| BRIEF TIMELINE OF THIS WEBSITE AND AN INTRODUCTION TO THE 29th DECEMBER 1999 UPDATE
Between December 1996-April 2000, rather than providing intelligent and serious coverage of this case, the corporate media/ rock press were intent on promoting the website of supposed “investigative journalist” and campaigner to get this case reopened, Toby/Andrew Amirault. In December 1996 the Boston Globe (owned by the New York Times Company since 1993) ran an article in which they provided the URL of Amirault’s site. In March 1997 an Australian “tribute” magazine (see scan to left) provided the URL to Amirault’s site. Wallace and Halperin’s book ‘Who Killed Kurt Cobain?’ published in 1998 mentioned Amirault, page 187. Mojo’s May 1998 edition provided the URL to Amirault’s site, see cover to left. Mojo’s June 1998 edition published a letter by Amirault. Melody Maker’s March 13 1999 edition provided the URL to Amirault’s site. worldnetdaily.com published an article on this case in April 1999. It also provided a link to Amirault’s website. Following my December 29 1999 update Kerrang’s April 8 2000 edition also provided the URL to Amirault’s site. In May 1998 I read an article in Mojo magazine about the possibility that Kurt had been murdered. The article was basic and did nothing to convince me. I thought Kurt had committed suicide based on the mass of misinformation I’d read in books and magazines. I wrote a letter to Mojo in response to the article, stating that although I believed that Kurt had committed suicide, I did believe that Courtney Love had been abusive in her relationship with him. The following month Mojo published my letter (edited, and they misspelled my surname as Barrett), followed by a letter from Toby Amirault. Shortly after this I obtained a copy of the book ‘Who Killed Kurt Cobain?’ by Max Wallace and Ian Halperin. W & H reported that they had heard some of the recorded conversations Grant had of Rosemary Carroll, in which she talked about her belief that Kurt had been murdered. It was only on reading that, that I began to take the case seriously. Although the tapes proved that Grant didn’t start this story, and that he was following Rosemary Carroll’s belief that something wasn’t right about Kurt’s death, I still wasn’t convinced that Kurt had been murdered. Wallace and Halperin’s book raised questions, but that was where it stopped. Questions,statements but not much in the way of in depth critical/analytical research and reporting on their part. From July 1998 I began making notes. I was particularly interested in the Rome overdose Kurt had suffered the month before he was found dead. While Wallace and Halperin reported in their first book that Grant believed that this overdose in Rome was an attempt by Courtney to murder Kurt, Wallace and Halperin were dismissive of the idea. Having seen Amirault’s website mentioned in Mojo’s May 1998 edition, and his letter published in Mojo’s June 1998 edition, I contacted him around November 1998 because he seemed to be the only active reporter on this case. I stayed in contact with him for quite a while. Around June 1999 I wrote a small article titled ‘Courtney Love’s Modus Operandi’ and sent it to Amirault. He was quite impressed and asked if he could post it on his website. Just before he posted it, on July 24 1999, I requested he use my middle name of Frances, which he did. For my work on this case I have continued to use that name, but, when Mojo published my letter back in June 1998 it was with my first name, which is Sue, see scan below: I was quite encouraged that this first article was published, (albeit highly edited by Amirault). On July 20 1999, I’d sent him an early copy of what is now the ‘Eldon Hoke’ section. Like everyone who saw Broomfield’s film, I’d picked up on Hoke’s dropping in the name Alan/Allen in Broomfield’s film ‘Kurt and Courtney’, and I included this in the ‘Eldon’ article. In an e-mail dated July 24 1999 Amirault’s response to this article was very encouraging, he “looked forward to seeing it” when it was complete. At the time I was writing the ‘Eldon Hoke’ article, I was also writing an article on the unnamed sources which plagued this case and which stood in direct contradiction to the named sources. The fact that Courtney was behind these unnamed and contradictory sources was extremely implicating, a pattern was emerging of direct manipulation by Courtney to change and distort the real events leading up to and following Kurt’s death. It was only after I’d written the ‘Unnamed Sources’ and ‘Rome Incident’ articles that I concluded that “Alan/Allen” was just another hoax. I sent a copy of this ‘Unnamed Sources’ article to