Jackson Browne and Daryl Hannah

An ongoing enquiry begun 2015, last updated July 2017

image
Photo: Getty Images

Q: Did Jackson Browne assault Daryl Hannah at the time of their acrimonious separation in 1992?
A: So far, no one really knows – apart from them.

🌷

Contents

Introduction
What happened
Who did it?
The autism factor
The cocaine factor
The 1992 People article
The 1994 US interview
Wexler’s letter to US
Browne’s US open reply and the police ‘statement’
Browne’s US reply to Wexler
The defamation claims
Why didn’t Hannah or Wexler go to the police?
Did the police see Hannah during their visit?
Was there a police investigation?
Some peripheral information
Some sources
Conclusion


Contents 🔼

Introduction

I love Jackson Browne’s music, especially his beautiful 70s albums. Back in the day, friends who liked the likes of Captain Beefheart scoffed at Browne’s supposed fey lightness, but I liked them both, Beefheart and Browne.

(There’s an excellent account of Browne’s musical career from the early 70s to the mid 00s on PopDose.)

I was going to take my (uninitiated) wife to see Browne on his 2014 UK tour, but the rumour of domestic abuse put me off.

I thought I’d check it out. I’ve been doing that – from time to time – for over two years. This is what I’ve found out. (Summary: not much – there’s smoke, but no fire.)

In a 1993 interview with the LA Times, Browne said, ‘I’m not going to provide the actual details of what did happen, because it’s not anybody’s business.’

Its understandable that he’d say that – but he’s wrong. Because of his fame, it’s the business of anyone who cares about his music, and who cares about domestic violence.


Contents 🔼

What happened

On 23 September 1992 Browne and Hannah were at their house in Santa Monica, California. It was the sad end of their long – if occasionally rocky – relationship. 

Hannah was leaving Browne for John F Kennedy Jr and had come to collect some belongings. Apparently, there was a row, and some kind of altercation.

Browne called the police at some point, apparently to report someone ransacking his house. When they arrived, Browne told them that everything was fine. The police left. It’s not clear if they saw or spoke to Hannah.

Apparently Hannah then left the house and called her sister, who took her to a local hospital where she was treated by a doctor for injuries reportedly including bruises on her face and ribs, and a broken finger.


Contents 🔼

Who did it?

Hannah made no complaint to the police. Browne wasn’t arrested or charged with any offence. So how did Hannah get those injuries?

Hannah’s spokesman told the press on the day of the incident:

‘She received serious injuries incurred during a domestic dispute with Browne for which she sought medical treatment.’

That statement looks carefully worded. It might be meant to imply that Browne inflicted the injuries, but it doesn’t actually say so.

Browne has strongly denied causing Hannah’s injuries but has never publicly explained what happened.

In a 1994 interview with US magazine (see below), Browne, apparently referring to Hannah’s long-term fragile emotional state (possibly her autism – see below), said, somewhat Biblically, that his reason for not explaining what happened is that it would be ‘a breach of faith in a covenant that is many, many years old‘ .

Apparently, Hannah has never publicly withdrawn the implied accusation.


Contents 🔼

The autism factor

Hannah has revealed that she was diagnosed with autism as a child. Adults with autism, including those with high functioning autism, can go through rage cycles due to a build-up of anger, which can be expressed as destruction of property, self-injury and causing injuries to others. After the episode there’s often a denial of rage and withdrawal into a fantasy that it didn’t happen.

People with high functioning autism can control their anger and rage in their professions and at social functions and activities outside the home.

If Browne’s denial is true, perhaps Hannah had an autistic rage episode, and that’s why he didn’t want to explain what really happened.


Contents 🔼

The cocaine factor

Browne has spoken about his use of cocaine. (He even wrote a song about it.) In the 80s and 90s many wealthy creatives had a chronic habit. If Browne and Hannah were a user-couple, perhaps Hannah found that it helped with her autistic shyness.

