Jimi Hendrix's death

Hendrix's Last Condition: Death by Forced Red Wine(effectively a drowning of stomach and lungs)




Please read the Comments section below. More information and informed sources are listed there.


------------

"BLUE MEANIES" -- POLICE AND INTELLIGENCE SERVICES: helpers and causes
 BREAKING ASSUMPTIONS ABOUT THE MUSIC INDUSTRY: INDUSTRY CORRUPTION, POLICE, INTELLIGENCE AGENCIES -- AND SOME DEATHS AND COVER-UPS

Many people assume things which are just not so, and because of disliking the truth about something, dismiss it simply for emotional reasons. Not all things are ugly, but some are.To merely make the point ...Book which reports the Doctor's statements to the press, as well as the coroner's work. Image found here
----JUST ONE OF THE CASES:
JIMI HENDRIX: LUNGS AND STOMACH "HORRIFIC": DROWNED IN RED WINE, SAID DOCTOR:
My own comments first:
His doctor has spoken twice about the horrific amount of red wine, in surprise, it seems, as if he does not know Hendrix was not found in a pool or bathtub of red wine.
It seems that some people miss the point of the doctor's statements below: that the hair, wrap -- body ("there was red wine all over him") -- were soaked "saturated" with red wine;
the stomach and lungs were completely filled with red wine (first statement emphasizes stomach in statement about lungs but is a bit more ambiguous regarding lungs themselves, in the way he phrases the problem of the amount of red wine there; second statement clearer about the red wine in lungs, because had misspoken in terms of clarity, in his first statement, so someone commented he should have done a tracheotomy);
the doctor considered him drowned in and from red wine.
It was so unusual and complete an impression that he considered it horrific;
had probably dealt with drowning (water drowning) victims before.
So:
Do not dismiss the salient content AND general emotional stance of the doctor.
This is not some stomach content being aspirated:
"... he had a drowning of the airways. His lungs were completely overcome by fluid."
Some vomit from some red wine guzzled, and a bit of aspiration is what the doctor is gainsaying with every part of his different statements.

---HAIR, WRAP MATTED WITH RED WINE (Doctor did not know of Hendrix himself & seems to assume he literally drowned in a strange red wine bath, not knowing he was found on his on his back, in a bed with much vomitus around him)------ "DROWNED": AS IN, WINE WAS FORCED DOWN HIS THROAT AND LUNGS ON THE BED, IS THE ONLY OPTION FOR WHAT THIS DIAGNOSIS WOULD REALLY MEAN, IN HENDRIX'S CASE: he was IN BED, long dead
Image of matted wet hair on soaked doll from hereDoctor said the red wine amount in lungs and stomach, on hair, naked drenched body and wrap around neck were "horrific" and unforgettable. Image of soaked doll dripping dry, from same source as above.
----- CORONER AVOIDED THIS, FOCUSSED ON THE BARBITURATE DRUGS, VOMIT, NOT THE SALIENT (MUST BE FORCED) WINE "DROWNING" OF LUNGS AS CAUSE OF DEATH, THUS AVOIDING MURDER IMPLICATION
---- WOMAN CLAIMED TO BE PRESENT WHEN BODY WAS FOUND, WHO WAS NOT (AND CLAIMED JUST A TRICKLE OF VOMIT) - obfuscation of case
If the following information is from "gutter literature", then why the detailed medical statements and sources?
The comments about and from the doctor, below, are from here -- not a perfect site, but much of it is good research, sourced.

UPDATE: the Website itself is now defunct after years of being available. It is available on the Wayback machine.


(The information on the woman claiming to be present is also there, but I do not repost it here.) The quotes used by the author of that Website, Dr. Bannister's interviews with The Times newspaper and the BBC, were originally found in Tony Brown, 1997, Jimi Hendrix: The Final Days).


