Bishop Grahmann Testimony from Transcripts
of Rudy Kos Liability Trial
7-1-97 and 7-2-97
The identities of the victims have been removed from this document with the same "John Doe" number designations then inserted as were used for those victims in other parts of the court transcript. John Doe numbers above 11 are for victims not included in this original lawsuit. Questions and comments are welcome in an effort to make this document more useful and to change our Catholic Church so children are never again placed, and/or allowed to remain, in such danger.
Following is an index of some of the more striking testimony. It is strongly recommended you read the original testimony before and after the sections cited, especially if you have questions about the conclusions drawn.
Again, your ideas are welcome!
Bill Betzen
bbetzen@wearethechurch.org
Index (last updated 7-5-03)
Bishop Grahmann claimed under oath that he never read the Diocesan Kos Personnel file. He admitted that after the Diocese had received no fewer than 10 reports reflecting possible sexual abuse by Rudy Kos, including reports by two priests, one of whom had taken concerns directly to Bishop Grahmann twice, and after victims had come forward and lawsuits had been filed, he still had never taken the time to read the Diocesan Rudy Kos Personnel file to be familiar with the record. With this lack of detailed information he then refused to follow the recommendations of a child abuse expert in early April 1992 and allowed Kos to continue to have access to his parish and the victims. The Diocesan record that he did not read ultimately helped document the abuse of many young men and cost the Diocese millions of dollars. - Page 7610, line 13 and Page 7618 line 17
Bishop Grahmann,
speaking about his third meeting in July 1992 with
Fr. Rudy Kos following multiple complaints,
stated that he said to Fr. Kos: "Stop. Don't have little boys overnight......"I'll
move you if you do."
Note: Bishop Grahmann still had not taken time to read Kos personnel file.
We must ask:
"What
parish and which of our sons may have been
ultimately victimized if "John Doe #1" had not come forward
that next
September to file the first lawsuit?" - Page 7616, lines 16-19
Bishop Grahmann states, "I was appointed Coadjutor Bishop of the Diocese of Dallas in view of the fact that the present bishop was going to retire." - Page 7816, lines 9-11
Bishop Grahmann says he does not consider it necessary to
tell Catholic
parents and children in the diocese that it is against diocesan policy for
children to spend the night in the rectory or to go on overnight trips with a
priest unaccompanied.
Page 7854, line 25 to
Page 7856, line 20
There are many typing errors in the following document including errors in dates such as 1996 when the date should be 1986. This is the condition of the court transcript document as received:
7598 [Note: These transcript page numbers appear every 25 lines. This testimony started on page 7598 - BB]
11 THE COURT: Please state your full, legal name
12 for the record.
13 BISHOP GRAHMANN: Charles Victor Grahmann.
14 THE COURT: Okay. You may proceed.
15 MR. TURLEY: Thank you, Your Honor.
16 THE COURT: You're welcome.
17
18 MOST REVEREND BISHOP CHARLES VICTOR GRAHMANN,
19 the witness, having been duly sworn and cautioned to tell
20 the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth,
21 testified on his oath as follows:
22 DIRECT EXAMINATION
23 BY MR. TURLEY:
24 Q. Good afternoon, Bishop.
25 A. Good afternoon.
7599
01 Q. Bishop, unfortunately, this is the first day
02 I have been short of voice. And I will do my very best to
03 keep it up, but it is going away a little bit on me here.
04 Bishop, tell the jury what your present
05 duties are here with the Dallas Catholic Diocese.
06 A. I'm the Bishop of the Catholic Diocese of
07 Dallas.
08 Q. You are the supervisor, the employer, the
09 in-charge man for all of the priests within this Dallas
10 Diocese?
11 A. I am the pastoral shepherd of all other
12 people and priests of the Diocese.
13 Q. You manage them; do you not?
14 A. Within the boundaries of the law.
15 Q. You're the supervisor.
16 A. Within the boundaries of the Code of Canon
17 law.
18 Q. And you assign them to their tasks.
19 A. Within the boundaries degrees of Code of
20 Canon law.
21 Q. Bishop, when you came here, I understand it
22 was in 1990 that you assumed command of this Diocese?
23 A. That's right. I was appointed as the
24 Bishop of the Diocese.
25 Q. When I -- when you came here, it's my
7600
01 understanding from your deposition, that no one briefed you
02 at that time on the Father Rudy Kos problems.
03 A. No.
04 Q. And the person who, I guess, who most
05 likely, most reasonably should have given that you briefing
06 was Monsignor Rehkemper, your Vicar General.
07 A. Possibly.
08 Q. Do I understand that at the time you came
09 here, you did not have presented to you a file, even a file
10 on the Kos/boy problem?
11 A. No files were presented to me.
12 Q. And you had arrived just a few months after
13 a lady by the name of Allen, from Ennis, testified earlier
14 in this case that she had sent you or sent to Bishop
15 Tschoepe and Monsignor Rehkemper a letter in which she
16 contained a paragraph saying the boys are continuing -- are
17 saying overnight, on a regular basis, in the rectory, with
18 Father Kos over in Ennis. That letter was not on your desk
19 or anyplace around when you arrived, I guess.
20 A. Not aware of that letter.
21 Q. Father, when you gave your sworn deposition
22 testimony, you testified under oath that Father Williams
23 had not told you and didn't -- you didn't know that boys
24 were staying overnight when you talked to Father Williams
25 that first time.
7601
01 A. I don't remember him telling me they were
02 spending the night. He told me they were hanging around
03 the rectory.
04 Q. And you also testified that you didn't even
05 know when you first learned that they were staying
06 overnight; do you remember that?
07 A. When -- when Williams came to see me, that's
08 correct.
09 Q. Well, I understood you to say, on page 59 of
10 your deposition, that Father Williams did not tell you that
11 the boys were staying overnight.
12 A. I'm not aware that he told me that. He told
13 me they were hanging around the rectory.
14 Q. Okay. But, Bishop, there came a time when
15 you sat down and made some notes about this matter, didn't
16 you?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. Have you reviewed those notes before you've
19 come here to testimony today?
20 A. No.
21 Q. Actually, contrary to your sworn testimony,
22 Bishop, in your notes, when Father Williams came to talk to
23 you in September of '91, he told you they were spending the
24 night, in that very first number one meeting you had when
25 Father Kos' problem was called to your a deposition.
7602
01 A. Okay, I wasn't aware. His emphasis was
02 that the kids were spending -- were hanging around the
03 rectory.
04 Q. Well, you made these notes. That
05 (indicating) is your handwriting, isn't it?
06 A. That's correct.
07 Q. And you made these notes on your
08 recollection of what Father Williams told you. And you
09 remember having a meeting in 1991. Late September or early
10 October Father Williams expresses his concern that a group
11 of boys are always hanging around the rectory. And he said
12 -- you said, you wrote, "even spending the night."
13 The reason I wanted to ask you about that --
14 that is what you wrote, isn't it --
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. -- Bishop?
17 The reason I wanted to ask you about that,
18 I wanted to get straight at the very start here that from
19 the very first time you heard anybody say anything to you
20 that there is a Rudy Kos boy problem, you were informed
21 that that boy problem included boys spending the night in
22 the rectory.
23 A. That's what he said to me.
24 Q. And not only did you learn that from Father
25 Williams in September of 1991, but you also, right after
7603
01 that, had a meeting with Monsignor Rehkemper, didn't you?
02 A. That is correct.
03 Q. And in that meeting with Monsignor
04 Rehkemper, he briefed you a little bit on this issue,
05 didn't he?
06 A. He did.
07 Q. And he told you that boys spending the night
08 in the rectory had been a continuing problem.
09 A. Concerns were raised in the past, correct.
10 Q. So, Bishop, even though this outgoing
11 administration had not briefed you fully on this when you
12 took over in -- what was is it, July of 1990 --
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. -- when you came here, you certainly had the
15 issue in your hands in the fall of 1991.
16 A. That's correct.
17 Q. And at that time it's my understanding you
18 did not say to Monsignor Rehkemper, "In view of all of
19 this, bring me the file. I want to look at the entire
20 file. I want to see everything the Diocese has on Rudy
21 Kos"?
22 A. No, I didn't -- did not see an opportunity
23 to do that.
24 Q. Bishop, have you given any estimate since
25 that time to the number of sexual violations of boys that
7604
01 were committed from September of 1991 until September of
02 1992 when Rudy Kos was made public?
03 A. No.
04 Q. Bishop, can you hear me okay?
05 A. Yes, I'm doing okay.
06 Q. So after Father Williams came to you in
07 September of 1991, it's my understanding you had a little
08 sit-down with Father Kos.
09 A. Yes, I did.
10 Q. In other words, you called him in for a
11 meeting.
12 A. That's right.
13 Q. And you told him that he should stop having
14 boys spend the night.
15 A. I told him what Father Williams had told me.
16 Q. Yes.
17 A. And he verified and said, yes, that was
18 true. So, therefore, I gave him a simple, strong
19 directive, no more, absolutely no more.
20 Q. Absolutely don't do it again --
21 A. That's right.
22 Q. -- no more boys overnight.
23 A. Or at the rectory.
24 Q. You even went a little further and said,
25 "Don't even have boys in the rectory".
7605
01 A. At the rectory, that's right.
02 Q. Daytime or any time.
03 And I asked you, when you told us that in
04 your deposition, if you were not suspicious at that time
05 that he might be a threat, a sexual threat to these young
06 men, young boys. And do you remember what he told me?
07 A. No, I don't.
08 Q. You said, "No suspicion at that time."
09 And do you remember I -- I asked you then if
10 you asked Rudy Kos if he had been in any way conducting
11 himself in an inappropriate sexual way with these boys.
12 Do you remember me asking you that?
13 A. Yes, I do.
14 Q. And what did you tell me?
15 A. I said "No, I did not feel it opportune to
16 do that".
17 Q. And those of us around the table there, at
18 least for myself, were puzzled. Do you remember I had kind
19 of puzzled look on my face?
20 A. No, I don't remember.
21 Q. Bishop, you said you didn't feel that there
22 was any need to do that at that time. Was that not because
23 you really had never been briefed on the issue, you didn't
24 have all of the information that had gone before?
25 A. Oh, I was briefly very much on the issue of
7606
01 pedophilia and the awareness of pedophilia.
02 Q. But I'm asking -- I'm asking you, Bishop, if
03 you had been briefed on what had happened here in this
04 Diocese with Father Kos?
05 A. No, I was not believed on -- on that
06 particular issue.
07 Q. Let me ask you: If you had had this
08 information made available to you for -- it should be on
09 are monitor. Can you see it there, Bishop?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. For example, in the file of Rudy Kos here at
12 this Diocese are written the words by Father Duesman when
13 he investigated his annulment, which he said, "Something is
14 fishy. Petitioner should level with us."
15 Skipping the next item, where his ex-wife
16 said in her deposition that he was gay and he has problems
17 with boys, those words didn't get in the file, but that is
18 what she testified she told Duesman. So skip that for just
19 a moment. But in the file would you have scene where
20 Rector Hughes, when he applied for admission to the
21 seminary, said, "There is some instability here. I'm
22 rejecting him this year and maybe next year maybe he should
23 never get in."
24 And then in 1981, it is probably not
25 reflected in the file, was the reported sexual advance on a
7607
01 student. Disregard that for just a moment.
02 And then we come up from '81 to '85 if you
03 -- in the file would have been reflected letters from
04 Clayton and others that would have indicated that as far
05 back as '81 and into '85 the Chancellor and Monsignor Kamel
06 knew that Kos had boys overnight in his room at All Saints.
07 And then starting in December of '85 the
08 alerts would have been more specific. You would have seen
09 in the file, Bishop, that Clayton -- Father Clayton had met
10 with Bishop Tschoepe and Sister Maureen, and the results of
11 that decision about Father Kos was, "Be alert to sexual
12 misconduct by Kos."
13 And then you would have seen in the file,
14 wouldn't you, in January of 1986, that Monsignor Rehkemper
15 suspects Kos is either homosexual or child abuser, said "We
16 don't have hard evidence, but we suspect it", and noted
17 that boys were spending the night overnight, staying
18 overnight.
19 And then in 1988, '86, still, 1986 Father
20 Clayton again warned the Diocese, Rehkemper, "Kos is a
21 danger" -- "is a danger to the church at large and to
22 St. Luke's", sees him that way. And then in May of 1988
23 Father Clayton sends a second set of warnings and logs to
24 the Diocese.
25 All of that you would have seen in the file,
7608
01 Bishop. And you would have also seen --
02 MR. MATHIS: Your Honor, to that extent, I object
03 to the characterization of these. These are Mr. Turley's
04 characterization of those, and those may or may not be
05 consistent with what the witness has actually said when
06 they were explaining each of those matters --
07 THE COURT: Okay. So I'm unclear --
08 MR. MATHIS: -- there has been lengthy testimony
09 with respect to these. This little blips that he puts up
10 there may or may not be right what the evidence is.
11 THE COURT: So I'm unclear as to your evidentiary
12 objection.
13 MR. MATHIS: Well, to extent it is tried to be
14 made part of the question, and I'm still waiting on a
15 question as part of all of this, it is improper
16 characterization of prior evidence.
17 THE COURT: Okay.
18 Response.
19 MR. TURLEY: Your Honor, we've been all through
20 this, each of the witnesses over whom -- who helped us
21 prepare these notes that summarize their testimony on those
22 points, said that is a fair summary of what I have said.
23 THE COURT: Okay, the objection is overruled.
24 Q. (BY MR. TURLEY) Continuing, Bishop, with
25 us, that if you had looked in the file and Father Clayton's
7609
01 report, would you have seen the words that one of the
02 parishioners reports there is an ugly rumor that Kos likes
03 little boys. And in the file you would have seen,
04 advancing to June of 1986, that the Diocese -- Diocese's
05 office learned that Father Kos had been shaken by a child
06 abuse seminar that he attended in 1986.
07 You also would have see in that same memo,
08 although it is not reflected on the red flag chart here,
09 that twenty-four hours later he had a ten or eleven year
10 old boy spend the night with him. You would have seen in
11 the file, Bishop, that in August of 1986 Father Clayton is
12 saying to the Bishop, about the overnights, "Grave concern
13 for all concerned. Instincts say to act", and that in
14 August of 1986 Rehkemper again warns, "Kos of overnight
15 guests, imprudent. Can jeopardize the Diocese". And
16 would you have seen, also, if -- if it was in the file, it
17 is not in the file now, but if it had been in the file at
18 that time, you would have seen in -- in June of 1989 that
19 Mr. and Mrs. Allen from Ennis informed the Dallas that for
20 several months boys had have been spending the nights at
21 the rectory. All of those things you would have found in
22 file.
23 Now, Bishop, my question is: If you had
24 pulled out the file and looked at it, I submit to you -- I
25 know you haven't been here for all of the evidence that has
7610
01 been offered in this case, but I submit to you that every
02 one of these things have been referenced, in one way or the
03 another, in the Diocese's file. I is my understanding
04 that you did not ask Rudy Kos, in 1990, if he was sexually
05 abusing boys, because you had never seen this material; is
06 that correct?
07 A. That is correct.
08 Q. And when I took your deposition, even, in
09 1994, two years after Rudy Kos has been exposed, a year
10 after the lawsuit has been filed, more than a year after
11 the lawsuit has been filed, you still had not read --
12 opened the file and read this material.
14 Q. In the 1990 meeting that you had with Father
15 Kos after you met -- when you met with him after Father
16 Williams --
17 A. 1991.
18 Q. Yes, '91. Thank you, sir.
19 In the September/October 1991 meeting
20 Father Kos admitted to you, did he not, that he knew of the
21 policy that he was not supposed to have boys in the rectory
22 overnight; he admitted that, didn't he?
23 A. I'm not sure of that.
24 Q. Okay. And he admitted also that -- that he
25 had been violating that policy.
7611
01 A. I'm not sure that he admitted it to me. I
02 asked Monsignor Rehkemper and he informed me of the policy.
03 And I used that information, then, in my talk to Kos.
04 Q. When you gave him that warning, though, you
05 were aware that he had already been previously warned.
06 A. No, I was not.
07 Q. And you don't recall telling me in your
08 deposition that Father -- that Father Kos admitted that he
09 knew of the policy against overnight boys and that he had
10 -- he knew that he had been violated that policy.
11 A. I don't remember that.
12 Q. Well, let's look at line 13, page 66. I
13 think it's in here, Father -- Bishop.
14 You answered:
15 "Q. Well, I verify that Father Williams --
16 what Father Williams said".
17 This is in your meeting with Father Kos.
18 "I wanted to have that verified. I wanted
19 to know myself. And he said, yes, the boys were hanging
20 out, occasionally spending the night. And I reminded him a
21 policy was in-place and asked him if he knew of the policy.
22 yes, he knew of it. He wasn't observing it."
23 So in 1991, in September, the very first
24 time you were confronted with this issue, you knew at the
25 get-go that Father Kos had a long-standing problem of
7612
01 having boys in the rectory.
02 A. I did not know that at the time --
03 Q. Monsignor Rehkemper --
04 A. -- when he came to see me.
05 Q. -- Monsignor Rehkemper didn't tell you that
06 this had been an ongoing problem?
07 A. After I saw Father Kos, not before.
08 Q. Within a few days --
09 A. Okay.
10 Q. -- you knew that this had been a
11 long-standing problem, you knew that Rudy Kos knew he was
12 violating the policy --
13 A. Yeah.
14 Q. -- you knew that the issue was continuing.
15 So you gave him another warning, if I understand correctly.
16 A. A very strong warning.
17 Q. And you told him if he continued to violate
18 the policy, something might be done.
19 A. No.
20 Q. You gave him a strong warning indicating
21 that you would not tolerate any violation of the policy.
22 A. That's right. He would cease and desist
23 having the youth at the rectory.
24 Q. You didn't put anything to him in writing.
25 A. No, I did not. I spoke to him directly.
7613
01 Q. And I'm correct, am I not, Bishop, that
02 during this entire ten years that the Dallas Diocese was
03 dealing with Rudy Kos' continuing problem of violating the
04 policy, of boys overnight, not one time, not one time did
05 the Diocese ever put in writing to him, "You're violating
06 the policy. Stop it now"?
07 A. I'm not aware of that.
08 Q. Do you agree me, Father, that -- Bishop,
09 that a minimum -- at a minimum, prudent and careful action
10 at that time would have dictated that the administrator in
11 charge of this institution at least open this suspect's
12 file to see what is in it?
13 A. No, because I did not have that background
14 information. The information I had was there was a policy
15 of anyone staying at the rectory.
16 Q. I guess that until you open the file, you're
17 not likely to ever get that background --
18 A. That's correct.
19 Q. -- information, are you?
20 A. But there was no reason for me to look in
21 the file.
22 Q. Even when Monsignor Rehkemper said to you --
23 even when Monsignor Rehkemper said to you, "This has been
24 an ongoing problem".
25 A. He said there was a policy against this and
7614
01 there were concerns raised in the past.
02 Q. All right. Still didn't open the file?
03 A. That's correct.
04 Q. Now, come March of 1992, Father Williams
05 contacts you again. He reports the boys are back; do you
06 remember that?
07 A. He didn't say the boys were back, he said he
08 is seeing the boys in their homes. But he said, "There
09 were some back last week --
10 Q. Well --
11 A. And that raised my eyebrow, because I said,
12 "I have instructed him firmly not to have these boys there
13 again. Is it true that some of them were back?"
14 Q. So he says, "The boys -- some of the boys
15 are back, last week, whenever", so you called Father Kos in
16 again.
17 A. Immediately.
18 Q. And you say to him, "Stop that". And you
19 said --
20 A. No, I didn't. I asked him whether it was
21 true.
22 Q. And you also said to him, "Stop that. I
23 forbid it from happening again".
24 A. I'm not sure if I used that language, but I
25 did ask him at that time, when he violated my directive, I
7615
01 asked him at the time, "Is there something sexual going on
02 here?", and he denied it. I think I used the word
03 pedophilia, and he denied it.
04 But then I said, "Okay, you disobeyed me.
05 I'm going to send you for a second opinion to St. Luke's
06 Institute".
07 Q. And do you know how many warnings that made,
08 in total, that Rudy Kos had been given by the Dallas
09 Diocese and its officers, managers, since this matter came
10 up? By March of 1992, do you know, Bishop, how many times
11 he has been warned?
12 A. This wasn't a warning. This was action. He
13 was going to St. Luke's Institute.
14 Q. Well, you said -- you also said, "Stop doing
15 that. I forbid to it happen again".
16 A. Well, I don't know if I used those worlds.
17 Q. Those are the words you said you used, on
18 page 71 of your deposition, Bishop.
19 A. Okay. I accept that.
20 Q. If you went back and looked at the file,
21 would you agree with me that we would find that
22 Father Clayton, when he was Rudy Kos' pastor and Rudy was
23 the assistant out at St. Luke's, had warned him at least
24 twice, that Monsignor Rehkemper warned him in January of
25 1986 and again a couple of years later when he called him
7616
01 in and warned him, instead of giving him a written letter,
02 one time the Personnel Board said, "Stop showing favoritism
03 to little boys", before they transferred him to Ennis, you
04 yourself have warned him twice now already, you're going to
05 warn him a third time, subsequently, we know, and I think
06 the record will show that Bishop Tschoepe warned him once
07 or twice.
08 All totaled, do you realize that March of
09 1992 Father Kos has been warned, "Stop the overnight
10 visits", eight or ten times; do you realize that?
11 A. I'm not aware of that.
12 Q. And then July did come, of 1992. You have
13 him back in your office, and we'll come back to how he got
14 there in July of 1992, but you have him back in there again
15 for your third meeting with him, and isn't it true that you
16 tell him, one more time, "Stop. Don't have the little boys
17 overnight"?
18 A. That's correct, and "I'll move you if you
19 do".
20 Q. And that makes nine or eleven times,
21 depending on how many times Bishop Tschoepe warned him.
22 Bishop, in 1992, when Father Duffy came to
23 you to speak to you about "John Doe #1"; you remember that,
24 do you not?
25 A. Yes, I do.
7617
01 Q. That was in September of 1992. Tell the
02 jury, please, what Father Duffy told you about "John Doe #1"
03 and Father Kos.
04 A. Well, he told me that, "A victim has come
05 forward with an accusation, an allegations against Rudy
06 Kos".
07 Q. And?
08 A. That's it.
09 Q. And you told us in your deposition that he
10 told you it happened ten years earlier.
11 A. I think so, yes.
12 Q. Is that your --
13 A. That's my -- that's recollection of it.
14 Q. That it happened ten years earlier?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. And you swore in your deposition that you
17 ordered immediate and aggressive help for "John Doe #1",
18 right then.
19 A. I told Father Duffy that.
20 Q. And you know, Bishop, now, do you not, that
21 there was no immediate or aggressive help.
