"last guy in the world I thought that would happen to...That's not the way that book was supposed to end. And it was not the way that book was going." - Jerry Cantrell (Alice in Chains)
This is part 2 of my blog on Chris Cornell's recent passing. It will focus on the newly released toxicology report of 6/1/17 and the post mortem report of 5/18/17 (which both seem to have been released simultaneously). Some might ask why bother dwelling on this if it will not bring back the dead? My answer to that is that there are strong indications of a media coverup regarding this event, which are detailed in my last blog. This then points to murder, and if Cornell was murdered and the mass media is covering it up, it means the murderer either controls the media or has the money to pay them off. (I'd say that deserves a bit of dwelling on, even if you're not a fan of his) Given that disturbing revelation, I'm going to spend more time scrutinizing the media here, especially TMZ, and also the methods which are being used to force a false narrative onto the public.
The only 2 sources I found who claimed to have gotten the official toxicology report released by Wayne County Medical Examiner are TMZ and CNN. However, these sources only reference the report and do not publish the entire thing. I did manage to find it, as well as the post mortem report, without too much digging around - so obviously it's been leaked to multiple media sources. As of this writing, it was still available at mlive.com, who published one of the most thorough stories I found anywhere on this subject. I don't know how reliable mlive.com is, but all other simultaneously published media stories seem to quote from these documents, so I assume they are as legitimate as we can get at the moment. We will also take a closer look at public comments supposedly made by Vicky Cornell.
TMZ's managing editor is Harvey Levin, a lawyer-turned-journalist who was previously a legal expert for the Los Angeles television station KCBS-TV. The site claims that it does not pay for stories or interviews; however, Levin has admitted that TMZ does "sometimes pay sources for leads on stories". Levin has stated that "everything is researched and vetted for accuracy."
As stated in may last blog, TMZ was the source of the "track marks" rumor. Any other media who published this story took it from TMZ. The original article was released with this headline: "Chris Cornell Fresh Track Marks on Arm." It then goes on to state that
"Chris Cornell had apparently taken more than Ativan before hanging himself, because we've learned he had fresh track marks on his arm when his body was discovered in a Detroit hotel room."
So let's just be very clear about this - TMZ has heavily suggested that Cornell shot up drugs BEFORE hanging himself based on these observed track marks. They even went the extra step to back this up with another "exclusive" story they published, which now seems fabricated specifically to enforce this false accusation:
"The new information is consistent with our story that Ted Keedick, Chris' longtime house engineer and tour manager, said Chris seemed "high" and "f***ed up" during the concert ... hours before his death."
So now they are tying their story about Ted Keedick's comments into the "track marks" story to lend credibility to it. Clearly, TMZ was at that point actively trying to encourage the perception that Chris Cornell was a druggie who was likely to commit suicide (a persona which seemed to magically appear within days following his death). After all their effort to paint Cornell as a needle junkie, they then admitted this was not true after the toxicology report appeared, albeit in VERY subtle language most people will miss or simply ignore:
"As we reported, cops observed fresh track marks on Chris' arm. According to the tox report, he had 4 needle puncture wounds on his left arm, but it appears the marks were from EMTs administering Narcan to counteract an opiate OD." - TMZ posted 6.2.2017
That last line is TMZ subtly admitting they told a half truth and exaggerated it in order to falsely make Cornell look like a suicidal junkie. And that first line is a lie, they didn't report that "cops observed fresh track marks" in the first article on this, what they actually said was "sources close to the investigation" observed the track marks. So they are even changing the wording of their source around. Perhaps some genius realized that if their "sources close to the investigation" were later found to be questionable, that might bring into question the validity of the toxicology report, which also makes references to sources close to the investigation. (and let's not forget, only TMZ and CNN claimed to have been given the Toxicology reports, which means they must have sources connected to the investigation, if we are to take them at their word) So the wording was changed to "cops" in order to avoid potentially invalidating the toxicology report inadvertently. I'm just guessing here, because otherwise it just makes no sense at all why they would so blatantly contradict themselves and then point it out to us. Even if we accept the little update about the cops - how is it multiple cops were close enough to the body to see track marks, but didn't know they were administered by the medic in an attempt to revive Cornell? If these cops were real and they were close enough to the body to see track marks, they were part of the investigation, and they knew how the marks got there. They either left that part out when they spoke to TMZ, or TMZ left that part out. There's always the real possibility that this is all bullshit too, which is probably the case. In any case, we are starting to get hints of collusion between the media and the authors of the toxicology/post mortem report.
