Bishop Accountability
  Testimony of Bishop Charles V. Grahmann – Part 1

Direct Examination of Bishop Grahmann by Windle Turley
First of Three Parts
July 1, 1997

[ obtained this transcript from from the Web site, where a much larger sample of the trial transcript is posted. The Web master of that site asks that you contact him if information identifying a victim or a victim's family has been overlooked in the redaction process. He also observes that "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." For ease of reading, the staff at has removed the line numbers from the Grahmann transcript, put the page numbers in square brackets, and grouped the Q&A exchanges. We have made no other changes.]

THE COURT: Please state your full, legal name
for the record.
BISHOP GRAHMANN: Charles Victor Grahmann.
THE COURT: Okay. You may proceed.
MR. TURLEY: Thank you, Your Honor.
THE COURT: You're welcome.

the witness, having been duly sworn and cautioned to tell
the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth,
testified on his oath as follows:

Q. Good afternoon, Bishop.
A. Good afternoon. [7599]

Q. Bishop, unfortunately, this is the first day
I have been short of voice. And I will do my very best to
keep it up, but it is going away a little bit on me here.
Bishop, tell the jury what your present
duties are here with the Dallas Catholic Diocese.
A. I'm the Bishop of the Catholic Diocese of

Q. You are the supervisor, the employer, the
in-charge man for all of the priests within this Dallas
A. I am the pastoral shepherd of all other
people and priests of the Diocese.

Q. You manage them; do you not?
A. Within the boundaries of the law.

Q. You're the supervisor.
A. Within the boundaries of the Code of Canon

Q. And you assign them to their tasks.
A. Within the boundaries degrees of Code of
Canon law.

Q. Bishop, when you came here, I understand it
was in 1990 that you assumed command of this Diocese?
A. That's right. I was appointed as the
Bishop of the Diocese.

Q. When I -- when you came here, it's my [7600]
understanding from your deposition, that no one briefed you
at that time on the Father Rudy Kos problems.
A. No.

Q. And the person who, I guess, who most
likely, most reasonably should have given that you briefing
was Monsignor Rehkemper, your Vicar General.
A. Possibly.

Q. Do I understand that at the time you came
here, you did not have presented to you a file, even a file
on the Kos/boy problem?
A. No files were presented to me.

Q. And you had arrived just a few months after
a lady by the name of Allen, from Ennis, testified earlier
in this case that she had sent you or sent to Bishop
Tschoepe and Monsignor Rehkemper a letter in which she
contained a paragraph saying the boys are continuing -- are
saying overnight, on a regular basis, in the rectory, with
Father Kos over in Ennis. That letter was not on your desk
or anyplace around when you arrived, I guess.
A. Not aware of that letter.

Q. Father, when you gave your sworn deposition
testimony, you testified under oath that Father Williams
had not told you and didn't -- you didn't know that boys
were staying overnight when you talked to Father Williams
that first time. [7601]

A. I don't remember him telling me they were
spending the night. He told me they were hanging around
the rectory.

Q. And you also testified that you didn't even
know when you first learned that they were staying
overnight; do you remember that?
A. When -- when Williams came to see me, that's

Q. Well, I understood you to say, on page 59 of
your deposition, that Father Williams did not tell you that
the boys were staying overnight.
A. I'm not aware that he told me that. He told
me they were hanging around the rectory.

Q. Okay. But, Bishop, there came a time when
you sat down and made some notes about this matter, didn't
A. Yes.

Q. Have you reviewed those notes before you've
come here to testimony today?
A. No.

Q. Actually, contrary to your sworn testimony,
Bishop, in your notes, when Father Williams came to talk to
you in September of '91, he told you they were spending the
night, in that very first number one meeting you had when
Father Kos' problem was called to your a deposition. [7602]

A. Okay, I wasn't aware. His emphasis was
that the kids were spending -- were hanging around the

Q. Well, you made these notes. That
(indicating) is your handwriting, isn't it?
A. That's correct.

Q. And you made these notes on your
recollection of what Father Williams told you. And you
remember having a meeting in 1991. Late September or early
October Father Williams expresses his concern that a group
of boys are always hanging around the rectory. And he said
-- you said, you wrote, "even spending the night."
The reason I wanted to ask you about that --
that is what you wrote, isn't it --
A. Yes.

Q. -- Bishop?
The reason I wanted to ask you about that,
I wanted to get straight at the very start here that from
the very first time you heard anybody say anything to you
that there is a Rudy Kos boy problem, you were informed
that that boy problem included boys spending the night in
the rectory.
A. That's what he said to me.

Q. And not only did you learn that from Father
Williams in September of 1991, but you also, right after [7603]
that, had a meeting with Monsignor Rehkemper, didn't you?
A. That is correct.

Q. And in that meeting with Monsignor
Rehkemper, he briefed you a little bit on this issue,
didn't he?
A. He did.

Q. And he told you that boys spending the night
in the rectory had been a continuing problem.
A. Concerns were raised in the past, correct.

Q. So, Bishop, even though this outgoing
administration had not briefed you fully on this when you
took over in -- what was is it, July of 1990 --
A. Yes.

Q. -- when you came here, you certainly had the
issue in your hands in the fall of 1991.
A. That's correct.

Q. And at that time it's my understanding you
did not say to Monsignor Rehkemper, "In view of all of
this, bring me the file. I want to look at the entire
file. I want to see everything the Diocese has on Rudy
A. No, I didn't -- did not see an opportunity
to do that.

Q. Bishop, have you given any estimate since
that time to the number of sexual violations of boys that [7604]
were committed from September of 1991 until September of
1992 when Rudy Kos was made public?
A. No.

Q. Bishop, can you hear me okay?
A. Yes, I'm doing okay.

Q. So after Father Williams came to you in
September of 1991, it's my understanding you had a little
sit-down with Father Kos.
A. Yes, I did.

Q. In other words, you called him in for a
A. That's right.

Q. And you told him that he should stop having
boys spend the night.
A. I told him what Father Williams had told me.

Q. Yes.
A. And he verified and said, yes, that was
true. So, therefore, I gave him a simple, strong
directive, no more, absolutely no more.

Q. Absolutely don't do it again --
A. That's right.

Q. -- no more boys overnight.
A. Or at the rectory.

Q. You even went a little further and said,
"Don't even have boys in the rectory". [7605]
A. At the rectory, that's right.

