STATE OF NEW YORK SURROGATE'S COURT: COUNTY OF NEW YORK ------------------------------------X File No. 4440/93 Probate Proceeding, Will of E. Preminger, Surrogate DORIS DUKE, SUPPLEMENTAL REPORT OF RICHARD H. KUH, Deceased. LIMITED TEMPORARY ADMINISTRATOR ------------------------------------X TABLE OF CONTENTS Foreword . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 A. Concerning Possible Improvidence on the Part of Bernard Lafferty . . . . . . . . . 4 (2) Substantial Luxury Expenditures . . . . 4 (3) Haphazard Credit Card Use . . . . . . . 4 B. Concerning Possible Substance Abuse or Drunkenness on the Part of Bernard Lafferty . . . 5 (3) Post-Duke Binges. . . . . . . . . . . . 5 C. Concerning Possible Want of Understanding on the Part of Bernard Lafferty. . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 (4) General Understanding . . . . . . . . . 6 D. Concerning Possibly "Wasted or Improperly Applied . or Otherwise Improvidently Managed" Assets. . . . 7 (2) Post-Duke Rising Expenses . . . . . . . 7 (3) Specific "Home-Making" Expenses . . . . 10 (6) Miscellaneous Expenses. . . . . . . . . 11 E. Concerning Honesty or Possible Dishonesty . . . . 12 (1) Sizable Pre-Death Gifts . . . . . . . . 12 (3) Duke's Cremation. . . . . . . . . . . . 14 (7) Possible Thefts of Duke Property. . . . 15 F. Concerning Possible Conflicts of Interest . . . . 19 (1) Bank's Loan to Its Designating Fiduciary 19 (4) Complete Control Over Duke Assets . . . 19 H. Considering Whether Bernard Lafferty, U.S. Trust and Katten Muchin & Zavis May Be Otherwise Unfit for the Execution of their Office . . . . . . . . 24 (2) Duke Mental Clarity . . . . . . . . . . 24 Concluding Note . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 STATE OF NEW YORK SURROGATE'S COURT: COUNTY OF NEW YORK ------------------------------------X File No. 4440/93 Probate Proceeding, Will of E. Preminger, Surrogate DORIS DUKE, SUPPLEMENTAL REPORT OF RICHARD H. KUH, Deceased. LIMITED TEMPORARY ADMINISTRATOR ------------------------------------X Foreword My April 20, 1995 Report ("the Report") to Your Honor noted (at page 63) that the preliminary executors had, refusing to waive confidentiality agreements, blocked my access to either Chandi Heffner or her attorneys, and to two former Duke Farms security employees. The Surrogate having strongly advised that the preliminary executors, through counsel, waive such confidentiality provisions, that same afternoon I was informed of such waivers. As a result, since my submission of the Report, I have interviewed Chandi Heffner's attorneys and Chandi Heffner, who now lives in Hawaii, by means of a lengthy long distance phone call conducted with her attorneys present with me. I have also now met with Irwin Bloom and Frank Senerchia, each accompanied by his attorney, and with Peter Wilczek. As Your Honor is aware, Heffner is Duke's daughter (by adoption) and for several years prior to February 1991 assisted Doris Duke in managing her properties. Irwin Bloom had served for more than a decade, initially as accountant and then financial advisor and -- after a fashion -- as manager for Duke; Bloom had been named as executor and trustee pursuant to Duke's November 1991 Will. Wilczek was in charge of security for the Duke properties in Somerville, New Jersey, from May 1982 until June 1993; his father and mother still reside on the Somerville property where they had been employed, and his mother still works there part-time. Senerchia, a retired New York City police detective, was retained as an independent contractor in charge of security at Duke Farms, and in overall charge of security at all Duke properties from September 1, 1993 through October 13, 1993, and again from early November 1993 through early August 1994. Each, except Wilczek, had received a copy of the Report from counsel for each, and each expressed a belief in the accuracy of those portions of the Report with which each had had familiarity. Heffner, Bloom and Wilczek have each settled such claims as each had with the Duke Estate. (Senerchia brought no claim.) I have been given copies, on a confidential basis, of the settlement agreements with Heffner and Bloom. Wilczek received a mid-five-figure sum settling a suit he had instituted against the Duke Estate and Senerchia received the equivalent of three weeks pay by way of accrued vacation time and a termination payment. In light of these settlements, and the Estate's waiver of the confidentiality agreements to the extent necessary to permit frank discussion with me, little reason remains -- other than possibly long entertained, and hence not readily dissipated, biases -- for each to have slanted what each told me. The Report had the benefit of a substantial amount of documentation (some of which had been obtained for me through the services rendered by Price Waterhouse ("PW")), and the further benefit of the informed statements to me of many persons. This Supplemental Report is far less revealing than the Report. While the Report, essentially, expressed near-ultimate facts distilled from a potpourri of information, this Supplement consists largely of detail from the four recently interviewed sources, detail that essentially lends further support to facts previously set forth in the Report. While it was feasible in the Report to protect the identity of a number of the individuals with whom I met prior to rendering the Report, that is not feasible in this Supplement. A. Concerning Possible Improvidence on the Part of Bernard Lafferty (2) Substantial Luxury Expenditures. -- The Report (Rep. p. 8) comments on Bernard Lafferty's purchase from Cartier for almost $35,000 of a second gold and diamond watch for himself, and refers to Exhibit 10. At the time the Report was finalized, although KMZ had then cooperated in asking Cartier's aid, Cartier had not yet supplied documents explaining the charge, as reflected on Exhibit 10, of $34,780.73. Thereafter documents were supplied, and explained by the Cartier Boutique store manager, that this in fact was for the purchase of a single gold and diamond watch. (3) Haphazard Credit Card Use. -- The Report (Rep. pp. 8-9) deals with Lafferty's use of credit cards, and appends (as Exhibit 11) a page analyzing the use of his personal American Express card, and the charges against it from December 1993 through October 1994, approximately three-quarters of which were in fact personal charges and one-quarter of which were Duke Estate charges. I had noted on that Exhibit that Katten Muchin & Zavis ("KMZ") had withheld Lafferty's American Express personal charges reflected in statements subsequent to October 1994. As a result of Your Honor's statements in open Court on April 25, 1995, suggesting that confidentiality claims be waived, KMZ (at my request) sent me the previously withheld American Express personal charges for the period from November 1994 through February 1995. With the addition of those charges, PW has re-figured the chart that is a part of Exhibit 11, and as re-figured it is as appended hereto as Exhibit 63. B. Concerning Possible Substance Abuse or Drunkenness on the Part of Bernard Lafferty (3) Post-Duke Binges. -- The Report (Rep. pp. 12-13) reflects Lafferty's February 1994 binge at the Breakers Hotel in Palm Beach, his being transported to New Jersey after brief hospitalization in Florida, and thereafter his being flown, on the Duke plane, to Los Angeles, attended by Dr. Harry Glassman. Senerchia was in charge of security at Duke Farms during this period and was in contact with his two security people, Marc Hamilton (now Duke Farms' security director) and Rick Dixon, both -- pursuant to Lafferty's request -- having accompanied Lafferty to Florida for purposes of affording him protection. Senerchia -- who had heard from Hamilton of some problem with Lafferty -- stated that he received a telephone call from Lafferty, then in Florida, cursing, screaming and accusing Senerchia of unwelcome prying into his (Lafferty's) personal life. Thereafter, after Lafferty had been flown to Duke Farms and had spent several days there, Senerchia and Hamilton drove Lafferty, Nuku Makasiale and Colin Shanley to a New Jersey airport to be taken to Los Angeles, by way of Chicago, in the Duke plane. Senerchia described Lafferty as then still being either quite ill or quite intoxicated, and said that he (Senerchia) and Hamilton had to physically carry Lafferty onto the plane, which had been flown in from California with Dr. Glassman aboard. C. Concerning Possible Want of Understanding on the Part of Bernard Lafferty (4) General Understanding. -- I recognize that the statutory use of the phrase "want of understanding" does not on its face appear to reflect on whether the named fiduciary has an understanding of the legal and moral obligations of a fiduciary. Yet a makeweight Your Honor may wish to consider is whether one designated to create a new massive charitable foundation -- and to serve as a trustee of that new foundation -- should have a temperament reflecting charitable concerns and an ability to empathize with others. From Senerchia I received a copy of a letter that he had received at Somerville under date of April 21, 1994, as well as his memorandum to Lafferty concerning that letter, and the endorsement (not in Lafferty's hand) countersigned by Lafferty. (Exhibit 64). The letter is from a woman stating that her father had worked on the Duke estate for more than forty years, that she had two young daughters who had never known their