& additional information

Download Free

"Soaked In Bleach" - The Movie

NEWS - 6/11/2015
"Soaked In Bleach"



E-mail Tom:
Individual questions cannot be answered through e-mail, but comments are always read and appreciated.

Nick Broomfield's

Before I tell you how much I admire Broomfield's courage and tenacity in developing and producing this project, I want to clarify an extremely important issue. During one of my interviews in the film, I discussed Cobain's heroin blood level. The research we've done indicates Kurt would have been immediately incapacitated, therefore unable to pick up the shotgun and shoot himself.

Nick Broomfield argues that Cobain had a gigantic habit and therefore may have had a high tolerance level.

As I've done with so many other reporters and journalists, I challenged Broomfield, on camera, to show me just one similar case where it can be demonstrated that any person, including a hard core heroin addict, would be able to withstand this same heroin dosage without being immediately incapacitated.

Broomfield later appears to refute our medical evidence by displaying a photograph of a man balancing on one leg as he narrates:

"Tom Grant's assertion that 1.52 milligrams of heroin per litre of blood would have incapacitated Kurt was discounted by Dr. Colin Brewer, formerly director of Westminster Hospital. He gave us this color slide of a patient balancing easily on one leg, who had taken the equivalent of over twice the amount taken by Kurt. In any event, Dr. Brewer said it would take 30 seconds to one minute for the heroin to circulate to take effect, leaving ample time to fire a gun."

In case you misunderstood the blood level figures, we're talking about 1.52 mgs per litre. To reach this blood level, Cobain would have had to inject an amount of heroin in excess of 225 mgs, all at one time. This is three times a lethal, (deadly) dose!

If you've seen the film, I hope you paid close attention to the wording in Broomfield's statements:

Note here that Broomfield did not say anything about this patient INJECTING any substance directly into a vein. Also note he did not say that HEROIN was the drug this patient had "taken."

The audience is left to assume Broomfield was talking about a patient who had injected twice the amount of heroin as Cobain had injected?

The fact is, the man seen in Broomfield's film balancing on one leg had swallowed 1000 mgs of methadone. He did not inject anything, much less heroin, directly into his veins as did Kurt Cobain!!

Furthermore, Dr. Brewer's comments about the circulation time being 30 seconds to 1 minute were in reference to morphine, not heroin!

Prior to the completion of his film, Broomfield faxed me a copy of Dr. Brewer's response to our medical research. I wrote a response to Dr. Brewer's comments and later sent it back to Broomfield. Following are excerpts from Broomfield's fax as well as excerpts from my rather lengthy response.


I can understand a person with little or no knowledge of the effects of heroin having a hard time understanding this, but it's difficult for me to understand how any competent doctor could be so confused. Dr. Brewer's response to these very simple issues borders on the absurd.

(You wrote) "For instance, he, (Dr. Brewer), has a slide of a patient balancing on one leg an hour after swallowing 1,000 mg of methadone at a time when his blood level was 4,000 meg/litre."

The key words here are METHADONE and SWALLOWING.

This kind of response to a serious inquiry is offensive. Any doctor should know there's a huge difference between heroin and methadone. Methadone is even weaker than morphine! Methadone use is totally irrelevant to this case.

Any reputable doctor should also know that the ingestion of almost any drug, by swallowing, produces nowhere near the immediate results that injecting the same drug intravenously will produce. The simple fact that Dr. Brewer is even comparing these criteria indicates he lacks a fundamental understanding of the matters in question.

(In another reference to Dr. Brewer's response, you wrote): (i) it takes two circulations for morphine to affect the body, that is 30 seconds to 1min. This would give Kurt enough time to be able to pull a gun on himself;

The circulation time of morphine has nothing to do with this case. In fact, once injected, it takes 7 to 9 minutes for heroin to even become morphine! We're talking about heroin injected intravenously here, not morphine which is often swallowed or injected subcutaneously, (not in a vein). Therefore discussions pertaining to morphine and/or methadone are not only irrelevant but also terribly misleading.

While a massive dose of morphine may take a sufficient amount of time to display effects, a massive dose of heroin, injected directly into a vein, will incapacitate within seconds. Bodies with needles still in their arms are a common phenomenon in heroin overdoses. In other words, they're knocked out before they even finished the injection! . . .

The intravenous injection of heroin is stronger, faster, deadlier. . . and different than morphine! . . .

Apple with apples. Oranges with oranges. That's all we're asking here. . .


PLEASE NOTE: The results of the toxicology report are examined and discussed thoroughly in the Cobain Case Study Manual. See page #110, "Dead Men Don't Pull Triggers").

Unfortunately, Broomfield appears to discredit some very strong medical evidence with his inaccurate and misleading statements about Cobain's heroin blood level. Then he uses this misinformation as his basis to state that he no longer believes in the conspiracy theory!

