MovieChat Forums > Soaked in Bleach (2015) Discussion > Edited interviews - this film is a sham

Edited interviews - this film is a sham


Three of the experts featured in Soaked in Bleach have come out to complain about how their interviews were edited to fit into the murder theory. See here:

http://knowsnotwhatitmeans.blogspot.co.uk/2016/06/aftermath-soakedinbleach.html

And now one of Kurt's friends, Ryan Aigner has also come out to say that Benjamin Statler didn't do his homework (not surprising).

I'm blocked on FB and Twitter so I can't ask Grant or Statler about these claims. Would love to know what Statler thinks though!

reply

OMG everybody should know about this! no wait, better be silent to keep everything under wraps, we don't want people to know about this 'controversy', right?
it's not enough to discredit the whole film anyway. compared to what Michael Moore or other documentarists usually do, it's just trivial stuff.

reply

Well strictly speaking this isn't a documentary so I guess they can use that old excuse (plus the 'this is fiction' disclaimer at the end of the film lets them off the hook with a LOT).

Sadly it's not the only thing that they lied about though. It's just sad that people are watching it and taking everything at face value. Just off the top of my head (it's been a while since I watched it) here are other inaccuracies:

- using Kurt's old friends to illustrate that he wasn't depressed. Not only is it hard for anyone to tell if an individual is having mental health problems interviewing old friends who were not around him towards the last few years of his life would be as much use as a chocolate teapot. Even Ryan Aigner has made this point in interviews and has stated that the makers "didn't do their homework".

- The MTV interview where Kurt claims his stomach problems had gone because he had medication that worked insinuates that he no longer had a need for heroin when in fact Kurt's dealer Tom Hansen stated years previously that he sold heroin to Kurt right before the gig the interview was filmed at. He was still in the midst of a heroin addiction and was until the day he died.

- Grant's claims that Courtney told him Kurt only stays at the best hotels. According to the book 'Love & Death' she also told him he stayed at The Marco Polo, a scuzzy hotel he used to stay in when he was shooting up.

- They showed Courtney frantically trying to phone Kurt at Exodus and not managing to get through while showing Kurt serenely making plans to escape, seemingly not bothering to get in touch with her (because, you know, the divorce) when Grant's book states that Kurt DID try to contact Courtney and left her a message.

- The scene at the Lake Washington house where Grant tries to interview Dylan but apparently Courtney had forced him to shoot up. Courtney is shown sitting across from them listening to them and looking nervous. However, in 'Love & Death' Grant claims that he made sure Courtney was out of earshot. Besides, wasn't Grant able to go and see Dylan on his own? He knew where he lived!

- They were at great pains to show how hard the rain was that day when historical weather records of that day show that there was only 'light rain' at that time. This is important as this is the excuse Grant has always given for not noticing the room above the garage (let's ignore the fact that according to his book he DID have good enough eyesight to notice 4 flat tyres on the car IN the garage).

https://www.wunderground.com/history/airport/KSEA/1994/4/7/DailyHistory.html?&reqdb.zip&reqdb.magic&reqdb.wmo

- The claims the gun was melted down (it wasn't). The insinuation that Courtney had torn down the greenhouse to get rid of evidence when it wasn't torn down until 2 years after his death. Is it so unusual that family would not want it to remain after all that had happened? There is also talk that Courtney was involved in a dispute with the city of Seattle about land ownership which meant part of the land on her property had to be 'given back' to Seattle city.

- The heroin amount has been debated to death on here. There is no way for any of us to claim that Kurt was 'immediately incapacitated' as Grant claims.

- The expert opinions. See first post. All we have is Wecht who is a talking head for hire and weirdly gets himself involved in several high profile deaths.

I'm sure there is more that I can't recall off the top of my head everything that was wrong with that film.

The fact that people believe a person who trusts the words of Alex Jones and David Icke, who shares meme's as facts without checking the accuracy and who did the absolute minimal research when making a film is terrifying. He is part of the problem he is so vehemently against.


reply

- not much worse than believing Courtney at face value.

- the main point is that he was not suicidal because of cronic stomach pain as someone suggested.

- she said one thing, then she changed version, nothing surprising.
anyways the Marco Polo has a 7/10 rating on kayak, not exactly scuzzy. maybe Courtney at the time tought 7/10 or 3/5 stars was top of the line. she's a punkrocker at heart, right?
https://www.kayak.com/Seattle-Hotels-Marco-Polo-Motel.384573.ksp

- he didn't answered directly to her calls as it's stated in the movie.

- a marginal difference of setting between the book and the movie is not gonna invalidate anything.

- the film shows an average rainfall, it's nothing strange that a moderate rain can mildly intensify for a few moments. the hard rain you're talking about is that one on the backdrop of the interview set.

- that claim was based on what Courtney told him.

- you can't be 100% sure of the contrary either.

reply

Man, they've really got you.

reply

He refused to accept her calls but when he left rehab he left a message for her at the hotel that simply gave her another woman's phone number, that must have pissed her off something wicked. But I do agree that it's silly to mention she had the green house torn down when that happened in 1997.

reply

[deleted]

It was torn down in 1996 not 1997.

Here is a discussion about the greenhouse including a link to a newspaper article about the Friends of Viretta Park dispute.

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/alt.music.nirvana/gvRCJbu5ZqM

more info here too:

http://caselaw.findlaw.com/wa-court-of-appeals/1213819.html

Keep sleeping mimi.

reply

[deleted]

I honestly can't tell if you're being purposely ignorant or if you simply don't understand.

reply

[deleted]

You stated the dispute was BS when it clearly wasn't. She may have claimed that she tore the greenhouse down to stop gawkers but there does also seem to a need to appease the official bodies. She apparently already gave them back a portion already.

However, her tearing down the greenhouse to hide evidence of a murder as Statler and Grant suggest IS *beep*

reply

And I'm glad that I'm boring you so much that you're STILL replying to me. I'm pretty sure if I took a swatch at your history it would probably be just replies to me, lol.

reply

[deleted]

[deleted]

Then why are you here?

reply

[deleted]

Excuse me but that random blog post by Sylvia K doesn't even have a source or quote to even back up its premise. Geberth's comments were not edited out of context. His comments speak were directed towards the mishandling of the crime scene and he was right. That post proves nothing and nothing to get excited about.

reply

She spoke to him directly. He posted the blog on his Facebook page.

reply

Oh hush up, fool!

reply