Jeff Loeffelholz suicide news coverage- Page 11

[Miles2Go2]

Posted: 7/28/18 at 3:57pm

^Agreed

[haterobics]

Posted: 7/28/18 at 4:09pm

Since I didn't see anyone link to said NYT piece: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/28/theater/chicago-musical-actor-suicide-broadway.html

[SomethingPeculiar]

Posted: 7/28/18 at 6:42pm

The bit about Jeff meeting with Equity is also new, right? I think it had been reported that he told someone at Equity about the rehearsal, but not that he went and met with them.

This is also the most we've heard from members of the current Chicago cast/orchestra (aside from social media posts) and the production itself (though filtered through the production publicist).

I'm glad Paulson took his time with the piece instead of rushing just for the sake of publication. He seems to be a writer of great integrity.

[bk]

Posted: 7/28/18 at 7:43pm

So now we at least know there were clearly other things at play here and that they were exacerbated at Chicago.  Because nowhere prior to this did anyone mention that significant bits about the chocolate shop, that his partner was let go from there, that he resigned, that I believe they had some sort of financial interest in it, and that there is a lawsuit going on.  So, it was probably a lot of stuff all piling on at once.  

Re the buyout, it may not seem like a lot of money, but the production, if the AEA minimum salary is really $106,000 a year, had paid him a rather significant amount of money over a significant number of years.  I'm guessing no one will ever know the totality of this but I'm glad the Times article at least mentions that which has heretofore been avoided.

[BirdsTheWord]

Posted: 7/28/18 at 8:30pm

I have been following this story due to my close affiliation with several musician peers who frequently sub in the orchestra of CHICAGO.  Although I have never worked directly with Leslie as a musician, I have heard so many random stories from peers of her unprofessional and mean spirited behavior during performances, rehearsals and put ins. This is no surprise to the musician community but in this instance it seems it may have gone too far.

Today, I was having a casual conversation with a musician friend and was informed Leslie was scheduled to return to the show on Thursday after a brief vacation or sabbatical.  Shocked and confused, I asked how the cast and crew felt concerning her return to the podium.  "The Company is freaking out and feels her return is not in the cast's best interest."  Seriously CHICAGO?  This company has been through so much recently and is still trying to wrap their heads around Jeff's death and the allegations that followed.  Having her return to the show is a smack in the face and a disrespect to the people who are the sole reason the show is such a success.  It's not always about making a buck...it's about doing the right thing! 

[BKLYN8567]

Posted: 7/28/18 at 9:36pm

BirdsTheWord said: "I have been following this story due to my close affiliation with several musician peers who frequently sub in the orchestra of CHICAGO. Although I have never worked directly with Leslie as a musician, I have heard so many random stories from peers of her unprofessional and mean spirited behavior during performances, rehearsals and put ins. This is no surprise to the musician community but in this instance it seems it may have gone too far.

Today, I was having a casual conversation with a musician friend and was informed Leslie was scheduled to return to the show on Thursday after a brief vacation or sabbatical. Shocked and confused, I asked how the cast and crew felt concerning her return to the podium. "The Company is freaking out and feels her return is not in the cast's best interest." Seriously CHICAGO? This company has been through so much recently and is still trying to wrap their heads around Jeff's death and the allegations that followed. Having her return to the show is a smack in the face and a disrespect to the people who are the sole reason the show is such a success. It's not always about making a buck...it's about doing the right thing!"

 

Is it possible that prelim investigation has cleared Stifleman? There's been more comments from the cast (and others involved with Chicago, both named and unnamed) about her than Bobbie, but the notes from Jeff were mostly about Bobbie. The first several blog posts painted him in worse fashion (i think the only mention of Leslie was the "you always sing that part wrong" and singing the wrote note or lyrics, can't recall), whereas Bobbie's got the more damaging quotes with the money and "doing whats best for production"

Still not a good look for the show though, especially with the number of comments that's come out since about Stifleman
 

Updated On: 7/28/18 at 09:36 PM

[FJL2]

Posted: 7/28/18 at 11:15pm

I'm not so sure the other factors like the chocolate shop cut in favor of the "Chicago" company.