Why did Broomfield do this? I can't say for sure. There are many possibilities including several that are understandable and innocent of any deliberate deception. Other than this one issue, Nick did such a great job with this film that I'm going to give him the benefit of doubt. I'm going to believe he didn't understand the medical evidence and didn't have the time to do adequate research. I was out of town a lot during the time we were communicating on this so it took some time for me to get back to Nick with my response to Dr. Brewer's comments. It's possible the film had already been edited and it was too late to make the corrections.

When it comes to so-called "expert" opinions,

During one of my interviews in the Broomfield film, Nick commented, "But it's possible that he would have been able to operate the shotgun."

I replied, "Well, it's possible if you believe that a man can stand on a roof top, flap his arms and fly! But you're going to have to show me that it's actually been done, before I'll believe it!" (Please see the "The Film" link on the investigation website for further details of this very misleading interview).

Expert medical "opinions" about what's "possible" make for interesting conversation, but they don't prove a thing thing unless the expert's opinion can be backed with documented facts, experiences and examples. In fact, so-called "medical experts" are hired by prosecution and defense attorneys, every day in courtrooms around the country. And...they usually disagree!

Using similar cases as "examples," however, CAN prove whether or not something is possible. So, all I've ever asked is for someone to prove I'm wrong. Show me where it's happened before. If there are no examples or cases with heroin blood levels similar to the Cobain case, the medical evidence uncovered must be so unusual, so rare, that Cobain's alleged "suicide" would have to be called "miraculous" rather than "typical" as the Seattle authorities would lead us to believe.

What do I mean by an "example" or "similar case"?

For more than 13 years now, I've challenged doctors, nurses, paramedics, police detectives and even journalists to provide just one documented case that meets the following criteria:

1. The heroin blood level was determined AFTER the person was found dead.

2. The person had INJECTED the heroin, (or had been injected by someone else), directly into the veins of his or her arm(s). Injesting, (swallowing) any drug is totally irrelevant here due to the prolonged drug reaction time when compared to an injection directly into a vein.

3. The heroin blood level of the deceased person was found to be equal to or higher than 1.53 mgs per liter.

4. There is evidence within the documentation, regarding the circumstances surrounding the death, that establishes this person was not immediately incapacitated and would have been capable of voluntary physical activity for the time required to do what Cobain was alleged to have done.


If you examine the criteria carefully you'll see that what I'm asking for is not a complex set of circumstances at all. I don't care if the "similar case" involves a murder, a suicide, an accidental overdose or even a car accident!

There are literally hundreds of thousands of well documented cases in the U.S. and around the world where the victim was found dead and heroin was later found to be in his or her blood system. Hundreds of thousands of cases that meet the criteria of items 1 and 2!

There are also thousands of documented cases which would meet the criteria of items 1,2, AND 3! These would be deaths involving heroin blood levels equaling or even surpassing the level found in Kurt Cobain. Remember though, these people died from the heroin.

Now, out of the thousands of those deaths meeting the first three criteria, just try to find ONE that also meets criteria #4 - Evidence within the documentation that establishes this person was not immediately incapacitated. That he or she would have been capable of voluntary physical activity over the time period required to do what Cobain was alleged to have done.

Here's a very simple example:

A group of guys are sitting around watching a football game on TV. One man gets up to go to the bathroom. He comes back after a period of time, sits down on the couch, then falls over dead.

An autopsy is performed, (as usual under these circumstances), and the Medical Examiner determines the victim's heroin blood level was 1.52 mgs or higher.

Now there would be real proof that suicide may have been possible!

Show us something similar and you will have proven Kurt Cobain could have shot himself. Why? Because we have witnesses that can describe what happened. If a man can inject that much heroin, then walk into another room, sit down and fall over--he certainly would had the time and capability to have picked up a shotgun, (after the injection in the bathroom), and shoot himself.

This simple request for "proof" apparently mystifies writers and investigative journalists around the world. Not one has ever followed through! If they did and if they reported their findings, I would either look like a total fool OR this case would soon be reopened and reinvestigated by a new team of impartial investigators.

To this date, not a single "similar case" has been provided or even offered for the purpose of legitimate debate. To the contrary, every letter we've received from medical professionals or those in law enforcement has been supportive of this investigation and extremely skeptical of the "suicide" ruling based on Cobain's heroin blood levels.

"Impossible" is the word most often used.

I think I've made my point. Consider the odds? It's really just a matter of simple mathmatics. The medical evidence alone proves beyond a reasonable doubt that Kurt Cobain was murdered.


1. A fascinating interview with Courtney's old boyfriend who claims Courtney destroyed his career.

2. An evasive interview with Dylan Carlson, Kurt's best friend.

3. A pathetic interview with Courtney's biological father, Hank Harrison, who says he believes Cobain was murdered. Sadly, the "evidence" he provides during his interview falls more under the category of "genetically or socially inherited personality traits." (You'll have to see the film to understand what I'm saying here).

