AOL File Library: 9,300 to 9,399/9300.zip/AOLDLs/Legal Documents/Death of Tobacco Heiress 2/DUKE2.txt

Text File | 2014-12-11 | 36KB | 756 lines

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