Amirault and at the end I wrote that I was going to put the Rome incident under the microscope. Amirault’s response was almost immediate, in an e-mail dated July 29 1999 he replied to me: “I’ve been sick all week and overwhelmed with work so it’ll be some time before I can get back to you about your article,” followed by another e-mail two days later: “Why don’t you keep this and any other articles for now. I am totally overwhelmed with work and just don’t have time to look at them”. In an e-mail dated July 24 1999, Amirault claimed to me that he and another journalist (Matthew Richer) had tried, for a month, to get Tom Grant to cooperate for an article about this case which was eventually published on 16th April 1999 by worldnetdaily.com. According to Amirault, even though Max Wallace got involved, Grant still refused to cooperate, see scan of this section of his e-mail, below. This lead me to believe that Amirault was in contact with/worked alongside Max Wallace and I subsequently sent him a printed version of my work, requesting that he forwarded it to Max Wallace. Amirault refused to forward it. By this time, Amirault’s site had been going for over three years, but he gave no mention of DeWitt’s possible role in Kurt’s murder, even though, as early as January 1995, Grant had named DeWitt as a prime suspect. While Amirault was passing himself off as an “investigative journalist”, he clearly wasn’t. It takes a special kind of determination to avoid the subjects of Courtney’s media manipulation, DeWitt and Rome, and once I started focusing on those, Amirault totally ignored my work. Amirault specialised in focusing on the latest Courtney gossip/horror stories which had nothing to do with the specifics of this case. Even though Amirault was ignoring everything I sent to him, occasionally he asked me to compile lists or transcribe interviews, but when, in August 1999, he asked me to hang around newsgroups in order to obtain certain information he required, I refused, that’s not an acceptable research method to me. On 13th August 1999 I sent a letter to Mat Snow, the editor of Mojo, in which I reminded him he’d published my letter back in Mojo’s June 1998 edition, but that, after a year of researching this case I was now convinced that Kurt had been murdered I enclosed a copy of the bulk of my work, including the section on Rome. Mat Snow never contacted me or published any of it. Maybe it got lost in the post. In an attempt to get the media and journalists involved in taking this case seriously, I sent the following: 30 June 1999 I sent the Modus Operandi section sent to worldnetdaily.com, Mojo magazine,Vanessa Ho of the Seattle Post Intelligencer (she had contributed to an article on Kurt’s death which was published by the Seattle Times’s May 11 1994 edition, by Linda Keene and Duff Wilson). None of them replied. 4 July 1999 I sent the Modus Operandi section to Melody Maker. I received no response. 31 July 1999 I sent e-mail 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 written an article 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. 3 August 1999 I sent a printout to someone I knew to be a friend of Mary Lou Lord’s, hoping he might forward it to her. I don’t know if he did. 13 August 1999 I sent 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 I sent a print out by airmail to Seattle Chief of Police, Norm Stamper. I got no response. 2 October 1999 I sent the section ‘Courtney, after Rome’ to select@emap.com and received no response. I also sent Grant a copy of my article on the Rome incident. On October 6 1999 I received a reply from Grant, see scan, right. My reason for posting it now, April 2005, is to show that there was a time when Grant distinguished between “off base” and “well studied and perceptive”. This was the reaction I’d hoped for because I’d found the level of reporting of this case, even from people who were seen as so called “authorities” on this case (Wallace, Halperin, Broomfield, Lee, Harrison etc), to be severely lacking in providing essential information. So on October 8 1999 I uploaded the following sections to a free geocities website: 1. The Events Covering The Dates April 1-7th 1994 2. Broomfield’s Interview With Dylan Carlson 3. Eldon Hoke, AKA El Duce 4. Unnamed Sources and Kurt’s Last Days 5. The Rome Incident 6. Courtney, After The Rome Incident 7. Broomfield’s Interview With The Nanny 8. Kurt Was Not Suicidal 9. Courtney Love’s Modus Operandi 10. Reasons Why This Case Must Be Reopened I fully expected and hoped that Wallace, Halperin or even Broomfield would contact me. Questions raised in their book and film were at least being addressed in my