| Guitar Part Interview, Part 1
On the 8th January 2004 I was interviewed by Karim Djidjelli, Olivier Roubin and Romuald Ollivier, of Guitar Part magazine. They travelled from Paris to London to meet up and there followed a three-hour interview. They published a 22 page article on Kurt’s death in the February 2004 edition of Guitar Part, see cover above. Thanks, guys, for travelling all that way. I’d been trying, for over four years, to get the information about DeWitt and Rome out. So thanks for giving me the opportunity to talk about some of it. Karim, Romuald and Olivier, it was good to talk to people who could see and understand Courtney's manipulation of the media. I appreciate that you gave me the opportunity to put some of that information across to mark the 10th year of Kurt’s murder and for providing a section on the hoaxes surrounding this case, including Allen Wrench. I’ve since come up with additional information which I didn’t have when this interview took place and additional thoughts came up while I was transcribing this interview, so I have included this information/observations in bold. This was a long interview (over 3 hours). Here’s a transcript of some of it: Guitar Part: Michael DeWitt was a friend of Kurt’s, why suspect him as a murderer? Barnett: How do we know he was a friend? None of his actions show him as a friend. Whose word do we have for that? He and Courtney were acting very suspiciously, Courtney was trying to take attention away from him, as a suspect. As soon as she was interviewed by the police on April 18 1994, she was saying that she knew Kurt committed suicide, so she was immediately taking attention away from DeWitt. When she sent Grant to Seattle on April 6, why didn’t she get Grant to meet up with DeWitt? DeWitt was there (at the house) and then suddenly he disappeared. Grant met with Dylan and Mark Lanegan, but where was DeWitt? He was in the house, and suddenly he disappeared, so what was that about? If someone is suicidal, then a friend would go looking for them and help other people to look, but DeWitt disappeared. Guitar Part: But can we suspect him just on the fact that he wasn’t in the right place, at the right time? Barnett: Well, he was there at Kurt’s house in Seattle, and then when things started getting hot, when Grant arrived in Seattle, and just before Kurt was found, DeWitt disappeared. Now, if he was the person who did the murder, he’s not going to want to be seen. He’s going to try and keep away from it, which is exactly what happened. Guitar Part: What do you believe really happened? Barnett: First of all, I believe that Michael DeWitt and Courtney Love tried to murder Kurt in Rome and then I believe that Michael DeWitt murdered Kurt on April 3rd/early 4th, which I make pretty clear on my website. The things Courtney was setting up long before it happened, she was planning this. This was a premeditated murder. It wasn’t a spur of the moment murder. Guitar Part: And what about Dylan Carlson? Tom Grant said that he is not a suspect, but there’s the fact that he failed to mention the greenhouse, that’s quite strange. Barnett: Grant and Dylan went up to 171 Lake Washington Boulevard and Dylan went to look at the house while Grant stayed in the car. Dylan was gone for 5 minutes and then returned to the car. He and Grant then went and called Courtney (to get the alarm system on the house turned off). During this call, Courtney told Dylan to look in the greenhouse. About 30 minutes later (at 2.45 am April 7th 1994) Dylan and Grant went back to 171 and got into the house. There was a TV on in a bedroom (with bed unmade) and when Grant asked whose room it was, Dylan said it was DeWitt’s bedroom. So where was DeWitt? He was there and then he went? He left the TV on and his bed unmade. It looks like he left quickly. Dylan never mentioned to Grant to check the greenhouse. DeWitt was obviously in the house, his TV was on (and bed unmade) so, and this is speculation, but maybe when Dylan went up to the house initially, and spent 5 minutes there, maybe he bumped into DeWitt, who could have threatened him. After this interview took place, I obtained the following police report, dated April 25 1994. It is possible, looking at the report, that there was surveillance on the house at the time Dylan and Grant were there, because Seattle private investigator Ernest Barth took the initiative and set it up. When Courtney discovered there was surveillance on 171 she was furious. Why? Maybe she was scared that Barth knew too much of DeWitt’s movements? Unfortunately, at 1330 on April 7 1994, Ben Klugman, who worked for Grant, instructed Barth to remove the surveillance. See police report below: Guitar Part: Could we imagine Dylan found Kurt’s body? Barnett: He was at the house for five minutes, I don’t know what happened in that time, but the