Are we to believe the people at "Chicago" knew nothing about his partner having lost his income, and lots of all these factors mentioned?  Even if not that:  Are we to believe that no one in management knew they were taking away his and his partner's only source of income, whether they knew about the chocolate shop or not?

If they had just fired him, he'd get his 30,000+ buyout plus his months of unemployment insurance at least.  What they were trying to do instead was shame him into  quitting voluntarily - which of course meant not getting the 30,000+ buyout, and obviously no unemployment insurance because (in NY) you don't get that if you quit - nothing!   If he quit:  No cushion at all to ease him back, while finding new opportunities.  

If you don't have any money saved or are in debt, that $50,000 or so can be the difference between having a place to live while you regroup vs. not having one.  (If the $106,000 a year were the only money for the couple, while that number sounds like a lot, that could mean they had no savings to fall back on.  If you're an employee, a lot of income taxes are taken out of that before you get your paycheck.

 

 

  

 

Updated On: 7/28/18 at 11:15 PM

[The Distinctive Baritone]

Posted: 7/28/18 at 11:45pm

Leslie Stiffelman is 58...she is probably able retire early due to her success...might be a good idea.

[Tag]

Posted: 7/29/18 at 12:12am

I'm not so sure the other factors like the chocolate shop cut in favor of the "Chicago" company.

Are we to believe the people at "Chicago" knew nothing about his partner having lost his income, and lots of all these factors mentioned?  Even if not that:  Are we to believe that no one in management knew they were taking away his and his partner's only source of income, whether they knew about the chocolate shop or not?

If they had just fired him, he'd get his 30,000+ buyout plus his months of unemployment insurance at least.  What they were trying to do instead was shame him into  quitting voluntarily - which of course meant not getting the 30,000+ buyout, and obviously no unemployment insurance because (in NY) you don't get that if you quit - nothing!   If he quit:  No cushion at all to ease him back, while finding new opportunities.  

If you don't have any money saved or are in debt, that $50,000 or so can be the difference between having a place to live while you regroup vs. not having one.  (If the $106,000 a year were the only money for the couple, while that number sounds like a lot, that could mean they had no savings to fall back on.  If you're an employee, a lot of income taxes are taken out of that before you get your paycheck.

I hate to agree with Chicago on this one, but his financial situation (and his husband's) - if there was one - was not the responsibility of the production.

And honestly, how much did the production or the people there know of his current personal life.  As far as has been reported, he hadn't been onstage since February, and only had to call in to stage management.  He didn't physically have to be present.

[FJL2]

Posted: 7/29/18 at 1:25am

tag, I'm just saying the chocolate shop info likely doesn't make a difference.  Some people seem today to be treating that chocolate shop matter as something that cuts in favor of "Chicago" - that it means they have less responsibility.  They knew their purpose was to shame him into quitting, to specifically avoid paying $30,000 to $40,000 by shaming him into quitting rather than be fired.  I wouldn't think it's criminal at all from what is known, but usually in civil matters, if what you do is seen as really malicious in intention, juries tend to find damages based on your taking your victim as he is and the damage you really caused the family.  The actual shaming might not turn out to be as bad as has been reported - but it does sound like very rich people doing all this not for art or the good of the show, but only to save $30,000 to $40,000.  That sounds like it's ready for a jury (or judge) to want to award lots of punitive damages if that level  of maliciousness is proven - filthy rich people mulit-multi-millionaries going too this length too a powerless person just to save $30,000 to $40,000

Updated On: 7/29/18 at 01:25 AM

[HogansHero]

Posted: 7/29/18 at 1:55am

FJL2, you seem to be coming a lit untethered from facts. A few points. First, there is not a shred of evidence that the producers were involved in this decision yet you have placed the blame on them. I am not a fan of the Weisslers, but I don't like scurrilous accusations. Second, the lawsuit stuff you write about has nothing to do with anything going on right now in this matter. Finally, I don't know who has suggested the external facts weigh in any particular way. The sense I get is that most people think this is a complex subject and that we will actually know the extent of the complexity. What we do know is that without regard to other factors, if what has been reported from Jeff's present sense impressions is true (and the law deems such statements to be reliable and true), then there was misconduct at that rehearsal. That's where we are on this. Soon, hopefully, we will have the additional findings of the AEA investigation, so that there can be some closure.