work, information and observations which, when considered in the context of Grant’s initial allegations, and the behaviour patterns of all concerned, pointed to Courtney Love and Michael DeWitt as the prime suspects. I wanted journalists who had worked on this case to work together in an open, honest and responsible way, to get the job done. But there was no way that was ever going to happen, as I discovered. Instead, Amirault asked me not to send him my work, and Max Wallace, Ian Halperin and Nick Broomfield didn’t contact me, (neither did Richard Lee or Hank Harrison). Odd, considering all of them claimed to be investigating this case, and all of them, between 1995-December 1999, had failed to dig up critical information (which could be found independently of Grant) and had failed to make even the most basic observations. So, by the time of my December 1999 update I concluded that they had all proved themselves thoroughly incapable, disinterested, and were, therefore, redundant. On November 4 1999 Grant posted a message on my message board, (see scan of this, to the left) back in the days when Grant seemed to appreciate “thorough, analytical and well researched,” and back in the days when he seemed to appreciate the fact that, in my ‘Events’ section I had been cautious of the Brad Barnett story as reported in Wallace and Halperin’s book ‘Who Killed Kurt Cobain?’ in which Barnett had claimed to have met Kurt on April 4th 1994. After my December 1999 update my message board began attracting people offering nonsensical, irrelevant commentary, so I removed the board. November 23 1999 I updated again, focusing on Courtney’s encouragement of the drug rumours that plagued her and Kurt, right from the start of their relationship. She was doing this almost from the minute she got pregnant. While Courtney was feigning outrage over the Lynn Hirschberg/Vanity Fair September 1992 article, she was underhandedly feeding those drug rumours. See my 23rd November 1999 update and 11th September 2000 update, Section 1. By December 1999 Amirault had managed to make the case into a joke with his nonsensical stories of “e-mails from Courtney” and his claim that the FBI were investigating the Cobain case. More worryingly, he seemed to be trying, simply by force of rumour-mongering and irresponsible reporting, to implicate someone who there was no reason to believe had any role in Kurt’s murder. No one seemed to care that Amirault was running amok, but I decided that there were legitimate and necessary reasons to tackle him and his reporting methods, so I posted the following, (now edited), update. DECEMBER 29TH 1999 UPDATE: I recently (Dec 18th 1999) received an e-mail from Andrew Amirault forwarding an e-mail someone had written, with Amirault’s added comment as follows: “Some good points are made here. In Christ, Andrew”. This e-mail seemed to be trying to implicate Dylan Carlson in Kurt’s murder. This e-mail suggested that Kurt didn’t even go with Dylan to purchase the gun on March 30th, but that someone else did. It also tried to suggest that Dylan purchased the gun with the intention of murdering Kurt. By these suggestions it implied that Kurt therefore never had access to/knowledge of the gun. This e-mail has now been posted on Amirault’s site, although he edited out his own comment, along with another part of the e-mail. The suggestions/ observations brought up in this e-mail are ridiculous for the following reasons: 1: When Kurt was driven to the airport on March 30th by Harvey Ottinger, Kurt himself told Ottinger he had just bought a gun and that he had bullets which he didn’t want to take on the plane. He then left those bullets with Ottinger. See police report below: 2: When Kurt took the cab ride on April 2nd he told the cab driver he had recently been burgled and needed bullets (see Seattle Police reports.) Why would Kurt be buying bullets if he didn’t have a gun? 3: Kurt’s guns had been confiscated by the police on March 18th. Kurt therefore wanted Dylan to purchase the gun in his name so that this gun would not be traced to Kurt and possibly confiscated. Kurt wanted this gun for protection. 