Testimony of Bishop Charles V. Grahmann – Part 3

Direct Examination of Bishop Grahmann by Windle Turley
Third of Three Parts
July 2, 1997

[BishopAccountability.org obtained this transcript from from the Web site www.wearethechurch.org, 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 BishopAccountability.org 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.]

DIRECT EXAMINATION (CONTINUED)
BY MR. TURLEY:

Q. Good morning, Bishop Grahmann.
A. Good morning, Mr. Turley;

Q. Bishop, did you have a restful night?
A. Yes, I did. I -- indeed, I did. Did you?

Q. I did, Bishop.
A. Wonderful.

Q. When we left off yesterday we were
discussing the St. Luke's report that -- and we had gone [7704]
through this St. Luke's report and we had, I think,
concluded and agreed that after you got this report back in
mid-June 1992 that you, in fact, permitted Father Kos to
remain at his parish at St. John's in Ennis; is that
correct?
A. That's correct.

Q. And not only that, but also after you got
this report back, I think we had agreed, did we not, that
you had unilaterally and arbitrarily canceled the
plethysmograph that he was scheduled to have done at River
Oaks in New Orleans; isn't that right?
A. That's correct.

Q. And that -- we didn't ask about this, but I
do want to ask you, Bishop, you did not substitute in its
place any other type of evaluation or test at that time,
did you?
A. St. Luke's Institute didn't recommend any to
me.

Q. You didn't, for example, even use something
as readily available as a lie detector.
A. No. I sent them back to Dr. Jaeckle.

Q. I'm just asking you, Bishop --
MR. TURLEY: Nonresponsive.
THE WITNESS: No.
THE COURT: Sustained. [7705]
MR. TURLEY: Thank you.

Q. (BY MR. TURLEY) Bishop, did you speak to
-- to Dr. Montana before you canceled the plethysmograph?
A. Yes, I did.

Q. Okay. And was -- was that in his general
discussion before you got the report or after you got the
report?
A. Before I got the report.

Q. All right.
So after you got the report and you looked
on it and you saw that they are recommending a
plethysmograph, I didn't talk to him anymore after that.
A. I don't recall.

Q. Did you talk to anybody else about this
plethysmograph, other than Dr. Montana?
A. Yes. I inquired from other people about the
test, because it was knew and I didn't know anything about
it.

Q. It certainly wasn't Dr. Montana who told you
you could forget it, it wasn't necessary, invalid, don't do
it?
A. Well, he told me it was inconclusive.

Q. Are you suggesting to this jury, Bishop,
that one week Dr. Montana says he needs to be sent for a
plethysmograph, needs to be conducted, and the next week he [7706]
says, "No, don't do it. It is not necessary"?
A. No, he didn't say it was -- not to do it, it
wasn't necessary.

Q. All right.
Bishop, when you talked to Father Kos after
you decided to let him stay there at St. John's, now you
said, yesterday, that you gave him his third warning, did
you not?
A. I don't know which one it was.

Q. Well, you had given him one in October -- in
October, September or October --
A. That's correct.

Q. -- gave him one in March?
A. That's correct.

Q. And this is June?
A. That's correct.

Q. And did I understand you to say you warned
him that if he continued to have boys stay in the rectory
overnight, you would move him?
A. That's correct.

Q. Bishop, when you received this written
report from St. Luke's, you told us in your deposition that
it verified -- it verified what Dr. Montana had told you
earlier on the phone.
A. That's right. [7707]

Q. And you said that this report confirmed and
concluded exactly what Dr. Montana had told you on the
phone; page 73 of your deposition.
A. Yes.

Q. And what we now know, Bishop, is that no
matter how you cut it, one way or another, what they said
in their report was that rule out pedophilia, we wrote it
on the board over here, rule that out, and we had a doctor
-- you were here yesterday morning when Dr. Gutierrez
testified that that means that the person may be a
pedophile. You heard hearsay that, didn't you?
A. Yes, I did.

Q. And you also saw in the report that they
recommended that this additional testing be conducted.
A. Yes.

Q. Doctor -- Bishop, did you ever read that
entire report?
A. Which report?

Q. The St. Luke's report --
A. Yes, I did.

Q. -- on Father Kos.
Bishop, assume with me some facts here, for
just a moment. Let's assume you're the Bishop of a -- of
a diocese, which you are. Assume that, as Bishop, you've
have reports made to you that a priest has engaged in a [7708]
pattern of conduct over years, several years, and that that
pattern of conduct has caused several others, including
priests, to question whether he might be a threat to murder
or kill a child. Assume that. And that following up on
that, one homicide expert said, "Sounds like a textbook
homicidal maniac. Remove him from access to children
immediately", and another physician said, "I don't have
enough information to give you a clean bill of health on
this person. I can't really say, one way or the other",
and that a third institution, specialist in recognizing
homicidal maniacs said, after extensive testing and
evaluation, "our working diagnosis is that there is some
evidence that this person might very well be a homicidal
maniac; therefore, we are writing it as rule out homicidal
maniac who could murder children, but you should have --
but you should go ahead and have additional testing done.
Now, Bishop, this is my question: Based on
those assumed facts, do I understand that because you did
not actually have a child's body, a victim, that you would
cancel the test and continue to permit that priest to work
directly with children?
A. No.

