Skip to comments.St. Louis Archbishop Carlson claims to be uncertain if he knew sexual abuse was a crime
Posted on 06/10/2014 2:13:13 PM PDT by Responsibility2nd
Archbishop Robert J. Carlson claimed to be uncertain that he knew sexual abuse of a child by a priest constituted a crime when he was auxiliary bishop in the Archdiocese of St. Paul and Minneapolis, according to a deposition released Monday.
During the deposition taken last month, attorney Jeff Anderson asked Carlson whether he knew it was a crime for an adult to engage in sex with a child.
Im not sure whether I knew it was a crime or not, Carlson replied. I understand today its a crime.
Anderson went on to ask Carlson whether he knew in 1984, when he was an auxiliary bishop in the Archdiocese of St. Paul and Minneapolis, that it was crime for a priest to engage in sex with a child.
Im not sure if I did or didnt, Carlson said.
Yet according to documents released Monday by the law firm Jeff Anderson & Associates in St. Paul, Carlson showed clear knowledge that sexual abuse was a crime when discussing incidents with church officials during his time in Minnesota.
(Excerpt) Read more at stltoday.com ...
The worst part of this is that he has his defenders —
Said “I don’t remember” over 200 times in the deposition.
He needs to be dragged into the town square and tarred and feathered. What a joke. Nobody needs a wacko like that. He is of Satan.
the infamous Clinton defense
Watters, who died in 2009, had testified that Carlson advised him that "the best thing you can say (in depositions) is, 'I don't remember.'"
Carlson disagreed with Watters' account. "I don't remember having this discussion. I don't think I ever said that," he said. "The only advice I would have given, would give anybody, is to talk to your attorney."
My thoughts exactly.
This guy took lessons from Slick Willie.
Carlson is disgusting!
We sure do miss Cardinal Burke.
What an idiot. Almost as bad as the Obama and Chuck show.
He knew and he didn’t report it. Get the rope (and I’m not kidding.)
GIVE ME A BREAK !!!!!!!!!
I wonder if he’s short-listed for Chicago.
I can’t remember my brain’s in a blender it’s jello.
I can’t remember my brain’s in a blender it’s jello.
I think that’s the Archbishop’s favorite video —
Add a Priest to the ending of the God Father!
Maybe he’s related to the Clintons.
When I first read this, I felt an awful disgust and anger at Abp. Carlson, I was seeing red, completely swept into the narrative that he was covering his tracks. Seriously, I was ready to say, "String him up!"
Now it turns out it's yet another case of "a lie running around the world while the truth is still tying its shoes."
I want to invite everybody to come on over to Fr. Z's blog to read what this lawyer did with this deposition.
The bottom line is that the abuse which is referenced, occurred over 30 years ago. Abp. Carlson testified at length about it 27 years ago on three different occasions. At the time, he was applauded and held up as an ethical model for his prompt, full, and open testimony, which he volunteered.
Archbishop Carlson is not a party in this case, nor has he committed a crime. He not only voluntarily participated in this legal process, he offered his testimony as clearly and thoughtfully as possible, given both the span of time in which this discovery process has taken place and accessibility of documents.
When asked whether he knew if there was a mandatory reporting requirement, he answered "I don't know" because he did not know which year the requirement went into effect. (It was 1988). It doesn't mean he didn't report!
He kept trying to refer back to his original depositions, because he didn't have a verbatim memory of how he had testified 27 years ago. It's all in the records. Keep in mind that he is not accused of any crime NOR of any stalling, concealing or obstruction. The whole purpose of this was to make it look like he was covering up. Not a mention that he had already told them everything he knew, fully, in writing, under oath, 27 years ago.
Don't just take my word for it. Go to the links.
Like I said, I stated out assuming the worst, the very worst, about Abp. Carlson. Now I see we've been PWNED by the craptitious lawyer-media team one more time.
You are way off base on this one. The deposition is there for anyone to see. Go look if you dare.
Whether 27 years ago, or 270 years ago, how could any adult claim to not know that sexual abuse of children was a crime?