Q. Daytime or any time.
And I asked you, when you told us that in
your deposition, if you were not suspicious at that time
that he might be a threat, a sexual threat to these young
men, young boys. And do you remember what he told me?
A. No, I don't.

Q. You said, "No suspicion at that time."
And do you remember I -- I asked you then if
you asked Rudy Kos if he had been in any way conducting
himself in an inappropriate sexual way with these boys.
Do you remember me asking you that?
A. Yes, I do.

Q. And what did you tell me?
A. I said "No, I did not feel it opportune to
do that".

Q. And those of us around the table there, at
least for myself, were puzzled. Do you remember I had kind
of puzzled look on my face?
A. No, I don't remember.

Q. Bishop, you said you didn't feel that there
was any need to do that at that time. Was that not because
you really had never been briefed on the issue, you didn't
have all of the information that had gone before?
A. Oh, I was briefly very much on the issue of [7606]
pedophilia and the awareness of pedophilia.

Q. But I'm asking -- I'm asking you, Bishop, if
you had been briefed on what had happened here in this
Diocese with Father Kos?
A. No, I was not believed on -- on that
particular issue.

Q. Let me ask you: If you had had this
information made available to you for -- it should be on
are monitor. Can you see it there, Bishop?
A. Yes.

Q. For example, in the file of Rudy Kos here at
this Diocese are written the words by Father Duesman when
he investigated his annulment, which he said, "Something is
fishy. Petitioner should level with us."
Skipping the next item, where his ex-wife
said in her deposition that he was gay and he has problems
with boys, those words didn't get in the file, but that is
what she testified she told Duesman. So skip that for just
a moment. But in the file would you have scene where
Rector Hughes, when he applied for admission to the
seminary, said, "There is some instability here. I'm
rejecting him this year and maybe next year maybe he should
never get in."
And then in 1981, it is probably not
reflected in the file, was the reported sexual advance on a [7607]
student. Disregard that for just a moment.
And then we come up from '81 to '85 if you
-- in the file would have been reflected letters from
Clayton and others that would have indicated that as far
back as '81 and into '85 the Chancellor and Monsignor Kamel
knew that Kos had boys overnight in his room at All Saints.
And then starting in December of '85 the
alerts would have been more specific. You would have seen
in the file, Bishop, that Clayton -- Father Clayton had met
with Bishop Tschoepe and Sister Maureen, and the results of
that decision about Father Kos was, "Be alert to sexual
misconduct by Kos."
And then you would have seen in the file,
wouldn't you, in January of 1986, that Monsignor Rehkemper
suspects Kos is either homosexual or child abuser, said "We
don't have hard evidence, but we suspect it", and noted
that boys were spending the night overnight, staying
And then in 1988, '86, still, 1986 Father
Clayton again warned the Diocese, Rehkemper, "Kos is a
danger" -- "is a danger to the church at large and to
St. Luke's", sees him that way. And then in May of 1988
Father Clayton sends a second set of warnings and logs to
the Diocese.
All of that you would have seen in the file, [7608]
Bishop. And you would have also seen --

MR. MATHIS: Your Honor, to that extent, I object
to the characterization of these. These are Mr. Turley's
characterization of those, and those may or may not be
consistent with what the witness has actually said when
they were explaining each of those matters --
THE COURT: Okay. So I'm unclear --

MR. MATHIS: -- there has been lengthy testimony
with respect to these. This little blips that he puts up
there may or may not be right what the evidence is.
THE COURT: So I'm unclear as to your evidentiary

MR. MATHIS: Well, to extent it is tried to be
made part of the question, and I'm still waiting on a
question as part of all of this, it is improper
characterization of prior evidence.

MR. TURLEY: Your Honor, we've been all through
this, each of the witnesses over whom -- who helped us
prepare these notes that summarize their testimony on those
points, said that is a fair summary of what I have said.
THE COURT: Okay, the objection is overruled.

Q. (BY MR. TURLEY) Continuing, Bishop, with
us, that if you had looked in the file and Father Clayton's [7609]
report, would you have seen the words that one of the
parishioners reports there is an ugly rumor that Kos likes
little boys. And in the file you would have seen,
advancing to June of 1986, that the Diocese -- Diocese's
office learned that Father Kos had been shaken by a child
abuse seminar that he attended in 1986.
You also would have see in that same memo,
although it is not reflected on the red flag chart here,
that twenty-four hours later he had a ten or eleven year
old boy spend the night with him. You would have seen in
the file, Bishop, that in August of 1986 Father Clayton is
saying to the Bishop, about the overnights, "Grave concern
for all concerned. Instincts say to act", and that in
August of 1986 Rehkemper again warns, "Kos of overnight
guests, imprudent. Can jeopardize the Diocese". And
would you have seen, also, if -- if it was in the file, it
is not in the file now, but if it had been in the file at
that time, you would have seen in -- in June of 1989 that
Mr. and Mrs. Allen from Ennis informed the Dallas that for
several months boys had have been spending the nights at
the rectory. All of those things you would have found in
Now, Bishop, my question is: If you had
pulled out the file and looked at it, I submit to you -- I
know you haven't been here for all of the evidence that has [7610]
been offered in this case, but I submit to you that every
one of these things have been referenced, in one way or the
another, in the Diocese's file. I is my understanding
that you did not ask Rudy Kos, in 1990, if he was sexually
abusing boys, because you had never seen this material; is
that correct?
A. That is correct.

Q. And when I took your deposition, even, in
1994, two years after Rudy Kos has been exposed, a year
after the lawsuit has been filed, more than a year after
the lawsuit has been filed, you still had not read --
opened the file and read this material.
A. That is correct.

Q. In the 1990 meeting that you had with Father
Kos after you met -- when you met with him after Father
Williams --
A. 1991.

Q. Yes, '91. Thank you, sir.
In the September/October 1991 meeting
Father Kos admitted to you, did he not, that he knew of the
policy that he was not supposed to have boys in the rectory
overnight; he admitted that, didn't he?
A. I'm not sure of that.

Q. Okay. And he admitted also that -- that he
had been violating that policy. [7611]
A. I'm not sure that he admitted it to me. I
asked Monsignor Rehkemper and he informed me of the policy.
And I used that information, then, in my talk to Kos.

Q. When you gave him that warning, though, you
were aware that he had already been previously warned.
A. No, I was not.

Q. And you don't recall telling me in your
deposition that Father -- that Father Kos admitted that he
knew of the policy against overnight boys and that he had
-- he knew that he had been violated that policy.
A. I don't remember that.