4: If Dylan was in on the murder, he would have been as eager as Courtney for people to believe that Kurt was suicidal, but Dylan told Grant and reporters that Kurt wasn’t suicidal. If Dylan had been involved, there would be no way that he would have used a gun he had purchased in his own name, as the murder weapon. Dylan was Kurt’s best friend. DYLAN CARLSON IS NOT A SUSPECT. The person who originally wrote this e-mail is not too clever, it’s as fine an example of a muddled mind that you could ever wish to see. No one would seriously consider the suggestions contained in the above e-mail. But by virtue of the fact Amirault forwarded a copy of it to me with his own comment of: “Some good points are made here” and that he posted it in the e-mail section of his site, he does give it credibility. This makes him either: 1: Irresponsible and lacking in any ability to investigate facts for himself. Or: 2: Suspect, a disseminator of misleading information. You do not claim to be interested in finding the truth and then forward such rubbish to others. I see the posting of such rubbish on his site as the final act of betrayal. It seems to be trying to achieve exactly the same confusion and doubt that unnamed sources tried to achieve, an attempt to undermine the credibility of the case. Andrew, you claim to be an investigative journalist yet by forwarding the above and posting it on your site you seem to think the above e-mail suggestions warrant consideration and worth. If that is the quality of your investigative mind, I have to give it total disrespect. If you send out such suggestions with your own comment as above, without giving reasons for your comment you can hardly complain when people lose respect for you. I have to wonder why you removed a certain part of the e-mail you forwarded to me, from the one you posted on your site? Dylan Carlson was Kurt’s best friend. His behavioural patterns/actions throughout March/April 1994 and since perfectly clear his name. Dylan has been one of the few friends of Kurt who actually spoke the truth about him not being suicidal (he said that had he known, he’d never have bought the gun), about not always being on drugs and he said there was “no way” that Rome was attempted suicide. Other so called friends of Kurt have remained completely silent. DYLAN CARLSON IS NOT A SUSPECT. Anyone trying to suggest otherwise is at the very least an irresponsible fool. I have never seen Amirault make any genuine investigative contribution or insight into this case full stop. Grant wrote the following on his website: “Regardless of what the coroners report might say, Kurt Cobain died Sunday April 3rd, or early Monday April 4th. Although he may have been seen at the local park by the lake on Sunday April 3rd, anyone claiming to have seen him after 7.30am on Monday morning is either lying or they don't really exist. Most information about these witnesses has been deliberately planted in the media” . If you approach this case on the premise that Grant’s initial allegations that Courtney Love and Michael DeWitt conspired to murder Kurt, is correct, and I do, you are well equipped to spot the fakes in all this. With regards to Max Wallace and Ian Halperin believing they found a witness (Brad Barnett) who claims he saw Kurt on April 4 1994, on the 4th November 1999, see the message Grant left on my board. I have spent a long time researching this case in great detail, my research was carried out in an attempt to answer my own questions about what really happened and how. In my own mind I satisfactorily answered my questions. Knowing what I know now, I am amazed that Wallace and Halperin did not mention that DeWitt was in Rome. Amirault didn’t mention this either, he said on his site: “Love was in Los Angeles when Cobain was found, so someone else did the actual killing. I have strong suspicions about who that might be, but I’m going to wait for the case to evolve more fully before naming a name(s)”. It looks like Amirault was keeping his options open. Grant has said that he believes this was a conspiracy between Courtney and DeWitt. He has made no secret of this and I am astounded that the above mentioned journalists failed to furnish us with the most fundamental fact that DeWitt was in Rome. It is an absolute necessity in understanding the dynamics of this case to be aware of DeWitt and his role in its unfolding. Amirault has studiously avoided the subject of DeWitt and Rome. Every step of the way in my research I questioned/put under the microscope my own thought processes/arguments/ logic, in an attempt to find fault and I didn't stop until I was satisfied that I had found a very good percentage of the truth. My website is the result of my research, and I hope it is useful in helping to bring the truth to light. Not surprisingly it substantiates and supports Grant’s initial claims. For all the reasons given on this website, I believe Kurt was murdered April 3rd/early 4th, anyone trying to lead you to believe otherwise is trying to mislead. Obviously I also believe that Kurt’s overdose in Rome was attempted murder, and that DeWitt is the prime suspect. I no longer have any respect for Andrew Amirault or