I wish people would stop blaming Courtney for Kurt's death

facepollution

left the porch wrote:

I feel like I have to put this disclaimer in every post about this cause I know facepollution is going to come back with, "You have no facts" or "Tom Grant is a money hungry ass" or my favourite, " You just hate Courtney, so your opinion is distorted." True, but as I have said in the past I hated her way before Kurt died, that only fueled the fire. And I did buy the suicide story at first, but then again I also bought that it was terrorists who attacked the WTC. But upon further review....I don't believe either story. But it's probablyy because I hate the Bush administration and Courtney Love right?
IMO

I'm not questioning your right to an opinion, I'm questioning your ability to rationalise things. Your view is distorted, because even when looking at the cold hard facts of the situation, you still won't even entertain the fact that you could be wrong. You have no answers to the many holes in your argument that other people and myself have raised. What does that tell me about you? It tells me that you don't base your opinions on logic, or science or anything else. You base them on emotion, which makes you partisan, and thus renders your arguments pretty weak.

I wonder why you bother replying on here if you won't actually debate the subject at hand? If you didn't hate Courtney so much, would you be so ardent in your views? If you were just looking at the facts in the case?

Personally, I think that unless there is independent confirmation of the facts in the case Tom Grant has raised, there is no reason to believe what he is saying is true. I would happily read anything out there, I'm not dead set in my views, I appreciate Courtney is a crazy character and therefore theoreticaly speaking, she could have had something to do with it, but the facts don;t support it.

facepollution

A note on blood spatter........

"High-velocity spatters are usually caused by gunshot wounds, although they can be caused by other weapons if the assailant exerts an extreme amount of force. They travel more than 100 feet per second and usually look like a fine spray of tiny droplets, less than one millimeter in diameter. Bullet wounds are unique because they can have both back and front spatters, or just back spatters. This depends on whether the bullet stopped after entering the victim's body or traveled through it. In most cases, the back spatter is much smaller than the front spatter because the spatter travels in the direction of the bullet.

Analysts always look for voids, or empty places in the spatters that indicate that something (or someone) caught the spatter instead of the surrounding surfaces. In the case of a high-density spatter, this may mean that the assailant got some of the victim's blood on himself or herself. Sometimes, a blood spatter can look like it was high velocity when it was actually a medium- or low-velocity spatter. Cast-off droplets can fall from larger drops of blood. A savvy analyst looks for larger drops of blood among the many tiny drops to see if they are castoffs. These types of droplets are also found often on places like ceilings when the rest of the spatters are concentrated elsewhere."

left the porch

facepollution wrote:

left the porch wrote:

I feel like I have to put this disclaimer in every post about this cause I know facepollution is going to come back with, "You have no facts" or "Tom Grant is a money hungry ass" or my favourite, " You just hate Courtney, so your opinion is distorted." True, but as I have said in the past I hated her way before Kurt died, that only fueled the fire. And I did buy the suicide story at first, but then again I also bought that it was terrorists who attacked the WTC. But upon further review....I don't believe either story. But it's probablyy because I hate the Bush administration and Courtney Love right?
IMO

I'm not questioning your right to an opinion, I'm questioning your ability to rationalise things. Your view is distorted, because even when looking at the cold hard facts of the situation, you still won't even entertain the fact that you could be wrong. You have no answers to the many holes in your argument that other people and myself have raised. What does that tell me about you? It tells me that you don't base your opinions on logic, or science or anything else. You base them on emotion, which makes you partisan, and thus renders your arguments pretty weak.

I wonder why you bother replying on here if you won't actually debate the subject at hand? If you didn't hate Courtney so much, would you be so ardent in your views? If you were just looking at the facts in the case?

Personally, I think that unless there is independent confirmation of the facts in the case Tom Grant has raised, there is no reason to believe what he is saying is true. I would happily read anything out there, I'm not dead set in my views, I appreciate Courtney is a crazy character and therefore theoreticaly speaking, she could have had something to do with it, but the facts don;t support it.

And do you know what this tells me about you? That you can't read. I already said that I am just going on a gut feeling mixed in with some shady circumstances. I don't have proof. I don't have an audio tape of her admitting it and I don't have a video of who was there the moment Kurt died, so therefore I don't have concrete facts that you so desperately need. But what I do have is a feeling. That may be emotional, but sometimes that is all you need. Cops, detectives, even security guards have solved major crimes based on a feeling, or urge. Look at the two security guards who just found that Jaycee Dugard and her children after she'd been missing for years. The woman said she just had a feeling after meeting those two little girls and asking them a few questions. She also said that Philip Garrido "looked suspiscious." She didn't have any facts or proof, what if she never acted on her feelings? Those girls would still be in is possession, and he would still be out there lurking around, a threat to innocent people everywhere. So sue me if I formed my opinion on feelings, it's all you need sometimes.