[MosaicOwl]

Posted: 7/29/18 at 7:04am

bk said: "I'm guessing no one will ever know the totality of this but I'm glad the Times article at least mentions that which has heretofore been avoided."

I really didn't want to reply to this at first because I honestly don't want to start up another argument about things that are not directly related to my original purpose for the thread. However, I don't like the accusation of purposeful "avoidance" of facts. Specifically and personally in this thread, I wasn't avoiding making those facts known, and I don't think any other friends or family were intentionally hiding or omitting the chocolate shop/lawsuit info in other publications. It was public knowledge anyway (the court dockets for the surrounding lawsuit are searchable and even show up in a Google search for "Jeff Loeffelholz". Someone eventually would have thought to include the info. Just because I or any of Jeff's other family or friends didn't publish it doesn't mean we were "avoiding" or hiding it. I obviously can't speak for anyone else's intentions, but at the time I didn't think it was relative to the cause of Jeff's suicide. Peter's loss of employment and Jeff's subsequent resignation from the shop happened in 2016, meaning he hadn't enjoyed employment there in some time. Do I think it contributed to the thoughts feelings he was experiencing that led him to suicide? Maybe in some manner, now that it has been brought to mind.  If anything, my own opinion on the matter is that because the loss of Jeff's and Peter's employment at the shop had caused CHICAGO to become his only source of income, Jeff's perception of unwantedness or unwelcomeness at CHICAGO would have been especially threatening and scary to him. It isn't publically known yet (and obviously I don't know, either) whether Bobbie and Stifleman were aware of the fact that he didn't have any employment to fall back on. However, I really don't think it should matter. If their behavior was an intentional tactic to force him to quit the show, it's still unethical behavior, regardless of his personal circumstances unrelated to the show. Even if he had quit and hadn't taken his own life, I still think it would have been unethical. If what Stifleman and Bobbie wanted was to be rid of Jeff without the production buying him out of his contract, and they were using their positions in the show to humiliate him in an effort to realize that goal, it's an abuse of position and power. Unfortunately, for Jeff's family and friends, for all that enjoyed his art, and for the world in general, it may have contributed to a loss of a beautiful, precious, and innocent life. 

Does anyone know if the results of the Equity investigation will be made public?

 

[Dave28282]

Posted: 7/29/18 at 8:12am

I have been working in this business for over 20 years and I have encountered people that are just pure evil. I have seen people being fired from shows unfairly due to "artistic differences" coming out of the blue, and the next day being replaced by the best friend or the new (secret) lover of the (musical) director. When the actor in question tried to ask why there never was a conversation or explanation about this he got shut down and all he heard was "artistic differences". I know he did his track wonderfully and there was never any indication or reason for differences.

I have seen a person being worked out of a show because the assistant director did not like a certain cast member who did not reply to his personal avances. When the real director was on holidays he made something up (that the actor hadn't shown up for an extra rehearsal but he deliberately did not inform that actor about this rehearsal) and he was let go and never got a chance to speak to the real director again.

Another person I know was fired due to "artistic differences" because he came in early for rehearsal one day and walked in on the musical director screwing one of the ensemble girls in the backstage area. The girl just got promoted to understudy for the lead (remarkable, as she was clearly not up to the job), and  my friend who was in an ensemble track was out of work. This was a case of losing face. This was really sad too, because the actor had nowhere to go, the production company replied with "the director said artistic differences so we believe him" and "these things happen" without going into detail. Initially the actor was discrete about what he had seen. Later, the casting director of the show asked him what had happened, as he could not think of any reason why he was let go, after the extensive audition process, and when he told the story he urged him to keep it quiet, because people wouldn't believe him and it will give him a bad reputation. He really stood with his back against the wall.

Another example I encountered was more like the Loeffelholz case, where a baritone actor had been rehearsing an ensemble track with baritone harmonies for 6 weeks, it was near opening night and suddenly the MD came up to him and they wanted him to do all the tenor parts instead of the baritone harmonies. Completely different keys and out of his range. He then was forced to join the pianist, who played his new melody lines/harmonies, and then he had to sing them on his own, in front of the whole cast and directors etc. When he couldn't reach the notes (which they knew he couldn't), they made him do it 6 times too. It was very embarrassing. Later that day he was called to the office, where only the MD sat, and told him he had to leave the production. The next morning, the MD brought in a boy (who lived with him, while he was much younger), to replace him and here it comes, the boy just sang the baritone parts too. He rehearsed in private with the MD (supposedly due to the short notice of opening night) and in 3 days he just joined the whole group, so nobody noticed which harmonies he actually sang.