Cocaine is a very moreish and ultimately addictive drug. It can produce psychiatric symptoms including violence. Perhaps on that sad occasion they had a line or two for old times’ sake, and things turned bad…


Contents 🔼

The 1992 People article

An October 1992 article in celebrity magazine People reported that:

  • A press statement made on the day of the incident by Hannah’s spokesman said: ‘She received serious injuries incurred during a domestic dispute with Browne for which she sought medical treatment.’
  • A ‘close friend’ of Hannah’s said that Browne caused her injuries.
  • Browne’s manager, Donald Miller, said that the incident couldn’t have happened because he was with Browne at an LA recording studio at the time.
  • Browne ‘supporters’ said that he was defending himself against Hannah. Browne’s friend, the singer JD Souther, said, ‘He was getting chased around by her.’
  • A ‘friend’ said, ‘This has happened before, but never this bad.’
  • A Santa Monica police officer, Sgt Gary Gallinot, said that Browne called the station complaining that someone was ransacking his home.
  • Friends of Hannah said that Hannah was not ransacking, but hiding in the guest house in fear of Browne. Friends said, ‘He goes into blind rages and doesn’t know what he does. He was trying to kick the door down. A ‘friend’ said: ‘He has an explosive personality.’
  • Gallinot said that Browne told the two attending officers, ‘Everything is fine’; that they never saw Hannah, and as there were no signs of distress, the men left and did not file a report.
  • Hannah’s friends said that she then left the house and called her sister, who took her to a local doctor to have her injuries treated.
  • An associate of Browne said, ‘He’s not the macho type…it sounds completely out of character.’
  • Hannah did not plan to press charges.
  • Friends of Browne said that he’d gone to northern California and was keeping a low profile.
  • A friend of Hannah said that she certainly wouldn’t be going back to her home in Santa Monica or to Jackson Browne: ‘We would never let her do that again.’


Contents 🔼

The 1994 US interview

In a February 1994 interview in the monthly film and music magazine US, Browne opened up to music journalist Fred Schruers (better known as a writer for Rolling Stone).

Browne’s denial in this interview apparently provoked Wexler’s letter to US (see below). In the interview:

  • Browne strongly denied assaulting Hannah.
  • He denounced the People article (above) as lies orchestrated by Hannah’s publicist.
  • Schruers wrote that Hannah’s press agent denied this; and that People’s managing editor said that they stood by the story, and that the publicist had nothing to do with the story’s conclusion.
  • Browne denied the People article’s claim that the police didn’t see Hannah during their visit. He said that the police spoke to them both for ‘a long time‘.
  • Schruers quoted Santa Monica police officer Sgt Gary Gallinot as saying, ‘A male and female officer went to the house. It was an argument, what we call a family disturbance, and when we left, everything was OK. [Hannah] never made indications she was assaulted…if there are any signs of domestic violence, we take a report, but in this instance there were no signs. It could have happened later, but she never filed charges.’ (My bolding)
  • Browne denied that he was laying low after the incident as implied by the People report. He pointed out that he was gigging regularly at that time.
  • Browne said that he wouldnt say what happened because it would be ‘a breach of faith in a covenant that is many, many years old‘. He was apparently referring to Hannah’s autism.
  • Referring to Jerrold Wexler, stepfather to Hannah since she was eight years old, Browne said that at the time of the incident, ‘Daryl’s father was dying. She was under tremendous pressure, had been caring for him for over a month in hospital. So she was in very fragile shape.’
  • Referring to Hannah’s family, Browne said that since the incident he’d been ‘banished from the kingdom, from the monarchy that her family resembles.’


Contents 🔼

Wexler’s letter to US

US then apparently published three letters about the incident. I couldn’t find the original publication online; but the letters are claimed to be reproduced in a 2016 magazine article.

It’s not clear when US published the letters. The article reproducing them says they were printed a few months after the incident; but in one of the letters, Browne refers to an aftermath of the incident occurring ‘a year ago‘; and elsewhere he refers to information published by US, apparently in the February 1994 interview (see above) – in which case the letters would have appeared around March 1994.

The first of the three letters was from Hannah’s uncle, the late Hollywood player Haskell Wexler. (Haskell was the brother of Hannah’s stepfather, Jerrold, who was seriously ill at the time of the incident, and who died not long after.)

Wexler said he’d been a longtime friend of Jackson Browne, but was no longer his friend. In response to Browne’s public denial of assault, Wexler angrily accused Browne of assaulting Hannah, and wrote:

‘I was with her in the hospital. I saw the ugly black bruises on her eye and chin and on her ribs. The examining doctor reported she had blood in her urine. The doctor was shocked by the severity and noted Daryl as “a badly battered woman”.’


Contents 🔼

Browne’s open reply to US and the police ‘statement’

US then apparently published two replies from Browne repeating his denial: an open letter, and a letter to Wexler.

In his open letter, Browne, apparently referring to the February 1994 US interview, wrote:

‘It appears that Haskell Wexler has taken exception to your having printed my assertion that much that was said about this affair in the tabloids and in the media is untrue.