facepollution

left the porch wrote:

And do you know what this tells me about you? That you can't read. I already said that I am just going on a gut feeling mixed in with some shady circumstances. I don't have proof. I don't have an audio tape of her admitting it and I don't have a video of who was there the moment Kurt died, so therefore I don't have concrete facts that you so desperately need. But what I do have is a feeling. That may be emotional, but sometimes that is all you need. Cops, detectives, even security guards have solved major crimes based on a feeling, or urge. Look at the two security guards who just found that Jaycee Dugard and her children after she'd been missing for years. The woman said she just had a feeling after meeting those two little girls and asking them a few questions. She also said that Philip Garrido "looked suspiscious." She didn't have any facts or proof, what if she never acted on her feelings? Those girls would still be in is possession, and he would still be out there lurking around, a threat to innocent people everywhere. So sue me if I formed my opinion on feelings. It does work sometimes.

They are not comparable cases at all. Your gut feeling isn't based on anything other than your emotions. Had this conspiracy business never been brought up and it was fully accepted that the cause of death was suicide, and Courtney was just crazy old, erratic Courtney, you wouldn't have some gut feeling or hunch that she had something to with Kurt's death. Those female officers had a first hand experience which obviously raised a few flags. You have no such experience, all you have is one person's word written on the internet. What enables you to belive Tom Grant, is your already existing hate for Courtney and her behaviour.

I have no strong feelings either way. I like some of Courtney's music, but I equally acknowledge that she has behaved pretty badly at times over the years to the detriment of her daughter, which is not cool. I'm not some die hard fan out to prove you wrong or change your mind, I'm just confused as to how you consider your opinion valid when you are so closed to any sort of discussion?

left the porch

Also not uncommon when wiping the prints off the gun. My uncle was a cop for thirty years and weve talked about this.

Look bottom line is there will always be questions and people like me who think there is more to this than meets the eye. Like any conspiracy, you have people on each side saying they "know" the truth, Kennedy's assassination, 9/11 etc. And believe me, it's not like I would be happier if I knew she killed him, it still sucks, no matter how it happened. And I'm not looking to be convinced either way, I'm not a judge, just a guy with a theory. And you're right that I don't like Courtney, I really think she's a fucking parasite, but in no way does that make her a murderer. I think she is.

This is from a post I wrote Jan 26. If you had've taken the time to read it, you would've noticed this part;

And I'm not looking to be convinced either way, I'm not a judge, just a guy with a theory. And you're right that I don't like Courtney, I really think she's a fucking parasite, but in no way does that make her a murderer. I think she is.

Nuff said. Don't try and paint me as a stubborn hater who's alone in this way of thinking. Far from it. And you say that these two cases don't have anything to do with eachother and then you say the WM3 case is similar to Kurt's death? How do you rationalize this in your head? You are the one who is unwilling to admit you may be wrong. I had a valid point when I said that somebody going on a gut feeling has lead to the solving of a crime. And they weren't "officers" or cops, they were SECURITY GUARDS at a school. They are not trained to solve crimes but rather to notice things out of the ordinary. And if the fucking cops in Seattle had've done their jobs right, Courtney would've at least been questioned. Murder never should've been ruled out until it was investigated. That's all I'm saying. She should've been interogated. And don't give me she was grief stricken and upset, when a child is abducted the first suspects the police question is the parents, no matter how upset they are, it's procedure. I'd ask her things like; Why'd you file a missing persons report when you knew where he was, and why did you impersonate his mother?' If you were so worried about him why did you stay in LA? Did you know he was filing for divorce? How did this make you feel? If you thought your husband was suicidal why did you ever leave his side? Why did you return the Lexus? I would've questioned the nanny, Michael DeWitt, Dylan Carlson, Joe Momma, anyone who was mentioned being the last to see him alive. There are detectives who can tell by peoples body language if they are lying or not. And usually it's a hunch or a feeling that makes someone a suspect. Only then is an investigation done, where facts are gathered to either prove innocence or guilt. And that was never done in this case. That's the only comparison I see with the WM3 case. The cops fucked up and had their investigations done before they even looked at the crime scene. Cops don't like punk kids or rich rock stars. And they never like to admit they might have been wrong. And because of this there are innocent people in jail, and guilty people walking free. Courtney Love and Terry Hobbs being two of them.

facepollution

I'm not gonna quote all that.

