Fair Game; May be deprived of property or injured by any means by any Scientologist without any discipline of the Scientologist. May be tricked, sued or lied to or destroyed (ref: HCO Policy letter of 18, October 1967, Issue IV)
https://vbreton2062.files.wordpress.com/2015/01/church-of-scientology-letter-001.jpg
My twenty-year-old son, Kyle Brennan, died in the Clearwater, Florida, apartment of his Scientologist father, Tom Brennan, on the evening of February 16, 2007. The Clearwater Police Department (the CWPD) ruled it a suicide, but the circumstances surrounding his death were, and remain, highly suspicious. Over the course of the subsequent investigation, for example, Tom Brennan, his Scientologist associates—and the Clearwater police—changed their descriptions of what had transpired that fateful night. Brennan told one of the first policemen on the scene that he had taken control of Kyle’s psychiatric medication, his Lexapro. He later recanted, saying that Kyle had voluntarily handed it over. The CWPD at first claimed that Kyle had left a suicide note. They later admitted there was no note. And thanks to what we believe to be criminally mishandled police procedures it’s actually impossible to identify the weapon used, and—most importantly—who pulled the trigger. For these reasons, we’re certain that the actual events of the evening of February 16, 2007, were very different from those detailed in the Clearwater Police Report.
Medical Misinformation (Part II)
As described in “Medical Misinformation (Part I),” the Estate of Kyle Brennan filed a wrongful-death lawsuit in February 2009. Named as defendants were: Tom Brennan; Denise Miscavige Gentile, Brennan’s Scientology “auditor” (or advisor); Denise’s husband, Gerald Gentile; the Church of Scientology; and Flag Service Organization, Inc. (hereafter referred to as “Flag”). In June 2009, Flag’s lawyers filed a motion for Rule 11 sanctions against the Estate of Kyle Brennan and the Estate’s legal representative, Kennan “Ken” G. Dandar.
Flag’s motion states that: “Thomas Brennan advised that Kyle had not been taking the Lexapro on a regular basis prior to his arrival in Clearwater, Florida.” (This assertion we disproved in “Medical Misinformation [Part 1].” See.) In this piece we’ll cover a few of the other Lexapro lies.
“There is no evidence to the contrary,” the motion continues. “Nor will there be. The two witnesses to what transpired with respect to the medication are Thomas Brennan and Kyle Brennan. Kyle Brennan is deceased and Thomas Brennan has already provided the police with the facts about what happened to his son. No witness exists who is competent to contradict him.” The “facts,” according to Flag’s motion, “do not support the allegation that Thomas Brennan took away his son’s Lexapro without his knowledge and consent.”
But “facts,” like chameleons, can very often change their appearance—especially “facts” concocted by pathological liars seeking to escape culpability.
Flag’s assertion that Kyle’s father “provided the police with the facts” is laughable, absolutely preposterous. Irrefutable is the fact that Tom Brennan lied—repeatedly, and evidently without conscience. Tom Brennan’s stories regarding the circumstances surrounding Kyle’s death are riddled with lies and inconsistencies. In his various recountings of the events of February 16, 2007, for example, Brennan changed his whereabouts, changed his purpose for going out that evening, and changed the time of his arrival home (making sure, of course, that it was later, after Kyle passed away). He also lied about calling Kyle that evening—no call was recorded—and he told numerous lies about the weapon and its ammunition. (For more information regarding Brennan’s lies, see “Kyle’s Story; A Summary of the Lies & Deception,” and “A Weapon and Bullet List of Contradictory Statements.) Tom Brennan lied about so many things: Why should anyone believe what he said about the Lexapro?
The Church of Scientology’s claim that there is no witness “competent to contradict” Brennan is also ridiculous. In reality, no other witness is needed: Because Brennan did a startling job of contradicting himself. Reading through his various statements—to Kyle’s family, to the various policemen, his deposition under oath—one is immediately taken by the fact that they don’t add up, they’re amazingly inconsistent. These lies are boldfaced—not secretive, not creative—and yet the fact that he told wildly differing stories was not questioned by the police. Why not?
In the early stages of the investigation, Kyle’s family was told by Clearwater Police Detective Stephen Bohling, the lead investigator, that Brennan had in fact taken away Kyle’s prescribed psychiatric medication. (One of the precepts of Scientology is that psychiatrists and psychiatric medication are evil: they’re forbidden.) Police Officer Jonathan Yuen—one of the first to arrive at the crime scene—stated in his 2010 deposition that Brennan, on the night Kyle died, “advised that he [Brennan] took the prescription bottle from him [Kyle] about three days ago.”
Yuen also said, under oath, that Brennan admitted that “he did not believe in psychiatric medications based on his beliefs,” and claimed that Kyle “was not taking his medication.” If Kyle wasn’t using his Lexapro, why was it necessary for Brennan to lock it in the trunk of his vehicle? Why wasn’t this obvious line of questioning pursued by the police?