grandfather, and that she -- by her letter -- was seeking permission to tour the dairy barn in which her father had been employed, and the house on the estate in which he had lived and in which she was born. The endorsement that Lafferty countersigned said simply "No tours on the property at any time. We do not know who these people are and Clorinda [a DBO employee] has enough work to do." D. Concerning Possibly "Wasted or Improperly Applied . . . or Otherwise Improvidently Managed" Assets (2) Post-Duke Rising Expenses. -- The Report (Rep. pp. 20-21) notes that personnel increases after Duke's death were, according to the preliminary executors, their counsel and DBO personnel, justified by mounting security needs. Bloom (who remained with the Duke organization until terminated on June 8, 1993) had discussed security matters with Duke and stated that she never expressed any desire to see security personnel at Duke Farms "beefed up." Her interest was in taking whatever existed and making it work more effectively. Bloom had been dissatisfied with Wilczek as head of security and sent Duke faxes suggesting personnel changes, but not overall increases in security staff numbers. As noted hereinafter (Supplement, F-4), in the Spring of 1993, Bloom had been unable to get through to Duke to discuss this and other matters. Wilczek, who headed Duke Farms security until June 1993, saw no need to increase the size of the security staff as Duke Farms was not plagued with crime. He stated that it operated comfortably with a staff of about ten persons. Heffner, through her attorneys, had described the security system at Somerville as a "Mr. Magoo system"; she, too, saw no need for increasing security personnel. Senerchia, a police and security professional, stated there were no serious security problems at Somerville, no meaningful crime. There were trespassers, persons hunting and fishing without permission on the approximately 2,700 acre estate (not completely effectively fenced in); there were sightseers, and occasionally minor property damage on the land (a broken tractor window, a slashed tire, etc.). But there had been no break-ins into the houses on the estate. Nonetheless, as a professional, Senerchia saw the need to increase the security staff from about ten to about twenty-five persons. He was candid in stating his own recognition that security directors (as is also true in other areas of endeavor!) always wished to increase their staffs to guard against problems arising down the line. He also stated that the staff increases he effectuated were in part a response to overtime that the initial small staff was compelled to devote. He added that personnel needs were further aggravated by Lafferty's desire to be accompanied by both a driver -- taken from the security staff -- and an additional security person, apart from the driver. When Lafferty traveled to Florida (to attend a deposition in the Heffner litigation), and to Falcon's Lair in California, he was accompanied by two security persons (all traveling first- class). Moreover, Lafferty, when at Duke Farms, on occasion requested security persons to drive to and from Philadelphia, or local airports, to pick up friends of his, and to bring them back to Duke Farms. Senerchia further stated that U.S. Trust and Lafferty invariably approved of all of his requests, both for personnel and equipment for his security force. The only requests that failed to receive favorable action were those for a monitoring television network, and for electronic gate-openers, etc.; these requests were not expressly rejected, but no action was taken concerning them. Senerchia noted that Lafferty had directed that he (Lafferty) was not to be logged in and out, although security personnel long had had directions to log all persons entering and leaving the Somerville properties. Also Lafferty expressly made clear that he did not wish to have video monitors filming the Duke house and immediately adjacent grounds. Senerchia was never queried by Lafferty or U.S. Trust personnel as to weighing the need for a twenty-five (or so) person security force, against the expense involved and the essentially crime-free history of Duke Farms with a far smaller security force. (3) Specific "Home-Making" Expenses. -- The Report (Rep. pp. 21-24) deals with expenditures, principally at Falcon's Lair, involving reupholstering and (for the most part) renovations to Duke's private bathroom and bedroom there. When I had, many weeks ago, interviewed Cupie Singh ("Cupie"), the Duke Farms housekeeper, in the presence of a KMZ attorney, she expressed no complaints concerning Lafferty. Senerchia reported that, as Lafferty had done at Falcon's Lair, Lafferty had moved into the Duke bedroom at Duke