The comparison to the WM3 case was actually a comparison with people like yourself who use second hand information as fact to convince themselves that something is true. People found it easy to believe that those guys commited those murders because of the type of people they are, i.e misfits into 'satanic' music etc. Quite similarly, you believe Courtney is guilty becuase of her behaviour. Given your hatred towards her, I don't think someone in your position (and there are a lot of 'you' out there) is capable of any objectivity. I don't need to paint you as anything, you've already chosen what you want to believe, regardless of the lack of evidence. If you were to say "the whole thing seems strange to me, I think there could be something in it" I would totally get where you were coming from. I agree, there are some lingering questions that remain unanswered, however, that doesn't automatically give you a foregone conclusion.

According to the police chief who investigated, they initially did investigate it as a homicide. They would have been checking for things like inconsistencies in blood spatter (as I mentioned a few posts up from here). That's a very hard thing to fake, and probably more than Dewitt (or whoever you think was responsible) would have been capable of pulling off. You have to ask the question why would someone choose to blow his head off off when they could have just given him a lethal overdose and spared themselves the difficulty of trying to stage a far messier suicide? These are far more pertinent questions than pretty much anything you've come up with.

Oh, and according to what I've read, the women in the Jaycee Lee Dugard case were campus police officers.

left the porch

campus police officers.

Who cares what their job title is? One step up from mall cop. They didn't have DNA evidence, they went on a hunch. I've also never heard that it was investigated as a murder, guess I'll have to look into that. Which brings me to this, I don't make these assumptions without doing research. I choose to believe Tom Grant and what he found. I also did my research when it came to the WM3, and I came to the conclusion that these boys are innocent and the real killer(s) is/are still out there. I understand your point that assumptions and lack of facts were essentially what put these three men in jail, and that is wrong, I agree 100%. But I can assure you that I don't base my opinion solely on the basis that I hate her. I hate the Jonas Brothers too but I don't think they're murderers. I do think she's capable of horrible things, and there is enough red flags to raise questions. That's it. It's not like this is so open and shut. And in the long run, I would be happy if she had've been questioned and interrogated properly and passed a lie detector test. Those are the facts I'm looking for. Only then I will believe her. :!:

left the porch

You have to ask the question why would someone choose to blow his head off off when they could have just given him a lethal overdose and spared themselves the difficulty of trying to stage a far messier suicide?

This can be argued either way. Why would Kurt want to end it so violently when he could've just overdosed? It sounds like whoever did it didn't want it to fail like it did in Rome. Whether it was murder or suicide, this was more final than a possible od. So your "facts" can be argued either way too.

facepollution

left the porch wrote:

Who cares what their job title is? One step up from mall cop. They didn't have DNA evidence, they went on a hunch.

Well you said in your previous post that they weren't trained to solve crimes. Presumably if they were in fact police officers, they were trained. And for the record, I don't disagree with you that sometimes a gut feeling can be accurate, but it would need to be a first hand experience. How do you know that if you met Tom Grant that you wouldn't get a gut feeling that he was dishonest? Or that if you met Courtney Love that she might not be as bad as she comes across in the media? You don't know.

left the porch wrote:

I've also never heard that it was investigated as a murder, guess I'll have to look into that.

http://www.sshep.com/kurtnew.htm

"Lastly, following Grant's hypothesis of the murder, which began the segment, the SPD rep commented:

"Our detectives actually went into this investigation on the premise that this was a homicide. That's the way they conducted this investigation. So there was a very thorough, comprehensive investigation done from the beginning and everything that the detectives encountered indicated to them that this was a suicide."

left the porch wrote:

Which brings me to this, I don't make these assumptions without doing research. I choose to believe Tom Grant and what he found.

But what research have you done? You've read a few websites. Research would be seeing the 'evidence' first hand, having independent, impartial experts validating the authenticity of these different claims. This is why Tom Grant has never succeeded in getting the case reopened, because there is nothing to say that he is telling the truth.

Ever watched documentaries about JFK's assasination? I've seen quite a few, and each one puts forth a convincing case. If you took it on face value and you only saw one of them, it would be quite easy to believe that that must be the truth - but that doesn't mean it is.

left the porch wrote:

I can assure you that I don't base my opinion solely on the basis that I hate her. I hate the Jonas Brothers too but I don't think they're murderers

No, but it's that hatred that makes you put aside the factual evidence in favour of believing a tenuous theory by somebody you haven't even met. That's a lot of faith to put in somebody who could quite legitimately be motivated by financial gain.

left the porch wrote:

I do think she's capable of horrible things, and there is enough red flags to raise questions. That's it. It's not like this is so open and shut. And in the long run, I would be happy if she had've been questioned and interrogated properly and passed a lie detector test. Those are the facts I'm looking for. Only then I will believe her. :!:

Lie detector tests are notoriously unreliable, and it is quite possible for people to cheat them. See I don't see it as a case of believing her. She has never addressed the issue, and surely one of the most basic civil liberties is the presumption of innocence until proven guilty?

facepollution

left the porch wrote:

This can be argued either way. Why would Kurt want to end it so violently when he could've just overdosed? It sounds like whoever did it didn't want it to fail like it did in Rome. Whether it was murder or suicide, this was more final than a possible od. So your "facts" can be argued either way too.