Browne’s letter criticised the 1992 People report for saying that the police didn’t see Hannah during their house call. It ended with Browne reproducing a defensive and somewhat rambling ‘statement’ by a Santa Monica police officer.

Browne gave no contextual information for this statement other than the officer’s rank and name, and the month it was made: Lt John Miehle, November 1992. This is the statement:

‘The Santa Monica Police Department went to the house where Jackson Browne lives regarding a possible disturbance. We resolved the situation in about five minutes. There was never any assault. There are no charges pending and no prosecution sought by or intended by the District Attorney. It is this department’s intention that no citizen, regardless of who she is, suffer any kind of abuse, whether it be domestic violence or any other kind of assault. But in this case, absolutely no assault occurred. Our investigators tell us nothing happened. Nobody has even alleged that Daryl Hannah was even touched. If they had, we’d be investigating. We’re not hiding anything. The press is trying to make more out of this than there really is, and it’s unfair, not just to Browne, but to us. We did our job, and repeat, no crime occurred here. This whole thing is ridiculous.’

Presumably Browne thought that this ‘statement’ supported his case, but it actually raises more questions:

  • Ending with ‘This whole thing is ridiculous‘, it’s clearly not the usual carefully considered press statement made by the police. It sounds like something said spontaneously by the officer, perhaps in frustrated response to questioning by a journalist. It sounds as if it was recorded and transcribed. How did the officer come to make that statement?
  • Did the ‘investigators‘ who said that ‘nothing happened‘ question Hannah and check the medical evidence? Or were those ‘investigators’ the officers who went to the house and ‘resolved the situation in about five minutes‘?
  • Given the events, how could the police, apparently without conducting a formal investigation, be so sure that ‘no assault occurred’?
  • Nobody has even alleged that Daryl Hannah was even touched‘. It may be that no allegations were made to the police, but what about Hannah’s spokesman saying, ‘She received serious injuries incurred during a domestic dispute with Browne’?
  • Given that the police visited the house because of a reported disturbance, and given Hannah’s press statement made later the same day, why didn’t the police formally investigate the incident?
  • Regardless of the ‘department’s intention‘, did male rock stars get a free pass for reported domestic abuse in Santa Monica in the early 90s when no complaint was made to the police, even if the female involved was a film star?

I asked the SMPD about Lt Miehle’s ‘statement’. They said they have no record of the incident or of any statement made; and that Miehle has retired.

I asked retired Capt Miele about his statement. He hasn’t replied.


Contents 🔼

Browne’s US reply to Wexler

Browne’s second letter in US was a direct reply to the letter from Hannah’s uncle, Haskell Wexler. Browne agreed that they were no longer friends. He said that Wexler hadn’t allowed him to explain what happened, but had joined the attack on his reputation and character in which many untrue things were said, some of which Wexler must have known were untrue; and that Wexler had added his own incorrect and damning assumptions.

Browne said that Hannah’s refusal to press charges was not done out of generosity but for her own reasons. It meant that he’d been subject to trial by media, ‘where anything can be said and nothing has to be proven’.

Browne wrote:

‘I suggest that you allow me to describe Daryl’s actions to you and then judge for yourself as to how those injuries may have occurred. I repeat: I did not beat her. I have no desire to expose Daryl to public scrutiny in this matter. I have avoided describing her actions or characterizing her behavior so far. It has been hard. I would have preferred to talk to you a year ago. Basically, I believe that Daryl has a right to the support and belief of her family and friends. However, you leave me no choice but to respond to your public accusations.’

Perhaps, under this threat of exposure, Wexler allowed Browne to give his explanation. Perhaps he found Browne’s explanation plausible. Perhaps Hannah and Wexler then did a deal with Browne: they’d drop the accusation; Browne would never say what happened – he’d keep his ‘covenant‘. (See Who did it?, above)

Obviously, that’s speculation – but it would explain why, after all that hot air, the three of them suddenly and completely clammed up. I can’t find any further quotes about the incident from any of them (apart from Browne’s occasional pained denials).


Contents 🔼

The defamation claims

Despite the flakiness of the police ‘statement’ included in Browne’s open letter to US (above), he was apparently able to use it as the basis of two successful defamation claims in 2003. The makers of a Fox TV movie about John F Kennedy Jr and of a documentary about celebrity paparazzi removed scenes referring to Browne and the alleged assault on Hannah. Browne then said in a statement:

‘I never assaulted Daryl Hannah, and this fact was confirmed by the investigation conducted at the time by the Santa Monica Police Department.’