TMZ cannot keep their OWN stories or sources straight. And yet we have major news publications telling us how "TMZ has obtained the Toxicology Report." These news sources then go on to quote TMZ. It's pretty sad that we must look to TMZ for "facts" about what happened to Chris Cornell, but that does appear to be the case when it comes to the Toxicology Report (the CNN article is completely uninformative, so I'm not bothering with it) I would advise the reader to remember that when they are reading anything on TMZ, we have just shown how questionable that information may very well be, and that they have no problem misinterpreting facts in order to guide a story into a direction not necessarily reflecting the truth. But it's what we have to go on, so let's continue here.
According to the report, obtained by TMZ, the singer had Naloxone (Narcan), Butalbital (sedative), Lorazepam (Ativan), Pseudoephedrine (decongestant) and barbiturates in his system at the time of death. It appears Chris had taken 4 (1 mg) Lorazepam tablets.
I compared this with the list on the Toxicology report I found, and it matches. You will notice that most news articles who list off this seemingly scary list of drugs, fail to inform the reader that Naloxone (Narcan)was injected into the body AFTER CORNELL WAS DEAD. (this is probably why the toxicology report is hard to find in whole, because it reveals this fact plainly) We are not told why this was done, but we assume this is standard procedure when someone is not breathing in case they had overdosed on opiates (heroine, oxycodon) which he HAD NOT. This is also where the track marks came from. The fact that virtually all news sources are leaving that information out of the story indicates 2 things.
1: that all of these media outlets are not performing their own journalism, they are merely taking a story which was handed to them and altering the wording or simply quoting it.
2: That the same narrative is being fed to all major news outlets simultaneously, omitting the same information.
The intentional omission of this fact that Cornell did not shoot himself up and that Narcan was injected post mortem clearly indicates an attempt to distort the public's view of Cornell's character in order to SUPPORT a suicide motive. Why is the media so bent on driving home this suicide motive? Sure, it's sensationalism at its ugliest, but where are the Martin Kirsten sensationalist stories? So many people think he was the murderer, why is the media completely ignoring that fact, and instead, focusing on this bogus "suicide motive?" The answer is clear - the media is actively involved in covering up the truth about Cornell's death. Plain and simple.
Butalbital is in a group of drugs called barbiturates. It relaxes muscle contractions involved in a tension headache. It is often combined with Acetaminophen and Caffeine. Acetaminophen, butalbital, and caffeine is a combination medicine used to treat tension headaches that are caused by muscle contractions. - Drugs.com
So we have traces of meds, likely OVER THE COUNTER, to treat headaches and sinus problems. Pseudoephedrine (decongestant) doesn't sound very incriminating to me. I know this drug well as I myself have allergies. The report mentions "no doz," which are basically like drinking coffee in tablet form. Speaking of which, why would he take "no doz" and then take "Ativan?" That's like drinking a coffee right before going to bed. Serious addicts don't even mess around with that, they will do huge lines of cocaine before the show, and then slam some heroine after the show. THAT'S what junkies do. Cornell was NOT a junkie, and the Toxicology Reports basically prove that. And yet somehow the media is making the opposite seem true.
Let's just call this what it is - an overly wordy list being blown WAY out of proportion to pathetically try and further solidify this false image of Cornell as a junkie. Again, the intent here is to support a SUICIDE MOTIVE. Cornell HAD NO MOTIVE to kill himself. [some seem to think he suffered from depression severe enough to have lead to suicide, which completely ignores his healthy/productive/sober appearance of the last 15 years or so as well as the implausibility and inconsistencies of the story as it was given to the public. I would remind these people that conjecture is no substitute for huge unanswered questions in the basic narrative. There's also the fact that Vicky Cornell has been quoted multiple times stating she did not believe he was suicidal. So this automatic assumption that Cornell was suicidal and depressed is just as much conjecture, if not more, than the opposing view despite what many "conspiracy debunkers" would have people believe] The only real "drugs of note" listed in the report are Ativan and Narcan, and neither contributed to Cornell's death, according to the post mortem report. The Narcan was injected into his body after he was dead, so really we are looking at 4 Ativan pills, as the only somewhat "hard" prescription drugs of note that Cornell actually took. (notice there wasn't even alcohol in his system, which is consistent with HIS OWN narrative commenting about Soundgarden making a silent decision to be sober when they reformed) His bodyguard gave him 2 of the pills, and we don't know when he took the other 2 because apparently the media doesn't think that little fact matters. (but of course it does, and they are avoiding answering that one) And yet all media outlets are presenting this list as some sort of incriminating proof that Cornell was a "Scott Weiland" or a "Curt Cobain" or a "Layne Staley." No disrespect to those other musicians, but Cornell WAS NOT AT ALL like those other individuals, and this entire campaign to push him into that category is absurd, disgusting, and beyond disrespectful. Not just to Cornell, but his friends, fans, and family as well.