his work. In my mind his recent conduct of forwarding this ridiculous e-mail and posting it on his site was the final straw. Over the last few months I have become increasingly concerned about him. In my eyes he has destroyed any credibility he may once have had. After I received the above mentioned e-mail, I checked out his site, something I haven’t done for a long time because it has nothing to offer and I was amazed at what I saw. He: 1: Offers ridiculous stories of diaries written by Kurt which may or may not be real (he doesn’t know,) provided apparently by Kurt’s psychologist, although this person may be a fraud (he doesn’t know). This is on his Bulletin section updated 15th Dec 1999. He will willingly tell us that these diaries, which may be fakes, he doesn’t know, are proof that Courtney wrote the e-mails because one passage that “supposedly” appears in these diaries, don’t you know Andrew, haven’t you seen the contents of them? provided by someone claiming to be Kurt's psychologist, but who, Amirault informs us, is probably a fraud, also appears in an e-mail written by Courtney, which contains passages from correspondence between Amirault and a 14 year old girl from Dakota, who is actually, according to Amirault, Courtney Love. Which, by Amirault’s logic, is proof that Courtney is writing the “Courtney e-mails”. What can one say? Words fail me. I am laughing and crying as I write this. It’s tragic, it isn’t funny, it is a threat to the credibility of this case. I can’t sit in silence on this, hence this update. Andrew, you display exactly the muddled thinking of the person who originally wrote the ridiculous e-mail mentioned above. You display all the lucidity of the person who writes the “Courtney e-mails”. It looks like an attempt to confuse matters to me, by introducing bogus information. I cannot possibly take you seriously. In short, you are reporting fiction as fact. You have shown no caution in what you report, you report on “evidence” without attempting to verify it’s worth. Your foundations are quicksand, you are creating a quagmire of confusion, misinformation, doubt, false hopes and ultimately, despair. In whose interests are you working? Thankfully, by the simple act of discounting every bit of rubbish you report, I find myself on solid ground again, able to breathe clean air. 2: Supplies us with continuous coverage of “e-mails from Courtney” which are too ridiculous for words. 3: Informed us that he was involved in ground breaking major coverage on the Cobain case which turned out to be merely regurgitated facts we already know. (This is a reference to the above mentioned worldnetdaily article). 4: Informed us that the FBI are now involved in the Cobain case and later mentions that the FBI are merely “looking into the matter” (of the so called e-mail threats from Courtney.) Which one is it Andrew? Don’t you know? If they are merely looking into the e mail threats, when they turn out to be a hoax it means that the FBI aren’t involved in the Cobain case at all. Your reasoning is so perverse it’s worthless, it looks like an attempt to confuse and give false hope to me. Anyone reading this must decide for themselves what to think. 5:Forwards the ridiculous e-mail mentioned above. No one with half a brain would consider Dylan to be a suspect. What is wrong with you Andrew? Andrew, all that you have to offer is worthless in my eyes, I haven’t got time for your ridiculous stories. I do have the time to consider why you are doing this though. That is what this update is about. I completely refuse to consider anything that Amirault has to say as worthwhile. I don’t need him to tell me who to boycott and write e-mails to in protest of Courtney, I can work that one out for myself. Andrew, you have the nerve to complain when Grant refuses to get involved with you. Who can blame him? (This is a reference to Amirault’s above mentioned claim that Grant refused to get involved with the worldnetdaily article. Over the years Amirault (with the help of publicity from The Boston Globe, IPC Media’s Melody Maker, and Emap’s Mojo and Kerrang, and also a mention in Wallace and Halperin’s first book page 187) has set himself up as the main spokesman and authority for the cause and in so doing has gained the trust of many people. I only ever trusted him up to a certain point, I didn’t believe everything he said. He certainly made one far out claim to me via e mail about these “diaries of Kurt’s” I’m just glad I didn’t fall for it. When I take a really close look at what his site contains, it doesn’t have very much. No constructive investigative work which helps to make sense of the case. It’s mainly