And why murder Hendrix? Some suggestions are made on the linked page, but he was connected with military, so who knows what he could have been killed for. Maybe it was more banal: a vendetta? Perhaps just knowing the following information more widely will help get the answers:
His doctor has spoken twice about the horrific amount of red wine, in surprise, it seems, as if he does not know Hendrix was not found in a pool or bathtub of red wine. .............
QUOTED SECTION:
Twenty-three years later, information emerged which strongly suggests Hendrix was murdered. In 1993 it was disclosed that Hendrix had not strangled on his vomit, but "drowned in red wine." Dr. John Bannister was the physician—a Surgical Registrar—who worked on Hendrix initially at the St Mary Abbot's Hospital. Shortly afterwards Hendrix was seen by Dr. Martin Seifert, the Medical Registrar on duty that day.23 In an interview with The Times newspaper, published December 18, 1993, Dr. Bannister made the following statements about the death of Jimi Hendrix:


Jimi Hendrix had been dead for some time, without a doubt, hours rather than minutes. He didn’t have any pulse. The inside of his mouth and mucous membranes were black because he had been dead for some time. He had had no circulation through his tissues at any time immediately prior to coming to hospital…[Red wine] was coming out of his nose and out of his mouth. It was horrific. The whole scene is very vivid, because you don’t often see people who have drowned in their own red wine. There was red wine all over him, I think that he was naked but he had something around him—whether it was a towel or a jumper—around his neck. That was saturated in red wine. His hair was matted…The medical staff used an 18 inch metal sucker to try to clear Hendrix’s airway, but it would just fill up with red wine from the stomach…He was completely cold. I personally think he died long before. He was cold and he was blue. He had all the parameters of somebody who had been dead for some time. We worked on him for about half an hour without any response at all. There was a medical registrar, myself, nursing staff and I think one other doctor. I didn’t even know who Jimi Hendrix was. It’s tragic that such a bloke died in those circumstances.24

In addition, there was practically no alcohol in the bloodstream. Someone apparently poured red wine down Jimi’s throat to intentionally cause asphyxiation after first causing barbiturate intoxication. This person apparently slipped him a large quantity of barbiturates which caused him to go into a temporary coma. During this time his natural reflexes stopped working. This means he lost the ability to cough as a natural response to liquid going down his windpipe. Without the ability to cough he was easily drowned. And he was drowned in an extremely sinister manner. Large quantities of red wine were poured down his throat. As he strangled, he spewed huge amounts of vomit, something that normally happens with drowning victims, but according to the physician who worked on him, Hendrix did not die from drowning in his own vomit. He died from drowning in red wine.Two years later, on September 10, 1995, Dr. Bannister made additional remarks on BBC Radio One’s Wink of an Eye. The following is an excerpt:


[Hendrix] did not have an obstruction of the airways. What he had, was that he had a drowning of the airways. His lungs were completely overcome by fluid. One does a tracheotomy to get better access to the trachea and to the airways. But his problems were below that. The body was cold, there were no signs of circulation and my overall impression was he’d been dead for several hours.25
23 Tony Brown, Jimi Hendrix: The Final Days, 1997, p. 141. [The following is a note to Note 22 at jfkmontreal Webpage source, but because it is circumstantially relevant to this excerpted information, it is inserted here:] Tony Brown quotes coroner Gavin Thurston’s conclusion on Page 163, and Brown shows an "Inquisition" report—dated September 28, 1970—on Page 173, followed by the verdict of the Coroner’s Court—dated September 28, 1970—on Page 174. Neither report gives the same narrative presented by Brown on Page 163, although the conclusions match. Consequently, it is presumed that Brown obtained a transcript of what coroner Thurston said orally at the Inquest, and those oral comments were presented on Page 163.24 Ibid., pp. 142-14325 Ibid., p. 143


-----------
This blog article's author's note: since the doctor spoke of his shocking memory, it would mean that the coroner or others around that coroner are where the cover-up occurred. And so the doctor said this, and there would be a scandal? No. Not unless we make it one; the doctor did not emphasize murder, so it went unnoticed -- even by the author of the book -- nor may the doctor have even thought it was murder (posited it). He may only have thought it was obvious that the man died in some strange situation, and not know more about it. Many people do not think beyond what their immediate experience is: in this case, a dead man, a famous man the doctor did not know, dying in a strange enough way the doctor likely put an innocent "he drowned, obviously, but in red wine, and maybe these famous weird people have weird pastimes of swimming in red wine luxury" spin on it in his own mind. But the rest of us know he did not -- he was found on a bed.
So the information is out. And now promoted more fully here. So: buy the book and/or spread the information. It is up to you.