Q. Well, let's look at line 13, page 66. I
think it's in here, Father -- Bishop.
You answered:

Q. Well, I verify that Father Williams --
what Father Williams said".
This is in your meeting with Father Kos.
"I wanted to have that verified. I wanted
to know myself. And he said, yes, the boys were hanging
out, occasionally spending the night. And I reminded him a
policy was in-place and asked him if he knew of the policy.
yes, he knew of it. He wasn't observing it."
So in 1991, in September, the very first
time you were confronted with this issue, you knew at the
get-go that Father Kos had a long-standing problem of [7612]
having boys in the rectory.
A. I did not know that at the time --

Q. Monsignor Rehkemper --
A. -- when he came to see me.

Q. -- Monsignor Rehkemper didn't tell you that
this had been an ongoing problem?
A. After I saw Father Kos, not before.

Q. Within a few days --
A. Okay.

Q. -- you knew that this had been a
long-standing problem, you knew that Rudy Kos knew he was
violating the policy --
A. Yeah.

Q. -- you knew that the issue was continuing.
So you gave him another warning, if I understand correctly.
A. A very strong warning.

Q. And you told him if he continued to violate
the policy, something might be done.
A. No.

Q. You gave him a strong warning indicating
that you would not tolerate any violation of the policy.
A. That's right. He would cease and desist
having the youth at the rectory.

Q. You didn't put anything to him in writing.
A. No, I did not. I spoke to him directly. [7613]

Q. And I'm correct, am I not, Bishop, that
during this entire ten years that the Dallas Diocese was
dealing with Rudy Kos' continuing problem of violating the
policy, of boys overnight, not one time, not one time did
the Diocese ever put in writing to him, "You're violating
the policy. Stop it now"?
A. I'm not aware of that.

Q. Do you agree me, Father, that -- Bishop,
that a minimum -- at a minimum, prudent and careful action
at that time would have dictated that the administrator in
charge of this institution at least open this suspect's
file to see what is in it?
A. No, because I did not have that background
information. The information I had was there was a policy
of anyone staying at the rectory.

Q. I guess that until you open the file, you're
not likely to ever get that background --
A. That's correct.

Q. -- information, are you?
A. But there was no reason for me to look in
the file.

Q. Even when Monsignor Rehkemper said to you --
even when Monsignor Rehkemper said to you, "This has been
an ongoing problem".
A. He said there was a policy against this and [7614]
there were concerns raised in the past.

Q. All right. Still didn't open the file?
A. That's correct.

Q. Now, come March of 1992, Father Williams
contacts you again. He reports the boys are back; do you
remember that?
A. He didn't say the boys were back, he said he
is seeing the boys in their homes. But he said, "There
were some back last week --

Q. Well --
A. And that raised my eyebrow, because I said,
"I have instructed him firmly not to have these boys there
again. Is it true that some of them were back?"

Q. So he says, "The boys -- some of the boys
are back, last week, whenever", so you called Father Kos in
A. Immediately.

Q. And you say to him, "Stop that". And you
said --
A. No, I didn't. I asked him whether it was

Q. And you also said to him, "Stop that. I
forbid it from happening again".
A. I'm not sure if I used that language, but I
did ask him at that time, when he violated my directive, I [7615]
asked him at the time, "Is there something sexual going on
here?", and he denied it. I think I used the word
pedophilia, and he denied it.
But then I said, "Okay, you disobeyed me.
I'm going to send you for a second opinion to St. Luke's

Q. And do you know how many warnings that made,
in total, that Rudy Kos had been given by the Dallas
Diocese and its officers, managers, since this matter came
up? By March of 1992, do you know, Bishop, how many times
he has been warned?
A. This wasn't a warning. This was action. He
was going to St. Luke's Institute.

Q. Well, you said -- you also said, "Stop doing
that. I forbid to it happen again".
A. Well, I don't know if I used those worlds.

Q. Those are the words you said you used, on
page 71 of your deposition, Bishop.
A. Okay. I accept that.

Q. If you went back and looked at the file,
would you agree with me that we would find that
Father Clayton, when he was Rudy Kos' pastor and Rudy was
the assistant out at St. Luke's, had warned him at least
twice, that Monsignor Rehkemper warned him in January of
1986 and again a couple of years later when he called him [7616]
in and warned him, instead of giving him a written letter,
one time the Personnel Board said, "Stop showing favoritism
to little boys", before they transferred him to Ennis, you
yourself have warned him twice now already, you're going to
warn him a third time, subsequently, we know, and I think
the record will show that Bishop Tschoepe warned him once
or twice.
All totaled, do you realize that March of
1992 Father Kos has been warned, "Stop the overnight
visits", eight or ten times; do you realize that?
A. I'm not aware of that.

Q. And then July did come, of 1992. You have
him back in your office, and we'll come back to how he got
there in July of 1992, but you have him back in there again
for your third meeting with him, and isn't it true that you
tell him, one more time, "Stop. Don't have the little boys
A. That's correct, and "I'll move you if you

Q. And that makes nine or eleven times,
depending on how many times Bishop Tschoepe warned him.
Bishop, in 1992, when Father Duffy came to
you to speak to you about "John Doe #1"; you remember that,
do you not?
A. Yes, I do. [7617]

Q. That was in September of 1992. Tell the
jury, please, what Father Duffy told you about "John Doe #1"
and Father Kos.
A. Well, he told me that, "A victim has come
forward with an accusation, an allegations against Rudy

Q. And?
A. That's it.

Q. And you told us in your deposition that he
told you it happened ten years earlier.
A. I think so, yes.

Q. Is that your --
A. That's my -- that's recollection of it.

Q. That it happened ten years earlier?
A. Yes.

Q. And you swore in your deposition that you
ordered immediate and aggressive help for "John Doe #1",
right then.
A. I told Father Duffy that.

Q. And you know, Bishop, now, do you not, that
there was no immediate or aggressive help.
A. I'm not aware that there wasn't.

Q. Well, you know that there was -- January
nothing happened or January of 1993 on into May of 1993
when this lawsuit was filed, there was no aggressive or [7618]
immediate help for "John Doe #1". All of those months
passed; are you aware of that?
A. No.

Q. Did -- did that command just get lost in the
priorities of the Dallas Catholic Diocese?
A. No, because Father Duffy was in charge of
that and I respected him judgment.

Q. But someplace in your command for immediate
aggressive help for "John Doe #1" just got lost in the
priorities; is that what happened?
A. No, it did not.