But I have also seen people being very mean and really putting effort in hurting someone's career just because they didn't like a person or sometimes when they were jealous.

It really is difficult because it seems that there's nothing that can be done about these situations. It's human nature and people have personal preferences, interests, fears, desires and it results in misusing power.

I know it happens everywhere but especially in the arts. I don't think it is a reason to commit suicide but it can really sweep someone off his feet. I have seen it happen too often to ignore.

Updated On: 7/29/18 at 08:12 AM

[FJL2]

Posted: 7/29/18 at 9:28am

My point is that the shaming process is clear:  Keep shaming, even escalate it, keep it going on, but once you find out it's not getting the "voluntary" leaving that is your goal - you can always get rid of the person then. (in my own personal situation, it's just a public accommodation rather than employment).  

 

If indeed the reports of the conductor openly rolling her eyes during Jeff's performances show themselves to be accurate, then that would be very clear that the shaming in the workplace had started MUCH earlier by just the conductor, but since it sounds like the audience was still loving him, he let it roll off his back; so the escalation was out into play, the big gun was brought in.  There was a game plan, if that was happening by the conductor while he was performing.

 

(To think, all this over $30,000 to $40,000.  Maybe the conductor is not rich, but certainly ANY of the others who might have implemented this must be in a postion that   $30,000 to $40,000 is not a lot of money in their lives. It starts to feel iike sport, the powerful gorilla  going after a defenseless puppy with a cannon.   

 

I can tell you personally, if there's no other money coming in, its the difference of being able to survive while getting that next chance vs., not feeling any hope of survival.)

Updated On: 7/29/18 at 09:28 AM

[FJL2]

Posted: 7/29/18 at 9:57am

To Hoganshero, those are fascinating points.

I've always seen that if people have nothing to hide, they behave as if they have nothing to hide.  They don't wait until an investigation is done before saying what they already know.  They just say it.  

You may be thinking of a right to remain silent to avoid incriminating yourself.  Can anyone imagine criminal charges from what we've seen so far - I can;'t, but maybe I've missed something.   Saying "I won't talk un til an investigation is done" is not even code; it's saying flat out "I intend to adjust what I say so IU can;'t be caught in an error or lie."  Silence in a non-criminal situation says "I have done something I know I should nit have done."  Until they speak, after all these weeks, the only  possible conclusion is they are working their story.  I'm very sorry if I read what you said wrong.  but I think your approach is inly for criminal cases.

 

[ChairinMain]

Posted: 7/29/18 at 2:27pm

Did Chicago cancel any performances in the immediate wake of his death, or was the cast made to perform that evening? 

[BKLYN8567]

Posted: 7/29/18 at 2:38pm

FJL2 said: "To Hoganshero, those are fascinating points.

I've always seen that if people have nothing tohide, they behave as if they have nothing to hide. They don't wait until an investigation is done before saying what they already know. They just say it.

You may be thinking of a right to remain silent to avoid incriminating yourself. Can anyone imagine criminal charges from what we've seen so far - I can;'t, but maybe I've missed something. Saying "I won't talk un til an investigation is done" is noteven code; it's saying flat out "I intend to adjust what I say so IU can;'t be caught in an error or lie." Silence in a non-criminal situation says "I have done something I know I should nit have done." Until they speak, after all these weeks, the only possible conclusion is they are working their story. I'm very sorry if I read what you said wrong. but I think your approach is inly for criminal cases.

"

FJL2, it doesn't matter if its criminal or civil cases. Once you know you are being investigated, any good lawyer will tell you not to say anything to the public. 

If they admit, they can possibly incriminate themselves. If they deny, they would be calling the deceased a liar. It was a no-win situation, and any speaking they need to do is better left for the actual investigation rather than the public court of popular opinion (oh how Chicago).