22 A. I'm not aware that there wasn't.
23 Q. Well, you know that there was -- January
24 nothing happened or January of 1993 on into May of 1993
25 when this lawsuit was filed, there was no aggressive or
7618
01 immediate help for "John Doe #1". All of those months
02 passed; are you aware of that?
03 A. No.
04 Q. Did -- did that command just get lost in the
05 priorities of the Dallas Catholic Diocese?
06 A. No, because Father Duffy was in charge of
07 that and I respected him judgment.
08 Q. But someplace in your command for immediate
09 aggressive help for "John Doe #1" just got lost in the
10 priorities; is that what happened?
11 A. No, it did not.
12 Q. Well, it didn't happened.
13 A. I turned it --
14 Well, for a reason.
15 Q. Bishop, when I took your deposition, you
16 told me you had never looked at the file on Rudy Kos.
17 A. That's correct.
18 Q. Even when I took your deposition. Even
19 after Monsignor Rehkemper told you there had been these
20 other problems, you still didn't look at the file.
21 A. That's correct.
22 Q. Do I understand correctly that one of the
23 things you were interested in, however, was tending to the
24 victims, the possible victims --
25 A. That's correct. I learned that.
7619
01 Q. -- because you knew -- you knew -- you knew
02 by 1992 that if there is a pedophile out there infecting
03 people, it is probably -- it is probable that there is not
04 just one victim.
05 A. I didn't know that.
06 Q. You didn't know that in 1992?
07 A. I'm not aware.
08 Q. Bishop, if you were interested in finding
09 other names of other boys, you know, all had to do was open
10 the file and there would have been listed six for Father
11 Clayton, of boys that had been spending time and overnights
12 in the rectory and there would have been referenced three
13 or four more whose names weren't attached, but clear
14 references to specific individuals by Father Williams in
15 his June of 1992 memo. So there would have been about ten
16 names right there to start with, right in the file; do you
17 know that?
18 A. No, I turned that over to Father Duffy as
19 designated person.
20 Q. And, Bishop, if you had gone to those ten
21 individuals, don't you know that they could have revealed
22 another ten or twenty young men who were habitual, regular
23 young boys that stayed overnight in the rectory?
24 A. I don't know that.
25 Q. Now, Bishop, a few days after Kos -- Kos'
7620
01 abuse was admitted at the end of September, you received a
02 letter, didn't you, from the Allens, in Ennis, about Father
03 Kos?
04 A. I'm not aware of that. I'm not aware of
05 that.
06 Q. You know Mrs. Allen came here and testified
07 that on June -- on September 27th, 1992, a Sunday, she
08 typed a letter, sent a copy to you, sent one to Father Kos
09 and sent one to the Vicar General, Duffy Gardner. And in
10 that letter she complained about Father Kos and she also
11 attached a copy -- she testified, attached a copy of her
12 earlier 1989, June of '89 letter. Is it your testimony
13 today that you didn't get that letter, Bishop?
14 A. No, I didn't.
15 Q. Would someone else in your office have
16 opened that mail and acted on it --
17 A. No.
18 Q. -- for you?
19 A. No, no. I'm not aware of the letter.
20 Q. Have you been told that she so testified?
21 A. No.
22 Q. And -- and you don't think the Vicar General
23 would have opened that letter and acted on it for you?
24 A. I don't know.
25 Q. That letter should be in the file if it was
7621
01 sent to the Diocese, shouldn't it?
02 A. Should be.
03 Q. Now we know, Bishop, that -- what was your
04 address there in 1992, in October of 1992? What street was
05 the Chancellery Office on?
06 A. I think it was Lemmon Avenue.
07 Q. All right. Was it 3515 or something?
08 A. I don't know that. I don't know that.
09 Q. Bishop, let me ask you about something else
10 here. Did you sign -- cosign a note for Father Kos to
11 borrow $45,000 from the Knights of Columbus?
12 A. I'm not aware of that.
13 Q. There has been testimony in this case that
14 about a year and-a-half -- a year or a year and-a-half
15 before Father Kos gave up and admitted what he was doing,
16 in September of '92, that a note for $45,000 had been
17 cosigned by the Dallas Diocese with the Knights of
18 Columbus, for Father Kos. You would have been in charge at
19 that time, would you not?
20 A. Correct.
21 Q. Was there anyone else in the Diocese who had
22 the authority to make a $45,000 note for Rudy Kos?
23 A. Not that I know of.
24 Q. You -- and you're saying to the jury you
25 never signed anything like that?
7622
01 A. I don't know. I'm not aware of it. I'm
02 not aware of having signed that note if I signed it.
03 MR. MATHIS: Mr. Turley, if it will help, that
04 is Bishop Tschoepe. It's -- it's just the wrong Bishop.
05 You're just confused on time.
06 Q. (BY MR. TURLEY) Then that was -- then this
07 note was made even more than a year and-a-half before Rudy
08 Kos went to the Paracletes.
09 A. I'm not aware of it.
10 Q. If Bishop Tschoepe did it, it would have had
11 to have been done before 1990, wouldn't it?
12 A. Possibly.
13 Q. So maybe in '89 the note was done, because
14 that would mean in 1989 the Diocese knew that Rudy Kos had
15 a bill for $45,000 worth of stuff that he needed to pay.
16 A. That would be hearsay.
17 Q. Well, the Diocese would have had that
18 hearsay, wouldn't it, --
19 A. I don't know.
20 Q. -- Bishop. And did anybody bother to
21 investigate, in 1989, this priest that has been previously
22 suspected of possibly being a child abuser, did anybody
23 bother to investigate what he had done with -- or why he
24 had a need for $45,000?
25 A. I don't know that. I wasn't here.
7623
01 Q. And if they had investigated, they might
02 have determined whether he had a drug problem or whether he
03 had some kind of sexual addiction.
04 MR. MATHIS: Objection, Your Honor. It is
05 outside of his area of knowledge, that he already said he
06 wasn't here then. That is Bishop Tschoepe.
07 THE COURT: Okay.
08 MR. TURLEY: It doesn't take knowledge to answer
09 this question.
10 MR. MATHIS: Well, the first question it didn't,
11 but the second it did.
12 MR. TURLEY: He said he wasn't here.
13 Let me rephrase it.
14 THE COURT: Okay.
15 Q. (BY MR. TURLEY) Bishop, you know, as an
16 administrator, that if somebody who makes a modest salary
17 and suddenly comes up needing $45,000 to pay for their
18 stuff, that they have spent it on various things, that it
19 might be prudent, as an administrator, if you're asked to
20 cover that note, to try to figure out what this man is
21 doing with his money.
22 A. I wouldn't cover the note.
23 Q. You wouldn't have done that, would you?
24 A. Oh, no, not at all.
25 Q. But certainly, if that matter came to your
7624
01 attention, whether you covered the note or not, one of the
02 things you would want to know was: Does this person have a
03 drug addiction or a sexual addiction problem? What is he
04 doing with all of that money? You would want to know
05 that, wouldn't you?
06 A. I would probably inquire.
07 Q. As far as you know, no such inquiry is
08 reflected in the file ever took place in the Dallas
09 Diocese.
10 A. It was before my time.
11 Q. Now, Father -- Bishop, excuse me, sir.
12 Bishop, when you made the decision to ignore
13 the recommendation of Brenda Keller, the sex expert who
14 talked to Monsignor Rehkemper about Father Kos and said,
15 "Remove him from access to children immediately. Looks
16 like a textbook pedophile" --
17 MR. MATHIS: I object to that characterization
18 of her testimony. That is not an accurate
19 characterization of Brenda Keller's testimony.
20 THE COURT: Okay. Ladies and Gentlemen of the
21 Jury, please recall the evidence and the testimony to the
22 best of your ability.
23 Q. (BY MR. TURLEY) Father, I may have
24 misplaced a comma or two, but I think that is pretty close.
25 When she recommended something of that
7625
01 nature, "It sounds like a textbook pedophile. You should
02 remove him from access to children immediately", when you
03 got that information from Monsignor Rehkemper, you didn't
04 remove him, did you?
05 A. No, because I had made a firm decision to
06 send him to St. Luke's Institute and I wanted St. Luke's
07 Institute to give him a good evaluation and I would prefer
08 a doctor who sees the patient than to one who just reads a
09 statement.
10 Q. You had never read his file at the time you
11 made the decision to ignore Brenda Keller's recommendation.
12 A. I didn't ignore it, I just said she -- he is
13 going to go St. Luke's Institute. I didn't even address
14 it.
15 Q. Well, I call that ignoring it --
16 A. Well --
17 Q. -- you didn't address it whatever.
18 A. -- Whatever --
19 Q. -- you didn't address her recommendation,
20 you didn't even open his file to look in it, did you?
21 A. No, because I had made my decision already,
22 to send him to Dr. Jaeckle and then a second opinion at
23 t. Luke's Institute.
24 Q. And, Bishop, when you chose to ignore the
25 advice of your Personnel Board in the spring of 1992, which
7626
01 for several years had followed this Kos matter and they
02 recommended to you on two or three occasions in April of
03 1992 that you should remove Father Kos, and specifically
04 have him removed by June 1st, you didn't open his file when
05 you ignored that advice, did you?
06 A. I'm not aware of that advice --
07 Q. You don't -- you're not aware --
08 A. -- of the Personnel Board.
09 Q. That your Personnel Board said to you on
10 three occasions --
11 A. That's right.
12 Q. -- in April of 1992, "Father Kos should be
13 out of there by June 1st"?
14 A. Yes, because I had made a decision to send
15 him to St. Luke's Institute by June 1st.
16 Q. They told you, "Tell Father Kos he won't be
17 returning to the pastorate in Ennis".
18 A. Well, he knew what I had on the agenda.
19 Q. And you ignored that advice, didn't you?
20 A. No --
21 Q. You sent --
22 A. -- I sent him away.
23 Q. And then you came back and you returned him
24 to Ennis.
25 A. Only because of --
7627
01 Q. Bishop, just answer my question.
02 A. No.
03 MR. MATHIS: He needs to be given a chance to
04 answer --
05 MR. TURLEY: Nonresponsive.
06 MR. MATHIS: -- that one first.
07 COURT: Go ahead and finish. Go ahead. Go ahead
08 and finish.
09 THE WITNESS: Well, I don't know the question
10 now.
11 THE COURT: Okay. That's fair.
12 Q. (BY MR. TURLEY) The question was -- the
13 question was, Bishop, you ignored the advice of your
14 Personnel Committee, Personnel Board when they said, "Tell
15 Father Kos he will not be returning to Ennis, to St.
16 John's", you ignored that and you put him back in there
17 where he continued to serve until the end of September --
18 A. Not exactly
19 Q. -- isn't that right?
20 A. Not exactly.
21 Q. Isn't that correct?
22 A. Not exactly.
23 Q. Did you not ignore their advice?
24 A. No, I didn't ignore their advice.
25 Q. You sent him back and he continued to serve
7628
01 until the end of September.
02 A. Only because of --
03 Q. Isn't that correct?
04 A. Only because -- yes, only because of
05 St. Luke's Institute --
06 MR. TURLEY: Nonresponsive.
07 THE WITNESS: Right.
08 Q. (BY MR. TURLEY) Isn't that correct?
09 A. Yes.
10 Q. And -- and Father -- Bishop, when you acted
11 to cancel the plethysmograph test that St. Luke's Institute
12 had recommended, even then you never opened Rudy Kos' file
13 to see what was in it, did you?
14 A. No, I did not.
15 Q. Now, Bishop, I wanted to ask you about a
16 couple of other things here.
17 Did you have a chance to meet -- you had a
18 chance to meet, didn't you, with your lawyers, before you
19 gave your deposition in this case?
20 A. In 1994 or '3?
21 Q. Yes, sir. Yes, sir.
22 A. Well, they met with me to inform me of
23 the -- of the deposition.
24 Q. They came and met with you?
25 A. I don't remember.
7629
01 Q. They talked to you about the case, didn't
02 they, Bishop?
03 A. That I had to give a deposition.
04 Q. Yes.
05 And they talked to you about what the
06 deposition was, didn't they?
07 A. Well, they told me what a deposition was.
08 Q. Because you had never given one.
09 A. That's correct.
10 Q. Have you ever testified in court before?
11 A. No, I have not.
12 Q. And -- and they told you some of the areas
13 that we would be talking about in the deposition, didn't
14 they?
15 A. I don't remember that.
16 Q. And how many times did you meet with them?
17 MR. MATHIS: Your Honor, this is not appropriate
18 area of inquiry, --
19 MR. TURLEY: Yes, it is.
20 MR. MATHIS: -- these meetings with his legal
21 counsel.
22 MR. TURLEY: It is.
23 MR. MATHIS: No, it is not. With all due
24 respect, it is not.
25 THE COURT: May I see the attorneys over here,
7630
01 just a moment, please?
02
03 (Whereupon there was a sidebar conference, out of
04 the hearing of the jury, and thereafter the following was
05 had, in the hearing of the jury, as follows:).
06
07 MR. MATHIS: For the record, my objection is
08 sustained?
09 THE COURT: Mr. Mathis, I don't recall your
10 objection. What was your evidentiary objection?
11 MR. MATHIS: That is an area of Attorney/Client
12 Privilege and not appropriate.
13 THE COURT: That's sustained.
14 Q. (BY MR. TURLEY) You say you've never given
15 a deposition before, Bishop; is that correct?
16 A. I don't remember giving a deposition before.
17 Q. You made some notes, you told us, before
18 your deposition, didn't you?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. Said you made these notes the day before
21 your deposition.
22 A. No, I wrote them on this piece of paper the
23 day before.
24 Q. You wrote those notes on this piece -- on
25 these pieces of paper the day before your deposition. And
7631
01 one of them was what we looked at a moment ago when you
02 made the note about your 1991 meeting with Father
03 Williams, --
04 A. Correct.
05 Q. -- and then you've got some others in here
06 that we may come back to hear in just a moment.
07 But on page 5 of your notes, you wrote the
08 following, did you not? Let's start down here (indicating)
09 where you said, "Do not speculate". Now do I understand
10 that all by yourself, the day before, you sat down, alone,
11 and wrote, "Do not speculate". You had never given a
12 deposition before and you had never testified in court
13 before?
14 A. That's correct. But for twenty years, I've
15 dealt with lawyers.
16 (laughter in the courtroom)
17 Q. Bishop, I'm real sorry for you.
18 A. Yes, it's a plague.
19 Q. A little rain must fall into everyone's
20 live.
21 A. That's right. Not a little rain, a plague.
22 Q. Sometimes it takes that to make people
23 change the way they live.
24 Bishop, look at the next item. What do you
25 say there? What do you say right there, the next
7632
01 item under --
02 A. I can't read it.
03 Q. -- "Do not speculate"?
04 A. I can't read it.
05 Q. Don't you remember saying -- don't you
06 remember writing, "If it predates me, say so".
07 A. That's right, because I don't believe in
08 hearsay and picking up, listening to someone else talking
09 about --
10 Q. And then you wrote, "Hypothetical cases.
11 Hypothetical case. Can't answer" -- what is the rest of
12 it? I can't read it. "Can't answer without having more
13 information".
14 A. That's what. I have learned that from
15 lawyers.
16 Q. So your testimony today is you put all of
17 this down, of your own volition, without any help from
18 anybody, just because you have learned a lot from lawyers.
19 You've never given a deposition, never testified in court.
20 A. That's correct.
21 Q. And you also wrote, on that same page, up
22 there at the top, "requirement for entry into seminary";
23 do you see that?
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. One of the things under that, by the way,
7633
01 you say, "Psychological testing". Do you see that,
02 "psychological testing"?
03 A. Yes.
04 Q. You understand that Rudy Kos did not get a
05 psychological test before he entered your seminary.
06 A. Perhaps in those days they didn't give them.
07 Q. All right.
08 And on down here (indicating) you've written
09 the words, "Someone has to be a psychopath to avoid being
10 caught".
11 A. That's correct.
12 Q. You know, that sounds an awful lot like
13 Randy Mathis. Did he get that from you?
14 A. I really didn't know Randy that well.
15 Q. Did Mr. Mathis get those words from you?
16 A. No. Because of my experience in the
17 seminary.
18 Q. It's your testimony, Bishop, that you made
19 those notes up all by yourself, strictly from your memory,
20 by the way?
21 A. Correct.
22 Q. You didn't go by any notes?
23 A. Well, previous notes that I had. And I put
24 them altogether on one page.
25 Q. Those are your notes from your calender?
7634
01 A. That's right.
02 Q. You didn't have any letters or documents or
03 anything like that.
04 A. None at all.
05 Q. And you made those notes -- you made those
06 notes for your deposition after you knew that a lawsuit had
07 been filed and you were going to have to give sworn
08 testimony.
09 A. That is correct.
10 Q. One other thing you said here, Bishop. You
11 said, did you go not, "Not critical of the past". Did you
12 anticipate that somebody was going to try to get you to
13 criticize your -- your predecessor?
14 A. No, I don't believe in being a Monday
15 morning quarterback.
16 Q. And then you said in your notes here that
17 you made up all by yourself the day before you gave your
18 deposition, "Diocese move quickly on national -- as
19 national policies were prepared", you said that, didn't
20 you?
21 A. Yes, I did.
22 Q. Of course, you couldn't know that, because
23 you weren't here.
24 A. Oh, but this was taken in 1994. The
25 deposition was 1994.
7635
01 Q. And -- and the wrongdoing happened before
02 1992 and you came in 1990.
03 A. That's correct, but the deposition was taken
04 in 1994. And what I'm saying is the Diocese move quickly,
05 as national policies were prepared.
06 I have been here four years now.
07 Q. You understand, Bishop, all of those
08 national policies came out in 1985, 1988, 1989, 1992.
09 A. And they're still coming out.
10 Q. Bishop, I wanted to ask you about an article
11 you wrote in the National Catholic in August of 1994.
12 You write articles in that publication, from
13 time to time; do you not?
14 A. Yes, I do.
15 Q. Do you see that (indicating) better?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. All right.
18 A. I can't read it, though.
19 Q. Do you remember this article? I represent
20 to you it's the Texas Catholic, August 26, 1994. There was
21 -- you wrote a little article, Policy on Abuse Being
22 Updated; do you remember that?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. And you talk in here about coming in from
25 out-of-town and learning that another -- an additional
7636
01 lawsuit has been filed alleging additional victims. And
02 you talk about what you want to do about this issue.
03 You came down here to this paragraph. You
04 express your concerned that -- problems not limited to
05 Catholic Church and Catholic clergy, that the Dallas
06 Diocese will take all possible reasonable steps to address
07 this issue. And then you said, "For many years, written
08 policies have been in-place to deal with this situation".
09 A. That's correct.
10 Q. I want to ask you about that, Bishop, and
11 that representation that you made in 1994.
12 Isn't it true that in 1994 the only
13 reference -- and Duffy Gardner testified yesterday, the
14 only reference to sexual abuse in any written policy in the
15 Dallas Diocese was one policy, one reference, that was 1988
16 when Bishop Tschoepe said to the priests, "You must report
17 allegations of sexual abuse, and here is the reporting form
18 to do it with"?
19 A. I wasn't referring to the Diocese of Dallas
20 in the sentence. I was referring to the United States.
21 Q. When you say --
22 A. "Many years written policies have been
23 in-place to deal with the situation across the country".
24 Q. You're correct, Bishop. There were lots of
25 policies to deal with sexual abuse across the country,
7637
01 there wasn't one in the Dallas Diocese, even when you wrote
02 this in 1994, was there?
03 A. You -- you just mentioned there was one in
04 1988.
05 Q. The one in 1988 was Bishop Tcshoepe sending
06 a note out to all of the priests, saying, "You have to
07 report sexual abuse."
08 Do you know of any other?
09 A. No.
10 Q. That was the only one, wasn't it?
11 A. I don't know.
12 Q. And that wasn't even a policy, was it? It
13 wasn't a procedure, it wasn't a comprehensive program to
14 prevent sexual abuse or really to even deal with it once it
15 occurs, it was just to same to the priests, "You've got to
16 comply with the state law"; isn't that correct, sir?
17 A. I don't know. Policy possibly set that.
18 Q. No question but that the Dallas Diocese did
19 not have, "written policies", plural, "have been in place
20 with" -- "with this situation"?
21 A. I'm not referring to the Dallas Diocese.
22 Q. Now, Bishop, you know, you were a Bishop in
23 '85, down in Victoria; were you not?
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. The Victoria Diocese?
7638
01 And '88/'89 you were down there as a Bishop?
02 A. Yes.
03 Q. You received, did you not, during those
04 years, from the National Conference of Bishops and the
05 United States Catholic Conferences various recommendations
06 about dealing with sexual abuse?
07 A. Over the years, yes; specifically, I can't
08 say any one.
09 Q. One of the things that you would have
10 received -- I ask you if you remember this, was the
11 statement on child sexual abuse issued by the National
12 Conference of Catholic Bishops in November 1989. We've
13 looked at this before. This is Exhibit 178. And the
14 Conference reports down there -- let's see if you agree
15 with this. "Even a signal case is one too many, which is
16 why the church views even a rumor of such an occurrence
17 with intense concern. Church leaders are advised to
18 investigate immediately, to remove a priest rapidly, where
19 the evidence warrants it, to seek appropriate treatment for
20 the offender and to extend pastoral help to the victim of
21 such a tragedy and to the victim's family."
22 Did you agree with and adopt that policy
23 when you were the Bishop in Victoria?
24 A. They were working on policies while I was
25 down there.
7639
01 Q. And do you agree with that policy, that this
02 is a prudent, careful policy that should have been executed
03 in the Dallas Diocese in 1989 when it was sent to
04 Bishop Tschoepe?
05 A. I don't know whether it was or wasn't.
06 Q. You don't know whether this is a prudent
07 policy?
08 A. Yes.
09 Q. What is imprudent about it, Bishop?
10 A. No, I said, yes, it is a prudent policy.
11 Q. You agree. I thought you did. Good.
12 And you agree with this part over here
13 (indicating), Bishop, that says, "The hint of such a case
14 is viewed by a Bishop with alarm"?
15 A. That's correct.
16 Q. And when you view something with alarm
17 because it could cause injury or death to an innocent
18 child, that calls for immediate action, doesn't it?
19 A. Possibly.
20 Q. And then in 1992 you were did Bishop here in
21 Dallas and you received this memo from the National
22 Conference. This actually is a -- may be part of the
23 press release from the United States Catholic Conference.
24 But you received this, did you not? And it says, "When
25 there is even a hint of such an incident, investigate
7640
01 immediately, remove the priest, whenever the evidence
02 warrants it, follow the reporting obligations of civil
03 civil law, extend pastoral care to the victim and the
04 victim's family and seek appropriate treatment for the
05 offender."
