Jeff Loeffelholz suicide news coverage — Page 11

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.

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!

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

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, 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.

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

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.

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.

@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.

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.

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