rhetorical in content with a few facts available and some vital facts not mentioned. It has a plentiful supply of misleading information. Put his site, his stories, and him, under the microscope for yourselves, take a bloody good look at it. Do you see what I’m saying? Do you think I might be right? The crime committed in April 1994 was a culmination of events occurring over many, many, months. You have to take into account the events I have written about on my site, especially Rome, in order to gain a proper perspective of this crime. Amirault has done nothing to make this clear. He has given us all the above rubbish but withheld vital information. It is the type of behaviour we saw from Courtney, who gave false leads but withheld vital information. Why would you do that Andrew? Why????????? I bet Courtney must love you! You are doing her a favour, by adding all this confusion to the case. Why would Courtney send you threatening e mails when you are doing such an excellent job of sabotaging the case with your ridiculous stories? How can you call yourself an investigative journalist? How can you expect me to believe a word you say? I don’t believe a word you say, I don’t trust you. Amirault seems to me to be adding chaos and confusion in the same way unnamed sources/Courtney did. I see him as a liability, a threat to the credibility of this case. I refuse to have anything more to do with him. I completely disassociate myself from him. There must be people involved in this cause who are entirely independent of him, so that when his ship sinks, this case/cause doesn’t go down with him. This case is too important to allow it to be hijacked by such a person as Amirault. To that end, I caution anyone studying this case against uncritically swallowing all of Andrew Amirault’s statements simply because they are his. People should judge his actions and statements on whether or not they make sense. Do they?????? Not to me they don’t!!!!! Maybe I’m just thick? Decide for yourselves. I would approach Amirault’s work with the same caution I approach the claims of unnamed sources. On the assumption that it is permitted not to be legally bound to agree with/believe/trust Amirault, I find myself suspicious of his motives. That’s my right. I will not enter into correspondence with him, I want nothing more to do with him. If he sends me any more rubbish via e-mail, I will delete it, unread. And all that I have just done is slam him in the same way he felt fit to do to at least one other person, in the same form, on his own site. Among other things, although Amirault initially posted one minor article by me, when I sent him an early copy of my work asking him to forward it to Max Wallace, his reply was: “I got your overview of the case. There’s a lot of really good work you’ve done there. I didn't send it to Max Wallace, or anyone else, though, because it needs to be edited and reformatted first. I don’t have time to do this, but if you keep working on it, it will be a good contribution”. I had to wonder how this would be a good contribution when he wouldn’t show it to anyone? A good contribution at catching the dust on his desk no doubt! Even if my writing style/presentation isn’t up to his standards, it’s the information it contains that is important. He didn’t want to know when I became insistent about DeWitt’s involvement. To refuse to forward it or show it to anyone else looks like censorship to me. But that’s OK Andrew, it gave me the kick up the backside that I needed, and my website is the result. The above mention of Max Wallace was due to Amirault’s claim, to me, that Wallace had got involved with the worldnetdaily article Amirault was helping on. I wasn’t sure if Amirault’s claim was true or false. However, I hoped that if Wallace read this update, and if he wasn’t in contact with Amirault, he would at least contact me asking why I’d sent Amirault a copy of my work requesting that he to forward it to him. After this update, Max Wallace didn’t contact me. I also had to ask myself if the above mentioned e-mail was a better contribution to the cause than what I had written? It seems Amirault wants people to consider the ridiculous suggestions in that e-mail but didn’t want anyone to read what I had sent him. When I began writing I sent Amirault copies asking him for his thoughts. I told him I was quite disturbed by what I was finding. He gave me no advice, in effect he ignored me. I finally got the message. I started sending my writings out via e-mails, and found that people were interested in what I was writing. So what I am writing here is not sour grapes on my behalf because Amirault refused to listen to