06 You agree that that is a good policy; do you
07 not?
08 A. Yes, it is.
09 Q. And do you also agree, as it goes on to
10 say, "This firm approach is evidenced by statements issued
11 by the Conferences' General" -- "Office of General Council
12 in 1988 and by the Administrative Board of Bishops in 1989,
13 as well as in four sessions in recent years when the
14 Bishops have discussed this matter in general meetings"; do
15 you agree with that?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. You were present for those general session
18 meetings when --
19 A. Not necessarily.
20 Q. -- the Bishops talked about that; were you
21 not?
22 A. No.
23 Q. None of them?
24 A. I don't know.
25 Q. Well, you told us in your deposition that
7641
01 you remembered being present for at least two of them.
02 A. Could be.
03 Q. Does that sound right?
04 A. That sounds correct.
05 Q. And that would have been before 1990,
06 wouldn't it?
07 A. Yes, much before '90.
08 Q. Bishop, there is no question but that the
09 National Conference was recommending and that you were
10 hearing and understanding that at the hint of sexual
11 wrongdoing immediate action should be taken; isn't that
12 correct?
13 A. When evidence warrants it, as the statement
14 says.
15 Q. Now I took your deposition in September of
16 1994 and you told me at that time that the Diocese was very
17 busy right then writing up a new sex abuse policy. You
18 were drafting it; do you remember?
19 A. Correct.
20 Q. And that these are policies, we all know,
21 intended for the protection of innocent children, among
22 others?
23 A. Correct.
24 Q. But, Bishop, isn't it true that it was
25 almost five years after Father Rudy Kos was exposed that
7642
01 you finally published that policy, only 120 days before
02 this trial was to commence?
03 A. That's because I ordered an updating of --
04 Q. Isn't it true, Bishop?
05 A. No.
06 Q. That is not true?
07 A. No, I don't think so.
08 Q. There was another policy published before
09 January 1997?
10 A. I'm not aware of it.
11 Q. There wasn't any policy published --
12 A. There was a policy --
13 Q. -- between the time that Rudy Kos was
14 discovered in October of nineteen -- or admitted that he
15 was a sex abuser in October of 1992 and January 1st, 1997
16 there is no other policy issued was there?
17 A. I didn't issue any.
18 Q. And this was issued a full two and-a-half
19 years after you told me in your deposition you were working
20 on it?
21 A. That's correct, --
22 Q. Isn't it?
23 A. -- vigorously.
24 Q. That is a reflection, Bishop -- Bishop, is
25 that a reflection, the time it took to get this out, is
7643
01 that a reflection of just so many other more important
02 priorities in the Diocese that you couldn't get around to
03 getting this done?
04 A. Not at all.
05 Q. When I took your deposition and you told me
06 that the Diocese had used the National Catholic
07 Conferences' policies as guidelines for preparing this
08 policy, didn't you?
09 A. One of the resources.
10 Q. And, you know, Bishop, that the National
11 Conference of Catholic Bishops, as we have said several
12 times, states to you that when there is even a hint of such
13 an incident, when there is even a hint of such an incident,
14 investigate it immediately.
15 A. Correct.
16 Q. But you say in your policy issued January
17 1st of this year, "Investigate only after someone makes an
18 actual allegation that there has been sexual abuse".
19 A. I'm not aware of that.
20 Q. In other words --
21 Bishop, we looked at it with Duffy Gardner,
22 Father Gardner Duffy (sic) at some length. And it
23 suggests there are actions phases in there. You've seen
24 that part of the policy, haven't you?
25 A. Yes.
7644
01 Q. And under those action phases, they are not
02 triggered until there is an actual allegation of sexual
03 abuse that has taken place.
04 MR. MATHIS: Your Honor, objection. That
05 mischaracterizes both the policy and Father Duffy's
06 testimony. The word only Mr. Turley is inserting for his
07 convenience. Why don't we let the Bishop look at --
08 MR. TURLEY: Sidebar objection.
09 MR. MATHIS: -- something.
10 Why don't we let the Bishop have a copy to look
11 at --
12 MR. TURLEY: Objection to speaking objection.
13 THE COURT: Okay. Your first objection had to do
14 with mischaracterization.
15 Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, please
16 recall the evidence and the testimony to the best of your
17 ability.
18 Okay, if there is a policy we're talking
19 about, let's produce it so that everybody can have access
20 to it.
21 MR. TURLEY: We will do so, Your Honor.
22 THE COURT: Okay.
23 MS. DEMAREST: I'll look.
24 THE COURT: Give me a stack. Do you have any
25 idea?
7645
01 MR. TURLEY: It is Exhibit 151.
02 THE COURT: Give me stack.
03 Stand up a and stretch, everybody.
04 (Whereupon there was a pause in the proceedings,
04 and thereafter the following was had:)
05
06 THE COURT: Success?
07 MR. TURLEY: Yes, we have it, Judge.
08 THE COURT: You may be seated.
09 Q. (BY MR. TURLEY) Bishop, look with me, if
10 you will, on page 3 of this policy. We're looking at
11 Exhibit 151, the policy on sexual misconduct on the part of
12 the clergy in the Dallas Diocese January 1, 1997.
13 And I want to -- I want to look, first, at
14 paragraph -- the first paragraph that has highlighting in
15 it. Do you see where it says, "The Diocese of Dallas will
16 respond promptly to investigate any accusation of sexual
17 misconduct."
18 Do you see that?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. And on down here it talks about those who
21 allege sexual misconduct; do you see that?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. Over on the next page, right here
24 (indicating) in particular, "When an allegation is made
25 regarding sexual misconduct", the person reporting the
7646
01 complaint and so forth.
02 And on the next page, right here
03 (indicating), "If a select committee reports there is
04 reasonable cause to believe that the accused has engaged in
05 sexual misconduct"; do you see that?
06 A. Yes.
07 Q. And then down at the -- in action phase,
08 "When the select committee reports there is reasonable
09 cause to believe that an allegation of sexual misconduct is
10 valid."
11 What I'm trying to ask you, Bishop, what I
12 do want to ask you, Bishop, is that throughout this entire
13 report there is no provision made to investigate somebody
14 who thinks there may be some sexual impropriety taking
15 place. This policy requires that an accuser step forward
16 and say, "I have been sexually abused", or a parent come
17 forward and say, "My kid has been sexually abused" or a
18 priest come forward and say, "That person is sexually
19 abusing somebody", you don't act, under this policy, on a
20 hint of misconduct, do you, Bishop?
21 MR. MATHIS: Objection. That mischaracterizes
22 the policy, as explained by Father Duffy yesterday.
23 THE COURT: Okay, Ladies and Gentlemen of the
24 Jury, please recall the evidence and the testimony to the
25 best of your ability.
7647
01 Q. (BY MR. TURLEY) You don't act on a hint of
02 misconduct, to start an investigation. You have to have
03 somebody come forward and allege there has been actual
04 sexual misconduct, don't you?
05 A. Well, if there is a hint, an unsigned rumor
06 or hint, there is no one that can step forward. But the
07 Diocese immediately accepts that and evaluates it.
08 Q. Would it surprise you, Bishop, that
09 Father Duffy, day before yesterday, testified that this
10 policy would not reach a Rudy Kos situation, because in the
11 Rudy Kos situation, it was the end of September of 1992
12 before someone came forward and said, "I have been sexually
13 abused", and Father Duffy told us in his testimony, I ask
14 you if it would surprise you, two times, that this policy
15 would not apply to that situation.
16 MR. MATHIS: Again, objection. That takes his
17 testimony out of context and misstates it.
18 THE COURT: Okay, Ladies and Gentlemen of the
19 Jury, please recall the evidence and testimony to the best
20 your ability.
21 Q. (BY MR. TURLEY) I submit to you, Bishop,
22 that is exactly what he said. And then the jury will
23 remember it.
24 Would that surprise you if that policy is not
25 -- is not actuated until somebody comes forward and says,
7648
01 "I have been abused" or "I know somebody that has been
02 sexually abused"?
03 A. I'm not sure.
04 Q. And if it is as I suggest, that it will not
05 activate on a hint of sexual misconduct, as the National
06 Conference of Bishops suggests it should, then you're not
07 in compliance with the recommendations of the National
08 Conference of Bishops, are you?
09 A. I don't interpret it the way you do.
10 Q. Bishop I asked you, when I took your
11 deposition, what you had learned from the past about Father
12 Rudy Kos to prevent a repeat; do you remember me asking you
13 that?
14 A. No, I don't.
15 Q. And the first of the only two things that
16 you told me was that you had to update those policies on
17 sexual abuse; do you remember telling me that?
18 A. Yes we went into a process of updating.
19 Q. Okay. That was the first thing you told me
20 you had learned, and that was two years -- I was taking
21 your deposition two years after you had learned that you
22 needed to update your policy --
23 A. No, no. I knew that before.
24 Q. Okay. You even knew it, even before.
25 The fact is, Bishop, that even today there
7649
01 is no comprehensive policy in the Dallas Diocese and there
02 never has been a comprehensive policy in the Dallas Diocese
03 to prevent child sexual abuse by priests or to deal with it
04 once it occurs; isn't that so?
05 A. I disagree.
06 Q. The policy that you did adopt one hundred
07 and twenty days before this case started, is essentially, I
08 think Father Duffy told us this, is essentially the same
09 policy that had been executed in custom and practice, but
10 not in writing, before January of 1997; do you agree with
11 that?
12 A. Since 1990.
13 Q. Let's see if we can agree on some other
14 things, Bishop.
15 Sorry, I have to drink some water. I'm
16 trying to keep my throat working.
17 Bishop, I -- I think there are some things
18 here that we can agree on, I hope we can.
19 A. With a lawyer, that is a miracle.
20 Q. I know. Well, you produce miracles. Let's
21 see what happens. Maybe you'll get a miracle.
22 Bishop, we can agree, can we not that, that
23 the church does occupy a very, very special role with
24 respect to protecting innocent children.
25 A. Not only the church.
7650
01 Q. You agreed with agree with me --
02 A. Yes, but not only.
03 Q. -- do you not that, the church occupies a
04 role, perhaps unique in this society, for assuring that
05 innocent children are protected from the society.
06 A. Yes, but not only --
07 Q. I understand.
08 And you agree with me, do you not, that the
09 church and the priests do occupy a very special position of
10 sacred trust towards children, towards their parents?
11 A. Toward -- toward everyone.
12 Q. And the Diocese, do you agree with me,
13 should use all reasonable precautions to avoid any serious
14 injury to a child?
15 A. Injury to anyone.
16 Q. Particularly an innocent child; would you
17 agree with that?
18 A. To anyone.
19 Q. And asking a suspected child abuser if he
20 has molested a child would certainly be a reasonable
21 precaution, wouldn't it?
22 A. Yes, it would.
23 Q. And forbidding children to spend the night
24 in a rectory would be a reasonable precaution, wouldn't it?
25 A. It would.
7651
01 Q. And not permitting young children,
02 unaccompanied, to spend any time in the rectory, even in
03 the day, is a reasonable precaution?
04 A. Possibly.
05 Q. And forbidding priests from take young
06 children on overnight trips, unaccompanied by other adults,
07 would be a reasonable precaution.
08 A. Not necessarily. I took twelve hundred to
09 Denver three years ago.
10 Q. You were accompanied, I hope, by some other
11 parents.
12 A. Yes, there were a few parents.
13 Q. Forbidding priests from taking young
14 children on overnight trips, unaccompanied by other adults,
15 would be a reasonable precaution.
16 A. That's correct.
17 Q. And promptly and thoroughly investigating
18 any hint of possible sexual misconduct would be a
19 reasonable precaution.
20 A. Evaluate it immediately.
21 Q. You agree that.
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. And asking the child itself, himself or
24 herself, in suspected cases, if there have been any
25 inappropriate sexual conduct would be a reasonable
7652
01 precaution that the Diocese could take, wouldn't it?
02 A. Possibly.
03 Q. And a minimum precaution would be to present
04 the results of your investigation to a trained and
05 experienced child sex abuse expert; you would agree with
06 that?
07 A. Well, to psychologists, psychiatrists.
08 Q. And a minimum precaution would be to act
09 promptly on the recommendations of people who are expert in
10 child because matters.
11 A. That's correct.
12 Q. And a minimum precaution would be to remove
13 a suspect from access to children while that investigation
14 is underway?
15 A. That's correct.
16 Q. You also agree with me, do you not, that in
17 1985 and 1986, according to these red flags items that we
18 just went over, there was certainly more -- more than a
19 mere hint that there might be some sexual impropriety
20 taking place, according to these (indicating). And I
21 realize you never saw them, maybe you've never seen this
22 information.
23 A. Never have.
24 Q. Have you ever read Father Clayton's
25 materials?
7653
01 A. No, I have not.
02 Q. Never, to this day, have you read Father
03 Williams' June 12, '92 report on Rudy Kos?
04 A. Never have. That's correct.
05 Q. You let Rudy Kos come back to Ennis -- --
06 A. Only because of the St. Luke's Institute
07 report.
08 Q. -- without ever having read Father
09 Williams', his assistant pastor's, twelve page report
10 literally begging the Diocese to get rid of him?
11 A. No.
12 Q. Bishop, the Diocese's knew, as we discussed
13 earlier from Father Clayton's logs and from Father
14 Williams' letters, although you -- you didn't know because
15 you never read them, but the Diocese knew that there were
16 many possible victims of Rudy Kos, didn't you?
17 A. I didn't know that.
18 Q. That if Rudy Kos was engaging in the conduct
19 that he admitted to with "John Doe #1", he had been
20 reportedly having young boys over for many years at the
21 rectory, under the same, exact circumstances that "John Doe #1"
22 had been there, coming, using the computers, playing
23 with the video games, you know, enjoying snacks, hanging
24 out with Rudy, staying overnight. There had been many
25 boys that reported doing the same thing that this victim
7654
01 that you found had been doing?
02 A. I'm not aware of that. I wasn't here.
03 Q. And you know, don't you, Bishop, that there
04 wasn't any truth-telling at the churches about why Rudy Kos
05 was sent away.
06 A. I don't agree with that.
07 Q. The weekend after he was sent away, are you
08 not aware that the Diocese's Blue Ribbon Committee
09 instructed Father Williams at St. John's to read the
10 resignation letter Father Rudy Kos that said he was sent
11 away because he was stressed out?
12 A. That was a task of the Blue Ribbon
13 Committee.
14 Q. Are you aware that they told Father Williams
15 to read that?
16 A. No, I'm not.
17 Q. And that the Blue Ribbon Committee knew it
18 wasn't true. When they told Father Williams to read it,
19 they what why he had been sent away; are you aware of that?
20 A. No.
21 Q. Are you aware that he read it and that he
22 told us --
23 A. No.
24 Q. -- in this courtroom, a few weeks ago, that
25 he subsequently found out it wasn't true and it was a lie
7655
01 when he read it?
02 A. That was his opinion.
03 Q. There was no effort made at that time, was
04 there, Bishop, no search and rescue to try to find other
05 victims, no intensive effort made, in the fall of 1992, to
06 try to find Rudy Kos' victims; isn't that correct?
07 A. I'm not aware of a search and rescue.
08 Q. In fact, it is even worse than that, I
09 subject to you, Bishop, in some churches, such as at All
10 Saints, when this suit was filed in May of 1993 there were
11 outright denials there were maybe any victims; are you
12 aware of that?
13 A. No.
14 Q. You're not aware that Monsignor Rehkemper
15 got up in front of the pulpit, read a message at
16 All Saints, in May of '93 in which he said, "These are mere
17 allegations", mere allegations, at a time when the Diocese
18 knew, without question, there were victims and that Rudy
19 Kos was an abuser.
20 A. Perhaps they were still allegations at that
21 time.
22 Q. Well, I don't think so, Bishop. Don't you
23 remember, we got this straight, Rudy Kos came forward and
24 admitted he abused "John Doe #1" in September of 1992 --
25 A. Perhaps --
7656
01 Q. -- this lawsuit was filed in May of 1993,
02 and in May of 1993 Monsignor Rehkemper, former number two
03 in the Diocese who resigned just a month before all of this
04 broke, stood up in the pulpit and said, "These are mere
05 allegations"?
06 A. I'm not aware of that.
07 Q. If he said that, that wasn't true, was it?
08 MR. MATHIS: Your Honor, I again object to the
09 characterization of that evidence. That is referring to
10 something a little different, relative to the lawsuit. And
11 it is different.
12 THE COURT: Okay, Ladies and Gentlemen of the
13 Jury, please recall the evidence and the testimony to the
14 best of your ability.
15 Q. (BY MR. TURLEY) In fact, if -- if he got
16 up and said, "These are mere allegations", that wouldn't
17 have been correct, would it, because you folks knew by
18 then, we're not dealing with just allegations, we're
19 dealing with actual, sexual abuse.
20 MR. MATHIS: Objection. That mischaracterizes what
21 Father Rehkemper said. Allegations relate to the lawsuit,
22 not to something that "John Doe #1" said.
23 THE COURT: Okay --
24 MS. DEMAREST: Your Honor, I object to the nature
25 of these objection. Your Honor knows very well they're
7657
01 improper in a trial. Mr. Mathis loves to give these
02 objection in depositions, we're at trial.
03 THE COURT: Okay. I think he is entitled to.
04 Ladies and Gentlemen of the Jury, please recall the
05 evidence and the testimony to the best of your ability.
06 Q. (BY MR. TURLEY) Bishop, if somebody got up
07 in May, somebody who was -- had been an officer of the
08 Diocese until a month before all of this broke, somebody
09 who says he knew that in the fall there was a victim and
10 there was admitted abuse by Father Kos, and eight months
11 later he stands up in the pulpit and says, "These are mere
12 allegations", what he is saying is not true is it? They
13 are not mere allegations, they are fact.
14 A. Perhaps he did not know.
15 Q. If he had known, then what he said was not
16 true, was it?
17 A. If he had known, precisely.
18 Q. If he had known.
19 Well, Bishop, let's see what you said the
20 same month, in May of 1993, when you knew. You issued a
21 statement that month, didn't you? May 25th, 1993, a
22 statement concerning an allegation of sexual abuse of
23 children, statement by Bishop Charles Grahmann.
24 You remember issuing this statement, don't
25 you?
7658
01 Sir?
02 A. Yes.
03 Q. And you start off -- I'm not going to read
04 the whole thing, "I am deeply saddened to hear the
05 allegations of several young men who were victimized."
06 Bishop, I want you to count with me the
07 number of times in this statement that you use the word
08 "allegations", when you knew that it was, in fact, known
09 that it is no longer an allegation, it is a fact Father Kos
10 had sexually abused young boys. There is one on the first
11 line, right there (indicating), agreed?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. You count them for me. Do you mind, Bishop?
14 How many -- that is one.
15 MR. MATHIS: Your Honor, objection. If we're
16 going to do this, can we have an instruction to the jury
17 that allegations --
18 MR. TURLEY: I don't want to -- I don't want
19 to --
20 MR. MATHIS: Can we approach the bench, then?
21 THE COURT: You bet.
22 MR. MATHIS: Can we approach the bench, then?
23 THE COURT: Do you want Marsha?
24 MR. MATHIS: Yes, please.
25 (Whereupon there was a sidebar conference, out of
25 the hearing of the jury, as follows:)
7659
01
02 MR. TURLEY: He is --
03 MR. MATHIS: Let me --
04 THE COURT: Make your objection.
05 MR. MATHIS: Let me make the objection, to have
06 it on the record.
07 My problem is with the word "allegations", because
08 allegations, when referring to the lawsuit, includes not
09 only the allegations that the abuse took place, but all of
10 the various other allegations in the lawsuit, like the
11 Diocese was negligent, all of these others things,
12 conspiracy allegations and those. So if he is going to
13 question him about what he means by allegations, he needs
14 to separate out when he is referring to the allegations of
15 the abuse involving the individuals that were known to have
16 come forward then. And in context, it is only "John Doe #1".
17 The others came forward to the Diocese by filing
18 the lawsuit, and not otherwise.
19 MR. TURLEY: That is appropriate for
20 cross-examination -- for his cross --
21 MR. MATHIS: Well, no, because your question is
22 misconstruing --
23 MR. TURLEY: Not at all.
24 MR. MATHIS: -- the evidence and the documents.
25 MR. TURLEY: Not a slight bit. And we would --
7660
01 MR. MATHIS: It needs to be clear what you're
02 asking.
03 THE COURT: May I see your report that you're
04 working from? May I take a look at it?
05 MR. TURLEY: Yes.
06 MR. MATHIS: Your Honor, that is referring to the
07 lawsuit as a whole. This is a 403 thing, if nothing else,
08 relative to using it in that term.
09 THE COURT: (Court reading)
10 MR. TURLEY: We talked about this with
11 Dr. Kliman, Your Honor, when he said if a -- if somebody
12 got up and said that a member of the -- parish that these
13 are mere accusations, how hurtful it would be to the boys;
14 do you remember him testifying on that?
15 MR. MATHIS: Accusation refers to many different
16 things when you're talking about the lawsuit as a whole --
17 MR. TURLEY: He can show that.
18 MR. MATHIS: -- that is why it is so
19 inflammatory. It needs to be within an instruction. He
20 can't --
21 MR. TURLEY: This man just testified if somebody
22 said these are mere allegations and he knew better, than
23 that was false. He said these are mere allegations.
24 MR. MATHIS: But the allegations -- that's not
25 what he is saying. The allegations are referring to
7661
01 lawsuit as a whole. That includes --
02 MR. TURLEY: You coach him on that tonight and
03 ask him about it tomorrow.
04 MS. DEMAREST: The --
05 THE COURT: Let me ask you this, Windle: Are you
06 opposed to use the allegations of sexual abuse, the
07 connotation of it with respect to this?
08 MR. TURLEY: Well, this is a statement that he
09 issued, Judge.
10 THE COURT: I understand.
11 MR. TURLEY: I want to show the jury what he
12 said and how it comes across in the way that he said it.
13 THE COURT: I'm saying -- hang on a second. I
14 think it does here, but I think there could be a question
15 as to the way -- Mr. Mathis' objection that have to do with
16 the allegations of the lawsuit.
17 Do you have any objection to phrasing this with the
18 alleged sexual abuse?
19 MR. TURLEY: Well, I don't know how I could do
20 that, Judge.
21 THE COURT: Not with respect to this, but within
22 to your question. Think about it for two seconds.
23 MR. TURLEY: Well, I think that is what I was
24 doing.
25 THE COURT: I think it was, too. I just want to
7662
01 say, why don't you use a clear-up question to clear up it
02 up?
03 I'll note your objection. See if can you clear it
04 up.
05 MR. MATHIS: Okay. That will work.
06 MS. DEMAREST: We'll have to come back and do it
07 again.