Farms after Duke's death, and had utilized Duke's bedroom and bed as his own. Candid about his own failure to have gotten along with Cupie, Senerchia noted her statements that Duke "would never have allowed him [Lafferty] to do the things he is doing," and commented specifically to Senerchia "Can you believe he is sleeping in Miss Duke's bed?" He further commented hearing from Cupie that Lafferty had changed furniture and moved paintings and other decorations to suit his own tastes at Duke Farms. (6) Miscellaneous Expenses. -- The Report (Rep. p. 26) comments on the reactivation, at Duke Farms, of a pistol firing range in order that security personnel might hone their firearm skills. Senerchia informed me that this had been suggested while he was in charge of security. He further stated that as there were firing ranges available for practice in the Somerville area, he saw no need for activating the pistol range at Duke Farms. Moreover, he noted that the sound of gun fire would be disturbing to neighbors as well as a negative when public tours of Duke Gardens took place. (Senerchia noted, however, that Hamilton, who had served as Lafferty's bodyguard/chauffeur, and who eventually succeeded Senerchia as chief of security at Duke Farms, had approved of the firing range's reactivation.) E. Concerning Honesty or Possible Dishonesty (1) Sizable Pre-Death Gifts. -- The Report (Rep. pp. 29 and 32) notes that a "loan" of $900,000 was made to Dr. Rolando Atiga in September 1993, and that quite substantial earlier loans (made in early 1992), in excess of $400,000, remained unpaid. Bloom stated that these earlier Atiga loans had been discussed by him with Duke who recognized that, in all probability, they would never be repaid. Bloom also noted that Duke had made other extremely large loans without any real expectation of repayment. Bloom pointed out that although Duke's personal income had been as large as $70 million a year, and that quite apart from funds that were distributed through the Doris Duke Foundation (created during her lifetime) and other Duke foundations, Duke donated charitably very little of this personal income, and then ordinarily in small amounts to particular charitable causes in which she had an interest. Heffner similarly commented that Duke rarely made "uncommitted charitable gifts"; that her gifts ordinarily were for specific purposes. Heffner further commented that ordinarily Duke did not believe in "celebrity type charities." Appended as Exhibit 65-67 are selected pages from the Duke 1992, 1991 and 1990 personal federal Gift Tax returns. The 1992 return shows gifts only to the Doris Duke Foundation, Inc. from Duke of $755,000; it also contains a schedule of prior gifts which, from 1982 through 1991 show no gifts except gifts in 1986 totalling $1,504,670 (identification of the earlier donees not required by the form) and gifts in 1988 of $40,886, with no gifts for 1989, 1990 or 1991. The 1991 federal Gift Tax return reflects only a gift to the Nature Conservancy in Arlington, Virginia, of real estate, the donor's basis being approximately $411,000 and the value as of the date of the gift being $2,725,000. The 1990 federal Gift Tax return shows a single gift of $18,700 to the John Carter Brown Library in Newport, Rhode Island. These essentially sparse gifts contrast with the gifts made on October 3-5, 1993, during the last month of Duke's life, of a million dollars to the Elizabeth Taylor AIDS Foundation, of a million dollars to the People for Ethical Treatment of Animals, and of two million dollars to Duke University. (Ex. 36). Interestingly, as the media have noted, Lafferty has already named persons to the Board of the Duke Charitable Trust, the Trust to be created pursuant to the April 5, 1993 Will. Among those who Lafferty has said have accepted appointments to the Board are Nannerl Keohane, President of Duke University, J. Carter Brown, retired Director of the National Gallery of Art (and of the family of John Carter Brown for whom the Newport Rhode Island Library was named) and Elizabeth Taylor. As noted, the John Carter Brown Library received a gift from Duke in 1990 and the Elizabeth Taylor AIDS Foundation as well as Duke University were generously treated as Duke lay dying in early October 1993. (3) Duke's Cremation. -- The Report (Rep. pp. 33-40) deals with the Duke cremation, and considers what Duke's instructions had been with regard to the disposition of her remains. Bloom stated that he had known from Duke of her general fear of fire. She had informed Bloom that she wished her body buried at sea, and that she that she so informed William Zabel who prepared her November 1991 Will. Wilczek stressed Duke's significant concern with fire prevention at Duke Farms, and