Well it's not really a fact is it? It's logic, and that would be a huge risk for someone to take. And you're kind of avoiding my main point, which is that it would take an absolute expert to mimic the blood spatter of a suicide. Unless you had shot someone before, I'm guessing most people wouldn't know how the blood would spread from shooting someone in the head. Yet, the blood spatter was obviously deemed consistent with an unassisted gun shot to the head. It's facts like this which would have helped the Seattle police come to their conclusions.

left the porch

facepollution wrote:

left the porch wrote:

This can be argued either way. Why would Kurt want to end it so violently when he could've just overdosed? It sounds like whoever did it didn't want it to fail like it did in Rome. Whether it was murder or suicide, this was more final than a possible od. So your "facts" can be argued either way too.

Well it's not really a fact is it? It's logic, and that would be a huge risk for someone to take. And you're kind of avoiding my main point, which is that it would take an absolute expert to mimic the blood spatter of a suicide. Unless you had shot someone before, I'm guessing most people wouldn't know how the blood would spread from shooting someone in the head. Yet, the blood spatter was obviously deemed consistent with an unassisted gun shot to the head. It's facts like this which would have helped the Seattle police come to their conclusions.

Who are you Spock? Logic? People can mimic ANYTHING if they know how to do it. Mikey drugged him up, propped his head up just enough to put the barrel in his mouth then pulled the trigger, wiped the prints off and shoved the gun in his hands. Done and done. Possible? Yes.

facepollution

left the porch wrote:

Who are you Spock? Logic? People can mimic ANYTHING if they know how to do it. Mikey drugged him up, propped his head up just enough to put the barrel in his mouth then pulled the trigger, wiped the prints off and shoved the gun in his hands. Done and done. Possible? Yes.

No it isn't, read the blood spatter stuff I posted, it's absolutely pertinent to the point I'm making. If there was someone else in the room with him, there would have been voids in the blood spatter (where the blood landed on the killer and not the floor or surrounding surfaces), and he (the supposed murderer) would have had to have recreated the spatter to fill in the voids. What method would you use? Say it's a fine mist, Kurt's blood in a spray bottle?!

left the porch

Still it's possible.

facepollution

left the porch wrote:

Still it's possible.

But you can surely see how this is a fundamental aspect of a police investigation?

catefrances

left the porch wrote:

You have to ask the question why would someone choose to blow his head off off when they could have just given him a lethal overdose and spared themselves the difficulty of trying to stage a far messier suicide?

This can be argued either way. Why would Kurt want to end it so violently when he could've just overdosed? It sounds like whoever did it didn't want it to fail like it did in Rome. Whether it was murder or suicide, this was more final than a possible od. So your "facts" can be argued either way too.

my thoughts exactly. nothing worse than trying to kill yourself with drugs and have some dogooder revive you time after time. blow your head off and no one can put humpty dumpty together again.

left the porch

catefrances wrote:

left the porch wrote:

You have to ask the question why would someone choose to blow his head off off when they could have just given him a lethal overdose and spared themselves the difficulty of trying to stage a far messier suicide?

This can be argued either way. Why would Kurt want to end it so violently when he could've just overdosed? It sounds like whoever did it didn't want it to fail like it did in Rome. Whether it was murder or suicide, this was more final than a possible od. So your "facts" can be argued either way too.

my thoughts exactly. nothing worse than trying to kill yourself with drugs and have some dogooder revive you time after time. blow your head off and no one can put humpty dumpty together again.

Or.....................nothing worse than trying to kill your husband with YOUR prescription drugs, wait a whole three hours thinking there's no fucking way he's gonna "live through this" only then calling paramedics to the scene and pretend to be the worried wifey. Hire a professional to do it the right way. Blow his head off before he changes his will, release an album one month later and call it it "live through this" and live happily ever fucked up after.

left the porch

have some dogooder revive you time after time.

You actually call Courtney Love a dogooder?

Wow. I guess there is a first for everything.

facepollution

left the porch wrote:

Hire a professional to do it the right way. Blow his head off before he changes his will, release an album one month later and call it it "live through this" and live happily ever fucked up after.

But I thought the nanny did it?

left the porch

He helped.

dustinpardue

smithnic wrote:

http://www.amazon.com/Love-Death-Murder-Kurt-Cobain/dp/0743484843/ref=sr_1_5?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1264472458&sr=1-5


read this

Absolutely. I was about to post this book until I saw your post. Excellent book. If you want in-depth evidence, read this book. The Kurt and Courtney documentary only scratched the surface. The author was the PI that Courtney hired to "find" Kurt.