Q. Well, it didn't happened.
A. I turned it --
Well, for a reason.

Q. Bishop, when I took your deposition, you
told me you had never looked at the file on Rudy Kos.
A. That's correct.

Q. Even when I took your deposition. Even
after Monsignor Rehkemper told you there had been these
other problems, you still didn't look at the file.
A. That's correct.

Q. Do I understand correctly that one of the
things you were interested in, however, was tending to the
victims, the possible victims --
A. That's correct. I learned that. [7619]

Q. -- because you knew -- you knew -- you knew
by 1992 that if there is a pedophile out there infecting
people, it is probably -- it is probable that there is not
just one victim.
A. I didn't know that.

Q. You didn't know that in 1992?
A. I'm not aware.

Q. Bishop, if you were interested in finding
other names of other boys, you know, all had to do was open
the file and there would have been listed six for Father
Clayton, of boys that had been spending time and overnights
in the rectory and there would have been referenced three
or four more whose names weren't attached, but clear
references to specific individuals by Father Williams in
his June of 1992 memo. So there would have been about ten
names right there to start with, right in the file; do you
know that?
A. No, I turned that over to Father Duffy as
designated person.

Q. And, Bishop, if you had gone to those ten
individuals, don't you know that they could have revealed
another ten or twenty young men who were habitual, regular
young boys that stayed overnight in the rectory?
A. I don't know that.

Q. Now, Bishop, a few days after Kos -- Kos' [7620]
abuse was admitted at the end of September, you received a
letter, didn't you, from the Allens, in Ennis, about Father
A. I'm not aware of that. I'm not aware of

Q. You know Mrs. Allen came here and testified
that on June -- on September 27th, 1992, a Sunday, she
typed a letter, sent a copy to you, sent one to Father Kos
and sent one to the Vicar General, Duffy Gardner. And in
that letter she complained about Father Kos and she also
attached a copy -- she testified, attached a copy of her
earlier 1989, June of '89 letter. Is it your testimony
today that you didn't get that letter, Bishop?
A. No, I didn't.

Q. Would someone else in your office have
opened that mail and acted on it --
A. No.

Q. -- for you?
A. No, no. I'm not aware of the letter.

Q. Have you been told that she so testified?
A. No.

Q. And -- and you don't think the Vicar General
would have opened that letter and acted on it for you?
A. I don't know.

Q. That letter should be in the file if it was [7621]
sent to the Diocese, shouldn't it?
A. Should be.

Q. Now we know, Bishop, that -- what was your
address there in 1992, in October of 1992? What street was
the Chancellery Office on?
A. I think it was Lemmon Avenue.

Q. All right. Was it 35or something?
A. I don't know that. I don't know that.

Q. Bishop, let me ask you about something else
here. Did you sign -- cosign a note for Father Kos to
borrow $45,000 from the Knights of Columbus?
A. I'm not aware of that.

Q. There has been testimony in this case that
about a year and-a-half -- a year or a year and-a-half
before Father Kos gave up and admitted what he was doing,
in September of '92, that a note for $45,000 had been
cosigned by the Dallas Diocese with the Knights of
Columbus, for Father Kos. You would have been in charge at
that time, would you not?
A. Correct.

Q. Was there anyone else in the Diocese who had
the authority to make a $45,000 note for Rudy Kos?
A. Not that I know of.

Q. You -- and you're saying to the jury you
never signed anything like that? [7622]
A. I don't know. I'm not aware of it. I'm
not aware of having signed that note if I signed it.
MR. MATHIS: Mr. Turley, if it will help, that
is Bishop Tschoepe. It's -- it's just the wrong Bishop.
You're just confused on time.

Q. (BY MR. TURLEY) Then that was -- then this
note was made even more than a year and-a-half before Rudy
Kos went to the Paracletes.
A. I'm not aware of it.

Q. If Bishop Tschoepe did it, it would have had
to have been done before 1990, wouldn't it?
A. Possibly.

Q. So maybe in '89 the note was done, because
that would mean in 1989 the Diocese knew that Rudy Kos had
a bill for $45,000 worth of stuff that he needed to pay.
A. That would be hearsay.

Q. Well, the Diocese would have had that
hearsay, wouldn't it, --
A. I don't know.

Q. -- Bishop. And did anybody bother to
investigate, in 1989, this priest that has been previously
suspected of possibly being a child abuser, did anybody
bother to investigate what he had done with -- or why he
had a need for $45,000?
A. I don't know that. I wasn't here. [7623]

Q. And if they had investigated, they might
have determined whether he had a drug problem or whether he
had some kind of sexual addiction.
MR. MATHIS: Objection, Your Honor. It is
outside of his area of knowledge, that he already said he
wasn't here then. That is Bishop Tschoepe.

MR. TURLEY: It doesn't take knowledge to answer
this question.
MR. MATHIS: Well, the first question it didn't,
but the second it did.

MR. TURLEY: He said he wasn't here.
Let me rephrase it.

Q. (BY MR. TURLEY) Bishop, you know, as an
administrator, that if somebody who makes a modest salary
and suddenly comes up needing $45,000 to pay for their
stuff, that they have spent it on various things, that it
might be prudent, as an administrator, if you're asked to
cover that note, to try to figure out what this man is
doing with his money.
A. I wouldn't cover the note.

Q. You wouldn't have done that, would you?
A. Oh, no, not at all.

Q. But certainly, if that matter came to your [7624]
attention, whether you covered the note or not, one of the
things you would want to know was: Does this person have a
drug addiction or a sexual addiction problem? What is he
doing with all of that money? You would want to know
that, wouldn't you?
A. I would probably inquire.

Q. As far as you know, no such inquiry is
reflected in the file ever took place in the Dallas
A. It was before my time.

Q. Now, Father -- Bishop, excuse me, sir.
Bishop, when you made the decision to ignore
the recommendation of Brenda Keller, the sex expert who
talked to Monsignor Rehkemper about Father Kos and said,
"Remove him from access to children immediately. Looks
like a textbook pedophile" --
MR. MATHIS: I object to that characterization
of her testimony. That is not an accurate
characterization of Brenda Keller's testimony.
THE COURT: Okay. Ladies and Gentlemen of the
Jury, please recall the evidence and the testimony to the
best of your ability.