Martin Kirsten. The last man to see Cornell alive, the first person to discover the body, within less than an hour of giving the singer 2 Ativan pills - still not a word from him, and the media isn't even mentioning his name anymore in news reports
The police report has not been posted for the public to view as far as I know. Obviously this report is composed of Martin Kirsten's recollections and there is only 1 version of it. Again, Kirsten has basically VANISHED into thin air since this story broke, so all we have is 2nd hand information of what happened via this police report, which nobody has seen except Detroit News and apparently the authors of the newly published toxicology and post mortem reports, as the police report is referenced from these sources. So why do these two sources contradict each other even when supposedly quoting the same police report? This raises valid questions about the legitimacy of the document they are supposedly in possession of.
"Per the investigative report and the police report, the decedent was found partially suspended by a resistance exercise band in his hotel room by his security guard on May 18, 2017." - Wayne County Medical Examiner's autopsy report
This is not what the Detroit News article said when this story first broke. They claimed to be quoting the same police report shortly after Cornell was pronounced dead, when they published the following:
“(Kirsten) again called for security but could not gain access to (the) room,” the report said. “At this time (Kirsten) kicked in (the) bedroom door and found victim laying on the bathroom floor.”
Notice the manner in which Detroit News quotes the report above, as if delivering to the public the raw, unedited version. But were these real quotes, or just a made up report? It says Kirsten found the body on the floor. Yet the autopsy report published more recently says the body was found "partially suspended" according to the police report. How can they both give information so basically contradictory to each other when supposedly using the same source? Somehow, this basic question of how the body was positioned when discovered by Kirsten is made confusing. If I told you I got drunk and passed out on the floor last night, you aren't going to ask me "wait, were you ALL THE WAY on the floor, or were you partially suspended?" No, on the floor means ON THE FLOOR. The quote above says he was LAYING. You can't LAY if you are partially suspended! This is a police report. A cop is asking the person who found the body how he found it. You don't get vague when it comes to a death scene, let's be realistic here. Cornell's body could not have been both "on the floor" and also "partially suspended" at the same time, so at least one of these stories is lying about what the police report says (or they've been given a fake version of it.) Detroit News were one of the first to break this story and many other news reports were based upon theirs. Therefore, this brings into question the reliability of ANY information the media initially published regarding this event, since it is was all largely copying and pasting the obviously unreliable original Detroit News article. One would then hope that the medical examiner's account would be more reliable, but a quick examination reveals that it is actually LESS plausible than the Detroit New's version!
Hmm...not seeing where a carabiner clip needed "releasing" by Martin Kirsten when he entered that bathroom door. We can however see how Cornell clearly didn't need the clip at all, he coulda rigged the exercise band just like this. I don't recall seeing "overly ambitious sense of ingenuity" as one of the side effects of Ativan...
If Kirsten busted open the bedroom door and saw Cornell's body AT ALL, suspended or on the floor, the bathroom door must ALREADY have been open. The clip Cornell supposedly used to fasten the elastic band was held into place by the top of the CLOSED door and the door frame. Once the door was open, there was nothing to support this clip anymore (as you can see in the above picture). Therefore, if Martin Kirsten was able to view the body, the door would already have been open and the body would be all the way on the floor, with no wedge to hold the clip into place. We are never told how the door got open, yet we keep hearing over and over about these amazing feats of superhuman door kicking ability Martin Kirsten had, as he heroically kicks down 2 doors locked from the inside at a high end hotel without any witnesses or any security showing up (even though he called them twice asking to gain entry into the room after hours) before he actually gets to the bedroom, where he then sees Cornell on the floor. I mean, partially suspended. By an exercise band connected to a clip with no support. Why do we even need to bother with ANY "conspiracy theories" when this very basic hole in the plot exists right out in the open and nobody will address it? This is some of what makes me really wonder about the sanity of our entire American society these days! Do people just really NOT want to believe this was murder to the point they can't even address illogical explanations which are right in front of them? Forget Vicky Cornell and her possible motives for a moment, what about THIS???