Q. Did Monsignor Rehkemper tell you what sex
abuse Brenda Keller said about Rudy Kos?
A. I don't recall. [7709]

Q. In this trial -- were you here when
Father Williams testified that he and Rehkemper talked to
her, and that she -- she testified -- that they testified
that she said, "Kos looks like a textbook pedophile",
number two, "He should be removed immediately from access
to children." And she also said something else to them,
Father Williams told us, "If removed, you can expect many
other victims to come forward."
Did Monsignor Rehkemper share that
information with you, Bishop?
A. No.

Q. You certainly, in any event, didn't want to
shake a lot of additional victims out into the open, at
that time, did you?
A. I don't agree with that.

Q. And it was more than three months later,
after the Brenda Keller visit, I think, on April the 4th,
1992 before you finally had Rudolph Kos evaluated any
further, wasn't it?
A. The decision was made before that.

Q. But it was three months. I mean, again,
maybe -- maybe there were other priorities other things
crowding out this issue, but it was three months before
Father Kos went up to St. Louise to have this evaluation,
wasn't it? [7710]
A. An appointment had to be made.

Q. It was three months before he went there to
have this evaluation made, wasn't it, Bishop?
A. I don't know that.

Q. Well, he went in June. Brenda Keller gave
her report on April 4th, 1992. That is months, isn't it?
A. Yes.

Q. And in the meantime, you did not remove him
from his access to children, did you?
A. No. I had no reason to.

Q. Would you agree with me, Father, that Brenda
Keller's diagnosis was more than a hint that there might be
a sexual problem?
MR. MATHIS: Objection, Your Honor. Brenda Keller
did not make a diagnosis, she recommended a second opinion.
She hasn't even testified here yet.

MR. TURLEY: Your Honor, I --
MR. MATHIS: Then I object to the
mischaracterization of the evidence.

MR. TURLEY: Your Honor, I'm going to -- I
should have done this before we started morning. I
apologize for not doing so. I am, first of all, objecting
to his arguing objections; second, I'm ask the Court to
instruct Mr. Mathis to please stop doing that; and, third,
Brenda Keller did make a diagnosis. She did make a [7711]
diagnosis. There isn't any question about that. If
Mr. Mathis wants to argue it another way, that's fine.
THE COURT: Okay, let's be real really careful.
Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, please recall the
evidence and the testimony to the best of your ability.

Q. (BY MR. TURLEY) Bishop, do you agree with
me that Brenda Keller's diagnosis was more than just a hint
that there might be some sexual impropriety going on?
A. No, I don't agree with that.

Q. You don't agree with her saying, "Sounds
like a textbook pedophile. Remove him from his access to
children immediately and expect other victims to come
forward when you do so", you don't agree that that is more
than a hint --
A. No.

Q. -- Bishop?
A. She did not interview the individual.

Q. Bishop, that wasn't my question.
A. Okay.

Q. Listen to me -- listen to me, please,
Bishop. Try to be responsive. I'm trying to be precise.
Her diagnosis that I've just referred to you
was more than a hint, wasn't it, that there might be a
sexual impropriety problem?
A. Yes, based on the information she had. [7712]

Q. And were you here when Father Williams said
as they walked out of her office, he talked to
Monsignor Rehkemper and Monsignor Rehkemper said, "That is
all the evidence I need to remove Kos"?
A. I don't think I was here.

Q. Monsignor Rehkemper testified that following
that meeting in April, or he said maybe in early May of
1992, after that meeting with Brenda Keller, it had been
decided to remove Father Kos, but that he didn't have a
replacement right then. Is that your recollection of the
facts?
A. No.

Q. And then we know that in April and May the
Personnel Board said to remove him by June 1st. As we see
in Exhibit 160 -- 160, Father, these are minutes of the
Personnel Board meeting. The jury has seen them before.
"April 10th, 1992, after some discussion about Father Kos
in Ennis, it was suggested that we move him the first of
June from St. John's in Ennis and give an opportunity to
get some help and consider his future."
That Personnel Board advisory to you was
never done, was it, until after Father Kos admitted he had
been abusing?
A. No, in view of his appointment with St.
Luke's Institute. [7713]

Q. Well, that --
A. Thank you.

Q. That was never executed, was it?
A. No.

Q. And then, I believe it is ten days later, a
few days later, had another Personnel Board meeting, this
time on the 20th. And, Bishop, you were there. There is
your name, Bishop Grahmann. You were in the other one,
also; were you not?
A. Yes.

Q. And this time, on the 20th, the Board tells
you again, "it was suggested that Rudy be told about this
appointment that he is going to go to St. Luke's, and that
he will not be returning to the parish."
But you returned him to the parish, anyway,
didn't you, Bishop?
A. As of a result of the test.

Q. Now, Father Gardner testified last Friday
that, in fact, along about this time you spoke of going
over to Ennis and meeting in person with Rudy Kos to either
remove him or sensor him or put him on administrative
leave; is that correct?
A. I don't recall that.