fact that Courtney asked Dylan to check the greenhouse is strange. Why didn’t she phone DeWitt and tell him to check it and for him to get in contact with Grant, and show Grant around? She didn’t do that. Guitar Part: DeWitt said he had the credit card. Barnett: Attempts were made to use the card after Kurt died. The only person that said anything about the credit card that was missing was Charles R Cross, where he reported that DeWitt had the credit card/card number, but that’s Cross bringing up something that has never been reported before. A big issue has been made that the credit card was missing, and obviously anyone involved in Kurt’s murder is going to want to try and explain away things. Cross has made some horrendous mistakes in the way he’s reported. Have you read his book? Cross’ book is an attempt to rewrite everything that happened back then. Cross reported that Courtney sent Eric Erlandson to the Lake Washington Blvd house in Seattle on Tuesday April 5 to look for Kurt. That contradicts the fact that she got Grant to go to Seattle on the 6th. If Courtney sent Erlandson up to Seattle on the 5th, why did she send Grant up on the 6th? And if she did that, why didn’t Erlandson contact Grant? Why wasn’t Erlandson mentioned, (in the police report) as being in Seattle on April 5th? Because he wasn’t there. In order to place Erlandson in Seattle on April 5th Cross had to contradict the timeline in an article printed in the April 27 1994 edition of The Rocket. I scanned and uploaded this article to my ‘Events’ section. For the sake of the argument, if, as Courtney claims, she really had sent Erlandson to Seattle on the afternoon of April 5th because she was so worried about Kurt, she would have got Erlandson to check the greenhouse. Had Erlandson been there and done that on April 5th, he would, of course, have found Kurt dead. Additionally, if Erlandson and DeWitt were really searching for the gun in the secret closet in the master bedroom of 171 Lake Washington Blvd on April 5th, as Cross reported in his book on page 335, why would Courtney instruct Grant and Dylan to search there again on the evening of April 7th, but fail to mention to them that Erlandson had checked it on the 5th? Why didn’t Courtney get Erlandson to meet up with Grant? Cross made no attempt to question Courtney’s stories and cross reference them with outside and independent witnesses, police reports or news stories published back in April 1994. Had he done so, he’d have realised that her current day stories don’t stand up under scrutiny. Cross’ book is an attempt to cover up and misinform and you have to look at not only what was happening at the time, but look at the way misinformation has been perpetuated and built on to the point where you get a complete attempt to cover up what was going on, by a journalist who is a good friend of Courtney’s. And that’s not Dylan Carlson manipulating information, it’s Courtney Love. Guitar Part: Yes. Barnett: And Cross’ book does it in a way that takes attention away from DeWitt. Guitar Part: What about the second note? Barnett: Courtney claimed (to Grant) that she found a second note under the pillows of her bed in the house (171). But Grant and Dylan had looked under the pillows and mattress of that bed on April 7th and there was no note there. So Courtney was lying, and what she said was written in that note sounds more like the note that Kurt wrote to her in Rome, so it’s like she was twisting the facts there. This is another flaw in Cross reporting that Erlandson was in Seattle searching the house (171) on April 5th, because if the note was under the pillows and Erlandson and DeWitt searched “every nook and cranny” as Cross reported, page 335, then if a note was there, they would have found it. If Cross believed the story that Courtney sent Erlandson to Seattle on April 5th, why didn’t he question Erlandson’s failure to check the greenhouse or find the note that was supposedly under the pillows of the bed? It’s very suspicious that Cross had to contradict various reports/articles in order to place Erlandson in Seattle on April 5th 1994, but that he didn’t question Erlandson’s failure to actually find anything! Guitar Part: When do you think that Kurt was going to change his will? Barnett: Rosemary Carroll told Grant that, I think it was about 2 weeks before he was found dead that Kurt had phoned her up to change his will, but that he hadn’t yet signed it. So I think it was after the Rome incident. When Broomfield interviewed the nanny, she said that Kurt and Courtney were arguing over Kurt’s will, and that she (the nanny) couldn’t stand the atmosphere at the house and quit, a week or so before Kurt died. Guitar Part: So if Rome was attempted murder the will can’t be the motive for the murder. Barnett: If Rome was attempted murder and Kurt was suffering