me, but because he has been unwilling to share relevant information with his readers. I know for a fact that people want to read what I have written, and I thank them for their positive responses. What would you rather? To be bombarded with Amirault’s ridiculous stories of “e-mails from Courtney“ and his stories about diaries written by Kurt, which may or may not be fake, provided by a person who claims to have been Kurt’s psychologist, but who is probably a fraud? Or would you rather be told how Kurt really was on his tour in Europe Feb 1994? Don’t you think the information about how MTV refuse to show the cut parts of Unplugged is important and interesting? I sent Amirault those details long ago, and I was surprised he didn’t want to share that and the other information I sent to him with the readers of his site. Don’t you think that’s strange? I think it’s positively sinister myself. I discovered the bootleg recording of the performance by Courtney at The Reading Rock Festival 1995 on September 18th 1999. I sent Amirault a transcript of that on Oct 14th. I got no reply from him for about 9 days, then he sent me an e-mail saying: “If I haven’t replied already, thank you, this is very interesting”. That was the only response I got from him. If Andrew had been in the least interested, he would have asked for a copy of it. I find this lack of interest highly peculiar, coming from someone who claims to be trying to find the truth. It looks to me like Amirault isn’t in the least bit interested in his readers being informed of relevant facts. I consider those recordings important evidence of Courtney’s frame of mind, she openly admits: “We are poison. We both Killed him. We both did it, we both did it, didn’t we, yeah. We killed him dead.” Such evidence had never come to light as far as I know, until I reported on them. Don’t you think Amirault’s responses are strange? Decide for yourselves. I have since sent out many copies of that particular recording, along with the songs mentioned in Update Nov 23rd. There are now many witnesses to the fact that these recordings do exist. I don’t trust anyone who tries to undermine this case by putting forth bogus information, claims and ridiculous suggestions, but who withholds important fundamental information. That is the kind of behaviour I expect from Courtney. When I believe I have good reason, I will speak out against it when I see it happening. I have, on this update, tried to explain my reasons. Like many others I want the truth, I don’t want to see the whole thing discredited by someone who distributes ridiculous suggestions and who cannot elaborate on the reasons for his comments and who cannot display any ability to contribute to this cause in a worthwhile way. You must decide for yourselves who to trust/believe. One observation I have made, which I do think is relevant is that Amirault posted an article on his site titled “Courtney Love Assaults Two Concert Goers”. In this article by Matthew Richer it reports an attack by Courtney on Camille Besser at a concert held on May 22 1999. At one point in the conversation Courtney had with Camille Besser, Courtney said to Besser: “Dylan Carlson was with him when he died”. If Richer is reporting this story properly, if this did happen, then Courtney just planted the idea that Dylan was involved. The strange thing is, we now have Amirault giving credence to the idea that Dylan was involved by sending out the ridiculous e-mail mentioned above. Considering Amirault himself has never once brought up the subject of DeWitt on his site and has been so careful not to mention who he does suspect, this seems a rather rash and irresponsible act. I think it strange that, if this assault did happen and was reported correctly, Courtney and Amirault seem to be trying, albeit in subtle and muddled ways, to introduce the idea that Dylan is involved. There is something wrong here. Whatever next? Some amazing “new evidence” miraculously appearing, which exonerates Courtney and DeWitt but implicates Dylan? If things start heading in that direction then Courtney has been up to her tricks of manipulating journalists and planting false stories, we know by now what she is capable of. And at the very least Amirault and Richer may turn out to be pawns in the same way Rossi was. If there is the slightest chance that Dylan is being set up, I feel obliged to point it out, compelled to defend him. Just remember, DYLAN CARLSON IS NOT A SUSPECT, he had no part in Kurt’s murder: It wasn’t Dylan claiming that Kurt was suicidal. It wasn’t Dylan in Rome on March 3 1994 armed with Rohypnol. It wasn’t Dylan manipulating journalists and planting false