08 THE COURT: That's okay.
09 MR. MATHIS: If there is --
10 Mr. Turley, come here just a second.
11 I don't know how he is going to, as he says, "clean
12 it up". You know, I don't want to object every time. I
13 just want it clear, because it is leaving the -- a totally
14 improper inference. That's why I think an instruction is
15 in order.
16 MR. TURLEY: This is appropriate for cross.
17 THE COURT: It can be cleaned up on cross. I
18 asked you to see if you could do it now.
19 MR. MATHIS: My objection is sustained?
20 THE COURT: Your objection is sustained.
21 (Whereupon the sidebar was ended, and thereafter
21 the following was had, in the hearing of the jury, as
22 follows:)
22
23
24 Q. (BY MR. TURLEY) Bishop, I want to continue
25 discussing with you about the statement you issued on May
7663
01 25th, 1993. And to put things in the proper perspective,
02 this statement that we're talking about had to do, as you
03 say right here (indicating) in the very first sentence,
04 where you say, "I'm deeply saddened to hear of the
05 allegations that several young men were victimized by one
06 of our priests, when they were minors."
07 Now, the allegations that we're talking
08 about here are sexual allegations, allegations of sexual
09 abuse.
10 A. Sexual misconduct.
11 Q. That's right.
12 Now, count with me, Bishop, the number of
13 times you refer to this as allegations. There is one, two,
14 three, and down here you said, "The accusers", that is a --
15 kind of a sideways to become an allegation, but we wouldn't
16 count that one. There are three on that page.
17 And then over here on this page, there is
18 allegations again. And then you refer to them as
19 allegations again. That is five times in this statement
20 that you refer to these -- I think it is six, because on
21 the last page you do it again. You see on the last page,
22 here with me. You say, "This alleged abuse". Six times
23 in this statement that you've read, yourself, an issue
24 published in May of 1993, you referred to these as mere
25 allegations; do you not?
7664
01 A. Allegations aren't merely.
02 Q. You refer to them as allegations; do you
03 not?
04 A. Yes. That would either something to it --
05 Q. You knew -- you knew at the time you typed,
06 dictated, whatever you did and published this statement and
07 made video copies and sent to all of the television
08 stations in north Texas; you did that, too, didn't you,
09 where you read this statement?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. Do you remember?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. At the time you did that -- and you also
14 published it in the Texas Catholic, same statement --
15 Where is it?
16 Well, did you that, didn't you, Bishop?
17 A. I'm not sure.
18 Q. Well, I've got a copy of it here.
19 MR. TURLEY: Sylvia, could you find it?
20 MS. DEMAREST: I don't know.
21 THE COURT: We've got one, Bishop, believe me.
22 Trust me. We'll find it in a minute.
23 But, anyway, you published in the Texas
24 Catholic, issued this press release and issued a videotape
25 making these statements. And six times in this statement
7665
01 you said, "These are", in effect, "mere accusations of sex
02 abuse", didn't you?
03 A. Allegations of sexual misconduct.
04 Q. That's right.
05 And you knew, Bishop, with all due respect,
06 you knew on May 25th, 1993, when you did that, that Rudy
07 Kos had admitted -- had admitted that he had sexually
08 abused one boy by then, for sure. You knew about the
09 "John Doe #1" boy?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. And probably, by that time, you knew about
12 others?
13 A. I'm not sure.
14 Q. Bishop, did it occur to you when you put
15 this in the context of mere allegations, allegations of
16 sexual abuse, alleged abuse, that there might be some young
17 man at some church someplace that had, in fact, been
18 sexually abused by Rudy Kos, trying to search his soul as
19 to whether he has the courage to step forward and deal with
20 this terrible issue that has fallen into his life, and he
21 hears her pastor get up and say, "There's are mere
22 allegations", has it occurred to you that that might be a
23 really turn off for that young man, knowing that he is
24 going to have to prove his case --
25 MR. MATHIS: Your Honor, assuming --
7666
01 MR. TURLEY: -- as opposed to a situation where
02 the church came forward and said, "There has been sexual
03 abuse"?
04 MR. MATHIS: All right. Let me renew my other
05 objection, because allegation, in that context, is
06 referring to things other than just the abuse. It's the
07 lawsuit. And that is a different thing.
08 MS. DEMAREST: Your Honor --
09 MR. MATHIS: The question is unfairly vague --
10 MS. DEMAREST: I object, there is no -- there is
11 no evidentiary objection in that objection.
12 MR. TURLEY: And he just goes on, making these
13 jury arguments every time he gets up here --
14 THE COURT: Well, his objection is: vague to the
15 sentence. And because of the prior to objection, I'm going
16 to sustain it.
17 Rephrase it, if you don't mind.
18 Q. (BY MR. TURLEY) Bishop, did it occur to
19 you when you issued these statements and published them in
20 the Texas Catholic and had them issued in your churches and
21 put them on television, where you said, "This alleged
22 abuse", talking about sexual misconduct of Rudy Kos, that
23 there might be some young man searching his heart to see if
24 he should come forward and deal with this issue and
25 wrestling with the issue of whether anybody would believe
7667
01 him and deciding he would have to prove his case against a
02 priest in the church and deciding maybe he couldn't do it
03 as opposed to what would have happened if you had told the
04 truth and said, "At least one young man has come forward,
05 and we know there was sexual abuse that took place"? It
06 would have been quite a different situation for that young
07 man, searching his heart, wouldn't it?
08 A. I'm not sure.
09 Q. Bishop, let me ask you a few questions about
10 this St. Luke's Institute report, if I could.
11 You swore in your deposition that the --
12 that you spoke to somebody at the St. Luke's Institute.
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. And you said in your deposition that that
15 doctor that you talked to had reached the same conclusion
16 that he had written in the written report that he sent you;
17 do you remember?
18 A. The conclusion came before the written
19 report.
20 Q. Well, you told me, when I took your
21 deposition, on page 73, that they reached exactly the same
22 conclusions contained in their report.
23 A. That's correct.
24 Q. That's what he told you, --
25 A. That's correct.
7668
01 Q. -- what you said he told you when you talked
02 to him on the phone.
03 A. That's correct.
04 Q. And you know, Bishop, that that report is
05 very inconclusive, that it recommends some things still be
06 done. And it didn't reach a final conclusion as to whether
07 Father Kos was a pedophile.
08 A. There is no litmus test to do that.
09 Q. You know --
10 A. There doesn't exist one.
11 Q. You know, do you not, Bishop -- listen to
12 me, that that report was inconclusive, they did not
13 conclude that Father Kos was not a pedophile?
14 A. They didn't --
15 Q. They recommended some other tests be done;
16 do you remember that?
17 A. They did not conclude that there was
18 evidence of sexual abuse.
19 Q. You told me, when I took your deposition,
20 that they told you, "This man is not a pedophile"; do you
21 remember that?
22 A. That's right.
23 Q. That's what you told me in your deposition.
24 A. That's right.
25 Q. You know now that that is not true, that
7669
01 that they didn't tell you that.
02 A. No, they didn't tell me he was a pedophile,
03 but there was no evidence of sexual misconduct, because I
04 asked the question about pedophile.
05 Q. But you told me, in your deposition, they
06 said he is not a pedophile.
07 A. Well, that was the summary of their --
08 because I asked the question, "Is he a pedophile?" And
09 they answered and said they found no evidence, from their
10 tests, of sexual misconduct. That is the answer to my
11 question, "Is he a pedophile?"
12 Q. Yes. And, Bishop, remember, we talked in
13 your deposition about this? They told you that they had
14 not ruled out the fact that he might be a pedophile?
15 A. He didn't tell me that.
16 Q. He didn't.
17 You read the report when you got it, didn't
18 you?
19 A. He didn't tell me that.
20 Q. Did you read the report?
21 A. Yes, I did.
22 Q. Contrary to your sworn deposition, it did
23 not conclude that there were no other questionable sexual
24 or psychological problems, did it?
25 A. There was over psychological problems.
7670
01 Q. And you testified under your oath, in your
02 deposition, that they told you there were no sex problems.
03 A. They told me their tests did not evidence
04 any -- any-- any sexual misconduct.
05 Q. And what they told you, you say, is what is
06 in the -- in the written report; is that right?
07 A. That's correct.
08 Q. Bishop, would it surprise you if they -- if
09 they reference in that report to several matters that may
10 be very serious sexual problems?
11 A. It could be. I don't know that.
12 Q. You're not suggesting to us that Dr. Montana
13 told you one thing on the phone and then wrote something
14 else in the written report that he sent you, are you?
15 A. I don't think he would.
16 Q. Bishop, did you read this report when you
17 received it --
18 A. Yes, I did.
19 Q. -- from St. Luke's? It told you a lot about
20 Rudy Kos, didn't it?
21 A. In high-tech language.
22 Q. Well, not all of it is high-tech. I want
23 to show you some that is not high-tech. St. Luke's
24 Institute report, June 17, 1992, Most Reverend Charles B.
25 Grahmann, Bishop.
7671
01 And, by the way, they sent this to 3915
02 Lemmon Avenue, didn't they?
03 A. Yes.
04 Q. That is the same place that Mrs. Allen had
05 sent her letters, didn't they?
06 A. I don't know.
07 Q. All right.
08 Now this is -- let's look at what they told
09 you. Just look at a few things that you learned about Rudy
10 Kos when you read this report. You learned, for example,
11 that several sources -- the reports from several sources
12 that he was engaging in inappropriate behavior with
13 adolescent boys.
14 A. Yes, we gave him those reports.
15 Q. That is certainly a hint of some possible
16 sexual misconduct right there at the get-go; isn't it?
17 A. We gave him the reports.
18 Q. And then also they said, "Several people
19 have expressed concerns that boys, age twelve to fourteen,
20 have repeatedly slept in Father Kos' room."
21 So you knew in June of 1992 that there is
22 further confirmation that young boys have been sleeping in
23 Father Kos' room.
24 A. We gave them that information.
25 Q. That's right. There is no question but that
7672
01 you knew that?
02 A. We gave them the information.
03 Q. You knew it.
04 A. We gave them the information. We had to do
05 it -- we had to know it; otherwise, we couldn't give them
06 the --
07 Q. I'm asking you if Bishop Grahmann knew it.
08 A. Yes.
09 Q. And you also knew, did you not, that
10 "Father Kos admits, he admits that frequently boys would
11 sleep over, either in his room or a guest room, he admits
12 that several times one boy has ended up sleeping overnight
13 with Father Kos and sleeping with him in his bed."
14 In June of 1992 you knew, without question,
15 Father Kos had been sleeping in the bed with little boys,
16 didn't you?
17 A. That's the information we had.
18 Q. You knew it. Bishop Grahmann knew it?
19 A. That is the information I had.
20 Q. Now, Bishop, you also knew -- that is not
21 high-tech stuff; is it, sir?
22 A. Please?
23 Q. This is not high-tech language, yet, is it?
24 A. No.
25 Q. Okay.
7673
01 A. Because I gave it to them.
02 Q. I understand.
03 Now, Bishop, let's see what else -- what
04 else.
05 Father Kos, you learned, when you read this
06 report in June of '92, he says that, "Originally the males
07 who were age sixteen to eighteen would come over Tuesdays
08 after school and would decide to stay over that night so
09 they could be at mass on Wednesday morning."
10 In other words, you knew in June of 1992,
11 Bishop, that Father Rudy Kos was using a specific church
12 function, Wednesday morning mass, in order to accommodate
13 little boys in the rectory overnight the night before,
14 didn't you?
15 A. Yes. Father Kos gave them the information.
16 Q. And you learned of it as soon as you got
17 this report.
18 A. From the report, that's right.
19 Q. And you also learned that Father Kos, right
20 here (indicating), "Father Kos admits that the adolescents
21 would stay overnight at the rectory and on several
22 occasions sleep with him in his bed"?
23 A. That's correct.
24 Q. In June of 1992 you have another
25 confirmation that Father Kos is sleeping with little boys.
7674
01 A. That's correct.
02 Q. And also, right here (indicating), you
03 learned that, "Father Kos states that he does not believe
04 that he was ever ordered to not have young people in the
05 rectory, until the latter part of 1991."
06 When you read that, you knew Father Kos was
07 lying, didn't you, because you had ordered him in
08 nineteen--
09 A. That's right.
10 Q. -- early 1991.
11 A. Right. I ordered him in 1991.
12 Q. And by then surely you knew that Monsignor
13 Rehkemper, and many others, had ordered it in the preceding
14 years.
15 A. He says he does not believe that he was ever
16 ordered.
17 Q. Yes.
18 A. That is subject to --
19 Q. Well --
20 A. -- you know.
21 Q. There is no question but that you told
22 him --
23 A. That's right, in 1991.
24 Q. -- not to do it. You told him, yourself,
25 not to do it.
7675
01 A. That is exactly correct.
02 Q. So you got Father Kos in another lie that
03 you know he is lying, right here (indicating), don't you?
04 Sir?
05 A. That's correct.
06 Q. So when you found out he is lying to the
07 people up at St. Luke's Institute, did not a little alarm
08 go off in your head that said, "Maybe I'm dealing with a
09 liar"?
10 A. Well, I'm not sure, because he acknowledged
11 that in 1991 I told him, he acknowledges that. But he
12 said he doesn't believe he was ordered before that time.
13 Q. All right, Bishop.
14 Go to the next page with me.
15 A. (witness complies)?
16 Q. Also, Father Kos states, right here
17 (indicating), "that the last time he slept with a boy in
18 his bed was in November of 1991."
19 Now, did you believe that?
20 A. I have no way to prove that.
21 Q. Now let's see what else you learned from
22 this report when you received it. St. Luke's Institute
23 told you, "It is notable that Father Kos has had recurrent
24 problems with hepatitis."
25 They didn't just say he had had it, they
7676
01 said it was notable, meaning it is significant; do you
02 agreement with that?
03 A. It state it there, yes.
04 Q. And the types of hepatitis they describe
05 down here, in the next paragraph, "Father Kos had
06 reportedly had and recovered from Hepatitis A, B, and
07 Hepatitus C has given him particular difficulty."
08 In June of 1992 you knew that Father Kos, a
09 suspected child sex abuser, has been plagued with Hepatitis
10 A, B and C, didn't you?
11 A. Yes. It states it in the letter.
12 Q. And you knew, did you not, Bishop, based on
13 your ministry, that Hepatitis C is a type of hepatitis that
14 is drug -- can be drug transmitted, through intravenous
15 usage or sexually transmitted?
16 A. I'm not familiar with that.
17 Q. Let's see what else you learned when you got
18 this report in June of 1992. This is what they told you
19 about your pastor. "There also indications that
20 Father Kos may sometimes" -- this is a really important
21 part, Bishop, so I'm going to read it slowly. "There are
22 also indications that Father Kos may sometimes
23 conceptualize information incorrectly and, thus, is his
24 decision-making can be faulty. This make particularly
25 relevant as to how Father Kos conceptualizes the impact of
7677
01 his relationships with teenagers with regard to the
02 perceptions of others."
03 When you read that paragraph was it not
04 crystal clear to you, Bishop, that the St. Luke's Institute
05 where you had sent this man for analysis, had said to you,
06 "He may suffer from faulty decision-making, particularly
07 with respect to :children". That was pretty plain, wasn't
08 it, Bishop?
09 A. Well, his perception, his conceptualization.
10 Q. That's right.
11 Go on down to the last paragraph. What else
12 did they tell you? They told you in June of 1992, "There
13 is some evidence" -- "There is some evidence that there are
14 problems with Father Kos' emotional controls."
15 Did you read that in June of 1992?
16 A. Yes, July.
17 Q. "That would suggest that Father Kos'
18 behavior would sometimes be seriously affected by lapses in
19 his ability to modulate emotional expression."
20 Bishop, one of the types of emotional
21 expression you were concerned about was the overaffection
22 he was showing to children, wasn't it?
23 A. That's correct.
24 Q. "As an example of this may be that
25 Father Kos has strong feelings toward affiliation with
7678
01 teenagers my override his good judgment."
02 Did that not alert you to the fact that this
03 could be a very dangerous condition, for a man who has been
04 suspected of sexually abusing little boys for almost ten
05 years?
06 A. Possibly.
07 Q. And then, Bishop, what was their diagnosis?
08 Do you remember we talked about this in your deposition?
09 "Diagnosis" -- this is after they get through. This is not
10 the admitting diagnosis, this is the discharge diagnosis
11 they sent you after he returned, isn't it? Sir?
12 Bishop, you got this after Rudy Kos had
13 already been there and come back.
14 A. That's correct.
15 Q. This is not admitting, this is when he gets
16 out.
17 "Axes one, item two, rule out paraphilia not
18 otherwise specified."
19 That was pretty plain, wasn't it, Bishop?
20 A. In the explanation of Dr. Montana was that
21 their evidence did not surface any sexual misconduct.
22 Q. Bishop, when I took your deposition, do you
23 remember I asked but what does rule out mean pedophilia
24 mean? Do you remember me asking you that in your
25 deposition, sir?
7679
01 A. That right's, that it was ruled out.
02 Q. And you told me --
03 MR. TURLEY: Can I sit it here a moment, Your Honor?
04 THE COURT: Yes.
05 Q. (BY MR. TURLEY) You told me, Bishop, that
06 you read that, and what that meant to you was it was gone.
07 It was ruled out. It was gone.
08 A. No, it goes back to the answer I just gave
09 from you Dr. Montana.
10 Q. Don't you remember that in your deposition
11 we talked about that Father --
12 A. Yes, I do.
13 Q. -- Bishop.
14 MR. TURLEY: I don't mean to get up here
15 with my podium, Judge.
16 Q. (BY MR. TURLEY) Bishop, you were here
17 earlier this morning when Dr. Gutierrez said that what that
18 means is, rules out means may have?
19 A. It also means you may not have.
20 Q. But it means you may have --
21 A. And may not have
22 Q. -- a threat to children, you don't know;
23 isn't that right?
24 A. I asked Dr. Montana, he said they evidenced
25 no -- there was no evidence of sexual misconduct.
7680
01 Q. Well, that certainly not what he has
02 written, exactly, is it, Bishop?
03 A. Well, I'm not --
04 Q. And you were here prosecute Dr. Gutierrez
05 said, "Rule out paraphilia, means may be a pedophile", may
06 be pedophile. That what is these words right here
07 (indicating --
08 A. And may not be a pedophile, also.
09 Q. Right here (indicating).
10 A. That's right, may or may not be,
11 inconclusive.
12 Q. Bishop, what you have, then, is this
13 prominent, nationally-recognized institution saying to
14 Bishop Grahmann, down here in Dallas, "The man you have
15 sent us to examine may be a pedophile", that's what they
16 told you --
17 A. No.
18 Q. -- in June.
19 A. They didn't tell me that.
20 Q. Was that the words mean?
21 A. No, the words on the telephone were as I
22 mentioned them before.
23 Q. Are you telling us that Dr. Montana told you
24 something different on the phone than he has written in his
25 report?
7681
01 A. I have no idea. I know what he told me on
02 the phone.
03 Q. You know, this report is from Dr. Montana.
04 A. Yes.
05 Q. Is he the one you talked on the phone, isn't
06 it?
07 A. Yes. He Is the one that called me.
08 Q. You also learned, Bishop, when you got this
09 report and read that it, "Father Kos has compulsive traits
10 and chronic Hepatitis C". You learned those things, also,
11 didn't you?
12 A. Yes, I did.
13 Q. And you also learned, Father, down here at
14 the become -- let put it up here so you can read it.
15 They said, "Second, Father Kos may, in fact,
16 be motivated by sexual feelings, but is not able, for many
17 reasons, to discuss this with us. Or, third, Father Kos'
18 behavior may be motivated by sexual feelings that are out
19 of his awareness". You read those things, didn't you?
20 A. May be.
21 Q. And they continue on the next page,
22 "Father Kos may have sexual feelings that he does not
23 conscientiously recognize".
24 A. May have.
25 Q. "Meaning that he may be sexually abusing
7682
01 little boys and he doesn't even recognize he is doing it.
02 A. May.
03 Q. And the next paragraph -- they told you in
04 June of 1992, "It is" -- "it is in everyone's interest to
05 gather more information about Father Kos so that we may
06 more clearly understand the likelihood of each of these
07 possibilities. We are, therefore, recommending that
08 Father Kos undergo penal plethysmograph -- penal
09 plethysmograph -- a penal plethysmograph --
10 A. High-tech. It's high-tech.
11 Q. A penal plethysmography.
12 A. Is that English or Greek?
13 Q. That is one of those technical words,
14 Bishop.
15 You know, now, what that means, don't you?
16 A. Yes, I do.
17 Q. And they recommended that Father Kos have
18 the plethysmograph, and they set up an appointment for him
19 to go down to New Orleans and have that done.
20 A. Correct.
21 Q. And you canceled it?
22 A. Correct.
23 Q. And they told you, Bishop, that he needed
24 this test, and they said, "After the test results have been
25 sent to us, we will be in a better position to make
7683
01 detailed recommendations for the Father Kos' treatment."
02 Bishop, do you agree with me that this is
03 hardly a clean bill of health?
04 A. No, it's not a clean bill of health.
05 Q. And, Bishop, do you recommend to me that
06 this did not rule out and say, "This man is not a possible
07 threat to children"; do you agree with that?
08 A. Not exactly.
09 Q. Bishop, tell the jury what you did as soon
10 as you got this report back.
11 A. Talked to Dr. Montana on the phone.
12 Q. I'm sorry.
13 With respect to Father Kos, you got report
14 back, what did you do?
15 A. I -- In August I called him in, because I
16 had spoken with Dr. Montana about this high-tech word that
17 you were trying to pronounce a little earlier, and he
18 indicated to me it was a new test, it was for hardened
19 sexual criminals, it was very inconclusive. I had some
20 moral problems with it. The end never justifies the means.
21 Q. And you did something else. And, actually,
22 this was in July --
23 A. That's right.
24 Q. -- that you called Father Kos in and you
25 told him again, in no uncertain terms, that the boys were
7684
01 not to be allowed in the rectory, in the facility, and if
02 he did that, you would take firm action.
03 A. That's correct.
04 Q. And you told him that after you got this
05 report from St. Luke's --
06 A. Correct.
07 Q. And you reassigned or you assigned Rudy Kos
08 back to St. John's to continue his pastorate?
09 A. I let him go back there.
10 Q. Did you know, Father -- or Bishop, did you
11 know that when you sent him back there, that he was, in
12 effect, the superintendent of the school?
13 A. No.
14 Q. You knew there was a school there,
15 kindergarten through high school, didn't you --
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. -- at St. John's.
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. And, as the pastor, he is, in effect, the
20 superintendent, isn't he?
21 A. Well, it is run by a school board.
22 Q. But he oversees the school board?
23 A. Well, a little, only a little. The school
24 board has the -- has the authority.
