Tom Grant about “Conspiracies”
“An agreement between two or more persons to commit a crime or to perpetrate an illegal act.”
Conspiracy crimes that are federal can include conspiracy to engage in criminal activity such as money laundering, conspiracy to violate federal laws, or conspiracy to manufacture drugs or weapons.
Conspiracy charges in state court are very similar, but there are many more crimes that will give rise to state conspiracy charges.
While intent is key in any federal conspiracy case, only general intent to violate the law is necessary.
Proof of the defendant’s specific intent to violate the law is not needed, only an agreement to engage in an illegal act.
So, the term, “conspiracy,” is merely a legal term describing the planning or plotting of a crime by two or more persons.
If I had reached the conclusion that only one person was involved in planning and carrying out the murder of Kurt Cobain, we would be discussing a “Murder Theory,” not a “Conspiracy Theory”.
According to the legal definition described above, there are literally thousands of true “conspiracies” committed every single day of every single year across the United States alone, plus many more thousands around the world.
Don’t take my word for it. Just ask any major city police officer or prosecuting attorney.
My job is to call it as I see it. I don’t change legal terminology simply to avoid criticism in order to make my conclusions easier for the public to swallow.
It is what it is.
Tom Grant isn’t firm with the definition of “Conspiracy Theory” in “fringe” terms; he created his own definition
A conspiracy theory is not simply about a conspiracy, which refers to any covert plan involving two or more people. In contrast, the term “conspiracy theory” refers to hypothesized conspiracies that have specific characteristics. For example, conspiracist beliefs invariably oppose the mainstream consensus among those people who are qualified to evaluate their accuracy, such as scientists or historians. Conspiracy theorists see themselves as having privileged access to socially persecuted knowledge or a stigmatized mode of thought that separates them from the masses who believe the official account. Michael Barkun describes a conspiracy theory as a “template imposed upon the world to give the appearance of order to events”.
Conspiracy theories as stigmatized knowledge
Most conspiracy theories exist as part of “stigmatized knowledge” – that is, knowledge claims that have not been accepted by those institutions we rely upon for truth validation. Not uncommonly, believers in conspiracy theories also accept other forms of stigmatized knowledge, such as unorthodox forms of healing and beliefs about Atlantis and UFOs. Rejection by authorities is for them a sign that a belief must be true. However, the linkage of conspiracy theories with stigmatized knowledge has been weakening, because stigmatized knowledge itself is growing more problematic. What was once clearly recognizable as “the fringe” is now beginning to merge with the mainstream.
This process of “mainstreaming the fringe” is the result of numerous factors, including the ubiquity of the Internet, the growing suspicion of authority, and the spread of once esoteric themes in popular culture. Only a permeable membrane now separates the fringe from the mainstream. Thus conspiracism is no longer the province only of small, isolated coteries. It now has the potential to make the leap into public discourse. This, of course, does not apply to every conspiracy theory, but it happens enough to suggest that we are at an important transition point. The recent controversy in the United States over whether a conspiracy existed to hide President Obama’s alleged foreign birth – a claim that years earlier would never have emerged beyond small radical groups – suggests the nature of the change. It also suggests the dangers that political cultures may face in the future.
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0392192116669288 (First Published October 25, 2016)
Tom Grant’s “Conspiracy Theory”
The obvious questions:
1. IF Cobain injected three times a lethal dose of heroin, COULD he then pick up a shotgun and shoot himself? Wouldn’t he have been immediately incapacitated?
Based on the heroin, (morphine), blood levels found in Cobain’s body, preliminary research indicates Kurt Cobain would have been almost immediately incapacitated. He could not have picked up that shotgun. He could not have pulled that trigger!
2. If Cobain injected himself with a deliberate heroin overdose, why would he ALSO shoot himself in the head with a shotgun, leaving his baby daughter – the love of his life – with horrific visual images to remember him by? Why not just “go to sleep” on the overdose and never wake up?
Cobain was not barricaded inside the room as reported by misinformed media sources.
The stool which was supposedly wedged” against the door was actually just sitting in front of the two unlocked doors that only led out to a balcony.
Cobain did not leave his Driver’s License out for identification as reported by misinformed media sources.
The first police officer on the scene found Cobain’s closed wallet, opened it to remove Kurt’s driver’s license, and displayed it in order to take a photograph.
The fact is – the police and the Medical Examiner have no forensic evidence that proves Cobain’s death was a suicide. On the other hand, there’s a substantial amount of evidence for murder.
The official verdict of “suicide” was simply a rush to judgement which eventually painted the authorities into a corner as reports of so-called “copy-cat” suicides began making the news.
Conspiracy vs. Conspiracy Theory
>>> “3 times the lethal dose” is not a medical term, never was. People have different tolerances to any drug.
The term he refers to stems from a person named Roger Lewis who wrote an essay with the name of “DEAD MEN DON’T PULL TRIGGERS: OBSERVATIONS ON THE DEATH OF KURT COBAIN” (1998) with 99 academic references:
1.)TRIPLE MAXIMUM LETHAL DOSE EVEN FOR SEVERE ADDICTS: At least three days after his death, Kurt Cobain’s blood contained 1.52 milligrams of morphine per litre (mg/L) plus traces of a “diazepam-like” substance. This level is widely known to represent three times the lethal dose of heroin, but it is not commonly understood that this level is three times the lethal dose even for severe heroin addicts. Generally, a blood morphine level of 0.5mg/L is caused by 75 mg – 80 mg of heroin, the established maximum lethal dose, even for severe addicts. A blood level of 1.52 mg/L generally indicates an original dose of approximately 225 mg – 240 mg of heroin.
The toxicologist Iain McIntyre who was interviewed in Tom Grant’s epic docu drama “Soaked in Bleach” indicated that the filmmaker Benjamin Statler couldn’t provide toxicology reports to him to make a valid assessment of the morphine levels. Neither does he know if the 1.52 mg/L were free morphine or conjugated morphine. This little fact of postmortem free or total morphine blood concentration is totally missing in Lewis’ essay (mentions once free morphine). Little is known about the exact concentrations other than what a newspaper leaked or retired Homicide Detective Michael Ciesynski revealed on the 20th death anniversary of Kurt Cobain.
But strange enough that Tom Grant doesn’t use Lewis’ essay on his website since years, yet borrows the unmedical term of “3 times the lethal dose” for dramatic reasons. Was there a falling out with Lewis? Lewis was probably very near to discover that indeed it was a suicide which would have contradicted Tom Grant’s narrative.
>>> The Seattle Fire Department had to crush the window to get inside Cobain’s greenhouse. Why would it matter that the stool was not wedged against the door when the medics had to obviously crush the window? (as told by John Fisk in “Soaked in Bleach” docu-drama as well). The entire stool narrative makes no sense at all. Was the Seattle Fire Department involved in a conspiracy as well? 😉 Although Fisk notes that they noticed it was a DOA (Death on Arrival) they may have had a 1 % of hope in rescuing the person and just crushed the door window. Maybe that little artistic stool was never of their concern.
>>> Misinformed Media is what Tom Grant relies his information on and not the experts? Media frenzy has always been a problem to police departments, not only Tom Grant. (see Death of Chris Cornell and the Detroit Police Department‘s attempt to leak enough information to the public.)
>>> In his mind the fact is that the medical experts (and probably homicide investigators) have no evidence of suicide despite being in the possession of the evidence. Yet Tom Grant had never access to the autopsy or toxicology reports. Doesn’t he trust authority as conspiracy theorists often tend to?