Monday, June 29, 2015
Recent widespread media attention to Norm Stamper's momentous assertion in Soaked In Bleach that he would re-open the Cobain case if he were Chief again is an extremely positive development. Stamper's impassioned and entirely justified assertion – including his claim that the behavioral patterns of "key individuals who had a motive to see Kurt Cobain dead" should have been studied – is big news and to not give attention to it would be journalistically negligent.
Yet it's important to keep in mind that the evidentiary basis justifying the re-opening of the case has been publicly and rationally put forth by Tom Grant for over twenty years. There really is no reason, given the availability of the evidence for the last two decades, that questions bearing on Cobain's death should not have been “big news” in 1994, as well.
Ideally, the legitimacy of the evidence would stand on its own, irrespective of who the speaker is.
That all said, the growing media attention with regard to Stamper's courageous and powerful words in Soaked In Bleach is an outstanding development, and is exactly what the case, and Kurt Cobain, deserves.
Tuesday, June 23, 2015
Courtney Love's legal team recently issued cease and desist letters to theaters showing the documentary film Soaked In Bleach, which delves into the troubling circumstances surrounding the death of her husband, Kurt Cobain. Allegations that Love conspired to murder Cobain have been leveled against her since shortly after his passing, and Soaked In Bleach highlights some of her suspicious behaviors near the time of his death. Most significant about the film, however, is that it features a panel of forensic experts and the former Chief of the Seattle Police Department at the time of Cobain's passing, who weigh in on the Department's handling of his death.
The forensic testimony, in sum, is a clear and reasoned indictment of the Seattle Police Department's conduct in the Cobain matter, with fault found primarily in the fact that the Department determined Cobain had committed suicide without conducting even the most bare minimum of investigation. The consequence of this premature determination is made abundantly clear when testimony is offered with regard to Cobain's triple-lethal blood-morphine concentration, which suggests he would have been incapacitated prior to being able to fire the alleged suicide shot. This would naturally indicate Homicide as the proper determination of cause of death and consistent in this regard is the former Chief's telling assertion that the Seattle Police Department should have conducted an investigation into the behavioral patterns of “key individuals who had a motive to see Kurt Cobain dead.”
In total, the forensic testimony makes undeniably clear that as a result of not following basic death investigation protocols, significant and necessary areas of evidentiary exploration were ignored, thereby rendering the Seattle Police Department's finding of suicide improper and a re-opening of the case necessary.
This of course should be of no concern to Ms. Love. That's because, as to be expected, one of her recently released cease and desist letters to theaters makes unequivocally clear that she played absolutely no role in her husband's death: with confidence her legal team asserts that “there is simply no credible evidence” to support such an allegation and that claims to the contrary are merely “debunked conspiracy theor[ies]” to be brushed off and discarded.
Yet this all begs a very large question. Given such adamant reassurances, when then can we expect to hear Courtney Love demand answers from the Seattle Police Department to the troubling questions that surround the death of her husband? Now that leading experts and the former Chief at the time of Cobain's passing have weighed in, when can we expert her, as widow, to petition for a re-opening of the case?
The answer to this question, of course, is the “tell,” and reveals the true reason behind those cease and desist letters: Courtney Love and her attorneys know that a re-opening of the case will necessitate, as a matter of standard police procedure, inquiry into Love's behavior surrounding the time of Cobain's death, and that there are numerous and entirely valid avenues of inquiry in this regard that will need to be pursued. If there is “no credible evidence” behind the allegation that Love was involved in the death of her husband; if such a claim is merely a “debunked conspiracy theory,” as her attorneys contend, then, by all means, she should welcome a re-investigation with open arms, and her legal team should advise her to do so.
The more Courtney Love and her lawyers resort to First Amendment-obstructing legal threats and belittlement of credible case details supported by forensic experts and the former Chief of the Seattle Police Department, the more evident the truth really becomes.