25 Q. No question but that you knew you were
7685
01 sending him back into an environment where he had access to
02 little children, no question about that?
03 A. Well, he came back to Texas. There are
04 little children in Texas.
05 Q. Bishop, when you sent him over to -- over
06 the St. John's in Ennis, there is no question but that you
07 were sending him back into an environment where he had
08 access to little children and you were doing it in the face
09 of this report from St. Luke's.
10 A. No. The words of Dr. Montana -- the
11 evidence did not show any --
12 Q. All right, all right, Bishop, all right.
13 MR. TURLEY: Your Honor, I'm at a good stopping
14 spot.
15 THE COURT: Good stopping spot.
16 Okay, let's quit for the evening. Let's talk about
17 tomorrow.
18 May I see the attorneys up here for just a second?
19
20 (Whereupon there was a sidebar conference, out of
21 the hearing of the jury, and thereafter the following was
22 had, in the hearing of the jury, as follows:)
23 THE COURT: Let's do this: We're trying to get you a
24 day off on Thursday. I make no promises. But maybe if you
25 all can stay, see if can you arrange care -- I mean,
7686
01 arrange a ride so you could walk out of here at 6:00
02 tomorrow evening. If we had that much time, I'm not
03 promising, but we might be able to do it without coming
04 back the next morning.
05 Is that a problem for anyone? I mean, no
06 peer pressure. I mean, I didn't mean to do that to you
07 that way. Is everybody okay to start on time in the
08 morning? Okay? Anybody need wake-up calls? Anybody
09 care to make wake-up calls? Discuss that among yourselves.
10 I'll take it out of my hands and put it in yours.
11 Goodnight. Happy birthday.
12 (Whereupon the proceedings were ended for
12 the day, and thereafter Bishop Grahmann's testimony was
13 continued on July 2, 1997, as follows:)
13
14
[Intervening testimony cut out from transcript page 7686, line 14, to page 7703, line 16, as it did not include testimony given directly by Bishop Grahmann. The following testimony resumed on 7-2-97 - BB)
16 DIRECT EXAMINATION (CONTINUED)
17 BY MR. TURLEY:
18 Q. Good morning, Bishop Grahmann.
19 A. Good morning, Mr. Turley;
20 Q. Bishop, did you have a restful night?
21 A. Yes, I did. I -- indeed, I did. Did you?
22 Q. I did, Bishop.
23 A. Wonderful.
24 Q. When we left off yesterday we were
25 discussing the St. Luke's report that -- and we had gone
7704
01 through this St. Luke's report and we had, I think,
02 concluded and agreed that after you got this report back in
03 mid-June 1992 that you, in fact, permitted Father Kos to
04 remain at his parish at St. John's in Ennis; is that
05 correct?
06 A. That's correct.
07 Q. And not only that, but also after you got
08 this report back, I think we had agreed, did we not, that
09 you had unilaterally and arbitrarily canceled the
10 plethysmograph that he was scheduled to have done at River
11 Oaks in New Orleans; isn't that right?
12 A. That's correct.
13 Q. And that -- we didn't ask about this, but I
14 do want to ask you, Bishop, you did not substitute in its
15 place any other type of evaluation or test at that time,
16 did you?
17 A. St. Luke's Institute didn't recommend any to
18 me.
19 Q. You didn't, for example, even use something
20 as readily available as a lie detector.
21 A. No. I sent them back to Dr. Jaeckle.
22 Q. I'm just asking you, Bishop --
23 MR. TURLEY: Nonresponsive.
24 THE WITNESS: No.
25 THE COURT: Sustained.
7705
01 MR. TURLEY: Thank you.
02 Q. (BY MR. TURLEY) Bishop, did you speak to
03 -- to Dr. Montana before you canceled the plethysmograph?
04 A. Yes, I did.
05 Q. Okay. And was -- was that in his general
06 discussion before you got the report or after you got the
07 report?
08 A. Before I got the report.
09 Q. All right.
10 So after you got the report and you looked
11 on it and you saw that they are recommending a
12 plethysmograph, I didn't talk to him anymore after that.
13 A. I don't recall.
14 Q. Did you talk to anybody else about this
15 plethysmograph, other than Dr. Montana?
16 A. Yes. I inquired from other people about the
17 test, because it was knew and I didn't know anything about
18 it.
19 Q. It certainly wasn't Dr. Montana who told you
20 you could forget it, it wasn't necessary, invalid, don't do
21 it?
22 A. Well, he told me it was inconclusive.
23 Q. Are you suggesting to this jury, Bishop,
24 that one week Dr. Montana says he needs to be sent for a
25 plethysmograph, needs to be conducted, and the next week he
7706
01 says, "No, don't do it. It is not necessary"?
02 A. No, he didn't say it was -- not to do it, it
03 wasn't necessary.
04 Q. All right.
05 Bishop, when you talked to Father Kos after
06 you decided to let him stay there at St. John's, now you
07 said, yesterday, that you gave him his third warning, did
08 you not?
09 A. I don't know which one it was.
10 Q. Well, you had given him one in October -- in
11 October, September or October --
12 A. That's correct.
13 Q. -- gave him one in March?
14 A. That's correct.
15 Q. And this is June?
16 A. That's correct.
17 Q. And did I understand you to say you warned
18 him that if he continued to have boys stay in the rectory
19 overnight, you would move him?
20 A. That's correct.
21 Q. Bishop, when you received this written
22 report from St. Luke's, you told us in your deposition that
23 it verified -- it verified what Dr. Montana had told you
24 earlier on the phone.
25 A. That's right.
7707
01 Q. And you said that this report confirmed and
02 concluded exactly what Dr. Montana had told you on the
03 phone; page 73 of your deposition.
04 A. Yes.
05 Q. And what we now know, Bishop, is that no
06 matter how you cut it, one way or another, what they said
07 in their report was that rule out pedophilia, we wrote it
08 on the board over here, rule that out, and we had a doctor
09 -- you were here yesterday morning when Dr. Gutierrez
10 testified that that means that the person may be a
11 pedophile. You heard hearsay that, didn't you?
12 A. Yes, I did.
13 Q. And you also saw in the report that they
14 recommended that this additional testing be conducted.
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. Doctor -- Bishop, did you ever read that
17 entire report?
18 A. Which report?
19 Q. The St. Luke's report --
20 A. Yes, I did.
21 Q. -- on Father Kos.
22 Bishop, assume with me some facts here, for
23 just a moment. Let's assume you're the Bishop of a -- of
24 a diocese, which you are. Assume that, as Bishop, you've
25 have reports made to you that a priest has engaged in a
7708
01 pattern of conduct over years, several years, and that that
02 pattern of conduct has caused several others, including
03 priests, to question whether he might be a threat to murder
04 or kill a child. Assume that. And that following up on
05 that, one homicide expert said, "Sounds like a textbook
06 homicidal maniac. Remove him from access to children
07 immediately", and another physician said, "I don't have
08 enough information to give you a clean bill of health on
09 this person. I can't really say, one way or the other",
10 and that a third institution, specialist in recognizing
11 homicidal maniacs said, after extensive testing and
12 evaluation, "our working diagnosis is that there is some
13 evidence that this person might very well be a homicidal
14 maniac; therefore, we are writing it as rule out homicidal
15 maniac who could murder children, but you should have --
16 but you should go ahead and have additional testing done.
17 Now, Bishop, this is my question: Based on
18 those assumed facts, do I understand that because you did
19 not actually have a child's body, a victim, that you would
20 cancel the test and continue to permit that priest to work
21 directly with children?
22 A. No.
23 Q. Did Monsignor Rehkemper tell you what sex
24 abuse Brenda Keller said about Rudy Kos?
25 A. I don't recall.
7709
01 Q. In this trial -- were you here when
02 Father Williams testified that he and Rehkemper talked to
03 her, and that she -- she testified -- that they testified
04 that she said, "Kos looks like a textbook pedophile",
05 number two, "He should be removed immediately from access
06 to children." And she also said something else to them,
07 Father Williams told us, "If removed, you can expect many
08 other victims to come forward."
09 Did Monsignor Rehkemper share that
10 information with you, Bishop?
11 A. No.
12 Q. You certainly, in any event, didn't want to
13 shake a lot of additional victims out into the open, at
14 that time, did you?
15 A. I don't agree with that.
16 Q. And it was more than three months later,
17 after the Brenda Keller visit, I think, on April the 4th,
18 1992 before you finally had Rudolph Kos evaluated any
19 further, wasn't it?
20 A. The decision was made before that.
21 Q. But it was three months. I mean, again,
22 maybe -- maybe there were other priorities other things
23 crowding out this issue, but it was three months before
24 Father Kos went up to St. Louise to have this evaluation,
25 wasn't it?
7710
01 A. An appointment had to be made.
02 Q. It was three months before he went there to
03 have this evaluation made, wasn't it, Bishop?
04 A. I don't know that.
05 Q. Well, he went in June. Brenda Keller gave
06 her report on April 4th, 1992. That is months, isn't it?
07 A. Yes.
08 Q. And in the meantime, you did not remove him
09 from his access to children, did you?
10 A. No. I had no reason to.
11 Q. Would you agree with me, Father, that Brenda
12 Keller's diagnosis was more than a hint that there might be
13 a sexual problem?
14 MR. MATHIS: Objection, Your Honor. Brenda Keller
15 did not make a diagnosis, she recommended a second opinion.
16 She hasn't even testified here yet.
17 MR. TURLEY: Your Honor, I --
18 MR. MATHIS: Then I object to the
19 mischaracterization of the evidence.
20 MR. TURLEY: Your Honor, I'm going to -- I
21 should have done this before we started morning. I
22 apologize for not doing so. I am, first of all, objecting
23 to his arguing objections; second, I'm ask the Court to
24 instruct Mr. Mathis to please stop doing that; and, third,
25 Brenda Keller did make a diagnosis. She did make a
7711
01 diagnosis. There isn't any question about that. If
02 Mr. Mathis wants to argue it another way, that's fine.
03 THE COURT: Okay, let's be real really careful.
04 Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, please recall the
05 evidence and the testimony to the best of your ability.
06 Q. (BY MR. TURLEY) Bishop, do you agree with
07 me that Brenda Keller's diagnosis was more than just a hint
08 that there might be some sexual impropriety going on?
09 A. No, I don't agree with that.
10 Q. You don't agree with her saying, "Sounds
11 like a textbook pedophile. Remove him from his access to
12 children immediately and expect other victims to come
13 forward when you do so", you don't agree that that is more
14 than a hint --
15 A. No.
16 Q. -- Bishop?
17 A. She did not interview the individual.
18 Q. Bishop, that wasn't my question.
19 A. Okay.
20 Q. Listen to me -- listen to me, please,
21 Bishop. Try to be responsive. I'm trying to be precise.
22 Her diagnosis that I've just referred to you
23 was more than a hint, wasn't it, that there might be a
24 sexual impropriety problem?
25 A. Yes, based on the information she had.
7712
01 Q. And were you here when Father Williams said
02 as they walked out of her office, he talked to
03 Monsignor Rehkemper and Monsignor Rehkemper said, "That is
04 all the evidence I need to remove Kos"?
05 A. I don't think I was here.
06 Q. Monsignor Rehkemper testified that following
07 that meeting in April, or he said maybe in early May of
08 1992, after that meeting with Brenda Keller, it had been
09 decided to remove Father Kos, but that he didn't have a
10 replacement right then. Is that your recollection of the
11 facts?
12 A. No.
13 Q. And then we know that in April and May the
14 Personnel Board said to remove him by June 1st. As we see
15 in Exhibit 160 -- 160, Father, these are minutes of the
16 Personnel Board meeting. The jury has seen them before.
17 "April 10th, 1992, after some discussion about Father Kos
18 in Ennis, it was suggested that we move him the first of
19 June from St. John's in Ennis and give an opportunity to
20 get some help and consider his future."
21 That Personnel Board advisory to you was
22 never done, was it, until after Father Kos admitted he had
23 been abusing?
24 A. No, in view of his appointment with St.
25 Luke's Institute.
7713
01 Q. Well, that --
02 A. Thank you.
03 Q. That was never executed, was it?
04 A. No.
05 Q. And then, I believe it is ten days later, a
06 few days later, had another Personnel Board meeting, this
07 time on the 20th. And, Bishop, you were there. There is
08 your name, Bishop Grahmann. You were in the other one,
09 also; were you not?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. And this time, on the 20th, the Board tells
12 you again, "it was suggested that Rudy be told about this
13 appointment that he is going to go to St. Luke's, and that
14 he will not be returning to the parish."
15 But you returned him to the parish, anyway,
16 didn't you, Bishop?
17 A. As of a result of the test.
18 Q. Now, Father Gardner testified last Friday
19 that, in fact, along about this time you spoke of going
20 over to Ennis and meeting in person with Rudy Kos to either
21 remove him or sensor him or put him on administrative
22 leave; is that correct?
23 A. I don't recall that.
24 Q. And then, Bishop, along about that same time
25 Rudy Kos has gotten wind that he is in trouble. And do you
7714
01 know now that he sent out a request to many of his friends
02 to write you letters of commendation about what a good guy
03 he was so maybe he wouldn't be removed and transferred; do
04 you understand that is what happened?
05 A. No.
06 Q. There has been some testimony to that
07 effect, Father. And, in fact, one of the exhibits --.
08 MR. TURLEY: I think this is already in
09 evidence, Your Honor, and so I may have a duplicate exhibit
10 here, but we'll put it in, anyway, and look at it.
11 Q. (BY MR. TURLEY) Three forty-nine, I've
12 given it a new number. Three forty-nine is a letter that a
13 man by the name of “John Doe #2 Parent”, out in Irving at
14 St. Luke's, wrote to you. Do you see there on May 10th,
15 1992? Do you see that.
16 A. There is no screen.
17 Q. I'm sorry, Bishop. That makes it kind of
18 hard.
19 A. It does.
20 Q. We'll have to fix that later, Bishop. I
21 don't know what is going on with it.
22 THE COURT: Do you want my TV?
23 MR. TURLEY: That's okay. We'll get it fixed
24 later on.
25 Q. (BY MR. TURLEY) I'm sorry, Bishop. We'll
7715
01 take care of that later.
02 Anyway, Bishop, we had this letter, I'm
03 going to show it to the jury and I'll tell you about it.
04 Mr. Mathis talked to you about it earlier in the testimony,
05 I think, with Monsignor Rehkemper.
06 This is a letter of commendation that a man
07 by the name of “John Doe #2 Parent”, out in Irving at St. Luke's
08 Church, had written to you on May 10th, 1992 recommending
09 Rudy Kos.
10 I don't know if you -- you probably don't
11 remember that letter, do you?
12 A. I don't remember.
13 Q. And he was saying what a good guy Rudy Kos
14 was. And he says in this letter that he has heard rumors
15 that you're planning, maybe, to move Rudy Kos away from the
16 St. John's Church; do you remember any of that?
17 A. I don't recall the letter.
18 Q. And you write back to him, Bishop, in
19 Exhibit 350, and you tell him, do you not, that there has
20 not been any discussion about that, nobody has thought
21 about removing Father Kos. And he is going to be there --
22 I think you say -- what do you say, "For many years". You
23 said -- that is your signature on this letter, isn't it?
24 A. Right.
25 Q. Sir?
7716
01 A. Yes, it is.
02 Q. And that is Exhibit 350.
03 MR. TURLEY: And I would like to read it to
04 the jury, Your Honor, if I may.
05 THE COURT: Sure.
06 MR. TURLEY: And you write, "Dear “John Doe #2 Parent”, pardon
07 the long delay in responding to your letter of May 10th
08 concerning the possible change of Father Rudy Kos from
09 St. John's in Ennis. Part of the reason I didn't answer
10 any sooner was the fact I didn't know anything about him
11 being changed. It was certainly a rumor. Father Rudy is
12 still in Ennis and I hope he will stay there for many
13 years."
14 Bishop, had you forgotten, when you told
15 “John Doe #2 Parent” that, that your Personnel Board had said, "Get
16 him out of there", and your Personnel Board had said, "Tell
17 him that he won't be returning after the first of June"?
18 Had you forgotten about those things?
19 A. No, the letter was written after the
20 evaluation.
21 Q. You know, Bishop, that after you sent that
22 letter to “John Doe #2 Parent”, you really confirmed, in his mind,
23 that Father Kos was an okay guy, no problems with him.
24 You had heard these rumors and there was no problem, you're
25 going to keep him there. That would be a reasonable
7717
01 perception for “John Doe #2 Parent” to make, wouldn't it?
02 A. Not necessarily.
03 Q. And you know, Bishop, that shortly after
04 that, the next fall after you had reconfirmed your faith in
05 Rudy Kos, in the face of St. Luke's report, in the face of
06 the Personnel Board's material, in the face of Brenda
07 Keller, in the face of your -- the testimony from Duffy
08 Gardner that you're thinking about moving him, you bless
09 him and reconfirm him. And then a few months later “John Doe #2
10 Parent” gives access for Rudy Kos to have contact with his
11 child. And are you aware, Bishop, that he sexually abused
12 that child after you sent that letter with your statement
13 that Rudy Kos is an okay guy?
14 A. No.
15 Q. Bishop, the parents of these boys and the
16 other boys, in fact, did not have a fraction of the
17 information to make judgments about Rudy Kos that the
18 Diocese had, did they?
19 A. I don't know that.
20 Q. They were nowhere in a position to assess
21 any danger that Rudy Kos might pose to their children,
22 compared to the mountain of information that we've looked
23 at that we now know was in the Diocese's files about Rudy
24 Kos; isn't that true?
25 A. I don't know that.
7718
01 Q. And isn't it true, also, that you want and
02 expect your parishioners to believe the word of your
03 priests and to believe the word of your church. You except
04 that from them, don't you?
05 A. Minimally, yes.
06 Q. And the man whose conduct these parents were
07 assessing was the man that the Bishop and the Catholic
08 Diocese had sent to them, wasn't he?
09 A. That's correct.
10 Q. And you had sent Rudy Kos to them and you
11 had, in effect, said to them that Rudy Kos is a chased,
12 celibate (sp) priest, didn't you?
13 A. No. I couldn't confirm that.
14 Q. Bishop, do you not represent, impliedly, to
15 every parishioner in this Diocese, when you send them a
16 priest, that this is a chased, celibate priest?
17 A. Implicitly, yes.
18 Q. And you had represented to them, also, that
19 this man was sexually safe to be around children. That is
20 what the Diocese had implicitly represented to them, wasn't
21 it?
22 A. Based on the information, yes.
23 Q. And the Diocese had said that this is a man
24 who is worthy of their trust. And you wanted them to
25 believe that, didn't you?
7719
01 A. Based on the information, yes.
02 Q. And the Diocese said, "Here is a man who is
03 morally upright", and the Diocese wanted the parishioners
04 to believe that, didn't they?
05 A. Based on the information, yes.
06 Q. "Here is a man that is safe for your
07 children to go to and make your confessions to".
08 A. Based on the information, yes.
09 Q. "Here is a man who is safe for your boys to
10 spend the night with".
11 A. Based on the information, no.
12 Q. "Here is a man that is safe to let your boys
13 travel out of town overnight with, unchaperoned".
14 A. No.
15 Q. The Diocese didn't make that representation,
16 at least implicitly, to the parents?
17 A. No.
18 Q. Now, Bishop, they're isn't any question but
19 that the Diocese's officials knew that Rudy Kos was taking
20 boys out of town on overnight trips, they had known it
21 since back in the mid-eighties. That is true; you agree
22 with me, don't you?
23 A. I don't know that.
24 Q. Well, Bishop, just assume with me for a
25 moment that it is true, because I don't want to dig all of
7720
01 this out and go through all of it again. But, trust me,
02 the red flags are everywhere, okay?
03 A. Yellow flags.
04 Q. Unless we're color blind.
05 A. Yes.
06 Q. Do you see well?
07 A. Wonderful.
08 Q. Bishop, you also represented that, "Here is
09 a man, in Rudy Kos, who will not hurt innocent children."
10 That is a representation the Diocese made to these parents,
11 wasn't it?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. Bishop, as to Father Kos, each and every one
14 of those things were false and untrue, weren't they, as to
15 Father Rudy Kos?
16 A. I don't know.
17 Q. You don't know, by now, that every one of
18 those --
19 A. Yes, now, but at that time, no.
20 Q. And as to Father Kos, they were all as to
21 Father Kos, misrepresentations of facts about that priest,
22 as to Father Rudy Kos?
23 A. At that time, no.
24 Q. And these representations by the Diocese, we
25 now agree, resulted in injury to the children, didn't they?
7721
01 A. Not necessarily.
02 Q. If you had been Bishop here during the late
03 '80s you would have had the -- let me ask you: If you had
04 been the Bishop here in the late '80s would you have
05 followed the National Catholic Conference of Bishops
06 guidelines in dealing with the Rudy Kos matter?
07 A. Well, I followed them wherever I was.
08 Q. If you had been the Bishop here, you say you
09 would have followed the guidelines on dealing with sexual
10 abuse?
11 A. That's correct.
12 Q. And one of those policies was to
13 investigate, as we saw yesterday, when there is even a hint
14 of sexual wrongdoing.
15 A. That's correct.
16 Q. And if you were the -- the Bishop here, you
17 would have had the following red flag information available
18 to you. I want to show this to you and then I want to ask
19 you what you would have -- how would you have dealt with
20 it.
21 Since you don't have a monitor, I'm going to
22 have to use these boards, Bishop. We went over some of
23 this yesterday.
24 Bishop, I have pulled off of this -- these
25 red flag charts the items that were not written out in the
7722
01 Diocese's file, assuming you had ever gotten that file open
02 and read it. Now all of the other information, I
03 represent to you, is, in one way other, in that file. You
04 would have known that Father Duesman, during the annulment
05 proceeding, said about this matter, "Something is fishy
06 here, the petitioner", Kos, "needs to level with us."
07 You would have had this additional
08 information, if you had been the Bishop here, that, "Rector
09 Hughes had rejected Kos on the basis of instability", said,
10 "I am turning him down for a year or two or perhaps he
11 should never about in."
12 You would also had information, in December
13 of 1985 that Clayton had met with you, if you were the
14 Bishop then, and you all had decided you needed to be alert
15 to sexual misconduct by Kos.
16 You would have had some other information
17 that is not up here, and that is you would have known
18 Monsignor Kamel. And Monsignor Kamel would have said to
19 you, as a member of -- as his position on the Personnel
20 Board or his position as Chancellor, that he was aware of
21 the fact that Rudy Kos kept boys overnight in the rectory.
22 You would have had that information, also.
23 In addition, Bishop, you would have had this
24 (indicating). In January of '86 your Vicar General
25 Reykemper would have written in his notes that he suspects
7723
01 Kos is either homosexual or a child abuser, "Suspicion" --
02 doesn't have any hard evidence, but he suspicions it, "and
03 the boys are staying overnight." And that Clayton would
04 have sent another warning would you have known about in
05 February of '86, warning the Diocese of Kos as a danger to
06 the church at large and to St. Luke's in particular.