4. A frightfully revealing interview with one of Cobain's former nanny's who speaks about Courtney's control over Kurt and her obsession with Kurt's will in the weeks prior to his death.

5. Several interviews with me. I'll let you be the judge.


Freedom of speech is what this film was really all about. Broomfield has succeeded in exposing the cowardice and hypocrisy of Courtney Love and A.C.L.U. President Danny Goldberg. The film audience is allowed to watch as concealed cameras record Broomfield being physically removed from the stage by Goldberg himself.

What was Nick's unforgivable sin?

He criticized Courtney Love and the A.C.L.U.!

This moment in the film is hilarious, outrageous, and shocking to say the least. I mentioned the ACLU incident in a previous update when I first heard about it several months ago. I'm going to reprint it here for those who haven't read through the entire website.


Audacity and hypocrisy have been clearly defined by the recent actions of Danny Goldberg, President of the Southern California A.C.L.U. Foundation.

In addition to his position with the A.C.L.U., Goldberg is the entertainment industry executive who is married to Rosemary Carroll, Courtney Love's entertainment attorney. If you're not familiar with the "special relationship" Danny Goldberg has with Courtney Love, you may want to study the investigation material in the Cobain Case Study Manual.

I recently came across a web site containing Goldberg's bio. As we were already aware, his connections and influence within the music industry are noteworthy and go far beyond the minor details mentioned here. The bio reads in part:

"Goldberg began his career in the late 1960s as a journalist, working for the music trade publications Billboard and Record World. His byline also appeared in Rolling Stone, the Village Voice, and Circus, where he served as editor.

"In 1984 Goldberg went on to form Gold Mountain Entertainment, an artist management company that counted Bonnie Raitt, Nirvana, and the Beastie Boys among its clients. As a political activist, Goldberg chaired the American Civil Liberties Union Foundation of Southern California and now serves as its president. He is an eloquent advocate of free speech issues, especially in the arts and entertainment."


On May 21, 1997, the A.C.L.U. Foundation of Southern California held their Torch of Liberty Awards banquet. Courtney Love, of all people, was there to present director Milos Forman with a "Freedom Of Speech" award.

Following the presentation, film journalist Nick Broomfield walked to the podium and criticized the A.C.L.U. for including Courtney Love in the program.

During a recent phone conversation, I asked Broomfield what he said to the audience at the A.C.L.U. event. Here's what he told me:

"I said that I didn't mean to be a party poop, but I've had some questions about Hollywood having a problem distinguishing reality from myth or image and unless it was now considered appropriate to threaten to kill members of the press who had written unflattering articles about you, I consider it extremely poor judgment to have Courtney Love as a special guest. And I didn't get much further than that because Danny Goldberg removed me from the podium."

"Did he actually physically push you away?" I asked Broomfield.

"Yeah, he pushed me away." Broomfield responded. "He came up screaming, 'You can't talk. You weren't invited to speak,' which I thought was interesting [coming] from the President of the A.C.L.U."

The incident was also documented by reporters attending the event. The following day, Reuters news service reported:

... Soon Mercury Records chief, Danny Goldberg, grabbed him and whisked him off stage, saying: "Excuse me sir, you were not invited. You were not part of the program.''

Later, Broomfield said that he has been doing a documentary on the way in which the media has been controlled. "I am looking at the case of Courtney Love, who has been so abusive and threatening to journalists,'' he said.

Said Love's spokeswoman: "This person apparently has some sort of personal agenda. Courtney generally has a good relationship with the press."

Courtney's spokeswoman was partially right. Film journalist Nick Broomfield does have an agenda, one that I support wholeheartedly. Broomfield has interviewed me on several different occasions. While many of the issues regarding the events surrounding Cobain's death will be discussed in his upcoming documentary, Broomfield indicated the primary focus of the project is going to be Courtney Love's manipulation, suppression and control of the media.

Does Courtney Love have a good relationship with the press? Sure she does... as long as they serve her purposes, aren't too critical of her, and don't ask specific questions about the suspicious circumstances of her husband's death!

And what's Danny Goldberg afraid of here? When did the A.C.L.U. start getting physical with people who simply exercise their right to free speech?

Is Goldberg really an advocate of free speech... or a controller of approved speech? Someone needs to tell this man his fly is open.


Broomfield did not produce this film as a serious investigative documentary about a possible murder. The Seattle police were never questioned about the loopholes in their investigation. Courtney Love was never questioned about her activities during the time Kurt was missing. Michael Dewitt, the male nanny who was living at the Cobain house when Kurt was found dead, was not interviewed or even mentioned in this film. Most of the evidence was not discussed in detail or analyzed by Broomfield.

From my perspective, however, this was still a good film. Nick Broomfield's heroic effort in producing and screening his film in the face of legal threats and high powered intimidation deserves your praise. This film drills a huge hole through many of the barriers we've had to face in our attempts to inform the public.

"Kurt and Courtney" can be watched on Netflix and several other online sources.