The five words in quotations in the title of this piece were uttered by Tom Grant to Rosemary Carroll in response to Carroll asking Grant, in what appears to have been their final telephone conversation in 1994, whether Grant was secretly recording their call.
A few relevant questions and points to consider:
1) What evidence of foul play did Tom Grant possess at the time he became willing in 1994 to violate very serious and important laws criminalizing electronic eavesdropping?
2) Be mindful of the scope of Grant’s eavesdropping behavior and the calm and ease with which he was willing to trespass upon the personal boundaries and privacy interests of a significant number of individuals, including those actively trying to help him.
3) Note that Grant’s sense of entitlement with regard to his non-consensual recordings extended to his conversations with multiple law enforcement officers. Be mindful of the extreme nature of this eavesdropping conduct in particular and the elevated risk-taking required of Grant to engage in it.
4) What other forms of privacy-violating illegality and deception might Grant have been willing to engage in in 1994 if he believed he could avoid detection?
These are just a sampling of points to consider regarding the aforementioned conduct; of course there are a host of additional considerations on this subject that can be raised. Those interested in developing a fuller understanding of one of the central figures behind the Kurt Cobain murder theory may find it useful to explore the above considerations in depth.
In addition, those interested in this topic may wish to inquire as to the particular harms associated with Grant’s eavesdropping conduct. What are the harms to the individual that stem from this conduct and what are the larger public interest and safety considerations that arise? You may wish to inquire in this regard about the harms stemming from Grant’s ongoing possession and control over the recordings and how such possession and control would, for instance, serve to obstruct or deny judicial access, speech and other considerations of justice.
It should be noted in this respect that Grant is in a position with regard to his surreptitious recordings to, at his discretion, release evidence that could erroneously lend the impression of wrongdoing while withholding evidence indicative of innocence.