from memory loss, then not only was Kurt going to change his will, but he would get his memory back. From Rome onwards Courtney and DeWitt were living on borrowed time, if it was a murder attempt, because Kurt would eventually remember, most people that suffer Rohypnol attacks do get their memory back over time. So if Rome was a murder attempt they had a bigger motive to carry on with it. You can’t try to kill someone and then leave the victim to remember (regain memory). You’d have to finish it off. In Rome, Kurt was on the verge of leaving Courtney and he left a note of which Gold Mountain employee Janet Billig said “Kurt insisted it was not a suicide note. He just took all of his and Courtney’s money and was going to run away and disappear.” So, regardless that Kurt may not have made moves to change his will until after Rome, in Rome, Kurt was literally attempting to leave Courtney, which is motive, and Courtney and DeWitt had the means (Rohypnol and champagne), to hand. Guitar Part: What do you think about the theory that Kurt didn’t have the ability to kill himself and so asked DeWitt or someone else to kill him? Barnett: You mean that Kurt might have taken the heroin and then got someone to shoot him? Guitar Part: Yes. Barnett: It doesn’t make sense. If you are going to kill yourself with heroin, why would you want someone to shoot you afterwards? Guitar Part: Well, theoretically maybe it was an accident. Kurt may have died of a heroin overdose and the person who was with him may have shot him to make it look like a suicide. It was proved there was no blood, I believe. Barnett: There was no exit wound. (There was blood). Guitar Part: So, can we suppose he was already dead when someone shot him? Barnett: Why? (would someone shoot him if he was already dead?) Guitar Part: To make it look like an accident. Barnett: If it was an accidental overdose, why not say it was an accidental overdose? Say you’re a junkie and your friend dies of a heroin overdose, why would you go and shoot them? Even if you’re a junkie, if someone dies of an overdose in your company, you wouldn’t go and shoot them. But, imagine if you’d tried to murder someone using Rohypnol and champagne, and you really thought you’d succeeded and that the person was dead, only to see that person recover. If, a month later, you managed to get that person drugged/comatose and even if you thought the person was indeed dead from the drugs, maybe the stress of the last month would lead you to shoot that person to make absolutely certain that there was no way the person could recover, especially if there was a gun to hand. From further on in the interview, Barnett:……going back to the days after the Rome incident, Courtney was obviously scared of something, which, if you’d tried to murder someone and it didn’t succeed, you’d be scared. Joe Mama said that when he saw Kurt in the rehab (in April 1994), Kurt looked “great”, and Joe Mama was saying that Courtney was “terrified and scared.” (The actual words were “freaked and scared”). What was she scared of? You can’t just look at this case as the few days in April 1994, you have to look at the Rome incident, and even before that when Courtney was going on about the heroin and drugs and question (her) motives for doing that, look at how the unnamed sources were saying exactly what she was saying, the exact words. It looks like she was getting her friends to put out misinformation from the start. (See my November 1999 update and September 2000 update, section one, for more on this issue). She didn’t fly up to Seattle to search for Kurt when he was “missing” in April 1994. Her actions contradict her claims, on every level. They only make sense when they are viewed in the context of a failed murder attempt (by her and DeWitt) in Rome, and subsequent suspicious behaviour between her and DeWitt to finish off the job, in April 1994. Guitar Part: What about Grant’s claims that he has more information about this case which he is holding back. Do you think it’s true? Barnett: Grant obviously has stuff, I mean he released the recorded conversations (in December 2001). Maybe if journalists had interviewed Grant and reported what he was saying and then dug in and indicated that they were going to report this properly, Grant might well have given that information out earlier. I’m sure he has more information, but there’s so much information available, showing that the police never did a proper investigation, showing that Courtney and DeWitt were acting very suspiciously and that it wasn’t Grant who instigated the theory. Reporters haven’t been using information which he gave out initially and building on it. Why didn’t he release it earlier? I don’t know. I don’t know what he’s said to journalists when they’ve interviewed him. He might well have given them information that they didn’t