Brian Jones (left) and Jimi Hendrix (right). Image undated. Both singers ended up dead at age 27, but also from murder, if all indications are correct.

(For Jones, of The Rolling Stones, see the other page on this blog.)

The causes of the seeming murders are likely very different. -- It is ironic there is such a nice photo of just the two of them together, for me to include here in this article. Image found here.

62 comments:

  1. Replies
    1. No problem. Your article sparked me to buy Tony Brown's book. Best book out there regarding Jimi's final days, hands down.

      Delete
    2. Nice! It was clear, though, from Astucia's salient points, which this article really recaps upon, that even Brown misses the implications of what he writes, preferring to give weight to the drug reports.

      Delete
    3. Finally a bit of my work is "working". Yay!

      Delete
    4. Beware of a particular publication out there called "Until We Meet Again", by Caesar Glebbeek, which is a complete pack of lies regarding Jimi's death. Don't be duped by this filthy, lying publication. Instead, read this debate between somebody that knows Caesar personally and somebody looking at this case objectively. You'll see clearly who is being objective regarding the available information of this case & who is putting up phony arguments and trying to weasel their way around that basic information of this case because they simply CANNOT refute it. Four pages worth.

      http://www.amazon.co.uk/review/R9SY3Q1DUKB1Z/ref=cm_cd_pg_pg1?ie=UTF8&asin=0312137389&cdForum=Fx6WZGW6T7DQU4&cdPage=1&cdThread=Tx21CN76D9WPSGW&store=books#wasThisHelpful

      Delete
    5. No problem, Clare. Caesar Glebbeek is not to be trusted. He's pro-Monika and anti-Jimi. You are on the right track promoting Tony Brown's book. Tony proved Monika wasn't telling the truth.

      Delete
  2. I've been studying this for years and it is clear at this point that the British government acted with such incompetence that it is very unlikely it was unintentional. Therefore it is reasonable to consider it a deliberate cover-up which in turn shows complicity. Oh, and don't think Tony Brown wasn't aware of murder. He lived in Britain where strict libel laws prevent people from making accusations they can't prove.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Sure. Except one can prove it: the condition of the body with wine all over & naked & wrap & hair matted w/ vomit & red wine per the doctor & EMTs, & the fact the doctor misattributed the drowned lung condition to a swim ("drowning") when EMTs known to have found him on bed with his vomitus long dead, means he died there but was force-"fed" the red wine.

      Delete
    2. Right on, Clare. Excellent analysis and Scrum Drum and I are very grateful to you for being able to look at the circumstances of Jimi's untimely death with a sense of diplomacy and tell it like it is.

      Delete
    3. Thank you! Pass the word. The original analysis is censored, but I rewrote the gist and tried to expand on the implications of how people could be doctors or medics and not see what their information meant, so they could not think to contest (or even follow) the coroner report findings. Thanks so much, again!

      Delete
    4. I don't know where you got that swimming drowning thing from. Dr Bannister said he simply thought it was another tragic drug and alcohol abuse death and simply didn't consider anything else.

      Part of the problem here is in 1970 Notting Hill was a drug bohemia and racism wasn't exactly sorted out. Jimi was a black unknown drug casualty simply dumped by the ambulance men onto Dr Bannister who never had the circumstances communicated to him. Another lapse occurred when the doctors at the hospital, thinking it was an unfortunate wild rock n roll death, covered their butts and didn't volunteer anything because a dead superstar is a liability issue either for breach of privacy or malpractice. The autopsist, Dr Teare, never got the information about the wine from the hospital.

      We're all on the same page, but the British government is never going to allow anyone to "prove" this. They were involved and still are. I think the proof for that is the strongest of all the proof involved.

      Delete
    5. The swimming drowning is the implication of Dr B's saying he "drowned". That's the whole point here: the circumstances were not communicated to him, so filled lungs becomes drowning to him (not drowned passageways only), and he didn't think foul play. My point is how to know how people in a coverup can be non-participants, wittingly.

      The references of his interviews are above. Long after, he shows his own thoughts on the matter are misled by less information so he didn't (and maybe doesn't) suspect.