Q. And then, Bishop, along about that same time
Rudy Kos has gotten wind that he is in trouble. And do you [7714]
know now that he sent out a request to many of his friends
to write you letters of commendation about what a good guy
he was so maybe he wouldn't be removed and transferred; do
you understand that is what happened?
A. No.

Q. There has been some testimony to that
effect, Father. And, in fact, one of the exhibits --.
MR. TURLEY: I think this is already in
evidence, Your Honor, and so I may have a duplicate exhibit
here, but we'll put it in, anyway, and look at it.

Q. (BY MR. TURLEY) Three forty-nine, I've
given it a new number. Three forty-nine is a letter that a
man by the name of “John Doe #2 Parent”, out in Irving at
St. Luke's, wrote to you. Do you see there on May 10th,
1992? Do you see that.
A. There is no screen.

Q. I'm sorry, Bishop. That makes it kind of
hard.
A. It does.

Q. We'll have to fix that later, Bishop. I
don't know what is going on with it.
THE COURT: Do you want my TV?
MR. TURLEY: That's okay. We'll get it fixed
later on.

Q. (BY MR. TURLEY) I'm sorry, Bishop. We'll [7715]
take care of that later.
Anyway, Bishop, we had this letter, I'm
going to show it to the jury and I'll tell you about it.
Mr. Mathis talked to you about it earlier in the testimony,
I think, with Monsignor Rehkemper.
This is a letter of commendation that a man
by the name of “John Doe #2 Parent”, out in Irving at St. Luke's
Church, had written to you on May 10th, 1992 recommending
Rudy Kos.
I don't know if you -- you probably don't
remember that letter, do you?
A. I don't remember.

Q. And he was saying what a good guy Rudy Kos
was. And he says in this letter that he has heard rumors
that you're planning, maybe, to move Rudy Kos away from the
St. John's Church; do you remember any of that?
A. I don't recall the letter.

Q. And you write back to him, Bishop, in
Exhibit 350, and you tell him, do you not, that there has
not been any discussion about that, nobody has thought
about removing Father Kos. And he is going to be there --
I think you say -- what do you say, "For many years". You
said -- that is your signature on this letter, isn't it?
A. Right.

Q. Sir? [7716]
A. Yes, it is.

Q. And that is Exhibit 350.
MR. TURLEY: And I would like to read it to
the jury, Your Honor, if I may.
THE COURT: Sure.

MR. TURLEY: And you write, "Dear “John Doe #2 Parent”, pardon
the long delay in responding to your letter of May 10th
concerning the possible change of Father Rudy Kos from
St. John's in Ennis. Part of the reason I didn't answer
any sooner was the fact I didn't know anything about him
being changed. It was certainly a rumor. Father Rudy is
still in Ennis and I hope he will stay there for many
years."
Bishop, had you forgotten, when you told
“John Doe #2 Parent” that, that your Personnel Board had said, "Get
him out of there", and your Personnel Board had said, "Tell
him that he won't be returning after the first of June"?
Had you forgotten about those things?
A. No, the letter was written after the
evaluation.

Q. You know, Bishop, that after you sent that
letter to “John Doe #2 Parent”, you really confirmed, in his mind,
that Father Kos was an okay guy, no problems with him.
You had heard these rumors and there was no problem, you're
going to keep him there. That would be a reasonable [7717]
perception for “John Doe #2 Parent” to make, wouldn't it?
A. Not necessarily.

Q. And you know, Bishop, that shortly after
that, the next fall after you had reconfirmed your faith in
Rudy Kos, in the face of St. Luke's report, in the face of
the Personnel Board's material, in the face of Brenda
Keller, in the face of your -- the testimony from Duffy
Gardner that you're thinking about moving him, you bless
him and reconfirm him. And then a few months later “John Doe #2
Parent” gives access for Rudy Kos to have contact with his
child. And are you aware, Bishop, that he sexually abused
that child after you sent that letter with your statement
that Rudy Kos is an okay guy?
A. No.

Q. Bishop, the parents of these boys and the
other boys, in fact, did not have a fraction of the
information to make judgments about Rudy Kos that the
Diocese had, did they?
A. I don't know that.

Q. They were nowhere in a position to assess
any danger that Rudy Kos might pose to their children,
compared to the mountain of information that we've looked
at that we now know was in the Diocese's files about Rudy
Kos; isn't that true?
A. I don't know that. [7718]

Q. And isn't it true, also, that you want and
expect your parishioners to believe the word of your
priests and to believe the word of your church. You except
that from them, don't you?
A. Minimally, yes.

Q. And the man whose conduct these parents were
assessing was the man that the Bishop and the Catholic
Diocese had sent to them, wasn't he?
A. That's correct.

Q. And you had sent Rudy Kos to them and you
had, in effect, said to them that Rudy Kos is a chased,
celibate (sp) priest, didn't you?
A. No. I couldn't confirm that.

Q. Bishop, do you not represent, impliedly, to
every parishioner in this Diocese, when you send them a
priest, that this is a chased, celibate priest?
A. Implicitly, yes.

Q. And you had represented to them, also, that
this man was sexually safe to be around children. That is
what the Diocese had implicitly represented to them, wasn't
it?
A. Based on the information, yes.