Q. (BY MR. TURLEY) Father, I may have
misplaced a comma or two, but I think that is pretty close.
When she recommended something of that [7625]
nature, "It sounds like a textbook pedophile. You should
remove him from access to children immediately", when you
got that information from Monsignor Rehkemper, you didn't
remove him, did you?
A. No, because I had made a firm decision to
send him to St. Luke's Institute and I wanted St. Luke's
Institute to give him a good evaluation and I would prefer
a doctor who sees the patient than to one who just reads a

Q. You had never read his file at the time you
made the decision to ignore Brenda Keller's recommendation.
A. I didn't ignore it, I just said she -- he is
going to go St. Luke's Institute. I didn't even address

Q. Well, I call that ignoring it --
A. Well --

Q. -- you didn't address it whatever.
A. -- Whatever --

Q. -- you didn't address her recommendation,
you didn't even open his file to look in it, did you?
A. No, because I had made my decision already,
to send him to Dr. Jaeckle and then a second opinion at
t. Luke's Institute.

Q. And, Bishop, when you chose to ignore the
advice of your Personnel Board in the spring of 1992, which [7626]
for several years had followed this Kos matter and they
recommended to you on two or three occasions in April of
1992 that you should remove Father Kos, and specifically
have him removed by June 1st, you didn't open his file when
you ignored that advice, did you?
A. I'm not aware of that advice --

Q. You don't -- you're not aware --
A. -- of the Personnel Board.

Q. That your Personnel Board said to you on
three occasions --
A. That's right.

Q. -- in April of 1992, "Father Kos should be
out of there by June 1st"?
A. Yes, because I had made a decision to send
him to St. Luke's Institute by June 1st.

Q. They told you, "Tell Father Kos he won't be
returning to the pastorate in Ennis".
A. Well, he knew what I had on the agenda.

Q. And you ignored that advice, didn't you?
A. No --

Q. You sent --
A. -- I sent him away.

Q. And then you came back and you returned him
to Ennis.
A. Only because of -- [7627]

Q. Bishop, just answer my question.
A. No.
MR. MATHIS: He needs to be given a chance to
answer --
MR. TURLEY: Nonresponsive.
MR. MATHIS: -- that one first.
COURT: Go ahead and finish. Go ahead. Go ahead
and finish.
THE WITNESS: Well, I don't know the question
THE COURT: Okay. That's fair.

Q. (BY MR. TURLEY) The question was -- the
question was, Bishop, you ignored the advice of your
Personnel Committee, Personnel Board when they said, "Tell
Father Kos he will not be returning to Ennis, to St.
John's", you ignored that and you put him back in there
where he continued to serve until the end of September --
A. Not exactly

Q. -- isn't that right?
A. Not exactly.

Q. Isn't that correct?
A. Not exactly.

Q. Did you not ignore their advice?
A. No, I didn't ignore their advice.

Q. You sent him back and he continued to serve [7628]
until the end of September.
A. Only because of --

Q. Isn't that correct?
A. Only because -- yes, only because of
St. Luke's Institute --

MR. TURLEY: Nonresponsive.

Q. (BY MR. TURLEY) Isn't that correct?
A. Yes.

Q. And -- and Father -- Bishop, when you acted
to cancel the plethysmograph test that St. Luke's Institute
had recommended, even then you never opened Rudy Kos' file
to see what was in it, did you?
A. No, I did not.

Q. Now, Bishop, I wanted to ask you about a
couple of other things here.
Did you have a chance to meet -- you had a
chance to meet, didn't you, with your lawyers, before you
gave your deposition in this case?
A. In 1994 or '3?

Q. Yes, sir. Yes, sir.
A. Well, they met with me to inform me of
the -- of the deposition.

Q. They came and met with you?
A. I don't remember. [7629]

Q. They talked to you about the case, didn't
they, Bishop?
A. That I had to give a deposition.

Q. Yes.
And they talked to you about what the
deposition was, didn't they?
A. Well, they told me what a deposition was.

Q. Because you had never given one.
A. That's correct.

Q. Have you ever testified in court before?
A. No, I have not.

Q. And -- and they told you some of the areas
that we would be talking about in the deposition, didn't
A. I don't remember that.

Q. And how many times did you meet with them?
MR. MATHIS: Your Honor, this is not appropriate
area of inquiry, --
MR. TURLEY: Yes, it is.
MR. MATHIS: -- these meetings with his legal
MR. TURLEY: It is.
MR. MATHIS: No, it is not. With all due
respect, it is not.
THE COURT: May I see the attorneys over here, [7630]
just a moment, please?

(Whereupon there was a sidebar conference, out of
the hearing of the jury, and thereafter the following was
had, in the hearing of the jury, as follows:).

MR. MATHIS: For the record, my objection is
THE COURT: Mr. Mathis, I don't recall your
objection. What was your evidentiary objection?

MR. MATHIS: That is an area of Attorney/Client
Privilege and not appropriate.
THE COURT: That's sustained.

Q. (BY MR. TURLEY) You say you've never given
a deposition before, Bishop; is that correct?
A. I don't remember giving a deposition before.

Q. You made some notes, you told us, before
your deposition, didn't you?
A. Yes.

Q. Said you made these notes the day before
your deposition.
A. No, I wrote them on this piece of paper the
day before.

Q. You wrote those notes on this piece -- on
these pieces of paper the day before your deposition. And [7631]
one of them was what we looked at a moment ago when you
made the note about your 1991 meeting with Father
Williams, --
A. Correct.

Q. -- and then you've got some others in here
that we may come back to hear in just a moment.
But on page 5 of your notes, you wrote the
following, did you not? Let's start down here (indicating)
where you said, "Do not speculate". Now do I understand
that all by yourself, the day before, you sat down, alone,
and wrote, "Do not speculate". You had never given a
deposition before and you had never testified in court
A. That's correct. But for twenty years, I've
dealt with lawyers.
(laughter in the courtroom)

Q. Bishop, I'm real sorry for you.
A. Yes, it's a plague.

Q. A little rain must fall into everyone's
A. That's right. Not a little rain, a plague.

Q. Sometimes it takes that to make people
change the way they live.
Bishop, look at the next item. What do you
say there? What do you say right there, the next [7632]
item under --
A. I can't read it.

Q. -- "Do not speculate"?
A. I can't read it.

Q. Don't you remember saying -- don't you
remember writing, "If it predates me, say so".
A. That's right, because I don't believe in
hearsay and picking up, listening to someone else talking
about --

Q. And then you wrote, "Hypothetical cases.
Hypothetical case. Can't answer" -- what is the rest of
it? I can't read it. "Can't answer without having more
A. That's what. I have learned that from

Q. So your testimony today is you put all of
this down, of your own volition, without any help from
anybody, just because you have learned a lot from lawyers.
You've never given a deposition, never testified in court.
A. That's correct.

