The record DOES NOT show that "the only thing discussed then was whether or not a specific tape was going to be admissible or not."

This is a matter that bears close consideration. It would appear that either 1) Segel is simply confused (about what what was discussed - which does not seem likely);   2) the transcripts of this proceeding were altered, or otherwise misrepresented to attorney Segel;   or,   3) there was another In Chambers Hearing that day, Friday Mach 31, - which was not recorded. OR, attorney Segel is being complicit in the perpetration of this fraud - that is, this cover-up.

The latter two of course, are a matter of extremely serious concern. What it appears to me is that attorney Segel is ( somehow - for whatever reason) confusing the hearing conducted the previous day (May 30, 1991) which concerned the admissability of a taped interview of Mark Wilson.

But what we do have here is a letter from Michael of May 29, 1991, of an obviousely serious nature (and his mothers presence at (outside of) this hearing). AND, nothing else. Nothing else, except this charade.