LOOSENING VS UNTYING
The security guard released the resistance exercise band from the top of the door, loosened the end of the resistance exercise band around the decedent’s neck, and began resuscitative efforts. Despite resuscitation, the decedent was pronounced dead at the scene on May 18, 2017 - post mortem report published on mlive.com
Many people have asked why Martin Kirsten did not untie the band from Cornell's neck and immediately attempt CPR when he discovered the body. The reason people were asking this is because NONE of the reports previous to the release of the toxicology reports mentioned ANYTHING about Kirsten untying or even loosening the strap around Cornell's neck.
"MGM medic Dawn Jones arrived at the room at 12:56 a.m., the report said. “Jones untied the red exercise band from (the) victim’s neck and began CPR on (Cornell, who) was not breathing.”
The Detroit News quote above, which was published 5/19/17 clearly states that Dawn Jones, MGM medic, untied the band and performed CPR. There is nothing in that article stating Kirsten loosened or untied the band or administered CPR before this. But even if he did, why would Dawn Jones then need to "untie it?" That kind of means it's not loose, it's TIED. If your shoe laces are "all loose," your friends are gonna say, "hey buddy, might wanna tie those up." We should not have to sit here and figure out what the difference is between "loosening" and "untying" or "on the floor" vs "partially suspended." Sounds like they are trying to "tie up" loose ends here because they goofed on the narrative the first time around...The report also says that Mr security guard "released the resistance exercise band from the top of the door." Well we already know that is bullshit because the door was open, so what was keeping the carabiner wedged to the top of the door at that point, the force? What's really disturbing about this is it's starting to seem like the Toxicology/Post Mortem reports are in collusion with the false media narrative. Is ANY of this true? Before we ask "why would anyone want to kill Cornell" we might want to start by answering the more basic questions, of which there are many!
This section of the blog was added more recently because it is directly applicable to what was just said above (note: the above was posted well before the following photos were released to the public). Detroit News posted these images online July 11th and they are claiming these are from the room where Cornell committed suicide. Now everyone assumes these are authentic pictures from the death scene - but I would not be surprised if you took a close look at the wording in that page and found it doesn't say that EXACTLY. But I leave that to the reader to follow up on if you wish to, but for now I just want to focus on these pictures here.
The top picture shows the alleged caribiner clip which was jammed in between the top of the CLOSED door and the frame which held the entire weight of Cornell's body while he hung. Notice it has not a scratch on it, it looks like someone just bought it from a store and hasn't used it for anything, and it certainly doesn't look like it was ever jammed into the top of a closed door. Also, keep in mind that this would be how the clip looked when Kirsten discovered the body, as the door was open (how else could Kirsten have seen the body in the bathroom when he entered the bedroom?) Again this illustrates the point I keep making above - this clip is simply sitting there on the top of a door. How are we to believe this clip supported Cornell's body so that it could be "partially suspended" as stated in the post mortem report? It's not physically possible, the only reason it is even staying put in the picture is because someone carefully placed it there and there is obviously no weight pulling down other than the weight of the handles on either side. A slight yank on either side and the thing would fall right down. So obviously the idea that an entire body could be even partially supported by this thing in this state is ridiculous. The original story stated Cornell was found on the floor. This made more sense, but still doesn't explain how the bathroom door was open when Kirsten arrived.
Second picture shows the clip fastened around the band. Notice it does not look like it was ever tied (no, that tricky little way they have the handle curling around the band is NOT tied, nor could it ever be tied that way, but nice try guys. So now we have to ask, why did a medic need to "untie" it if it wasn't ever tied? Oops, little hole in the plot there) We can plainly see this band did not even require tying to function as a noose, as Cornell could have put his head right into that and his own weight pulling down would have been sufficient to tighten it (assuming he lifted his legs since he was too tall to hang at that height). And there would be no logical reason to attempt to tie the other end. There's no conspiracy theory here, just a lot of info which makes no sense and for some reason people are buying it.