include in their stories. VOX’s November 1995 edition published a large article on Grant’s proposition that Kurt was murdered. Again, the journalist of this article didn’t mention that Grant had placed Courtney and DeWitt as prime suspects. In a radio show in early 1996, Grant commented on this particular article: “….the two writers that interviewed me for the VOX magazine article, and that was basically a hatchet job, these are guys that write stories for Courtney all the time and VOX magazine is owned by NME – New Musical Express - and these were a couple of writers for the rock press that were out to discredit my work, basically. If you didn’t sit in on the interview when they were here from England, they spent 5 or 6 hours with me and I recall the discussions. In fact I tape recorded the discussions, I had a tape recorder sitting on the desk in plain view and got their permission and I recorded our interview. And when you know what was said in the interview as opposed to what came out in the article, I could see some deliberate deception there, and I don’t hesitate to say that because there was some stuff, the way it was written, that was obviously intended to deliberately mislead the public, and those were statements about the Seattle Police Department claiming, for example, that there was a stool wedged against the door, they no longer claim that and I don’t believe these people even talked to the SPD. They also alluded that they spoke to Rosemary Carroll, but the way the article was written, it was written very carefully and I think you can tell from the statements they made that they never spoke to Rosemary Carroll. Somebody else told them what Rosemary Carroll had to say about this and again there was nothing specific. They tried to allude that she discredited my work but there was nothing specific. What is it about what I have said that is either a lie or untrue?” The author of this particular article was Andy Richardson, the photographer was Steve Double. The Editor of VOX at the time the article was published was Steve Sutherland. Guitar Part: How do you think Courtney and DeWitt are coping with the pressure of the internet community? Barnett: The (Nirvana) internet community isn’t very good. Most Nirvana fansites can go into minute detail of what songs were performed at which gigs and yet are unable to focus on information (with regards to this case). Which is something I never understood. Guitar Part: Maybe Courtney and DeWitt will break with the pressure? Barnett: I don’t know. Courtney Love, in the last few years seems to be having a lot of problems, which I’m sure you know. Guitar Part: She’s in rehab. Barnett: Supposedly. I’ve seen articles asking why she’s in this state? “She’s having a meltdown,” “what’s wrong with her?” etc. It’s no good saying “poor Courtney, she’s having a meltdown” which is the attitude she’s getting from the mainstream media. What they have to look at is why is she having this breakdown? What has happened in the last few years that is causing her to lose it? Guitar Part: Maybe the release of her album at the end of February is to provide a subject and distract away from Kurt’s death, so she doesn’t have to answer questions about Kurt’s death? Barnett: The media shouldn’t give her the cheap publicity that she needs for her album. Report on her problems and the cause of her problems. Guitar Part: Do you think that the media could discover more? Barnett: Well, I have discovered more and I sent it to the media and they ignored it. Journalists should process information and report it fairly and accurately. Guitar Part: Yes. Barnett: And not only have certain journalists not done that, but they seem to be making a joke amongst themselves and with Courtney Love. List of some e-mails and print-outs I sent: 30 June 1999 My ‘Courtney Love’s Modus Operandi’ section sent to worldnetdaily.com, Mojo magazine,Vanessa Ho of the Seattle Post Intelligencer. None of them replied. (Vanessa Ho had contributed to an article on Kurt’s death by Linda Keene and Duff Wilson which was published by the Seattle Times’s May 11 1994 edition). 4 July 1999 My ‘Courtney Love’s Modus Operandi’ section to Melody Maker. I received no response. 31 July 1999 Copies of the ‘Rome Incident’ section to letter@globe.com (Boston Globe), letters@worldnetdaily.com and an e-mail copy to Duff Wilson of the Seattle Times. In their book ‘Who Killed Kurt Cobain?’ Max Wallace and Ian Halperin reported: (Duff) Wilson says he believes that the death was “probably a suicide” but he doesn’t rule out the possibility of murder, “especially because of a number of strange things surrounding the Rome incident.” (WKKC? page 108). Because of Wilson’s above comment, and given that Wilson is an investigative reporter who had co-written an article with Linda Keene, on Kurt’s death for the Seattle Times’s May 11 1994 edition, I thought Wilson would be interested in my article on the Rome incident, but it got no response. 