I've been looking for a few days now for answers to a few questions regarding Hendrix's death and they are proving quite elusive.
The first big question I want answered is what proof is there other than Dannemans word that he took 9 barbiturates? I can find no other witness's to this and the only other evidence is there was apparently a pack of 40 of the same pills (that incidentally belonged to Danneman) in his pocket which could easily have been placed there by anyone.
Though in a few places they mention rice was in his stomach contents there's no mention of barbiturates. I have read that doctors were surprised by how little alcohol was actually in his blood considering how much was in his lungs and stomach, surely if there was massive OD of barbiturates in his blood too they would have mentioned that? And if there were all those barbiturates in his blood why was the verdict on his death apparently left open, and not actually that he died of inhalation of vomit or an OD like so many places say?
The one that bugs me the most is why the hell did Eric Burdon say there was suicide note? And why was he the first person Danneman called when she saw Hendrix "was ill" though we now in fact know he was well dead by the time the phone call was made.
This rumour about Hendrix Choking on his vomit was actually started by Danneman I think as she said she rode in the Ambulance with Hendrix and the paramedics sat him up causing him to choke. Though the paramedics tell a completely different story (and who are you more likely to believe after everything we've heard about Danneman?) They say that there was no one in the flat, Hendrix was dead when they arrived but they tried to revive him anyway as is procedure then wrapped up his body and took him to hospital where he was pronounced DOA.
Another big question is why the media court Danneman's version of events so completely for so many years? Did no one do any research at all and just accepted this woman's story that she was engaged to Hendrix and had been dating him for 18 months? There is almost no evidence of this, in fact there is tons of evidence to the contrary if you care to look (and not that hard, you only have to type their names into google or pick up any of the many books written by his friends over the years).
What a huge cock up is all I can say, it's doubtful now we'll ever know what happened to Hendrix but I'm going to continue this series of posts, I'm unearthing so much about certain characters who were involved with Hendrix on or around the night of his death I'm going to do a series of posts about each of them.
My post About Michael Jeffrey is here, and the first post of this series is here.
1 comment:
The evidence Hendrix consumed the 9 Vesparax is fairly reliable. First off Hendrix's New York doctor said Jimi called him to tell of his insomnia problem. The doctor offered to find a London doctor for a prescription but Jimi told him he didn't need that since there were some 'Tuinols' here (at the Samarkand). So we can assume Jimi intended to take the sleeping pills at Monika's. Also, the autopsy found 3.9mg percent of blood Quinalbarbitone which was the main ingredient of the Vesparax.
So, contrary to Jeffery's alleged confession, I doubt anyone forced sleeping pills down Hendrix's throat. And there simply wasn't enough time for the barbiturate to reach 3.9mg if Hendrix had the pills and wine shoved down his throat as claimed. It looks like Jimi took the Vesparax on his own and was waterboarded after he passed-out. Apparently the 'confession' contains some inaccuracies, like the above, as well as Jeffery's claim he was in London that night. What needs to be done here is a scientific test needs to be done to find out exactly how long it would have taken for the barbiturate blood level to reach 3.9mg? It must be pointed out that most of the confusion here is due to the failure of the British authorities to conduct a proper investigation. I suspect this wasn't done because they were aware of the intrigue which makes them criminally complicit and also explains the bizarre denial of any re-opening of the case despite all the glaring evidence.
I wish someone with better legal background than myself could explain if there are legal grounds that would force the British Government to obey its own laws and re-open the case? As Nancy points out, the original verdict was mostly based on Dannemann's account. Since that has been proven to be lies we can therefore conclude the Inquest determined its verdict on an invalid basis. Therefore, I can't see how they could deny any re-opening since they really don't have any choice since their original Inquest failed to live up to their own legal requirements. They should be forced to examine new evidence once their original evidence has been proven to be invalid.
With so much evidence showing foul play and motives for it it is only reasonable to suspect that the British Government is aware of what a re-opening of the case will show and has a fatal conflict of interest here. There's no doubt it is time for some legal heavyweights to break the log jam being imposed by the authorities by suing the British Government for obstruction of justice in the matter of evidence of murder in the case of one Jimi Hendrix.
Post a Comment