Q. And you also wrote, on that same page, up
there at the top, "requirement for entry into seminary";
do you see that?
A. Yes.

Q. One of the things under that, by the way, [7633]
you say, "Psychological testing". Do you see that,
"psychological testing"?
A. Yes.

Q. You understand that Rudy Kos did not get a
psychological test before he entered your seminary.
A. Perhaps in those days they didn't give them.

Q. All right.
And on down here (indicating) you've written
the words, "Someone has to be a psychopath to avoid being
A. That's correct.

Q. You know, that sounds an awful lot like
Randy Mathis. Did he get that from you?
A. I really didn't know Randy that well.

Q. Did Mr. Mathis get those words from you?
A. No. Because of my experience in the

Q. It's your testimony, Bishop, that you made
those notes up all by yourself, strictly from your memory,
by the way?
A. Correct.

Q. You didn't go by any notes?
A. Well, previous notes that I had. And I put
them altogether on one page.

Q. Those are your notes from your calender? [7634]
A. That's right.

Q. You didn't have any letters or documents or
anything like that.
A. None at all.

Q. And you made those notes -- you made those
notes for your deposition after you knew that a lawsuit had
been filed and you were going to have to give sworn
A. That is correct.

Q. One other thing you said here, Bishop. You
said, did you go not, "Not critical of the past". Did you
anticipate that somebody was going to try to get you to
criticize your -- your predecessor?
A. No, I don't believe in being a Monday
morning quarterback.

Q. And then you said in your notes here that
you made up all by yourself the day before you gave your
deposition, "Diocese move quickly on national -- as
national policies were prepared", you said that, didn't
A. Yes, I did.

Q. Of course, you couldn't know that, because
you weren't here.
A. Oh, but this was taken in 1994. The
deposition was 1994. [7635]

Q. And -- and the wrongdoing happened before
1992 and you came in 1990.
A. That's correct, but the deposition was taken
in 1994. And what I'm saying is the Diocese move quickly,
as national policies were prepared.
I have been here four years now.

Q. You understand, Bishop, all of those
national policies came out in 1985, 1988, 1989, 1992.
A. And they're still coming out.

Q. Bishop, I wanted to ask you about an article
you wrote in the National Catholic in August of 1994.
You write articles in that publication, from
time to time; do you not?
A. Yes, I do.

Q. Do you see that (indicating) better?
A. Yes.

Q. All right.
A. I can't read it, though.

Q. Do you remember this article? I represent
to you it's the Texas Catholic, August 26, 1994. There was
-- you wrote a little article, Policy on Abuse Being
Updated; do you remember that?
A. Yes.

Q. And you talk in here about coming in from
out-of-town and learning that another -- an additional [7636]
lawsuit has been filed alleging additional victims. And
you talk about what you want to do about this issue.
You came down here to this paragraph. You
express your concerned that -- problems not limited to
Catholic Church and Catholic clergy, that the Dallas
Diocese will take all possible reasonable steps to address
this issue. And then you said, "For many years, written
policies have been in-place to deal with this situation".
A. That's correct.

Q. I want to ask you about that, Bishop, and
that representation that you made in 1994.
Isn't it true that in 1994 the only
reference -- and Duffy Gardner testified yesterday, the
only reference to sexual abuse in any written policy in the
Dallas Diocese was one policy, one reference, that was 1988
when Bishop Tschoepe said to the priests, "You must report
allegations of sexual abuse, and here is the reporting form
to do it with"?
A. I wasn't referring to the Diocese of Dallas
in the sentence. I was referring to the United States.

Q. When you say --
A. "Many years written policies have been
in-place to deal with the situation across the country".

Q. You're correct, Bishop. There were lots of
policies to deal with sexual abuse across the country, [7637]
there wasn't one in the Dallas Diocese, even when you wrote
this in 1994, was there?
A. You -- you just mentioned there was one in

Q. The one in 1988 was Bishop Tcshoepe sending
a note out to all of the priests, saying, "You have to
report sexual abuse."
Do you know of any other?
A. No.

Q. That was the only one, wasn't it?
A. I don't know.

Q. And that wasn't even a policy, was it? It
wasn't a procedure, it wasn't a comprehensive program to
prevent sexual abuse or really to even deal with it once it
occurs, it was just to same to the priests, "You've got to
comply with the state law"; isn't that correct, sir?
A. I don't know. Policy possibly set that.

Q. No question but that the Dallas Diocese did
not have, "written policies", plural, "have been in place
with" -- "with this situation"?
A. I'm not referring to the Dallas Diocese.

Q. Now, Bishop, you know, you were a Bishop in
'85, down in Victoria; were you not?
A. Yes.

Q. The Victoria Diocese? [7638]
And '88/'89 you were down there as a Bishop?
A. Yes.

Q. You received, did you not, during those
years, from the National Conference of Bishops and the
United States Catholic Conferences various recommendations
about dealing with sexual abuse?
A. Over the years, yes; specifically, I can't
say any one.

Q. One of the things that you would have
received -- I ask you if you remember this, was the
statement on child sexual abuse issued by the National
Conference of Catholic Bishops in November 1989. We've
looked at this before. This is Exhibit 178. And the
Conference reports down there -- let's see if you agree
with this. "Even a signal case is one too many, which is
why the church views even a rumor of such an occurrence
with intense concern. Church leaders are advised to
investigate immediately, to remove a priest rapidly, where
the evidence warrants it, to seek appropriate treatment for
the offender and to extend pastoral help to the victim of
such a tragedy and to the victim's family."
Did you agree with and adopt that policy
when you were the Bishop in Victoria?
A. They were working on policies while I was
down there. [7639]

Q. And do you agree with that policy, that this
is a prudent, careful policy that should have been executed
in the Dallas Diocese in 1989 when it was sent to
Bishop Tschoepe?
A. I don't know whether it was or wasn't.

Q. You don't know whether this is a prudent
A. Yes.

Q. What is imprudent about it, Bishop?
A. No, I said, yes, it is a prudent policy.

Q. You agree. I thought you did. Good.
And you agree with this part over here
(indicating), Bishop, that says, "The hint of such a case
is viewed by a Bishop with alarm"?
A. That's correct.

Q. And when you view something with alarm
because it could cause injury or death to an innocent
child, that calls for immediate action, doesn't it?
A. Possibly.