13 August 1999 A copy of the bulk of my work to the Editor of Mojo magazine, Mat Snow. I received no response. 13 August 1999 My ‘Unnamed Sources’ and ‘Rome Incident’ sections to John Harris, Editor of Select magazine, asking him to forward them to Select journalist, Caitlin Moran. 29 September 1999 A print out by airmail to Seattle Chief of Police, Norm Stamper. I got no response. 2 October 1999 My section ‘Courtney, after Rome’ to select@emap.com. I received no response. Guitar Part: The media focus on Kurt’s childhood to explain his “suicide”, but perhaps the key is Courtney’s childhood to explain the murder? Barnett: Yes! You’re right. Cross goes on about how suicidal Kurt was from a young age, just because Kurt talked about suicide, lots of people talk about suicide but nonetheless live long lives! But when Kurt’s friends and Kurt himself was saying that it was a joke, and his friends said that at the time, Kurt seemed fairly happy, that he didn’t seem suicidal, it contradicts what Cross reported. Courtney Love’s capacity for violence, from a young age also has to be considered, but Cross doesn’t bring that up, and her violence is well documented. Guitar Part: What do you think of Hank Harrison? Do you think it was a mistake to show him in the Kurt and Courtney documentary? Barnett: Harrison obviously knows more about Courtney than a lot of people, especially when she was younger. But in an article in 2002 he’s still undecided, he says (paraphrase): “maybe Rome was attempted suicide, but maybe it wasn’t a real suicide attempt.” Hank Harrison hasn’t moved on from that, he seems incapable of looking at the wider picture, unable to apply what he does have to the murder “theory.” Note: the above quote was actually from Broomfield’s film, my mistake. The exact quote by Hank Harrison of Kurt’s overdose in Rome was: “But even if he did try to kill himself, it was a fake suicide, he didn’t really - he was just trying to get attention.” Harrison made no mention of the fact that in Rolling Stone's June 2 1994 edition Janet Billig of Gold Mountain stated that Kurt left a note in Rome explaining that he was leaving, and that Kurt had stated it wasn't a suicide note. In the April 1996 edition of High Times, Harrison said: “Nothing Kurt Cobain could do could make Courtney Love happy. And so the guy got more and more depressed. If he did kill himself, I know why!” Six years later Harrison said similar for an article in the Daily Mail dated October 13 2002: “I blame Courtney for Kurt’s death. She killed him. I’m not saying she pulled the trigger, but I truly believe she is responsible... If she didn’t pull the trigger herself, I believe she drove him to it.” Which shows that Harrison hasn’t taken on board evidence contrary to the “Kurt the depressed suicide candidate” story as put forth by his own daughter, and yet Harrison believes that he understands his daughter’s mind. In POV’s March 1997 edition Hank Harrison seemed to be on friendly terms with El Duce: Back in the days when Harrison had a website with a sub-section on this case (www.arkives.com), he made the following comments on El Duce: I printed the above from Harrison’s site in January 2000. His site no longer exists, but archive.org have some of it stored, where the above reference can be found, fourth paragraph down: http://web.archive.org/web/20010427054624/www.arkives.com/KC/KCForum/KCrench.html In April 2004 Harrison stated, for Court TV chat: http://www.courttv.com/talk/chat_transcripts/2004/0416love-harrison.html To summarise: 1. Harrison's take is that Kurt's overdose in Rome may have been a suicide attempt, but it was probably a “fake” suicide attempt, a cry for “attention,” even though, at the time Harrison made this comment it was known that Kurt stated to Janet Billig that the note he left in Rome was not a suicide note. 2. Harrison believes that Courtney may, or may not, have killed Kurt. 3. Harrison believes that Courtney may, or may not, have driven Kurt to kill himself. 4. Harrison knows El Duce didn't murder Kurt, even though Il Duce told Harrison that he “did it” and Harrison believed him. Which looks like Harrison doesn’t know what to think, can’t grasp the most basic aspects of this case (the note Kurt left in Rome wasn’t a suicide note), and can’t keep his story straight. When Grant said he believed that Rome was attempted murder, Max Wallace and Ian Halperin just dismissed the idea because they said Grant didn’t offer evidence to support that belief. But Max Wallace and Ian Halperin should have been digging up information which either disputed or supported Grant. As journalists they should process information and build on it, that’s what investigators/homicide detectives do. You look