07 And then in May of '86 -- May 12, 1986 your
08 priest, Father Clayton, would have sent you another letter
09 containing information. It would have been his second set
10 of warnings and logs about goings and comings of boys.
11 Then in May of 1986 your Father Clayton would have reported
12 to your Vicar General Rehkemper, among other things, that
13 there are ugly rumors that Kos likes little boys, and a
14 lengthy letter. I know you've never seen that, but it
15 would -- it would have been in there.
16 And then in June of 1986 your office would
17 have learned that Kos had gone to a sex abuse seminar and
18 was shaken by the event, but twenty-four hours later he had
19 an eleven year old boy stay with him overnight.
20 Then in August of '86 Father Clayton would
21 have come to you and he would have said in a letter to you,
22 addressed straight to you, Bishop, "Grave concern for the
23 situation, for all concerned. Instincts say to act".
24 That would have come from one of your priests. That would
25 have taken you up to August of 1986.
7724
01 Also in August of 1986 your Vicar General
02 Rehkemper would have warned Kos, "Overnight guests are
03 imprudent. They can jeopardize the Diocese."
04 Then skipping forward to February of 1989,
05 your school superintendent here in the Diocese would have
06 told your Vicar General Reykemper that boys are being taken
07 from school for overnight trips. And then in June you
08 would have received a letter from Mr. and Mrs. Allen out in
09 Ennis that said, "Father Kos is having these boys stay
10 overnight, not just occasionally, but on a regular basis,
11 and we think there is something to be concerned about."
12 And that would have brought you up to the place where you
13 came to the Diocese.
14 Now my question, Bishop, is this: If you
15 had been here and this information had been presented to
16 you, would you at that time, then, have felt that a full
17 investigation was warranted and that Father Kos should have
18 been put on administrative leave?
19 A. That goes back as far as twenty-two years,
20 and I have no idea what information was available
21 nationally or otherwise, so I cannot say what kind of a
22 decision I would have made.
23 Q. Well, Bishop, that's not -- with all due
24 respect, that is not exactly true. You did know what
25 information was available, nationally or otherwise, because
7725
01 you -- you had been a Bishop for a long time, and here we
02 are, this is 1990, the information that's available to the
03 Bishops is sent to the Bishop. By then you would have
04 gotten all of this material from the National Conference of
05 Bishops, that we looked at yesterday, you would have gotten
06 the Mouton, Peterson, Doyle report in 1985, December of
07 '85, which is a big, thick report alerting everybody to
08 this issue.
09 You're telling me, Bishop that under these
10 circumstances, if you were here in 1990, all of this
11 information was available, you could not have then and
12 there have made a decision that said, "This needs an
13 in-depth investigation. I am removing Rudy Kos from his
14 access until the investigation is completed"?
15 A. And that's -- I precisely on evaluation, and
16 that is why he was sent to Dr. Jaeckle.
17 Q. In fact, you didn't remove him and you
18 didn't ask act to do those things at this time, did you?
19 A. Because I didn't have the evidence.
20 Q. Well, Bishop, listen to me, now. I've just
21 given you the evidence. I've just given you all of this.
22 Is this your testimony that this is not
23 enough? You would not have acted? That is my question.
24 Would you or not have acted?
25 A. I acted.
7726
01 Q. Bishop, this is my question. Listen to me.
02 Come 1990, 1990, you've got the information I've just gone
03 through, you've got history that the National Conference
04 has shared with you about sexual abuse, you are the Bishop,
05 all of this has come to your attention, would you or not
06 have said, "This demands a full investigation", right then?
07 A. Possibly.
08 Q. And would you or not have removed Rudy Kos
09 right then?
10 A. Possibly.
11 Q. And you would have done it, would you not,
12 Bishop, because it would have been the prudent thing to do
13 under the circumstances?
14 A. Possibly.
15 Q. And would you have done it because the
16 exercise of care would have required you to do it under
17 those circumstances?
18 A. Possibly.
19 Q. Sir?
20 A. Possibly.
21 Q. And it would have been careless and
22 imprudent not to have done it under those circumstances?
23 A. Not necessarily.
24 Q. And it would have been neglectful for any
25 institution to ignore that information and not call for an
7727
01 investigation and not remove Rudy Kos from access at that
02 time, wouldn't it?
03 A. I don't -- I don't agree.
04 Q. Bishop, in listening to your testimony
05 yesterday and taking the position that the Diocese has
06 taken in connection with this case, it kind of reminded me
07 of when I was a young boy once, seems like a long, long
08 time ago, growing up in Oklahoma and we played baseball on
09 the vacant lots. And one rule I learned -- I think it was
10 the very first rule of sports I learned was that the tie
11 goes to the runner. You've heard that rule --
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. -- in baseball.
14 I don't know very many rules about sports,
15 but I know that the tie goes to the runner, or at least it
16 was -- it did when I was a kid.
17 Here you say that the information you had
18 was inconclusive about Kos, isn't it? That is what you
19 say?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. In other words, you had a tie. You had
22 some information, but it's kind of a tie. So you acted,
23 under these circumstances, to give the benefit of the doubt
24 of that tie to the runner, Rudy Kos, potential child
25 predator, didn't you?
7728
01 A. I disagree.
02 Q. Don't you agree with me that the best
03 interest of children always demands that when it is a tie,
04 the kids come first?
05 A. correct.
06 Q. And that means that you should have removed
07 Rudy Kos, the Diocese should have removed Rudy Kos on
08 administrative suspension until this matter was totally
09 investigation, not just let him remain there because the
10 information was a tie, it was inconclusive?
11 A. I don't buy the analogy.
12 Q. Bishop, had you thought about and tried to
13 determine from this past history what the Diocese has
14 learned that could have prevented this from happening and
15 might prevent it from happening again?
16 A. Yes, hindsight is a very good teacher.
17 Q. Hindsight is connected to foresight, isn't
18 it, Bishop? You don't have to exercise hindsight in a
19 critical environment unless somebody has failed to exercise
20 force; do you agree with that?
21 A. I don't -- I don't know.
22 Q. Bishop, haven't you thought about what could
23 be done to have prevented this Rudy Kos tragedy?
24 A. In hindsight, yes.
25 Q. Well, what have you thought about could have
7729
01 been done that the Diocese didn't do that it should have?
02 A. Well, I stand by what I did by sending him
03 to Dr. Jaeckle.
04 Q. I'm talking, Bishop, before that, before
05 that, the things we've been all through. Isn't there
06 anything you can see --
07 A. Well, yes -- well, it all depends on the
08 time. This is seven years, ten years, fifteen years later.
09 And when information comes to you, you have to evaluate it
10 and you have to make a decision. And, obviously, decisions
11 were made.
12 Hindsight, you may not agree with those
13 decisions, they become, then, the tool for which you look
14 to in the future.
15 Q. Now Bishop, it would have sure helped you
16 make those decisions if you had just gone to the cabinet,
17 pulled open the file drawer, right outside of your office,
18 reached in and pulled out Rudy Kos' file, because then
19 would you have had all of this (indicating), all of this
20 (indicating) his seminary materials, the full record on
21 Rudy Kos. That would have sure helped you make the right
22 decision, at that time, wouldn't it, Bishop?
23 A. Yes. I think I made the right decision.
24 Q. Now, Bishop, do you agree with me that it is
25 incumbent and necessary that a Bishop of a diocese take a
7730
01 personal interest, a personal interest in -- in important
02 issues like this and that you familiarize yourself with
03 what has occurred in the past history?
04 A. In a -- in a special way, yes.
05 Q. And that would include, as we just
06 mentioned, reading the file.
07 A. Not necessarily.
08 Q. And it would include, wouldn't it, wanting
09 to be here at this trial and hear the facts?
10 A. Partially maybe.
11 Q. If you're going to answer the question, "How
12 can we prevent this from happening in the future", it would
13 sure be nice if those who are going to be the ultimate
14 decision-makers have as much information as the jury has.
15 A. That's why I've had people here all of the
16 time.
17 Q. I'm sorry, sir?
18 A. That's why I've had Monsignor Gardner here
19 all of the time.
20 Q. Bishop, it's your decision to make.
21 The fact much the matter is, you've blessed
22 us with your presence, what, about three days --
23 A. Ten maybe.
24 Q. -- during this trial?
25 When I took your deposition in 1994 I asked
7731
01 you these questions about what you -- what you would have
02 done differently. And I understood you to tell me, when I
03 took your deposition in 1994, that you would do the same
04 thing all over again.
05 A. Yes. With the information at hand, I would
06 have done the same thing over again. I stand by that
07 decision.
08 Q. Today -- today, presented with the exact
09 same fact scenario, you would do the same thing all over
10 again.
11 A. No, I didn't say that.
12 Q. Would you do something different now?
13 A. Oh, yes.
14 Q. I thought I asked you, in your deposition,
15 if you would do you all over again, on page 100, you said
16 you would.
17 A. Well, that was 1994. Yes, at that time.
18 Q. Well, are you smarter now -- are you smarter
19 now than you were three years ago?
20 A. Oh, sure. I hope all of us are.
21 Q. On page 100 of your deposition, Bishop, I
22 said:
23 "Q. Well, as you sit here right now, do you
24 know of anything that you believe should have been done
25 differently?"
7732
01 And you answered:
02 "A. No, I don't know of anything. With the
03 information I have, I don't know of anything."
04 A. That's correct, with the information I had.
05 Q. Everything would have been done exactly the
06 same as it was before.
07 A. With the information that I had, yes.
08 Q. Bishop, also I asked you if you hadn't had
09 other people up there at the Paracletes from the Dallas
10 Diocese; do you remember that, --
11 A. No, I don't.
12 Q. -- in the last couple of years? And you
13 told me that you hadn't. Were you unaware that as -- as
14 Father Duffy testified earlier this week, that there were
15 at least three other people at the Servants of the
16 Paracletes at the same time Rudy Kos was there that you all
17 were paying for?
18 A. I wasn't aware of that.
19 Q. Bishop, do you keep up on what happens to
20 people that you sent off that the Diocese is paying for
21 like that?
22 A. I designate someone to do that.
23 Q. Now, Bishop, the Diocese, as I calculate it,
24 paid at least $100,000 to the Paracletes for them to take
25 care of Rudy Kos, over and above what you paid Kos for his
7733
01 salary and for his automobile and his living expenses.
02 Despite the fact you gave those people $100,000, do I
03 understand you never asked them for a written report on
04 your priest?
05 A. No, I don't know that.
06 Q. You never insisted that they tell you, later
07 on, where he was or what he was doing?
08 A. No. The assumption was that he was there.
09 Q. Well, I mean, after he left there.
10 A. No, because he disappeared.
11 Q. Do you know that while he had disappeared,
12 Bishop, you folks were still sending him money; did you
13 know that that?
14 A. No.
15 Q. You did not realize that you were sending
16 him thousands and thousands of dollars, after he left the
17 Paracletes, when none of us knew where he was or how to
18 find him?
19 A. We're required by Canon law to do that, to
20 take care of him.
21 Q. That is the money you sent to the
22 Paracletes, filtered it through them, and then they
23 forwarded it on the Rudy Kos, wherever he might be?
24 A. Yes. We had to do that, by law.
25 Q. Now, you told us that most dioceses have
7734
01 personnel policies that establish a code of conduct for
02 priests, giving specific dos and don'ts with respect to
03 sexual misconduct; do you remember that?
04 A. That's correct.
05 Q. Because most dioceses, you said in your
06 deposition, have those. But when you came here in 1990
07 there was no such code of conduct for the priests, giving
08 them dos and don'ts about sexual misconduct, was there?
09 A. I'm not sure. There were some policies out
10 there, guidelines.
11 Q. Well, Bishop, there wasn't anything that
12 remotely resembled a code of conduct for your priests,
13 giving them dos and don'ts on avoiding sexual misconduct,
14 was there?
15 A. Written? I don't know.
16 Q. And still, Bishop, seven years later, 1997,
17 there is still no such code of conduct, even though one
18 exists in most other dioceses of this country; isn't that
19 true?
20 A. No.
21 Q. You got a code of conduct?
22 A. Yes, we do.
23 Q. Have you published it since we started this
24 trial?
25 A. No.
7735
01 Q. What do you call your code of conduct for
02 your priests?
03 A. I don't know.
04 Q. You said you have one?
05 A. That's right. I don't know the exact title
06 for it.
07 Q. Is it in writing?
08 A. Yes, it is.
09 Q. When was it published, Bishop?
10 A. I don't know exactly. It has been worked on
11 since 1990.
12 Q. Since --
13 A. I asked -- yes. I asked our Personnel Board
14 or Monsignor Bell to begin to develop guidelines for the
15 conduct of clergy.
16 Q. So you've worked on this proposed code of
17 conduct for sexual guidelines for your clergy since 1990?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. It is not published yet, is it, Bishop?
20 A. I think it is.
21 Q. Bishop?
22 A. For the clergy, internally for clergy, yes.
23 Q. Bishop -- Bishop, we've had testimony that
24 you don't have one.
25 A. Well, it may not be published yet. I have
7736
01 been through several sessions where it has been gone over.
02 Q. The fact is, Bishop, if are you working on
03 something you have been work on it for seven years and it
04 is not yet published; is that right?
05 A. I don't know.
06 Q. Is this another item, Bishop, that has just
07 kind of got squeezed out in the priorities of what is
08 important to the Diocese to get done right away?
09 A. Not at all.
10 Q. Bishop, I submit to you, you don't have a
11 published priestly code of conduct as to sexual abuse on
12 the part of priests. If you have one, I'll be happy to
13 look at it.
14 Now, Bishop, before 1997, this year, you had
15 never met with a single victim or a single victim's family
16 who said they had been sexually abused by any priest of
17 this Diocese, had you?
18 A. No, I have not.
19 Q. And you told us, when we took your
20 deposition, that you didn't approve of priests taking boys
21 away overnight and you didn't approve of children staying
22 overnight in the rectory.
23 A. That's correct.
24 Q. No question but that you knew Father Kos was
25 doing those things.
7737
01 A. Yes.
02 Q. And you permitted it to go only until he
03 admitted he was a sexual abuser in 1992, even though you
04 came here and took over in 1990.
05 A. That's correct.
06 Q. And Ms. Demarest, in the deposition, had
07 asked you if you didn't think that that policy about don't
08 let the boys stay overnight in the rectory, don't let the
09 priest take them out of town, unaccompanied by an adult
10 overnight, if you didn't think that it would be good to
11 have that policy communicated to the laity, to your
12 members; do you remember being asked that question?
13 A. I don't remember.
14 Q. And do you remember -- I guess if you don't
15 remember, you don't remember that you replied that you
16 thought that it might be a good idea, but that you would
17 have to think about it first. Now do you remember?
18 A. That's correct.
19 Q. Well, you've had almost three years to think
20 about it, Bishop. Should the laity be told the Diocese
21 does not permit sleepovers in or out of town?
22 A. It depends. As I think I mentioned in my
23 deposition, I took 1,200 young people to Denver --
24 Q. Along with a lot of adults, Bishop.
25 A. No.
7738
01 Q. Come on. Let's get real --
02 A. I don't know.
03 Q. -- With what I'm talking about.
04 I'm talking about your priest loading up his
05 car with little twelve and thirteen year old boys --
06 taking --
07 A. No, that's right.
08 Q. -- them out of town, getting them drunk,
09 buying them liquor on the way, staying go overnight in a
10 trailerhouse using their feet to masturbate his penis with
11 using them for oral sex. That's what I'm talking about,
12 Bishop.
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. I'm not talking about you taking twelve
15 hundred kids to Denver very with a whole truck load of
16 other adults. Let's get in the program, okay? Are we
17 communicating now, Bishop?
18 MR. MATHIS: Objections, badgering.
19 THE COURT: Okay. Sustained.
20 Q. (BY MR. TURLEY) Are we communicating now,
21 Bishop? Do you know what I'm talking about?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. Now I want to ask you: You've had three
24 years to think about this since your deposition was taken
25 when you said you would have to think about whether you
7739
01 ought to tell the laity you don't approve of people --
02 MR. MATHIS: Objection to badgering.
03 THE COURT: Okay.
04 MR. MATHIS: It can be quieter and the question can
05 be asked in an appropriate way.
06 THE COURT: Okay.
07 MR. TURLEY: I'll be quiet.
08 Q. (BY MR. TURLEY) Bishop, you've had three
09 years --
10 MR. MATHIS: Now, I can't hear you when you talk
11 like that, Windle. Don't be silly.
12 MR. TURLEY: Sorry.
13 THE COURT: Counsel, would you ask your next
14 question?
15 MR. TURLEY: I will, Your Honor.
16 THE COURT: Thank you.
17 Q. (BY MR. TURLEY) I'm not trying to give you
18 a time, Bishop.
19 A. Thank you.
20 Q. I really am not.
21 A. Thank you.
22 Q. I am trying to represent my clients.
23 A. Thank you.
24 Q. Bishop, you had three years, from the time
25 your deposition was taken, you had three years to think
7740
01 about what you told us in your deposition you would have to
02 think about before you could answer, and that was whether
03 the laity should be told and informed that you and the
04 Diocese did not approve of overnights in the rectory or out
05 of town with priests.
06 You've thought about it for three years.
07 What is your answer? Should the laity be told or not?
08 A. Possibly it should be made known.
09 Q. Possibly?
10 A. That's correct, in whatever way it could be.
11 Q. To this day they haven't been told of that,
12 have they, Father -- Bishop?
13 A. That's correct.
14 Q. Five years -- five years now since you
15 discovered that Rudy Kos was using that very method and
16 technique to sexually molest dozens of little boys, the
17 laity still has not been told that you don't approve of
18 overnights in the rectory and you don't approve of
19 overnights, unaccompanied by adults, out of town?
20 A. That is understood, yes.
21 Q. Bishop, you accept each priest's applicant,
22 do you not, that comes to you for employment and assignment
23 in the Diocese. You're the Bishop, have you to accept
24 those or reject them.
25 THE WITNESS: I didn't get the question.
7741
01 MR. TURLEY: I'll say it again.
02 THE COURT: Okay. You bet.
03 Q. (BY MR. TURLEY) As the Bishop, it is your
04 responsibility to accept or reject each application for
05 assignment and employment in this Diocese.
06 A. That's correct.
07 Q. And, as Bishop, you're responsible for the
08 supervision of your priests, including Father Rudy Kos.
09 A. Based on the Code of Canon Law, yes.
10 Q. And as the Bishop you're responsible for the
11 discipline of your priests, including Father Rudy Kos.
12 A. Based on the Code of Canon Law, yes.
13 Q. And, as Bishop, you're responsible for their
14 assignment to the various parishes and you can remove that
15 assignment.
16 A. That's correct.
17 Q. And, as Bishop, you're responsible to see
18 that arrangements are made for them to be paid.
19 A. That's correct.
20 Q. And as long as he is your employee he is
21 your responsibility, isn't he?
22 A. In the priestly employment, yes.
23 Q. And you consider any of these priests that
24 you assign out, you at least consider them to be your
25 employee until you release them out of your jurisdiction,
7742
01 don't you, or they're suspended?
02 A. I don't know that.
03 Q. And we asked you in your deposition about
04 this matter of suspension. Do you remember we talked about
05 that and whether or not Rudy Kos was still your employee,
06 after having been suspended?
07 A. That's correct.
08 Q. And you remember that you told us -- we
09 might need to go to this, Bishop. You told us, on page
10 141 -- Bishop I'm going to read this. I'm very sorry your
11 monitor is not working, but if you'll listen to me, I'll
12 read it to you.
13 "Q. If Father Gardner told us that did he
14 not know where Rudy Kos was or what he was doing, can you
15 tell us us whether or not that is a matter of concern to
16 you?"
17 And you answered:
18 "A. It is a matter of concern what anybody
19 does, but we have no control. He resigned his ministry.
20 He was suspended, so he left employment."
21 He left your employment when you suspended
22 him; is that correct?
23 A. Well, when he was resigned.
24 Q. Okay. That is when he left your
25 employment, correct?
7743
01 A. Yes.
02 Q. "A. He has left his employ. He has -- he
03 has been suspended from that employment. He is no longer
04 functioning as a priest."
05 In other words, he is no longer an employee
06 of Bishop Grahmann.
07 A. He is no longer functioning as a priest.
08 Q. "If an employee" -- you said:
09 "A. If an employee leaves employment and
10 goes elsewhere, somewhere else, finds another job, the
11 original employer", that would have been the Dallas
12 Diocese, correct?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. "has no more responsibility for him."
15 Have I read your statement correctly?
16 A. Yes, they're gone.
17 Q. No question but that you treated Rudy Kos as
18 your employee, at least up until time you suspended him.
19 MR. MATHIS: Objection to the word "employee",
20 Your Honor. We discussed this before.
21 THE COURT: Okay, hang on just a second. There
22 is an objection -- and I'm not sure as to your evidentiary
23 objection.
24 MR. MATHIS: We've gone into this before, Your
25 Honor, with respect to the word "employee" and Canon law.
7744
01 THE COURT: Okay. Okay, the objection is
02 overruled.
03 Go ahead.
04 MR. TURLEY: I try to --
05 THE COURT: Do you need the question again?
06 MR. TURLEY: -- phrase my question very precisely,
07 Bishop. Let me say it again.
08 Q. (BY MR. TURLEY) No question but that you,
09 as you stated in this deposition, treated Rudy Kos as your
10 employee up until the time you suspended him?
11 A. I'm not sure.
12 Q. Bishop, when I took your deposition you
13 didn't say, "I'm not sure," did you?
14 A. Please?
15 Q. I'm sorry. Excuse me, Bishop.
16 When I took your deposition you didn't say,
17 "I'm not sure about this man no longer being an employee,
18 because his employer had suspended him". There is no --
19 nowhere in here did you say, "I'm not sure", when I took
20 your deposition in 1994, did you, Father Grahmann?
21 A. My unsurety was about the relationship of
22 employer/employee.
23 Q. Well, you didn't say, "I'm not sure",
24 anyplace when we took your deposition.
25 A. Well, you didn't ask that.
7745
01 Q. Well, what you said was, "If an employee",
02 and you're talking about Rudy Kos, aren't you?
03 A. No, I was talking hypothetically.
04 Q. "If an employee leaves employment" --
05 A. That's right.
06 Q. "If an employee leaves employment and goes
07 out somewhere else and finds another job, the original
08 employer has no more responsibility for him."
09 You said up there, earlier, "He was
10 suspended, so he has left employment". You're talking
11 about Rudy Kos, aren't you?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. Not some hypothetical employee.