Q. And the Diocese had said that this is a man
who is worthy of their trust. And you wanted them to
believe that, didn't you? [7719]
A. Based on the information, yes.

Q. And the Diocese said, "Here is a man who is
morally upright", and the Diocese wanted the parishioners
to believe that, didn't they?
A. Based on the information, yes.

Q. "Here is a man that is safe for your
children to go to and make your confessions to".
A. Based on the information, yes.

Q. "Here is a man who is safe for your boys to
spend the night with".
A. Based on the information, no.

Q. "Here is a man that is safe to let your boys
travel out of town overnight with, unchaperoned".
A. No.

Q. The Diocese didn't make that representation,
at least implicitly, to the parents?
A. No.

Q. Now, Bishop, they're isn't any question but
that the Diocese's officials knew that Rudy Kos was taking
boys out of town on overnight trips, they had known it
since back in the mid-eighties. That is true; you agree
with me, don't you?
A. I don't know that.

Q. Well, Bishop, just assume with me for a
moment that it is true, because I don't want to dig all of [7720]
this out and go through all of it again. But, trust me,
the red flags are everywhere, okay?
A. Yellow flags.

Q. Unless we're color blind.
A. Yes.

Q. Do you see well?
A. Wonderful.

Q. Bishop, you also represented that, "Here is
a man, in Rudy Kos, who will not hurt innocent children."
That is a representation the Diocese made to these parents,
wasn't it?
A. Yes.

Q. Bishop, as to Father Kos, each and every one
of those things were false and untrue, weren't they, as to
Father Rudy Kos?
A. I don't know.

Q. You don't know, by now, that every one of
those --
A. Yes, now, but at that time, no.

Q. And as to Father Kos, they were all as to
Father Kos, misrepresentations of facts about that priest,
as to Father Rudy Kos?
A. At that time, no.

Q. And these representations by the Diocese, we
now agree, resulted in injury to the children, didn't they? [7721]
A. Not necessarily.

Q. If you had been Bishop here during the late
'80s you would have had the -- let me ask you: If you had
been the Bishop here in the late '80s would you have
followed the National Catholic Conference of Bishops
guidelines in dealing with the Rudy Kos matter?
A. Well, I followed them wherever I was.

Q. If you had been the Bishop here, you say you
would have followed the guidelines on dealing with sexual
abuse?
A. That's correct.

Q. And one of those policies was to
investigate, as we saw yesterday, when there is even a hint
of sexual wrongdoing.
A. That's correct.

Q. And if you were the -- the Bishop here, you
would have had the following red flag information available
to you. I want to show this to you and then I want to ask
you what you would have -- how would you have dealt with
it.

Since you don't have a monitor, I'm going to
have to use these boards, Bishop. We went over some of
this yesterday.

Bishop, I have pulled off of this -- these
red flag charts the items that were not written out in the [7722]
Diocese's file, assuming you had ever gotten that file open
and read it. Now all of the other information, I
represent to you, is, in one way other, in that file. You
would have known that Father Duesman, during the annulment
proceeding, said about this matter, "Something is fishy
here, the petitioner", Kos, "needs to level with us."
You would have had this additional
information, if you had been the Bishop here, that, "Rector
Hughes had rejected Kos on the basis of instability", said,
"I am turning him down for a year or two or perhaps he
should never about in."

You would also had information, in December
of 1985 that Clayton had met with you, if you were the
Bishop then, and you all had decided you needed to be alert
to sexual misconduct by Kos.

You would have had some other information
that is not up here, and that is you would have known
Monsignor Kamel. And Monsignor Kamel would have said to
you, as a member of -- as his position on the Personnel
Board or his position as Chancellor, that he was aware of
the fact that Rudy Kos kept boys overnight in the rectory.
You would have had that information, also.
In addition, Bishop, you would have had this
(indicating). In January of '86 your Vicar General
Reykemper would have written in his notes that he suspects [7723]
Kos is either homosexual or a child abuser, "Suspicion" --
doesn't have any hard evidence, but he suspicions it, "and
the boys are staying overnight." And that Clayton would
have sent another warning would you have known about in
February of '86, warning the Diocese of Kos as a danger to
the church at large and to St. Luke's in particular.
And then in May of '86 -- May 12, 1986 your
priest, Father Clayton, would have sent you another letter
containing information. It would have been his second set
of warnings and logs about goings and comings of boys.
Then in May of 1986 your Father Clayton would have reported
to your Vicar General Rehkemper, among other things, that
there are ugly rumors that Kos likes little boys, and a
lengthy letter. I know you've never seen that, but it
would -- it would have been in there.

And then in June of 1986 your office would
have learned that Kos had gone to a sex abuse seminar and
was shaken by the event, but twenty-four hours later he had
an eleven year old boy stay with him overnight.
Then in August of '86 Father Clayton would
have come to you and he would have said in a letter to you,
addressed straight to you, Bishop, "Grave concern for the
situation, for all concerned. Instincts say to act".
That would have come from one of your priests. That would
have taken you up to August of 1986. [7724]
Also in August of 1986 your Vicar General
Rehkemper would have warned Kos, "Overnight guests are
imprudent. They can jeopardize the Diocese."
Then skipping forward to February of 1989,
your school superintendent here in the Diocese would have
told your Vicar General Reykemper that boys are being taken
from school for overnight trips. And then in June you
would have received a letter from Mr. and Mrs. Allen out in
Ennis that said, "Father Kos is having these boys stay
overnight, not just occasionally, but on a regular basis,
and we think there is something to be concerned about."
And that would have brought you up to the place where you
came to the Diocese.