for information to form an opinion. You don’t just say “This man says he thinks 'this'” and then not investigate! Broomfield could have done a lot more. If I’d made that film, I’d feel bloody ashamed of it. If I’d written Wallace and Halperin’s book, I’d have felt like an idiot by now. I’d feel foolish if I was them. At the beginning of my work (in 1999) I’d hoped that they would contact me and explain why they didn’t include it (information on DeWitt, Rome, and other issues brought up on this website) and neither of them ever did. That book wasn’t good enough. Guitar Part: Do we know why DeWitt was in Rome? (In March 1994). Barnett: He travelled with Courtney and was Frances’ nanny. I’ll show you the magazines that reported that DeWitt was in Rome in March 1994. (I show Select’s May 1994 edition and Rolling Stone’s June 2 1994 edition). Guitar Part: Have you been in contact with Tom Grant? Barnett: I’ve had a bit of contact, not much. He’s answered a couple of questions I’ve put to him which weren’t specifically regarding the case. I consider the most important question I asked him was if he specifically named Courtney Love and Michael DeWitt as his prime suspects, back in January 1995. He said yes. I wanted to know if he was making that information available in January 1995 and he said yes. The reason I wanted to know this is because in Kerrang’s January 28 1995 edition, they reported that Grant had done a radio show in the US about his murder “theory”, but that Grant gave no indication of who his prime suspects were. Obviously, that’s bullshit! Grant did indicate his suspects. I want to know why RAW magazine’s February 1 1995 edition also failed to report that Grant was literally pointing the finger at Courtney and DeWitt. Their failure to report this meant that their readers weren’t being given correct information, available at that time. The media’s treatment of this case, their approach to Courtney Love and their treatment of Kurt, is my main interest. If journalists don’t report thoroughly, then anyone can get away with anything. Guitar Part: What’s become of DeWitt, is he still friends with Courtney? Barnett: I don’t know. If I was a journalist and I had a publishing company giving me expenses to investigate, I’d be doing it. But I have to work a normal job, I get no help. Guitar Part: I’ve read they are still friends. Barnett: I shouldn’t think they have cut off, they have to keep in touch in order to keep their stories somewhat straight with each other. Cross’ book is such a big example of the lengths that they will go to contrive to cover things up, I’m sure Cross, Courtney and DeWitt probably all got on the phone together: “You say this”, and “and that’s his alibi,” “Michael’s girlfriend/s will back it up!” etc. But the stories in the Cross book don’t tally with the events as they were happening at the time. The existence of Cross’ book is proof that a lot of effort has gone into trying to cover it up. And that book has been promoted by most of the corporate media companies like Time Warner, who own NME (New Musical Express), which gave Cross a two page interview in their September 8 2001 edition, and Courtney an interview where she plugged the book (in their September 15 2001 edition). Time Warner owned CNN’s Jamie Allen reviewed the book and described Cross’ work as “extensive research” ! On September 10 2000 on the official ‘News’ section of holemusic.com/kittyradio.com they published a speech by Courtney in which she said: “Charles Cross, who is writing the definitive book about Kurt.” That was almost a whole year before the book was published, which shows that Courtney was very confident that Cross wouldn’t rock the boat by asking awkward questions, but would stick to her version of the story. Maybe that’s why the news section eventually disappeared? archive.org to the rescue again, you can check out Courtney Love’s official website’s news section for yourselves: http://web.archive.org/web/20001213000800/holemusic.com/news/index.html and at: http://web.archive.org/web/20011211171502/kittyradio.com/news/index.html Scroll down to the September 10 2000 section of the news, then it’s the 13th paragraph down. I provide the screenshot below for proof that this news did occur and was archived on a website independent of holemusic.com. The letter, left, was printed in the Seattle free paper The Rocket, of which Charles Cross was the editor. It’s one reader’s response to an article Cross wrote on Courtney and her band, for the Rocket’s March 10-24th 1999 edition. Guitar Part: Do you think, with the 10th anniversary that there will be something coming out from journalists in the US? Barnett: It would be nice if someone did report this properly. I hope you do something. You could do it, you work for a magazine, you take the responsibility and get the ball rolling! |