Last picture looks like a half assed attempt to replicate what I just suggested above without contradicting previous stories. Is that guy's hand supposed to be where Cornell's neck was? Because unless Cornell shrunk to about half the size, I don't see how he managed to hang from that high in the air, being that he'd have to lift his legs at that height in order to hang. They aren't showing the other side of the door if you notice, but one can imagine the other end of the band indeed has the handle looped over the other side, as I suggested would be enough to hold the thing in place, and probably the way someone would do it if they went with their first instinct. So where the hell would Cornell get the idea that he needed to jam the carabiner clip by forcing the door shut on it at that point? The only real reason I can see from the picture for jamming the clip would be to make the band shorter, but even at this shorter length it's nowhere near short enough to allow a man of Cornell's height to hang. Notice they are doing their best in the photo to make the door look as TALL as possible. The man's hand reaches upwards, making it look like the thing is hanging way high in the air. This is being done because the people who made this photo know very well Cornell was too tall the hang from that height. I don't believe any of these pictures are real, I think this entire session was staged. I think these people realized the "carabiner" detail was a bad idea and now we are seeing their clumsy attempts to make it look plausible and it's failing because IT ISN'T PLAUSIBLE.
If you take a look at the above pictures, you may recognize the first one as the one I used in part 1 of this blog as an example of what the door must have looked like after Mr Kirsten kicked it in. I did this to give visual representation of how physically violent and difficult the kicking in of a door which is locked from the inside can theoretically be. We are told he kicked in 2 of these, and in a seemingly very short period of time. Now I am no expert on how doors are kicked down or how it is SUPPOSED to look, but I'd say the first picture is pretty hard to dispute as a "genuinely broken in door." Now guess which door the 2nd photo is supposed to be? This is supposed to be a door Martin Kirsten kicked in to check on Cornell the night he died. If we give the 2nd photo the benefit of the doubt and assume Martin is just very skilled and can cleanly kick a door open, we still have some problems. None of the hardware which holds the door shut appears to be damaged in any way! The metal housing which lays flat against the side of the door looks slightly bent, but the wall housing seems to be completely in tact, at least from the angle shown in the picture. If the police really wanted to illustrate that the door was truthfully kicked in, they might have chosen a different angle which would show some kind of convincing damage. But I simply ask the reader, how did this door manage to open without any of that hardware being damaged if it was FORCED INWARD, meaning it would have to pass through the metal housing screwed into the side of the door frame? Look again at the first picture. That's what happens to a wall and a door when blunt metal objects are forced in a direction they are designed to resist against while they are bolted into the side wall/side of the door. That wall should be torn open or at least damaged to the point where we can see where metal hardware forced itself through the wall. This photo makes it look like the metal hardware simply passed right through the wall as if it became invisible for a split second! If someone showed me this photo and didn't tell me what to look for or what it was, I'd probably assume it was just a slightly funky door at an office or hotel - but it certainly doesn't look like it was kicked in. In fact, it looks like it probably still functions normally!
WOULD THEY LIE TO US?
In my previous blog about the 2015 La Bataclan shooting I provide an example where FOX news was brought to court for distorting the truth about a growth hormone rBGH in Milk (Akre\Wilson vs FOX Television.) The court basically ruled that it isn't illegal for FOX news to lie, nor does the FCC seem to regulate these things. Therefore, it's probably not even illegal for the media to lie to us about Cornell's death. Cigarettes companies lied to the public for years about the health hazards of cigarette use. It took a whistle blower and a tremendous amount of effort to force these companies to include health hazard information on their labels (Philip Morris USA Inc. v. Williams.) The NFL has gone to great lengths to sensor alarming numbers of concussion/head trauma cases (see "Concussion" film starring Will Smith). If the history of media coverup, lies, and distortions of this scale have existed in the recent past, the Chris Cornell case would seem like a very small matter. But collusion between media sources to coverup details hints at a much larger story than anyone seems to want to consider. If Cornell killed himself, why would the media need to cover ANYTHING up? Why the nonsense details and distortion? Why the silence from his band mates? Why no on camera interviews from Vicky, the band, Kirsten, or Cornell's parents/siblings? What the hell did Cornell get himself into that such a massive coverup is being perpetuated?
We're told Chris' wife, Vicky, became concerned when she couldn't reach the Soundgarden frontman after his show, and police discovered his body on the bathroom floor. TMZ 5/18/2017 10:50 AM PDT
I'm sure everyone reading this views comments sections below news stories, youtube videos, or within forums they frequent. We read these to be entertained, to watch people go at it, to gather more information that others might bring to the table, or just to vent ourselves. Now if we think that the news media and those who finance them are NOT also reading these comments sections, we are likely mistaken (I'm sure everyone reading this has seen a TWEET or a FACEBOOK POST featured as a news story, so there you go). Why would these people pass up on an opportunity to enter into our intimate conversations and thoughts in order to gather information which could be used to sell us products, gauge our beliefs regarding current events, or even just to push us into a certain direction? Focus groups pay individuals to give their thoughts on a product or a topic. Anyone who uses Yelp.com knows very well that business owners read yelp reviews, and even respond to reviewers sometimes. So yes, what you post online, and on Facebook, can and will be used to sell you stuff and to influence your thinking.