that the smoke and fire detection systems be operating effectively. He stated that having been aware of this deep concern of Duke's, he was surprised when he learned that her remains had been cremated. (His understanding -- although the source of that understanding was not made clear, and he is the only source of this -- was that she wanted her body entombed at Duke University near her father's remains.) Heffner stated that she and Duke shared a common virtually pantheistic belief, finding God in the forces of nature. Duke believed in personal gods, known in Hawaiian lore as aumakua. With her love of the ocean, Duke's aumakua was Mano, the sacred shark. Duke believed, in essence, in "giving something back to the ocean" for the happiness it had given her, and so she wished her body fed to Mano, to the sharks. Moreover, Heffner stated that Duke was terrified of fire. She (Duke) and Heffner had flown over an active Hawaiian volcano, making offerings to it, in order to appease Pele, the Hawaiian God of Fire. Heffner insisted there was no way that Duke could have wished to have her remains cremated. (7) Possible Thefts of Duke Property. -- Shortly before the Report was finalized, served and filed on April 20, 1995, I learned of the arrest of one of the Duke private-duty registered nurses, Tammy Payette, for thefts from the homes of patients, purportedly not initially involving thefts of Duke property. (Rep. p. 56, note 17). I have since learned that the parameters of the thefts with which Payette is or may be charged have expanded, apparently such alleged larcenies now being in the six-figure range and including larcenies of Duke property. To the best of my knowledge, and although the preliminary executors had engaged Christie's to appraise the Duke personal property, note had not been taken prior to the Payette arrest that Duke valuables may have been stolen from Falcon's Lair (the sole Duke home in which Payette did private-duty nursing). This suggests that the preliminary executors may not have had -- or may not have given Christie's -- an inventory of Duke possessions, such that when Christie's did the appraisals Christie's would have recognized that certain listed items were not present to be appraised. Prior to preparing the Report, I had been variously informed that Duke had kept so-called "black books," a set of such books for each of her residences, retained at the DBO, in which all items of any significant value at each residence were inventoried. I requested PW to spot-check the black book listings against the Christie's appraisals, which were very extensive, to determine whether or not there were any properties listed in the black books that were no longer about and so were not appraised by Christie's. (Obviously, the extent of the Duke possessions being so vast, anything more than a spot-check, with both limited manpower and limited time, was impossible.) After I asked PW to do the spot-check, I was informed by KMZ, by letter of April 3, 1995, that the black books "are not up to date (and may be outdated by several years)." (Exhibit 68). When on April 12, 1995, I met with Margaret Scott of the DBO -- she being accompanied by attorneys from KMZ and Nixon, Hargrave and Willkie, Farr -- she informed me that the black books had not been updated for years, and therefore the cross-check that I had in mind made no sense. KMZ attorneys orally confirmed this. PW was similarly advised by KMZ and Christie's personnel that the black books were not up-to-date, and so were not reliable. Interestingly, Anthony Marshall of U.S. Trust, whom I had interviewed on February 27, 1995, had stated that U.S. Trust was then in the process of comparing the Christie's appraisals with the black books. My recent interviewees strongly suggested that the black books were, in fact, up-to-date, at least into mid-1993. Heffner stated that the books were current as of the time she was shut out of Duke's life, in February of 1991. She stated that not only had the black books then been up-to-date, but she had further implemented a system for computerizing the inventories. Wilczek stated that in the late 1980's and for several years running, he knew that the inventories were kept up-to-date, because he had, at least for several consecutive years, done a complete inventory of Duke's possessions at Duke Farms. He stated that when he was terminated in mid-1993, it was his information that the black books were up-to-date. Bloom similarly said that up to the time his relationship with Duke was terminated in June of 1993, the black books were up-to-date. He spoke of his own role in the computerization of the inventories, indicating that the computerized inventory and the black books tracked the movement of Duke