Browne, faced with the damaging rumour, seems to have resorted to a delusional faith in the police’s so-called investigation. Presumably Fox’s lawyers would have seen the holes in it, but decided not to bother with a high-profile defence.


Contents 🔼

Why didn’t Hannah or Wexler go to the police?

The police ‘statement’ included in Browne’s open letter to US (above) said, ‘no one alleged that Hannah was assaulted‘, presumably meaning that no assault was reported to the police. This begs the question: why didn’t Wexler go to the police after seeing his injured niece and believing Browne to be responsible? Wexler’s letter to US showed that he was very angry.

The reason must be that Hannah persuaded him not to. Perhaps she told her uncle that she couldn’t face the publicity a possible trial would bring, or that she wanted to protect Browne.

However, if Browne didn’t assault her, perhaps Hannah’s real concern was to protect herself from the truth that a police investigation might uncover.


Contents 🔼

Did the police see Hannah during their visit?

As regards whether the police who visited the house saw Hannah, the 1992 People report said:

‘Since there were no visible signs of distress – [the police] never saw Hannah, says Gallinot – the men [sic] left and did not file a report.’

In the 1994 US interview by Fred Schruers, Browne, specifically criticising the People report, said:

‘…the story that I sent the police away, that they never spoke to Daryl, [is] completely untrue. The officers did speak with Daryl, and they spoke with both of us for a long time…They basically said: “Look, you’re having an argument. Just cool it.”‘

Schruers then quoted Santa Monica police spokesman Sgt Gary Gallinot as saying:

‘A male and female officer went to the house – it was an argument, what we call a family disturbance, and when we left everything was OK. [Hannah] never made indications she was assaulted…if there are any signs of domestic violence, we take a report, but in this instance there were no signs. It could have happened later, but she never filed charges.’

In his open letter to US, Browne, apparently referring first to the 1992 People article and then to the 1994 US interview, wrote:

‘…much that was said about this affair in the tabloids and in the media is untrue. Particularly that the police came to our house and I sent them away without their having spoken to Daryl. Further, Fred Schruers actually checked it out with the police, and that’s more than the other writers that I made the same assertion to were able to do.’

So according to the People report, Gallinot said that the police didn’t see Hannah when they visited the house; but in the US interview, Browne said that the police spoke to Hannah; and Gallinot was reported as saying that Hannah didn’t indicate that she’d been assaulted, implying that the police did see her.

I asked Fred Schruers about this. He said he vaguely remembers speaking to the district attorney or possibly the police.

I asked the Santa Monica city attorney’s office about it. They said they have no record of the incident; they only keep closed domestic violence files for fifteen years.

I asked the Los Angeles district attorney and SMPD Sgt (now Capt) Gallinot about their involvement with the incident. The LA DA’s office said they have no record of the incident. Gallinot hasn’t replied.


Contents 🔼

Was there a police investigation?

There should have been a full investigation. According to lawyer, fan and forum contributor ‘Laura‘ it was the practice in California at that time (and still is) to investigate – and, if appropriate, to prosecute – cases of apparent domestic violence even if no complaint was made to the police.

(‘Laura’ thinks that that proves Browne’s innocence: there must have been an investigation – which must have exonerated Browne.)

The October 1992 People article reported Hannah’s press release about her injuries, issued on the day of the incident. Presumably the SMPD would have been aware of that public statement. The call-out to the house and Hannah’s press release made later the same day should have prompted the police to launch an investigation.

However, it looks as though there was no investigation. The People article, apparently relying on information from SMPD press information officer Sgt Gary Gallinot, said that the officers who visited the house didn’t file a report.

And if there had been a follow-up investigation, the defensive ‘statement’ by SMPD Lt John Miehle (made, according to Browne, in November 1992) would surely have mentioned it. But the ‘statement’ didn’t say there was an investigation – it referred only to the ‘investigators‘ who ‘resolved’ the five-minute call-out, and said:

‘Nobody has even alleged that Daryl Hannah was even touched. If they had, we’d be investigating.’ (My bolding)

So how come there was no investigation? As ever, cock-up is the most likely explanation but conspiracy is always a possibility.

According to the People report, Browne’s manager Donald Miller gave him a false alibi, saying that Browne was with him at a recording studio at the time of the incident. Presumably Miller thought things looked bad for his client and was trying to fix it. Did Mr Fixit then somehow persuade the police not to investigate?