Now my question, Bishop, is this: If you
had been here and this information had been presented to
you, would you at that time, then, have felt that a full
investigation was warranted and that Father Kos should have
been put on administrative leave?

A. That goes back as far as twenty-two years,
and I have no idea what information was available
nationally or otherwise, so I cannot say what kind of a
decision I would have made.

Q. Well, Bishop, that's not -- with all due
respect, that is not exactly true. You did know what
information was available, nationally or otherwise, because [7725]
you -- you had been a Bishop for a long time, and here we
are, this is 1990, the information that's available to the
Bishops is sent to the Bishop. By then you would have
gotten all of this material from the National Conference of
Bishops, that we looked at yesterday, you would have gotten
the Mouton, Peterson, Doyle report in 1985, December of
'85, which is a big, thick report alerting everybody to
this issue.

You're telling me, Bishop that under these
circumstances, if you were here in 1990, all of this
information was available, you could not have then and
there have made a decision that said, "This needs an
in-depth investigation. I am removing Rudy Kos from his
access until the investigation is completed"?

A. And that's -- I precisely on evaluation, and
that is why he was sent to Dr. Jaeckle.

Q. In fact, you didn't remove him and you
didn't ask act to do those things at this time, did you?
A. Because I didn't have the evidence.

Q. Well, Bishop, listen to me, now. I've just
given you the evidence. I've just given you all of this.
Is this your testimony that this is not
enough? You would not have acted? That is my question.
Would you or not have acted?
A. I acted. [7726]

Q. Bishop, this is my question. Listen to me.
Come 1990, 1990, you've got the information I've just gone
through, you've got history that the National Conference
has shared with you about sexual abuse, you are the Bishop,
all of this has come to your attention, would you or not
have said, "This demands a full investigation", right then?
A. Possibly.

Q. And would you or not have removed Rudy Kos
right then?
A. Possibly.

Q. And you would have done it, would you not,
Bishop, because it would have been the prudent thing to do
under the circumstances?
A. Possibly.

Q. And would you have done it because the
exercise of care would have required you to do it under
those circumstances?
A. Possibly.

Q. Sir?
A. Possibly.

Q. And it would have been careless and
imprudent not to have done it under those circumstances?
A. Not necessarily.

Q. And it would have been neglectful for any
institution to ignore that information and not call for an [7727]
investigation and not remove Rudy Kos from access at that
time, wouldn't it?
A. I don't -- I don't agree.

Q. Bishop, in listening to your testimony
yesterday and taking the position that the Diocese has
taken in connection with this case, it kind of reminded me
of when I was a young boy once, seems like a long, long
time ago, growing up in Oklahoma and we played baseball on
the vacant lots. And one rule I learned -- I think it was
the very first rule of sports I learned was that the tie
goes to the runner. You've heard that rule --
A. Yes.

Q. -- in baseball.
I don't know very many rules about sports,
but I know that the tie goes to the runner, or at least it
was -- it did when I was a kid.
Here you say that the information you had
was inconclusive about Kos, isn't it? That is what you
say?
A. Yes.

Q. In other words, you had a tie. You had
some information, but it's kind of a tie. So you acted,
under these circumstances, to give the benefit of the doubt
of that tie to the runner, Rudy Kos, potential child
predator, didn't you? [7728]
A. I disagree.

Q. Don't you agree with me that the best
interest of children always demands that when it is a tie,
the kids come first?
A. correct.

Q. And that means that you should have removed
Rudy Kos, the Diocese should have removed Rudy Kos on
administrative suspension until this matter was totally
investigation, not just let him remain there because the
information was a tie, it was inconclusive?
A. I don't buy the analogy.

Q. Bishop, had you thought about and tried to
determine from this past history what the Diocese has
learned that could have prevented this from happening and
might prevent it from happening again?
A. Yes, hindsight is a very good teacher.

Q. Hindsight is connected to foresight, isn't
it, Bishop? You don't have to exercise hindsight in a
critical environment unless somebody has failed to exercise
force; do you agree with that?
A. I don't -- I don't know.

Q. Bishop, haven't you thought about what could
be done to have prevented this Rudy Kos tragedy?
A. In hindsight, yes.

Q. Well, what have you thought about could have [7729]
been done that the Diocese didn't do that it should have?
A. Well, I stand by what I did by sending him
to Dr. Jaeckle.

Q. I'm talking, Bishop, before that, before
that, the things we've been all through. Isn't there
anything you can see --
A. Well, yes -- well, it all depends on the
time. This is seven years, ten years, fifteen years later.
And when information comes to you, you have to evaluate it
and you have to make a decision. And, obviously, decisions
were made.
Hindsight, you may not agree with those
decisions, they become, then, the tool for which you look
to in the future.