      It is proved. If lungs were full and bed (& wrap) were soaked, it was murder.

      Delete
    6. Yeah, I agree and have been saying so on the internet since I first found out in 2009. The problem here is there has been a hugely successful defamation campaign waged against Dr Bannister that has allowed a segment of Hendrix fan delinquents to destroy Dr Bannister's credibility and therefore his claim.

      By the way, this article shows Dr Bannister is aware that he witnessed evidence for murder. You would think this would interest Scotland Yard, but so far it hasn't. If you're looking for witting participants in a cover-up look no further than Scotland Yard (and probably MI-6).


      http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/celebritynews/5869491/Jimi-Hendrix-murder-theory-plausible-says-ER-doctor.html

      Delete
    7. The reality is, whatever happened in Australia 20 years later with Dr. Bannister has nothing whatsoever to do with what he witnessed on Sept, 18, 1970. Bannister has absolutely nothing to gain by coming forward with his testimony & could have remained silent had he wanted to. There was no announcement of the possible re-opening of the inquest at the time Bannister wrote to Shapiro in early January of 1992.

      This defamation of Bannister is just a copout being used by a herd of mindless sheep that refuse to look at this case objectively, haven't provided one shred of proof that what Bannister is testifying to isn't true. By contrast, there is multiple testimonies that Jimi was a mess which gives a lot of credence to Bannister's testimony about Jimi being drowned in wine. A simple barbiturate overdose & vomiting would not cause the type of mess that ambulance men & doctors, and policeman Ian Smith testified to. It's as simple as that.

      Delete
    8. I just noticed, too, brdempsey, that you seem to think the "drowning" has credence. Actually, Bannister (fyi Scrum Drum), says above -- or is it in the original set of quotations? I can't remember -- that he had no idea who this man was, but when he was told, thought how rich and famous have access to fancy things like pools of red wine, by implication. But ... Jimi can't have drowned in Red Wine exactly: the bed was filled with vomit, too. So he continued to be forced to, or was only forced to "drink" / drown his passageways on the bed.

      He has to have died on the bed, with that much vomit on the bed. It is likely he was held down repeatedly and forced there to die. But ... of course, our quest is to get the public impression of how a doctor remembers well the extent of passageway drowning with red wine, and that Seifert has now (you say) admitted in a book about red wine, which he never mentioned before: on the hair and wrap and also in the "stomach" at least. We will likely never get the autopsy report fully (were there bruises from being held down)? But the EMTs saw no-one, so Monika lied, and the doctors not only sort of concur, but Bannister's points are, well, pointed. :)

      Delete
    9. Scrum Drum, or brdempsey, do you have a copy of the article from 2009? It's scrubbed (deliberately covered up for its implications), changed location or otherwise deleted now. "Page Not Found."

      Delete
  3. Clare, if you find the time, have a looksee at this article, by Harry Shapiro who was the co-author with Caesar Glebbeek of "Electric Gypsy" published in 1990, the very book that Dr. Bannister came across that prompted him to come forward with his testimony. Harry has parted ways with Caesar since then. Harry wrote this article in 2009.

    http://www.wabx.net/content/mysterious-death-jimi-hendrix

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thank you. Appreciate your expertise.

      Delete
    2. No problem, Clare. Scrum is right about the British cover up. Kathy Etchingham got the original testimonies from the ambulance men and the policeman that was called by the ambulance men to the Samarkand & some other testimonies and submitted them to the Attorney General's office and immediately Scotland Yard paid visits to them and a good number were intimidated into changing their original stories to Kathy, just like Harry said. Cover-up still continuing.

      Delete
    3. Of course he's right about cover-up but thank you for filling in re. the testimonies. Where did you hear this?

      Delete
    4. The ambulance men's deposition is shown in Brown's 'Final Days'. The witnessing of the ambulance men in the matter of a death is considered serious legal witnessing so the London Ambulance Service documented it in a sworn deposition overseen by London Ambulance Service supervisor David Smith. So therefore you can't just retract those statements without serious explanation like Caesar Glebbeek said. I have a strong feeling Glebbeek is just lying about the retraction of the ambulance men's statements.