Most of us have, at one time or another, noticed an individual or a group of individuals who come onto a comments section and proceed to bash ANYONE with a viewpoint outside the mainstream narrative - or just lean heavily in one direction, usually in favor of the popular media narrative. Sometimes these individuals do not appear to even be real and will have grammatical errors all over the place and sentences which may not even make grammatical sense. We already know advertising bots are being sent into email spam folders and comments sections of news stories. You may have seen the "I make XXX amount of money working from home!" type posts, which don't even seem connected to the conversation on any level. I made a single comment on a youtube video just after Cornell died and within 24 hours I had over 100 negative responses, all using what seemed to be a pre programmed algorithm of flame responses. Within another 24 hours they all simply stopped, as if shut down by a switch. I have not gotten another comment since on that post. It was as if a swarm of robot hornets came along, stung me a bunch of times, and simply moved on. Just why and who would invest any time/money creating/deploying these bots to cyber assassinate people who are questioning the popular media narrative with regard to Cornell's death? Who wants Cornell's death details censored so badly? These bots don't come from nowhere, they are programed and sent out to complete a specific task. Someone had to make that happen. Who is it?
If say, 55% of people commenting on news stories concerning Cornell's death are saying things like "another rock star junkie bites the dust," that still leaves 45% who are either on the fence or not convinced. Bots (or hornets) can be triggered by phrases, such as "murder" or "conspiracy" and then swarm in to make it appear like these people's opinions are WAY outside the norm. This has the effect of discouraging others to speak up, and encourages those on the fence to "join the pack" and accept the suicide narrative. It can also simply degenerate an otherwise educational conversation into a manufactured flame war, destroying any further civil conversation on the matter. (this is the same technology used to advertise/sell products to people based on trigger words they make online, on the phone, or in text messages - ever talk about a product/hygene issue and then find a spam email in your inbox advertising that very product type?) Meanwhile, news stories are generated using information gathered in these forums, in order to guide public perception into a certain direction. This is where Vicky Cornell's impeccably timed and impeccably worded quotes seem to come from, and this is why the updated versions don't always seem to make sense with previous versions. The news we are getting is literally being updated in "real time" by a combination of reality, our observed opinions, and the direction the media wants our attention to go. In other words, this isn't news - it's highly advanced propaganda. This is the basis for my theory (and yes, I will admit it is a theory) that the public comments being attributed to Vicky Cornell may not even be coming from her at all. The fact she will not appear in front of a camera is one hint of this. This is especially obvious when we look at the wildly different versions/personalities behind her original story...
Vicky was still on the phone with the bodyguard when he was able to knock down the second door and saw Chris' body hanging from an exercise band. -TMZ 5/29/17
Cornell's wife called a family friend Wednesday night and asked him to check on the singer's well-being. When the friend forced opened the hotel room door, he found the SOUNGARDEN frontman on the bathroom floor. - Blabbermouth, referencing TMZ 5/18/17
VICKY KARAYIANNIS CORNELL
Some people seem to think Vicky Cornell may have had something to due with Chris' death. I think Chris loved her and I am not convinced she is the evil woman some think she is. But I am also not convinced she is the person we keep seeing quoted in the press.
He then started to complain, "I blew my voice. I blew my voice." He kept repeating it. And then he changed the subject to something that made no sense. Vicky says she knew something was seriously wrong and said to Chris, "I need to know what you took tonight. You don't sound right, sweetheart." He replied, "I was really angry and I just took 2 Ativan. I'm really pissed and I had to calm myself down." Vicky replied, "I need to know what you took. It doesn't sound like 2 Ativan. It sounds like you took something else. You need to tell me now what you took. I forgive you." Vicky says at that point Chris' entire demeanor changed. He got aggressive -- not toward her -- but his tone was "cocky and aggressive." She says she immediately had a flashback to 14 years before, when Chris was abusing Oxycontin ... when it got so bad at one point he nearly died. Chris then changed the subject and made no sense at all. Vicky panicked, hung up and called Chris' bodyguard, begging him to race over to his room and get inside, and she said if he had to knock the door down then so be it. She had never had someone check on him in 14 years, but she was afraid he would die. She says the bodyguard knocked down the front door but couldn't knock down the second, so she used a second phone to call the hotel and plead with them to open the interior door. She was screaming, "He's having a heart attack." - TMZ 5/26/17
In this article we don't get the impression that Chris had just seen his bodyguard or that he was GIVEN any pills by him. He even says he took (meaning, GOT IT HIMSELF, not from someone else) the Ativan "to calm myself down," that kind of indicates he was the one in charge of medicating himself. He says "I'm really pissed" then suddenly "becomes aggressive" when Vicky presses him on what he took. What does that mean exactly? If you are "really pissed" isn't that kind of the same as being "aggressive?" So how is it his demeanor totally changed? This doesn't make sense. Also in this story Vicky calls Martin Kirsten and STAYS ON THE PHONE WITH HIM while he kicks doors down. This is why she needs a "second phone" to call the hotel, who apparently didn't think this warranted showing up to the room.