Q. And then in 1992 you were did Bishop here in
Dallas and you received this memo from the National
Conference. This actually is a -- may be part of the
press release from the United States Catholic Conference.
But you received this, did you not? And it says, "When
there is even a hint of such an incident, investigate [7640]
immediately, remove the priest, whenever the evidence
warrants it, follow the reporting obligations of civil
civil law, extend pastoral care to the victim and the
victim's family and seek appropriate treatment for the
You agree that that is a good policy; do you
A. Yes, it is.

Q. And do you also agree, as it goes on to
say, "This firm approach is evidenced by statements issued
by the Conferences' General" -- "Office of General Council
in 1988 and by the Administrative Board of Bishops in 1989,
as well as in four sessions in recent years when the
Bishops have discussed this matter in general meetings"; do
you agree with that?
A. Yes.

Q. You were present for those general session
meetings when --
A. Not necessarily.

Q. -- the Bishops talked about that; were you
A. No.

Q. None of them?
A. I don't know.

Q. Well, you told us in your deposition that [7641]
you remembered being present for at least two of them.
A. Could be.

Q. Does that sound right?
A. That sounds correct.

Q. And that would have been before 1990,
wouldn't it?
A. Yes, much before '90.

Q. Bishop, there is no question but that the
National Conference was recommending and that you were
hearing and understanding that at the hint of sexual
wrongdoing immediate action should be taken; isn't that
A. When evidence warrants it, as the statement

Q. Now I took your deposition in September of
1994 and you told me at that time that the Diocese was very
busy right then writing up a new sex abuse policy. You
were drafting it; do you remember?
A. Correct.

Q. And that these are policies, we all know,
intended for the protection of innocent children, among
A. Correct.

Q. But, Bishop, isn't it true that it was
almost five years after Father Rudy Kos was exposed that [7642]
you finally published that policy, only 1days before
this trial was to commence?
A. That's because I ordered an updating of --

Q. Isn't it true, Bishop?
A. No.

Q. That is not true?
A. No, I don't think so.

Q. There was another policy published before
January 1997?
A. I'm not aware of it.

Q. There wasn't any policy published --
A. There was a policy --

Q. -- between the time that Rudy Kos was
discovered in October of nineteen -- or admitted that he
was a sex abuser in October of 1992 and January 1st, 1997
there is no other policy issued was there?
A. I didn't issue any.

Q. And this was issued a full two and-a-half
years after you told me in your deposition you were working
on it?
A. That's correct, --

Q. Isn't it?
A. -- vigorously.

Q. That is a reflection, Bishop -- Bishop, is
that a reflection, the time it took to get this out, is [7643]
that a reflection of just so many other more important
priorities in the Diocese that you couldn't get around to
getting this done?
A. Not at all.

Q. When I took your deposition and you told me
that the Diocese had used the National Catholic
Conferences' policies as guidelines for preparing this
policy, didn't you?
A. One of the resources.

Q. And, you know, Bishop, that the National
Conference of Catholic Bishops, as we have said several
times, states to you that when there is even a hint of such
an incident, when there is even a hint of such an incident,
investigate it immediately.
A. Correct.

Q. But you say in your policy issued January
1st of this year, "Investigate only after someone makes an
actual allegation that there has been sexual abuse".
A. I'm not aware of that.

Q. In other words --
Bishop, we looked at it with Duffy Gardner,
Father Gardner Duffy (sic) at some length. And it
suggests there are actions phases in there. You've seen
that part of the policy, haven't you?
A. Yes. [7644]

Q. And under those action phases, they are not
triggered until there is an actual allegation of sexual
abuse that has taken place.
MR. MATHIS: Your Honor, objection. That
mischaracterizes both the policy and Father Duffy's
testimony. The word only Mr. Turley is inserting for his
convenience. Why don't we let the Bishop look at --

MR. TURLEY: Sidebar objection.
MR. MATHIS: -- something.
Why don't we let the Bishop have a copy to look
at --
MR. TURLEY: Objection to speaking objection.

THE COURT: Okay. Your first objection had to do
with mischaracterization.
Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, please
recall the evidence and the testimony to the best of your
Okay, if there is a policy we're talking
about, let's produce it so that everybody can have access
to it.
MR. TURLEY: We will do so, Your Honor.

MS. DEMAREST: I'll look.
THE COURT: Give me a stack. Do you have any
idea? [7645]
MR. TURLEY: It is Exhibit 151.
THE COURT: Give me stack.
Stand up a and stretch, everybody.
(Whereupon there was a pause in the proceedings,
and thereafter the following was had:)

THE COURT: Success?
MR. TURLEY: Yes, we have it, Judge.
THE COURT: You may be seated.

Q. (BY MR. TURLEY) Bishop, look with me, if
you will, on page 3 of this policy. We're looking at
Exhibit 151, the policy on sexual misconduct on the part of
the clergy in the Dallas Diocese January 1, 1997.
And I want to -- I want to look, first, at
paragraph -- the first paragraph that has highlighting in
it. Do you see where it says, "The Diocese of Dallas will
respond promptly to investigate any accusation of sexual
Do you see that?
A. Yes.

Q. And on down here it talks about those who
allege sexual misconduct; do you see that?
A. Yes.

Q. Over on the next page, right here
(indicating) in particular, "When an allegation is made
regarding sexual misconduct", the person reporting the [7646]
complaint and so forth.
And on the next page, right here
(indicating), "If a select committee reports there is
reasonable cause to believe that the accused has engaged in
sexual misconduct"; do you see that?
A. Yes.

Q. And then down at the -- in action phase,
"When the select committee reports there is reasonable
cause to believe that an allegation of sexual misconduct is
What I'm trying to ask you, Bishop, what I
do want to ask you, Bishop, is that throughout this entire
report there is no provision made to investigate somebody
who thinks there may be some sexual impropriety taking
place. This policy requires that an accuser step forward
and say, "I have been sexually abused", or a parent come
forward and say, "My kid has been sexually abused" or a
priest come forward and say, "That person is sexually
abusing somebody", you don't act, under this policy, on a
hint of misconduct, do you, Bishop?
MR. MATHIS: Objection. That mischaracterizes
the policy, as explained by Father Duffy yesterday.
THE COURT: Okay, Ladies and Gentlemen of the
Jury, please recall the evidence and the testimony to the
best of your ability. [7647]

Q. (BY MR. TURLEY) You don't act on a hint of
misconduct, to start an investigation. You have to have
somebody come forward and allege there has been actual
sexual misconduct, don't you?
A. Well, if there is a hint, an unsigned rumor
or hint, there is no one that can step forward. But the
Diocese immediately accepts that and evaluates it.