      There's a BBC interview with one of the ambulance men in 1995, long after the 1993 Scotland Yard investigation, where he repeats the original claim. If he had retracted it in 1993 why would he repeat the original claim years later? Caesar is lying and needs to be held criminally accountable for doing so in a sold publication over a serious historical/legal matter.

      Delete
    5. Clare, what you have to understand about Glebbeek is that he is operating like a modern day Julius Streicher who was the Nazi propaganda leader who was tried & and convicted and hung to death at the Nuremberg war crimes tries after WWII ended.

      A good book to read is Kathy Etchingham's "Through Gypsy Eyes" and you will see that Kathy got the original statement, independently and uncoached from the ambulance men and policeman and that Michael Fairchild published them in 1992. You can get Kathy's book in Kindle Fire format for cheap here:

      http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/B009AIXGF4/kathetchtheof-20

      Delete
    6. Scrum Drum: He's repeating it because he knows it's true; retraction, if it occurred, could be from pressure. Maybe retraction never happened; maybe Glebbeek is (as BRDempsey says) an outright liar, or maybe he's utterly convinced Monika has to be truthful.

      Either way, the doc's statements & the repeated EMT statements show something much more important than whether Monika was there; it shows he had outright drowned airways, but was dying on the bed.

      Delete
    7. Quite correct, Clare & we greatly do appreciate that you are willing to look at this case objectively.. Jimi had been left for dead for multiple hours with nobody so much as lifting a finger to help him prior to the ambulance men arriving. There's no excuse fro Monika and others that were in that flat before the ambulance was called. You have to wonder, what puts that sort of spook into Monika and the others that they would not lift a finger to help Jimi such as get him on his feet & get him out of the flat & take him to the ER ( Monika had a car ). Eric Burdon told Kathy Etchingham that he was in and out of the flat before the ambulance was called and he got the call very early in the morning from Monika.

      Delete
    8. Oh you're welcome, BRD. Well, "spook" is a good word; if Hendrix was killed by spies (spooks) in any military or para-governmental sense, Monica & Eric would know enough not to say; or they were in on it.

      There are reasons a 101st Airborne man who burned flags would be "wanted". However, there may be spook pressures involved in his burning the flag in the first place: to incite rage in "hippies".

      The issues are really not known (elimination of what could not or could be involved), here, for Hendrix's murder, but it had to be.

      If you are familiar with the ways Laurel Canyon bands were suggested to convene, per Dave McGowan's research, then you'll get my drift about different kinds of elements being suspects in Hendrix's murder.

      Remember: Dave doesn't prove one single set of employees of intel as the new Laurel Canyon scene; he proves different ways people have to have been collected, suggested to participate, lured, etc. to be such a scene, and others who have to have leaned on (threatened) people thereafter. There were also some who were threatened (or killed) because crime elements (drug deals, etc.) went wrong. Cultic activity for its own sake was also present and used by intel.

      Hendrix's likeliest murderers would be FBI or CIA or some such (or Mi5 helping), because he was a piss-off to Hoover (not even top brass know what other top brass are doing, sometimes, so Hoover's hatred of blacks as powerful or "anti-patriotic" could have led to this, or because he was an asset to the CIA who'd ticked them off somehow.

      Or it could be some mafia debt or something.
      But it has to be murder, with red wine bloating his lungs, administered on the bed so as to soak it and his wrap and hair.

      Delete
    9. I'm not sure what you mean by "flag burning". To the best of my knowledge, Jimi never did this. However, his rendition of the "Star Spangled Banner" at Woodtock and his anti-war song Machine Gun, didn't make him any friends with the FBI or CIA and I know he was on the list of FBI's subversives.

      Delete
    10. You're right re. flag. I got it confused. Sorry!

      Delete
    11. No problem, Clare. Trust me, it's easy for anyone to caught in a wheel of confusion regarding events that went on around that time in late '60's and early '70's. Scrum Drum and I both were around during that time, and I remember 1970 very vividly, as there was mass insanity going on up the wazzoo.

      Back to your point about Hendrix's murderers, Monika herself tipped us off back in 1975 when she stated on Caesar Glebbeek's radio show that the mafia murdered Jimi "for sure". Caesar, of course, omitted this from his filthy, lying publication "Until We Meet Again" because it destroys his case.