personal property from one home to another. Cupie, whom I had interviewed on February 16, 1995, stated that the black books had been kept up-to-date, although she may have intended this with respect to her own Duke Farms records, apparently maintained separately from the black books. Query: If the inventories were essentially up-to-date in mid-1993 (as the three recent interviewees with knowledge of the subject believed), were Lafferty and KMZ at fault in not having them kept current both before and after Duke's death? If they were not accurate as of mid-1993, shouldn't some priority have been given to updating them? And if, knowingly, they have not been kept up-to-date in the year and a half since Duke's death, have the fiduciaries and their counsel failed to take appropriate steps to prevent any losses of Duke's personal properties, a clear risk if inventories were not kept current? F. Concerning Possible Conflicts of Interest (1) Bank's Loan to Its Designating Fiduciary. -- This sub-heading, and the remaining sub-headings under this conflicts of interest point, deal with the inter-relationship among Lafferty, U.S. Trust and KMZ, and the conflicts and tensions created incident to this inter-relationship. (Rep. pp. 47-53). Senerchia, who as security chief for almost a year (most of which was after Duke's death), chauffeured Lafferty on occasion. He reports that he once overheard a discussion in the car between Lafferty and Doyle concerning U.S. Trust. Apparently, U.S. Trust had, in some fashion, sought to curtail Lafferty's credit card use. Senerchia heard Lafferty say to Doyle, concerning U.S. Trust, in substance, "If they don't come around, we'll get another bank." Senerchia said he had heard other conversations in which Lafferty expressed his anger with the bank. (4) Complete Control Over Duke Assets. -- The Report (Rep. pp. 51-53) comments on the control over Duke assets granted Lafferty, and through Lafferty to KMZ, pursuant to Duke's execution of at least two dozen documents from March through June of 1993, at a time when Duke was in at least a questionable mental state. Contrasted with this control, the Report notes the far more limited authority Duke had previously granted to others, pursuant to documents prepared by other attorneys who appeared to have far stronger connections with Duke than had KMZ. The four persons interviewed in the last eight days expressed other fashions in which this Lafferty control (and hence that of KMZ) was created and solidified. Thus, Bloom and Heffner (as appears more fully below) noted the Lafferty control that existed by Duke's being unavailable to others, either face-to-face or by telephone; this was purportedly at Duke's instruction, but inferentially because of Lafferty's own activity in controlling access to the physically ill, and possibly mentally erratic, Duke. They also note the control purportedly being solidified by feeding Duke false information. Messrs. Wilczek and Senerchia suggest -- Senerchia more strongly than Wilczek -- that control, at least over Duke's employees, was achieved by Lafferty's verbally abusive, loud, irrational and unjustified rages levied against employees that put the staff in fear. At least from March 1993 until he was notified on June 8, 1993 of his termination, purportedly by Duke (Exhibit 69), Bloom said that he was unable to talk with Duke. He stated he phoned repeatedly but was not put through, and ultimately, apparently in May 1993, traveled to Hawaii to see Duke. He was not admitted to Shangri-La. Instead he received a telephone call from Lafferty and Alan Croll, Esq. (of KMZ) informing him that Duke wanted him to "go back home." About a month later, at two meetings at his office attended by KMZ attorneys, Bloom was criticized by the attorneys. Ultimately, he had an appointment to see Duke on June 9th at Duke Farms. However, the day before, on June 8, 1993, he received the termination letter. Previously, although for many years he had communicated directly with Duke, and did not have to channel his communications through Lafferty, Bloom had been told to communicate with Duke through Lafferty. He recognized the growing presence of KMZ attorneys in every decision purportedly made by Duke. Despite the loving relationship between Heffner and Duke from 1985 to February 1991, resulting in Heffner's formal adoption by Duke in 1988, it had been Heffner's experience that virtually every request or expense still required Duke's approval, her "DD" initialing. Heffner stated that giving others broad authority over her affairs was completely out of character for Duke. Heffner was unaware whether Duke had executed any power of attorney in her favor, and whether Duke had delegated to her authority to make medical decision