Q. Now Bishop, it would have sure helped you
make those decisions if you had just gone to the cabinet,
pulled open the file drawer, right outside of your office,
reached in and pulled out Rudy Kos' file, because then
would you have had all of this (indicating), all of this
(indicating) his seminary materials, the full record on
Rudy Kos. That would have sure helped you make the right
decision, at that time, wouldn't it, Bishop?
A. Yes. I think I made the right decision.

Q. Now, Bishop, do you agree with me that it is
incumbent and necessary that a Bishop of a diocese take a [7730]
personal interest, a personal interest in -- in important
issues like this and that you familiarize yourself with
what has occurred in the past history?
A. In a -- in a special way, yes.

Q. And that would include, as we just
mentioned, reading the file.
A. Not necessarily.

Q. And it would include, wouldn't it, wanting
to be here at this trial and hear the facts?
A. Partially maybe.

Q. If you're going to answer the question, "How
can we prevent this from happening in the future", it would
sure be nice if those who are going to be the ultimate
decision-makers have as much information as the jury has.
A. That's why I've had people here all of the
time.

Q. I'm sorry, sir?
A. That's why I've had Monsignor Gardner here
all of the time.

Q. Bishop, it's your decision to make.
The fact much the matter is, you've blessed
us with your presence, what, about three days --
A. Ten maybe.

Q. -- during this trial?
When I took your deposition in 1994 I asked [7731]
you these questions about what you -- what you would have
done differently. And I understood you to tell me, when I
took your deposition in 1994, that you would do the same
thing all over again.
A. Yes. With the information at hand, I would
have done the same thing over again. I stand by that
decision.

Q. Today -- today, presented with the exact
same fact scenario, you would do the same thing all over
again.
A. No, I didn't say that.

Q. Would you do something different now?
A. Oh, yes.

Q. I thought I asked you, in your deposition,
if you would do you all over again, on page 100, you said
you would.
A. Well, that was 1994. Yes, at that time.

Q. Well, are you smarter now -- are you smarter
now than you were three years ago?
A. Oh, sure. I hope all of us are.

Q. On page 100 of your deposition, Bishop, I
said:
"
Q. Well, as you sit here right now, do you
know of anything that you believe should have been done
differently?" [7732]
And you answered:
"A. No, I don't know of anything. With the
information I have, I don't know of anything."
A. That's correct, with the information I had.

Q. Everything would have been done exactly the
same as it was before.
A. With the information that I had, yes.

Q. Bishop, also I asked you if you hadn't had
other people up there at the Paracletes from the Dallas
Diocese; do you remember that, --
A. No, I don't.

Q. -- in the last couple of years? And you
told me that you hadn't. Were you unaware that as -- as
Father Duffy testified earlier this week, that there were
at least three other people at the Servants of the
Paracletes at the same time Rudy Kos was there that you all
were paying for?
A. I wasn't aware of that.

Q. Bishop, do you keep up on what happens to
people that you sent off that the Diocese is paying for
like that?
A. I designate someone to do that.

Q. Now, Bishop, the Diocese, as I calculate it,
paid at least $100,000 to the Paracletes for them to take
care of Rudy Kos, over and above what you paid Kos for his [7733]
salary and for his automobile and his living expenses.
Despite the fact you gave those people $100,000, do I
understand you never asked them for a written report on
your priest?
A. No, I don't know that.

Q. You never insisted that they tell you, later
on, where he was or what he was doing?
A. No. The assumption was that he was there.

Q. Well, I mean, after he left there.
A. No, because he disappeared.

Q. Do you know that while he had disappeared,
Bishop, you folks were still sending him money; did you
know that that?
A. No.

Q. You did not realize that you were sending
him thousands and thousands of dollars, after he left the
Paracletes, when none of us knew where he was or how to
find him?
A. We're required by Canon law to do that, to
take care of him.

Q. That is the money you sent to the
Paracletes, filtered it through them, and then they
forwarded it on the Rudy Kos, wherever he might be?
A. Yes. We had to do that, by law.

Q. Now, you told us that most dioceses have [7734]
personnel policies that establish a code of conduct for
priests, giving specific dos and don'ts with respect to
sexual misconduct; do you remember that?
A. That's correct.

Q. Because most dioceses, you said in your
deposition, have those. But when you came here in 1990
there was no such code of conduct for the priests, giving
them dos and don'ts about sexual misconduct, was there?
A. I'm not sure. There were some policies out
there, guidelines.

Q. Well, Bishop, there wasn't anything that
remotely resembled a code of conduct for your priests,
giving them dos and don'ts on avoiding sexual misconduct,
was there?
A. Written? I don't know.

Q. And still, Bishop, seven years later, 1997,
there is still no such code of conduct, even though one
exists in most other dioceses of this country; isn't that
true?
A. No.

Q. You got a code of conduct?
A. Yes, we do.

Q. Have you published it since we started this
trial?
A. No. [7735]

Q. What do you call your code of conduct for
your priests?
A. I don't know.

Q. You said you have one?
A. That's right. I don't know the exact title
for it.

Q. Is it in writing?
A. Yes, it is.

Q. When was it published, Bishop?
A. I don't know exactly. It has been worked on
since 1990.

Q. Since --
A. I asked -- yes. I asked our Personnel Board
or Monsignor Bell to begin to develop guidelines for the
conduct of clergy.