      You notice in Tony Brown's book that both Monika mentioned "his face covered in vomit" and Gerry Stickells mentioned "vomiting attacks" to the Inquest regarding Jimi, and yet afterwards, Monika kept saying she saw a "trickle" coming out of Jimi's mouth. Problem was, the ambulance men in their original statements said there "pools of vomit" and "tons of it" -- the very symptoms of a drowning victim. No such description was ever given regarding the deaths of Bon Scott and John Bonham, who both died in 1980 after heavy drinking binges.

      Delete
    12. FBI and CIA Intel saw the Woodstock generation as a communist threat whether it actually was or not. Constantine pretty much got it right. COINTELPRO was after the leaders of that movement and used military decapitation methods against those it thought would damage the morale of those it was targeting. The Viet Nam blood bath drifted over to the US and those who were in charge of those covert programs were already desensitized by the horrors of Viet Nam. They were killing a movement and they knew killing its best and brightest like Jimi would collapse it like it pretty much did.

      Monika had to lie about the vomit because otherwise the authorities would ask her why she did nothing about it? The answer of course is that Monika knew Jimi was dead so there was no reason to try to help him.

      Delete
    13. Who runs this site? I posted how Jimi was a victim of government COINTELPRO black ops of the Viet Nam era and it disappeared. Censorship of posts? WTF???

      Delete
    14. Hi, I didn't delete anything, Scrum Drum. Maybe it took a moment to appear? Please let me know. -- I only removed one person's post on this blog (not this page), because of vicious attacks on me.

      Delete
    15. BRDempsey: Thanks for your comment re. pools of vomit and drowning.

      My point is: drowning doesn't work, either:

      The victim's lungs would be the first to expel liquid. If he was so filled with liquid, he wouldn't be able to throw up. In other words: it was a progressive drowning of the passageways but *on the bed*, killed in his room by forced inhalation & swallowing.

      Delete
    16. Clare, one thing you will find is that anybody wanting to discuss the circumstances of Jimi's tragic death objectively is going to get viciously attacked all around the web -- particularly at a site called Crosstown Torrents (which Scrum Drum can tell you all about) that's made up of a cabal of mindless sheep who refuse to look at this case objectively, just like their shepherd Caesar Glebbeek.

      Delete
    17. So stupid, those people. But, BRDempsey, I was attacked more for my work on false flag inquiries (Columbine, Sandy Hook, Boston) and McCartney's death.

      Delete
    18. You got that right, Clare, regarding the people that won't look objectively and consider all possibilities. Their problem is that they are foolish enough to take their own opinion for fact -- which is big mistake.

      That's why I posted that I thought it was an excellent article because of what you pointed out about the coroner and people involved covering it up, because a blind man with a cane can see that's exactly what they did, once they read Tony Brown's book. They didn't even ask Monika where those pills came from and why she had them.

      Delete
    19. My post re-appeared. I get my posts tinkered with so often I just assume it.

      Technically, that is drowning. When Jimi was in partial barbiturate paralysis, as shown by his blood barbiturate level, his lungs wouldn't necessarily expel the wine right back out. Jimi's body was obviously functional enough that he either swallowed some of the wine or it drained down his flaccid esophagus to the stomach. The rest drained into the lungs and was inhaled because his motor functions were still supporting breathing. I'm pretty sure that at Jimi's .7mg barbiturate blood level the results Dr Bannister saw were pretty much what would happen if somebody took many bottles of wine and poured them down your throat while you were incapacitated by a Vesparax overdose.

      The stomach has the stronger visceral muscles that are designed to expel materials. The lungs don't have that musculature and aren't designed to expel large amounts of liquids. I think the stomach would take over and be the organ that won use of the esophagus therefore locking the wine into the lungs with vomit. This is exactly how Jimi was found and explains why the wine wasn't witnessed until Jimi got to the hospital where the plug of vomit was uncorked.

      Delete
    20. Right, Scrum Drum. But the main point here is that, a) the amount of wine drowned his lungs (& the controversy can't fully obscure that anymore; b) drowning in the regular sense can no longer be the limited hangout idea assumed by the doctor in his ignorance when describing instead the amount (not the implication of the drowning) to the coroner), thus excusing how he wouldn't know his words to the coroner were twisted yet still showing murder on the bed, covered up by the coroner.

