
A: Just the police before we left. A small crowd may have gathered. I can't remember if some one asked what was happening, but you always get a crowd round an ambulance. It's an unfortunate fact.
Q: Did anyone ride along to the hospital with you?
A: No, of course not, like who?



Reg Jones was the other member of the ambulance crew who responded to a "possible O.D." call at the 22 Landsowne crescent basement flat on the 18th of September 1970. He had worked for over 20 years as an ambulance man and has the highest reputation among his colleagues.



Reg Jones' Statement:


Well it was horrific. We arrived at the flat and the door was flung wide open. Nobody about, just the body on the bed. He was covered in vomit. There was tons of it all over the pillow, black and brown it was. His airways was completely blocked all the way down. His tongue had fallen back you see. The room at first was dark...we had to pull the curtains.
Well we had to get the police. We only had an empty flat, so John Saua ran up and radioed and got the aspirator too. We felt for any pulse between his shoulders, pinched his earlobes and nose, showed a light in his eyes, but there was no response at all. I knew he was dead as soon as I walked in the room. You get a feel for it, I can't explain, but you do and I knew he was dead.
Once the police arrived, which seemed like no time at all, we got him off to the hospital as quick as we could. We just kept trying. My shirt was wringing wet. The ambulances in them days, they wasn't equipped like they are now. We had them crazy wadhams (a type of ambulance) in them days, awful they was.
We took him to St. Mary Abbotts, they don't have a casualty ward now, but in them days they did. That was our designated hospital for the day. There was a "bed state"* at St. Charles. You found out at the beginning of your shift what your designated hospital was - St. Mary's was the designated that day.
[*NOTE: A "bed state" meant that the casualty ward for a particular hospital was not open on a particular day - either through staffing or lack of beds, the designated hospital was the place the injured, or ill, would receive the fastest and most comprehensive care. Just to make sure the emergency services remembered, large highly visible colored disks were placed at the casualty entrance. Red was for closed and green meant open. St. Charles was marginally closer, but there was a "bed state" and, as Reg Jones said, St. Mary's was the designated casualty ward that day.]


Questions for Reg Jones:

Q: Did any one come along in the Ambulance with you?
A: No. John Saua was with Jimi, I didn't know he was Jimi Hendrix, bit out of my age group, luv. When we got him to the hospital, full lights and sirens, we had to clean the ambulance out, it was really a mess, his bowels and bladder, all that goes when you're dead. That flat must have needed a good cleaning too.
Q: Did you sit him up in the ambulance?
A: Sit him up! No luv, you don't sit people up when they've choked. Them steps up the flat was steep, and you had a natural incline on the way up, but no, he wasn't sat up.
Q: Did you see or talk to anyone in the flat or on the way?
A: Just the police and the hospital staff.
Q: What about the German girl?
A: What German Girl? We didn't talk to no one but the police, and then at the hospital.
Q: This is a bit confusing - look at this (shown the account in the "Electric Gypsy" bio:
A: Well that's just crazy that is. I wouldn't know that girl if she was living next door to me. I've never seen her before. That's wicked that is. I've lived long enough to know silly tongues will wag, but that is wicked. She wasn't there, there was no one there.
Q: Have you ever had a situation like this before or since?
A: Well no, that's why I can remember it quite well, just the body and no one around


Ian Smith was one of a pair of police officers attached to Netting Dale police station, responding to a call from ambulance H. Q. to Netting Dale to go to 22 Landsdowne Crescent, London, Samarkand Hotel. It took them about two minutes to arrive (probably less) as the station was just behind Landsdowne Crescent and they were on their way out the door to start their shift.

Ian Smith's Statement: We went to a basement flat at Landsdowne Crescent. The ambulance men were there, but Jimi was dead. It wasn't very pleasant. They had to take some of the bedding and wrapped it around his body as there was a lot of mess. There was really nothing they could do for him. I watched them put him in the ambulance and go off.

Questions for Ian Smith: Q: Was there anyone with them (the ambulance men)?
A: No, I remember quite clearly the doors of the ambulance shutting on the crew and Jimi.
Q: Were you aware of the fact that he was Jimi Hendrix?
A: No, I hadn't a clue who he was. We really answered a lot of calls like that in those days.
Q: Was there anyone in the flat besides Jimi and the ambulance men?
A: No we just shut the door after they left to close up the flat.
Q: Could you just read this account (shown "Electric Gypsy")?
A: (laughs) Well, that's not how I remember things. If she'd been in the flat they would have never called us to come in. They could have just taken him off, but in the circumstances, you know - just the body. Well they I radioed their control to get us in. Also he would have been identified - nobody knew who he was.



Dr. Martin Seifert was one of the casualty doctors who attended to Jimi Hendrix on the 18th of September 1970, at St. Mary Abbotts Hospital, where he was the Medical Registrar. He was one of a team of three doctors. Today he is an eminent Rheumatologist (a doctor who deals with painful conditions of the joints and muscles).

Dr. Martin Seifert's Statement:

Jimi was rushed into the re-sus room. He was put on a monitor, but it was flat. I pounded his heart a couple of times, but there was no point in doing anything else, as he was dead.
I vaguely remember the clothes being flamboyant, but not too well because that isn't what you concentrate on, and there was a good bit of mess.
I never spoke to, or saw, anyone about Jimi - No woman in admissions. No nurse went out to say we'd revived him because we didn't - That just never happened. We didn't work on him anything like an hour, just a few minutes - He was dead. After we worked on Jimi - we didn't know he was Jimi Hendrix until later on - I remember just a vague memory of a bit of fuss going on in admissions, but it could have been anything, it was a casualty ward.
After being shown the account in "Electric Gypsy", Dr. Seifert had this to say.
I can't explain that all - It never happened. Who is this girl? No one would have been allowed to look at him or stand over him. That would never have been done. I would have done anything to save him, but it was too late, he was dead.