Q. Would it surprise you, Bishop, that
Father Duffy, day before yesterday, testified that this
policy would not reach a Rudy Kos situation, because in the
Rudy Kos situation, it was the end of September of 1992
before someone came forward and said, "I have been sexually
abused", and Father Duffy told us in his testimony, I ask
you if it would surprise you, two times, that this policy
would not apply to that situation.
MR. MATHIS: Again, objection. That takes his
testimony out of context and misstates it.
THE COURT: Okay, Ladies and Gentlemen of the
Jury, please recall the evidence and testimony to the best
your ability.

Q. (BY MR. TURLEY) I submit to you, Bishop,
that is exactly what he said. And then the jury will
remember it.
Would that surprise you if that policy is not
-- is not actuated until somebody comes forward and says, [7648]
"I have been abused" or "I know somebody that has been
sexually abused"?
A. I'm not sure.

Q. And if it is as I suggest, that it will not
activate on a hint of sexual misconduct, as the National
Conference of Bishops suggests it should, then you're not
in compliance with the recommendations of the National
Conference of Bishops, are you?
A. I don't interpret it the way you do.

Q. Bishop I asked you, when I took your
deposition, what you had learned from the past about Father
Rudy Kos to prevent a repeat; do you remember me asking you
A. No, I don't.

Q. And the first of the only two things that
you told me was that you had to update those policies on
sexual abuse; do you remember telling me that?
A. Yes we went into a process of updating.

Q. Okay. That was the first thing you told me
you had learned, and that was two years -- I was taking
your deposition two years after you had learned that you
needed to update your policy --
A. No, no. I knew that before.

Q. Okay. You even knew it, even before.
The fact is, Bishop, that even today there [7649]
is no comprehensive policy in the Dallas Diocese and there
never has been a comprehensive policy in the Dallas Diocese
to prevent child sexual abuse by priests or to deal with it
once it occurs; isn't that so?
A. I disagree.

Q. The policy that you did adopt one hundred
and twenty days before this case started, is essentially, I
think Father Duffy told us this, is essentially the same
policy that had been executed in custom and practice, but
not in writing, before January of 1997; do you agree with
A. Since 1990.

Q. Let's see if we can agree on some other
things, Bishop.
Sorry, I have to drink some water. I'm
trying to keep my throat working.
Bishop, I -- I think there are some things
here that we can agree on, I hope we can.
A. With a lawyer, that is a miracle.

Q. I know. Well, you produce miracles. Let's
see what happens. Maybe you'll get a miracle.
Bishop, we can agree, can we not that, that
the church does occupy a very, very special role with
respect to protecting innocent children.
A. Not only the church. [7650]

Q. You agreed with agree with me --
A. Yes, but not only.

Q. -- do you not that, the church occupies a
role, perhaps unique in this society, for assuring that
innocent children are protected from the society.
A. Yes, but not only --

Q. I understand.
And you agree with me, do you not, that the
church and the priests do occupy a very special position of
sacred trust towards children, towards their parents?
A. Toward -- toward everyone.

Q. And the Diocese, do you agree with me,
should use all reasonable precautions to avoid any serious
injury to a child?
A. Injury to anyone.

Q. Particularly an innocent child; would you
agree with that?
A. To anyone.

Q. And asking a suspected child abuser if he
has molested a child would certainly be a reasonable
precaution, wouldn't it?
A. Yes, it would.

Q. And forbidding children to spend the night
in a rectory would be a reasonable precaution, wouldn't it?
A. It would. [7651]

Q. And not permitting young children,
unaccompanied, to spend any time in the rectory, even in
the day, is a reasonable precaution?
A. Possibly.

Q. And forbidding priests from take young
children on overnight trips, unaccompanied by other adults,
would be a reasonable precaution.
A. Not necessarily. I took twelve hundred to
Denver three years ago.

Q. You were accompanied, I hope, by some other
A. Yes, there were a few parents.

Q. Forbidding priests from taking young
children on overnight trips, unaccompanied by other adults,
would be a reasonable precaution.
A. That's correct.

Q. And promptly and thoroughly investigating
any hint of possible sexual misconduct would be a
reasonable precaution.
A. Evaluate it immediately.

Q. You agree that.
A. Yes.

Q. And asking the child itself, himself or
herself, in suspected cases, if there have been any
inappropriate sexual conduct would be a reasonable [7652]
precaution that the Diocese could take, wouldn't it?
A. Possibly.

Q. And a minimum precaution would be to present
the results of your investigation to a trained and
experienced child sex abuse expert; you would agree with
A. Well, to psychologists, psychiatrists.

Q. And a minimum precaution would be to act
promptly on the recommendations of people who are expert in
child because matters.
A. That's correct.

Q. And a minimum precaution would be to remove
a suspect from access to children while that investigation
is underway?
A. That's correct.

Q. You also agree with me, do you not, that in
1985 and 1986, according to these red flags items that we
just went over, there was certainly more -- more than a
mere hint that there might be some sexual impropriety
taking place, according to these (indicating). And I
realize you never saw them, maybe you've never seen this
A. Never have.

Q. Have you ever read Father Clayton's
materials? [7653]
A. No, I have not.

Q. Never, to this day, have you read Father
Williams' June 12, '92 report on Rudy Kos?
A. Never have. That's correct.

Q. You let Rudy Kos come back to Ennis -- --
A. Only because of the St. Luke's Institute

Q. -- without ever having read Father
Williams', his assistant pastor's, twelve page report
literally begging the Diocese to get rid of him?
A. No.

Q. Bishop, the Diocese's knew, as we discussed
earlier from Father Clayton's logs and from Father
Williams' letters, although you -- you didn't know because
you never read them, but the Diocese knew that there were
many possible victims of Rudy Kos, didn't you?
A. I didn't know that.

Q. That if Rudy Kos was engaging in the conduct
that he admitted to with "John Doe #1", he had been
reportedly having young boys over for many years at the
rectory, under the same, exact circumstances that "John Doe #1"
had been there, coming, using the computers, playing
with the video games, you know, enjoying snacks, hanging
out with Rudy, staying overnight. There had been many
boys that reported doing the same thing that this victim [7654]
that you found had been doing?
A. I'm not aware of that. I wasn't here.


Bishop Accountability © 2003