When we spoke after the show, I noticed he was slurring his words; he was different. When he told me he may have taken an extra Ativan or two, I contacted security and asked that they check on him. What happened is inexplicable and I am hopeful that further medical reports will provide additional details. I know that he loved our children and he would not hurt them by intentionally taking his own life."
First, the tone of this second story is of a much more calm and collected Vicky Cornell. The story is also practically re-written. In this quote, Cornell is no longer "aggressive" and "angry," but "slurring his words." Well, which one was it Vicky? Because if I were to believe both, I'm having a hard time picturing Cornell being aggressive, angry, and slurring his words simultaneously. Cornell now says he MAY have took an extra ativan or 2, whereas in the first story he flatly states he had to take a couple to calm down. Again, 4 were found in his system according to the post mortem report, but we never hear where the extra 2 came from. She is no longer panicking and screaming "he's having a heart attack." She is no longer on the phone with Martin Kirsten as he bashes doors down. She is no longer calling the hotel with her other phone as she stays on the line with Kirsten. She also isn't referring to Kirsten anymore, she's calling him "security." That could mean she called the hotel or that could mean she called Kirsten - it's ambiguous. As we mentioned earlier, the Post Mortem report also refers to Kirsten as a "security guard." It seems the authors of this false story were having problems deciding if they were going to have Martin discover the body, Hotel security, or the police. I guess they tried to keep it abiguous so they could leave room to update the narrative later. "Security" could refer to any one of the 3 in a pinch - this would explain why that term is used so loosely in many cases. This was a badly scripted event, it's kind of amazing anyone is accepting it.
To My Sweet Christopher, You were the best father, husband and son-in-law. Your patience, empathy and love always showed through. You had always said I saved you, that you wouldn't be alive if it were not for me. My heart gleamed to see you happy, living and motivated. Excited for life. Doing everything you could to give back. We had the time of our lives in the last decade and I'm sorry, my sweet love, that I did not see what happened to you that night. I'm sorry you were alone, and I know that was not you, my sweet Christopher. Your children know that too, so you can rest in peace. I’m broken, but I will stand up for you and I will take care of our beautiful babies. I will think of you every minute of every day and I will fight for you. You were right when you said we are soulmates. It has been said that paths that have crossed will cross again, and I know that you will come find me, and I will be here waiting. I love you more than anyone has ever loved anyone in the history of loving and more than anyone ever will. Always and forever, Your Vicky -billboard.com
First of all, this woman lost her husband to suicide less than a month ago. What on earth made her want to write an open letter to the public addressed to him? "I love you more than anyone has ever loved anyone in the history of loving?" Why does this sound like the end of the Wizard of OZ when Dorothy is hugging everyone and going "I'm going to miss you the most Scarecrow!" It seriously sounds like some sort of Disney movie ending scene quote. It's like she's saying farewell to her husband for good and closing the book. It's as if she's suggesting the film is over and we should go home. No, I'm not going home and this film is not over. Say it in front of a camera Vicky. Let's see your eyes while you say this. And bring along your "family friend" Martin Kirsten. Let's see his face while you say these things. Then MAYBE I will believe this. Until then, these are words written by anyone.
“Many of us who know Chris well, noticed that he wasn’t himself during his final hours and that something was very off,” “We have learned from this report that several substances were found in his system. After so many years of sobriety, this moment of terrible judgement seems to have completely impaired and altered his state of mind. Something clearly went terribly wrong and my children and I are heartbroken and are devastated that this moment can never be taken back.”
“We very much appreciate all of the love we have received during this extremely difficult time and are dedicated to helping others in preventing this type of tragedy.”