concerning Duke. Heffner, too, after her February 1991 estrangement from Duke, made repeated efforts to reach Duke by telephone. Although there were two telephone calls thereafter between Heffner and Duke, one quite brief, and the other more extensive, Heffner's other efforts to reach Duke resulted in her learning that a private number that rang in Duke's bedroom at Duke Farms had been disconnected. When she called repeatedly thereafter she was told that Duke was unavailable and would not speak to her. At around the time substantial loans, that in 1992 were to exceed $400,000, were in process of being made by Duke to Dr. Atiga, Bloom reported that Lafferty had told him that Dr. Atiga had chelated Duke (I am informed that chelation, as sometimes performed, is a process of having one's own blood transfused, testing it and purifying it when it is out of the body), and purportedly had found strychnine and lead in Duke's blood. This report confirmed for Duke her suspicions that Heffner had been poisoning her. Heffner believes that these suspicions had been sown by Lafferty and Dr. Harry Demopoulos. (When, on March 17, 1995, I questioned Dr. Atiga in Los Angeles, in the presence of two partners from KMZ, he denied ever having chelated Duke.) In three telephone conversations between Wilczek and Lafferty, Wilczek was told by Lafferty that Duke was listening on the speakerphone, but in such conversations Wilczek never heard Duke's voice. Similarly, Senerchia was told when business meetings were held at Duke Farms that Duke was on the speakerphone, but he, too, never heard Duke's voice. In preparing the Report, I had interviewed a number of persons employed at Falcon's Lair and at Duke Farms, as well as employees of the DBO (physically located on the Somerville properties). Although I then noted my concern over the "chilling effect" resulting from the presence of attorneys representing the preliminary executors at each such interview, such attorneys were present and taking notes throughout. I indicated to the interviewees my preference that the attorneys be excused. They were not. I anticipated that the attorneys would report what was said to Lafferty and possibly to U.S. Trust. Both Senerchia and Wilczek expressed, of their own knowledge, the "fear" harbored by Estate employees (whether domestics or DBO personnel) of Lafferty, Senerchia expressing this more strongly. They indicated that Lafferty has shown himself to react extremely vehemently to any comment about himself that he deemed adverse. My interviews with Senerchia (who was accompanied by his own attorney, one -- I was informed -- not paid by the Estate), and Wilczek (who was unaccompanied) were largely free of this "chilling effect." (Wilczek, through his parents, still has some relationship with the Duke Estate.) H. Considering Whether Bernard Lafferty, U.S. Trust and Katten Muchin & Zavis May Be Otherwise Unfit for the Execution of their Office (2) Duke Mental Clarity. -- The Report (Rep. pp. 59-62) considers Duke's mental status from March 1993 and thereafter in connection with her capacity to have executed Codicils in March 1993 and a new Will on April 5, 1993. Duke had returned to Duke Farms for a last visit in early June 1993, and stayed for approximately a week. Wilczek, head of security at Duke Farms during that period, drove Duke around the area, accompanied by nurse Pearl Rosenstein. Although Wilczek noted that Duke was physically weak and apparently deteriorating, he states that she was mentally sharp at the time; Rosenstein posed many questions to her about the property and items on it seen during the drive, and Duke responded cogently to these inquiries. In contrast, he stated he had received a telephone call from Duke some time after she had returned to the West Coast subsequent to this last visit to Duke Farms. He said that he had great trouble understanding what she was saying. Lafferty then came on the line and explained what it was that Duke wanted. Wilczek said that from those Duke words that he had been able to understand he was satisfied that Lafferty had given an accurate explanation. Concluding Note This Supplemental Report, as noted, essentially reflects information received from four persons to whom access had earlier been blocked, and whose information essentially confirms that presented in the Report. Although there are still others who might be interviewed, insofar as such others may be free agents under no pressures other than that of truthfulness, I have no reason to believe that further investigation would materially affect the facts considered in the Report. Again, I thank the Court for honoring me with this appointment. Dated: May 5, 1995 Respectfully submitted, ________________________ RICHARD H. KUH