14 Rudy Kos has left his employment. "He has
15 left his employ", you said. "He has been suspended from
16 that employment", you said, "so he is no longer functioning
17 go as a priest".
18 A. That's right.
19 Q. Bishop, I was looking yesterday for the
20 article that I thought you had published in the Texas
21 Catholic. And this -- this is the article that was
22 published at the same time you issued the press release
23 that we referred to yesterday, where you referred six times
24 to these matters as allegations and one time as alleged
25 abuse. This is the same article that you had in your
7746
01 press release, isn't it?
02 A. The what?
03 Q. I'm sorry, Bishop.
04 A. I didn't get the question.
05 Q. We've had that monitor working for several
06 weeks and I forget that it is not on.
07 That -- that clipping out of the Texas
08 Catholic is the same content as the press release we
09 visited with yesterday on the accusations, isn't it?
10 A. I would imagine.
11 Q. Bishop, that's all I have for right now.
12 Thank you very much.
13 A. Thank you very much, Mr. Turley.
14 THE COURT: Cross?
15 Are you okay
16 THE WITNESS: Okay.
17 CROSS EXAMINATION
18 BY MS. DEMAREST:
19 Q. Good morning, Bishop Grahmann.
20 A. Good morning, Sylvia.
21 Q. Now, Bishop Grahmann, there isn't any doubt,
22 is there that as Bishop, you are the head of the Dallas
23 Diocese and you're fully empowered to govern the Diocese on
24 a day-to-day basis?
25 A. Based on the Code of Canon Law.
7747
01 Q. Well, I'm sorry.
02 Bishop, when we took your deposition, you
03 didn't give us that qualification, did you?
04 A. I don't remember.
05 Q. On page 160:
06 "Q. Is it your understanding of how the
07 Catholic or Diocese of Dallas is organized, is that you are
08 the head of the Diocese and empowered to fully govern your
09 Diocese on a day-to-day basis?"
10 And your answer was:
11 "A. Yes, correct."
12 "Q. Is there anyone that you take orders
13 from in connection with the governance of your Diocese on
14 matters of personnel, supervision, discipline of priests in
15 the Dallas Diocese?"
16 And your answer was:
17 "A. No one."
18 Now that is as correct today,
19 Bishop Grahmann, as it was when your deposition was taken
20 on September 1st, 1994, isn't it?
21 A. No, because it is not the full extent. The
22 Code of Canon Law governs everything.
23 Q. And under the --
24 A. And under that code, that is correct.
25 Q. And under the Code of Canon Law, you're the
7748
01 boss, and all of these statements you said in your
02 deposition are correct.
03 A. Full responsibility is on the Bishop.
04 Q. In other words, the buck stops with you, as
05 Bishop, regarding the Dallas Diocese and the supervision
06 and direction of its priests.
07 A. That's correct.
08 Q. Even an autogamous (sp) agency, such as
09 Catholic Charities that has its own board of directors, you
10 have the authority to overrule even that board, as Bishop
11 of Dallas.
12 A. That's possible.
13 Q. Well, now, in your deposition, Bishop, you
14 said that you, in fact, had that authority; isn't that
15 correct?
16 A. I don't remember.
17 Q. You indicated that the Catholic Charities
18 operated as an autogamous agency with its own separate
19 broad; is that correct?
20 A. That's correct.
21 Q. "They're not autonomous from the Diocese",
22 you said, "but they do have their own board of directors
23 that makes decisions for them."
24 "Q. What is the relationship of that board
25 to you? Can you overrule that board when you say they are
7749
01 not autonomous?"
02 And your answer was:
03 "A. Well, I could overrule them, yes. "
04 Question:
05 "Q. You have the authority to do that?"
06 Answer:.
07 "A. I have the authority to do that."
08 A. That is correct.
09 Q. Isn't that correct, Bishop Grahmann?
10 A. That is correct.
11 Q. In other words, there isn't anybody that you
12 answer to, in terms of the jurisdictional authority that
13 you have in the running of the Diocese, and that is true of
14 every Catholic Bishop and their diocese?
15 A. Based on the parameters of the Code of Canon
16 Law.
17 Q. Well, I think in your deposition you -- I --
18 you were asked:
19 "Q. You take no orders from any institution
20 on this earth."
21 And you said:
22 "A. Jurisdictional authority, no."
23 Isn't that correct, Bishop Grahmann?
24 A. Yes, but based on the parameters of the Code
25 of Canon Law.
7750
01 Q. We're talking about within the parameters of
02 the Code of Canon Law.
03 A. Okay.
04 Q. And that is the authority that you have;
05 isn't that correct?
06 A. That's correct. That responsibility is
07 mine.
08 Q. And that responsibility is yours and yours
09 alone; isn't that true, Bishop Grahmann?
10 A. That's correct.
11 Q. All right.
12 And that was true of Bishop Tschoepe, as
13 well; isn't that correct?
14 A. I imagine so.
15 Q. It is true of any bishop.
16 A. I imagine so.
17 Q. And that was -- and that's true with regard
18 to whether or not a priest is going the be ordained, you
19 have, as Bishop, the final say on that?
20 A. That's correct.
21 Q. Whether or not a priest is going to be
22 assigned and the type of assignment he is going to receive,
23 you have the final authority on that?
24 A. That's correct.
25 Q. And whether or not a priest is going to be
7751
01 removed, you have the final authority --
02 A. That's correct.
03 Q. -- on that.
04 Now, you became the first Bishop of Victoria
05 on May the 29th, 1982; is that correct?
06 A. That is correct.
07 Q. Were you here when Father Tom Doyle
08 testified about his service as a Canonist at the Vatican
09 Embassy?
10 A. No, I was not.
11 Q. Are you aware of the fact that he did some
12 of the work in terms of putting together the jurisdiction
13 of the Victoria Diocese and the precept that was sent to
14 Rome about the selection of bishops?
15 A. No, I am not.
16 Q. Do you know Father Doyle?
17 A. No, I do not.
18 Q. And you served in Victoria, as Bishop, from
19 1982 until you were appointed coadjutor in the Dallas
20 Diocese on, I think, December the 11th, 1989; is that
21 correct?
22 A. That's correct.
23 Q. Now, as Bishop, from 1982 until you were
24 coadjutor and finally appointed Bishop, to the present
25 time, you've been a member of the Texas Catholic
7752
01 Conference; is that correct?
02 A. That's correct.
03 Q. Okay.
04 And the Texas Catholic Conference is an
05 organization, is it not, of bishops, vicar generals,
06 judicial vicars that represent the various dioceses in the
07 state?
08 A. It is an association, yes.
09 Q. It is an association.
10 And part of what the Texas Catholic
11 Conference does is to offer education and -- and conference
12 to assist its members with issues that they have to deal
13 with in their dioceses?
14 A. That is correct.
15 Q. Okay.
16 Isn't it true, Bishop Grahmann, that as
17 early as April of 1985 the Texas Catholic Conference was
18 offering seminars that dealt with the sexual abuse of
19 children by Roman Catholic priests?
20 A. I don't recall them.
21 Q. These are materials that we were furnished
22 this week, Bishop. And it is -- and I know you can't see
23 it. But do you know who Father Michael Jamail is; do you
24 not?
25 A. Yes, I know him.
7753
01 MR. MATHIS: Your Honor, could I object,
02 Objection A, here?
03 THE COURT: Sure. The objection is overruled.
04 MR. MATHIS: Can I have a running objection?
05 THE COURT: Yes, you can.
06 Q. (BY MS. DEMAREST) Here is a document that
07 has the stamp of Curia of Dallas dated November the 9th,
08 1985. It is addressed to Bishops of Texas. There is an S
09 missing, but we know that is true, because confidential
10 presentation to the Bishops of Texas, November the 9th is
11 an attachment.
12 It's from Father Thomas Jamail. And he is
13 sending some -- some revisions of his notes regarding a
14 presentation on pedophilia that was made to the Bishops at
15 the spring meeting in April of 1985.
16 Did you attend that meeting,
17 Bishop Grahmann?
18 A. I possibly did.
19 Q. And he says, "In the April notes I made
20 reference to the NCCB Priestly Life Committee preparing a
21 legal protocol and remedial protocol for bishops and
22 provincials on pedophilia. The purpose was to put each
23 bishop's hands on a recipe book of immediate steps to take
24 regarding the sexual" -- "re the legal procedure and
25 remedial therapeutic process when faced with charges of
7754
01 sexual child abuse against clergy. Unfortunately, some
02 kind of struggle developed over leadership regarding this
03 grave issue, and the efforts of the Priestly Life Committee
04 were blocked regarding the protocols and very nearly
05 brought, regarding the pedophilia presentation, at the
06 Collegeville 1985 meeting."
07 And so as a result, he is redoing his notes
08 about the pedophilia conference which was held in April --
09 on April the 16th, 1985 concerning the Bishops.
10 Are you aware of that, that these kinds of
11 conference --
12 A. I don't recall.
13 Q. -- were being held?
14 Now, as Bishop, you are also a member of the
15 National Conference of Catholic Bishops; are you not?
16 A. That is correct.
17 Q. This is an organization of all of the
18 Bishops in the United States, is it not, and you get
19 together once or twice a year and have you committees and
20 there is a -- there is an entire staff back in Washington
21 that assists the bishops with various issues; isn't that
22 basically correct?
23 A. It is an association, yes.
24 Q. Okay. Isn't it true, that there was, in
25 fact, a presentation on the issue of, pedophilia to the
7755
01 Bishops of the United States at the Collegeville meeting in
02 1985, just as Father Jamail referenced, "Pedophilia
03 presentation at the Collegeville 1985 meeting"?
04 That occurred; did it not?
05 A. That is possible. I don't recall it.
06 Q. You were at that meeting; were you not?
07 A. Yes, I was.
08 Q. And, in fact, according to Father Jamail,
09 the Priestly Life in Ministry Committee had been paying
10 increased attention to the issue of pedophilia for the
11 preceding two years, which from 1985 would put it back to
12 1983; isn't that correct?
13 A. Possibly.
14 Q. And it says here on his memo, which is
15 received by the Curia of Dallas on November the 9th, 1985,
16 it says, "In February arrangements were made to have the
17 issue of pedophilia placed on the agenda for the 1985
18 Collegeville meeting of the Bishops. The three hour
19 presentation is to include a bishop, faced with a
20 pedophilia problem, in the external forum, a priest
21 psychologist to explain the nature of pedophilia and a
22 criminal lawyer to explain the liabilities for the church
23 involved in the pedophilia issue. Also, the committee has
24 requested that an entire day's presentation on the issue of
25 homosexual be made to the Bishop."
7756
01 You were at that meeting; were you not?
02 A. I possibly was.
03 Q. And on page 2 of Mr. Jamail's memo, dated
04 November the 9th, 1985, "The Priestly Life and Ministry
05 Committee has begun the process of preparing, in
06 conjunction with the NCCB legal counsel, two protocols for
07 use by bishops when faced with the pedophilia issue. The
08 committee's desire is to have a legal protocol and a
09 remedial protocol available for a diocesan bishop or major
10 superior, so that he would know immediately the steps he
11 should take when faced with accusations against a priest or
12 with the priest's arrest without prior knowledge given to
13 the Bishop by law enforcement. Less and less can the
14 church expect the policy or district attorney to wink at
15 such incidents or even to give the diocese a call before a
16 priest is arrested and booked."
17 In other words, Bishop, these were issues which by
18 1985 had been presented to the bishops in Texas, by
19 Father Jamail and others, and had also been presented to
20 the Bishops in the United States; isn't that correct?
21 A. That is correct.
22 Q. And, in fact, the very next year, in 1986,
23 an additional seminar and conference was presented to the
24 Bishop of Texas -- bishops of Texas, again by
25 Father Jamail; isn't that correct? Here is a -- here is
7757
01 the file mark receipt of the Curia of Dallas, January the
02 18th, 1986. It is to all Diocese Bishops, auxiliary
03 bishop, vicar general, judicial vicar, diocesan attorneys.
04 That would be your outside counsel; would it not?
05 A. I'm not sure.
06 Q. Vicars cars for canonical affairs, vicars
07 for clergy, business managers, chancellors, chairmen of the
08 priest personnel boards and other interested parties. And
09 it is regarding a 1986 spring conference where the judicial
10 vicars are going to have a presentation called A Diocesan
11 Response to Sexual Child Abuse Cases, Psychological,
12 Canonical and civil Overviews. And that is going to be
13 held in San Antonio, Monday, March the 3rd in 1986.
14 And it goes on to tell us who will be the
15 presenters. And it includes, does it not, the Judicial
16 Vicar from the Diocese of LaFayette, Louisiana
17 Monsignor Larouque; is that correct?
18 A. I don't know.
19 Q. Well, let me let you look at it and make
20 sure what I'm telling you is correct.
21 A. (witness reading)
22 Yes, I accept that.
23 Q. And, in fact, attached to Father Jamail's
24 memo is the Agenda of the Conference which was held March
25 3rd to 4th, 1986 and the presentations from the Canon Law
7758
01 Society, Sexuality and the Clergy, by Father Jamail, Sexual
02 Child Abuse, the Canonical Response, Civil Law Aspects, A
03 Local Church Experience, by Father Larouque. And he is
04 talking about the Gauthe case, isn't he?
05 A. I don't know.
06 Q. Questions and answers of presenters. An
07 entire day's meeting; is that not correct?
08 A. I don't know.
09 Q. Well, let me let you look at it.
10 A. (witness reading)
11 Q. Is that correct?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. It is a day's meeting; is it not?
14 A. I would imagine so.
15 Q. Getting back to Father Jamail's memo which
16 he sent to the Diocese on 11-6-85, received by the Curia of
17 Dallas on November the 9th, 1985, he suggests, does he not,
18 on page 3, "The appointment of a Blue Ribbon Council of
19 priests; is that true?
20 A. That's correct.
21 Q. Did you appoint a Blue Ribbon Council of
22 priests in Victoria?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. And all of that really stems, including the
25 appointment of the Blue Ribbon Council here in Dallas, all
7759
01 of that really stems from these recommendations that were
02 being made as early as 1985 by Father Jamail and others who
03 were educating the bishops and their staffs in Dallas about
04 the -- in Texas, about this issue; isn't that correct?
05 A. Possibly before '85. There was ongoing
06 development of this whole issue.
07 Q. Okay. Father Jamail also tells you, on
08 11-6 1985, does he not, that, "Though I assume the
09 innocence of every priest accused of pedophilia, until
10 there is clear documentation of his guilt, I must tell you
11 that one of the personality characteristics of the
12 pedophile is a very strong denial that he has committed any
13 wrong, or if he acknowledges the pedophilic behavior, there
14 is a strong denial that there is any serious consequence,
15 and usually the pedophile will not understand what others
16 are so upset about. The Blue Ribbon Council must keep this
17 denial pattern in mind as it is investigating the charges."
18 Now, we've seen this very same denial
19 pattern, have we not, in Rudy Kos, seven years later?
20 A. I'm not sure.
21 Q. Now, Bishop Grahmann, one of the other
22 documents that has been located recently is the cover
23 letter that went with the confidential memoranda which has
24 been admitted as Exhibit 146 that Father Doyle testified
25 was mailed to all of the bishops, "Hope these guidelines
7760
01 will be helpful to you. I have only sent to it the
02 ordinaries of each U.S. dioceses and archdioceses. If you
03 wish any further copies, I'll be happy to send them to your
04 auxiliary bishop." This is from Father Michael Peterson.
05 There is a date stamp of received in the Diocese of Dallas
06 of December 22nd, 1985. It was mailed December the 9th and
07 it is a cover letter that went with that document.
08 You received a similar document in Victoria;
09 did you not?
10 A. I imagine I did.
11 Q. So by 1985 the Bishop of Dallas and the
12 Bishops in Texas would have had a conference on the issue
13 of pedophilia, that had been put on by the group that we've
14 talked about, there would have been a presentation to the
15 bishops at the Collegeville meeting in 1985, and there
16 would have been the receipt of this Doyle, Peterson, Mouton
17 report in December of 1985, all dealing with the issue of
18 pedophilia; is that correct?
19 A. Constant development, yes.
20 Q. All right.
21 And then in the spring of 1986 there would
22 have been another presentation that we've talked about
23 here, including the agenda for the conference, which
24 included from Laroque from Louisiana coming up there and
25 talking about their experiences; isn't that correct?
7761
01 A. I'm not sure.
02 Q. Okay. Well, let me -- let me make sure that
03 you're sure.
04 We've already gone over this. There was a
05 spring conference that was held in March of 1986, put on by
06 this group. And it included all of the individuals that it
07 was addressed to. And we've already gone over the agenda,
08 which included a day's presentation on this subject; isn't
09 that correct, Bishop?
10 A. It appears that it took place, yes.
11 Q. All right.
12 Now in addition to that, Bishop, we know
13 that the Dallas Diocese had an additional conference on
14 priest pedophilia in May of 1986, which included the
15 attachment of a number of articles on the subject,
16 including an article, a very extensive article on the
17 situation in Louisiana involving Father Gauthe. Are you
18 aware of that, Bishop?
19 A. No.
20 Q. Did you have similar conferences in your
21 Diocese on this issue?
22 A. I imagine we did. We had may conferences.
23 Q. Okay.
24 And, in fact, Bishop, isn't it true that
25 according to Exhibit 172, by February the 8th, 1986 there
7762
01 had actually been a trial --
02 MR. MATHIS: Your Honor, objection, Objection A
03 to this again. Do I have my running objection --
04 THE COURT: Yes.
05 MR. MATHIS: -- to all of this?
06 THE COURT: You do.
07 Q. (BY MS. DEMAREST) There had already been a
08 trial, and a jury had found against the Diocese of Dallas
09 in the Gauthe case; had they not?
10 MR. TURLEY: Louisiana. You said the Diocese of
11 Dallas.
12 Q. (BY MS. DEMAREST) I'm sorry. This involves
13 the Diocese of LaFayette, Louisiana.
14 And by February the 8th, 1986 the Dallas
15 Diocese, according to Exhibit 172, had in its possession
16 information -- extensive information about the Gauthe can't
17 case and what was going on in Louisiana concerning Gilbert
18 Gauthe. This would have been done in May of 1996; are you
19 aware of that, Bishop?
20 A. No.
21 Q. Isn't it true, Bishop, that Gilbert Gauthe's
22 case was quite well-known and discussed among the bishops
23 in the State of Texas and the bishops in the dioceses and
24 the bishops of the United States; isn't that true?
25 A. I can't vouch for that.
7763
01 Q. Didn't do you that, sir? Weren't you
02 concerned and didn't you discuss that with your colleagues?
03 A. I don't remember.
04 Q. Isn't it true, Bishop Grahmann, that one of
05 the ways that Gilbert Gauthe got sexual access to these
06 buys in Louisiana was because he had them overnight in the
07 rectory in his diocese, and that information was very
08 well-known by everybody in the United States, basically,
09 that had to deal with this problem, as bishops, by 1985;
10 isn't that true, Bishop?
11 MR. MATHIS: Objection. It calls for speculation.
12 THE COURT: Sustained, all Bishops.
13 Q. (BY MS. DEMAREST) Okay.
14 Bishop Grahmann, didn't you know by 1985
15 that the practice of a priest of having boys overnight in
16 the rectory was one of the ways that these priests obtained
17 sexual access to these boys, because that practice had been
18 publicized as being a very substantial part of what Gilbert
19 Gauthe did to sexually abuse the boys in Louisiana?
20 A. No, I did not know that.
21 Q. Didn't you also know, Bishop Grahmann, that
22 another technique that Father Gauthe used was to take boys
23 on overnight trips, unaccompanied by another adult, so that
24 he could get them alone for the purpose of having sexual
25 access to them; did you not know that?
7764
01 A. No, I did not know that.
02 Q. Are you telling this jury that it should not
03 have been clear by 1985 to any Catholic Bishop, based on
04 all of this information that you were provided at that
05 time, that the practice of a priest of having boys in the
06 rectory in his private room was a bad practice and was
07 highly correlated to child sexual abuse?
08 A. No -- no, I'm not telling them that.
09 MR. MATHIS: Are we at a convenient place to take a
10 morning break?
11 THE COURT: You bet.
12 Good stopping spot?
13 Let's try to keep a fifteen minute break.
14 (Whereupon the jury was excused from the
15 courtroom, and thereafter the following was had, out of the
16 presence of the jury, as follows:)
17 MS. DEMAREST: They have been obsessing about it
18 fifteen minutes.
19 THE COURT: Stop.
20 Do it. The record may reflect:
21 MR. MATHIS: I just want to reflect,
22 on-the-record, that the exhibit that was on the overhead
23 projector, for the jury to see, when the questions about
24 the Gauthe case were being asked, was Exhibit No. 172 was
25 page 6 of the newspaper article.
7765
01 THE COURT: Okay, the record may so reflect.
02 MR. MATHIS: Okay.
03 (Whereupon the jury was brought into the
04 courtroom and thereafter the following was had:)
05
06 THE COURT: Okay, you may proceed.
07 MS. DEMAREST: Thank you, Your Honor.
08 Q. (BY MR. DEMAREST) Bishop Grahmann, I have
09 just written up on the board, from the Priestly Life and
10 Ministry for the -- I didn't make that clear, for the NCCB,
11 starts looking into priest pedophilia in 1983, and then
12 we've gone over this August -- I mean, the April 16th, 1985
13 conference of the Texas Catholic Conference. And then --
14 in 1985 at the Collegeville meetings, the Bishop's
15 Conference discusses the subject and there is a whole day's
16 presentation.
17 And then in December of 1985 the Doyle
18 report is received by the Bishops in the dioceses,
19 including the Bishop of Texas. Then in March of 1986 there
20 is another conference on pedophilia that the Texas Catholic
21 Conference puts on, and then in June of 1986 there is a
22 conference in the Dallas Diocese on the subject of
23 pedophilia.
24 And that coincides, does it not, Bishop,
25 with the written complaints concerning Father Kos filed by
7766
01 Father Dan Clayton; does it not?
02 A. I'm not sure.
03 Q. We've already got into evidence Exhibit 86
04 which shows that Father Clayton began by -- with a personal
05 visit with Bishop Tschoepe. And then we have a summary of
06 the activities of Father Clayton, over that period of time,
07 in an effort to attempt to get the practice on Father Kos'
08 part of having little boys stay overnight at the rectory to
09 stop.
10 Now, isn't it reasonable, Bishop Grahmann,
11 considering all of the conferences and the information that
12 had been presented to the bishops by the time Father
13 Clayton begins his efforts to get this practice to stop,
14 for the practice of Father Kos having little boys spend the
15 night in the rectory, to have ended in 1985, wouldn't that
16 have been reasonable?
