tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7635785.post4612430670052729563..comments2023-09-18T16:44:12.344+01:00Comments on Nancy's Crazy Adventures: Dead EndsAnonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04236726946668367157noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7635785.post-40192925421176315032010-03-30T17:11:16.760+01:002010-03-30T17:11:16.760+01:00The evidence Hendrix consumed the 9 Vesparax is fa...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. <br /><br /> 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.<br /><br /> 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.<br /><br /> 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.Exiles800noreply@blogger.com