a coverup

A COVERUP ? BUT WHO’S DOING THIS COVERUP?
Murder theorist claim the Seattle Police Department (SPD) are involved in a cover up. This cover up is related to the death of Kurt Cobain. I have not seen a cover up. My request for information was acted on quickly and I believe they gave me everything the law allows.
I had requested all the information they had on the case that was lawful to release. When the packet arrived, the cover letter (56 pages total) said the in following things were excluded.
1. Complainant, victim or witness requested the information not be disclosed.
2. Record contains information the non-disclosure of which is necessary for the protection of a person's privacy.
3. Drivers or vehicle registration are protected.
4. Reports and records of autopsies and postmortems are confidential, protected
Strangely, if murder theorists are right, I should have received hundreds and hundreds of pages. This is assuming they are citing official documents it appears they are not. It seems they are using evidence they "discovered" on their own.
Evidence like this is suspect, due to possible biases; some of it could be misleading or inaccurate. Why haven't they given this information to proper authorities for rigorous examination? Are they afraid of what might be discovered?
Law enforcement is restricted to very stiff guidelines for evidence gathering. These are safeguards against having innocent people imprisoned, or guilty people being set free. Any evidence, that is presented that claims to prove someone guilt should be strongly questioned, if it' not gone through proper channels.
Also consider Mr. Grant is still not a law enforcement official so....
A. The same rules of evidence do not apply to him. Any evidence may be either misunderstood or be a victim of "Spoliation"*.
B. He may think something assures guilt when it doesn't. Real police have in the past have been positive something is true when it wasn't. This is the reason for trials. Apparently Mr. Grant believes he is different.
In the past conspiracy theorist have done their best "Matlock" imitation, and claimed that the police do not release certain information so they shouldn't either.
I. (same as above) they are not the police and they should want or need people to believe their claims. So they need strong undisputable evidence.
II. They ask for you to believe blindly and toss out the long-standing tradition innocent until proven guilty.
Mr Grant now claims to have 30 hours tape recorded conversations in relation to the Cobain case. My first response is so? If they are so damning why not give them to the police. Why no release all of them and not sound bites?
Listening to sound bites, or unofficial tape recordings gives the person an outsider's perspective. This opens up whole field of error, and misinterpretation. Vigilantes have done this in the past with disastrous consequences.
Between 1988 and 1990, an estimated 4,611 Brazilian children and adolescents were murdered by renegade police and vigilante groups. (A)
Several Mexican states use Vigilantes to dislodge peasant squatters on behalf land owners. Vigilantes have killed numerous squatters.(B)
Two people, including a police chief, were killed and another was wounded in a confrontation between police and a vigilante group in the central Haitian city of Mirebalais. A group called "Put Order in Disorder" chopped off the head Mirebalais Police Chief Wislen Dorneus with machetes, burned police cars and forced the police to abandon their post, according to the radio reports.(C)
Other things to consider about unofficial evidence.
Sound bites are dangerous and never prove anything. Even if they produced tapes of Courtney saying she was responsible for Kurt death. We (non murder people) still need further examination.
What did she mean by that?? Is it a natural guilt response or something more?
What was said before and after that remark? To assure any statements weren't taken out of context or distorted. A whole statement (recording) should be explained and presented
Tapes of associates of MS Loves have been presented they are even less credible. It's someone opinion, and it could have been taken out of context. A whole slew of reasons why someone might say something like this.
Spoliation*
What is Spoliation?
Spoliation can be defined as the "intentional, reckless, or negligent destruction, loss, material alteration or obstruction of evidence that is relevant to litigation. It is, however, still unclear if spoliation includes both negligent and intentional destruction of evidence, the loss of evidence, and/or evidence that was destroyed before litigation began".(1)
Spoliation of audio files
A demonstration of how important things like chain of custody are Senator Bob Packwood (who faced several charges on ethics) had taken several tapes before they were transcribed. This left the door open for charges, and an investigation into obstruction of justice.(2)
Even law enforcement will step outside the boundaries of their noble profession and altered evidence.
A tape was part of a law enforcement sting. The sting involved Gerald and Judy Dick, who faced two felony, counts of conspiring to buy stolen Armani suits, crystal and other luxury items. The defense charged that audio tapes of this sting where altered. Steve Cain who runs a forensic lab in Lake Geneva, Wis. "My analysis indicated the tape was erased or over-recorded - no doubt about it,"(3)
I found this on the Alabama State Law Library: Overview: Research Guides, "Potential for fabricating recorded evidence grows: technological advances in audio and video recordings may affect court admissibility standards. (Trial technology)." (4)
Digital editing technology creates the possibility to not only manipulate but even fabricate both audio and video recordings. Courts thus face the danger of allowing into evidence fabricated electronic evidence. Tighter standards and burdens of proof may keep out some perfectly good evidence but the issue should still be carefully rethought.(5)
Other thoughts
Upon the police arrival (6) at the Cobain death scene, they did not notice any trauma to Kurt's body except for two needle marks. They also noticed a large pool of blood the left of Kurt. This dispels two "net myths"
A. It doesn't appear there was a struggle; this is a dent in the murder theory.
B. There was no blood at the Cobain death scene.
Consider the following by Keith D Wilson MD. The subject is how police determined if a scene is a homicide or suicide
*Where on the body the injury occurred: Most suicides done with a gun are shots to the head.
*Distance of the gun from the body. If its found near the body its evidence of a suicide.
*Angle of shot.
*Number of shots fired. One indicates suicide, more homicide.
*Presence of gunpowder residue on the hand.
*Other factors a history of drinking, and personal problems that indicate suicide.
*Evidence of a fight or struggle.
Everything I have heard about Cobain's death, and the death scene seem to fit in with the suicide theory.
Also consider Detectives spent more than 200 hours interviewing Cobain's family and friends, his reputed heroin dealer and others. Sgt. Don Cameron said ";We went to some pretty remarkable ends to come to this conclusion, to eliminate any questions in the future,"(7)
Another thing that is cited as evidence that really isn't is, Cali not tell Mr Grant about the garage or the room. Gee now where suppose to attach logic to a hard core drug user. Strange but this isn't the first time they do this, or the last.
Some believe that just because a police investigation has left mysteries, it is unsolved. This isn't always the case. Each case must stand on its own merits. If a case has strong enough questions that just can't be explained a way. Then you MIGHT have a case.
At any rate here are some links to the death of king of the rhyme, rapper 2 Pac. They have numerous points, some good. Should we blindly believe it? No, each case has to stand on its own merits. Just because there are unanswered questions means nothing.