Who exactly noticed that Chris "wasn't himself" during his final hours? Would it be that Ted Keedick guy who TMZ paid to say Cornell was "fucked up" during his last performance? Would it be his "family friend" and "bodyguard" and "security guard" Martin Kirsten, who gave him 2 Ativan after the show even though everyone seems to think Cornell was just WAY off his rocker when performing that night? When did he take the other 2 pills Vicky? I thought Martin was holding his prescription? Indeed, "several substances" were found in the singer's system alright. Yeah, that sinus headache medication can be quite serious! And that Narcan - boy that will bring a corpse right back to life out of an opiate induced stupor! It's difficult not to get angry when reading comments like these, which seem almost condescending to the reader who is actually taking the information at face value and weighing the plausibility of it. But sadly, it really doesn't seem many people are doing this. Because if they were, this blog would not even need to have been made!
WE JUST CAN'T KNOW WHAT GOES ON IN THE MIND OF THE DEPRESSED
Chris Cornell showed no signs of being suicidal, therefore this idea that he may have been secretly tormented is conjecture. Even his wife's quotes, which I admit are questionable, have consistently maintained that Cornell was not suicidal. In fact this point is one of the few she has NOT contradicted herself on. But could he have hid this from even his wife? Well sure, it could be. But it's still conjecture. Why is conjecture allowed when it favors suicide, but conjecture is NOT allowed when it favors murder? Even people who think Cornell killed himself will admit this entire story has felt odd from the start. And yet these same people refuse to answer the many basic questions or respond to very obvious inconsistencies in the narrative. As we can see, if we are bothering to read any of this, the "conjecture" favoring murder is actually STRONGER than the conjecture favoring suicide. So next time you see an article about this story and you see a "suicide prevention" phone number at the bottom - just remember, that number isn't there just to help suicide victims. What do I mean?
In sales we call this being "assumptive." It means you don't say, "so do you believe me that Joey died drowning when we went to the river?" Instead you say, "Yeah so it really sucks that Joey died when we went to the river, we'll never forget him. Let's start an organization to help kids learn to swim" The latter statement ASSUMES you believe it, without asking. By placing "suicide prevention" notices on every Cornell story, this subtly suggests to you that Cornell's suicide is already an ESTABLISHED FACT, even though it has not been proven (Unless you call a load of contradictory/incomplete/unverified information or conjecture "proof" that is) So even though many people may have their heart in the right place, ultimately anyone who goes on this "suicide awareness" trip is not only exposing the fact that they haven't done any in depth research regarding the story, it also helps hinder the progress of those who HAVE and are trying to inform people. This is a very important point and I hope people understand that I am not condemning "suicide prevention" awareness. But these people HAVE TO DO THE RESEARCH before assuming all of that, and clearly many have not. Because anyone who does this will see there is, at BEST, ambiguity regarding Cornell's death. You wouldn't put an AIDS PREVENTION ad on a story about Greg Allman, because he didn't die from AIDS. There's nothing wrong with raising awareness about AIDS prevention, but there is a time and place where it is appropriate, and you don't go posting it where it isn't appropriate. And you especially don't use such an occasion to encourage people to think someone died in a manner which has not been absolutely proven.
SO WHO KILLED HIM THEN?
I will state flatly right now that I do not know who killed Chris Cornell. But as I stated earlier, a media coverup indicates that this was organized by someone very powerful. We've already seen that the media has no problem sensationalizing a story, misrepresenting facts, changing their story, mixing up their sources, etc...but all the while consistently promoting the "suicide motive." So while this all may seem like pathetic bumbling attempts to sensationalize a story, it's not as harmless as that. By totally leaving Martin Kirsten alone, the media is protecting him. The media is not covering the opinions of Cornell's band mates, his ex wife, or his parents (are they even alive still?) The media doesn't leave an obviously hot topic alone to protect people, unless they are paid to or blocked from the top - Martin Kirsten is a hot topic they are just not touching. Again, I don't know who killed Cornell, but this guy needs to talk, on camera. And we need to know who the hell he is exactly. Bottom line.
As most reading this know, the Cornells had a non profit organization to help endangered children. This is an area of Cornell's life I was not aware of until very recently. Some have suggested that one possible reason he was murdered had something to do with this work he was doing. I'm not going to comment on it because the information seems unverifiable and the sources seem questionable at this point. But I thought that was a good bit to end this blog on. I hope this was informative and I thank you for reading it.