      Delete
    21. I don't delete posts unless they are mere negative or repetitive ignorant spam. & I think I only once deleted one.

      Delete
    22. Clare, I'm certain that the coroner never spoke with any of the medical staff. None of them were called to the inquest, except Dr. Teare, who did the autopsy on Sept 21, 1970. None of the medical staff or the ambulance men were called to the Inquest. And I'm certain Dr. Bannister would verify that none of the authorities or Coroners ever consulted him or any of the other medical staff. The coroners avoided it deliberately. That's why Jimi's death remained such a mystery for decades. Nobody ever consulted the medical staff or ambulance men who attended to Jimi, or the police officer who was summoned to Samarkand by the ambulance men until Kathy Etchingham undertook the task in 1991.

      Delete
    23. Dr Bannister's words were never twisted. As far as I know the only information the autopsist Dr Donald Teare got was general information from the hospital report that showed "choking on vomit". When a drunk college kid vomits after a night of drinking and vomits out mostly booze they don't say he "red-wined", they say he "vomited". So the substance choking Jimi was simply referred to as vomit and the forensic ball was dropped. No matter how much you try, the British Government refuses to pick up that ball and run with it. And I think we know why.

      There's a clear legal case here against Scotland Yard for malfeasance in the second investigation in 1993. There's no excuse for an authority of that ability to miss this obvious glaring evidence. They obviously intentionally covered this up in 1993. That is criminal and they need to be prosecuted for it. Time to stop playing around with this.

      Delete
    24. Oh, gee. Thank you. -- Police summoned to Samarkind? Do tell.

      Delete
    25. It's in 'Final Days'. When the ambulance men got to the Samarkand the front door was wide open and nobody was there except for Jimi. When there is no one there to identify the victim the law requires them to summon the police, which they did. Two constables arrived and one of them was quoted as saying Jimi was obviously dead. Both ambulance attendants also said that you get a feeling for those things in their occupation and that Jimi was obviously dead. But he would have to be because they also said their ambulance equipment was not adequate to penetrate the large plug of dry vomit in Jimi's windpipe. Monika told the Inquest she was there; Jimi was alive; and that she rode in the ambulance. What the police witnessed was: No one was there; Jimi was dead; and no one rode in the ambulance. So you can see Scotland Yard had evidence of conflicting stories in their possession that they failed to act on.

      After this became a controversy the police reports became less available.

      Delete
    26. Oh the hotel. Yes. Okay. I had a lapse there. But thank you (both) for fleshing out this article in these comments.

      I greatly appreciate it.

      Delete
    27. Do we have any police reports? I got this information from Astucia, whose site is now down, and explicated it.

      Delete
    28. Clare, it's in Tony Brown's book. The ambulance men found a dead body ( Jimi ) at the Samarkand and nobody was there to tell them who this was. By law, the ambulance men were required to summon the police and one of the police officers was Ian Smith. The problem was, according to Kathy Etchingham, that the police did not bother to declare it a crime scene because Jimi was a black John Doe and the policeman didn't want to fill out the paperwork. Mistake number 1.

      Delete
  4. Hi Clare,

    There's a book just recently released by the Aleem Twins that contains testimonial witnessing that annihilates any "OD/accidental death, Jimi was alive in the ambulance" BS theories.

    http://www.amazon.com/Ghetto-Fighters-Harlem-World-Tunde/dp/150286438X/ref=cm_rdp_product

    Get this book, as the testimony given in it backs your blog here to the hilt.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thank you to the hilt. I am not purchasing anything at the moment, but I do tell people to read the comments here, not merely the blog.

      If you can post info summary & some quotations for all to see, we will all benefit & I'm sure some people might buy it.

      You're great. Thanks!

      Delete
    2. Can't provide any spoilers at this time, but I can tell you the book is worth every penny.

      Delete
    3. Okay. Your call. I find people a) need to know more, b) books are sold more overall by having basic idea public, w/ a few quotations.