Think this through with me. If it was all in sworn, written form, close in time to the actual matter under investigation, the only thing oral recall could do 27 years later, is introduce less accurate testimony: holes and inconsistencies, simply the product of several decades' fuzzing of the memory. Abp. Carlson kept saying "I don't know" on lawyers' advice that if he did not remember exactly what was in the written depositions (from 27 years ago) he should answer "I don't remember" or "I can't recall exactly." Otherwise, there would be endless grilling about any small discrepancy.
If Carlson were more media-savvy, he would have said every time, "It was all in sworn, written depositions 27 years ago." But I suppose he didn't realize that to the public, who weren't familiar with the detailed throughness with which he DID testify, he would sound like a crook taking the Fifth.
This is all I have to say. If I had to testify on the details of something I said 27 years ago, I would be honestly unable to do so. Abp. Carlson was not clever in the PR sense, but he was right.
Nevertheless, he did report. There wasn't any "failure to report." Did you get that?
Thank you for that info.
Prayers up. We will be seeing more and more of this smearing, I predict, swiftly followed by outright persecution.
I also read the entire deposition, and have mixed feelings on it. It would seem that Archbishop Carlson should be able to remember more than he says he remembers. On the other hand, when I think of the work assignments that I had in 1973, or 1984, or 1987, or 1996, I would have a great deal of difficulty answering detailed questions about those assignments without being able to review documents from them to refresh my memory. One thing that is clear from the following excerpts is that Carlson was very unhappy with how the Adamson situation was handled:
Q. (By Mr. Anderson) And so do you recall making an effort to find another parish where Adamson could be in the Archdiocese?
A. No. And I think someplace there’s a document where I was removed from the case because I opposed him being moved to another parish.
Q. What do you remember about that?
A. I remember I was no longer involved, and Father Korf took it over.
Q. Who removed you from the case?
A. The Archbishop. I believe I testified to that.
Q. Why were you opposed to him being moved to a parish, another parish?
A. Very obvious. There’s reports of sexual abuse of young people.
Q. (By Mr. Anderson) I’m going to show you Exhibit 319. And Exhibit 319, Archbishop, is dated February 2, 1981. It’s a letter from Archbishop Roach. It’s copied to you, to Adamson, and it says, “I am pleased to appoint you as an Associate Pastor of the Church of the Risen Savior, Apple Valley, effectively immediately.” You obviously received this, correct?
A. It says at the bottom that I was copied.
Q. And do you remember receiving this?
A. I don’t remember receiving it, but I have no reason to doubt I didn’t.
Q. Do you remember being ticked off when you saw that he had been assigned to another parish after — after what you had recorded and learned?
A. I don’t remember if this was the time. I do remember being very upset and at some point was removed from everything.
Q. Who did you express your upset to?
A. Well, if I was removed, I must have expressed it to the Archbishop, but I don’t remember doing it.
Q. Why were you upset?
A. I was upset for a couple of different reasons. One, as I think about it, when he went to a counselor, I thought the counselor would say, you know, he can’t continue. But in those days, in my opinion, I think counselors did a disservice. I don’t think they know what they were dealing with. Do I remember that particularly? No, but it’s a feeling I have. Do you know what I mean? It’s not a memory. It’s a feeling, and he was obviously reassigned.
Q. And you were also upset because you knew the Archbishop was making a choice to put kids at risk?
A. I don’t remember that, but that was certainly part of it. I was involved with the youth ministry at one time.
Thanks so much for the clarification.
That's how good guys lose and bad guys win.
YES he did say it. Watch the video.
Watch the video at the site. He says EXACTLY what is reported in this article.
Q. Well, mandatory reporting laws went into effect across the nation in 1973, Archbishop.
Charles Goldberg, attorney representing Archbishop Carlson at this deposition, explained that while current Minnesota law makes it a crime for clergy persons not to report suspected child abuse, that statute did not become effective until 1988. What Plaintiffs counsel has failed to point out to the media is that Mr. Goldberg himself noted at this point in the deposition "youre talking about mandatory reporting? (emphasis added). When the Archbishop said "Im not sure whether I knew it was a crime or not," he was simply referring to the fact that he did not know the year that clergy became mandatory reporters of suspected child abuse (pgs. 108-109).