Q. So you've worked on this proposed code of
conduct for sexual guidelines for your clergy since 1990?
A. Yes.

Q. It is not published yet, is it, Bishop?
A. I think it is.

Q. Bishop?
A. For the clergy, internally for clergy, yes.

Q. Bishop -- Bishop, we've had testimony that
you don't have one.
A. Well, it may not be published yet. I have [7736]
been through several sessions where it has been gone over.

Q. The fact is, Bishop, if are you working on
something you have been work on it for seven years and it
is not yet published; is that right?
A. I don't know.

Q. Is this another item, Bishop, that has just
kind of got squeezed out in the priorities of what is
important to the Diocese to get done right away?
A. Not at all.

Q. Bishop, I submit to you, you don't have a
published priestly code of conduct as to sexual abuse on
the part of priests. If you have one, I'll be happy to
look at it.
Now, Bishop, before 1997, this year, you had
never met with a single victim or a single victim's family
who said they had been sexually abused by any priest of
this Diocese, had you?
A. No, I have not.

Q. And you told us, when we took your
deposition, that you didn't approve of priests taking boys
away overnight and you didn't approve of children staying
overnight in the rectory.
A. That's correct.

Q. No question but that you knew Father Kos was
doing those things. [7737]
A. Yes.

Q. And you permitted it to go only until he
admitted he was a sexual abuser in 1992, even though you
came here and took over in 1990.
A. That's correct.

Q. And Ms. Demarest, in the deposition, had
asked you if you didn't think that that policy about don't
let the boys stay overnight in the rectory, don't let the
priest take them out of town, unaccompanied by an adult
overnight, if you didn't think that it would be good to
have that policy communicated to the laity, to your
members; do you remember being asked that question?
A. I don't remember.

Q. And do you remember -- I guess if you don't
remember, you don't remember that you replied that you
thought that it might be a good idea, but that you would
have to think about it first. Now do you remember?
A. That's correct.

Q. Well, you've had almost three years to think
about it, Bishop. Should the laity be told the Diocese
does not permit sleepovers in or out of town?
A. It depends. As I think I mentioned in my
deposition, I took 1,200 young people to Denver --

Q. Along with a lot of adults, Bishop.
A. No. [7738]

Q. Come on. Let's get real --
A. I don't know.

Q. -- With what I'm talking about.
I'm talking about your priest loading up his
car with little twelve and thirteen year old boys --
taking --
A. No, that's right.

Q. -- them out of town, getting them drunk,
buying them liquor on the way, staying go overnight in a
trailerhouse using their feet to masturbate his penis with
using them for oral sex. That's what I'm talking about,
Bishop.
A. Yes.

Q. I'm not talking about you taking twelve
hundred kids to Denver very with a whole truck load of
other adults. Let's get in the program, okay? Are we
communicating now, Bishop?
MR. MATHIS: Objections, badgering.
THE COURT: Okay. Sustained.

Q. (BY MR. TURLEY) Are we communicating now,
Bishop? Do you know what I'm talking about?
A. Yes.

Q. Now I want to ask you: You've had three
years to think about this since your deposition was taken
when you said you would have to think about whether you [7739]
ought to tell the laity you don't approve of people --
MR. MATHIS: Objection to badgering.
THE COURT: Okay.
MR. MATHIS: It can be quieter and the question can
be asked in an appropriate way.
THE COURT: Okay.
MR. TURLEY: I'll be quiet.

Q. (BY MR. TURLEY) Bishop, you've had three
years --
MR. MATHIS: Now, I can't hear you when you talk
like that, Windle. Don't be silly.
MR. TURLEY: Sorry.
THE COURT: Counsel, would you ask your next
question?
MR. TURLEY: I will, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Thank you.

Q. (BY MR. TURLEY) I'm not trying to give you
a time, Bishop.
A. Thank you.

Q. I really am not.
A. Thank you.

Q. I am trying to represent my clients.
A. Thank you.

Q. Bishop, you had three years, from the time
your deposition was taken, you had three years to think [7740]
about what you told us in your deposition you would have to
think about before you could answer, and that was whether
the laity should be told and informed that you and the
Diocese did not approve of overnights in the rectory or out
of town with priests.
You've thought about it for three years.
What is your answer? Should the laity be told or not?
A. Possibly it should be made known.

Q. Possibly?
A. That's correct, in whatever way it could be.

Q. To this day they haven't been told of that,
have they, Father -- Bishop?
A. That's correct.

Q. Five years -- five years now since you
discovered that Rudy Kos was using that very method and
technique to sexually molest dozens of little boys, the
laity still has not been told that you don't approve of
overnights in the rectory and you don't approve of
overnights, unaccompanied by adults, out of town?
A. That is understood, yes.

Q. Bishop, you accept each priest's applicant,
do you not, that comes to you for employment and assignment
in the Diocese. You're the Bishop, have you to accept
those or reject them.
THE WITNESS: I didn't get the question. [7741]
MR. TURLEY: I'll say it again.
THE COURT: Okay. You bet.