Mr. Pergolani was working as a waiter at the Samarkand Hotel on September 18th 1970
Mr. Pergolani's Statement:

Jimi was staying in the hotel with Monika, his German girlfriend. I was working here. That day, someone yelled out that Hendrix was dead. The police came. The doctor said he took pills, but the reason for his death was suffocation from his own vomit, because he couldn't move, he was laying on his back. Since then, almost every week, people come here to see where Jimi died.
[NOTE: I would think that by "doctor" he means the ambulance attendants. It's curious that he says. "Someone yelled out that Hendrix was dead." That confirms the attendant's claim, that they knew Jimi was already dead at the scene. It's also interesting to note that he says, "Since then, almost every week, people come here to see where Jimi died."]

Monika Danneman's Statement:
On September 24, 1970, Monika Charlotte Danneman made the following sworn statement:

I have known Jimi Hendrix for the past two years. I met him in Germany and we became friendly and when I came to England this year I got in contact with him and we resumed our relationship. Since Tuesday 15th September, he was living with me at my flat in Landsdowne Crescent. We went out on Wednesday and Thursday to Ronnie Scotts Jazz Club and had a meal and a bottle of wine each evening, and spent the evenings listening to music. On Thursday 17th September we stayed in and I cooked a meal of spaghetti and we talked until about 2am. He then said he had to go somewhere and see some people about his band and I drove him to a house in Great Cumberland place. I asked him if I could go with him, but he said that they were not very nice people. Later about 2:45am, I picked him up there and went home. On our arrival I made a sandwich and we talked until about 7am. He then said he wanted to go to sleep. He took some tablets and we went to bed. I woke up about 11am and saw that Jimi's face was covered in vomit. I tried to wake him, but could not. I called an ambulance and he was taken to the Hospital in Kensington. He never recovered consciousness and later died at 12:45 pm. Prior to going with him to the hospital, I checked my supply of Vesperax sleeping tablets and found that 9 of them were missing. He was very happy and I never heard him talk of killing himself.

[not sure of date for this one]
Stickells and Barrett took Jimi's stuff, like messages. That was funny, that was so strange. They only were interedsted in the messages Jimi had received...I do believe he got poisoned - Monika Dannemann


Doctors and attendants who handled Jimi's body recall him being covered with a large amount of red wine. Yet medical records show his blood alcohol level was 46 mgs when he died, meaning that his system hadn't absorbed a lot of wine: 46 milligrams, when converted to ounces, equals 0.0016 of an ounce - practically nothing. So a lot of wine got into him and then he quickly died before absorbing the alcohol. Heart stops, absorption ceases, and just a small amount of alcohol had time to enter Jimi's blood. So why was a lot of wine spilled all over and around him? He drowned. Was it a forced drowning? Did someone hold him and pour the wine in? Why was his hair, clothes, and bedding covered in so much wine? It's too suspicious.

- James Sedgwick- First Century Press

[Scrum Drum]

Actually, if you are going to list 'claims' that Jimi was murdered, it would be a larger list. And I differ as to MJ doing it for insurance money. It was a heavier scene and Hendrix, whenever the legal process to fire MJ and aquire new management took place, would expose all the illegalities of MJ's financial portfolio and in so doing reveal these covert connections/operations, a motive much more logical than mere insurance money.

Finally, a 'murder' scenario can exist without Bannister and wine. Think about it.

Right, thanks Mourning Star. People like Mourning Star, who show an appreciation of the bigger picture, show an honest understanding of the true facts. Persons whose sole interest is quick denial expose themselves in their willingness to ignore this bigger picture. Just because people are trying to deny the wine doesn't mean the whole mafia, kidnapping, death threat aspect of Jeffery, or his relationship, and its meaning, goes away.

Mourning Star shows shrewd understanding of the real motives above. Jeffery said to Wright "I had to do it, I had no choice" ("Powerful people depend on me being your manager"). I've probably studied intel intrigue a little more than some on this site. A trick they use is called a "limited hang-out". What they do is offer a sacrificial lamb when people get close. Jeffery and his mundane business motive is the limited hang-out in this case. What reinforces this is the pattern of denials that followed in the media with Levine's statement and Meic Steven's red herring. There was no follow-through investigation of Wright's claim because they want people to believe Jeffery killed Hendrix for insurance and then forget about it. That way you'll never seek to find out about the intel Bahamian bank or COINTELPRO motives or the evidence for it. Deniers are like people foolishly playing the naked roles of the play "Hair" on a stage set-up for Shakespeare's Hamlet.

[MourningStar]

Finally, a 'murder' scenario can exist without Bannister and wine. Think about it.

We know that. ...

Well, why don't the two of you spare us and persue a few of those alternatives? You and SD are like dogs after their own tails and doing it wonderfully!. Oh, I get it. The two of you, mmmm, and maybe a few others, are competing to see how many ways you both can say the exact same thing.

Carry on,

[MourningStar]

In 2011 Bob Levine, Wright's long term business associate and Mike Jeffery's assistant manager in N.Y., said he knows that Wright made up these stories to sell his book, that Jeffery didn't have insurance on Hendrix, but that he merely countersigned the Warner Bros. policy that Warner's had taken out as standard practice.

All this already posted and discussed. Please review.

[goose334]

All this already posted and discussed. Please review.

sifting through 23 pages of blather is more then my brain can tolerate.

I agree with SD 100% that tappy's testimony was to point the finger at mj.
Hendrix the last 24 hours, tries the same thing.