The interesting tidbit from that NYT article is that the director's union spoke on behalf of Walter Bobbie. I would assume he's told his story to them as well. I doubt they would get involve too much, but I do wonder what kind of support they will provide for one of theirs.

[BKLYN8567]

Posted: 7/29/18 at 2:57pm

Dave28282 said: "

I know it happens everywhere but especially in the arts. I don't think it is a reason to commit suicide but it can really sweep someone offhisfeet. I have seen it happentoo often to ignore."

I think that's going to be the very difficult thing about this case. Barring actual texts or email evidence which proves the allegations (that they were bullying in order to make him quit), how do you distinguish the line between bullying and a rough rehearsal?

There were no witnesses to the conversation in which Bobbie allegedly told Jeff that he made too much money, and that the production takes precedence after 22 years (according to the NYT article). It would be the word of one vs. another.

The NYT article (as well as the NY post) both quoted sources that while the accounts on Jeff's notes appear to be accurate (as far as him singing multiple times), it wasn't as rough as the notes seemed to make it sound.

While there have been former members who have spoken out against Leslie, there haven't been one for Bobbie. The harshest comment about Bobbie has been from the NYT when he was called "intimidating". As the original director of a long-running musical, I would think that would be the case anyway. It appears Jeff and Bobbie had no relationship, yet Jeff already felt on edge knowing he was going to be at the rehearsal. That comes from the position, inherently. 

And even the original musical director has thrown his support for Leslie in the recent NYT article (the only one really who has done so publicly), citing the difficulty of the role for a male singer after aging 22 years.

At the end of it, this is a tragic and cautionary tale; we never really know what each of us are dealing with..even the people that are very close to us.

But as far as anything happening from a legal standpoint, I really can't see any major thing happening unless actual proof is discovered that they were out to get him. 

[HogansHero]

Posted: 7/29/18 at 9:26pm

@FJL2 Not sure where you got the idea anyone was talking about a criminal case: it's a far fetched notion. 

@BKLYN8567 what we have atm aside from random (on and off the record) comments are Jeff's contemporaneous texts. My point is that they are generally found to be reliable and true. While that is sourced in a legal principle, that principle is founded in centuries of common experience.

[adamgreer]

Posted: 7/29/18 at 9:50pm

ChairinMain said: "Did Chicago cancel any performances in the immediate wake of his death, or was the cast made to perform that evening?"

Pretty sure it was “the show must go on.” 

I don’t see Barry Weissler (again, a notorious cheapskate) issuing refunds for a canceled performance. 

[FJL2]

Posted: 7/29/18 at 10:12pm

HogansHero said: "@FJL2 Not sure where you got the idea anyone was talking about a criminal case: it's a far fetched notion.

It looks like the moderators had to delete one of my posts, so maybe some logic may have been lost, HogansHero.  

Yes, I agree with what you say quoted above, that I don't see anything that looks criminal in what I've seen so far.  I only mentioned that because it feels like people are thinking that no negative inference can be drawn from the parties remaining silent, but that's not true - society and community and the press have no obligation to refrain from assuming that people who have nothing to hide would explain their position.  

 

If they did nothing wrong or questionable, there's no logic that they won't say so.  They don't have to sit down for questioning by the press, they don't have to do a press conference.  But the community and the public and the family have no obligation to refrain from openly and loudly asking why they'd wait for an investigation to be over before saying anything - it makes it sound like they intend to massage their version to her consistent with the findings, rather than honestly say what they know.  The longer it takes for them to speak, the vaguer and fuzzier memories get - it's probably a blur for all three of them (and the conductor, who it seems has spoken a bit) at this point, and getting fuzzier as each week passes.  

 

Not saying anything says you are not secure that you did nothing wrong.

Posted: 7/30/18 at 10:31am

Is it known how Jeff committed suicide?

[poisonivy2]

Posted: 7/30/18 at 10:34am

Says in the NYtimes. Overdosed on alcohol and pills

Posted: 7/30/18 at 10:41am

Thanks.  Did it specify what kind of alcohol/pills?

[HogansHero]

Posted: 7/30/18 at 11:01am

no but why on earth would you care?

and why on earth are you asking questions that can easily be answered by looking at the linked article?

Updated On: 7/30/18 at 11:01 AM