Q. (BY MR. TURLEY) As the Bishop, it is your
responsibility to accept or reject each application for
assignment and employment in this Diocese.
A. That's correct.

Q. And, as Bishop, you're responsible for the
supervision of your priests, including Father Rudy Kos.
A. Based on the Code of Canon Law, yes.

Q. And as the Bishop you're responsible for the
discipline of your priests, including Father Rudy Kos.
A. Based on the Code of Canon Law, yes.

Q. And, as Bishop, you're responsible for their
assignment to the various parishes and you can remove that
assignment.
A. That's correct.

Q. And, as Bishop, you're responsible to see
that arrangements are made for them to be paid.
A. That's correct.

Q. And as long as he is your employee he is
your responsibility, isn't he?
A. In the priestly employment, yes.

Q. And you consider any of these priests that
you assign out, you at least consider them to be your
employee until you release them out of your jurisdiction, [7742]
don't you, or they're suspended?
A. I don't know that.

Q. And we asked you in your deposition about
this matter of suspension. Do you remember we talked about
that and whether or not Rudy Kos was still your employee,
after having been suspended?
A. That's correct.

Q. And you remember that you told us -- we
might need to go to this, Bishop. You told us, on page
141 -- Bishop I'm going to read this. I'm very sorry your
monitor is not working, but if you'll listen to me, I'll
read it to you.
"Q. If Father Gardner told us that did he
not know where Rudy Kos was or what he was doing, can you
tell us us whether or not that is a matter of concern to
you?"
And you answered:
"A. It is a matter of concern what anybody
does, but we have no control. He resigned his ministry.
He was suspended, so he left employment."
He left your employment when you suspended
him; is that correct?
A. Well, when he was resigned.

Q. Okay. That is when he left your
employment, correct? [7743]
A. Yes.

Q. "A. He has left his employ. He has -- he
has been suspended from that employment. He is no longer
functioning as a priest."
In other words, he is no longer an employee
of Bishop Grahmann.
A. He is no longer functioning as a priest.

Q. "If an employee" -- you said:
"A. If an employee leaves employment and
goes elsewhere, somewhere else, finds another job, the
original employer", that would have been the Dallas
Diocese, correct?
A. Yes.

Q. "has no more responsibility for him."
Have I read your statement correctly?
A. Yes, they're gone.

Q. No question but that you treated Rudy Kos as
your employee, at least up until time you suspended him.
MR. MATHIS: Objection to the word "employee",
Your Honor. We discussed this before.
THE COURT: Okay, hang on just a second. There
is an objection -- and I'm not sure as to your evidentiary
objection.

MR. MATHIS: We've gone into this before, Your
Honor, with respect to the word "employee" and Canon law. [7744]
THE COURT: Okay. Okay, the objection is
overruled.
Go ahead.
MR. TURLEY: I try to --
THE COURT: Do you need the question again?
MR. TURLEY: -- phrase my question very precisely,
Bishop. Let me say it again.

Q. (BY MR. TURLEY) No question but that you,
as you stated in this deposition, treated Rudy Kos as your
employee up until the time you suspended him?
A. I'm not sure.

Q. Bishop, when I took your deposition you
didn't say, "I'm not sure," did you?
A. Please?

Q. I'm sorry. Excuse me, Bishop.
When I took your deposition you didn't say,
"I'm not sure about this man no longer being an employee,
because his employer had suspended him". There is no --
nowhere in here did you say, "I'm not sure", when I took
your deposition in 1994, did you, Father Grahmann?
A. My unsurety was about the relationship of
employer/employee.

Q. Well, you didn't say, "I'm not sure",
anyplace when we took your deposition.
A. Well, you didn't ask that. [7745]

Q. Well, what you said was, "If an employee",
and you're talking about Rudy Kos, aren't you?
A. No, I was talking hypothetically.

Q. "If an employee leaves employment" --
A. That's right.

Q. "If an employee leaves employment and goes
out somewhere else and finds another job, the original
employer has no more responsibility for him."
You said up there, earlier, "He was
suspended, so he has left employment". You're talking
about Rudy Kos, aren't you?
A. Yes.

Q. Not some hypothetical employee.
Rudy Kos has left his employment. "He has
left his employ", you said. "He has been suspended from
that employment", you said, "so he is no longer functioning
go as a priest".
A. That's right.

Q. Bishop, I was looking yesterday for the
article that I thought you had published in the Texas
Catholic. And this -- this is the article that was
published at the same time you issued the press release
that we referred to yesterday, where you referred six times
to these matters as allegations and one time as alleged
abuse. This is the same article that you had in your [7746]
press release, isn't it?
A. The what?

Q. I'm sorry, Bishop.
A. I didn't get the question.

Q. We've had that monitor working for several
weeks and I forget that it is not on.
That -- that clipping out of the Texas
Catholic is the same content as the press release we
visited with yesterday on the accusations, isn't it?
A. I would imagine.

Q. Bishop, that's all I have for right now.
Thank you very much.
A. Thank you very much, Mr. Turley.

THE COURT: Cross?
Are you okay
THE WITNESS: Okay.