I asked Miller if it’s true that he gave Browne that alibi, and if so, why? I’ve also asked him if he somehow persuaded the police not to investigate. He hasn’t replied.

I asked the SMPD about their response to the incident. They said they were unable to find any record of the incident, and that any record would presumably have been disposed of according to their ‘purge schedule‘.

Case types exempt from purging apparently include unsolved cases of severe violence. So, if there had been a follow-up police investigation in addition to the five-minute visit, the record might have been purged, depending on whether the case was considered solved or not; and if not, how severe the alleged violence was considered to be.


Contents 🔼

Some peripheral information

Browne’s beautiful song Sky Blue and Black (from his 1993 album I’m Alive) is supposedly about the ending of his relationship with Hannah.

Given the yearning sincerity of the lyrics, it might seem unlikely – but is there perhaps an incongruously dark wordplay in Sky Blue and Black’s title/refrain. Blue and black – black and blue? Could master wordsmith Browne have been unaware of that?


The daft and bitter song, Not to Blame by 70s-scorned Browne ex Joni Mitchell from her 1994 Turbulent Indigo album was supposedly about the rumoured assault.

Not that I’m comparing myself to Van Gogh… | Detail of self-portrait by Joni Mitchell (Turbulent Indigo cover artwork)

The song’s misinformed, scattergun attack – by a spurned lover who apparently still carried a torch for Browne – implied that Browne was a serial abuser who was to blame for the suicide and suicide attempts of previous partners, including Mitchell’s own attempt; and that he never accepts responsibility for the damage he does, but always says he’s not to blame.

This is a whole new set of smears but, as far as I can tell, it seems to be pure spite with no substance. Perhaps the pattern of events in Browne’s past shows not that he was an abusive man who drove women to suicide, but simply that he was attracted to troubled women. It happens.

This was a low point for Mitchell, whose Blue album is sublime magic. I’d like to think she’s better than that.

(Apparently, Browne’s exquisite song Fountain of Sorrow was a reflection on his brief relationship with Mitchell.)


In 1996 John F Kennedy Jr (Hannah’s lover at the time of her breakup with Browne) commented – somewhat ungallantly – on Hannah’s flakiness.


Contents 🔼

Some sources

There are some useful sources of information out there:

  • The surprisingly (to me) in-depth 1992 news report by US celebrity magazine People, published about a month after the event – hotly contested by Browne (in the interview listed below) as fake – but stoutly defended by People as genuine
  • The 1994 interview with US film and music magazine US (not to be confused with the later celeb mag version, US Weekly) nicely written by music journalist Fred Schruers, in which Browne opens up on the incident
  • An interesting forum discussion on the subject
  • another onewith the post by lawyer ‘Laura
  • A 2016 piece in the US online OnStage Magazine by assignment editor and stage photographer Larry Philpot, with a good summary of the available evidence (albeit with a pro-Browne bias)

The uncle letters to US (see above) are reproduced in the forums and in the OnStage article.

In his OnStage piece, Larry Philpot writes that as a long-time friend of Browne’s genius-collaborator and close friend David Linley, and as a stage photographer who’s looked many times into Browne’s (famously soulful) eyes, he can’t believe that Browne could have assaulted Hannah.

image
Puss in Boots (voiced by Antonio Banderas) doing the big eyes | Image: Dreamworks

The OnStage article says that Hannah has denied several times that Browne hit her. I’ve come across this claim elsewhere but haven’t found any evidence. I asked Philpot if there’s any evidence that Hannah has publicly made that denial. He hasn’t replied.


Contents 🔼

Conclusion

Back in 2014 (when I started writing this) I couldn’t find any definite answers, so I didn’t take my wife to the concert. It wouldn’t have felt right, especially as my wife suffered domestic abuse in her previous marriage.

I still haven’t found what I’m looking for (ie, a definite answer). It still matters, 25 years on from 1992, because I love Jackson Browne’s music – it speaks to something in my soul – but the unresolved rumour makes it a tainted love.

Can we separate the artist from the art? Maybe not – or not completely. I’d overlook a lot of bad behaviour in an artist whose art I admire, but not domestic abuse – nor, as in this case, a persistent rumour of domestic abuse that the artist refuses to resolve.

So I won’t be taking my wife to Browne’s 2017 tour.

Should Browne’s denial be accepted? I’d like to accept it. I’ve checked out the rumour as I set out to do, and, for what it’s worth, my opinion is that – his dodgy police ‘statement’ notwithstanding – Browne probably didn’t assault Hannah. I think that Hannah may have inflicted the injuries on herself during an autistic rage episode.