      Delete
    4. Clare, what one has to remember regarding the Aleem Twins, is that they knew Jimi Hendrix personally BEFORE and AFTER Jimi's rise to stardom. Too many people overlook that critical factor.

      Delete
  5. Hi Clare,

    We've gotten further verification of the red wine. There was a 3rd doctor named Bob Brown who verified the red wine in a 2012 article. A close source also has come across a video of Dr. Seifert in the early 2000's admitting to Jimi's hair being matted with red wine (just like Bannister had said). The real clincher is found in Sharon Lawrence's book where she wrote that UPI colleague Jack Meehan had interviewed Gavin Thurston (the coroner who conducted the Inquest into Jimi's death) on Sept. 29, 1970 and Thurston told Meehan that the autopsy had revealed "a fair amount of red win had been imbibed" regarding Jimi's stomach contents. CHECK and MATE !!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The stomach contents were not at issue, I thought, but the level in the hair, lungs, on the cloth, and when it was discovered and by whom were, but yes ... The doctor's testimony & EMTs are pretty clear. But we need the video. How to get it?

      Delete
    2. Oh, and since it's Seifert who's already spoken in these articles (quoted in the book), you are thinking a video seems more powerful, direct, undoctored (well, even if they doctored portions, you know what I mean)?

      Delete
    3. The vid of Dr. Seifert isn't available, yet. As for the stomach contents, what we have is the coroner confirming the red wine, but the same time the Inquest didn't mention it, nor did the autopsy. This tells you they did know about & confirms what you were saying in your article about "let's not make it a scandal". That's exactly what they did. They knew what needed to be hidden, because the red wine is clearly the forensic determiner and prover of murder. You can't have a BAC of .005% and have stomach and lungs flooded with wine in any accidental death or suicide scenario, as that is both medically and physically impossible. Seifert was on video denying the wine in Feb of 2000, but a later video has Seifert admitting to Jimi's hair matted with red wine (Bannister was the doc that initially said this).

      Delete
    4. To answer your question about the stomach contents, it's not so much the stomach contents being an issue -- it's the man that verified them, the coroner Gavin Thurston. Look at the last pages of Tony Brown's book where it shows Jimi's death certificate and then look closely at following two pages & what name do you see there? That's right, none other than Gavin Thurston. You see, Thurston did know about the wine, but you don't see him write anything about it on those two pages. He simply writes "insufficient evidence of circumstances". This tells you right there that a real investigation was blatantly avoided.

      Delete
    5. I see I see I see -- yay! I track so many things, I apologize and now do get your full point. I still think the case is made without proof directly that the coroner knew; the explanation then becomes reasonable speculation that the last doctor's direct and intense experience and details of the splashing (and EMT experience of the splashed in situ vomitus, etc. and lies of a witness of having been there) are enough to determine cover-up, without the coroner's confirmation of it in his own limited way (stomach content only). But it's great. Thank you for always enlightening on this issue. You rock. I try. You succeed. :) ;) Or rather, maybe we both do?

      Delete
    6. There will be more forthcoming -- stay tuned and I'll be checking back with you.

      Delete
    7. Hey brdempsey69, would you add me on Google+ circles? I just added you. (I think then we can message? I'm not totally familiar with Google+.) Or contact me on Twitter (@clarekuehn) and we can befriend and then private message, so I can ask you something? I love that most things are public which you're saying here, and I want the public to know the truth (figure it out and reasonably), but I had a specific thing to run by you. Thanks.

      Delete
  6. The video will come out within a year probably as part of a major documentary. The Crosstown idiots will finally be refuted because they banked on their claim that Dr Bannister was the only witness to the wine in the emergency room. This statement by Dr Seifert that Jimi's hair was matted with red wine will not only disprove that but it will also conflict with Seifert's other statement that he detected no alcohol on Jimi. This proves that Seifert was the liar and not Bannister, as the Crosstown morons were claiming. Will the Crosstown idiots apologize or seek what this new revelation shows? No, they are just denier scum who are seeking to deny Jimi's murder by any cowardly means. Mostly British-based where they have an agenda to not admit Jimi was killed by their own. One of Jimi's biggest liabilities is the feckless morons he attracted as fans who are some of the biggest impediments to solving his murder and don't seem to mind.

    ReplyDelete