It's framed so it looks like he was saying he didn't know whether child abuse was a crime (!!), when he's actually answering that he didn't know at that time whether failure to report was a crime.
In any case, whether it was mandatory or not, he didn't fail to report, so he didn't do anything wrong.
He's NOT saying he didn't know if child abuse was a crime!
To the direct question: "Archbishop, you knew it was a crime for an adult to have sex with a kid."
Second question: "When did you first discern that it was a crime for an adult to engage in sex with a kid?"
Third question: "When did you first discern that it was a crime for a priest to engage in sex with a kid, who he had under his control?"
The lawyer asks three successive questions about whether Abp Carlson understood that having sex with a child was a crime. NOT if failing to report having sex with a child was a crime. That question is NOT being asked at this point in the deposition.
IT SIMPLY IS NOT.
I'm sorry, no amount of spin changes the facts. This is every bit as bad as it looks. Please don't try to tell me again that I should deny the evidence of my own eyes and ears. The video has not been tampered with.
I would urge anyone who thinks you're telling the truth about this to go to the web site, and actually watch the video. I'm content that the judgement of an honest person can discern what is going on here for himself.
Thank you for doing the foot work on this.
YOu are welcome.
Unless this clip of his deposition has been cleverly edited, you are mistaken:
The archbishop clearly denies that he knew that an adult having sex with a child was a crime — and he does so 3 times.
And yet, despite three clear denials, for some reason the cock has not crowed in the dawn of Mrs. Don-o's understanding.
I suspect that what was going on here in this part of the deposition is that Carlson had said that at the time of the molestation there was no state law mandating that he report it to the police and thus he did nothing wrong by not reporting it.
However the point being made in the deposition is that no law should have been necessary mandating a report to the police since it has always been known that if you know or suspect that a crime has been committed especially against a kid then you report it — not to the archbishop, not to the cardinal, not to the conclave, not to the confessional, not to your secretary, not to your desk drawer, not to your record cabinet — but to the police.
If it’s a crime then you call the police.
He is saying that he didn’t report it to the police because he did not know at that time that molesting a child was a crime because if he did know it to be a crime then he was obligated as a citizen, as a member of humanity, as an adult parents trust with their children to report it to the police. He didn’t.
Fred, please review the additional information I offered. The Fr. Z link (which rewards careful reading)says:
(1)Abp Carlson "voluntarily" testified, which I presume means he did so not under compulsion of law. His attorney reminds this Plaintiff's Counsel that " you personally, Mr. Anderson, have deposed Archbishop Carlson on June 21st, 1985; March 30th, 1987; April 2nd, 1987; and May 4th, 1987 about each of these matters in some detail of which you had over 30 exhibits marked in those depositions." It also saysNone of that in any way impugns Abp. Carlson's honesty or character, because he did in fact testify, in detail, promptly, completely, voluntarily, and without compulsion of law.
(2)Abp. Carlson "had repeatedly requested and was denied the ability to review case documents pertaining to the questions asked of him," and
(3) Abp. Carlson is not a party to this case and is not guilty of a crime nor is he under any allegations himself, which I presume means he has never been charged with any cover-up or omission, and
(4) Most saliently, and what Plaintiffs counsel has failed to point out to the media is that Mr. Goldberg himself noted at this point in the deposition youre talking about mandatory reporting? (emphasis added). When the Archbishop said Im not sure whether I knew it was a crime or not, he was simply referring to the fact that he did not know the year that clergy became mandatory reporters of suspected child abuse (pgs. 108-109).
In other words, the video omitted two things:
What are you talking about?
That's not the question that he was responding to in the video of the deposition, is it???
Have you even watched the video???
It's only a minute and 17 seconds.
What was the question that was asked just before his answer???
The discrepancy between what's in pages 108-109 of the court record and what's in the video, is evidence that the video was edited.
You do see that, don't you?
Or is it evidence that pages 108-109 in what is claimed to be the court record has been edited???
It's easier to edit a written record than a video.
The video is quite clear is it not???
However, a video is exceedingly easy to edit, especially since it is being released on YouTube and presented at a press conference, and not to the court.