We’ll probably never know why there was no proper police investigation or why Browne’s manager gave him a false alibi. However, I’d still like to know exactly how Hannah got those injuries. Browne says it’s none of our business. I disagree. Here’s to truths yet to be known.

If you did it, Jackson, ‘fess up – it’s good for the soul, they say. If you didn’t, please explain it.

Whatever covenant or deal you made, maybe it’s time to tell the truth, and shame the devil. You’ve been trapped too long under a dark cloud of suspicion. The truth will set you free – at last.

It would be even better if Daryl Hannah told us what really happened that day. C’mon, Daryl – what have you got to lose?

🌷

Keep a fire burning in your eye
Pay attention to the open sky
You never know what will be coming down

From For A Dancer by Jackson Browne
From the album Late For The Sky (1974)

 

Eyebrowed handsome man | Photo: Poster for Jackson Browne’s 2017 tour

Contents 🔼

 

Please feel free to comment

Advertisements

13 thoughts on “Jackson Browne and Daryl Hannah

  1. I’ve researched this topic as I am a huge fan of Jackson Browne. Nothing is definitive. I’ve heard it did happen and that it didn’t. Apparently, Jackson hasn’t been nice to a lot of his exes. However, he did get a beautiful Martin D-48 acoustic as a gift from Laura Nyro while they dated. One story I’ve heard that makes me not believe it is about Jackson and Nico. Jackson really helped her out. Gave her songs, played with her, etc. She was addicted to heroin and flipped out on him and attacked him during a concert. She looked at him and said, “I know what you’re up to.” She then tried to physically attack him. In Jackson’s defense, a few people have said how crazy Daryl Hannah is. She recently revealed she is autistic, Browne never knew this. Certain parties claim this attributed directly to the dissolution of the relationship. There is some good info on the subject, you just have to dig and know what you’re looking for.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Thanks, Bobby, for your very interesting comment. You certainly seem better informed than me (not that that’s saying much). It’s natural to want the life of an artist you admire to be as good as their art, but unfortunately they’re usually f****d up in some way or other. Perhaps it’s the price they pay, like Robert Johnson at the crossroads. Many excesses, deviations and character defects can be overlooked, but not, IMHO, domestic abuse. If Browne is innocent, he should break his silence and explain it. (Re autism, I don’t think it can be caused by trauma. As far as I know, Hanna would have been born with it.)

      Like

      1. Sorry, Bobby, I’ve just realised (Duh) that you meant that Hannah’s autism, unkown to Browne, contributed to their breakup. Perhaps, knowing that she had problems, he didn’t want to add to them by explaining what really happened. Perhaps.

        Like

    1. Thanks for your comment, JC. I’m sorry you think my post is BS. (I don’t think there’s any innuendo, though.) Perhaps you don’t think domestic abuse is a serious matter. You might be in a minority, there.

      Like

          1. I found some innuendo (we Brits love a bit of innuendo) and took it out. (What was it? You’ll never know.) Ive edited the post a lot since the ‘bullshit’ comment. I hope its a lot clearer now.

            Like

  2. Although I Didn’t learn anything new from your article, thank you for writing it. I think they should explain as well. I have researched this a lot and.too have stayed away from Jackson Browne. I struggle with this everytime I hear his songs, he comes up in conversation or I see him somewhere. This whole thing was very public so I think it should really be explained. Woody Allen is another artist that has a dark cloud over is head. We see our heros fail and it’s sad but it’s worse when we are not sure. Keep us up.to date if.anything more surfaces. I would like to enjoy his music once more but because of this it feels tainted. Thank you again.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Thanks for your comment, Laura – and your encouraging words. You say you’ve researched this a lot. Are you by any chance Laura the lawyer quoted on the Findadeath forum? (http://www.findadeath.com/forum/showthread.php?22538-Jackson-Brown/page2&styleid=10findadeath%20forums) You say you learnt nothing new. Had you seen the 1994 US Weekly interview by Fred Schruers? I hadn’t seen that anywhere else – I managed to get the Library of Congress to send me a scan. I thought that, at least, would be new to most readers!

      Like

      1. I’ve just realised that the 1994 interview wasn’t in celebrity magazine ‘US Weekly’ but was in in a classier earlier version of that magaine, the monthly film and music magazine, ‘US’. (I’ve changed all the references ti the interview in the post )

        Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s