And lest we forget Grob’s second stack of papers, “Safe and Sound,” here is a bit more on “evidence”:

From page 263:

On the 2:20pm emergency call from Ginger, Grob writes that Ginger was calm during the call. This is a statement presented as fact, which runs counter to the account given by the person who spoke with Ginger on the phone, Nancy Rooks.

Grob then writes that he “also remembered” that “the maids had told me there were two calls made from Elvis’s room sometime after 1:00pm.” Again, a statement presented as fact that is not based on any factual account. Who were these maids? Grob didn’t know their full names, and when he finally named them in the 1979 deposition, he referred to them as “Mary and Nancy,” saying they were both on duty that day. When I checked with Mary, Nancy, and Pauline, none of these women knew anything about Grob’s investigation, book, questions, suspicions, etc., and in fact denied even talking to him about any of this. But the key point here is that Grob once again offers his readers a “fact” that is not really a fact. He does this frequently.

Grob then states that James Kirk received two calls from Ginger Alden that day. Again, stated as fact, but not fact. “Kirk’s notes say” is not evidence.

Grob then describes how he broke the law by obtaining phone record information from the phone company without a court order or a direct request in writing from the account holder. Unless Vernon Presley requested those records, Grob’s back-door access was illegal, as was the action taken by the alleged “friends” at the phone company.

This leads us to the larger question of whether any of this phone company stuff is true. The reason I ask is because there is ONE thing Dick Grob could have presented to the world…the fans…his readers…the Memphis Police Department…anyone and everyone who would have listened…that would have clearly indicated that someone made those calls at a certain time, from a certain number belonging to Elvis and running to his personal suite, and that would have logically led a fact-finder to Ginger Alden. After all, if a phone record says, to paraphrase, “On this number, this person was called at this particular time,” and there is only one person who could have logically made that call, then at least the questions pertaining to the call become valid. Person A had to have logically made these calls, so it is reasonable to continue down this evidentiary path. But in this case, what did Grob do? Apparently, he called his “friends” at the phone company and had them verbally tell him what they found, and Grob failed to obtain any actual, tangible record of these alleged calls. Again, as I said above, the ONE thing that would have provided a very solid foundation for Grob’s case was this one phone record that included these three alleged calls. But he didn’t get the record. Using Grob’s approach, then, I could say my “friends” at the phone company told me that Aunt Delta called James Kirk, then called the Alden residence to get a recipe from Mrs. Alden, then called James Kirk again. The evidentiary weight is the same.

I would respectfully ask any of Grob’s hardcore supporters how they reconcile this in their minds, given that the evidence Grob could have obtained from the phone company was not obtained, and he relied solely on a verbal report from unknown “friends.” Do you see the profound weaknesses in this “evidence”?

And if Grob did get a physical record, why isn’t it in his books?

One final note: LUDs is “Local Usage Details,” not “local usage directory system,” which Grob might have known had he actually researched this.

Let’s jump ahead and look at a few questions on this section of “Safe & Sound”:

From Page 266:

Grob: “Now I began to wonder if Ginger had known that Elvis was in need of help before she called to the people downstairs for help.”

Well, of course she knew that Elvis was in need of help before she called downstairs, that is why she called for help.

Grob: “She apparently called Kirk to alert him that something was going to happen at Graceland.”

No, this is not “apparent,” it is based only on Kirk’s after-the-fact notes. It is worth mentioning that Grob’s convenient acceptance of James Kirk as a reliable source came just as Kirk offered him dirt on Ginger and the Alden family. Prior to this, Grob spent a lot of time and energy criticizing and disparaging the National Enquirer, and “rags” (his term) in general. But as soon as Kirk came up with something Grob wanted, Kirk was suddenly a quality source. Again, very convenient. Also, by saying “apparently,” Grob is suggesting to his readers that this is a fact. It is not.

Grob: “I was told the second call, was to her mother’s house and later she called Kirk, telling him that Elvis was dead.”

Grob should remind readers that he “was told” this claim about the calls by a reporter for the National Enquirer. Also, for those keeping track of the evidence, “I was told” is not evidence.

Grob: “This was while Elvis was in the ambulance on the way to Baptist Hospital.”

Here, Grob has presented these calls as taking place while Ginger was alone in the upstairs bedroom, or at least after the commotion in the upstairs suite. But at 2:30pm, so the story goes, the ambulance had not even arrived yet, so this 2:30pm call to Kirk would have taken place as many people were in and out of the bathroom area, and while the phone was being used to make a number of calls. The idea that Ginger left the area to make this call is simply not reasonable; the idea that she made the call from the bedroom is simply not possible. Why does Grob make this statement when he knows it is not accurate?