stories. It wasn’t Dylan evading police/press interviews. It wasn’t Dylan who gained by the media misreporting of this case. It was Courtney and DeWitt. To anyone reading this, I say: Be extremely wary, there are people in this world who will gain your trust and then stab you in the back. Kurt was a victim of this, he thought DeWitt was a friend and we all know that DeWitt definitely was no friend to Kurt. As far as I’m concerned, ANYONE who tries to distract you or me from the basic fact that Kurt was murdered April 3rd/early 4th, is suspicious, I cannot stress this enough. I don’t trust anyone who in any way tries to implicate Dylan in this, and that includes Amirault. Courtney Love and Michael DeWitt are the suspects. END OF UPDATE After this update, Amirault began to appear increasingly unstable, but that didn’t stop Kerrang’s April 8 2000 edition from plugging his website, see scan below: Kerrang directing people to the website run by such a person was effectively ensuring that anyone visiting his website as a first experience of this case, would likely conclude that the case attracted unstable attention seekers. By May 2000, Amirault, almost at his worst, embarked on a hunger strike. Grant alluded to Amirault and his mental illness in his May 2000 update, see scan below: In March 2001 I received an e-mail from someone claiming to be Amirault’s brother, who informed me that Toby/Andrew Amirault, having suffered from mental illness for years, had committed suicide, and providing me with a couple of links to a website which reported the suicide. For proof, see the following screenshot of one of the links: I had no way of confirming this. For all I knew, this “brother” could have been Andrew/Toby Amirault, up to more of his attention seeking antics. The fact that various media outlets (as mentioned above) gave him credence by promoting his site gave me no confidence in a couple of links given to me in an e-mail by someone claiming to be his brother. I sent a copy of this e-mail with links to Grant, hoping he might comment, but he didn’t reply. Grant, Wallace, Halperin and Broomfield made no attempt to speak out against Amirault’s antics and rumour-mongering. They (Grant, Wallace, Halperin, Broomfield or anyone else who has ever claimed to be a serious investigator/investigative reporter on this case) could argue that they feared any confrontation with Amirault might push him over the edge (if, indeed, Amirault suffered from mental illness). However, that argument would leave this case open to being hijacked by any number of mentally ill/attention seekers/hoaxers. The concern has to go to the victim of the rumour-mongering, not the perpetrator/s, especially when the perpetrator/s are deliberately withholding critical information on people who, by their own behaviour, implicate themselves. If Amirault suffered mental illness for years (although his mental illness didn’t prevent him from filtering out and withholding serious and legitimate research, I know, because I was sending it to him!) it begs the question, why, between 1996 and 2000, did the mainstream media promote this man’s work? It shows how worthless the media is. After Amirault’s demise I was twice asked to remove all references to him from my website. I decided to keep them in place. Amirault is an example of the ease at which unreliable/unstable/inept individuals can set themselves up with a website on this case, which the mainstream media happily promote, while at the same time ignoring legitimate research. From July 1999 I was encouraging people to print copies of the articles I was sending out by email and which I uploaded to this website in October 1999. Late 2000 I uploaded a flyer which highlighted previously unreported information on the Rome incident and Michael DeWitt, the intention being to provide a fresh perspective of this case and as much context as possible in the confines of a one page flyer. As seen above, I was sending this information out to various so called “journalists”and magazines, not least Amirault, who all ignored it, and neither Wallace or Halperin showed any interest in it. The distribution of the articles and flyers meant that this information was being released, proving that the corporate media had failed to do its job of providing accurate, analytical and timely reporting of this case and that the job was being done by people who actually care about exposing that negligent reporting provided by the media, regarding this case. Probably an embarrassment for the media, collectively, and certain so called “journalists” named on this site, but they deserve nothing less. Back to Frances Barnett In Defence MAIN |