So, we either have to assume that a Bishop with an exemplary record of integrity for 30+ years --- who has been held up as a model of rectitude in contrast to his (ahem) less stellar brethren in the clergy --- supposedly said he did not know that sexual intercourse with a minor was a crime (something that every 16-year-old in the United States knows --- You've presumably heard of the term "jail bait"?)--- Or, we must consider that a video posted to YouTube and released at a press conference (not to the court) was falsified to reflect discredit on Carlson.
Hmm... Written court record, or YouTube video? Which is the more reliable?
Your answer reveals something about your judgment that I would not have thought of you.
First you start off by saying that the video doesn’t show what it shows and then you morph into the video is a forgery.
It was released by a judge and a court of law — so are you saying that the court authorized the release of a forgery and is perpetrating a fraud???
If it was then he and his lawyer should have and would have been back in court to redress the issue — but they haven’t.
I have watched his multiple defenders on TV and not one of them disputes the authenticity of the 1:17 minute video — Not One — except you and the guy pouring your Kool Aid.
OK, I pointed out the key discrepancy between the written court record and the video. You had nothing to add, and I have nothing more to say.
You pointed out nothing because there is no discrepancy.
All you are trying to claim is that on the video he was not answering the questions that were being asked of him that we all clearly hear and see.
What you want us all to believe is that was answering other questions from a few minutes earlier that he had refused to answer but now contrary to the advice of counsel decides to without telling anybody.
and that is ludicrous.
--- and Mr. Goldberg himself is the one who noted at this point in the deposition Youre talking about mandatory reporting?
You can flick aside all of this in favor of the idea that a bishop would say he didn't know sexual intercourse with a minor was a crime. That makes no sense in any legal jurisdiction in the USA, or on this or any other planet. It contradicts the record. But that's your choice.
You want us to all think that Carlson was confused in the deposition — that he didn’t know that he was supposed to answer the question he was being asked not the one asked 5 minutes earlier???
Please — he has a law degree and sits on several church judiciary councils.
You do know that that video is part of the court record, don’t you, not just the transcript taken from the video???
Now we’re through.
You can get to the deposition here: http://www.archspm.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/158765rcarlson05232014_Full_Redacted.pdf.
This is the web page of the archdiocese, so I think we can safely assume it is not doctored. The transcript covered by the video reads EXACTLY THE SAME AS THE VIDEO. The 1:17 video has not been doctored in ANY WAY.
Now to Fr. Z.'s despicable complicity in this. Read the lead up to the video on pages 107 and 108, and you will discover that the questions ARE NOT about mandatory reporting, they are about whether Carlson knew that an adult having sex with a child was a crime. Abp Carlson makes nonsensical blubberings about how nobody understood that adults having sex with children was a problem. Pretty pathetic when you consider that he was one of the people responsible for [what the Church laughably refers to as] "investigating" those crimes.
In response to his obvious prevarications about nobody knowing how serious this problem was years ago, the plaintiff's lawyer makes the clearly frustrated statement that: "Well, mandatory reporting laws went into effect across the nation in 1973, Archbishop." The Abp's counsel objects to this statement, because it is not a question, and the "question" is withdrawn. The plaintiff's lawyer than continues with his line of questioning, which was never about mandatory reporting.
I thank you for forcing me to read the transcript, which makes it quite plain that nothing that Fr. Z. has written on this topic is trustworthy or factual. Again, it's just new lies being piled on top of the old lies. The video actually captures the entirety of Abp Carlson's awful testimony, and attempts to defend it are, quite frankly, disgusting. Claims that it has been doctored, or taken out of context, are lies.
And again, I would ask anyone viewing this dispute, to go and read the transcript starting at page 107, through page 110 or so, in order to make up their own minds. An honest person will have to wonder if the Gates of Hell have not indeed prevailed in this particular case.
This isn't a media problem, and it isn't a problem with scumbag lawyers. The problem is that the Archdiocese is attempting to escape responsibility [and therefore compensation for victims] by claiming that it didn't know that statutory rape was a crime.
Did The Abp know that it was a mortal sin?