Please note that Grob is suggesting that the ambulance had already left when this 2:30pm was allegedly placed so that a picture is painted of Ginger alone in the upstairs. This can be the only reason Grob places the ambulance en route to Baptist at 2:30pm.

Grob: “This began to make sense now, when I remembered she had taken a shower, gotten dressed and put her makeup on, before calling for help.”

Grob continually returns to this trick, where he states something, or poses a question, that presupposes facts that are not actually facts. In this example, he says he “remembers” that Ginger had taken a shower and these other activities, but nowhere do we have any evidence of these activities actually happening. We simply have Kirk’s notes and Grob’s over-stimulated imagination. He is saying he remembers something as if it’s fact, which a reader may (incorrectly) assume is a fact. It’s not.

Grob: “I wondered, did she know Elvis needed help and not take any action?”

Here we see Grob presenting this situation as if Elvis were alive and struggling for his life, and Ginger was skipping around the room while dialing James Kirk’s number, so joyful at the possible fee for an interview. Elvis had likely been dead around 5 hours by that time, so there is no question of him “needing help.” Grob is trying to paint a different picture here, and his intent is obvious.

Grob: “The thump that was heard was probably Elvis falling out of the chair onto the floor and was nothing done?”

Again (broken record alert), the maids I contacted about this “thump” had no knowledge of any such noise, and Grob lied about this noise being referenced in the police report.

This is a good time to take a look at the concept of the “fallacy of the complex question.” The “Fallacy of Complex Question” is committed “when someone asks a question that presupposes something that has not been proven or accepted by all the people involved.” In this example, Grob states that the “thump” was heard. This is stated as fact. He then states that the “thump” was probably Elvis falling from his chair onto the floor. Here, Grob is stating that a noise indicated a fall, or the possibility of a fall, and yet the fall itself is based on the “thump.” If the “thump” is not a proved/accepted fact, then the question of Elvis falling out of his chair is irrelevant, even illogical. If the “thump” were a fact, then one can speculate on the reason for the “thump,” but if this noise is unproved, then the fall has no basis.

I mention this type of logical fallacy because Grob does this a number of times, where he bases a question on something that is not a fact, and this is intended to lead the reader to accept the unproved premise as fact. In this example, Grob is actually saying, “There was a noise heard by Ginger that was probably Elvis hitting the floor but she did nothing and just left him there.” This is what he is planting in his readers’ minds.

Grob: “The autopsy did indicate that they found carpet fibers in Elvis’s nose which indicates that he was breathing for some time on the floor.”

Again, Grob is trying to lead his readers to assume as fact things that are not factual. Anyone remember this, regarding the autopsy report?

Grob did not have access to the autopsy report, by his own admission, and he never read it. So how does he know whether fibers were found in the nose? This is another attempt by Grob to let his readers believe something that isn’t factual, that the autopsy report said X, when in fact he had no idea what the autopsy report said. Don’t a lot of Grob supporters tout his exemplary regard for the truth? Hmmm.

Anyway, the phantom carpet fibers are used by Grob to lead his readers to believe, and accept as fact, that Elvis was on the floor breathing for an indeterminate amount of time, that Ginger heard him fall, and that Ginger did nothing to help him. A completely illogical thread.

Grob: “I later passed this information on to Vernon and he immediately wanted it given to the Memphis Police Department to see if charges could be filed against Ginger.”

Here, Grob is telling his readers that the only thing he could have possibly “passed on” to Vernon is Kirk’s notepad, and I cannot imagine Vernon was so jazzed about “girl at Graceland” that he wanted the information given to the police. Grob could not have been referring to the carpet fiber claim here because Grob never saw the autopsy and had no idea what was in it (this is further supported by the wording below, clearly indicating the autopsy results had not yet been determined).

Grob: “I informed Vernon that unless the autopsy produced some form of foul play as a cause of death, no charges could be filed against Ginger since the state had no law saying that a person had to render assistance to someone suffering from a physical condition. Vernon was not happy with this information.”

Grob is implying that had there been such a law, then charges against Ginger would have been filed. He is suggesting it was the lack of the law that “let her off,” not the fact that she did nothing wrong. See that? See how these tricks with semantics work? Also note that Vernon should have been discussing any legal questions with an attorney, not with a former Palm Springs cop.

Grob: “The information I had gathered was given to the police department and they agreed that no charges would be forthcoming.”

The information Grob had gathered? What would that be, a National Enquirer reporter’s notes? Was there anything else?

To close, if Grob wanted to figure out Elvis’s death, he could have taken any number of steps that it is obvious he did not take. And he could have pursued a lot of leads that would have likely resulted in positive results. But he didn’t do that, did he? And we all know why.