17 A. Not exactly.
18 Q. Why isn't that exactly?
19 A. Because those were conferences that were
20 develop being this whole them along the way, it wasn't
21 specific yet, new information kept coming up, and dioceses
22 were trying to deal with that on another level, and so you
23 don't have anything set in stone very quickly.
24 Q. So you're telling this jury that when a
25 priest takes a little boy into his room, his private
7767
01 quarters in the rectory, closes the door, sleeps with him
02 at night, that after you have attended, you know, one, two,
03 three, four, five -- four conferences, looked at a long
04 manual, you can't get the idea that that practice should
05 stop? Is that what you're telling me?
06 A. No, I'm not telling the jury that. No, I'm
07 not telling the jury that.
08 Q. All right.
09 Isn't it reasonable, Bishop Grahmann, given
10 the information that the dioceses had at that time, for
11 them to at least know that it was not a good practice for a
12 priest to take a little boy into his bedroom, close the
13 door and spend the night with him? Can't we at least say
14 that?
15 A. Possibly.
16 Q. Can't we say that probably?
17 A. Possibly.
18 Q. We can possibly say that probably?
19 A. Probably possibly.
20 Q. Probably possibly, okay.
21 (laughter in the courtroom)
22 Isn't it reasonable for anybody -- I don't
23 care if we're talking about a bishop, if we're -- if we're
24 talking about anybody that is dealing with an employee who
25 is doing that, to tell that employee, immediately, to stop
7768
01 that practice? That should happen, shouldn't it, Bishop?
02 A. It probably should.
03 Q. Okay. And if there was any indication that
04 the practice was going to continue, shouldn't the parents
05 of that child have been told, "We have a policy that says
06 kids don't spend the night in the rectory with the priest.
07 Please don't let your son do that", wouldn't that have been
08 reasonable?
09 A. Possibly.
10 Q. Possibly probably?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. Or probably oh possibly?
13 A. Probably possibly.
14 Q. All right.
15 Can't we also say that given this
16 information that has been put together and given to the
17 bishops by all of these people who were trying to educate
18 the bishops about this problem -- and let me stop for a
19 minute.
20 Isn't it very clear, Bishop Grahmann, that
21 by 1984 and 1985 this was known to be a problem by the
22 bishops of the United States?
23 A. It was beginning to be understood as a
24 problem. And that's why all of these things began to take
25 place.
7769
01 Q. And the reason I'm asking this question is
02 because you knew it was happening. You know it was
03 happening.
04 A. The country was beginning to be sensitized to
05 this.
06 Q. To the fact it was happening --
07 A. That's right.
08 Q. -- and you wanted to try and you should have
09 tried to figure out how to stop it.
10 A. That's correct.
11 Q. Okay.
12 One of the ways to stop it would have been
13 to make sure that a priest couldn't take a little boy in
14 his bedroom, close the door and spend the night with them.
15 That it would have been one way.
16 A. Well, the Code of Canon Law would prohibit
17 any kind of behavior like that, anyhow.
18 Q. And, in fact, the Code of Canon Law really
19 doesn't approve of a priest taking a little boy into his
20 bedroom and closing the door and spending the night with
21 him, either, does it?
22 A. It doesn't use that as an example.
23 Q. But, I mean, it talks about propriety and
24 appearance and all of that.
25 A. That's correct.
7770
01 Q. And that sure doesn't go along with that
02 canon, does it?
03 A. That's correct.
04 Q. It doesn't, does it?
05 A. That's correct.
06 Q. A priest taking a little boy out of town
07 overnight all by himself, on a vacation, on a trip fishing,
08 that kind of thing, without other adult supervision, that
09 is not a good practice, either. And if you're concerned
10 about child sexual abuse, that is a practice that ought to
11 stop.
12 A. In relationship to child sexual abuse, yes.
13 Q. All right.
14 And if you think that a priest might be
15 doing that without you knowing about it you ought to tell
16 the parents, "Don't let your kid do this. We know you love
17 Father so-and-so, but we have a policy that says priest
18 don't do this, and we would appreciate your obeying that
19 policy", isn't that reasonable?
20 A. Inasmuch as possible.
21 Q. That is reasonable, isn't it?
22 A. Inasmuch as possible.
23 Q. And it was reasonable to do that back when
24 the bishops began to understand the extent of this problem
25 and began to have all of these meetings and send out all of
7771
01 these documents in an effort to protect children. Isn't
02 that reasonable that that that should have been started
03 happening back then?
04 A. Possibly.
05 Q. Possibly, probably?
06 A. That's correct.
07 Q. Probably possibly?
08 A. Probably possibly.
09 Q. Okay.
10 Can we agree that looking at Exhibit 86 and
11 the documents that we've talked about with Father Clayton
12 and others that support this, that the Dallas Diocese was
13 on notice -- the Bishop of the Dallas Diocese was on notice
14 by December 10th, 1985 that Father Kos was engaged in
15 activities that gave the appearance impropriety in that he
16 was taking little boys into his bedroom, closing the door
17 and spending the night with them; can we agree on that?
18 A. It's more complicated than that.
19 Q. No, my question is not complicated. The
20 question is very simple.
21 It says right here (indicating) that Father
22 Clayton had a personal visit with Bishop Tschoepe. And I
23 think his log reflects that. Exhibit 69, December the
24 10th, 1986, "I visited with Bishop Tschoepe and
25 Sister Maureen about my concern", and the line up above
7772
01 that is about three different boys overnight at the
02 rectory.
03 Can we agree that, according to Exhibit 69,
04 by December the 10th, 1985, because this is dated February
05 6th, 1986 --
06 Oh, it's fixed. I'm sorry.
07 A. It's a miracle. And Mr. Turley did it.
08 MR. TURLEY: Oh, no, no. I get the credit. I
09 get the credit.
10 THE WITNESS: Would you take a bow?
11 (laughter in the courtroom)
12 Q. (BY MS. DEMAREST) ) My question is
13 relatively simple, I think, and that is: Can't we agree
14 that by December the 10th, 1985, through this meeting that
15 Father Clayton had with Bishop Tschoepe and Sister Maureen,
16 that the Diocese of Dallas was on notice, in writing, that
17 Father Kos had a practice of keeping boys overnight in his
18 personal quarters at the rectory at St. Luke's in Irving?
19 A. That seems to be correct.
20 Q. Okay.
21 And I think if we look at these logs, we
22 will see that the Dallas Diocese was also on notice of the
23 practice of Father Kos of taking these little boys on
24 overnight trips by sometime in 1986, because I think it is
25 documented in the logs. I'll have to find it.
7773
01 But somewhere in the logs, Father Clayton --
02 Exhibit 75, a letter to Rudy -- Father Rudy Kos, with a
03 copy to Bishop Tschoepe and Monsignor Rehkemper, from
04 Father Clayton, dated July 21st, 1986, talking about them
05 leaving on a trip with "John Doe #12" and "John Doe #4" and
06 "John Doe #1", two of whom are plaintiffs in this case. And
07 "John Doe #1", I think, was twelve -- eleven or twelve years
08 old at that time and I think "John Doe #4" was about twelve years
09 old at that time.
10 So can't we agree that by July 21st, 1986
11 the Dallas Dioceses had notice that Father Kos was taking
12 little boys on overnight trips without adult supervision?
13 Can you agree on that?
14 A. That seems to be correct.
15 Q. Now we've been talking about the rectory.
16 I'm not sure everybody understands what we're talking about
17 here. A rectory is, in part, living -- the living
18 quarters where priests live.
19 A. In part, yes.
20 Q. In part.
21 Some rectories, like All Saints, is almost
22 all living quarters. Others, like St. Luke's, might have
23 offices downstairs, others, like St. John's, might have
24 office in front?
25 A. I don't know the configuration of these
7774
01 buildings.
02 Q. Okay.
03 The pastor lives there, does he not, in the
04 rectory?
05 A. Not always.
06 Q. But it is common --
07 A. In general --
08 Q. -- for the pastor to live there?
09 A. -- yes.
10 Q. And it is also common for other priests to
11 live there as well?
12 A. If one is assigned there, yes.
13 Q. And that rectory is part of the church
14 property that is used to minister to the people of that
15 parish?
16 A. That's correct.
17 Q. Now, Bishop Grahmann, do you understand that
18 in this case the vast majority of all of the sexual
19 misconduct that is complained about took place in the
20 rectory in Father Kos' office, on church property; do you
21 understand that?
22 A. I'm not sure, --
23 Q. Well --
24 A. -- because you've indicated other things
25 also, so I'm not sure.
7775
01 Q. There have been some out of town trips, but
02 I think about ninety percent of the sexual contact we're
03 talking about either took place at All Saints, in the
04 rectory, at St. Luke's, in the rectory, or St. John's in
05 the rectory; do you understand that, Bishop?
06 A. Yeah. I don't have any knowledge of that.
07 Q. Okay. You have no reason to disagree with
08 the testimony that has happened in this case.
09 A. That's correct.
10 Q. And isn't it true that it was not secret to
11 anybody, from the time Rudy Kos was first assigned to All
12 Saints, that he had boys spending the night and that there
13 was no secret about that all the way through the time that
14 he was removed in October of 1992. That is a fact, isn't
15 it?
16 A. I'm not sure that everybody knew it.
17 Q. Well, it was no secret. Monsignor Kamel
18 knew that it was going on at All Saints, Father Clayton
19 knew that it was going on at St. Luke's and -- and Father
20 Torres and Father Williams knew that it was going on --
21 A. Some people knew; that's correct.
22 Q. Some people knew.
23 And at least from September of 1991, you
24 knew.
25 A. That's correct.
7776
01 Q. Now, Mr. Turley talked about the fact that
02 parishioners trust their church and they trust their
03 bishop, they trust their pastor and trust their priest;
04 isn't that generally true?
05 A. That's correct.
06 Q. And they have a right to believe that the
07 activities that are going on in the parish that's open and
08 everybody knows about, are sanctioned by the diocese.
09 Don't they have a right to believe that?
10 A. Yes, but I don't think they think in that
11 fashion, --
12 Q. But I mean, if they see this is going on?
13 A. -- but in generally, yes.
14 Q. And everybody knows about it and they have a
15 right to think, "Well, it must be okay"?
16 A. That's correct.
17 Q. Okay.
18 Now, if boys are in the rectory and they are
19 invited to stay overnight and they stay overnight and the
20 parishioners see that and they know that, they have a right
21 to think that it okay, don't they?
22 A. Not necessarily.
23 Q. Well, if -- if -- if it is going on and
24 people know about it and nobody stops it and the boys are
25 invited to spend the night and -- and -- and that happens
7777
01 and people are aware of it and the parishioners are aware
02 of it and nobody says, "Stop that", don't they have a right
03 to say, "Well, it must be okay"?
04 A. Not automatically.
05 Q. Is that a probably not automatically or
06 possibly --
07 A. No, just not automatically.
08 Q. Just not automatically.
09 Well, in this case, Bishop Grahmann, the
10 Diocese cannot demonstrate in any way that there were
11 efforts made, outside of talking to Father Kos, to keep him
12 from having boys in the rectory overnight. You didn't
13 tell the parishioners, you didn't publish a policy, you
14 didn't tell the staff. Other than talking to Father Kos
15 and dealing with it in that way, that's how you tried to
16 deal with it; isn't that true?
17 A. I'm not sure.
18 Q. Well, that is how you tried to deal with it.
19 I know you talked to -- you've testified about talking to
20 some doctors.
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. But in terms of stopping the practice
23 itself, that was done by talking -- that effort was made by
24 trying to talk to Rudy Kos.
25 A. Part of the effort, yes.
7778
01 Q. In fact, virtually all of the effort was
02 made trying to talk to --
03 A. I'm not sure. I can't address that.
04 Q. All right.
05 If there is no evidence of any other effort,
06 isn't the jury entitled to believe that the effort was made
07 primarily by talking go Rudy Kos, to get that practice to
08 stop?
09 A. No, because he was also sent to a
10 psychiatrist and psychologist. There were many efforts
11 done -- made.
12 Q. But that didn't do anything about stopping
13 him from taking the boy into the bedroom and closing the
14 door and spending the night with him. Other than talking
15 to him and sending him for these evaluations, nothing else
16 was done. That is what I'm trying to establish.
17 A. I don't agree with that.
18 Q. Why don't you agree with that, Bishop?
19 A. Because all kinds of efforts. I talked to
20 him.
21 Q. That's what I'm talking about.
22 A. Okay.
23 Q. You talked to him.
24 A. Okay.
25 And -- and directed him firmly not to have
7779
01 children at the rectory anymore.
02 Q. So you agree with me that the --
03 A. And, in a sense, they stopped.
04 Q. Well, now --
05 A. And then they came back again and then I
06 moved in again.
07 Q. You agree with me, then, that the primary
08 efforts were directed to talking to Father Kos and trying
09 to get him to stop.
10 A. That's correct.
11 Q. Okay.
12 But it didn't stop.
13 A. Well, yes, it did stop.
14 Q. Finally, when you removed him, it stopped.
15 A. Well, even before that it stopped --
16 Q. It stopped --
17 A. -- except for a couple of kids came back.
18 Q. And then it started again?
19 A. No, no, no, no. It didn't start all over
20 again, because I was going remove him if it did.
21 Q. There is evidence in this case, and I think
22 your testimony with Mr. Turley, that you had to warn him on
23 three different occasions about this --
24 A. That's right.
25 Q. -- because he didn't stop.
7780
01 A. That's right, the third -- well, the second
02 occasion I warned him, because a couple of kids came back.
03 Q. He didn't stop.
04 A. And the third occasion was final.
05 Q. Okay.
06 He didn't -- he didn't -- he didn't stop
07 until he was removed; isn't that pretty clear in this case?
08 A. No, it is not.
09 Q. Okay.
10 A. It probably stopped after my third warning.
11 Q. Now, the Personnel Committee, I think you
12 testified in your deposition, is part of the supervision of
13 priests; isn't that the case?
14 A. That's correct.
15 Q. Now, Bishop Grahmann, when you became Bishop
16 did anybody show you Plaintiff's Exhibit No. 78, which is
17 the minutes of the Personnel Board meeting involving -- of
18 July the 22nd, 1986, where it said on page 2, "A letter is
19 to be sent to Father Kos by the Most Reverend Bishop,
20 strictly specifying that he is no longer to have young men
21 overnight in the rectory at St. Luke's or any other place
22 where he might officially be assigned, under threat of
23 suspension."
24 Did you check the actions of the Personnel
25 Committee concerning Father Kos in deciding how best to go
7781
01 about handling the situation when you found out that boys
02 were spending the night in 1991?
03 A. No, I did not check the minutes.
04 Q. Now, you've testified that you warned
05 Father Kos in September of 1991 to stop the overnight stays
06 with boys in the rectory. We've gone over that, haven't
07 we?
08 A. That's correct.
09 Q. Now, you did not, after that, issue a
10 statement to the parishioners and staff at St. John's,
11 ordering priest at that parish not to let boys sleep in
12 their rooms with them --
13 A. I had no reason to do that.
14 Q. -- you did not know do that.
15 But my question is: You didn't do that, and
16 the answer is "yes", isn't that true? You did not do that.
17 A. I had no reason to do that, that's correct.
18 Q. But you did not do that, did you, Bishop?
19 A. I had to reason to do it.
20 Q. You did not.
21 A. No, I did not, probably not.
22 Q. Probably possibly did not.
23 Now, after your warning to Father Kos, isn't
24 it true that he returned to St. John's and he continued to
25 sexually abuse minor boys?
7782
01 A. I'm not aware of.
02 Q. If the testimony in this case is that that
03 is precisely what happened, do you have any reason to doubt
04 the boys who are testifying here today?
05 A. The only thing I know is that in March of
06 the next year Father Williams came approximately, he said
07 he was seeing people away from the rectory, he wasn't sure
08 of it.
09 Q. But my question involves whether or not
10 Father Kos, after you warned him and after you did not give
11 a statement to the parishioners to make sure that the
12 practice stopped, whether or not Father Kos returned to
13 St. John's and continued to abuse minor boys.
14 And if you don't know the answer to that,
15 you can say, "I don't know"?
16 A. I don't know.
17 Q. Okay.
18 Now in the spring of 1992 you again warned
19 Father Kos not to have boys at the rectory, including
20 sleeping overnight, didn't you?
21 A. That's correct.
22 Q. And you again did not issue a statement to
23 the parish and to the staff, ordering that this practice
24 stop, and advising the parents that you did not approve of
25 that practice. You didn't do that?
7783
01 A. I had no reason to do that.
02 Q. But you didn't do that.
03 A. I had to reason to do it.
04 Q. But you didn't do that, did you?
05 A. I had no reason, no.
06 Q. You didn't do it, and that is a probably you
07 didn't do it.
08 A. No.
09 Q. Is that right?
10 A. That's correct.
11 Q. Okay.
12 And don't we know from this case that
13 Father Kos returned to the parish and sexually abused minor
14 boys?
15 A. I have no knowledge of that.
16 Q. Now, you were on the Personnel Board during
17 the time that -- Exhibit 158 is the discussion of Brenda
18 Keller. "It looked like a textbook case of a problem.
19 We have allegation brought against Father Kos, but it is
20 still strongly suggested that we take some action."
21 Were you aware of the -- that Personnel
22 Board meeting?
23 A. No.
24 Q. Now this was after you had at least warned
25 Father Kos on one occasion; was it not?
7784
01 A. And while he was going to Dr. Jaeckle, yes.
02 Q. Okay.
03 Now on April the 10th, which is just seven
04 days after that meeting, according to Exhibit 160, and you
05 are at that meeting; are you not?
06 A. That's correct.
07 Q. After -- it states, "After some discussion
08 about Father Kos in Ennis, it was suggested that we remove
09 him, the first of June, from St. John's in Ennis and give
10 him an opportunity to get some help and consider his
11 future."
12 Now you've already established with
13 Mr. Turley that he was not removed at that time. That is
14 when you decided to send him to St. Luke's.
15 A. To St. Luke's.
16 Q. And then ten days later, according to
17 Exhibit 161 -- and you're also at that meeting; are you
18 not?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. It talks about arrange -- appointment being
21 made at St. Luke's. "It is suggested that Rudy be told
22 about this appointment and that he will not be returning to
23 the parish."
24 But that doesn't happen, did it?
25 A. That's right, because of the evaluation.
7785
01 Q. Okay.
02 And then according to Exhibit 162, on May
03 the 1st, 1992, this is ten days later, you and
04 Monsignor Rehkemper report on your visit with Father Rudy.
05 And I guess this would be the second warning that you gave
06 to him. "He was nervous about this visit. He has really
07 been working on his problem, which he describes as a kind
08 of transference. He is getting calls now that he is
09 neglecting the children he is close to. He feels he is
10 getting a handle on the problem."
11 So did you meet with Father Kos and did he
12 basically talk you out of it -- talk you out of removing
13 him?
14 A. No.
15 Q. Okay.
16 And then according to Exhibit 163 you're --
17 there again, this is May the 8th. And I think we're seven
18 days after the last visit. That is when he goes to
19 St. Luke's. And his visit is June 7th to the 12th.
20 A. That's correct.
21 Q. Now, I want to make sure that we understand,
22 Bishop Grahmann, Father Kos was at St. John's in Ennis
23 before he went to St. Luke's on June the 7th, 1992, and
24 when he came back from St. Luke's on June the 12th, he
25 returned to St. John's in Ennis; did he not?
7786
01 A. That's correct.
02 Q. So if he was out of the parish, it was just
03 for that short period of time for this evaluation; is that
04 a fair statement?
05 A. I'm not sure. He may have taken some time
06 off.
07 Q. But that would be only point --
08 A. That's right.
09 Q. In other words, he wasn't actually removed
10 from the parish then sent back.
11 A. No.
12 Q. He continued to be pastor.
13 A. That's correct.
14 Q. He continued to serve at St. John's and he
15 continued to have access to these children; did he not?
16 A. He continued to be at St. John's.
17 Q. And then the last Personnel Board minutes
18 that we've been given is Plaintiff's Exhibit No. 164. That
19 is October the 22nd, 1992. And that is when he is given a
20 leave of absence and he is sent to the Paracletes; you're
21 aware of that?
22 A. That's correct.
23 Q. Now, when Father Kos came back from
24 St. Luke's you discussed the fact that he sat down, and
25 that is when you gave him his third warning.
7787
01 A. That's correct.
02 Q. Okay.
03 Now after that warning, once again you
04 didn't send a letter or a notice to the parishioners at
05 St. John's and tell them that you did not want overnight
06 visits in the rectory with priests; you didn't do that once
07 again?
08 A. No, I saw no reason to.
09 Q. Okay.
10 Now, isn't there a visit about this whole
11 matter that you have neglected to tell us about? Didn't
12 you meet with Father Williams -- according to Exhibit 104,
13 which is a summary that was prepared, and Father Williams
14 stated was accurate, about the meetings regarding Father
15 Kos.
16 There is a meeting over here on August the
17 24th -- well, actually, June 1992 Father Williams speaks
18 with Monsignor Rehkemper. He is compiling his report,
19 which is a document, Exhibit 98, and it is addressed to
20 you, is it not, Bishop Grahmann?
21 A. Yes, it is.
22 Q. Okay.
23 But you testified that you never looked at
24 this report that Father Williams compiled, did you?
25 A. That's correct.
7788
01 Q. So we're talking about Exhibit 98 which is
02 dated June the 5th, 1992. And it is addressed to you,
03 Bishop Grahmann, sending you a summary of everything that
04 he has seen and discussed with Monsignor Rehkemper about
05 Father Kos during the past year.
06 And he says, "I feel that, as my Bishop,
07 you're entitled to complete statement and that I" -- "and
08 that I have to be sure that you're fully informed. I feel
09 I owe it to everyone involved to make a complete and public
10 summary. I send this to you for whatever use you see fit
11 and I do not expect any official reply. I'm sending copies
12 to Monsignor Rehkemper and Henry Petters since they're both
13 mentioned in the document."
14 So only Exhibit 104, when he talks on -- on
15 June 1992 about speaking with Monsignor Rehkemper and
16 compiling his report, he is referring to Exhibit 98, isn't
17 he?
18 A. I don't know. I would imagine.
19 Q. Is it a possibly probably?
20 A. I really can't say.
21 Q. Okay.
22 And then in July of 1992 he speaks with
23 Monsignor Rehkemper who tells him that Father Kos does not
24 need to be removed. And he -- Father Williams then
25 subsequently sets up a meeting with you did; does he not?
7789
01 A. That's correct.
02 Q. And he meets with you and you tell him that
03 you -- that Father Kos does not need to be removed, that
04 there is no red flags or warnings, and unless
05 Father Williams has something more to add, that this is
06 your position, that Father Kos does not need to be removed;
07 isn't that correct?
08 A. That's correct. After the evaluations,
09 that's correct.
10 Q. Okay.
11 And then next thing is about, a month or so