During his deposition, Officer Yuen was asked the following: “Did you ask him [Brennan] further about the circumstances surrounding the taking of the [Lexapro] prescription bottle?” Yuen response was, “I didn’t get into a full discussion about that.”
Then the attorney representing the Estate of Kyle Brennan asked Yuen: “Did it make any sense to you as the on-scene officer [what] Thomas Brennan [was] telling you; Kyle didn’t like to take his medicine, but the medicine is locked in his trunk? Did that make sense?”
Yuen reply was, simply, “I don’t know.”
When Tom Brennan was deposed in 2010, his Lexapro story took a sharp turn from what Kyle’s family had been told three years earlier. Brennan stated under oath that “Kyle gave him the medication.” Without hesitation, the morally challenged Brennan concocted a crude, false, and damaging impression of his only son when he claimed that Kyle stated “I hate this shit” as he handed over the Lexapro.
Unfortunately, Brennan’s fabricated Lexapro story dominated the court documents, the oral arguments, and the pleadings presented by the defendants in both the United States District Court (Middle District of Florida, Tampa Division) and the United States Court of Appeals (for the 11th Circuit).
What’s obvious is that Brennan’s fictionalized Lexapro story was created to avoid liability. And yet the Clearwater Police Department—amazingly—decided that Brennan was telling the truth. Then they proceeded to hide proof to the contrary: Officer Jonathan Yuen—contrary to recommended police procedures—shredded the notes of his first interview with Kyle’s father. Detective Stephen Bohling—who took over the investigation the day after Kyle died, and never visited the crime scene—also destroyed the notes of his first interview with Brennan.
In September of 2007, Clearwater Attorney Luke Lirot (representing the Estate of Kyle Brennan) had his first and only interview with Detective Stephen Bohling. In an e-mail written the next day, attorney Lirot stated that Bohling told him that “the medication was either taken away by the father [Tom Brennan], or the father ‘influenced’ Kyle to abate the use of the prescriptions” (sic). Kyle’s family believes that some of Brennan’s earliest statements are the most accurate. And the information gleaned from this Lirot-Bohling interview is faithful to the first Lexapro story told by Tom Brennan to Kyle’s Virginia family.
Undebatable, too, is the simple revelation found in the statement: “to abate the use of the prescriptions.” It clearly means that Kyle was taking his Lexapro. If Kyle was not taking the medication—if he indeed “hated this shit”—there would be no need for Brennan to have a conversation with him trying to get him to stop taking it.
Brennan’s lying knew no bounds when it came to the events surrounding Kyle’s death. In his 2008 deposition, Tom Brennan admitted that he’d lied to me over the phone. The attorney then representing the Estate of Kyle Brennan, Ken Dandar, asked him: “Did you ever have a conversation with her [Victoria Britton] where she told you to make sure Kyle had his Lexapro and was taking it?” Brennan’s response was “Yeah, she said something like that. She said make sure Kyle is taking his Lexapro.”
Dandar’s next question was: “So you decided not to follow her request; is that right?”
“You’re right,” was Brennan’s answer.
Lying, evidently, comes easily to the likes of Tom Brennan. It’s striking, too, that he showed no remorse for the outcome of his behavior.
The most pernicious and injurious of the Lexapro-related lies, however, is found in the Clearwater Police Report: It’s a concocted story concerning Kyle’s psychiatrist—Dr. Stephen M. McNamara—and his diagnosis of Kyle’s condition. Detective Stephen Bohling and Medical Investigator Martha J. Scholl lied about contacting and consulting with Dr. McNamara, saying in the police report that: “The doctor confirmed that Kyle had been exhibiting early signs of schizophrenia to include paranoia and delusions and . . . advised that he was not aware of any major side effects if one was to suddenly stop taking Lexapro” (emphasis added).
Dr. McNamara, stated emphatically under oath, however, that he had absolutely no contact with either Bohling or Scholl. Not only had they lied about contacting and consulting with him, they had also fabricated a diagnosis.
“Perplexed and dumbfounded” by their statements, McNamara said he was “bound by confidentiality” not to release “information about a patient’s treatment.” He said that “Kyle’s diagnosis was mild anxiety and depression”—not schizophrenia and paranoia—and that there are major side effects from the sudden termination of taking Lexapro, especially for someone Kyle’s age (emphasis added).
Dr. McNamara was perplexed and dumbfounded, but that doesn’t begin to describe the outrage Kyle’s family feels over the contemptible treatment he received at the hands of a police detective and a medical investigator—supposed public servants. They evidently had very little regard for either Kyle or their duty. They chose instead to protect a line-up of defendants that included powerful members of a very wealthy, and litigious, religious organization. We’re left with an important question: What was in it for them?
